Three in One — Page 88
life of Jesus; Hadhrat Jalal ud Din Rumith for declaring that the veil had been lifted from his soul and he was Jesus; Hadhrat. Abu Yazid Bustamith who believed that he was Jesus as well as. Moses and Abraham; Hadhrat Ibne Arabith who proclaimed that this spiritual mentor was named Jesus, son of Mary and. Hadhrat Sayyid Muhammad Ismail Shaheed th who stated that in Hadhrat Sayyid Ahmad Shah Barelvi™, Joseph had come from. Egypt to Canaan and the breath of Jesus had come to this world;. Faqir Muhammad Chishti for calling the soul of Hadhrat. Khawaja Mu'in ud Din Chishtit as that of Jesus; Shah Niyaz. Ahmad of Delhi for putting forward such a claim and the. Deobandi leadership for believing that Maulvi Rashid Ahmad. Gongohi of Nidawatul Ulema was the like of Hadhrat. Muhammadsa and the son of Mary? Would he state that these claims by some of the most respected saint known to Ummah of Islam or scholars of his own school of thought, were signs of madness? If so, would he pronounce a verdict of imbecility upon them for their statements as he had the audacity to pronounce this upon Hadhrat Ahmadas for claiming that he was named Mary and called Jesus?. One would also ask Abdul Hafeez if, in view of the aforementioned statements by numerous saints and scholars of. Islam, he considers them all to be suffering from hallucinations and unstable as well as versatile enough to fit any frame all in one? Does he then propose to include their caricatures in the future publications of Two in One considering that they claimed to be Jesus or the son of Mary? If not, then would he not be leaving himself open to being branded a hypocrite and an enemy of Hadhrat Ahmadas - and rightly so? Why should he then object to the appellation of an enemy being stated on the cover of the Mubahala? 88