AND HADHRAT IBNE MARIAMas
Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad'sas adversaries have often manipulated his statement in relation to him being first named Hadhrat Maryas after which the spirit of Hadhrat Jesusas was infused in him as a result of which he became pregnant by way of metaphor and eventually took birth as Hadhrat Ibne Mariamas. Hence, the author of Two in One also joins the bandwagon to ridicule this spintually charged concept and denounce Hadhrat Ahmadas as an imbecile.1 Nonetheless, before one proceeds to discuss this concept in detail one would quote Abdul Hafeez's own citation of Hadhrat Ahmad'sas experience and expose the fallacy of his analysis. He quotes Hadhrat Ahmadas as having stated:
'He [God] in the third part of Braheen e Ahmadiyya, named me MARY; then, as evident from Braheen e Ahmadiyya, I was developed for two years with the quality of Mary then........ as with MARY [peace be upon her], the soul of JESUS was breathed into me and metaphorically speaking, I became pregnant and finally after many months - which was not more than 10 months - through the inspiration which is mentioned in the end of Braheen e Ahmadlyya Part 4, I was converted from MARY to JESUS. This is how I became Ibne-e-Mariam [or Son of Mary].'2
He then proceeds to analyse this statement and summarise as:
'Meaning first he was made Mary. Then he became pregnant, then after 10 months he was delivered from his own uterus as Jesus, son of Mary. What a logic! The whole building of Qadianism is founded on this ridiculous idea. Everybody can well imagine what sort of religion it is.'3
In the first instance it should be observed that according to this hostile citation itself, Hadhrat Ahmadas did not claim that he was made Mary as allegedly stated by the author of Two in One but that he was named Mary. What could be so objectionable about a person being named Mary by God and why should this be considered ridiculous when the Holy Ouran categorises believers into two categories, those like Assiya, the wife of Pharaoh and those like Hadhrat Maryas. It states:
'And God sets forth as an example to those who believe, the wife of Pharaoh: Behold she said: O my Lord! build for me in nearness to Thee, a mansion in the garden and save me from Pharaoh and his doings, and save me from those that do wrong. And Mary daughter of Imran, who guarded her chastity; and We breathed into [her body] of Our spirit; and she testified to the truth of the words of her Lord and of his Revelations, and was one of the devout [servants].'4
What then is so ridiculous about being named Mary when all believers are, without exception likened to either of these two women and Hadhrat Ahmadas, being of the higher order of believers, was named by God as Mary - Hadhrat Maryas being the higher order of the believers known to the language of the Holy Quran?
Now, if Abdul Hafeez should consider it ridiculous that he, personally, be named Mary as he considers Hadhrat Ahmadas being named after her a ridiculous idea, then maybe he would not object to being called Assiya, the second category of believers known to the Quran. However, if he considers being named Assiya a ridiculous idea also, then his only option would be to be identified with either of the only other two categories of human beings known to the Holy Quran and be named after either of them. The Holy Quran states:
'God sets forth for an example to the unbelievers the wife of Noah and the wife of Lut: They were [respectively] under two of our righteous Servants, but they were false to their [husbands], and they profited nothing before God on their account but were told: Enter ye the Fire along with [others] that enter.'5
Once again, one leaves the choice to the author of Two in One to decide which of the four categories of human beings known to the Quran he would prefer to be identified with and named after. If he considers being named after any four of these women as a ridiculous idea, then he would be suggesting that he is not a human being at all since the Holy Quran does not know of a fifth category of the human species. In that event, may one enquire of Abdul Hafeez as to what is he, if he is not a human being?
The second point which one should note in the citation of Hadhrat Ahmad'sas statement contained in Two in One is that he never claimed to have been made Mary as alleged by Abdul Hafeez but that he was developed for two years with the qualities of Mary. Although a proper translation of Hadhrat Ahmad'sas original statement would have been that 'he was nurtured in the qualities of Mary for two years,' yet, even if one was to accept this linguistically poor translation in the hostile publication, one cannot see what could be so objectionable and ridiculous in being developed as a person for two years with the qualities of Hadhrat Maryas.
This statement by Hadhrat Ahmadas indicates that for a period of as much as two years, he spent his life being invested with the qualities possessed by Hadhrat Maryas, the most prominent of these being her sense of dependence upon the Gracious God, Allah6 and of duty and obligation to Him7; her being purified and chosen above others of her time8; honoured by God Almighty and granted nearness to Him9 and her purity10 and truthfulness.11 One fails to see what is so ridiculous for one to be nurtured in those excellent qualities previously posessed by a righteous and pious person who had been declared by the Holy Quran to be an example for all the righteous and pious people in the world.
