After this comment on some important things said in the Foreword of Mr. Faruqi’s TRUTH TRIUMPHS, let us have a critical look at what he has said in the text of his work here under discussion.
On page 2 of his book, Mr. Faruqi quotes a passage from Satbachan :
“Those who create a link, a communion with God directly, without following a Nabi, they are called Prophets. Those who create such a link with God by following the teaching given by a Prophet are called `wali ‘.” (Satbachan, page 66-67)
With regard to the general body of the Prophets, this is correct. But in the case of the Holy Prophet Mohammad, the Promised Messiah has said that the greatness and grandeur of the Holy Prophet also demands that his follower not only becomes a wali, thereby, he can also become a Prophet, if at that juncture the prevailing conditions demand the advent of a reformer of that rank and position. Says the Promised Messiah:
“In the course of the wahyi (revelations) coming down on me, Allah has repeatedly called me an Ummati, as well as a Prophet. Hearing myself called by these two names gives me a great joy and comfort, and I render thanks for having been called by this compound name in which there appears to be this implication that it should strike the Christians like a lash to make them realise that whereas they raised Jesus Christ, son of Mary, to Godhead, our Master, the Holy Prophet Mohammad, was a Prophet of such extraordinary eminence, that even a member of his Ummat could become a Nabi, a Prophet, and come to be called Isa, even though he is an Ummati, a follower of the Holy Prophet Mohammad.” (Zamima Barahin-i-Ahmadiyya, part V, page 184)
“A member of his Ummat can become a Prophet, even though he is an Ummati “: these words indicate that the Promised Messiah is a Prophet, as well as an Ummati not only a wali . Thus, while by following the other Prophets, one could become a wali, by following the Holy Prophet Mohammad, in the opinion of the Promised Messiah, one could not only rise to be wali; one could even rise to be a Prophet, although he was no more than an Ummati of the Holy Prophet.
In his book under reference Mr. Faruqi, in his tafsir of Khataman Nabiyeen, has given two meanings to this expression.
(i) `Last Prophet’, which he says is the real and proper meaning of the term.
(ii) `Seal on the Prophets’, which then he proceeds to interpret:
“In fact the term Khataman Nabiyeen (as used in the Quranic verse) refers to two things: (i) that Mohammad is the last of the Prophets, and (ii) the same spiritual attainments which previously were achieved through different Prophets, could now be secured direct by following the teachings of Hazrat Mohammad.” (page 10)
As against this Tafsir by Mr. Faruqi, we find the Promised Messiah interpreting the expression to mean `Seal of the Prophets’, which he further expounds:
“Almighty God made the Holy Prophet Mohammad into a `seal’, in the sense that for extending the benefit and excellence he was given a `seal’ which, had never been given to anyone before. This is the basis why he has been called `Khataman Nabiyeen ‘, i.e., loyalty and obedience rendered to him brings down on one the perfections and excellences of Nabuwwat and the focus of his powers of the soul on a follower can shape him up as a Prophet. This superior, purifying power of the soul has never been bestowed on any other Prophet.” (Haqiqatul Wahyi, Footnote, page 97)
From a passage we have quoted earlier from Satbachan, we have seen that obedience to the Prophets raises a follower to the rank and position of a `wali ‘. But in this passage, the highest and most distinguished rank of Khataman Nabiyeen has been described, namely that, through following in his footsteps, the excellences and perfections of Nabuwwat also were attainable, namely waliyat, and Mohaddathiyat, etc., further, that the focus of the powers of his soul on a man can also shape him up into a Prophet; that through the blessings of devotion to him, his Ummati could also be favoured by the Lord God by raising him to the elevation of Nabuwwat . Here we have the Promised Messiah stating very clearly that the power to shape up a follower into Nabi has been given exclusively to the Holy Prophet alone. This bears out that, through the blessings of devotion to him, an Ummati could rise to the position of a Nabi, higher than that of a wali . Suppose we interpret here the power to shape up a Nabi, and confine it strictly within a rigid boundary of shaping up only a wali, immediately all the other Prophets have to be raised to a position where they stand at par with the powers of the Holy Prophet Mohammad, whereas the true position of Khataman Nabiyeen as described by the Promised Messiah, is that this purifying power, at such a pitch, has not been conferred on anyone among the Prophets. The essence of this point is that by following him, by following his Sharia, one could rise to be a Nabi ; that without rendering superlative obedience to him, no one could rise to this – the highest elevation attainable for a human being. Since, however, his Sharia is to remain valid for all times to come, he was also the Last of the Prophets, in this sense as well.
Again, while dwelling on the most elevated position of the Holy Prophet, and his power to bless and benefit, the Promised Messiah writes:
“Apart from him, no other Prophet has owned a seal. There is he, the only one, by whose Seal, one can rise to be a Prophet of the kind for which a necessary condition is that he should also be an Ummati .” (page 28)
Again he has written:
“Through the blessings resulting from following in the footsteps of the Holy Prophet Mohammad, there have been thousands of Aulia and also the one who is an Ummati, and at the same time a Nabi as well.” (Haqiqatul Wahyi, footnote, page 28)
Thus, in the Ummat of the Holy Prophet during the thirteen hundred years since his time there has been only one Ummati Prophet. Now who is he? The Promised Messiah answers this question:
“Themselves, they read in Ahadith reports which prove, in the Ummat of the Holy Prophet, there would be people of eminence, like the Prophets among the Israelites; and there would be one, who from one angle, would be a Nabi, a Prophet, while from another angle, he would be an Ummati ; and he would be the one called the Promised Messiah.” (Haqiqatul Wahyi, footnote, Page 101)
These quotations indicate that in between the Holy Prophet Mohammad and the Promised Messiah, there have been thousands of auliya ; but only one Ummati Nabi so far, who is the Promised Messiah. Therefore, just where we find Maulvi Mohammad Ali saying that the kind of Nabuwwat which came to the share of the Promised Messiah, the same Nabuwwat also to share of Hazrat Ali as well, it involves, in fact, a turning away on his part from the writings of the Promised Messiah.
