![ختم نبوت فورم[Khatmenbuwat Forum]](/styles/default/xenforo/khatmnbuwat_logo.jpg){kind=logo}
(جناب یحییٰ بختیار کا قومی اسمبلی میں قادیانی مسئلہ پردوسرے دن خطاب)
Mr. Yahya Bakhtiar (Attorney- General of Pakistan): Mr. Chairman, Sir, when I was making submissions yesterday on the evidence that has come before the Special Committee, I submitted, while discussing the career of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, that there were three stages in his religious career. The first stage was when he was like all other Muslim leaders, a propagandist of Islam. His views on the concept of 'Khatm-e-Nabuwwat' were similar to those held by others. Then comes the next stage when he changed his views and founded an organisation and started receiving oath of discipleship and so on.
It was in 1889 that the second stage comes. After that I was submitting that in the course of this stage what his views were, and why those views were expressed and a new interpretation of the concept of 'Khatm-e-Nabuwwat' was given, according to which many prophets will come from time to time as the world needs prophets to re-interpret the message of Allah given to Prophet Muhammad.
----------
3005(At this stage Mr. Chairman vacated the Chair which was occupied by Dr. Mrs. Ashraf Khatoon Abbasi)
----------
Mr. Yahya Bakhtiar: Madam, at this stage, I submitted that the second Caliph of Ahmadis or Qadianis had given reasons for which this series of Prophets will not stop, and I have also submitted that although they ostensibly and apparently gave a very rational reason for this, but still when we ask them whether there was any other prophet before Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, they say 'No'; when questioned as to whether any other prophet is going to come after him, they say 'No'; and ultimately it comes to this that 'Khatimun Nabiyeen', according to them, is Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.
I will now go further and submit before the Committee as to what was the proof that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was 'Masih-e-Mauood' according to the Ahmadis. They say that he was to appear in a period of history when the means of communications would change and there would be earthquakes, there would be wars, and so forth, the donkey and the camel would be replaced by more efficient means of communication, and they say all these signs which were mentioned in the old books, apply to the age of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, and further they say, and I will read out from the book called "Ahmadiyyat or the True Islam" in support of their contention, that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was that Promised Messiah. I quoted from this book, page:20
"Similarly, it was foretold that the Promised One would suffer from two maladies, one in the upper part of his body and the other in the lower, that the hair of his head would be straight, that he would be wheat coloured, that he would slightly stammer in his speech, that he would belong to a family of farmers, that, while talking, he would occasionally strike his hand against his thigh, that he would appear in a village named Kada, and that he would combine in himself the offices of the Messiah and the Mahdi. And so it has turned out be. Ahmad, the Promised Messiah, suffered from vertigo and diabetes; he had straight hair, was wheat- coloured, and occasionally faltered in his speech. He had the habit of striking his hand against his thigh while giving a discourse, 3006and belonged to a family of landowners. He was a native of Kadian or Kade as Qadian is popularly called. In short, when we consider all these prophecies collectively, we find that they apply to no age but to the present, and to no person but to person but to Ahmad (on whom be peace); and it appears that the present age is clearly the age of the advent of the Promised One whose apperance was foretold by the former prophets, and that Ahmad alone is the Promised One whose advent had been eagerly awaited for centuries."
This is the proof or the argument in support of his being a Messiah. I do not want to comment on this. The Committee can judge for itself whether, it applies only to him or could have applied to hundreds and thousands of people living in this age.
Now I come to the third stage of his religious career. Here he claims to be a full- fledged prophet, not a prophet of a subordinate or a temporary kind. Then we find gradually in this period that from a full fledged prophet, although he goes on saying that he is an 'Umati' prophet, he claims superiority first over Hazrat Essa then over all other prophets and then he claims epuality with the Holy Prophet of Islam, (Peace be upon him) and ulimately he claims, nauzubillah, superiority over the Holy prophet of Islam as well. This is in short his religious career. I will now just very briefly draw the attention of the Committee to some of those citations in support of what I hav said just now.