Thirdly, the aforementioned citation of Hadhrat Ahmad'sas statement contained in the hostile publication also indicates that the pregnancy being spoken of here was in the metaphoric sense. Hence Abdul Hafeez's vile caricature of a couple with a common pregnant stomach12 and of a pregnant man13 and also his sordid assertion of 'remaining big with Jesus for not more than ten months'l4 and of being 'delivered from one's own uterus'l5 is thoroughly unjustified - there being absolutely no grounds whatsoever in assuming a symbolic representffion to be evidence of the happening of a factual event.
Nonetheless, since the author of Two in One has subjected Hadhrat Ahmad'sas aforementioned spiritual experience of being spiritually born from within himself to such sordid ridicule, what needs to be investigated is whether Islamic thought accepts any such concept wherein a person becomes pregnant metaphorically and gives birth to himself from within himself. Islamic literature indicates that according to Hadhrat Muhammadsa:
'No one shall enter the kingdom of heaven who has not been born twice.'16
What, if one may ask Abdul Hafeez did Hadhrat Muhammadsa mean when he stated that no person shall enter the kingdom of heaven unless born twice? Did he suggest that a person will have to return to one's embryonic state and once again be physically born through the loins of a woman? If the author of Two in One contends that he did, then has Abdul Hafeez taken necessary steps to revert to his prenatal state and be born again through the uterus of whosoever he took his first birth to ensure his safe passage to the kingdom of heaven which, according to the above Hadeeth, none shall enter unless born again? If he has not, then is it possible that he is averse to being reborn and, therefore, content to be excluded from the kingdom of heaven? To every sane person, the aforementioned pronouncement of Hadhrat Muhammadsa does not suggest a second physical birth but as sufic literature indicates, it relates to one's spiritual birth. Hadhrat Shahab ud Din Suharwardirh explained that for one to experience this phenomenon:
'The disciple becomes a part of the master, just as a child is a part of its father in its physical birth. Thus, is the disciple born from its master in its spiritual birth.'17
In view of the aforementioned statement, most sufis of Islam have, before reaching a stage of high spiritual excellence within their own right subjected themselves to the rigorous discipline of discipleship to their masters - to become a part of them and be born of them in their second birth. In that event, one would assume that Khawaja Mu'in ud Din Chishtirh must have become a part of Hadhrat Khawaja Usman Harunirh; Hadhrat Nizam ud Din Auliarh of Hadhrat Baba Farid ud Din Shakar Ganjrh; Hadhrat Jalal ud Din Rumirh of Hadhrat Shams Tabrizrh; Hadhrat Ma'soom Ali Shah Mirrh of Sayid Ali Raza of Delhirh; Hadhrat Shah Ismail Shaheedrh of Hadhrat Sayid Ahmad Shah Barelvirh; Hadhrat Maulana Muhammad Qasim of Nanautarh of Shah Abdul Ghani and Maulvi Abdullah Ghaznavi of Hadhrat Said Ameerrh of Koth - and having initially become a part of their masters they must have been born from within them. Would Abdul Hafeez then consider a crude caricature of two men with a common pregnant abdomen similar to the one of a man and a woman with a common pregnant abdomen found on the cover of his book appropriate for these saints and their disciples since in every one of these instances, the disciples become a part of their respective masters to be born from them as Hadhrat Shahab ud Din Suharwardirh explained they must in their spiritual birth?
Abdul Hafeez's intellectual capacity and spiritual insight are far below the requisite level for him to understand this concept of the second birth of a person aspiring to enter the kingdom of heaven. Nonetheless, the preceding discussion on this question should conclusively establish the validity of the concept of spiritual rebirth being an integral part of Islamic thought. Hence, the only issues which need to be addressed now is whether there is any such concept in Islam where a person, rather than being born in one's spiritual rebirth through a spiritual master can take birth from within one's self and whether Islamic thought subscribes to any such phenomenon where God blows His spirit into an individual whereby one becomes metaphorically pregnant to be born from within one's self in the manner in which Hadhrat Ahmadas stated he did with his statement in Kashti Nuh to the effect that:
'In the third part of Braheen e Ahmadiyya, God had named me Mary and as apparent from it, I was nurtured in the qualities of Mary for two years. When a period of two years lapsed then, as stated on page 496 of the 4th volume of Braheen e Ahmadiyya, the soul of Jesus was infused in me as it was infused in Mary and, in an allegoric sense, I was stated to be pregnant. Thereafter, affer many months not exceeding a period of ten months after this revelation, I was, through a revelation recorded at the end of Braheen e Ahmadiyya on page 556, named Jesus and hence I came to be the son of Mary.'18
If there is any such concept in Islamic thought which accepts that such a phenomenon could occur, then the entire premise of this foul criticism levelled against Hadhrat Ahmadas becomes evidence of Abdul Hafeez's ignorance of Islamic religious knowledge.
