Introduction

Maulawi Muhammad Ali has recently published a book entitled The Split in which he has discussed the issues which have lately caused a division in the ranks of the Ahmadiyya Community.

The Split

The Split has been widely circulated in such parts of India where Urdu is not generally understood and in such countries outside India where the Movement has just begun to spread, and its raison d’etre, as stated by the author, is that he wants to appeal to the Ahmadiyya Community to make one united effort: to discard those false doctrines which, according to him, have been newly promulgated by me. Thus he writes: “I appeal to the good sense and moral courage of the Ahmadiyya Community to denounce these false doctrines with one voice before they take root like the false doctrines attributed to the Messiah.”

Published in English

It seems to me, however, that the object of publishing the book is quite different from the one here described, and this conclusion will be forced on every intelligent reader who cares to peruse its pages. For, in the first place, the book has been written in English, whereas the vast majority of the followers of Ahmad (as) at present are his own countrymen, who joined him during his lifetime and lived in his company and heard his words as they fell from his lips, and read his books in the language in which he wrote them. Up to now the number of such Ahmadis is in excess of that of all the Ahmadis put together who live in other countries. English is not the mother tongue of any of them; nor do they, with a very few exceptions which do not amount even to one per cent of the total, read or understand that language.

Was it then the author’s solicitude for the progress of the Ahmadiyya Movement and his love for Islam, that impelled him to bring out this book? Maybe, the spread of beliefs taught by me which, according to him, were extremely offensive and provocative, had resulted in arresting the progress of the Movement, in countries outside the borders of India, or maybe, my dangerous teachings had served to alienate people from the Movement, so that in the interest of the Movement and for the sake of Islam, the Maulawi Sahib was compelled to inform the people at large that the beliefs promulgated by me were false and contrary to the teaching of the Promised Messiah (as) who taught everything in strict conformity with Islam and whose views agreed with the views entertained by the Maulawi Sahib’s part. Let us remember, however, that in those countries outside India, e.g. Ceylon, Mauritius, Africa, etc. where Ahmadiyyat has obtained a footing, there has never been, nor is there now, any mission working on behalf of the party of the Maulawi Sahib. Whatever progress Ahmadiyyat has made in those countries has been accomplished in my time and through my instrumentality. I speak not, however in self-praise. I speak only of a favour which the Lord bestows on whomsoever He pleases. God had ordained this blessing and this reward for my humble efforts. At a time, when internal dangers had seriously imperilled the life of the Community and friend and foe had alike begun to think that the Movement had come to the end of its days, God granted to me the power to discharge even towards countries outside India hitherto unaware of the existence of the Movement my duty and obligation to bring to their notice the inestimable favour which God had vouchsafed to the world by raising the Promised Messiah (as). Thus, whatever new adherents the Movement has secured in foreign countries, have been secured in spite of those “narrow views” which the Maulawi Sahib has been pleased to attribute to me. Therefore, it cannot be said that the publication of his book was prompted either by the solicitude of the author for the advancement of the Movement or by an apprehension entertained by him that the propagation of my views would retard the progress of the Movement.

There remains, however, another possible motive. Can it be that the Maulawi Sahib was moved to write this book by the thought that although it was through my efforts that the Movement had obtained a footing in foreign lands, yet publication by the Maulawi Sahib of the “true” doctrines was likely to accelerate its spread at least in foreign lands? But what are the actual facts? In spite of the “strange and paradoxical” nature of my views, thousands of people year after year continue to enter my Bai‘at (oath of spiritual allegiance) even in India which, in the matter of religion, may still be regarded as the teacher of all Eastern Asia and where in comparison with other countries there prevails a more active interest in, and a wider diffusion of, the knowledge of religion. In contrast to this, it may be noticed that the Maulawi Sahib and his friends who, to quote his own words, form “a large number of the educated members of the Community” and who are men of great “moral courage” have within the last eight years been unable to secure even as many converts as have sometimes entered my Bai‘at in the course of a single month—among whom are to be counted men of the highest attainments both in secular and religious learning.

Aim of The Split

The only reason which can therefore be assigned to this publication, is the envy and jealousy which the Maulawi Sahib entertains towards me personally and which makes him very unwilling to see any success attend my endeavours. He has advanced so far in his envy that he seems to have ceased to care for any harm which his activities against me may cause to the general interest of Islam and Ahmadiyyat. Thus, knowledge of the success which continues to attend my humble efforts both in Northern India and elsewhere, has induced him, all other means failing, to resort to the device which he has tried on many occasions in North India—the device, namely, to present my principles in the worst possible guise, and in language calculated to excite the ire of non-Ahmadis, and to push this propaganda into distant lands with many a false story added to it. His object is to create in the people at large such an active hostility against the Movement that it should prevent them from joining its fold, and that it should make worse the lot of those few earnest souls, who in places far away from the centre of the Movement and hemmed in on all sides by opponents had, in spite of very adverse circumstances, responded to the call of the Divine Summoner. Such a consummation will perhaps bring solace to the heart of the Maulawi Sahib, and though it may mean death and destruction of the true Islam, it will at the same time spell a failure of my endeavours. (May God preserve us from such an eventuality.)

