The Two Messiahs Contrasted

Truth About the Split

It is no doubt true that as a necessary corollary of the fact that the Promised Messiah (as) was a countertype of Jesus (as), a certain number of the former’s followers like those of the latter were destined to deviate from the right path, but that event is not obviously what is referred to in the prophecy we now have under consideration. The secession from among the followers of the Promised Messiah (as) was a comparatively minor and insignificant event, something like what happened at the time of the Holy Prophet (sa) . In the latter case the bulk of the followers of the Holy Prophet (sa) continued to adhere to the right path and only an inconsiderable number turned away from it, while contrary was the case with the followers of Moses (as), the bulk of whom failed him at the last hour. Accordingly we might expect that in the case of the Messiah (as) of the Muhammadan dispensation the major portion of his followers would remain loyal to truth, and only a comparatively insignificant section would deviate from the same; for while we may remember that the Promised Messiah (as) was a countertype of the first Messiah, we cannot forget that he was a representative, not of the Mosaic, but of the Muhammadan dispensation, and that in him we had, not only a counter-type of Jesus but also a likeness of Muhammad (as).

The Promised Messiah (as) himself writes: "Then coming in the name of Jesus (as) I too should have met the fate of the Cross, had I not borne the name of Ahmad—in which lies the secret of all my power."

What is meant by the above verse is that from the fact that he was the counter-type of Jesus (as) it might have been expected that the Promised Messiah (as) would undergo all the sufferings which were endured by the first Messiah, and he too would be put upon the Cross. But as the Promised Messiah (as) bore also the name of Ahmad, a fact which was to determine all the circumstances of his case, his career turned out to be different from that of the first Messiah. Traditions reported from the Holy Prophet (sa) also support the same view, viz. that in the Reformer who was to come in the latter days, the aspect of Messiah-ship was to be subordinate to the aspect of Mahdi-ship. The Hadith has it that the Mahdi would lead the prayers before the Messiah. When we read this Hadith along with the other reported Hadith—La Mahdi illa ‘Isa [there is to be no Mahdi (in the time of the Messiah) save the Messiah himself], we can easily realise the fact that by assigning the leadership to the Mahdi it was clearly signified that the function of Mahdi would be more important than the function of Messiah. Actual events also bear out the same interpretation, since we may see that the success which has attended the Promised Messiah (as) has far surpassed that which attended the labours of the, first Messiah.

Refutation of Maulawi Muhammad Ali’s Account of Ahmadiyya Dissensions.

After dealing with the alleged resemblance between my Jama‘at and the followers of Jesus (as), Maulawi Muhammad Ali proceeds to describe the history of dissensions in the Ahmadiyya Movement, and endeavours to show how after the death of the Promised Messiah (as) a certain conjunction of circumstances gradually led the present writer to introduce changes in my former beliefs.