Hadhrat Jalal ud Din Rumirh, a noble sage of his time was also the founder of the Jalaali school of sufism. He discussed the concept of spiritual pregnancy at length and stated:
'God confines free spirits into bodies and makes each body pregnant by the spirit. Each of us is a Messiah for the world.'19
The free spirit confined into bodies spoken of here by the venerable saint does not refer to the infusion of that which makes a woman physically pregnant. This should be evident from the above quotation itself. However, if the author of Two in One refuses to accept this assertion that the pregnancy spoken of here is in fact a spiritual pregnancy, then one offers a further explanation of this concept in the words of the aforementioned sage himself who stated:
'The Whole forms a relation with the part and from this, just as a woman receives a sperm from man, the sense of man receives a pearl. The soul of the man then becomes pregnant as did Mary and from this pregnancy is born a Messiah. This Messiah is not the Messiah who lived in the past, but is a Messiah whose glory is not easy to comprehend. When the spirit of God makes pregnant the spirit of man, that spirit then makes the world pregnant. This produces a spiritual revolution and resurrection in the world which is so grand as to defy description.'20
Now, when one refers to Hadhrat Ahmad'sas statement in Kashti Nuh which has been subjected to such ridicule by Abdul Hafeez in his publication, Two in One, one finds that this is exactly the phenomenon which he declared to have experienced. He stated:
'The soul of Jesus was infused in me as it was infused in Mary and, in an allegoric sense, I was stated to be pregnant. Thereafter, after many months, not exceeding a period of ten months after this revelation, I was, through a revelation recorded at the end of Braheen e Ahmadiyya on page 556, named Jesus and hence I came to be the son of Mary.'21
What judgement would the author of Two in One now pronounce against Hadhrat Jalal ud Din Rumirh for having acknowledged the feasibility of a man receiving a pearl from the Whole, i.e., God Almighty, just as a woman receives a sperm from a man and thereafter the man becoming pregnant with the spirit of God as did Hadhrat Maryas and the Messiah being born of this pregnancy? Would he state that Hadhrat Jalal ud Din Rumi'srh idea is ridiculous as he states in relation to Hadhrat Ahmad'sas statement suggesting the same idea?22 Would this petty pir from Gujjo, who has absolutely no appreciation of the beauty of this spiritual concept, state that the whole building of the Jalaali school of thought in sufism is founded on a ridiculous idea as he does in relation to Ahmadiyya Muslim thought on account of a similar statement?23 Would he therefore denounce Hadhrat Jalal ud Din Rumirh as a mad man for having previously subscribed to the same beliefs as Hadhrat Ahmad'sas, as he has had the impertinence to denounce Hadhrat Ahmadas?24 Would the author of Two in One also consider it proper of him to draw a caricature of Hadhrat Jalal ud Din Rumirh depicting him as a pregnant man looking at himself in a mirror questioning why he has been missed from the Guinness Book of Records, similar to the one sketched in his book25 since the founder of the Jalaali school of Sufism subscribed to this concept of a man being made spiritually pregnant by the spirit of God and thereafter being reborn from within himself? Also, he justifies his rude sketch of a man and a woman with a common pregnant stomach on the cover of his publication with the statement:
'To make this belief more simple and understandable at a glance, this title cover has been prepared, which is nothing but an artist's impression of the above quotation, so that these sick people can visualize the basis of their religion.'26
Apparently, the quotation which Abdul Hafeez alludes to above is Hadhrat Ahmad'sas statement in Kashti Nuh in relation to being infused with the spirit of Jesusas and, in the allegoric sense, he became pregnant. But, it has already been shown that according to Hadhrat Jalal ud Din Rumirh, God confines such spirits into individuals to make each body pregnant by the spirit. This spirit of Whole, i.e., God Almighty forms a relation with the part, i.e., the man and from it, just as a woman receives a sperm from man, so does the man receive a pearl from Him. Consequently, these two fuse together to produce a pregnancy and give birth to a Messiah as Hadhrat Maryas became pregnant and gave birth to the Messiahas? Therefore, there is absolutely no difference in the beliefs of the respective founder of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community and the Jalaali School of Sufism in relation to this issue. Would the author of Two in One, in the interest of making Hadhrat Jalal ud Din Rumi'srh beliefs more simple and understandable at a glance, consider it proper for him to caricature a similar artist's impression of Hadhrat Jalal ud Din Rumirh as he has done on the cover page of his publication to allegedly make Hadhrat Ahmad'sas beliefs more simple and understandable at a glance?