The Maulawi Sahib, however, appears to have overlooked the fact that men who join a Divine movement at least in its earlier days, are generally such as are prepared to stake their lives when they accept the truth, and no difficulty can persuade them later to swerve from its path. In the case of the Companions of the Prophet Muhammad (sas), did not the unsheathed swords of their enemies fail in their attempt to turn them from their path or to obliterate them from the face of the earth? Similarly also in the case of the Imam of this age, did not the utmost efforts of his enemies fail to grind to dust the men who followed him? And in the light of such instances, does the author of The Split expect that the fire of opposition which it has been his endeavour to kindle, will succeed in burning to ashes Ahmadis in distant lands or that they will either be destroyed or compelled to renounce the truth they have accepted? No, God willing, this will never come to pass. Every man who possesses a grain of faith knows for certain that truth can never thus be overthrown. To one who has once accepted the truth all difficulties appear as nothing compared with the abandonment of truth.

Would that the author of The Split had gained wisdom from the experience of the failures which have attended his activities in India! The number of men who have joined his following as a result of his endeavours for the last eight years, has been exceeded many times over by Ahmadis who have entered my Bai‘at and many of them are men, who even in worldly rank and position are in no way inferior to any of his followers; and then out of his followers also a very considerable number has left him and joined me.

As in the case of the first Messiah, some of his followers, when they despaired of the conversion of the Israelites turned their attention to other nations, even so our opponents, when they despaired of success with that group of Ahmadis, who joined the Promised Messiah (as) during his lifetime, have since turned their attention to people in other lands. But they might have remembered that there is a difference between the two Messiahs (as). The first was a representative of the Mosaic dispensation, while the latter was a representative of the Islamic dispensation, which is superior to the Mosaic dispensation. The first Messiah was put on the Cross but the second Messiah was saved from any such humiliation. Similarly, unlike the disciples of the first Messiah, the disciples of the second will be saved from all designs to turn them from the path of truth.

Strong Language Used by Maulawi Muhammad Ali

After explaining my object in publishing the present work and before I enter upon my subject proper, I cannot help expressing my regret at the fact that the Maulawi Sahib has not been able to discard his habitual incivility. In all his writings against me published hitherto in Urdu, his language has been offensive to a degree.1 On the other hand, in all my writings I have always taken due care not to depart from the code of civility and propriety observed among all honourable men and have availed myself of all opportunities to draw his attention to this habit of his. It is however a great pity that he has never cared to pay any heed to my advice and has continued to use the strong language which he set out to use in the very beginning of this controversy. People living in other countries are not aware of what in this country is a matter of common knowledge that it was Maulawi Muhammad Ali who started the practice of publishing controversial tracts addressed to individual persons or containing personal references. It was he who only a few days before the death of Khalifatul-Masih I (ra), at a time when his condition was very precarious, wrote a tract containing his opinions on some points of controversy. But as he was afraid that if the matter came to the notice of Khalifatul-Masih I (ra), his design would be undone, so with the utmost circumspection and cleverness, he had the tract printed and published in Lahore and did neither read it out to Khalifatul-Masih I (ra), nor inform him of its purport, nor consult him about its subject matter. This was contrary to the usual practice of Ahmadis who, as a rule always consulted and obtained the previous sanction of their Khalifa whenever any book or announcement was to be published on any controversial subject, or on any important issue. It was in accordance with this rule that Khwaja Kamaluddin submitted to Khalifatul-Masih I (ra), all his articles on the question of Kufr and Islam. Similarly before publishing anything on the subject of the Cawnpore Mosque disturbances, the authorities of the Paigham-e-Sulh of Lahore sent a special agent to Khalifatul-Masih I (ra) to ascertain his views. It is of course another matter whether those views were also correctly reported later on, or not. The fact remains that a certain deference was paid to the Khalifa. But in the case of this tract Maulawi Muhammad Ali did not care to make even the barest mention of it to Khalifatul-Masih I (ra), although as a matter of fact he had in that tract attempted an extraordinary interpretation of the Khalifa’s Will. At the least he might have consulted the Khalifa regarding the interpretation of the will to find out whether his own views on the subject agreed with those of the Khalifa. But Maulawi Muhammad Ali did not choose to adopt this course and preferred the way of secrecy. The same course was also adopted in the matter of the publication of the tract. He did not have it printed at Qadian, but sent it all the way to Lahore for printing it, although two or three presses were available for the purpose at Qadian, none of which could complain of pressure of work. Then at Lahore the tract was not published as soon as it was printed. It was held back in anticipation of the day when Khalifatul-Masih I (ra), should depart from life, so that whatever had been said regarding him in the tract should remain unrefuted.

