With Love to Muhammad (sa) - The Khatam-un-Nabiyyin — Page 171
Statements of Hazrat Muhy-ud-d ī n Ibn ‘Arab ī rh 171 intrinsic qualities of the Mahd ī would be essentially those of the Holy Prophet sa himself. 175 This is the greatness of the Promised Messiah and Im ā m Mahd ī as ! However, it seems that Farhan Khan insists upon belittling the status of the Messiah. Other than the above, Farhan Khan criticizes the Promised Messiah as again by saying, “[Hazrat Mirz ā Ghul ā m Ahmad as ] understands kh ā tam al-nab ī y ī n to mean finality of prophethood, but in the same sentence, he says all future prophets will be zill ī or bur ū z ī prophets. The finality of prophets is an unconditional statement leaving no room for exceptions. Zill ī or bur ū z ī prophets are a subset of prophets that kh ā tam al-nab ī y ī n has terminated. This is a contradiction. ” 176 This is in fact not a contradiction in the writings of the Promised Messiah as. Instead, it most certainly is a contradiction in Farhan Khan’s arguments! When Ibn ‘Arab ī ’ rh says that one form of prophethood continues after the Holy Prophet sa , he does not have any problem with that but when the Promised Messiah as says that one form of prophethood continues after the Holy Prophet sa , then it becomes a contradiction! How ridiculous and unacceptable! Why did he not apply the same rule to Hazrat Ibn ‘Arab ī rh and write a book against him? Why did he not try to refute Hazrat Ibn ‘Arab ī rh that the phrase Kh ā tam-an- Nabiyy ī n does not allow any kind of prophethood to continue, whatsoever ? In addition, in accordance with his usual practice, the actual quotation of the Promised Messiah as was not presented. Khan was deceptive enough to know that his criticism would have been invalidated had he presented the 175 Sharah Fus ū s Al-Hikam , Page 35 176 Khan, With Love, Page 40