In the event that he wishes to argue that Hadhrat Jalal ud Din Rumirh never claimed to have experienced this phenomenon, may one caution him that according to the revered saint 'whether the word of God is from behind the curtain or not, He bestows the very thing which He gave to Mary.'27 He also stated that 'if this veil be lifted from the soul, every one of them would say, I am the Messiah.'28 Apparently, this veil was lifted for Hadhrat Jalal ud Din Rumirh since he not only stated that 'God confines free spirits into bodies and makes each body pregnant by the spirit,'29 but he also declared in relation to himself and the sufis of the Ummah that 'each one of them is a Messiah for the world.'30 He stated:
'I am Jesus, but whoever receives life from my breath lives forever. Those who were brought to life by Jesus dies, but fortunate are they who entrusted their lives to this Jesus.'31
Abdul Hafeez has published this filthy artist's impression on the cover page of his book with the view that those who subscribe to this concept of the spiritual birth of a person from within one's self through the bounty of God should realise how sick they are and also visualise the basis of their religion.32 Would he now draw a similar caricature of Hadhrat Jalal ud Rumirh who held the same view as Hadhrat Ahmadas and who also claimed to have been born as Jesus in a similar manner as Hadhrat Ahmadas so that the author of Two in One may illustrate to those who subscribe to Jalaali sufic thought the state of their mind and the basis of their religion?
This ignorant pir from Gujjo may, to his heart's wont, consider this idea of a person being made spiritually pregnant by the spirit of God and of being born in their second birth from within themselves a ridiculous idea and evidence of imbecility and therefore a subject of obnoxious satire. But this does not alter the fact that most sufis of the ummah subscribed to this concept and many claimed to have been spiritually born an Ibne Mariamas in this manner which is considered ridiculous or sign of imbecility by people of meagre intellectual understanding of matters pertairung to spiritual life. For instance, Hadhrat Khawaja Mu'in ud Din Chishtirh was of the opinion:
'If the Holy Spirit continues to give succour, everyday in the world the Mary of the time would give birth to Jesus.'33
In the opinion of men of understanding, the Mary referred to in this statement does not relate to women in particular nor does the giving of birth to Jesus every day pertain to women bearing children in this world every day who would be named Jesus. It is addressed to believers of the higher order likened unto Hadhrat Maryas by the Quran34 - people who, with the succour of God achieve an inner perfection of the soul like the blessed virgin Mary'sas son whom God gave manifest signs and strengthened with the spirit of holiness.35 Hence, the patron saint of Ajmeer Sharif stated in relation to himself:
'Every moment, the Holy Spirit breathes into Mu'in. So it is not I who says this, but in fact I am the second Jesus.'36
This Holy Spirit he claimed to being breathed into him every moment has been spoken of in the Quran as being breathed into Hadhrat Maryas also as either His Spirit37 or else His Word38 as a result of which she became pregnant and delivered a son named Hadhrat Isa ibne Mariamas.39 And, this Spirit or Word of God which was breathed into Hadhrat Maryas has been further explained by Hadhrat Jalal ud Din Rumirh who stated that:
'Whether the word of God is from behind the curtain or not, He bestows the very thing He gave to Mary.'40
Now, when the testimony of the Quran and Hadhrat Jalal ud Din Rumi'srh explanation are read in conjunction with Hadhrat Khawaja Mu'in ud Din Chishti'srh declarations, one is obliged to assume that the Holy Spirit which he maintained could enable the 'Mary of her time to give birth' and which he stated was being 'breathed into him every moment' must be the very thing which God gave unto Mary and this is how Hadhrat Khawaja Mu'in ud Din Chishtirh came to be the second Jesus.