In short, it was Maulawi Muhammad Ali who came first into the lists with a work in which a reference was made to me and to my friends attributing to us beliefs which he said were impious and inconsistent with holy life. In all his subsequent writings also he has continued to refer to us in the same discourteous manner. His contemptuous mention of my name has been of a kind not sanctioned by honourable men while making personal references. In the work under reply, although there are comparatively fewer instances of such verbal strictures, yet the author has not failed to apply to me such opprobrious epithets as Zal (pervert) and Muzil (one who causes others to go astray from the path of Islam), as will be noticed by every reader of the book. In the same book the author has mentioned my name as M. Mahmood. It is not clear what he means by that form of address. I shall, however, continue to deal honourably with him, and although the insulting tone which he has assumed and which seems to grow more and more unbearable, calls for the use of stronger language. I shall take care not to imitate him or to transgress the bounds of propriety.

Argument From the Parallelism Between Ahmadiyyat and Christianity

After drawing the attention of my readers to the manner of Maulawi Muhammad Ali’s writing I shall next proceed to meet the points raised by him in his work under review. Maulawi Muhammad Ali has opened his book with the observation that since the Ahmadiyya Movement is a counterpart of Christianity, it was necessary for the maintenance of the parallelism that there should arise in it a party which should depart from the truth and drift to the side of excess. He has laid special stress upon this point and seems to think that this parallelism or analogy is sufficient to decide the issue between us. But he has failed obviously to realise that an analogy is not an identity and that things compared need not necessarily correspond in all points; that when one person admits of comparison with another person, the former may and sometimes does excel the latter both in rank and quality. The Promised Messiah (as) is not, fortunately, the only example we have of a historical parallel. His Master the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sas) is another example of such a parallelism, for, he had, his prototype in Moses (as). But, nevertheless, the disciples of the Holy Prophet (sas) had not to undergo the same experiences as the disciples of Moses (as), nor did they behave in a similar way under similar circumstances. In the Holy Quran, God has described a similarity of the Holy Prophet (sas) to the Prophet Moses (as) in the following words:

“Verily We have sent to you a Prophet, who is a witness to you, in the same way as We sent a Prophet to Pharaoh.” (Al-Muzzammil, 73:16)

In this verse the Holy Prophet (sas) has been spoken of as the like and counter-type of Moses (as). The Old Testament speaks to the same effect. God said, to Moses (as),

“I will raise them up a Prophet (sas) from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words into his mouth and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.” (Deut 18:18)

Thus the Holy Prophet (sas) was no doubt the like and counter-type of Moses (as). But in spite of their many resemblances, we find that the success which attended the Holy Prophet (sas) was far greater than that of Moses (as). Moses (as) had been promised the land of Cana‘an as a permanent home. A similar promise was made to the Holy Prophet (sas) regarding the land of Haram (Mecca). But when Moses (as) advanced to the conquest of the country, his people, in spite of their promises to help him, answered him saying:

“Moses! We will never enter this land so long as there dwell therein its former possessors. Go yourself and your Lord and fight. We shall be sitting here.” (Al-Ma’idah, 5:25)

Only a few men were left with Moses (as) and the idea of a forcible entry into the promised land had to be abandoned. In contrast with this, we find that when the Holy Prophet (sas) came to Medina the covenant which he received from the Ansar (the citizens of Medina) was to the effect that only in case an enemy attacked him in Medina, would they (the Ansar) be bound to protect him. The covenant was sworn by the Ansar as the Oath of ‘Aqba tendered to the Holy Prophet (sas) some time before the Hijra. The famous historian Ibni Hisham writes that the Ansar had made the following covenant with the Holy Prophet (sas).

“O Prophet (sas)! we shall not be responsible for your safety so long as you are outside Medina. Our responsibility will commence with your arrival in that city. We will protect you from all such enemies and by all such means as we protect our wives and children.”

This meant that just as they sacrificed their lives in order to protect their wives and children from death and imprisonment, even so they would do to protect the Holy Prophet (sas). After this covenant, when the time came for the battle of Badr, and the Holy Prophet (sas) decided to meet the foe some distance outside the city of Medina viz. at Badr, he felt, writes Ibni Hisham, a certain anxiety lest the Ansar should think that they were bound to help him only in case the enemy attacked him in their city and were under no obligation to assist him in case he wanted to lead them to meet the enemy outside the city. He asked the people about their decision; whereupon Sa‘d bin Ma‘adh stood up and answered, “Prophet (sas) of God! do you ask us regarding our intention?” “Yes,” answered the Holy Prophet (sas). Then said Sa‘d: “O Prophet (sas) of God! we have believed in you, and have testified to your truth and have borne witness that whatever you have brought, is all from God; wherefore we have entered in to an oath and covenant with you to-day and do submit to your command. O Prophet (sas)! lead us wherever you will, we will always be with you. And we swear by the God Who has sent you with His true message, that if you should lead us to the yonder sea (meaning the Red Sea) and enter its bosom, we also will enter the same and not one of us will hold back. We are not unwilling should you lead us even tomorrow to meet the enemy. We shall be patient in battle and steadfast in fight. We believe that in the field of battle you will see in us what will gladden your eyes. Proceed, then, O Prophet (sas)! and may the blessings of God be with you.”

