Argument from the New Testament

Truth About the Split

Maulawi Muhammad Ali has quoted certain verses of the New Testament to show that when the enemies of the first Messiah accused him of blasphemy by having claimed to be the 'son of God,' the charge was rebutted by the Messiah saying that the name 'son of God' which had been given to him was only metaphorical and had been used in the same sense in which the name 'God' had been used with reference to the previous Prophets. But after the death of Jesus (as), his followers began to call him the 'son of God' in a literal sense, that is, in the same way as we understand the word 'God' to signify the Creator of the universe; and it was in this sense that the Jews accused him that he had claimed the title. From this Maulawi Muhammad Ali proceeds to argue that just as it happened in the case of the first Messiah, even so it was necessary that it should happen, and as a matter of fact, it has actually happened, in the case of the second Messiah. His enemies accused him of having claimed to be a Prophet. This charge he denied explaining that he had been called Prophet only metaphorically. But after his death his followers, like the followers of the first Messiah, began to claim for him prophethood in the same sense in which the claim was attributed to him by his enemies. Such is Maulawi Muhammad Ali’s reading of the parallelism. To me, however, it seems that while Maulawi Muhammad Ali is right in noticing a certain parallelism between the two cases, he has committed an error in the application of the parallelism.

The verses quoted from the New Testament show that the Jews charged Jesus (as) with having claimed to be the 'son of God' in a literal sense. Jesus (as) denies the charge and says that he claims to be the 'son of God' in the sense in which the previous Prophets were called 'God'. After the death of Jesus (as) his followers attributed to Jesus 'Godhood' in the sense implied by his enemies.

With this example before us if we turn to the case of the second Messiah, the first thing we have to inquire into is what was the charge brought against him by his enemies. We find that his enemies charged him with having claimed to be a Prophet with a new law, as will appear from the following quotations from one of his letters published in the Akhbar-e-‘Am, a daily paper of Lahore. (This is the oldest paper of the province. Its editor and proprietor are Hindu gentlemen. In this paper a report had been published to the effect that the Promised Messiah (as) had renounced his claim to be a Prophet. Thereupon, the Promised Messiah (as) addressed a reply to the editor in his own handwriting under date the 23rd May, 1908, i.e. only 2 or 3 days before his death. A few lines from the letter are here quoted. The Promised Messiah (as) wrote:

"In the Akhbar-e-‘Am of the 23rd May, 1908, in the second line of the first column, it has been reported about me, that at the dinner I pronounced a denial of my prophethood. In reference to the same, it should be known that in that meeting what I said was simply this, that I had all along been informing the public through all my writings and declare even now that the accusation, brought against me, is entirely unfounded, namely that I claim prophethood of a kind which entails severance of all my connection with Islam, which in other words means that I claim for myself a substantive prophethood such as leaves no need for me to follow the Holy Qur’an and introduces a new Kalima (formula of creed) and a new Qibla (direction to which to turn our face in prayer) and abrogates the laws of Islam and ignores the authority and example of the Holy Prophet (sa)."

While thus exonerating himself from the charges of his enemies, he proceeded in the very same letter to elucidate his own claim in the following words:

"The grounds on which I claim to be a Prophet amount to this that I have, been vouchsafed the privilege of converse with God, who speaks to and converses with me, answers my questions, uncovers for me things unseen, and discloses to me such secrets of the future as are not opened to any save such as are in special favour with Him. Due to the abundance of such experiences, He has been pleased to call me a Nabi (Prophet). Thus, I am a Nabi by virtue of the command of God and it would be a sin on my part were I to deny the fact."

Again speaking about other prophets (as) he says,

"Among those favours (which they enjoyed) were prophecies and predictions in view of which those former Prophets were called Nabis." (Eik Ghalati Ka Izala).

A study of these quotations will show that the charge brought against the Promised Messiah (as) by his enemies was his alleged claim to be a Prophet with a new law. This charge the Promised Messiah (as) insistently denied. What, he said, he claimed was that he was a Nabi in the sense that knowledge of future events was frequently granted to him, and that it was in this sense that the title of Nabi had been conferred upon Prophets of old.

The above circumstances offer indeed a close parallel to those of the first Messiah, but in such a parallelism, correspondence to those followers of the first Messiah, who after his death began to call him the 'son of God' in the sense wrongly imputed to him by his enemies, was to be sought in those followers of the Promised Messiah (as), who thought him to be a Prophet with a new Law, that being the charge wrongly brought against the Promised Messiah (as) by his opponents. The correspondence could in no way apply to us, because we never called the Promised Messiah (as) a Prophet in the sense imputed by his enemies and persistently denied by himself.

Wrong Application of Analogy.

Was there then ever actually a party which believed the Promised Messiah (as) to be a Nabi with a new law, teaching a new creed and abrogating the Holy Qur’an? On page 15 of The Split, Maulawi Muhammad Ali has himself made mention of the actual existence of such a person. This gentleman, who calls himself an Ahmadi holds the opinion that the Islamic formula should henceforth be read as "La ilaha-Illallah Ahmad Rasuluallah". Thus Maulawi Muhammad Ali has himself borne testimony to the fact of the actual existence of a party which holds that the Promised Messiah (as) was actually a Nabi in the sense imputed by his enemies and persistently denied by himself. Possessing such a knowledge, was it fair and honest on the part of Maulawi Muhammad Ali to apply the analogy to me and my party? For as a matter of fact, as I have already said, the analogy cannot apply to my party at all, but to those who regard the Promised Messiah (as) as a Nabi with a new law and deem it legitimate to insert his name in the formula of the creed. But it has suited his purpose thus deliberately and intentionally to accuse me of something of which he knows me to be perfectly innocent.