In his crude ridicule of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, Abdul Hafeez first states that Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad'sas 'visions and hallucinations assure him that God in heaven glorifies him and invests him with the highest decorations'1 and then appends a grotesque cartoon in which he cites numerous claims allegedly made by Hadhrat Ahmadas.2 He also includes a caption to this tasteless cartoon to the effect: 'I may be unstable, but believe me, I am versatile enough to fit any frame all in one.'3 However, despite his own statement that 'for every claim there has to be some proof,'4 the author of Two in One follows the wont of his lying colleagues to accuse Hadhrat Ahmadas of proposing to establish a claim to be God or the son of God and even the father of God etc., etc., without actually furnishing any conclusive proof to support his foul accusations.

In absence of any supporting evidence to substantiate the foul charges made against Hadhrat Ahmadas, one would have been inclined to ignore these allegations but since such false assertions have been made often by many authors hostile to Hadhrat Ahmadas, one would refer to these and illustrate the extent of falsehood and deception to which the adversaries of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community have resorted in their hostile propaganda. One is certain that at the end of this exercise, those who possess a noble and a pious disposition would acknowledge that any person accusing Hadhrat Ahmadas of these obnoxious charges could only be an advocate of the accursed Satan.


In evidence of their false allegation that Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas of Qadian claimed to be God Almighty, some of his adversaries quote him from his book Kitabul Barriyah to state that he declared:

While one does not accept that this is a perfectly accurate translation of Hadhrat Ahmad'sas original statement, one still calls upon every honest and sincere person to read this passage, albeit not a faithful reproduction of the original and truly determine if there is any claim of Divinity contained herein. In the first instance, one draws one's attention to the following passages of this citation:

These passages in the hostile publications are an admission that this entire scenario was being observed by Hadhrat Ahmadas in a state of vision. Now, every rational human being, whether a believer or not, would accept that a person who sees something in a dream or a vision cannot be held responsible for it since at that precise moment when a dream or vision is being observed, one's faculties are not in one's possession at all. If Abdul Hafeez refuses to accept this explanation then one would ask him as to how would he reconcile Hadhrat Muhammad'ssa dream or vision in which he saw himself wearing two gold bangles on his wrist6 when Muslim men have been forbidden to wear gold. Would he care to state that God forbid, the Prophet of Islamsa contravened the laws of Islam contrary to the explicit command of God?

There is other evidence contained within this citation which establishes that Hadhrat Ahmadas did not claim any Divinity with this vision. As for instance, he stated that 'he saw in his vision that he was God himself' which admits the fact there is a God Who is not Hadhrat Ahmadas. The sentences in relation to the penetration of the Almighty's Godhead; the collapse of Hadhrat Ahmad'sas edifice and it being subdued with God's divinity; his submitting to God that a new system and sky was needed; his putting things in proper order with the will of God and his being enlightened with such inspirations by God Almighty are all admissions of the fact that there is no claim of Divinity but that there is a God Who is not Hadhrat Ahmadas. It is however ironic that in order to prove their false allegations against Hadhrat Ahmadas, his adversaries cite incomplete quotations from his books since such an exercise assists them in hiding true facts and creating some doubt in the minds of simple minded people whose intellectual capacity often limits them from reading between the lines. For instance, when one refers to Hadhrat Ahmad'sas original work, one finds that this passage quoted by his adversaries reads:

One would observe from this complete statement that the hostile citation of Hadhrat Ahmad'sas statement has expunged a large section of the original vision recorded by him only because it proves that he did not claim Divinity but that in a state of vision the Glory of God descended upon him and none can object to such a phenomenon - a phenomenon totally acceptable to Islamic thought as for instance acknowledged by Hadhrat Abu Yazid Bustamirh who stated:

This statement by the revered Persian saint is in strict conformity with Islamic teachings since Hadhrat Muhammadsa has stated that God Almighty declared:

To a person of Abdul Hafeez's caliber, this statement by Hadhrat Muhammadsa may suggest that God literally becomes the ears and eyes and hands and feet of a person who offers optional prayers constantly. But, this does not alter the fact that in truth, it proposes to establish that those people who engage in such spiritual exercises are drawn closer to Him so much that they become a part of Him as He becomes a part of them and since they are totally lost in Him, they begin to see Him in themselves. This phenomenon has often been experienced by the saints of Islam. Hence, Hadhrat Ali ibn Talibra declared:

Such expressions as Luh and Qalm to which Hadhrat Alira laid claim are attributes of God Almighty. Similarly, Hadhrat Imam Ja'far Sadiqrh, a descendent of Hadhrat Muhammadsa and the sixth Imam of the Shi'ah Muslims declared:

Hadhrat Abu Yazid Bustamirh was much more explicit with his claim when he declared:

The revered Persian saint claimed to be a 'God of great glory'13 and he also declared:

Hadhrat Jalal ud Din Rumirh, who was a disciple of Hadhrat Abu Yazid Bustamirh wrote an ode in the honor of his spiritual preceptor and stated that:

Hadhrat Sheikh Muhiy ud Din Ibne Arabirh also declared in relation to himself:

Hadhrat Sultan Bahuth, a revered sufi of the Punjab claimed to be God in his poetic verses:

Hadhrat Abu al Hasan Kharganirh another venerable sage of his time announced:

Hadhrat Sheikh Farid ud Din Attarrh was also extremely explicit in his claim and declared:

Hadhrat Hussain ibn Mansur al Hallajrh was asked if he claimed to be a prophet of God to which the revered sage replied:

In the height of his intensity of love for his Creator, he declared in a state of ecstasy

Hadhrat Abu Bakr Shiblirh was also extremely explicit in his pronouncermnt and stated in relation to himself.

Muslim saints have also been referred to as God in Person by their followers as for instance Sheikh Sabir Kalyari stated in relation to Sufi Sayyid Abid Mia Uthman Naqshbandi:

Allama Muhammad Iqbal who in recent times has become the patron saint of most anti Ahmadiyya Muslim elements stated in relation to Hadhrat Nizam id Din Auliarh:

These are but a few sample illustraffons of the pronouncements of some of the greatest sufis known to the history of Islam, generally revered for their piety by the larger majority of the Muslim ummah or else of Muslim scholars in relation to their spiritual mentors. One has to but read through the colossal Islamic literature to gauge the extent of such pronouncements made by Muslim saints and scholars. Yet, one observes that whereas Hadhrat Ahmadas did not at any point in time claim to be God, numerous venerable saints and scholars of the ummah of Islam made a claim to be Him in Person or else were called God by their followers and admirers.

One would now ask Abdul Hafeez as to what is his opinion in relation to all these aforementioned saints and scholars of Islam who claimed Divinity for themselves or attributed it to their spiritual predecessors? Does he consider them unstable and versatile enough to fit in any frame and would he similarly accuse them of suffering from hallucinations which assured them that they were God in heaven? Would he also condemn them as mad as he does Hadhrat Ahmadas although he made no such claim to Divinity as the aforementioned saints of the Ummah did?25 Would he call these pronouncements of all the saints and scholars as their doldrums as he does in case of Hadhrat Ahmadas who incidentally, unlike them, never made any such specific claim?26 Would he caricature cartoons of all these sufis of the ummah, Hadhrat Ali ibn Talibra, Hadhrat Ja'far Sadiqrh, Abu Yazid Bustamirh, Hadhrat Sheikh Muhiy ud Din ibne Arabirh, Hadhrat Sultan Bahurh, Hadhrat Abu al Hasan Kha~anirh, Hadhrat Sheikh Farid ud Din Attarrh, Hadhrat Hussain ibn Mansur al Hallajrh and Hadhrat Abu Bakr Shiblirh who claimed to be God Almighty in some form or the other and include this in the future editions of his book Two in One? If not, then would he not prove himself to be a hypocrite? A liar Abdul Hafeez has been already proved since it has been shown that Hadhrat Ahmadas did not, ever, claim divinity for himself and an enemy also he has proved himself to be by accusing Hadhrat Ahmadas of a false charge. Why then should a hypocrite, a liar and an enemy of the righteous take exception to being branded a disbeliever?