The creed held by the Promised Messiah, we find described by him in another place, as follows:
“No Prophet, with a new Sharia, can come; but a Prophet, not bearing a new law, can most surely appear. Necessarily however, he would have to be one who is first and foremost an Ummati .” (Tajalliyat-i-Ilahiya, Page 25)
On page 10 to 12, Mr. Faruqi has quoted three reports from the Hadith, wherefrom he seeks to prove the validity of a break, a cessation in Prophethood. We accept all the three reports as valid. In these reports, however, what is under reference is in the advent of Prophets, alone, in an unqualified sense not the advent of an Ummati Nabi . These reports cannot stand in the way of the Promised Messiah, barring his claim that he is a Nabi from one angle and an Ummati from another. In other words, even Mr. Faruqi concedes that he is a zilli Nabi , a Prophet reflected in an image. Hazrat Khalifatul Masih II, and we people as well, hold the Promised Messiah to be a zilli and an Ummati Nabi only that alone, nothing more; we do not take him as an unqualified, independent Nabi , bearing a new Sharia of his own. The question whether an Ummati and a zilli Nabi is really a Nabi , or not; is a different question altogether. When the Promised Messiah is not an unqualified Nabi , in any unqualified sense, to confront us with reports in Hadith, where the possibility of the advent of an unqualified Nabi has been barred, is neither reasonable, nor relevant. Says the Promised Messiah:
“But his perfect follower (meaning perfect follower of the Holy Prophet Mohammad) cannot be called a Nabi in an unqualified sense, because that would involve a derogation of the perfect and complete Prophethood of the Holy Prophet Mohammad, though, of course, the application to him of both words, namely, Ummati and Nabi , collectively remains valid and justified, because in this view, no derogation is implied, in any way, of the complete and perfect Nabuwwat of the Holy Prophet Mohammad. Rather, we can justifiably say that this view adds a greater lustre, to a higher degree, to the blessings of his Nabuwwat .” (Al-Wasiyyat , page 16)
Further on, the Promised Messiah writes:
“This kind and quality of Nabuwwat is nothing separate from the Nabuwwat of the Holy Prophet Mohammad. In fact when you come to look at it more closely, you find it is the Nabuwwat of the Holy Prophet himself, manifesting itself in a new way and style of manifestation. This is the meaning of the sentence used by the Holy Prophet Mohammad in regard to the Promised Messiah, where he said: “Prophet of God, and your Imam, from amongst yourselves” meaning that he is a Nabi , also an Ummati . Otherwise no outsider can dare to set his foot here. And blessed, indeed, is he who obtains a proper grasp of this point, and thereby works out his salvation, saving himself from destruction.” (Al-Wasiyyat , pages 18 and 19)
Again the Promised Messiah writes:
“Repeatedly, in wahyi to me, Allah has called me an Ummati , as well as a Nabi . Hearing these two names applied to me, gives me a most exquisite joy of the mind; and most humbly I render thanks to the Lord for the honour conferred on me in this composite title, which seems to imply the lash of a whip for the Christians, that they raise the son of Mary to Godhead, while our Holy Prophet Mohammad is a Prophet of such extraordinary eminence that a man of his Ummat could rise to become a Nabi , and be called Isa even though he is an Ummati .” (Zamima Barahin-i-Ahmadiyya , Part V, page 184)
Thus we find that the Hadith La Nabia Ba’di (There is no Prophet after me), and other reports in the Hadith, which appear to stand as a bar against the advent of any other Prophet in the future; in the eyes of the Promised Messiah they do not place any insurmountable barrier in the way of an Ummati Nabi being raised among Muslims, because an Ummati Nabi is never a Nabi alone; he is also an Ummati as well. Both names, an Ummati and a Nabi , apply to him, in a collective sense, so to say; and no Hadith exists which would exclude the possibility of an Ummati Nabi , at some future time. Quite to the contrary, in fact Reports exist which light up the possibility and probability, of the advent of an Ummati Nabi among the Muslims.