If one were to compare this answer with that of the followers of Moses (as), one cannot help noticing a difference of conditions between the two peoples, hardly to be met with between any two other nations. But even more remarkable than the above was the answer given by Miqdad bin Amr who, as a matter of fact, reproduced with necessary adaptation the very words used by the followers of Moses (as). He said, “By God we are not going to answer you in the words in which the followers of Moses (as) answered their Prophet (sas) viz. ‘Go you and your Lord and fight. We shall only sit and wait.’ On the contrary, we answer ‘Proceed, O Prophet (sas), with your Lord and fight; we will be with you among the fighters.’” (Vide Ibni Hisham Vol. I.)

Thus, there was indeed a great difference between the companions of Moses (as) and those of the Holy Prophet (sas). A similar difference may also be noticed in the dealings of God with each of the two Prophets themselves. Moses (as) did not enter into the promised land. He died while he was camping near it with his followers. The promised entry into the land was effected in the following generation. On the other hand, it was granted to the Holy Prophet (sas) to enter Mecca victoriously and in triumph, surrounded by his Companions, and the land was given to him for all time to come.

Jesus (as) of Nazareth and Ahmad (as) of Qadian resembled each other by reason of their filling similar roles in the Mosaic and Islamic dispensations respectively. They were each the Khatam-ul-Khulafa (Seal of the Apostolic Successors) of their lines. Between them personally and between their followers, however, a similar difference might be perceived as between the original founders of the two dispensations. When, for example, one of the most eminent of the companions of Jesus (as) was questioned by his enemies regarding his master saying, “Surely thou also art one of them, for thy speech betrayeth,” the disciple cursed and swore saying, “I know not the man.” On other hand, when one of the eminent disciples of Ahmad (as) fell into a similar, nay even a more dangerous situation, he ceased not to confess his faith in his master. The situation in the latter case was more dangerous because the persons who questioned the disciple in the first case were two of them women and the third an Israelite who held no power in the state; while in the latter case the person who examined the disciple was no less a personage than the king of the country; and while in the first case the inquiry was repeated only three times and was answered as often in the negative, in the latter case the examination was held a large number of times and was always replied to in the affirmative. I refer to the martyrdom of Sahibzadah Maulawi Abdul Latif, a very learned and saintly gentleman of Afghanistan. He had heard about the Promised Messiah (as) and had read his books. He believed in him and came down to Qadian to spend some time in his company. When he returned to his country, being a person well-known for his learning and influence, so much so that he had been selected to perform the coronation ceremony of Amir Habibullah, the present Amir,2 the news of his conversion was soon carried to that monarch. The latter was at the same time besieged by the Maulawis, who urged that the Sahibzadah had turned an infidel and deserved the punishment of death. The Amir was obliged to take action. He at first sent some of his officers and asked Maulawi Abdul Latif to renounce his faith. When he refused to comply with the request, the Amir summoned him to his presence and personally asked him to give up his new faith threatening him with punishment under the fatwa passed by the Maulawis. Maulawi Abdul Latif remained unmoved and the Amir at last sentenced him to be stoned to death according to the fatwa.

When the prisoner was taken to the place of execution, because of the great regard in which he was generally held, the Amir with his chief officers went to the place in order to be present at the execution. The prisoner was half interred in the earth in order to receive his punishment. In that condition the Amir approached him personally and said, “Akhundzada! It is not too late yet. For God’s sake have pity on your own life and upon your wife and children.” Maulawi Abdul Latif answered, “Protect me God! How am I to gainsay truth? Life, wife and children, what are they worth, that for their sake I should renounce the truth? You must not expect such a thing from me. I am not in the least afraid to give up my life for the sake of my faith.” Upon this, a shower of stones was hurled upon him and he was most cruelly done to death. This event took place in 1903, and is typical of the difference that exists between the followers of the first and those of the second Messiah. A similar difference may also be marked in the manner of God’s dealings with the two Messiahs. In the case of the first Messiah, his enemies were allowed to succeed so far as to put him upon the cross, but in the case of the second Messiah, although his enemies tried their best to bring about his discomfiture, charging him at one time with abetment of murder, yet God was pleased completely to confound their machinations, and to destroy many of his enemies during his lifetime.

