Truth Prevails — Page 60
( 60 ) misleading, the correction of this error became one of the most fundamental foundation stones of his mission, which he could not, and would not, try to hide, or gloss over, in his anxiety to get himself widely acclaimed and accepted. Naturally, too, whenever he declared and wherever he declared that he was a Nabi , he took pains invariably to explain that he was only an Ummati Nabi , raised to serve the mission of Mohammad, not to oppose it, or to replace it in any way. He declared, again and again, that he was only a zilli , a boruzi Nabi Zilli Nabuwwat being the third kind of Nabbuwat absolute, is a real Nabbuwat in itself. But when we compare it with the utmost, perfect and the real Nabbuwat of the Holy Prophet it amounts to be the perfect reflection or the true image of the Holy Prophet. So in this comparison it should not be called a real one. To show the real superiority of the Holy Prophet among all the prophets, the Promised Messiah always insisted, too, that he had been raised to this position only on the basis of his deep, abiding loyalty to the Holy Prophet; that, otherwise he was just nothing. The Promised Messiah says: 1. “In respect of the establishment of a spiritual basis in human life, the Holy Prophet was the Second Adam – in fact he was the only real Adam, through whose influence and endeavour all the human qualities reached the highest possible stage of development. ” (Lecture Sialkot page 5) 2. “Those Books (earlier Scriptures) were not real books, intended to endure. Rather, they served only a temporary and passing need. The real Book is only the Holy Quran, deserving to be preserved, since it takes care of human spiritual needs for all times to come. ” ( Minanur Rahman , page 7) Would it be open here for us, Mr. Faruqi, to ask: Was Not Adam the real Adam, the first progenitor of the human race? Were not the earlier Scriptures Torah, Gospels and Psalms the real Books? Were not the Prophets who brought these Books, real Prophets? Of course they were. The earlier Prophets, of course, were real Prophets. But when we come to compare them to the Holy Prophet Mohammad, are we not justified to say, in a manner of speaking, that in fact they were not real Prophets. And when they were not real Prophets, we shall have to concede that they were Prophets only in a figurative sense. Is not this enunciation absolutely true? Please listen to the Promised Messiah, a little more: 3. “The real and perfect Mehdi has been only one in the whole world – the Holy Prophet Mohammad, in himself entirely illiterate. ” ( ‘Arba’een II, page 16)