With reference to the Quranic verse `But an Apostle of God, and the Seal of Prophets’ and the Hadith `There is no Prophet after me’, the Promised Messiah writes:
“If it is urged that the Holy Prophet Mohammad being Khataman Nabiyin , how could any Prophet come after him? The answer is of course no Nabi can come, neither an old one or new, in the sense in which you bring down from heaven Hazrat Isa towards the later times, and the way you accept him, at the time of his second advent, when for forty years he would be receiving wahyi of Prophethood, excelling the Holy Prophet Mohammad in the duration of the period during which he would be receiving wahyi as a Prophet, this is the doctrine you believe in. Now this doctrine, the way it is held, involves a sin, a preposterous view, repudated by the verse quoted above, and the Hadith “there is no Prophet after me”. We are strongly opposed to views of this kind. We hold a strong and perfect faith in the verse, namely, “an Apostle of God, and Khataman Nabiyin “. This verse also bears a prophecy in regard to the future of which our opponents seem to have no awareness. This prophecy is that after the Holy Prophet Mohammad the door of prophecy has been closed right up to the Day of Qiyama . It is not possible, now that any Hindu, or any Jew, or a Christian, or some formal, superficial Muslim, should be able to prove that the word Nabi is applicable to him. All the windows of Prophethood so to say, have been closed except one, the window of Sirat-i-Siddiqi , i.e. the window of the attainment of a perfect merging of one’s own self into the entity of the Holy Prophet. So whosoever comes to God through this window, in a zilli manner, the mantle of the same Nabuwwat is placed on his shoulders, which is the mantle of the Holy Prophet himself. That such a man should become a Prophet, is not a thing we should resent; for he becomes a Nabi not on account of anything belonging to himself, but because he drinks from the fountain-spring of the Prophet, he obeys and tries to emulate; not for himself, but for the glory of his master. This is the reason why on heaven his name is Mohammad and Ahmad. This means that the Nabuwwat of Mohammad really descended on Mohammad himself, in a buruzi manner, not for anyone else, other than himself. The verse in question, therefore, means: “The Holy Prophet, it is true, is not the father of any male issue in this world. However, he is the father of many of the people of later days being Khataman Nabiyin ; and to the blessings of Allah, there is now no way, except through him.” In short, my Apostleship and Nabuwwat , in respect of Mohammad and Ahmad, is entirely from him, not due to any quality I possess. This name has come to me in my position where I have merged myself completely into him, in a manner, and to an extent, that the sense and honour of Khataman Nabiyin is not violated in the least. In case, however, Hazrat Isa comes down again, from heaven, his second ministry would, without doubt, violate the meaning and the honour inherent in the title. It is also to be remembered, the lexicon meaning of the word Nabi is someone who reveals things, hidden in the future, on the basis of Revelations given to him by God. So wheresoever this meaning is applicable in justice, application of the word `Nabi ‘ would also be just and valid. Further, a Nabi has to be an Apostle as well. If he is not an Apostle, how would he get tidings in regard to the future? This possibility has been fully ruled out of question by the following verse: “He does not vouchsafe knowledge of the Unseen, Unknown, except to one who has been chosen and selected by Allah as an Apostle.” Subsequently to the life of the Holy Prophet, if a Nabi is denied faith on the basis of this interpretation that no Nabi can come now, it would be tantamount to holding that this Ummat for ever stands deprived of the honour of holding communion and converse with the Lord God. Indeed, where we find a man to whom secrets of the future are revealed by the Lord, the word Nabi would, in justice, be fully applicable to him, under the verse: “He does not reveal things hidden to anyone, except His own Apostle and Messenger.” (Ek Ghalati ka Izala , page 4 and 5, edition Nazarat Islaho Irshad , Rabwah)
The first Hadith quoted by Mr. Faruqi is:
“There will be thirty false claimants at one time or another. Each one of whom would think himself to be a Prophet; but with me all prophethood, has terminated and there will be no prophet after me.” (Truth Triumphs 10, 11)
The Promised Messiah’s Commentary has already been reproduced. It is much to be regretted that there was a time when non-Ahmadies used to quote this Hadith in the lifetime of the Promised Messiah, in refutation of his claim. But the time has come when our friends of the Lahore Section have started to follow in the footsteps of the Non-Ahmadies, in this behalf. The reply of the Promised Messiah used to be that it was highly unfortunate, highly deplorable, that all the Muslims could look forward towards the appearance of liars and Dajjals alone; nothing better at any time; not one single true reformer to look after the people associated with the exalted name of the Prophet of Arabia. Here is what he wrote in one place:
“They say in Hadith, the appearance of 30 Dajjals among the Muslims, has been foretold by the master, that they should altogether obliterate the followers of the Prophet Mohammad. How strange! Poor, ignorant people! Do you suppose this Ummat is so unfortunate, and ill-omened, that it can expect the advent of as many as thirty Dajjals to mislead it, but not one single Mojaddid to break the Cross. For the earlier Ummats there have been unbroken chains of reformers and Prophets; but when it came to the turn of this Ummat, what fell to its share was no more than a prophecy that as many as 30 Dajjals would appear, to mislead the Muslims at a time of their greatest and direst need!” (Nazulul Masih, page 33)
Seeing that the word used in the quotation given above is Mojaddid alone, let no one misjudge that the Promised Messiah was only a Mojaddid, a reformer; no more than that, since in the same book he has also clarified the situation by writing:
“I am an Apostle, and a Nabi, i.e., from the point of view of zilliyat, I am a perfect mirror, which reflects an image of the Holy Prophet Mohammad alone a reflection alive and full.” (Nazulul Masih, page 3)
Further, in the same book, he writes:
“To make a comparison complete between the two chains (one of Moses, the other of Mohammad – author) it was essential that as against the Messiah of the chain of Moses, the Messiah of the Mohammadi chain should also be in the position of a Prophet, so that no slight be involved to the position of the Nabuwwat of Mohammad, Allah created my person, and my mission, in a perfect zilliyat, vesting me with a perfect image of the Nabuwwat of the Holy Prophet Mohammad, that in one respect the expression `Prophet of God’ should be applicable to me, and in the other respect Khatm-i-Nabuwwat should remain uninjured in its meaning.” (Nazulul Masih, page 4)
Dear Mr. Faruqi, I hope you will now perceive that on the basis of the report by Nawas bin Sam’an, the Holy Prophet Mohammad has called the Promised Messiah a Nabi, as many as four times. In the face of this fact, do you suppose you or anyone else, can be held justified in hinting that the Promised Messiah, under any contingency, can be taken as one of these 30 Dajjals ! If not, then your reference to this Hadith cannot be held wise or justified.
No doubt, on the basis of the Hadith in `Sahih Muslim’, the Promised Messiah is a Nabi ; and he is an Ummati, on the basis of the Hadith `Imamokum Minkum ‘ in Sahih Bukhari. So the advent of the Promised Messiah, as an Ummati Nabi, stands proved, as foretold by the Holy Prophet Mohammad in the Hadith. Moreover, in revelations to the Promised Messiah himself, he has been called by Allah a Nabi, and an Apostle; and we have also to bear in mind that nowhere in his revelations, has the application to him of the word Nabi been denied. In addition we find that in revelations descending on him, it has been said of him: “The enemy would say you are not an Apostle!”
