Malfuzat – Volume III — Page 278
278 Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad account relating to Elijah, because the Holy Quran has not rejected it anywhere. If anyone ought to have denied this prophecy, it should have been the Messiah as himself and his followers. If it is accepted that allegories are nothing and every prophecy is always fulfilled according to its apparent words, like the Jews, they too will have to accept that the Messiah has not yet appeared. Then, when they reject the Messiah, they will also be forced to reject the Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, as well, and in this manner Islam will be lost to them. It is for this reason that I stress again and again that to reject me constitutes a denial of Islam. In this case, a wise person can realise that the second coming of the Messiah is similar to the narration which relates to the second coming of Elijah, and the verdict of the Messiah as stands like the verdict of the Chief Court; anyone who opposes this verdict is left disappointed. If Jesus as was going to come himself, he could have explicitly stated that he would return in person. This is precisely the objection raised by the Jews who say that if the likeness of Elijah was to come, why did God not simply state that the likeness of Elijah would appear? Therefore, as far as this case regarding Elijah is concerned, if a wise person reflects with hon- esty and righteousness, it becomes clearly evident as to what a ‘second coming’ actually means and how a person appears again. When two people engage in a debate and one of them presents a precedent in his own favour while the other does not, do tell me, who deserves more for their view to be accepted? One will have to say that the one who presents a precedent to support his arguments will be more worthy of their position being accepted. Now, I present as a precedent the case of Elijah, on which the Messiah as has already given a verdict himself. If my opponents are true, then they ought to cite a few examples of individuals by name who physically descended from heaven in the past. The truth can always be supported by an example. The matter which must be ascertained in this case is that when the promise is made that a certain person will come again, does this imply that the person will themselves return, or does this carry some other mean- ing, in that the person’s second coming will be fulfilled through someone else who comes in their likeness? On this matter of contention, if the claim of these people is correct and the individual in question personally appears again, then they ought to show us how they would clear Jesus as of the allegation to which he would fall liable. The first objection to his person would be that he gave a verdict that was devoid of true wisdom, and secondly that, God forbid, he himself is a p. 254