The. second false charge often alleged against Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas is that he claimed to be a son of God in the literal sense of the word27 which once again is argued on gross misrepresentation of some of his revelations. In this instance, his adversaries quote three alleged revelations in evidence while the third of these 'Listen my son'28 or 'Listen! O my son'29 stated to have been quoted from Al Bushra is not a revelation vouchsafed unto him. Apparently, an Arabic journal Al Bushra quoted a revelation vouchsafed unto Hadhrat Ahmadas - the original recorded by him in his own works being

However, due to some negligence on the part of Al Bushra's copyist, the expression Asm'aa wa Araa meaning I hear and see was incorrectly printed in the journal as Asm'aa Wa 'lade meaning Listen My Son. Anyone minutely conversant with Arabic language would know that such an error is easily made considering the characters of the language. In this instance, Asm'aa wa Araa is written as while Asm'aa Wa'lade is written as . However, due to the negligence of the copyist, the alphabet I which stands for 'alif or its equivalent a in English and ra or r happened to be mistakenly joined together as a result of which these assumed the shapes of J la'm and dal and hence what should have been 'Ar became la'd. Consequently, Araa assumed the shape of 'lade whereby what should have been Asm'aa wa Araa became Asm'aa Wa'lade.

This unforumate error in the columns of Al Bushra was immediately detected and the editor of the journal took necessary steps to publish a correction in its following issue. He also sent a notice to the official journal of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community at Qadian to the effect:

It may not be unreasonable to state that during the course of any publication either the author or the copyist is extremely likely to commit some genuine errors which despite proof reading and revision may sometimes not be detected until after the material has been printed. Such mistakes have appeared in the best of publications and neither the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community nor its adversaries can claim immunity to such misprints. One, for instance, observes that Abdul Hafeez's spiritual preceptor Ehsan Elahi Zaheer claims Hadhrat Ali ibn Talibra to be God Almighty in one such printing error.32 Would it then be fair to assert that in the opinion of Abdul Hafeez's spiritual preceptors, Hadhrat Alira is God forbid, God Almighty?

As regards the other two citations, 'You are, of Me, like My son' and 'You are, of Me, like My offspring', had these antagonists exercised similar honesty which same of their colleagues have inadvertently done in the translation of these revelations, they would not have discovered anything objectionable. For instance, one hostile author translates this particular revelation as 'you are unto me as my son.'33 This indicates that whereas the original revelations contain the preposition to - it has been substituted with of by some critics which gives the revelations a totally different meaning from what was originally revealed unto Hadhrat Ahmadas by God Almighty and also what was intended by Him since it is one thing to state that 'you are of me like my son' or 'you are of me like my offspring' and another to state that 'you are to me like my son'34 or 'you are to me like my offspring'35 But, God Almighty does not have a son and this fact had been acknowledged by Hadhrat Ahmadas who stated that one:

In another such expression of his beliefs, he stated that 'God is not anyone's son, nor is anyone His son.'37 Therefore, the only conclusion one can draw from these revelations is that these Divine words have been spoken in a figurative sense and should not be an occasion to either take exception or else accuse Hadhrat Ahmadas of making a claim to Divine sonship in the literal sense. In fact, Hadhrat Ahmadas appended a footnote to this revelation in relation to him being called like a son to God and stated:

The use of the expression Son of God abounds in religious vocabulary and such terminology has also been found perfectly acceptable and permissible in Islam Hadeeth reports that Hadhrat Muhammadsa stated:

This statement does not propose to suggest that the creatures of God are His children in the literal sense. It merely demonstrates the regard in which Allah holds His creation and no one dare suggest that with this statement, Hadhrat Muhammadsa committed blasphemy of attributing children to God Almighty. Hence, the question which one needs to consider in the light of this statement is that if God holds His ordinary creatures in such high regard that Hadhrat Muhammadsa considered them to be the children of Allah, then how high a regard does He have for His commissioned apostles. This question has often been answered by some of Islam's most venerable personages. The renowned mystic sage, Hadhrat Maulana Jalal ud Din Rumirh declared:

'The apostles of God are symbolically His sons.'40

The revered Muhaddith of Delhi, Hadhrat Shah Wali Ullah Dehlvirh discussed the use of this appellation in religious vocabulary and stated:

Hadhrat Maulana Muhammad Qasim Nanautvirh, the founder of the Nidawatul Ulama, the famous seminary at Deoband defended the permissibility of such vocabulary and explained:

Therefore, there is absolutely no cause to take exception to Hadhrat Ahmadas being given the appellation of being 'the like of the son of God' in these revelations which are often manipulated to allege that he claimed to be the son of God in a literal sense. Hadhrat Ahmadas explained this appellation used in relation to him and stated that:

He also made it quite clear that his 'being called a son of God was a mere statement of spiritual grade that had been bestowed upon him and that a son of God in a literal sense was not meant by this revelation'44 He discussed the figurative use of this expression at great length and stated:

These statements should therefore dispel any such contention that Hadhrat Ahmadas ever claimed to be the son of God. In fact, he stated quite dearly that he was a human being and had been commanded by:

He explained the reason as to why this expression 'you are to Me like My son' had been used in relation to him and stated:

The aforementioned statement should condclsively establish that God Almighty had no occasion to bestow this appellation upon Hadhrat Ahmadas except to honour Hadhrat Muhammadsa far above Hadhrat Jesusas whom Christians had literally deified as a physical son of God. Why then should such a Divine act which proposes to establish the superiority of Hadhrat Muhammadsa be a matter of annoyance to Abdul Hafeez?

The third unsubstantiated allegation made against Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas is that he claimed to be the father of God. In this instance, his critics misquote another of his revelations:

While one does not necessarily accept that the above citation is a perfectly faithful and linguistically correct translation of the passage in Hadhrat Ahmad'sas original work, one still fails to see on what basis even a novice of languages and science of logical deduction could come to such a conclusion that on the basis of this revelation, albeit incorrectly cited, the son of Hadhrat Ahmadas is claimed to be God and therefore Hadhrat Ahmadas has to be the father of God.49 If the author of this extremely naive deduction would have referred to the text of his own misquoted citation, he may have yet discovered that, in the first instance, the son spoken of in this revelation was not to be God in Person but 'the manifestation of Elevation and the Truth' - i.e., someone who, in his own person, exhibits the attributes of God. Hence, the son in question is not being called God but merely a manifestation of Him. This is also indicated by the use of the words as if in the antagonist's own citation which, once again, establishes that the Promised Son was not called God. On the contrary, it was stated that his advent would be as if God Himself had descended from heaven.

A claim of such manifestation of God Ahmghty in the person of His righteous servants has not been unknown to religious vocabulary. The figurative descent of God in the person of His chosen servants is a part of the Biblical vocabulary. Hence, the descent of Hadhrat Muhammadsa has been described as the advent of God Almighty in the Torah:

In a similar prophecy in relation to the advent of Hadhrat Muhammadsa, Biblical scriptures once again figuratively proclaim his advent as that of God Almighty

Yet while Muslims believe that these prophecies refer to Hadhrat Muhammadsa, no sane person has ever dared argue that he is God Ahmghty in Person. Such metaphoric language has also been employed in revelations vouchsafed to Hadhrat Jesusas and while the parable of the vineyard proclaims the advent of Hadhrat Muhammadsa as that of God Almighty,52 no sane Muslim believes that he was God.

