Truth Prevails — Page 50
( 50 ) should not be an Ummati of any Nabi ; he should have a link with Allah, independently of an earlier Nabi. In other words, like the man who asked this question, the Promised Messiah held that an Ummati could not rise to be a Nabi. The letter under reference belongs to a period earlier than 1901. But subsequently to the time when the Promised Messiah modified his conception in regard to Nabuwwat , in the passage quoted above, from Zamima Bahrahin- i-Ahmadiyya , Part V, he states the real meaning of Nabi is only this that he is blessed by a communion with Allah which embraces knowledge of matters beyond the ken of human beings; the bringing of a new Sharia is not essential for him; nor even that he should not have been an Ummati of another Prophet. In fact the implication is absolutely clear here, that for an Ummati to become a Nabi , in the real sense of this term, is not at all objectionable in any respect. He has openly and clearly said: “Therefore there is no harm if an Ummati should come to be a Prophet of this kind, especially where that Ummati received the great blessing after loyal obedience to the earlier Nabi in question. ” Here we have the Promised Messiah trying to persuade the man who raised this question that his idea that an Ummati could not become a Nabi was the result of failure on his part to get to the real meaning of the term. He was taking it that an Ummati could not become a Prophet, even though really it was not essential for a Nabi that he should bring a new Sharia , nor that he should not be a follower of any earlier Prophet. The only binding condition was an amplitude of communion with God embracing knowledge of things unknown, things impossible to be known to human ken. Under the reports in Bokhari and Muslim, the Promised Messiah, therefore, could be Prophet, even though he was an Ummati , since, in view of the real inner meaning, an Ummati was not debarred from becoming a Nabi. This sentence written by the Promised Messiah, namely, that “for him it is not essential that he brings a Sharia ”, is a firm argument that in this place a definition has been set down of a Nabi , in the real and true sense of Nabuwwat. It is not here a case of the definition of a Mohaddath , who at best is only a partial Nabi , or an incomplete, an imperfect Nabi. The words “it is not essential,” indicate that a Nabi could be one who brought a new Sharia or new set of commandments; at the same time a man could be a Nabi without bringing any new Sharia or new set of commandments. As for a Mohaddath , pure and simple, he is just one who does not, in any case, in any circumstances, bring a new Sharia , or a new set of commandments. Evidently, therefore, the sentence used here is one precisely out of the question if it is being written in regard to a Mohaddath. It can only be brought in if the discussion concerns a real Nabi , in the real sense of the word, as distinct from the popular, but erroneous meaning of the expression. Had the Promised Messiah been discussing a Nabi , taken in the sense of a Mohaddath , he would have said that he never brings a new Sharia. He would not have said