Here I find myself forced to pause, and ponder, if Mr. Faruqi would like that he, and his friends, should come to be included among the enemies of the Promised Messiah!
The second Hadith quoted by Mr. Faruqi is: “The Holy Prophet said: `Indeed, you are from me in the same position as was Harun from Moses, except that there is no Nabi after me.'” We all know that this remark was made by the Holy Prophet, in regard to Hazrat Ali, when the Prophet started on the expedition to Tabuk, leaving Hazrat Ali in command, in Madina. When Moses left Harun in command during the period of his own absence, since Harun, during this absence was a deputy for Moses, he was also a Prophet in his own personal capacity. When Hazrat Ali was left similarly in command, and the Holy Prophet was not in Madina, the misconception might have arisen that Ali too was a Prophet, as Harun had been during the absence of Moses. To root out any possibility of a misconception of the kind, the Holy Prophet said while Ali would deputise for him, it had to be remembered by all concerned that he would not be a Nabi, as Harun had been during the absence of Moses. Bearing this same sense and meaning, there is a similar report in Musnad Ahmad bin Hambal. The words in this case are: “Apart from the fact that you are not a Nabi. ” Evidently therefore, the intent of both reports is practically one and the same – a warning that Ali would deputise for the Holy Prophet during the time of his absence on an expedition; but he would not be a Nabi, as Harun had been when he deputised for Moses.
Hazrat Waliullah Shah, Mohaddith of Delhi in his memorable work entitled Qurratul `Ainain fi Tafzilishaikhain, writes:
“Here the meaning of Ba’di is evidently except my person, not in the sense of after me in terms of time as in the verse, namely, Faman Yahdi-he min badillahe .
The sense of the verse is, who shall guide him except Allah, not in the sense of `after Allah ‘ in terms of time.”
“Here the meaning of Ba’di is evidently except my person, not in the sense of after me in terms of time as in the verse, namely, Faman Yahdi-he min badillahe .
The sense of the verse is, who shall guide him except Allah, not in the sense of `after Allah ‘ in terms of time.”
With respect to the context of the report, Hazrat Shah Waliullah means to say that the Holy Prophet Mohammad (May peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said these words in the sense that there was no prophet except him in his absence caused by the campaign of Tabuk, not in the sense that there will be no prophet after him forever. He argues:
“Since Harun passed away from this world while Moses was still alive, therefore ba’diyat-i-zamani (i.e. after me) is not established in this case nor can it be taken as established in the context of the report under reference.”
Shah Waliullah gave this argument to reject the view of those who take it in the sense of ba’diyat-i-zamani, and draw therefrom an argument to establish the Khilafat bila fasl of Hazrat Ali, i.e. immediately after the death of the Holy Prophet. In the connection of this Hadith Mr. Faruqi further writes:
“Some people wrongly put forth an opinion that Moses was the real Prophet who received the `laws’, and that Harun was there only to assist him, though a Prophet in his own right. (See xxi. 48; xxxvii 117) Had it been so that the Holy Prophet Mohammad would have been placing Hazrat Ali as a prophet without `law’, but then why did he specifically mention `but there is no prophet after me!’ The very relationship between Moses and Harun would have been self-explanatory” (Truth Triumphs, page 11)
By saying `some people’, if Mr. Faruqi is referring to us, the Ahmadies of the Qadian, now Rabwah, Section, we may be, allowed to point out that we do not take Hazrat Harun as a Prophet with a new Law; but we do take him to be a Prophet, in an unconditional unqualified sense; we take him as a mustaqil Nabi . In fact the view that he was a mustaqil Nabi is accepted even by our brothers of the Lahore Section. We might also add here it appears Mr. Faruqi seems rather inclined to accept him even as a Prophet with a new Law. We, therefore, humbly beg of him to stop for a while, and think clearly what are these things he is writing, under an impression that he is writing them against us. For the plain fact of the matter is that he is demolishing the basis of his own stand. When he takes Hazrat Harun for a tashri’i and a mustaqil Nabi ; and for this reason he is prepared to feel the need for using such an expression as La Nabia Ba’di for a similar reason, when we hold that he was a mustaqil Nabi, we realise the need of using this expression, lest some one, on seeing Hazrat Ali likened to Hazrat Harun, should tend to run away with the impression that he was, likewise, also a Prophet, considering the fact that he had been described as being in the same position as Harun had been before him, at a certain juncture taking him as a Prophet with a Sharia of his own dispensation, according to the view favoured by Mr. Faruqi, and a mustaqil Nabi, according to our view about Harun. Thus, in the words of this Hadith “annahu la Nabia ba’di ” the negation is in regard to the advent of a Prophet with a new Sharia, or the advent of a mustaqil Nabi . Hazrat Harun was not an Ummati Nabi, in any sense of the term, that a misapprehension could have arisen in the case of Hazrat Ali, that he was perhaps a Nabi as Harun had been in his time, to whom Ali had been likened by the Holy Prophet. This situation could have given rise to a question, alone, that Hazrat Ali was a mustaqil Nabi, like Harun; and that possibility had been guarded against, and the mistake corrected, before it had arisen.
The third Hadith quoted by Mr. Faruqi is the following:
“Abu Horaira related that the Apostle of Allah said: `My example and of those Prophets who have gone before me, is like a person who builds a house, both well designed and beautiful to look at, but in one corner space for one brick has been left vacant. Then people started circumambulating the house; but wondered as to why the brick was missing. I am that brick (said the Apostle) and I am the last and final of the Prophets.'”
