Right Application of Analogy

Truth About the Split

Now, with regard to this remarkable gentleman (Muhammad Zahiruddin, vide pages 12-17 of The Split) and his relations in a certain place, he writes about me as follows: "The said Miyań Sahib (referring to me) regards the Promised Messiah (as) as a Nabi and a Rasul, who brought no new law and followed the law of a previous Prophet, and shrinks from practically following the commands and prohibitions contained in the Promised Messiah’s (as) revelations, and refuses to regard the Promised Messiah (as), agreeably to the purport of his writings, as a Nabi and continues to persist in his mistaken views." At another place he writes: "Contrary to the opinion held by the whole of the Ahmadiyya Community, it is my belief that the Promised Messiah (as) not only made the people acknowledge him to be a Prophet without a law, but did clearly make a claim of being a Prophet with a new law." About the

Qibla, Muhammad Zahiruddin writes: "The same revelation viz".

"Adopt the seat of Abraham as thy place of prayer "was vouchsafed also to Hadrat Mirza Sahib, (i.e. the Promised Messiah (as)) the only difference being that in the Holy Qur’an the name 'Abraham' referred to the Abraham who built the Kaaba whereas in the revelation of Hadrat Mirza Sahib the name referred to himself, and further that the mosque of Haram was substituted in the latter case by Qadian. Thus when he declared it illegal (for his followers) to pray behind other Muslims, the reason was not that there was any difference between their prayer and that of his own followers, nor that the Maulawis had pronounced a fatwa of heresy against him, but the underlying motive was to create a party in preparation for the ultimate change of the Qibla".

It is clear from these extracts that the writer is an exponent of the view that Hadrat Mirza Sahib was a Prophet with a new law and had set up for his followers a new Qibla (viz. Qadian), in which direction, therefore, his followers ought to turn their faces when saying their prayers, and that they ought also to substitute his name in the formula of faith. The extracts also go to show that I and my party are opposed to him in such views. It will thus appear that the analogy which the author of The Spilt has sought to establish between my party and the followers of the first Messiah exists, if anywhere, in the party composed of the above mentioned gentleman and two or three others who share his views. As for ourselves, we believe in the prophethood of the Promised Messiah (as) in the same sense in which he himself claimed the title. In the notice named Eik Ghalati Ka Izala published by the Promised Messiah (as), he says, "In all my writings wherein I have denied being a Nabi or a Rasul, I have done in the sense that I have not brought any new book, nor was I a new substantive Prophet. Nevertheless, as I had received spiritual blessing from my leader the Holy Prophet (sa) and been given his name, and been gifted by God with knowledge of future events. I was indeed a Rasul and Nabi though without a new law. I have never denied being a Nabi of the latter kind, and since it was in this sense that I was called a Nabi and Rasul by God, I do not even now deny being called Nabi and Rasul in such a sense". We call God to witness that it is exactly in this sense that we believe in the prophethood of the Promised Messiah (as), and even our enemies, in spite of thousands of false charges which they are apt to bring against us, will not venture to deny this statement. The case of the followers of the first Messiah was far otherwise. They did not accept him to be the "Son of God" in the same sense in which that title was claimed by that teacher. There is, therefore, no point of resemblance between ourselves and them. We may indeed be compared to that group of men who were among the true followers of the first Messiah, whose praise has been mentioned in the Holy Qur’an. The misguided followers of the first Messiah may of course be compared to that section of men who believe the Promised Messiah (as) to be a Prophet with a new Law.

What, however, is extremely surprising to us is to see that in spite of all these facts, this last named part seems to be in special favour with Maulawi Muhammad Ali and his friends. A common antagonism towards me seems to have served as a bond of union between them. Muhammad Zahiruddin was made a member of the advisory committee, which was formed at Lahore after the death of Khalifatul Masih I (ra) . (vide the Paigham-e-Sulh of 24th March, 1914) and his articles against me found a place in Maulawi Muhammad Ali’s magazine called the Al-Mahdi. They have since continued to have frequent interviews and Muhammad Zahiruddin reports that Maulawi Muhammad Ali once offered to employ him in the service of his Anjuman, on condition that he would not preach his views openly by notices and lectures, but he would, of course be free to ventilate them in private. But this is not all. The Lahore Anjuman (presided over by Maulawi Muhammad Ali) allowed Muhammad Zahiruddin on the occasion of their annual conference of 1918 to appear on their stage and to speak in support of his peculiar views. Here then is a most inexplicable paradox. Maulawi Muhammad Ali charges my party with sharing the views of Muhammad Zahiruddin. But all Zahir’s connections are with Maulawi Muhammad Ali and Maulawi Sahib’s connections are with Zahir. Such a union only illustrates the old adage "Birds of a feather flock together." Both of them are bent upon the destruction of the Ahmadiyya Movement. Both are, therefore, willing to act in concert, because although they differ regarding the means to be employed they both agree on their common end.

