Truth Prevails — Page 155
( 155 ) Reply: Taking the word in its general sense, the meaning constitutes an important point. But in this sense as well, the differences are not basic, only collateral, in minor details. On this, Mr. Faruqi’s comment is: “But Mirza Mahmud Ahmad had once allowed the following statement to be published. ( Al-Fazl , 21st August, 1917, page 7). ” “But the Promised Messiah has said that the faith of Islam of these common Muslims, and the one claimed by us are different from each other. Even their conception of God and our varies. Our pilgrimage is separate from their pilgrimage. So in fact we differ from them in everything. ” It is strange that the passage Mr. Faruqi has quoted from Al-Fazl in the form of an objection, Hazrat Khalifatul Masih II has himself explained before the Inquiry Commission. In this court this very passage was put before him, and he was asked if it was correct. Hazrat Khalifatul Masih replied: “At the time when this was published, I had no diary writer. I cannot, therefore, say with full confidence that what I said was correctly reported, or not correctly reported. In any case it has to be taken figuratively. My intention and meaning when I said this was that we say and do these things with greater sincerity. ” It is evident from all this discussion, that by rejecting the Institution of Khilafat, Mr. Faruqi has taken a line of diminution in regard to the Nabuwwat of the Promised Messiah, and his beliefs do not stand on any firm foundation. His case appears to be very similar to a sect which took a similar line of diminution in regard to the Messiah of the Dispensation of Moses, and did not accept that he was a prophet. It took him only as a wali , as a great saint, only a Mojaddid in the religion of Moses. This sect was known by the name of “Anania”. Da’ud bin Anan was its founder. Allah has saved us so far from taking the line of exaggeration and our Jama’at , by the grace of God takes the Promised Messiah, in the light of his writings, as a Nabi , from one angle, and an Ummati , from another, only a Zilli Nabi ; and in conformity with his order in Chashma-i-Ma’rifat , we take his position to be that of a kind of Nabi ; and in accord his own direction, and the command of the Lord God, and His terminology, we hold that he was a prophet. Of course, in the terminology of the non-Ahmadi Muslims, which is very attractive for our friends of the Lahore Section, we do not at all hold him to be a prophet. Therefore, when we find Mr. Faruqi likening us in his Truth Triumphs, to a sect among the Christians which took Jesus Christ as God, we feel deeply hurt over this estimate in regard to us, to which Mr. Faruqi has given expression in this book. It is a shocking case of a gross injustice he is doing to us. In the end, let us pray to God that He be pleased to open their eyes, that they begin to see their loss and gain in a proper light, so that they