In this Hadith the Holy Prophet has likened himself to the prophets who were earlier than his time. All these Prophets, from Adam, right up to his own self, were Prophets, independently, each in his own place; and this is a point which we accept, that the Holy Prophet is the last among Prophets spoken of here as mustaqil, independent Prophets, of which number the Holy Prophet is the last. Therefore, the sense and meaning of there being a bar against the advent of any other Prophet, has been clearly, graphically, precisely fixed, namely, that the Holy Prophet was the last mustaqil Nabi ; after him, there was going to be no other Prophet, right up to the Qiyama . But, of course, zilli Prophets, and Ummati Prophets could come, the Hadith in question being no obstacle in the path of the advent of such Prophets. This is the reason why the Promised Messiah has declared himself as a Zilli and Ummati Prophet.
The Mohaddithin have interpreted the word “bait ” (house) in this report as the structure of the Islamic Sharia, completed and perfected at the hands of the Holy Prophet. Imam Ibni Hajar has commented on this Hadith to the following effect:
“The significance of the completion of this structure is that the Sharia given to Mohammad, in comparison with the earlier Sharias, is the most complete and perfect.” (Fathul Bari, Vol. vi, page 380)
In this exposition of the report in question, Ibni Hajar has held the Holy Prophet to be the last among Prophets who came with separate Sharias of their own.
To impose a bar against the advent of a Nabi, Mr. Faruqi has referred to these three reports. Then, on page 12 and 13 of his book, out of the reports we quote in support of our view, in regard to the claim of the Promised Messiah, he has reproduced a bare translation of only two Reports, in a futile endeavour to demolish our argument. The sense of one of these two Reports he has given as follows:
“Prophets are brothers in a way, though their mothers are different. They preach one religion. I am the nearest to Jesus, son of Mary, as there was no prophet between him and me. He will certainly be appointed, so that when you witness his coming…”
Mr. Faruqi, we note, has not given the rest of the translation of this Report, then he writes:
“Here Jesus, son of Mary, refers to the Israelite prophet Jesus Christ, as the Prophet Mohammad, peace and the blessings of God be upon him, includes him amongst his brethren prophets. It is obvious that the Promised Messiah, yet to come, would be a member of the Muslim Community (as Jesus Christ had died and none returns back alive to this world after death) and as such his relation to the Holy Prophet Mohammad would be that of a spiritual son, not as a spiritual brother. When the Holy Prophet said `Jesus’ son of Mary, will come, he meant of course his `duplicate’ in attributes and qualities.” (Truth Triumphs, page 12)
In the light of statements by the Promised Messiah, we take this Report as applicable to the Messiah of the dispensation of Mohammad not that the portion before `innahu nazilun ‘ applies to Jesus, the Messiah for the Jews; and the portion after this expression applies to the other Messiah, the Promised Messiah for the Muslims. There is, thus, no need why we should understand the pronoun, implied in innahu, to stand for a pronoun implying a sense of similarity. Both we and Mr. Faruqi accept that Hazrat Isa, son of Mary, is dead. Therefore, the Isa, son of Mary, spoken of here is the Promised Messiah of the Ummat of the Holy Prophet Mohammad; and this Report, from انا اولی الناس بعیسی بن مریم i.e. among all persons I am nearest in relation to Isa son of Mary, to the last word of the report, refers to the Promised Messiah of the Ummat of Mohammad; the words `Isa son of Mary’ have been used in a figurative sense, in respect of the Promised Messiah expected by the Muslims just as in the Report in Sahih Bokhari, namely, `kaifa antum ‘… the words `Ibni Maryam’ are taken both by us and Mr. Faruqi, as a similitude denoting the Promised Messiah of the Muslims, as firmly indicated by the words of the Report Imamokum minkum, (Sahih Bukhari) and fa-ammakum minkum . (Sahih Muslim) that this expression applies to the Promised Messiah, Imam of the Muslims, raised among the Muslims. Similarly the words Isa bin Maryam in a Report in Musnad Ahmad bin Hambal Vol. II, from Hazrat Abu Horaira are, taken by both parties, Mr. Faruqi and ourselves, to apply to the Promised Messiah of the Muslims because a similar indication is given for him in the words `Imaman Mahdian ‘. So Mr. Faruqi cannot deny that in the first two Reports, the words `Ibni Maryam’, apply to the Messiah of the Ummat of Mohammad, in parable and similitude. Similarly, in the Report under discussion, namely, `ana aulannasi, bi Isa ibni Maryam ‘, apply to the Messiah of the Muslims, the words `ana aulannasi ‘, and `innahu nazilun ‘ being a clear indication to that effect. Moreover, Mr. Faruqi cannot deny that the Ilham جعلناک المسیح ابن مریم (Tazkira page 191 & 192) was revealed to the Promised Messiah giving him the name of Messiah bin Maryam figuratively.