In short, while there is a remarkable similarity between the dispensations brought by Muhammad (sas) and Moses (as) respectively, there is also a plainly visible difference between the Divine blessings and assistance which accompanied the two. It ought not therefore to be concluded from the mere fact of similarity between the two dispensations, that the followers of the Promised Messiah (as) were sure to commit the error of exaggerating the truth like the followers of the first Messiah. By following such a method of analogy, one might as well prove that the majority of the Companions of the Holy Prophet (sas) were hypocrites, because the Holy Prophet (sas) was a counter-type of Moses (as) and the majority of the companions of Moses (as) did indeed prove to be hypocrites when the moment came for action (May God protect us from such views). We know, however, how the spiritual power of the Holy Prophet (sas) saved the majority of his immediate followers from following in the footsteps of the Jews except, of course, the few who indeed proved to be hypocrites. Similar also, the spiritual power of the Promised Messiah (as) was to save the majority of his followers from committing the mistake made by the followers of the first Messiah. And this is what has actually happened. The major portion of his followers, with the exception of a small section, have maintained their connection with the centre of the movement and continue to hold to their old beliefs. But, just as in the case of the Holy Prophet (sas) there arose after him a small party, who denied the validity of the Khilafat (Apostolic Succession) and endeavoured to belittle the Prophet’s rank, and who made their public appearance during the time of Hazrat Ali (ra), the son-in-law or, so to speak, the son of the Holy Prophet (sas), so also in the present case, when one of the sons of the Promised Messiah (as) came to hold the Khilafat there has appeared a small party like the earlier Kharijites, whose motto was:

Meaning, “Obedience belongs to Allah alone; in affairs (of the Community) mutual counsel of the members should prevail.” In other words, the Khalifa was nothing, all power was to vest in a parliament. The same is the motto of the party presided over by Maulawi Muhammad Ali viz. that the Khilafat has no validity and that the affairs of the Community should be under the control of an Anjuman. But just as the Kharijites, after a few years of agitation and violence, at last disappeared and were lost, so also now, God willing, the same fate awaits their modern successors.

Argument From the New Testament

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 Quran 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 (sas).”

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 Quran? 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.

Right Application of Analogy

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’ (Al-Baqarah, 2:126)] was vouchsafed also to Hazrat Mirza Sahib, (i.e., the Promised Messiah (as)) the only difference being that in the Holy Quran the name ‘Abraham’ referred to the Abraham who built the Kaaba whereas in the revelation of Hazrat 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 Hazrat 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 (sas) 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 Quran. 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 (sas)) 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.

Maulawi Muhammad Ali Refuted by His Own Arguments

Moreover, if we were to accept their view as correct, it would expose us to serious criticism from our Christian critics. The Messiah of Islam, they would say, like the Messiah of Judaism, had answered his enemies saying that he was a Nabi in the same sense in which the previous Prophets were called Ambiya’. If, in the presence of such an explanation, Muslims felt justified in making a difference between his Nubuwwat (prophethood) and that of the previous Ambiya’, could not Christians claim a similar privilege, viz. to claim for Jesus (as), notwithstanding, his own assertion to the contrary, a godhood in a sense different from the godhood of the previous Ambiya’? The argument with which Maulawi Muhammad Ali would confront the Christians clearly amounts to this that since Jesus (as) himself had explained that he was “god” only in the sense in which the previous Prophets were called “gods”, there was no justification on the part of his followers “to reject the explanation given by Jesus,” and to claim godhood for him in any other but the same sense. (Vide page 6—The Split). Under the circumstances, may we not ask him how, in the case of the second Messiah—in view of his assertion that he was a Nabi in the same sense in which the previous Prophets were called Ambiya’—the Maulawi Sahib would justify himself in saying that the old Prophets were Ambiya’ in one sense but the Promised Messiah (as) a Nabi in another sense? If in spite of the answer which the Promised Messiah (as) gave to his opponents, Maulawi Muhammad Ali considers himself justified in regarding the older Prophets as genuine Ambiya’ and the Promised Messiah as a mere titular Nabi (‘not actual prophethood’; not the perfect prophethood of a real Prophet. Vide page 149—The Split), then consistently with the same rule he ought to interpret his quotation from the New Testament in the sense that the previous Ambiya’ were really Divine, whereas to Jesus had been granted merely the name of God, or in the alternative, to accept the Christian view that the old Prophets merely bore the name of God whereas Jesus was really Divine. In view of the above facts, let me now appeal to the “good sense and moral courage” of the Maulawi Sahib to consider and decide whether the verses quoted by him from the New Testament, point to his party or to mine as counter-part of the misguided followers of Jesus (as). The Christians, notwithstanding the explanation of Jesus (as), that he was “god” in the sense in which the previous Prophets were “gods”, persisted in asserting that the word carried one sense when applied to the Prophets and another when used in reference to Jesus (as). So the author of The Split and his party, notwithstanding the clear statement of the Promised Messiah (as) that he was a Nabi in the same sense in which the previous, Prophets bore that title (as may well be seen from the quotations from his writing given above), would still persist in saying that the older Prophets were Ambiya’ in one sense and the Promised Messiah (as) a Nabi in another sense. The difference between the author of The Split and his followers and the misguided followers of Jesus (as) lies in this, that the latter while altering the meaning of the words “God” and “son of God” remained faithful to their Master attributing to him through excess of love a rank higher than was really his due; but the author of The Split and his friends, out of excessive hostility, would only attribute to their Master a rank much lower than he actually occupied. But the truth is that it rested neither with the one nor with the other to elevate or depreciate the rank of their respective Masters.