What judgement would Abdul Hafeez pronounce against Hadhrat Khawaja Mu'in ud Din Chishtirh for being born a second Jesusas through the Holy Spirit being breathed into him? Would he state that the revered patron saint of Ajmeer Sharif was delivered from his own uterus as the author of Two in One has had the impertinence to state Hadhrat Ahmadas was?4l Would he assert that the whole building of Hadhrat Khawaja Mu'in ud Din Chishti'srh beliefs are founded on a ridiculous idea as he asserts Hadhrat Ahmad'sas beliefs are founded on for expressing the same idea?42 Would he denounce Hadhrat Khawaja Mu'in ud Din Chishtirh as a mad man for having previously subscribed to the same beliefs as Hadhrat Ahmadas, as he is seen to have denounced Hadhrat Ahmadas in his publication?43
One would also draw the attention of the author of Two in One to the vile caricature of a pregnant man looking into a mirror asking why he has been missed by the Guinness Book of Records44 and ask him that since Hadhrat Khawaja Mu'in ud Din Chishtirh was also born a second Jesusas from within himself after the Holy Spirit was breathed into him. Would this pir of Gujjo now consider such a sordid caricature of Hadhrat Khawaja Mu'in ud Din Chishtirh to be in order in his future publications of Two in One? Furthermore, since Hadhrat Khawaja Mu'in ud Din Chishtirh declared that the Holy Spirit which could enable the Mary of her time to give birth to a Jesus every day was being breathed into him every moment and consequently, this is how he became Jesus, would Abdul Hafeez now consider it proper for him to sketch a similar artist's impression of Hadhrat Khawaja Mu'in ud Din Chishtirh depicting him as a man and a woman with a common pregnant stomach on the cover page of his future editions of Two in One? Would that not, in his opinion make the beliefs of Hadhrat Khawaja Mu'in ud Din Chishtirh more simple and understandable at a glance and also illustrate to the millions of people who hold the patron saint of Ajmeer Sharif in high esteem, to visualise the mental state of their mind and the basis of their beliefs?
Among other Muslim sufis, Hadhrat Shams ud Din Tabrizrh claimed to be the spirit which was breathed into Mary and the soul which was the life of Jesus and the breath of Jesus.45 Hence, Hadhrat Jalal ud Din Rumirh referred to him as Hadhrat Maryas and Hadhrat Jesusas.46 Hadhrat Abu Yazid Bustamirh also claimed to be Hadhrat Jesusas47 and so was Hadhrat Sayyid Ahmad Shah Barelvirh declared him by Hadhrat Muhammad Ismail Shaheedrh.48 Hadhrat Muhiy ud Din Ibne Arabirh called his spiritual mentor Isa ibne Mariam49 and in recent times Maulvi Rashid Ahmad Gangohi was given the appellation of Jesus by the scholars of Deaband.50 This is a tip of the iceberg and in the interest of brevity one is not able to cite numerous other examples where a large number of saints and scholars of the ummah have either claimed the appellation of Hadhrat Jesusas for themselves or else have had this bestowed upon them. Yet, none of them were born the son of Hadhrat Maryas. Hence, the only manner in which they could have become Jesus is through undergoing this phenomenon of God infusing the spirit of Jesus in them as a result of which they came to be pregnant in an allegoric sense to eventually be born as Ibne Mariam. It is on account of a universal acknowledgement of this concept that Hadhrat Khawaja Mir Dardrh is reported to have stated that 'every perfect man, by the all encompassing power of God, is the Jesus of his time.'51
One would now leave it to Abdul Hafeez to determine for himself whether he considers all these sufis of the ummah who claimed to be Jesus to be suffering from hallucinations and mad men as he considers Hadhrat Ahmadas to be.52 One would also let him consider if he thinks it proper for him to depict them as pregnant men looking into the mirror begging a question as to why has the Guinness Book of Records missed them.53 The author of Two in One is seen to have justified his sordid caricature of a man and a woman with a common pregnant abdomen as being merely an artist's impression of Hadhrat Ahmad'sas statement in relation to him being first named Mary after which the soul of Jesus was infused into him and he was eventually born as Ibne Mariam.54 He has then invited Ahmadi Muslims to suggest a more appropriate picture for the cover of his book if this sordid one is found offensive while promising to destroy all the existing copies of his book and publish a new edition, inclusive of an apology, with the suggested picture.55 In that event, rather than suggest anything to him, one would let him tax his integrity and determine whether drawing rude caricatures of all these sufis depicting them as half men and half women, sharing a common pregnant abdomen is proper for the future editions of his book.56 If not, then would the pir of Gujjo explain his refusal? Would such a caricature of all the aforementioned sufis not, in his opinion, illustrate to their respective followers, how sick they are as he alleges Ahmadi Muslims are? Would it not allow them to visualise the basis of their religion as he states this rude cartoon has been drawn to allow Ahmadi Muslims to visualise the state of their religion?57 And finally, would he also consider it proper to refer to them as the Don Quixote of their respective cities as he has the impertinence to refer to Hadhrat Ahmadas as such58 for believing that a man can become spiritually pregnant by the spirit of God and thereafter be born from within one's self? If not, then would Abdul Hafeez not be giving evidence of his singular bias against Hadhrat Ahmadas and therefore his enmity towards him? Why then does he take exception to the appellation of an enemy on the cover page of the Mubahala?