The doubt in the mind of Mr. Faruqi is meaningless, that in this Hadith since Isa bin Maryam has been called by the Holy Prophet his alati brother, the words refer to the Messiah of the Jews, here spoken of by the Holy Prophet as a Nabi ; that the Messiah of the Ummat of Mohammad has not here been called a Prophet. This idea is false because the Holy Prophet, after declaring the other Prophets as his `alati ‘ brothers, has not called the real Isa, son of Mary, his brother of this kind: he has called him a spiritual son. In the Holy Quran we read: “The believers are nearer to him than are even their own souls to themselves, and the wives of the Prophet are their mothers” (Ahzab: 7) Therefore, just as, by the Prophet being near to the believers, is meant that he is the spiritual father of the Believers, and his wives are their mothers, similarly, in the Report in question the Holy Prophet saying that among all persons he was nearer Isa son of Mary than to anyone else, comprises a conclusive indication that the Isa spoken of here, being an Ummati of the Holy Prophet, is his spiritual offspring called Isa on the basis of his close resemblance to the son of Mary in many respects. Thus while the relation between the Holy Prophet Mohammad and the other Prophets, can be said to be one of alati brotherhood, the relationship between the Holy Prophet and Isa, son of Mary, who will appear among the Muslims, has been termed a relationship of father and son. Of course the general sense and spirit of this Report also bears out that while the relationship between the Promised Messiah of the Muslims, and the rest of the Prophets, is one of brother and brother, the relationship between him and the Holy Prophet Mohammad is that of a son with his father. The verb “lam yakun ” in this Hadith, namely, Lam yakun baini wa bainahu Nabi-un, in the past tense, has been used to specifically, and conclusively, establish the fact that he was undoubtedly a Nabi – a Prophet of the Lord God – to make manifest the fact that for the Promised Messiah among the Muslims, to be a Prophet, was a thing already definitely and positively ordained. That is the reason why the Report in Bokhari Bada’ul Khalq, which bears this content, the expression laisa baini wa bainahu Nabiun stands as a jumla ismiah meaning thereby that between the Holy Prophet Mohammad and the Promised Messiah there is no intervening Prophet. In view of this Hadith, Hazrat Maulvi Nuruddin Khalifatul Masih I, remarks:
“Hazrat Sahib (meaning Hazrat Masih-i-Mau’ud – author) being an Apostle of God, if he had not used the word Nabi in regard to himself, he would have, in fact falsified the Report in Bokhari which describes the expected Reformer as a Nabi, as a Prophet. He was, therefore, constrained to use the word Nabi in regard to himself.” (Badr, July 1912, pages 3-4)
Differing with a personage whom he had accepted as Khalifatul Masih, Mr. Faruqi writes:
“In the Report in Bokhari, the phrase `Prophet of Allah’, has not been used for Messiah to come.” (Truth Triumphs, page 13, Urdu edition)
Further, the Promised Messiah, whose Nabuwwat is at issue here written in regard to himself.
“Wheresoever a man would come to be endowed with vision, he would not fail to recognise that I am the Promised Messiah the very same, by the highest among the Prophets, who has been spoken of as a Prophet of Allah.” (Nazulul Masih . page 40)
“In Hadith of the Holy Prophet it has been foretold that in the Ummat of the Holy Prophet, there shall appear one who will be called Isa, and Ibni Maryam and will be called Nabi .” (Haqiqatul Wahyi page 390)
Further, thirteen hundred years after the Holy Prophet, on the basis that he would be receiving, in a plentiful measure, tidings embracing knowledge in regard to things unseen, unknown, which make a man deserve being called a Nabi, a Prophet, putting himself up as a specific, particular person, entitled to be called a Prophet, the Promised Messiah wrote:
“If the other righteous persons, who have gone before me, if these people had received the same measure and volume of tidings in regard to the future, they would certainly have come to deserve being called Prophets and in that case a tear, a hole, would have appeared in the prophecy of the Holy Prophet, the sagacity of the Lord God kept them from partaking in a full measure, the blessings which go with this position, so that, as stated in Hadith, there should be only one in whom that prophecy shall come to be fulfilled.” (Haqiqatul Wahyi, page 391)
This statement by the Promised Messiah bears out that in thirteen hundred years to the time of the Promised Messiah, no Prophet came to be raised, and the Ahadith of the Holy Prophet proclaim the Promised Messiah to be a Prophet; prior to him they do not call any saintly person by this name. This sense and meaning is also to be deduced from the Report that between him and the Promised Messiah, there has been no other Prophet; and this is also in agreement with other Reports, wherein the Holy Prophet has called the Promised Messiah a Nabi of Allah, while no one else has been called by this name.
In the Hadith under reference, the Holy Prophet has said that their Din (religion) was one and the same, namely The Din of `The Unity of God’; he has placed The Din as the spiritual father of them all; and having seen their periods, different in the case of each placed these periods as their different mothers. Thus termed all the prophets alati brothers; and the Holy Prophet Mohammad (May God bless him) considered the Promised Messiah as his son in the spiritual sense; and declared that there would be no prophet between both of them. In this way he called him a prophet.
Seeing this spiritual son of the Holy Prophet included in the list of the prophets, if a man gave to this Promised Isa also the position of an alati brother of the Holy Prophet as well, in addition to his position of a spiritual son, there is no harm done.
The Holy Prophet has called some of the righteous persons of his Ummat, coming after him his brothers, too. Syed Abdul Karim Jilani, in his book, title `Al-Insanul Kamil’, has quoted a Report that Holy Prophet said he had a great desire to meet his brothers who would come after him. Further expounding the meaning and spirit of the Hadith in question, Syed Jilani said these brothers of the Holy Prophet signify the Prophets from among the saints. What the Holy Prophet desired to convey here was that they would partake of Nabuwwat, and this would denote their near and close relationship with the Lord God where tidings in regard to things beyond human ken would be revealed to them; and make them perceive the divine wisdom hidden in various things. (Insanul Kamil, Vol. V, page 109)
These Prophets from among the saints are, thus, his progeny for they are members of his Umma ; therefore, his sons as well. These are his brothers, too. Their religion, and the religion of the Holy Prophet, in principle and detail, would be one and the same, though their mothers would be different, i.e., they would be raised in different periods.
Mr. Faruqi writes:
“There is another saying of the Holy Prophet related by Nawas bin Sam’an, in which Jesus, son of Mary, the Prophet of God, has been mentioned as descending on an eastern tower of a mosque in Damascus (Syria).” (`On an eastern tower, as has been put down here by Mr. Faruqi, is a wrong translation of the text, the correct expression being `descending in the east of Damascus close to the white minaret’. – Mohammad Nazir).