Islamic literature has also found the use of such terminology permissible. Therefore, throughout the history of the Ummah, men of exceptional piety have either claimed to be the manifestation of God Almighty themselves or have honoured other saiints and called them as such. Hadhrat Abu Yazid Bustamirh claimed:

The renowned sage and mystic poet of the Punjab, Hadhrat Sultan Bahurh also claimed to be the manifestation of God Almighty, nay, God Almighty in person:

Hadhrat Imam Ja'far Sadiqrh claimed to be the face of God55 and Hadhrat Jalal ud Din Rumirh stated in relation to Hadhrat Abu Yazid Bustamirh that:

Hadhrat Farid ud Din Attarrh claimed to be God not once but three times in the space of one sentence57 and so did Hadhrat Hussain ibn Mansur al Hallajrh claim to be God58 while Hadhrat Abu Bakr Shiblirh declared that there is none but himself in the two worlds.59 Yet, in every one of these instances, the authors of these words merely proposed to suggest that they were manifestations of God Almighty and not Him, a concept perfectly permissible in Islam since according to Islamic beliefs:

Why, then, should a revelation vouchsafed to Hadhrat Ahmadas, proposing the same concept be construed to suggest that the son to be born of him was claimed to be God in Person and therefore, he had to be the father of God?

Although Hadhrat Ahmad'sas critics falsely accuse him for such alleged blasphemy and sacrilege of the Divine, this does not alter the fact that a direct reference to the actual passage of his book from whence this revelation has been misquoted indicates that he did not at any point in time state that the son to be born would be the manifestation of Elevation and Truth, Elevation and Truth being suggested as meaning God Almighty on account of the use of capital letters by his adversary.61 On the contrary, the actual passage in his original work reads:

'We give thee glad tidings of a humble boy who will be characterized with truth and grandeur as if God Himself has descended from heaven.'62

The fact that the aforementioned translation of the revelation under discussion is positively the correct one is verified by its citation in another hostile publication which quotes it to read:

'He gives you tidings of a boy, the exponent of truth and spiritual altitude, as if God descended from Heaven.'63

How could these words be construed to imply that according to this revelation, the son to be born is God in Person and therefore, Hadhrat Ahmadas would certainly be the father of God particularly when the adversaries themselves admit that all that is being stated by this Divine revelation is that the child shall be 'the exponent of truth and spiritual altitude as if God had descended from heaven.'

This revelation, which has been subjected to such cruel subreption, did not at any point in time propose to attribute Divinity to Hadhrat Ahmad'sas son nor did Hadhrat Ahmadas

61. Irfani, Abu al Bashir. The Cunning Chameleon, p. 13

62. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Anjam Atham, p. 62; Ruhani Khazain, vol. xii, p. 62

63. Zaheer, Ehsan Elahi. Qadiyaniat, ed. May 1973, p. 116

himself make any such statement which could even remotely be construed as attributing Divinity to his son. On the contrary, he declared quite categorically that:

Hence, in Hadhrat Ahmad'sas own mind, this son in relation to whom the revelation under discussion was vouchsafed was to descend from God and was therefore not God Almighty Himself. Hadhrat Ahmadas also stated that this son:

This is also a clear indication that the child was to be extraordinarily blessed by God and was not to be Him in Person. Nevertheless, if these antagonists still insist that their criterion of logical deduction is positively correct, despite an intentional mistranslation of the revelation vouchsafed unto Hadhrat Ahmadas, then one would ask them as to what they make of the following verse of the Ouran:

This Quranic passage refers to the incident at the battle of Badr when Hadhrat Muhammadsa threw a handful of pebbles and sand at the Meccan army which started a sand storm as a result of which the forces of the infidels were routed and the enemy decimated.67 Now, if someone not too favourably disposed to Islam was to adopt the criterion of logical deduction adopted by these antagonists, he could argue that:

How would the proponents of this naive system of logical deduction answer such a vile charge against the Quran? A similar inference could be made from the Quranic passage:

A person hostile to Islam could find inspiration in the criterion of logical deduction established by these adversaries and manipulate this Quranic passage to assert that:

How would these antagonists explain such an assertion? Such vile inferences could be made on several other Quranic passages but since Ahmadi Muslims abhor any such vile deductions as propose to grant Divinity to human beings and insult the dignity of God and His blessed servants, one would refrain from indulging into this topic at length and also advise these naive critics to get their own act right and appreciate that God Almighty does not take kindly to such frivolous academic pursuits as tend to hold His dignity in contempt.

Nonetheless, one thing which is certain from the study of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community's literature is that Hadhrat Ahmadas did not at any time during his life make any such statement or claim to have received any such revelation on the basis of which a sane person could ever justifiably deduce that a status of Divinity was being bestowed upon his son, the glad tidings of which were vouchsafed unto him in this revelation. On the contrary, he stated that 'God Almighty had given him the glad tidings that he shall soon be blessed with a son who would one day become His beloved and through whom God would remove darkness in this world.'69

While Hadhrat Ahmad'sas critics indulge in such frivolous deductions to prove their naive hypothesis, he abhorred any such belief which even remotely proposed to subject God to the indignity of human birth. He censured the followers of Vedantic philosophy for their belief that 'their Paramesvara, at one time or the other, by way of transmigration, was born in the shape of a human being and therefore became involved in all the ills and vices of mortal life - to be subjected to, like other mortal beings, hunger and thirst, pain and hurt, fear and sorrow, disease and death, humiliation and disgrace and helplessness and weakness.'70 He stated that such belief

The abstruse Christian dogma of the human birth of God Almighty in the person of Christ was also held in extreme contempt by Hadhrat Ahmadas. He considered this essential belief of the Christian faith abominable blasphemy and stated:

He also insisted that 'God has never been known to have been established in the womb of a woman like the sperm nor has He ever been bom of a woman like a human child.'73 He censured the Christian dogma of Christ's alleged divinity and stated:

It is therefore thoroughly wicked of Hadhrat Ahmad'sas adversaries to mistranslate, misrepresent and manipulate his statements in a manner in which these critics are seen to have done. Nonetheless, irrespective of the allegations contained in these hostile publications, he held an absolute faith that:

How does Abdul Hafeez propose to respond to these recorded facts against his unsubstantiated allegations?


Abdul Hafeez's attempt to ridicule Hadhrat Mitza Ghulam Ahmad'sas statement that God Almighty has bestowed upon him the appellations of Mary and Jesus76 is, once again, evidence of his thorough ignorance of Islamic thought. It is somewhat ironic that rather than try and understand this beautiful and spiritually charged phenomenon, he has ridiculed the entire concept and questioned if it is not evidence that Hadhrat Ahmadas was an imbecile.77 However, before one proceeds to expose his ignorance of such spiritually charged concepts, it may be pertinent to refer to Hadhrat Ahmad'sas original statement which has been distorted to direct this vulgar abuse. He states in one of his books:

It should be evident from this original statement that Hadhrat Ahmadas did not claim that he was Mary but that he was named her. Therefore, it is perfectly dishonest of the author of Two in One to allege that on the basis of this statement, he was Mary.79 Secondly, Abdul Hafeez may, in his extremely confined intellectual capacity to understand matters of such spiritual elegance, consider this statement to be an evidence of imbecility. But, this does not alter the fact that the system of naming people according to their characteristics, qualities and accomplishments is acknowledged as a perfectly normal and valid practice in Islam.80 The Holy Quran itself speaks of two kinds of believers - the first among these being those that are pursued by the devil who tries to mislead them but they engage in prayer and supplicate the Lord for protection. These are likened to Assiya, wife of Pharaoh who remained steadfast in her faith. Hence, the Holy Quran states:

The second type of believers to which the Holy Quran alludes are those who are pure from the beginning and protected against any attack from Satan. These are likened to Hadhrat Maryas:

Since there is not a third category of believers to be found in the Holy Quran, every believer is, according to the wisdom of God, either identifiable with Hadhrat Maryas or else the wife of Pharaoh. Therefore, Hadhrat Ahmadas, being a believer of the highest order, was named after Hadhrat Maryas by God Almighty. Why should anyone consider this to be an evidence of imbecility when Islamic literature indicates that Hadhrat Muhammadsa declared:

Apparently, this statement is stated by Hadeeth literature to have been made by Hadhrat Muhammadsa in his explanation of the Quranic verse 3.36 and scholars of Islam have maintained that it refers, not to the historical Hadhrat Maryas or her son Hadhrat Jesusas but to believers who possess their qualities. Hence, Hadhrat Imam Mahmud ibn Umar al Zamaksharirh stated that:

Now, if Abdul Hafeez considers this Divine act of a righteous servant of God being given the name Mary and identified with the first category of believers a sign of imbecility, then one would assume that the author of Two in One would not like to be given her name or identified with her in any way whatsoever. In that event, may one suggest that he, at least, not take exception to being identified with the wife of Pharaoh and be given her name - that being the only other category of believers known to the Holy Quran. Failing this, one would be correct in assuming that he considers himself outside the realm of either of these two identifications of believers which God has set forth as examples in the Holy Quran. This would consequently lead one to the conclusion that Abdul Hafeez must fall within the realm of either of the other two categories of human beings mentioned in the Holy Quran which are:

One leaves Abdul Hafeez to decide on this question as to which of the categories of human beings known to the Holy Quran he wishes to be identified with. One also hopes that in his next edition of Two in One, he would declare his intent so that the world may know of his decision. In the event that he decides to decline being identified with either of the four categories of human beings known to the Holy Quran, then one would be interested in knowing whether he considers himself to be at all a human being or not since there is not a fifth category of the species known to the Holy Quran.

As regards the question of Hadhrat Ahmadas being called Jesus, Abdul Hafeez appears to be ignorant of the fact that according to Islamic thought, every perfect believer is a Jesus of his time. This is indicated by Hadhrat Khawaja Mir Dardrh statement:

It is in view of such universal acceptance of this concept that Hadhrat Khawaja Mu'in ud Din Chishtirh stated:

Hence, he claimed to be Jesus and declared in relation to himself:

Hadhrat Shams Tabrizrh whom the spiritual predecessors of Abdul Hafeez accused of heresy and skinned alive and whose body they threw into a wel1 because he believed that singing of hymns was quite lawful in Islam89, declared in relation to himself:

Hadhrat Jalal ud Din Rumirh, whom the spiritual predecessors of Abdul Hafeez had previously denounced as an apostate91, stated that 'if the veil be lifted from the souls, every one of them would say, I am the Messiah.'92 He also proceeded to claim that this veil had been lifted from him and he was Jesus93 while Hadhrat Abu Yazid Bustamirh, whose claims to Divinity have previously been stated, claimed to be Jesus beside declaring that he was Abraham and Moses.94

Islamic literature also indicates that other venerable saints of the Ummah had been given the appellation of Jesusas by God Almighty. Hence, Hadhrat Sheikh Muhiy ud Din Arabirh, whom the spiritual predecessors of Abdul Hafeez denounced as an infidel and dubbed as an apostate95 declared that his spiritual mentor was named Jesus, son of Mary. He recorded the statement:

The bestowal of such appellation upon their spiritual mentors by their followers has also been an established practice amongst Muslims. Hadhrat Shah Ismail Shaheedrh stated in relation to Hadhrat Sayyid Ahmad Shah Barelvirh:

'Joseph has now come to Egypt from Canaan, and the whole world has come for his purchase. To give life to the dead, the breath of Jesus has come into this world.'97

Similarly, Faqir Muhammad Chishti stated in relation to the patron saint of Ajmeer, Hadhrat Mu'in ud Din Chishtirh:

Such claim of beiing Jesus was also put forward by a saint of Delhi, Shah Niyaz Ahmad99 while Abdul Hafeez's own spiritual mentors, the leaders of the Nidawatul ul Ulerna were named after the son of Mary by the scholars of Deoband. For instance, the Deoband leadership stated in relation to Maulvi Rashid Ahmad Gangohi:

Maulvi Mahmud al Hasan also stated in relation to Maulvi Gangohi:

What opinion would Abdul Hafeez express in relation to the mental state of Hadhrat Khawaja Mu'in ud Din Chishtirh who claimed to being Jesus; Hadhrat Shams Tabrizrh who stated that he was the spirit breathed into Mary and the soul that was the life of Jesus; Hadhrat Jalal ud Din Rumirh for declaring that the veil had been lifted from his soul and he was Jesus; Hadhrat Abu Yazid Bustamirh who believed that he was Jesus as well as Moses and Abraham; Hadhrat Ibne Arabirh who proclaimed that this spiritual mentor was named Jesus, son of Mary and Hadhrat Sayyid Muhammad Ismail Shaheedrh who stated that in Hadhrat Sayyid Ahmad Shah Barelvirh, Joseph had come from Egypt to Canaan and the breath of Jesus had come to this world; Faqir Muhammad Chishti for calling the soul of Hadhrat Khawaja Mu'in ud Din Chishtirh as that of Jesus; Shah Niyaz Ahmad of Delhi for putting forward such a claim and the Deobandi leadership for believing that Maulvi Rashid Ahmad Gongohi of Nidawatul Ulema was the like of Hadhrat Muhammadsa and the son of Mary? Would he state that these claims by some of the most respected saint known to Ummah of Islam or scholars of his own school of thought, were signs of madness? If so, would he pronounce a verdict of imbecility upon them for their statements as he had the audacity to pronounce this upon Hadhrat Ahmadas for claiming that he was named Mary and called Jesus?

One would also ask Abdul Hafeez if, in view of the aforementioned statements by numerous saints and scholars of Islam, he considers them all to be suffering from hallucinations and unstable as well as versatile enough to fit any frame all in one? Does he then propose to include their caricatures in the future publications of Two in One considering that they claimed to be Jesusas or the son of Mary? If not, then would he not be leaving himself open to being branded a hypocrite and an enemy of Hadhrat Ahmadas - and rightly so? Why should he then object to the appellation of an enemy being stated on the cover of the Mubahala?

The advent of a Messianic prophet in the latter age of strife and irreligiousness has been recorded by nearly all religions of the world. The Judaeo Christian scriptures contain several prophecies in relation to the coming of the Messiah as in the Book of Daniel101 and the Gospel according to St. Matthew.102 Buddhist literature alludes to the advent of the Maitreya or Shakyamuni Buddha103 while Vedic scriptures contains a prophecy in relation to the advent of an avatara in the age of Kaliyuga:

Islam also records a prophecy in relation to the Messiah in its books of Hadeeth105 in which it is clearly indicated that he would be the judge who would abolish Jizya106 and an impartial leader who would judge with justice.107 It is also stated in Hadeeth literature that he would be a leader amongst men108 who would lead them according to the Book of Allah and His Apostle'ssa Sunnah109 and the one who would rid the world of spite, hatred and jealousy.110 In view of this prophecy contained in Hadeeth literature, Muslim scholars have generally expressed the view that this is an indication of the fact that the Shari'ah of all earlier prophets before the advent of Islam would stand abrogated111 since no other religion will remain acceptable to Allah112 and the entire human race would eventually come to accept Islam.113 It has also been argued that mankind would be judged by him according to the Shariah of Islam114 and apparently, none would object to it since it would bring faith in Hadhrat Muhammadsa as an apostle of God115 whereby their hearts would be purified of such evil which breeds spite, hatred and jealousy.116

The question which arises now is that if people of every religion expect the advent of a prophet in the latter age who would arrive to deliver them from irreligiousness and rid the world of spite, hatred and jealousy and also save it from the mischief of the Dadjaal of whom Hadhrat Muhammadsa declared every prophet had warned his followers117, what would come of this world if all these various prophets, prophesied in the literature of various religions arrived amongst different nations considering the marked divisions that exist between the beliefs and philosophies of these numerous religions?