While the author of Two in One is considering these questions, one would bring to his notice that this entire concept of being named Mary and the soul of Jesus being infused in one and one being born as Ibne Mariam, initially recorded and explained in Braheen e Ahmadiyya by Hadhrat Ahmadas was regarded as being within the accepted conventions of Islamic thought by none other than Abdul Hafeez's patron saint - Maulvi Sanaullah Amritsari who having studied Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad'ssa explanation of this concept, stated:
'According to the approved conventions the meanings of the explanations given by Mirza Sahib should be accepted as correct.'59
Since Maulvi Sanaullah Amritsari never claimed to have experienced a phenomenon of such spiritual excellence, it would be unfair to ask Abdul Hafeez if he would consider it proper to depict him in his caricatures. Yet, he is seen by his aforementioned statement to subscribe to the feasibility of this phenomenon taking place and hence one would only ask him if he would now care to denounce his own spiritual mentor for subscribing to a ridiculous idea and also accuse him of madness? Furthermore, since Maulvi Sanaullah Amritsari accepted the Islamic basis of this concept and Abdul Hafeez does not, does that not make the author of Two in One a disbeliever in Islamic concepts. Why then does he take exception to the appellation of a disbeliever on the cover page of the Mubahala? A liar he has sufficiently been proved in the preceding chapters. Why then should he take exception to these three appellations being applied to him.
Finally, one might recall Abdul Hafeez's attention to the fact that his charges of insanity against a commissioned apostle of God Almighty is not something unknown to the history of religion. It is customary for disbelievers to accuse God Almighty's righteous servants of suffering from hallucinations and of madness and the Quran gives sufficient evidence of such charges being levied against God's Messengers by disbelievers from the beginning of the history of mankind. Hence, the Holy Quran states that the disbelievers said to Hadhrat Noahas:
'He is only a man possessed. Wait [and have patience] with him for a time.'60
As regards Hadhrat Hudas, the Holy Quran states that the disbelievers said to him:
'We say nothing but that [perhaps] some of our gods may have seized thee with imbecility.'61
Hadhrat Salihas was also accused of the same by the disbelievers and according to the Holy Quran, they said to him:
'Thou art only one of those bewitched!'62
The same fate was suffered by Hadhrat Mosesas. The Holy Quran states that the arch believer of that age, Pharaoh stated to the Israelites:
'Truly, your apostle who has been sent to you is a veritable madman!'63
The Holy Prophet of Islam, Hadhrat Muhammadsa was also accused as such by the disbelievers. Hence, the Holy Quran commanded him to declare:
'I admonish you on one point: that ye stand up before God, [it may be] in pairs, or [it may be] singly, and reflect [with yourselves]: Your companion is not possessed: he is no less than a Warner to you, in face of terrible penalty.'64
Such allegation of being possessed and seized with imbecility; of being bewitched and madness continue to be levied against God's commissioned apostles to this day and age. Hence, one observes that Hadhrat Jesusas is accused of, God forbid, experiencing delusions65 and Hadhrat Muhammadsa of, God forbid, experiencing strange visions66 by the kuffar. In accusing Hadhrat Ahmadas of suffering from hallucinations and of madness, this ignorant pir of Gujjo is only giving evidence of his affiliation with the disbelievers since he is following the sunnah of the disbelievers who have traditionally accused God's apostles of suffering from hallucinations and of madness. Furthermore, these charges against Hadhrat Ahmadas being void of any truth, Abdul Hafeez is proving himself to be a personified liar also and an enemy of Hadhrat Ahmadas for falsely accusing him of something he was not. And yet, the author of Two in One has the audacity to take offence to the appellation of a liar, a disbeliever and an enemy being stated on the Mubahala challenge. If he is not a liar who lies through his teeth against the beliefs of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community; a disbeliever who disbelieves in the validity of Islamic concepts and an enemy who attempts to manipulate some perfectly Islamic statements of Hadhrat Ahmadas to his detriment, then what is he?