Truth About the Split — Page 38
38 Ambiya ’, could not Christians claim a similar privilege, viz. to claim for Jesus as , notwithstanding, his own assertion to the contrary, a godhood in a sense different from the godhood of the previous Ambiya ’? The argument with which Maulawi Muhammad Ali would confront the Christians clearly amounts to this that since Jesus as himself had explained that he was 'god' only in the sense in which the previous Prophets were called 'gods', there was no justification on the part of his followers "to reject the explanation given by Jesus, "and to claim godhood for him in any other but the same sense. (Vide page 6— The Split ). Under the circumstances, may we not ask him how, in the case of the second Messiah—in view of his assertion that he was a Nabi in the same sense in which the previous Prophets were called Ambiya ’—the Maulawi Sahib would justify himself in saying that the old Prophets were Ambiya ’ in one sense but the Promised Messiah as a Nabi in another sense? If in spite of the answer which the Promised Messiah as gave to his opponents, Maulawi Muhammad Ali considers himself justified in regarding the older Prophets as genuine Ambiya ’ and the Promised Messiah as a mere titular Nabi ('not actual prophethood'; not the perfect prophethood of a real Prophet. ' Vide page 149—The Split), then