Two Further Testimonies

Dwelling on the subject of this analogy, I wish here to quote two further testimonies. One is a testimony from the author of The Split himself and the other is a testimony from the Christian Gospels. Both prove the similarity between Maulawi Muhammad Ali’s party and the mistaken followers of Jesus (as). As for the first, it may be remembered that in December, 1909, there was held at Lahore, a public meeting at the instance of Ahmadis at Lahore, with a view to refuting some of the charges brought against Islam by a certain Christian preacher. At that meeting the present writer as well as Maulawi Muhammad Ali and Khwaja Kamaluddin had each to deliver a lecture. Maulawi Muhammad Ali was to speak on “The Sublimity of Jesus as Depicted in the Quran” which was to refute the position taken by the Christian missionary that the Quran itself testified to the superiority of Jesus (as) over the Holy Prophet (sas). I was to speak on “Salvation” and to show which of the two religions—Christianity or Islam—furnished the true teaching relating to salvation. Khwaja Kamaluddin’s topic was “A comparison of the Quran and other Scriptures.” Khwaja Kamaluddin and myself had spoken on our respective subjects before it was the turn of Maulawi Muhammad Ali, who had occasion to make some reference to the speeches of both of us. In refuting the Christian contention that the Quranic words:

(Aal-e-Imran, 3:47)

went to prove the superiority of Jesus (as), Maulawi Muhammad Ali cited my personal case as an example pointing out how marvellously deep and true were the observations made by me in my lecture although I was then only 20 years of age. My age, the lecturer said, was the age of play; my address was therefore a veritable instance of the same, the lecturer continued, was the case with Jesus (as). By the way, the readers may note that at that time, Maulawi Muhammad Ali saw in me a certain resemblance to Jesus (as), although now he seems more disposed to compare me with Jesus (as) misguided followers. On the other hand, when making a reference to Khwaja Kamaluddin, the words which escaped the speaker were, “as has just now been said by Khwaja Kamaluddin, the St. Paul of our Movement.” Hardly had the words been uttered when a hush fell upon the assembly, and the face of the speaker himself, as he turned towards the Khwaja betrayed a considerable amount of confusion. Maulawi Muhammad Ali will not, I believe, deny this incident to which I myself and many other people, present in the assembly, are prepared to bear sworn testimony. It was not a private discourse. It was public lecture and Providence put the words into the speaker’s mouth. Nor could it be that Khwaja Sahib was compared to St. Paul without any reason. The similarity could hardly have occurred to the speaker without a certain basis in fact. The truth was that Maulawi Muhammad Ali had at that time perceived the direction towards which Khwaja Sahib was then drifting, and the thought in his mind found unconscious expression through his lips. But unfortunately later on he himself chose to follow the same course and became ultimately the leader of the party which shared the views of Khwaja Sahib!

Mark how far thou hast drifted;
From where to where thy path has led!

To speak next of the testimony of the Christian Scriptures, it may be noticed that according to those writings the first mistake which the disciples of Jesus (as) committed after the disappearance of their Master, was not on the question of “Godhood” or “sonship” of Jesus (as). As a matter of fact, the Scriptures are quite innocent of that controversy. The idea of the “God-hood” of Jesus (as) arose about three centuries later as a result of the conversion of the Roman Empire to Christianity. History bears out that the doctrines of the “Godhood” of Jesus (as) and of the triune personality of the Deity were gradually introduced into Christianity through the influence of the religions then prevalent in Europe. The first departure which the followers of Jesus (as) made from his teachings was in the matter of softening the strictness of the Law and adapting it to the views of other communities with a view to inducing them to accept the new religion. As may be seen from the New Testament. Paul and Branabas had in Antioch granted certain relaxations of the Mosaic Law to the gentile converts. But certain men who came down from Judea taught the brethren and said, “Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.” When therefore Paul and Baranabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain other men should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question … But then rose up certain men of the sect of the Pharisees, who believed, saying that it was needful to circumcise them and to command them to keep the Law of Moses (as). And the apostles and elders came together to consider this matter. And when there had been much disputing, all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience, Barnabas and Paul declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the gentiles by them.… Then pleased it the apostles and elders with the whole Church to send chosen men of their company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. And they wrote letters by them after this manner. The apostles and elders and brethren send greetings unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia. For as much as we have heard that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying you must be circumcised and keep the Law, to whom we gave no such commandment. It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men that have hazarded their lives for the name of God, Lord Jesus Christ. We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same thing by mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from meats offered to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication, from which if you keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well. (The Acts 15)