After putting down the Hadith in question, Mr. Faruqi writes:
“It is obvious that this prophecy contains simile and metaphor. Herein the name Jesus, son of Mary, is used but most of the Muslim savants of old did accept the coming of Jesus Christ again into this world but not as a full-fledged prophet, as there could be no Prophet after Mohammad (peace and the blessings of Allah be upon him). In view of Khatm-i-Nabuwwat, the meaning would be that he would not come as a Prophet)”. (Truth Triumphs, page 12 & 13)
On page 13 of his book, Mr. Faruqi concedes that the reference here is to the Promised Isa of the Ummat of Mohammad. He is quite right in this view but this Isa has been called a Nabi as many as four times. Since the Nabuwwat of the Promised Messiah could be squarely established on the basis of this reference, Mr. Faruqi has tried to throw a blanket over this truth, by bringing in an unwarranted statement attributed to righteous people of the past, that they hold a belief in regard to the Hazrat Isa expected to appear in the Ummat of the Holy Prophet, that he would not return to this world in the capacity of a Prophet although these righteous people have held the view, and no other, he would certainly be a Prophet; that his advent would not be bereft of the Nabuwwat which undoubtedly belonged to him, for the view has not been acceptable to them that a man who has once been a Nabi, can be deprived of it. To mention one instance, Nawab Siddiq Hasan Khan of Bhopal, writes on the basis of views held by righteous people of the past:
“Where a man says that the Prophethood of Hazrat Isa would be snatched away from him (at the time of his advent) is a confirmed Kafir, as clearly stated by Imam Jalal-ud-Din Sayuti.” (Hojajil Kiramah, page 131)
Similarly, an eminent Imam of the Hanafia School, Imam Ali Qari writes:
“In Hazrat Isa being a Nabi, and at the same time being an Ummati of the Holy Prophet, to serve and consolidate the Sharia, there is no obstacle involved, even irrespective of the fact that he might render this service to Islam on the basis of wahyi which might come to descend on him.” (Mirqat Sharha Mishkat, Vol. V, page 564)
In other words, the view has been that at one and the same time, he would be a Nabi as well as an Ummati ; and his Nabuwwat shall not come to be snatched away from him.
Hazrat Muhy-ud-Din Ibni `Arabi writes:
“Hazrat Isa would be an arbitor among us, without a new Sharia ; without doubt he would be a Nabi .”
It is also to be carefully borne in mind that this saint and scholar holds that in this advent the Nabuwwat of Hazrat Isa would be a Nabuwwat an Image and Reflection, called buruzi Nabuwwat . He writes:
“The advent of Hazrat Isa towards the later days would be in a different body.” (Tafsir Sheikh-i-Akbar Hashia, Araisul Bayan)
So this statement by Mr. Faruqi is wrong that:
“Most of the Muslim savants of old did accept the coming of Jesus Christ again into this world, but not as a full-fledged Prophet.” (Truth Triumphs, page 12)
Writes Mr. Faruqi:
“In reality the tradition about the Mojaddids is a sure argument in favour of the finality of Prophethood with Hazrat Mohammad, peace and the blessings of Allah be upon him; for if there was any chance of any `Prophet’ coming afterwards, then the promise about Mojaddids would not have been given. A promise is made about the best gift to be given, not over an inferior one.”
In reply, let it be clear that Mojaddidiyat, does not exclude Nabuwwat . In his Hujjatulahil Baligha . Shah Waliullah has called Prophets coming among the Jews, after Moses, as so many Mojaddids of the dispensation of Moses.
Nor is Khatm-i-Nabuwwat any kind of bar against the advent of Prophets in Ummat . Had the Promised Messiah taken it to be a bar, he certainly would not have claimed that from one aspect he was a Prophet, from another angle an Ummati .
We find the Holy Prophet Mohammad himself saying:
“Abu Bakr stands at the highest eminence in this Ummat, except that a Prophet should rise among them.” (Kanzul Haqaiq fi Hadith Khairil Khalaiq, Page 4)
In the words illa anyakuna Nabiyun, (except that a Prophet should happen to rise among them) the possibility of some Mojaddid being a Prophet has not been taken by the Holy Prophet as standing against Khatm-i-Nabuwwat . In Nozulul Masih the Promised Messiah calls himself a Mojaddid, and writes, in addition:
“I am the Promised Messiah, even the same, by the Chiefest among the Prophets, who has been called Nabi-Ullah .” (Nozulul Masih, Page 40)
We find, thus, that denial on the part of Mr. Faruqi of any possibility in the Hadith of the advent of any Prophet among the Muslims is a denial, in fact, of those writings of the Promised Messiah wherein, on the basis of Hadith, he upholds the Promised Messiah to be called a Nabi . Over a period of thirteen hundred years, he has not held anyone else deserving to be called by this name and title as we indicated earlier in this discourse.
On page 14 of “Truth Triumphs”, Mr. Faruqi, while giving his exposition of اھدنا الصراط المستقیم concedes that acceptance of this prayer has been stated in Sura Nisa (4: 69), and proceeds to write:
“It has not been stated here that they actually become prophets or Truthful Ones, but that they form as one of their company, and become imbued with their spirit.”
Then, in another place, he writes:
“And (as for) those who believe in Allah and His Apostles, these it is that are the truthful and the faithful ones, in the sight of their Lord: they shall have their reward and their light.” (LVII: 19)
After quoting this passage, Mr. Faruqi writes:
“In the previous verse, mention of Prophets was made, hence the term `bestowing of favour’ was used, as Prophethood is a gift from God. In the latter verse `Prophets’ are not mentioned, and as becoming `truthful ones,’ can be earned if one tries for it, hence the word `reward’ is more appropriate here.” (Truth Triumphs, page 14)
In reply, we beg to remind that while he was still at Qadian, in commenting upon the two verses, Maulvi Mohammad Ali wrote:
“We also have been asked to submit this wide prayer; and its acceptance is assured. Let the opponent take this verse to mean whatever he likes. We hold firmly to the view that Allah can raise Prophets; He can bestow the rank of Siddiq, Shahid and Saleh, as long as there is some one to solicit these eminences.” (Badar, 12 July, 1908)
Mr. Faruqi! it is a matter for regret that you have not remained firm on the view previously held, that Allah can raise Prophets; and now you take these passages to mean what the opponents of the Promised Messiah Ahmad have been saying in regard to the purport of these verses; you now take a view which Maulvi Mohammad Ali used to repudiate during the period of his life at Qadian.