It needs wisdom and sagacity which people like Abdul Hafeez are denied to appreciate that all these various prophecies in relation to the advent of the prophesied prophet of the latter age refer to one single person who would arrive in the spirit of all the earlier prophets, to unite mankind under one banner of the ultimate religion, Islam. Hence Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas stated that:

He stated this on the authority of a Divine revelation vouchsafed unto him and even predicted that ignorant Muslims would object to his claim to be Krsna.119 Nonetheless, without fear of censure by people of Abdul Hafeez's ilk, he declared:

Alas! were the author of Two in One aware that such claims by Hadhrat Ahmadas, rather than being proof of imbecility are an evidence of his truthfulness as the prophesied Messiah and Mahdi of whom it was stated:


One is not certain whether this Sindhi pir, Abdul Hafeez's next objection in relation to the revelation vouchsafed unto to Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad'sas in which the expression Jai Singh Bahadur was employed is yet another instance of his sly manipulation of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community's literature or his sheer ignorance of the Punjabi language since he has translated this expression to read 'a sikh name meaning victorious Lion'122 whereas Jai in Punjabi is an expression of applause Singh means a lion and Bahadur means courageous. Hence, when translated in its proper context, the revelation should read: 'Hurrah! for the courageous Lion!'

Incidentally, if the author of Two in One had been fully conversant with Hadhrat Ahmad'sas writings, he may have yet discovered that these words which sound an evidence of imbecility to Abdul Hafeez are a part of a revelation to the effect:

In the preceding pages of this book we have already illustrated how, in the opinion of Hadhrat Ahmad'sas contemporaries and sincere Muslim scholars, he came to the defence of Islam at the time when Muslims faced degradation and shame at the hands of other religions124 and were lying flat on their faces, sobbing in the aftermath of their shortcoming, either doing nothing or able to do nothing125 because the greatest of their ulema did not dare face the enemies of Islam.126 Accordlng to them, at this precarious time when Islam stood at the crossroads with the foundation of Islamic life and society shaken and when Muslims were generally in the grip of frustration and despair and their mmds seriously in grip of confusion and perplexity because they had fallen prey to defeatism, Hadhrat Ahmadas arrived on the scene with his unique message and movement.127 It has also been proven that according to these Muslim scholars, Hadhrat Ahmadas appeared in the front line of the devotees of Islam128 and stood in the field like a brave lion129 to champion the cause of Islam.130 He proved to be a cutting sword against false religions131 and shattered the foul criticism of the opponents of Islam and silenced them for ever.132 He also smashed to bits the influence of Christianity and put its clergy to flight133 and routed the Christians. He blew the talisman of Christianity to smoke while at the same time, crushed the poisonous fangs of Hinduism134 . Hence, he was acclaimed as a resolute defender of Islam135; a great fighter for Islam136; a victorious general137; a brave lion138; an illustrious general and pride of Muslims as well as an accepted one of God.139 These tributes to Hadhrat Ahmadas by the non Ahmadiyya Muslim intelligentsia are a fulfilment of the revelation vouchsafed unto him which Abdul Hafeez considers an evidence of imbecility. Hence, it is a proof of Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad'sas truthfulness since what was revealed unto him by God was also fulfilled by His grace.


In the opening pages of his book Two in One, Abdul Hafeez excuses his decision to become involved in this controversy which he would have rather avoided on account of what he calls 'startling titles for Muslims like enemies, disbelievers and liars on the cover page of the Mubahala publication issued by the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community.'l40 He therefore addresses the Preface of his book to Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmaday and the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community and states that the purpose of his writing his grotesque book is to:

This full honesty with which Abdul Hafeez proposes to prove to Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmaday and the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community as to who is a liar, includes an assertion by him that among the various titles which Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas claimed to have been invested with by God Almighty, one was that of an 'Eveready Battery.'142 Nonetheless, although he insists within the context of his book that 'for every claim' there has to be some proof,'143 he not only fails to substantiate the allegations discussed in the preceding pages of this book, namely that he claimed to be God or the son of God and also the father of God as well as Mary which have already been proved false, but he fails to furnish proof of this allegation also. The reason as to why he has not been able to furnish any proof is because Hadhrat Ahmadas neither made any such claim in his entire mortal life of three score and ten years nor has any such claim been recorded by him in any of his written work whether published or not. One challenges Abdul Hafeez to prove this statement false if he dare and provide evidence that Hadhrat Ahmadas ever made any such claim as alleged by him. Failing this, one would be justified, yet once again, in asserting that the author of Two in One has not only given suffident evidence of his being a personified liar but his prayer

has been heard and he has been proved a liar and a slanderer by God Almighty. And so has his other prayer been heard where he stated that if he is:

All praise belong to Allah! He has revealed such a sign of Abdul Hafeez's falsehood that He has caused this personified liar and accuser to attribute yet another claim to Hadhrat Ahmadas in his book Two in One146 of which if Abdul Hafeez was to spend his entire mortal life, he would not find substantiative evidence. This incidentally, is the standard of the full honesty of this pir of Gujjjo with which he proposes to illustrate to Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmaday and the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community as to who is a liar.147 Yet he takes exception to the title of a liar on the cover page of the Mubahala challenge148 when it aptly applies to him. Need one say more or is it now not evident that Abdul Hafeez is a personified liar? If he wishes to claim that he is not and this conclusion is unjustified, then let him provide proof that Hadhrat Ahmadas ever claimed to have been invested with this appellation. If he can, then the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community will stand corrected and if not then the author of Two in One stands condemned as a liar.


On account of Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad'sas claim that God Almighty has given him various appellations, Abdul Hafeez accuses him of suffering from hallucinations and being an imbecile and appends an extremely tasteless and vile caricature with the caption: 'I may be unstable. But, believe me, I am versatile enough to fit any frame. All in one.'149 Without going into a lengthy discussion to expose his thorough ignorance of Islamic philosophy, one would merely present, for his information, some of the claims made by several revered and venerable personalities in the history of Islam and put a question to him as to how versatile does he think these sages and saints of Islam are, and what in his opinion was the mental state of mmd of these revered personalities.

It has already been shown that Hadhrat Ali ibn Abi Talibrh, the fourth Caliph claimed to be 'the dot under the letter Bismillah, the Qalm, the Luh, the 'Arsh, the Kursi the Seven Heavens and the Earths'150 while Hadhrat Imam Ja'far Sadiqrh claimed:

The famous Persian saint Hadhrat Abu Yazid Bustamirh has also been shown to have stated that his 'attributes are hidden in the Unseen and he was not a man but the tongue of Truth and the speaker of the Truth Himself, ie., God in Person.'152 He also claimed to be the 'God of great glory'153 and stated that 'there was none worthy of worship beside him.'154 According to Hadhrat Jalal ud Din Rumirh, the Persian saint claimed that he was God and there is no God but him'155 while Hadhrat Farid ud Din Attarrh states in his famous memoirs of Muslim saints that Hadhrat Abu Yazid Bustamirh was asked by someone:

Hadhrat Sheikh Muhiy ud Din Ibn Arabirh stated in relation to himself that he is 'the Quran and the Fatihah and the spirit of spirits, not the spirit of vessels'157 while Hadhrat Shams ud Din Tabrizrh claimed that he was 'the spirit that was breathed into Mary; the soul that was the life of Jesus and his breath; one before whom the saints prostrated; who was with Noah in the ark and Joseph in the well as well as the one who was with Moses when Pharaoh was drowned and who existed before Adam or the world was created.'158 He also declared:

Hadhrat Sultan Bahurh claimed to be the Haq 160 and Hadhrat Abu al Hasan Kharqanirh the God of his age.161 So did Farid ud Din Attarrh declare that he was God162 and Hadhrat Hussain Mansur al Hallajrh claimed that he was the Lord.163 Hadhrat Abu Bakr Shiblirh also claimed to be the only God in the two worldsl64 as well as Muhammad, the Messenger of God.l65 Hadhrat Sayyid Abdul Qadir Jilanirh claimed to be Prophet Muhammadsa and declared that had Hadhrat Mosesas been alive, he would have obeyed himl66 . He also stated that he was the door of the Kaa'ba and if one wished to perform the pilgrimage, one ought to go to him.167 Hadhrat Jalal ud Din Rumirh claimed to be the Ark of Noah168 as well as Jesus.l69 He declared:

Hadhrat Khawaja Mu'in ud Din Chishtirh claimed to be Jesusl71 as well as the Messenger of Allahl72 as did Hadhrat Sheikh Ahmadrh of Sirhind who stated:

The revered Mujjadid Alf Thanirh is also stated to have written that:

Similarly, Hadhrat Parid ud Din Shakar Ganjrh of Pak Patan claimed:

Hadhrat Khawaja Habibullah Attarrh of Kashmir claimed to be a Messenger of Allah176 while Hadhrat Sayyid Wali Ullah Shahrh Delhvi stated in relation to himself:

It is also stated in relation to Hadhrat Said Ameerrh of Koth that he received a revelation:

Hadhrat Shah Niaz Ahmadrh of Delhi also declared in relation to himself:

Beside such personal claims by the saints of the ummah, Islamic literature indicates that the followers and admirers of numerous Muslim saints and scholars bestowed such appellations unto their spiritual mentors. For instance, Hadhrat Sayyid Muhammad Ismail Shaheedrh stated in relation to Hadhrat Sayyid Ahmad Shahrh Barelvi:

Sheikh Sabir Kalyari is stated to have called Sayyid Abid Mian Usman Naqshbandi 'the Kaa'ba, the Quran, the Prophet or God'181 while it was stated in relation to Hadhrat Maulana Muhammad Qasimrh of Nanauta and Maulvi Rashid Ahmad Gangahi of Deoband:

Maulvi Rashid Ahmad Gangohi was also declared to be one like the Founder of Islam and the Messiah of his age as well as the son of Mary by the Deoband scholars.183

The question which one need ask the author of Two in One is that if, in view of Hadhrat Ahmad'sas claim that he had been named Mary and called Jesus he considers Hadhrat Ahmadas to be suffering from hallucinations and an imbecile184, then what does he think of the mental state of all these saints and scholars of the ummah whose pronouncements in relation to themselves or their spiritual predecessors hardly differ from those of Hadhrat Ahmadas? If, in view of Hadhrat Ahmad'sas statement that he was given the title of Krsna and the king of the Aryas whose advent the Hindus awaited, Abdul Hafeez considers him to be suffering from hallucinations and alleges that he was mad185, then what does he think of all these other saints and scholars of the ummah who claimed such a large number of appellations for themselves or else attributed these to their spiritual mentors? Would he allege that they al1 suffered from hallucinations and would he denounce them as mad men? One would also enquire of him as to what extent do these saints and scholars of the ummah who claimed such a large number of appellations for themselves or their spiritual mentors fit within Abdul Hafeez's realm of instability and versatility186? Would he then caricature cartoons of these revered personalities in the next edition of his book Two in One as he has done in this edition187? If not, then would his singular prejudice against Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas not prove his enmity towards him? Why then should he take exception to the title of an enemy being applied to him?188



Alas! had Abdul Hafeez been conversant with the Quran and known of the number of appellations with which our beloved Prophet, Hadhrat Muhammad Mustaphasa was honoured by God Almighty, he may have yet refrained from being engaged in such obnoxious exercise to revile another one of God Almighty's apostle, Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas for being honoured with a comparatively insignificant number of appellations. The Holy Quran establishes that Hadhrat Muhammadsa has been honoured with the names and appellations of Muhammad189 and Ahmad190; Rasulallah and Khataman Nabiyeen191; Shaahid, Mubashshir and Naziir192; Hadi and Mundhir193; Da'i 'ilallah and Siraj e Munir194; Muzakki and Muhumul Kitaba wal Hikmah195; Nur196 and Ummi197; Shahiid198 and Muhyii199; Ta Ha200 and Ya Sin20l; Muzzammil202 and Muddaththir203; 'Abd Allah204 and 'Awwal ul Muslimiin205; Rahmatal ul 'aalamiin206 and Burhan207; Hudaanwwa and Rahmatul ul Mu'miniin208; Khuluq e 'Aziim209 and al Kauthar210; 'Asraa bi-'Abdihii211 and Qaaba-qawsay-ni212 and also Hariisun, R'auff and Rahim for his people.213

How does Abdul Hafeez look at these multiple appellations bestowed upon our beloved Prophet, Hadhrat Muhammad Mustaphasa by God Almighty in the light of his assertions against Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas?214 What does the author of Two in One think of this God in heaven Who bestowed such glory upon Hadhrat Muhammadsa and adorned him with such multiple decorations?



It may also interest the author of Two in One to know that beside the names and appellations bestowed upon Hadhrat Muhammadsa by God Almighty in the Holy Quran, our beloved Prophetsa also mentioned several other such honours which he had been invested with by God. According to Hadhrat Jubair ibn Muteimrh, the Apostle of Allahsa stated that he had been given the names al Mahi, al Hashir and al Akib.215 Hadhrat Abu Musa al Asharirh has stated that Hadhrat Muhammadsa also declared that he had been called al Mukaffa, Nabi ur Rahma, Nabi ut Tauba and Nabi ul Malhama.216 According to a report by Hadhrat Abi Saidrh, Allah's Messengersa stated that he had been given the appellations of Sayid e wald e Adam and Shafi.217 Hadeeth literature also indicates that he claimed to have been called the Wasilah and also Hamila e Lawaal Hamd as well as Akramul Awalen wal Akhiraeen.218 Another report states that Hadhrat Muhammadsa declared that he had been honoured with the title of Akhirul Anbiyya219 as well as Muhill and Muharrim. 220

One rests one's case on the question of the names and appellations bestowed upon God Almighty's apostles by Him. But before one proceeds any further to discuss the next issue in Abdul Hafeez's grotesque publication, one must stress that in the opinion of Ahmadi Muslims, every one of these names which were bestowed upon Hadhrat Muhammadsa and the appellations with which he was honoured further enhance the glory of our beloved Prophet'ssa status. However, it is ironic that such Divine acts which propose to honour God Ahmghty's chosen apostles are, in the opinion of Abdul Hafeez an evidence of imbecility.

1. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 2

2. Ibid., p. 3


4.Ibid., p. 6

5. lrfani, Abu al Bashir. The Cunning Chameleon, p. 15

6. Sahih Bukhari, 59.69

7. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Kitabul Bariyyah, p. 85/87, Ruhani Khazain, vol. xiii. pp. 103/105

8. Bustami, [Hadhrat] Abu Yazid. vide. Tadhkirath al Aulia, ch.. xiv, p. 146

9. Sahih Bukhari

10. Talib, [Hadhrat] Ali ibn. vide. Sharh Fusoos al Hukrn, Preface, Sc. viii, p. 32

11 . Sadiq, [Hadhrat] Imam Ja'far. vide. Kitab Mazhar al ,'Ajai'b fin Nikat e Wal Ghara'ib

12. Bustami, [Hadhrat] Abu Yazid. Tadhkirat al Aulia, ch. xiv, p. 151

13. Ibid. vide. Fawaid Faridiyya, p 73

14. Ibid., Tadhkirat al Aulia, ed. 1917, p. 134

15. Rumi, [Hadhrat] Jalal ud Din. Miftah al Ulum, sec. iv, pt. ii, pp,. 25 & 36

16. Arabi, [Hadhrat] Sheikh Muhiyudin ibne. Fatuhat Makiyya pt. 1, p. 1

17. Babu, [Hadhrat] Sultan. vide. Kaleed at Tauheed, p. 194

18. Kharqani, [Hadhrat] Abu al Hasan. Tadhkirat al Aulia ed. 1917, p. 585

19. Attar, Hadhrat Sheikh Farid ud Din. Fawa'id Faridiyya p. 85

20. Halaj, [Hadhrat] Mansur al. vide. Fawaid e Faridiyya, p. 76

21 . Ibid., vide. Anwar e Aulia, pp. 180/1

22. Shibli, [Hadhrat] Abu Bakr. Fawaid e Faridiyya

23. Kalyarl, Sheikh Sabir. Miraj ul Mumineen, pp. 144/45

24. Iqbal, Muhammad. Bang e Dara

25. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, pp. 2/3

26. Ibid.

27. Ibid., p. 3

28. Irfani, Abu al Bashir. The Cunning Chameleon, p. 13

29. Zaheer, Ehsan Elahi, Qadiyaniat, ed. May 73, p. 116

30. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghubm. Anjam Atham, p. 54, Ruhani Khazain, vol. 11, p. 54

31. Al Fazl, vol. 9, p. 96

32. Zaheer, Ehsan Elahi. Qadianiat, ed. 1984, p. 21

33. Dhorat, Muhammad Saleem, Qadianism, p. 6

34. Ahmad, Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam. Haqeeqatul Wahi, p. 86; Ruhani Khazain vol. 22, p. 89

35. Ibid., Arba'een No. iv, p. 32; Ruhani Khazain, vol. 17, p. 385

36. Ibid., Islami Usul ki Philosophy, p. 58, Ruhani Khazain, vol. 10, p. 372

37. Ibid., Lecture Lahore, p. 8, Ruhani Khazain, vd. 20, p. 155

38. Ibid., Haqeeqatul Wahi, p. 86; Ruhani Khazain vol. 22, p. 89

39. 'Abd Ailah, Hadhrat Sheikh Wali al Din Muhammad. Miskat al Masabih

40. Rumi, Hadhrat Jalal al Din, Mathnavi, vol iii, p. 13

41. Shah, Hadhrat Wali Ullah, vide. AI Fauz al Kabeer, p. 8

42. Nanauta Muhammad Qasim. vide. Hujjatul Islam, p. 14

43. Ahmad, Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam, Dafe e Balaa, p. 7, f/n; Ruhani Khazain, vol. 18, p. 227

44. Ahmad, Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam, Tauzeeh e Maram, p. 28; Ruhani Khazain, vol. 3, pp. 65/6

45. Ibid., Tabmmah Haqeeqatul Wahi, p. 144; Ruhani Khazain vol. xxii, p. 582

46. Ibid., Dafa e Balaa, pp.6/7; Ruhani Khazain, vol. 18, pp. 226/28

47. lbid., Haqeeqatul Wahi, p. 86; Ruhani Khazain, vol. xxii, p. 89

48. Irfani, Abu Bashir al. The Cunning Chameleon, p. 13

49. Ibid.

50. Deuteronomy 33.2

51. Habakuk 3.3

52. Matthew 21.33/44

53. Bustami, [Hadhrat] Abu Yazid. vide. Tadhkirat al Aulia, ch. xiv, p. 151

54. Bahu, [Hadhrat] Sultan. vide. Khalid e Tauheed, p. 194

55. Sadiq, [Hadhrat] Imam Ja'far. vide. Kitab Mazhar al 'Ajaib fin Nakt wal Ghara'ib

56. Rumi, [Hadhrat] Jalal ud Din. Miftah al Ulum, sec. iv, pt. ii, p. 36

57. Attar, [Hadhrat] Farid ud Din. Fawa'id Faridiyya p. 85

58. Hallaj, [Hadhrat] Hussain Mansur al. vide. Anwar e Aulia. pp 180/181

59. Shibli, [Hadhrat] Abu Bakr. vide. Fawa'id e Faridiyya

60. Jilani. [Hadhrat] Sayid al Qadir Jilani, Bihjat al Israr, p. 83

64. Ahmad [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Announcement, 20 February, 1886; Tabligh Risalat vol. i, p. 60

65. Ibid.

66. Al Quran 8.17

67. Ali, Abdullah Yusuf. The Holy Quran, Test Translation & Commentary, f/n. 1191, p. 419

68. Al Quran 48.10

69. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. vide. Durre Thamin

70. Ibid. Braheen e Ahmadiyya, vol. i, p. 365; Ruhani Khazain vol. 1, p. 537

71. Ibid

72. Ibid., Anjam e Atham, p. 34; Ruhani Khazain vol. xi, p. 34

73. Ibid.

74. Ibid., Kitabul Bariyyah, Ruhani Khazain, vol. xii, pp. 86/87

75. Ibid., Lecture Lahore, p. 9; Ruhani Khazain, vol. xx, p. 155

76. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One. p. 43

77. Ibid. p. 2

78. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Haqeeqatul Wahi, p. 337; Ruhani Khazain, vol. xxii, p. 350

79. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, Front Cover Page

80. Razi, [Hadhrat] Imam Fakhr ud Din. Tafseer e Kabir, p. 689

81. Al Quran 66.11. Translation, The Holy Quran, Abdullah Yusuf Ali, pp. 1573/4

82. Al Quran 66.12. Translation, The Holy Quran, Abdullah Yusuf Ali, p. 1574

83. Sahih Bukhari, 55.39

84. Zamakshari, [Hadhrat] Imam Mahmud ibn Umar. Kashshaf, vol. 1, p. 302

85. Al Quran 66.10. Tranlation, The Holy Quran, Abdullah Yusuf Ali, p. 1573

86. Dard, [Hadhrat] Khawaja Mir. Risala Dard, p. 211

87. Chishti, [Hadhrat] Khawaja Mu'in ud Din. vide. Diwan Khawaja Ajmeri, o/n. 70, p. 102

88. Ibid.

89. Khan, Imtiaz Muhammad, Maulana Rum, pp. 44/5

90. Tabriz, [Hadhrat] Shams. vide. Kuliyyat Shams Tabriz, p. 292

91. Weekly Khursheed, Sandela. 25 February, 1938, p. 6

92. Rumi, [Hadhrat] Jalal ud Din. Miftah al Ulum, vol. vii, p. 45

93. Ibid.

94. Bustami, [Hadhrat] Abu Yazid. vide. Tadhkirat al Aulia

95. Niazi, Abu Javed. Ibni Arabi, p. 73

96. Arabi, [Hadhrat] Muhiy ud Din ibne. Fatuhat Makkiyya, p. 1, p. 1

97. Shaheed, [Hadhrat] Muhammad Ismail. Najm al Saqib, vol. 2

98. Chishti, Faqir. Muhammad. Tadhkirah Pak, p. 143

99. Ahmad, Shah Niyaz. Diwan e Niaz, p. 44

100. Hasan, Sheikh Mahmud al. Marsiyya

101. Daniel 12.1/9

102. Matthew 24.3/31

103. Laggawati Sutatta. vide. Buddha Dr. Herman Oldenberg, p. 142

104. Bhagavad Gita 4.7/8

105. Sahih Bukhari, vol. 4, bk 55, ch. 44; Sahih Muslim, vol. 1, bk 1, ch. 72

106. Sahih Muslim 72.287

107. Ibid., 72.288

108. Ibid., 72.290

109. Ibid., 72.292

110. Ibid., 72. 289

111. Siddiqui, Abdul Hamid. vide. Explanatory Note 288, Sahih Muslim, vol. i, p. 92

112. Ibid., vide. Explanatory Note 289, p. 92

113. Ibid., vide. Explanatory Note 291, p. 92

114. Asqalani, [Hadhrat] Abu'l Fadl Shihab al Din Ahmad Ibn Ali. Fath al Bari, vol. vii, p. 304/5

115. Ibid., p. 303

116. Usmani, Shabbir Ahmad. Fath al Mulhim, vol. 1, p. 303

117. Sahih Bukhari 88.27

118. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. vide. Tadhkirah, English ed., pp. 220/21

