Truth Prevails — Page 70
( 70 ) substance is missing in the fountainhead it must be missing in a glass filled with water from that spring. Therefore, the Holy Prophet is Ahmad, in whom the prophecy was fulfilled in the first instance. ” ( Qaul-e-Faisal , page 29) This statement is absolutely clear. Hazrat Khalifatul Masih II, has quite plainly stated here that the prophecy in question applies, in the first instance, to the Holy Prophet Mohammad, himself, as borne out by the fact that Ahmad was an attributive name of the Holy Prophet. This attributive name has descended to the Promised Messiah from the Holy Prophet, the real Ahmad, the Promised Messiah being an Image of the master, a perfect Image - from all angles, in all respects. Therefore, the statement of Hazrat Khalifatul Masih II, before the Inquiry Commission is perfectly true that: “As we think, this prophecy, primarily and properly speaking applies to the Holy Prophet Mohammad. But in a zilli manner, it is also fully applicable to Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. ” It is also to be carefully noted that the statement before the Inquiry Commission is perfectly in consonance with the meaning and sense of the passage we have reproduced from Qaul-i-Faisal , probably the first writing on this subject by Hazrat Khalifatul Masih II. As against this statement, on page 29 of ‘Truth Triumphs’, Mr. Faruqi has quoted a passage from Anwar-i-Khilafat , a Lecture by Hazrat Khalifatul Masih II, later published in book form: “Thus, in this verse, by implication, a glad tiding has been given in regard to the advent of the Holy Prophet Mohammad. The person to whom it really applies is the Promised Messiah. ” “Therefore, the Prophet, named Ahmad, in regard to whom this tiding has been given, cannot be the Holy Prophet Mohammad. ” Between this passage and the statement before the Inquiry Commission, on the surface, there appears to be a slight difference more in words, than in the meaning and sense. There is no real difference between the two. In the passage quoted above there is not the slightest hint of denial that the Holy Prophet, primarily, was the Prophet, in the first instance, to whom the prophecy applied. Rather, in view of the fact that the Holy Prophet having been the bearer of the name “Ahmad”, in the original and first instance, it is the root of the implication that the prophecy in question applies to him. The negation in the passage quoted goes on strictly to the length that the prophecy applied to him in a manner which could be described as other than ‘implied’, since, quite obviously, it fits the Promised Messiah far more directly, this being the sense of the passage in question reproduced from Anwar-i-Khilafat. The Promised Messiah himself has written in Ejazul Masih : “In his words ‘like verdure putting out the pin points of its germination’, Isa has pointed to the people coming later to join the