Barahin-e-Ahmadiyya Part V — Page 510
B AR Ā H Ī N-E-A H M ADIY YA — PART F IV E 510 it was concluded that—God forbid—‘ I s a was accursed and estranged from the divine court and was not raised towards God Almighty. Through the word َ مُتَوَفِّیْك [ mutawaff i ka ], God testified that ‘ I s a died a natural death, but He did not stop there. He then explained the true meaning of the word َ مُتَوَفِّیْك [ mutawaff i ka ]—i. e. to die a natural death— through the verse ُ مَا قَتَلُوْہ ُ وَمَا صَلَبُوْہ [they neither killed nor crucified him] and the verse وَمَا قَتَلُوْہ ُ یَقِیْنًا [‘and they were not certain that they had killed him’]. For, when someone has died without any external causes such as murder etc. , it will be understood concerning him that he has died a natural death. Thus, there is no doubt that the statement ُ وَمَا قَتَلُوْہ ُ وَمَا صَلَبُوْہ [‘and they neither killed nor crucified him’] has come as explanation for the word َ مُتَوَفِّیْك [ mutawaff i ka —‘will cause you to die a natural death’]. And once absence of killing and crucifixion has been proven, then, in accordance with the maxim, ‘When the premise is falsified, the conclu- sion is also falsified’, it stands proven that the exaltation of Hadrat ‘ I s a was spiritual; and that is what we had set out to prove. I will now return to the earlier discussion. It is an established fact that wherever the word توفّی [ tawaff i ] is used in a statement, wherein God is the f a ‘il [subject] and some person specified by name is the maf ‘ u l bihi [object], such a sentence always means that God has caused that person to die or will cause him to die. It can have no other meaning at all. A long time has elapsed since I published an announcement regarding this established fact and challenged that if anyone produced, contrary to the above, any statement from a ha d i th or from authentic collections of Arabic poetry where the word توفّی [ tawaff i ] is used, and where God is the subject and a proper noun is the object—i. e. someone who has been identified by name is the object—and yet it does not mean ‘causing to die’, I shall give a reward of this much amount to such a person. No one has answered this chal- lenge to this day. Now, in order to bring home this argument, I once again publicly offer 200 rupees that if any of my opponents does not consider this statement of mine to be convincing and conclusive, he should produce