New Testament Parallel Proves the

Promised Messiah (as) a Prophet

Before, however, I leave this point, I think it worthwhile to point out that the verses quoted by Maulawi Muhammad Ali from the Gospels, far from proving any resemblance between my party and those followers of Jesus (as) who unduly magnified his rank, furnish rather an additional proof of the prophethood of the Promised Messiah (as). To further elucidate this point, I would repeat that the verses go to show that the enemies of Jesus (as) accused him of having 'made himself a god' (to be Son of God meant to the Jews the same as to be God). In reply Jesus (as) asked them whether it was not written in the Bible that they (the Prophets) were gods. If therefore men who were only Prophets had been called gods, how could it be a blasphemy to call oneself Son of God? From this Maulawi Muhammad Ali concludes, and he is right in his conclusion, that Jesus (as) called himself 'son of God' in one sense while his enemies accused him of having claimed godhood in another sense of the word. As a matter of fact, Jesus (as) claimed to be god in the same sense in which the Prophets before him were called gods. As Maulawi Muhammad Ali writes on page 5 of The Split, "He (Jesus (as)) says that before him those who received the word of God were called gods though they were men".

Let us now look at the case of the Promised Messiah (as). He himself says that his enemies accused him of having claimed prophethood in the sense of being the founder of a new Law. (Vide letter published in the Akhbar-e-‘Am already quoted). This charge corresponds to that which the Jews brought against Jesus (as), namely that he claimed godhood in the sense of being actually the Deity or His partner, both of which were blasphemies. The Promised Messiah (as) denies the charge of his enemies and says that he never claimed prophethood in the sense ascribed to him by them. This corresponds to the denial of Jesus (as) that claimed to be 'son of God' in the sense ascribed by the Jews. Then again the Promised Messiah (as) adds that the meaning which his enemies assigned to the word Nabi was incorrect; because, although it is true that the Prophets who promulgated new Laws were rightly called Ambiya’, yet the word was not limited in its application to such men, but was applicable and had been actually applied to other people who promulgated no new Laws. In fact, according to the Promised Messiah (as), the word Nabi, in its true significance, did not bear any such restricted meaning. He says, "Among the Israelites there have been several Ambiya’ to whom no Law was revealed. They only announced prophecies which they received from God and which served to establish the truth and prestige of the Mosaic religion. It was these prophecies that entitled them to be called Ambiya’. The same is the case with my mission. If I am not to be called a Nabi, what other distinctive word is there which will distinguish me from other recipients of Divine revelation?" (Vide Diary published in The Badr, dated the 5th March 1908). Similarly in Eik Ghalati Ka Izala he writes: "Remember this for certain that for this Umma (followers of Muhammad (sa) ) it is promised that, they will be awarded all those favours which were ever granted to any Nabi or Siddiq.

Among these favours were prophecies and predictions, in view of which the former Prophets were called Ambiya’. "In other words, the Promised Messiah (as) says to his opponents that he was not a Nabi in the sense they ascribed to that word, but he was a Nabi in the sense of the word in which the former Prophets were called Ambiya’. This answer of the Promised Messiah (as), it may again be seen, is quite analogous to that made by Jesus (as), viz. that, he was god in the sense in which the former Prophets were called gods. This is obviously the sense of Jesus’ (as) answer as has been admitted by Maulawi Muhammad Ali himself in the following words: "Jesus (as) applied to himself the words 'son of God' in the same sense in which others before him were called gods". (The Split, page 6.)

Such being the views of Jesus (as), it necessarily followed that those followers of Jesus (as) who called him God or son of God in a sense different from that in which the Prophets before him were called gods, were misguided and mistaken. Pursuing the same line of reasoning, what must one think of those people, who after a similar answer from the Promised Messiah (as) viz. that he was a Nabi in the same sense of the word in which the former Prophets were called Ambiya’, would still persist in calling him a Nabi in a sense different from that in which the prophets (as) of Israel and all previous Prophets were called Ambiya’? And is this not what is now being done by Maulawi Muhammad Ali and his partisans? The answer is obvious and there can be little doubt as regards the views of these men.