Truth Prevails — Page 27
( 27 ) “Here the meaning of Ba’di is evidently except my person, not in the sense of after me in terms of time as in the verse, namely, Faman Yahdi-he min badillahe. The sense of the verse is, who shall guide him except Allah, not in the sense of ‘ after Allah ’ in terms of time. ” With respect to the context of the report, Hazrat Shah Waliullah means to say that the Holy Prophet Mohammad (May peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said these words in the sense that there was no prophet except him in his absence caused by the campaign of Tabuk, not in the sense that there will be no prophet after him forever. He argues: “Since Harun passed away from this world while Moses was still alive, therefore ba’diyat-i-zamani (i. e. after me) is not established in this case nor can it be taken as established in the context of the report under reference. ” Shah Waliullah gave this argument to reject the view of those who take it in the sense of ba’diyat-i-zamani, and draw therefrom an argument to establish the Khilafat bila fasl of Hazrat Ali, i. e. immediately after the death of the Holy Prophet. In the connection of this Hadith Mr. Faruqi further writes: “Some people wrongly put forth an opinion that Moses was the real Prophet who received the ‘laws’, and that Harun was there only to assist him, though a Prophet in his own right. (See xxi. 48; xxxvii 117) Had it been so that the Holy Prophet Mohammad would have been placing Hazrat Ali as a prophet without ‘law’, but then why did he specifically mention ‘but there is no prophet after me!’ The very relationship between Moses and Harun would have been self- explanatory” (Truth Triumphs, page 11) By saying ‘some people’, if Mr. Faruqi is referring to us, the Ahmadies of the Qadian, now Rabwah, Section, we may be, allowed to point out that we do not take Hazrat Harun as a Prophet with a new Law; but we do take him to be a Prophet, in an unconditional unqualified sense; we take him as a mustaqil Nabi. In fact the view that he was a mustaqil Nabi is accepted even by our brothers of the Lahore Section. We might also add here it appears Mr. Faruqi seems rather inclined to accept him even as a Prophet with a new Law. We, therefore, humbly beg of him to stop for a while, and think clearly what are these things he is writing, under an impression that he is writing them against us. For the plain fact of the matter is that he is demolishing the basis of his own stand. When he takes Hazrat Harun for a tashri’i and a mustaqil Nabi ; and for this reason he is prepared to feel the need for using such an expression as La Nabia Ba’di for a similar reason, when we hold that he was a mustaqil Nabi , we realise the need of using this expression, lest some one, on seeing Hazrat Ali likened to Hazrat Harun, should tend to run away with the impression that he was, likewise, also a Prophet, considering the fact that he had been described as being in the same position as Harun had been before him, at a certain juncture taking him as a Prophet with a Sharia of his own