The Heavenly Sign — Page 37
37 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 ‘ I s a 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 Dajj a liyyat, 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 ‘ I s a as and R uh ull a h , be called Mahdi as ? I am extremely perplexed as to why these Ulema are vexed by the word ‘ I s a. In Islamic literature, even detestable things are named ‘ I s a. For instance, in the book Burh a n-e-Q a ti ‘ a, under the letter '‘ Ain ', we read, that ‘ I s a Dihq a n i is a metaphor for wine made from the grapes and ‘ I s a Nau M a ha is the bunch of grapes from which wine is made. Wine made from grapes is also called ‘ I s a Nau M a ha. Now, it is outrageous that these Ulema should name a wine ‘ I s a 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 ‘ I s a as , as opposed to the prevalent Dajj a liyyat, should be considered by them to be an infidel.