Maulawi Muhammad Ali and his party may now consider whether the line of action adopted by them is not the same as that followed by the early Christians. While on the one hand in order to win the goodwill of non-Ahmadis and to secure their cooperation they professed it as highly injurious to the interest of Islam even to mention the name of the Promised Messiah (as) in their speeches and writings, on the other, in order to placate non-Muslims they do not hesitate even to detract from the dignity of the Holy Prophet (sas) himself. For instance, it has been confessed by Khwaja Kamaluddin that once a person wrote to him saying that he approved of everything spoken by the Khwaja except that the latter attributed to the Holy Prophet (sas) a rank superior to that of Jesus (as). Such an attitude, the writer said, did not commend itself to him, and was an obstacle in his path. Khwaja Kamaluddin wrote in reply that the Muslims were commanded:

(Al-Baqarah, 2:137)

I.e., not to make any distinction between the Prophets (as), and that accordingly Muslims did not attribute to any of the Prophets a rank superior to that of others. But all the while Khwaja Sahib must have been aware that the verse referred to by him did not signify what he had sought to make out of it for the benefit of his correspondent. His object in detracting from the dignity of the Holy Prophet (sas) was nothing else than to make his correspondent form a favourable opinion regarding Islam and to increase the number of his own converts. Further, it lies to his account that he sought to overstep the bounds of the Islamic Shariah (Law) by eating meat improperly slaughtered. He also contrived by devious means to secure from Khalifatul-Masih I (ra) permission to pray in England behind a non- Ahmadi Imam. These and many other facts go to show that his general attitude was to relax as much as possible the provisions of the Islamic Law in order to win the good opinion of non-Ahmadis. They also show how close is the resemblance between the party of Maulawi Muhammad Ali and that of early Christians. “Then look well and ponder, O ye gifted with sight.”

Argument From Hadith

Muhammad Ali has adduced in support of his case a saying of the Holy Prophet (sas) to the effect that the Muslims will once follow the ways of the Jews and the Christians. Maulawi Muhammad Ali argues from this that while the general body of Muslims have played the part of the Jews by their denial of the Promised Messiah (as), it was necessary for the fulfilment of the prophecy that another section should play the part of Christians by following their ways, and it accordingly happened that after the death of the Promised Messiah (as) one large party of his followers began unduly to exalt his rank. This argument does contain some truth in so far as by reason of the Promised Messiah (as) being the countre-type of the first Messiah, it was natural that some of the followers of the former should actually play the role of the followers of the latter. But that is by no means the main sense of the saying referred to. As has been explained by the Promised Messiah (as) himself, to be turned into Jews refers to the denial of the Promised Messiah (as), and to be turned into “Dal” means to be actually converted to Christianity. The saying of the Holy Prophet (sas) referred to by Maulawi Muhammad Ali is in fact not a separate prophecy but simply an elucidation of one of the prophecies contained in the Holy Quran. In the opening chapter of the Holy Quran, God has taught the believers to pray:

“O God! lead us to the right path, the path of those on whom thou hast showered Thy favours, excepting those who have been the objects of (Thy) wrath and the misguided.” (Al-Fatihah, 1:6, 7)

This prayer contains prediction of three events which were to occur in the later history of Islam. The first was that among Muslims there were to arise men who would be recipients of the greatest of Divine favours—including the attaining to the rank of Prophets (as). There was also to arise among them a party which was to be “the object of Divine wrath,” and there was to be another section of them who were to be the Dal or the misguided. The parties referred to in the Maghdubi ‘Alaihim (objects of wrath) and the Dal (the misguided) were described by the Holy Prophet (sas) himself. According to him, the first referred to the Jews and the second to the Christians. This may be seen in Tirmidhi’s collection of Hadith, where it has been narrated on the authority of Adi Ibni Hatim that the Holy Prophet (sas) said that the Jews were the Maghdubi ‘Alaihim and the Christians the Dal. This interpretation by the Holy Prophet (sas) himself therefore leaves no doubt that the prayer contained in the opening chapter of the Holy Quran is a prayer for security from being turned into Jews and Christians. The prediction of the Holy Prophet (sas) that Muslims will follow the ways of those who had gone before them, and his answer—“Of whom else?”—to the question of his Companions whether he meant that they would follow the ways of the Jews and the Christians do not therefore make a separate prophecy, but are simply an elucidation of the prophecy already contained in the opening chapter of the Holy Quran. I shall now proceed to a discussion of the meaning of the prophecy and shall in the first place consider the interpretation given to the prophecy by the Promised Messiah (as), because the person whose advent formed the subject matter of the prophecy was certainly the most competent authority to furnish a correct interpretation of the same. After that I shall go on to consider the meaning of the Holy Prophet’s saying from the point of view of mere common sense.

