Truth Prevails — Page 91
( 91 ) level, there is an inner shade of deference. ” Pir Manzur Mohammad, then, wrote the gist of this talk and put it before Hazrat Khalifatul Masih I, requesting his signature in confirmation. Hazrat Khalifatul Masih wrote the following on that Paper, and signed it: “We have known this for a long time. Haven’t you noticed that in our personal attitude towards him there is a deep inner shade of deference? I confirm that I said this in the course of a talk with brother Pir Manzur Muhammad. ” (Signature bears the date December 10) ( Tashhizul Azhan , 1914, and Tarikh-i-Ahmadiyyat, Vol. IV, page 369) which carries a photographic reproduction of the original. We have, thus, the verdict of Hazrat Khalifatul Masih I, whom the Lahore Section accept as Khalifa – a verdict which leaves no room for doubt that out of the surviving sons of the Promised Messiah, Hazrat Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmad, second son of the Promised Messiah, was the Promised Muslih in the prophecy. Maulvi Abdul Mannan Umar, whose opinion has been available for Mr. Faruqi, published in a periodical entitled ‘ Furqan ’ May 1945, some notes of Hazrat Khalifatul Masih I (Maulvi Abdul Mannan was editor of the journal at the time). The sense of these notes was that the advent of the Muslih Mau’ud would take place thirty years after the date when Hazrat Khalifatul Masih I, gave a discourse to this effect. Presumably in his Dars-i-Quran. The notes were published subsequently to the declaration by Hazrat Khalifatul Masih II, on the basis of a Revelation to him from God, the wording of this Revelation, in Arabic, was: “I am the Promised Messiah, his like and his Khalifa. ” Hazrat Khalifatul Masih II took the Revelation to mean that he was the Muslih Mau’ud of this prophecy, which described him as gifted with the breath of a Messiah, in excellence and virtue, like the Promised Messiah himself. The declaration was made in 1944, exactly thirty years after the light shed on this question by Hazrat Khalifatul Masih I. Here we have the prophecy made by the Promised Messiah, fulfilled, and the view upheld by the Companion of the Promised Messiah, and of the First Khalifa. In the face of this evidence it is highly unseemly for Mr. Faruqi to say that the view was manufactured or supported by hypocritical and paid Maulvis, playing the role of flattering adherents. Let us hope Mr. Faruqi and Maulvi Abdul Mannan would not want to include Hazrat Khalifatul Masih I, in the list of ‘ paltu ’ adherents. Hazrat Khalifatul Masih I, was Maulvi Abdul Mannan’s father. Pir