Haqiqatul-Wahi (The Philosophy of Divine Revelation) — Page 346
346 HAQIQATUL-WAḤI—THE PHILOSOPHY OF DIVINE REVELATION decree against Imām-ud-Dīn with costs. Had that document not been produced before the competent authority, what option would he have except to dismiss the suit and we would have to suffer at the hands of the malicious enemy! Such are the ways of God. Indeed this prophecy comprises not one, but two prophecies because firstly there is the promise of the victory in it and secondly there is the promise of exposing a secret matter that was concealed from everyone. It is with great pleasure and gratitude to God that we acknowledge that the providence of God also transformed the presid- ing judge of the case into a witness of the truth of this prophecy. He cannot dissociate himself from this testimony even though he—Sheikh Khuda Bakhsh, District Judge-is our religious opponent. He can tes- tify that my counsel did not present this strong argument despite so many hearings and that it was only at the end of the case that this mys- tery was laid bare by the sheer grace of God. Thus, anyone who happens to see the judgment of Sheikh Khuda Bakhsh would at once realize that our counsel relied for a long time on evidence based on hearsay which did not hold water against the judicial verdict. The file which the respondent Imām-ud-Din pro- duced in order to establish his exclusive possession of the land con- tained only the name of Imām-ud-Dīn—my father's name was not included in it. The secret lay in the fact that the original owner of the land, Ghulām Jīlānī, did file the suit against Imām-ud-Din and only Imām-ud-Din had been named as the respondent in his complaint. And after receiving the news, my father, through his attorney, got his name to be registered as one of the respondents. The purport of it was that both of them were in possession [of the property]. Those docu- ments had been lost through some mishap and only Imām-ud-Din's name was left as the respondent on the complaint of the plaintiff from which it was understood that Imām-ud-Din alone was in possession of the land. This, therefore, was the hidden secret to which we were not privy.