The Hadith of the Holy Prophet(sa) that Allah, the Exalted shall raise in this Umma a Mujaddid at the beginning of each century to revive its faith, is generally recognized to be a true and authentic. But, the Holy Prophet(sa) has given so many glad-tidings as to the advent of the great Mahdi(as) at the beginning of the Fourteenth Century, that it is impossible for a seeker to deny them. It was also foretold that when he makes his appearance, the Ulema shall pronounce him to be a disbeliever and might as well kill him.
Hence, Maulawi Siddiq Hassan Sahib also admits on page 363 and 382 of Hujaj-ul-Kiramah, that the Ulema of the time, who will be accustomed to following the jurists and the religious elders, after hearing the teachings of the Mahdi, will say that he is destroying Islam. They shall rise against him and shall charge him with infidelity and perdition according to their old practice. That is, they will call him an infidel, an errant, and Dajjal but they will also be fearful of the formidable sword. The Ulema will be his most bitter enemies because with his advent their authority and leadership will decline. Were there no 'sword', they would have surely given an edict for his murder. Even if they accept him, they shall still harbour malice against him in their hearts. The elite shall not accept him as readily as the common people. The sages, who are the recipients of visions and revelation, shall pledge their allegiance to him.
In this statement, Siddiq Hassan Sahib misunderstood the meaning of the word 'sword', by saying that if there were no fear of the 'sword' of the government, they would have murdered him. To ascribe the 'sword' to Mahdi(as) is to misconstrue the true intent of the Hadith. If the Mahdi(as) had the sword in his hand, then how could these cowardly Ulema, despicably avaricious for the pelf and pomp of this world, proclaim him to be an accursed, an infidel and Dajjal? They would rather fawn upon the infidels and destroy their faith. How could this indignant group call a believer an infidel and Dajjal having seen the fury of his glittering sword? Besides, Siddiq Hassan Sahib has made an unwarranted addition that the deniers of that Promised Imam will be the Hanafites, the Conformists and not they—the Muwahhids. The fact is that these Muwahhids are the foremost denigrators while the Muqallidin [Hanifites] have simply followed suit.
Again, Siddiq Hassan Sahib is highly mistaken in thinking that the Promised Imam is Muhammad bin ‘Abdullah Mahdi, because, according to him, the Promised Imam is a blood-thirsty Mahdi and a warrior. Besides, according to these Ulema, a loud voice will be heard from the heaven in support of that Promised Imam and he will perform great miracles. Jesus(as) will descend from the heaven and take the oath of allegiance at his hand and join his followers and he (the Mahdi(as)) will have the sword to punish the disbelievers.
If that were true, how would the Ulema, be they Muwahhid or Muqallid, dare denounce him an errant, unbeliever, infidel and Dajjal? Actually, this prophecy is about that humble Mahdi(as) whose Kingdom is not of this world and who has nothing to do with swords. If, as Siddiq Hassan Khan Sahib says, the blood-thirsty Mahdi will kill people for even trifling innovations, then how will the Ulema escape punishment at his hands after calling him an infidel, Dajjal and disbeliever? Do the Ulema have courage enough to write an edict about a powerful king and call him Kafir (disbeliever) and Dajjal, especially when they see blood dripping from his sword?
The fact is that Ahadith mention many kinds of Mahdis and the Ulema have created a mess by amalgamating these Ahadith. Amalgamation of Ahadith coupled with lack of deliberation has made the matter obscure to them. Otherwise, the Mahdi(as) of the fourteenth century, who is also called Sultanul Mashriq(as),1 has been distinctly mentioned in Ahadith. His Jihad is spiritual and he has been sent as ‘Isa(as) (Jesus) because domination of Dajjaliyyat.
On page 387 of the Hujaj-ul-Kiramah, there is a quotation of Hafiz Ibnul Qayyam from Manar, which says that there are four sayings concerning the Mahdi, one of these is that the Mahdi(as) is Ibn-e-Maryam(as) (son of Mary). My stand is that since it has been proved with decisive arguments that the Messiah ‘Isa Ibn-e-Maryam(as) has died, the Promised Messiah(as) is his reflection and his specimen, and that he has been sent and given his name due to the prevalence of Dajjaliyyat, it should, therefore, be evident to everyone that he is the Mahdi(as) as well as the Messiah(as) of the time. When any noble and righteous person can be called 'Mahdi', why cannot he, who, through complete self-purification, has attained the status of being a pure soul and has been given the name of ‘Isa(as) and Ruhullah, be called Mahdi(as)? I am extremely perplexed as to why these Ulema are vexed by the word ‘Isa. In Islamic literature, even detestable things are named ‘Isa. For instance, in the book Burhan-e-Qati‘a, under the letter '‘Ain', we read, that ‘Isa Dihqani is a metaphor for wine made from the grapes and ‘Isa Nau Maha is the bunch of grapes from which wine is made. Wine made from grapes is also called ‘Isa Nau Maha. Now, it is outrageous that these Ulema should name a wine ‘Isa and not hesitate to mention this in their books and consider it permissible that an abominable thing and a holy man should have the same appellation, while the person whom God Almighty, by His grace and power, names ‘Isa(as), as opposed to the prevalent Dajjaliyyat, should be considered by them to be an infidel.
1 The Monarch of the East. [Translator]