The Promised Messiah (as) writes on page 63 of the Tuhfa’-e-Golarhwiyyah: “Only two dangers have been mentioned. The one is internal viz. acting like the Jews and persecuting the Promised Messiah (as), and the second external, viz. conversion to Christianity. You ought to know and remember well that in the opening chapter of the Holy Quran, the dangers against which Muslims have been taught to pray for protection are only two in number, viz.:

1. To deem him an infidel who was to arise as the Messiah (as) in Islam—to bring him into contempt, to seek to cast aspersions upon his character, to pronounce the fatwa of death against him. These are the dangers referred to in the verse ‘Ghairil Maghdubi ‘Alaihim’.

2. The second danger against which the Muslims have been taught to seek protection in the chapter, is the danger of Christianity and the fact that the chapter closes with the mention of this danger indicates that the danger of Christianity will be like a mighty flood and will surpass every other danger.”

This interpretation by the Promised Messiah (as)—that by being turned into Jews what was signified was antagonism to the Promised Messiah (as), and that by being turned into Christians was meant actual conversion to Christianity of many of the Muslims of his time and not that his own followers would act the role of the Christians—ought to have been conclusive for every Ahmadi. Nevertheless, Maulawi Muhammad Ali chose to put a new interpretation on the prophecy and on the Quranic verse. Such an attitude on his part will hardly come as a surprise to those who during the last four years have observed his gradual lapse from loyalty to his Master, but it cannot fail to strike those before whom the Maulawi Sahib has appeared for the first time in his new role.

Next, when we consider the prophecy in the light of actual events, we may notice that even from the point of view of common sense, the interpretation given by the Promised Messiah (as) is the only one which can be deemed valid and correct. The Holy Prophet (sas) had prophesied that Muslims would come to resemble Jews and Christians. We may notice that in religious matters the only likeness to the Jews which Muslims have acquired is that, like Jews, Muslims at large have denied the Messiah who appeared among them. They have not indeed adopted any of the peculiarities which distinguish Judaism from other faiths; nor has any considerable party of them actually joined the rank of the Jews who, it maybe noted, are as a rule reluctant to admit strangers into their community. Therefore, to be the like of Jews clearly signified, in the case of Muslims, denial of their Messiah and antagonism to him. But, on the other hand, “following the ways of the Christians” can justly be interpreted as actual conversion to Christianity; for, as a matter of fact we find that at the present time all the Muslim sects with the solitary exception of the Ahmadiyya Community are unanimous in unduly magnifying the dignity of Jesus (as) and in according to him a rank superior to that of the Holy Prophet (sas). For it is a patent fact that the Muslims have been so deeply imbued with the doctrines of Christianity that while they admit that their own Prophet is dead and lies buried in an earthly grave, they believe that Jesus is still alive residing in the heavens. They thus corroborate the divinity of Jesus (as) by attributing to him a kind of living and eternal existence. Further, they entertain the belief that Jesus like the Almighty God was a quickener of the dead. Such opinions do in fact make the Muslims the counter-types of Christians, because in strange contrast with such beliefs regarding Jesus, we may note that Muslim theologians do not admit regarding their own Prophet that he infused life even into a single bird. Thus these Muslims do in a way surpass the Christians in attributing to Jesus the power of creation. They also believe that Jesus possessed knowledge of the unseen, so much so, that knowledge of the last day, universally regarded as a special prerogative of God was, according to them, another of the peculiarities possessed by Jesus (as). In view of such a similarity of beliefs, there is little room for doubt that present-day Muslims have become virtually like Christians. The latter represent one of the most actively proselytizing peoples of the world, and have by this time already converted several millions of Muslims to their faith. All these facts are clear and palpable as the day; but still to close one’s eyes to them and—contrary to the views of the Promised Messiah (as)—to seek to discover the like of Christians among his own followers is, to say the least, highly unfair and improper on the part of one who still professes to be ones of his disciples.

The Two Messiahs Contrasted

It is no doubt true that as a necessary corollary of the fact that the Promised Messiah (as) was a counter-type 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 (sas). In the latter case the bulk of the followers of the Holy Prophet (sas) 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 counter-type 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 (sas).

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 (sas) 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.