Nubuwwat & Khilafat Prophethood & its Successorship — Page 53
Nubuwwat and Khilafat in the Ahmadiyyah Muslim Jama'at 53 It is obvious that this interpretation actually contradicted the position adopted by the Ahmadiyyah Anjuman-e-Ish a ‘at-e- Islam rather than supporting it, since it pointed out that the first point of complete agreement was on the appointment of one person as a khal i fah to whom submission would be due from everyone. This was exactly according to the will of Allah. After about one month, the Ahmadiyyah Anjuman-e-Ish a ‘at-e- Islam came out with a new version of their interpretation. In a long essay entitled: “Open Letter to Maulav i Sher ‘Al i ,” Paigh a m-e- S ul h writes: For the sake of God, avoid blind following. If we say that Hadrat Maul a n a N u r-ud-D i n ra did not follow al-Wa s iyyat or that the Jam a ‘at made a mistake, it does not take anything away from their holiness. Human beings do commit such mistakes. The Jam a ‘at or respected Maul a n a Sahib did not do it on purpose. ( Paigh a m-e- S ul h , April 22, 1914) The two interpretations show that when one forsakes the truth, he slips and cannot find firm footing. On March 15, it was stated that the election of Hadrat Khalifatul Masih I ra was in accordance with Divine will and that his personage was the same as the personage of the Promised Messiah as. But on April 22, he did not hesitate to state—in support of his modified doctrine—that the complete agreement reached by all Ahmad i s and endorsed by the S adr Anjuman Ahmadiyyah after the demise of Promised Messiah as and in the presence of his holy body, was contrary to the testament of the Promised Messiah as and that Hadrat Khalifatul Masih I ra was a party to this violation.