Mr. Faruqi! you say: “In the previous verse mention of Prophets was made, hence the term `bestowing of favours’ was used, as Prophethood is a gift from God.” But you have failed to perceive that included in the expression used here are not the Prophets alone; the Siddiqs, the Shohada . and the Salihin too, are mentioned. The word انعم اللہ has been used in regard to them all. It therefore, stands to reason that all these ranks are gifts. This is the reason why, at the end of the same verse, we find the expression: “This is a matter of grace from Allah”.
When Mr. Faruqi interprets this verse to mean that those two obey the Holy Prophet Mohammad, they only dye themselves in the colour of Prophets, Siddiqs, Shahids and Salihin, it becomes evident, that he does not take the companionship under reference to mean companionship in time and place. Apart from companionship in time and place there is also a companionship in rank and eminence. Therefore, when Mr. Faruqi interprets the passage to mean acceptance of the same colour, the same spirit; this sense also embraces companionship in rank and eminence, companionship in heights attained. The verse cannot in any circumstances be taken to imply that those who render loyal obedience to the Ho1y Prophet do not, thereby, enter the category of Prophets, Siddiqs, Shohadas, and the Salihin, but only take those colours to some extent, in the sense of becoming like them, in some slight manner, to some slight extent. For in the light of the second verse, when the disciples of other Prophets, other dispensations, can thereby become Siddiqs, Shohads, it would be preposterous to hold that obedience rendered to the Holy Prophet Mohammad, in comparison, can at best give to his followers only some slight measure of resemblance, mind and spirit with the Siddiqs, the Shohada, and the Salihin that they would not be able to join the blessed dispensations, as full and real members. For in view of the second verse, namely, “Those who yield belief to Allah, amid His Apostles, they are the truthful ones, and the Shohada, the result of loyal obedience rendered to the Holy Prophet Mohammad cannot be taken to just this that, in some slight measure they would acqiure the colour of people falling into these categories without becoming constitutional and actual, part and parcel of these goodly classes. The meaning would be those who obeyed the Holy Prophet not only would they actually become Siddiqs and Shohada, dyed to perfection in the colours of these categories they could combine in themselves in the fullest measure all the qualities of the persons of the category acquired by them. In the verse, namely, “These are the people who would be with those on whom Allah has bestowed favours, of the rank and quality of Prophets, Siddiqs, Shohada and the Salihin “, four categories of people have been mentioned, tied up together in a sentence, with conjunctions to give one and the same sequence. So according to the laws of the language the sequence is that no one can intervene to say one category, or the other, is excluded for the future. To become companions of the Siddiqs means proper and full inclusion in the list, not just to acquire a certain measure of resemblance with them, the same being true in regard to the remaining categories. The phrase `to be with the Prophets’ here means one’s proper and full inclusion in the category of Prophets just as to be with the Siddiqs, the Shohada, and the Salihin, would mean a full and proper inclusion in these classifications. In the same way to be with the Prophets would mean inclusion in the category, as a full and proper part and parcel of the goodly company, so that an Ummati of the Holy Prophet would rise to become one of the Prophets. The implication, taken in its widest sense, would mean that an Ummati could rise to be the highest of all the Prophets, passed before the Holy prophet, being an image of the master who was himself the `highest’ amongst the Prophets of all times.
Commenting upon this verse, Allama Raghib has said:
“Those who obey God and the Prophet, in point of rank and reward, they have been made equal to all those who have merited the blessings of Allah in the past. The Prophet raised in this Ummat has been made like the other Prophets; the Siddiq in this Ummat has been made equal to the Siddiqs in other dispensations; and so on, in the case of the Shohada, and the Salihin .”
Thus we find that the outcome of the discussion on the sense and meaning of these two verses under reference is this: Through obedience rendered to other Prophets of the Lord, the highest eminence one could reach, was to become a Siddiq which is only another title for a wali . But since the Holy Prophet Mohammad is Khataman Nabiyyin, (خاتم النبیین) the honour and distinction of Prophethood can now be extended only to one who is one of his followers, to one who is an Ummati, in relation to him. This is the reason why, in praise of the Holy Prophet, we find the Promised Messiah writing:
“Our Prophet, peace be on him, is a Prophet of such eminence and rank, that even a follower of this Prophet can become a Prophet himself; and he can come to be called Isa, even though he is an Ummati .” (Zamima Barahin-i-Ahmadiyya, Part V, page 184)
Further, while giving an exposition of Khataman Nabiyyin the Promised Messiah also wrote:
“Obedience rendered to him, in the ways of life, favours with Kamalat of Nabuwwat and his spiritual concentration is capable of carving out a Prophet. This holy power has not been extended to any other Prophet.” (Haqiqatul Wahyi page 97)
The Promised Messiah also wrote:
“Apart from him, to no other Prophet has this seal been extended. He is the only one under whose seal a Prophethood can be obtained, for which a binding condition is that he should be his Ummati. ” (Haqiqatul Wahyi, page 28)
Then again, while commenting, in another place, on the verse in Sura Jomu’a, namely, وآخرین منھم لما یلحقوا بھم the Promised Messiah writes:
“This verse embraces a prophecy in regard to the appearance of a Prophet, towards the latter days. Otherwise there is no justification why people should be called Companions of the Apostle, born after the time of the Holy Prophet, who never saw him, or met him.” (Tatimma Haqiqatul Wahyi, page 67)