119. Ibid., Lecture Lahore, p. 33; Ruhani Khazain, vol. 20, p. 228

120. Ibid., Tatimma Haqeeqatul Wahi, pp 85. Ruhani Khazain, vol. 22, pp. 521/22

121. Baqr, [Hadhrat] Imam Baqr. Bahar ul Anwar

122. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 2

123. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Al Hakam, vol. x No. 32, September, 1908, p. 1

124. Asafi, Calcutta. 24 January, 1897

125. Azad, Maulana Abul Kalam. Vakeel, Amritsar, May, 1908

126. Fatehpuri, Allama Niaz. Nigar, Lucknow, October, 1960

127. Nadwi, S. Abul Hasan Ali. Qadianism, pp. 4/5

128. Azad, Maulana Abul Kalam. Vakeel, Amritsar, May, 1908

129. Ali, Maulvi Irshad. Dastkari, 18 June, 1899

130. Din, Maulana Bashir ud. Sadiq ul Akhbar, May, 1908

131. Golarvi, Pir Mehr AIi Shah. Al Hakam, 24 June, 1904, p. 5

132. Din, Maulana Bashir ud. Sadiqul Akhbar, Rewari, May, 1908

133. Chishti, Maulvi Noor Muhammad Naqshabai, vide. Maulvi Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Preface to Commentary of the Holy Quran, edition 1934, p. 30

134. Azad, Maulana Abul Kalam. Vakeel, Amritsar, May 1908

135. Din, Maulana Bashir ud. Sadiq ul Akhbar, May, 1908

136. Din, Maulana Sayyid Waheed ud. Aligarh Institute Gazette, June 1908

137. Azad, Maulana Abul Kalam. Vakeel, Amritsar, May 1908

138. Ali, Maulvi Irshad. Dastkari, Amritsar, 18 June 1899

139. Shareef, Maulana Muhammad. Manshoor Muhammadi, Banglore, 25 Rajab, 1300, p. 214

140. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 5

141. Ibid

142. Ibid., pp. 2/3

143. lbid., p. 6

144. Ibid., 19

145. Ibid., p. 52

146. Ibid., p. 3

147. Ibid., p. 5

148. Ibid.

149. Ibid., p. 2/3

150. Talib, [Hadhrat] Ali ibn. vide. Sharh Fusoos al Hukm, Sc. viii, p. 32

151. Sadiq, [Hadhrat] Jaf'ar. vide. Kitab Mazhar al' Ajai'b fin Nikat e Wal Ghara'ib

152. Bustami, [Hadhrat] Abu Yazid. vide. Tadhkirat al Aulia, ch. 151

153. Ibid., vide. Fawa'id Faridiyya, p. 73

154. Ibid., vide. Tadhkirat al Aulia p. 134

155. Rumi, [Hadhrat] Jalal ud Din. Miftah al Ulum, sec. iv, pt. ii, pp. 25 & 36

156. Bustarni, [Hadhrat] Abu Yazid. vide. Tadhkirat al Aulia, ch. 14, p. 146

157. Arabi [Hadhrat] Muhiy ud Din ibne. Fatuhat Makiyya pt. i, p. 1

158. Tabriz, [Hadhrat] Shams ud an. vide. Kuliyyat Shams Tabrizi, pp. 292 & 508

159. Ibid., vide. Diwan Hadhrat Shams Tabriz, p. 6

160. Bahu, [Hadhrat] Sultan. vide. Kaleed e Tauheed, p. 194

161. Kharqani, [Hadhrat] Abu al Hasan. Tadhkirat al Aulia, p. 585

162. Attar, [Hadhrat] Farid ud Din. Fawa'id Faridiyya, p. 85

163. Hallaj, [Hadirat] Hussain Mansur al. vide. Anwar u Aulia pp. 180/81

164. Shibli, [Hadhrat] Abu Bakr. vide. Fawa'id e Faridiyya

165. Ibid., vide. Saif ar Rabbani, p. 100

166. Jilani, [Hadhrat] Sayyid Abdul Qadir. vide. Saif ar Rabbani, p. 100

167. Ibid., Faith ar Rabbani wal faiz ar Rahmani.

168. Rumi, [Hadhrat] Jalal ud Din. Miftah al Ulum, vol. xii, p. 268

169. Ibid., vol. vii, p. 45

170. Ibid.

171. Chishti, [Hadhrat] Khawaja Mu'in ud Din. vide. Diwan Khawaja Ajmeri, p. 102

172. Ibid. vide. Fawa'id as Salikeen, p. 18

173. Sirhind, [Hadhrat] Ahmad. Maktubat, Daftar 111, p. 209

174. 1bid., vide. Tauzak a Jehangir, p. 272

175. Ganj, [Hadhrat] Farid ud Din Shakar, vide. Haqiqat Gulzar Sabiri

176. Attar, [Hadhrat] Khawaja Habibullah. vida. Masnawi Bahr al Irfan, vol. 1, p. 179

177. Shah, Sayyid Wali Ullah. Tafhimat, pt 1

178. Ameer, [Hadhrat] Said. vide. Nazm al Durrar al Silk al Siyar, p. 125

179. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Shah Niaz, Diwan e Niaz pp. 42/44

180. Shaheed, [Hadhrat] Sayyid Muhammad Ismail. Najm al Saqib, vol. ii

181. Kalyari, Sheikh Sabir. Miraj ul Mumineen, pp. 144/45

182. Hasan, Maulvi Mahmud ul Hasan. Kuliyat Shaikh al Hind, pp. 14/17

183. Ibid. Marisiyya

184. Shah, Syed Abdul Habez. Two in One, p. 2

185. Ibid., p. 2

186. Ibid., p. 3

187. Ibid.

188. Ibid., p. 5

189. Al Quran 48.30

190. Ibid., 61.7

191. Ibid., 33.41

192. Ibid., 33.36

193. Ibid., 13.8

194. Ibid., 33.47

195. Ibid., 62.3

196. Ibid., 5.16

197. Ibid., 7.158

198. Ibid., 22.79

199. Ibid., 8.25

200. lbid., 20.2

201. Ibid., 36.2

202. Ibid., 73.2

203. Ibid., 74.2

204. Ibid., 72.20

205. Ibid., 6.164

206. Ibid., 21.108

207. Ibid., 4.170

208. Ibid., 27.78

209. Ibd., 68.5

210. Ibid., 108.2

211. Ibid., 17.2

212. Ibid., 53.10

213. Ibid., 9.128

214. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 213

215. Sahih Bukhari, 56.16

216. Masnad Ahmad, vol. v, p. 395

217. Ibid., vol. 1, p. 1

218. Tirmidhi, Bab uI Munaqib

219. Sunan Nasai, Bab Fazl o Masid al Nabiyya

220. Sahih Muslim, Kitan us Said wa'l Dhaba'ih wa ma Y'ukalu min al Hayawan