Three in One — Page 61
3. In this state I submitted that we need a new system and a new sky. 6. Then the state of contemplative vision converted into inspiration and I started muttering: 'These are inspirations. I am enlightened with by God Almighty'. . These passages in the hostile publications are an admission that this entire scenario was being observed by Hadhrat Ahmadas in a state of vision. Now, every rational human being, whether a believer or not, would accept that a person who sees something in a dream or a vision cannot be held responsible for it since at that precise moment when a dream or vision is being observed, one's faculties are not in one's possession at all. If Abdul Hafeez refuses to accept this explanation then one would ask him as to how would he reconcile Hadhrat Muhammad's sa dream or vision in which he saw himself wearing two gold bangles on his wrist when Muslim men have been forbidden to wear gold. . Would he care to state that God forbid, the Prophet of Islam contravened the laws of Islam contrary to the explicit command of God? sa. There is other evidence contained within this citation which establishes that Hadhrat Ahmadas did not claim any Divinity with this vision. As for instance, he stated that 'he saw in his vision that he was God himself which admits the fact there is a God Who is not Hadhrat Ahmadas. The sentences in relation to the penetration of the Almighty's Godhead; the collapse of. Hadhrat Ahmad's as edifice and it being subdued with God's divinity; his submitting to God that a new system and sky was needed; his putting things in proper order with the will of God and his being enlightened with such inspirations by God. Almighty are all admissions of the fact that there is no claim of. Divinity but that there is a God Who is not Hadhrat Ahmadas. . It is however ironic that in order to prove their false allegations against Hadhrat Ahmadas, his adversaries cite incomplete quotations from his books since such an exercise assists them in 6. Sahih Bukhari, 59. 69 61