I have already cited yesterday when he said: "without prophets you cannot do; you have to have a prophet." ’’بغیر نبیوں اور رسولوں کے ذریعہ تم نعمتیں کیوں کر پاسکتے ہو۔‘‘
And then he says, and here also I think the basis for his claim to be there only Prophet after Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him) is found:
’’جس قدر مجھ سے پہلے اولیائ، ابدال، اقطاب اس امت میں سے گزر چکے ہیں ان کو حصہ کثیر اس نعمت کا نہیں دیا گیا۔ پس اس وجہ سے نبی کا نام پانے کے لئے میں ہی مخصوص کیا گیا ہوں اور دوسرے تمام لوگ اس نام کے مستحق نہیں۔‘‘
3007So, this applies to past and future and this is again form "Haqiqatul Wahi" published in 'Roohani Khazain', volume:22, page:406 and 407. During this stage he also says:
’’میں رسول اور نبی ہوں یعنی بہ اعتبار فضیلت کاملہ کے میں وہ آئینہ ہوں جس میں محمدی شکل اور محمدی نبوت کا کامل انعکاس ہے۔‘‘
And then he says:
’’اﷲجل شانہ نے حضرت محمد ﷺ کو صاحب خاتم النّبیین بنایا۔ یعنی آپ کو افاضۂ کمال کے لئے مہر دی جو کسی اور نبی کو ہرگز نہیں دی گئی۔ اس وجہ سے آپ ﷺ کا نام خاتم النّبیین ٹھہرایا گیا۔ یعنی آپ کی پیروی کمالات نبوت بخشتی ہے اور آپ کی توجہ روحانی نبی تراش ہے اور یہ قوت قدسیہ کسی اور نبی کو نہیں ملی۔‘‘
This is also the stage when he, as I have already submitted said: ’’سچا خدا وہ ہے جس نے قادیان میں اپنا رسول بھیجا۔‘‘
Now, the interesting stage comes when he claims to have the attributes of all the prophets in him and here he says, and this I quote again from 'Brahin Panjum', 'Roohani Khazain', volume:21, page:117-118:
’’اس زمانے میں خدا نے چاہا کہ جس قدر نیک اور راست باز اور مقدس نبی گزر چکے ہیں ایک ہی شخص کے وجود میں ان کے نمونے ظاہر کئے جائیں تو وہ میں ہوں۔ اس طرح اس زمانے میں بدون کے نمونے بھی ظاہر ہوئے۔ فرعون ہوں یا یہود ہوں۔ جنہوں نے حضرت مسیح کو صلیب پر چڑھایا۔ ابوجہل ہوں، سب کی مثالیں اس وقت موجود ہیں۔‘‘
So, here he says that the best and the finest attributes of all the Prophets of Allah were combined and God wanted that they should be shown through one person and that he was that person. This is also the stage when he says:
’’میں خدا کی تیس برس کی متواتر وحی کو کیسے رد کر سکتا ہوں۔ میں اسی کی اس پاک وحی پر ایسا ہی ایمان لاتا ہوں جیسا کہ ان تمام وحیوں پر ایمان لاتا ہوں جو مجھ سے پہلے ہوچکی ہیں۔‘‘
3008Again, Sir, this is from 'Roohani Khazain', 'Haqiqatul Wahi' volume:22, page:154, again he says:
’’میں خدا کی قسم کھا کر کہتا ہوں کہ میں ان الہامات پر اسی طرح ایمان لاتا ہوں جیسا کہ قرآن شریف پر اور خدا کی دوسری کتابوں پر اور جس طرح میں قرآن شریف کو یقینی اور قطعی طور پر خداتعالیٰ جل شانہ کا کلام جانتا ہوں، اسی طرح اس کلام کو بھی جو میرے پر نازل ہوتا ہے۔‘‘
Now, Sir, this is a very big claim that he puts forward at this stage. He says the revelation that he receives from Allah is of the same quality and purity as that which came to the Prophet of Islam. Whatever his revelations, they are similar in nature and character to those of the Holy Prophet of Islam. So whatever he has said is just as good, according to him, as has come in the Holy Quran. This is his claim. He starts claiming equality with the Prophet of Islam and at this stage he has composed those laudable verses in Persian in which he said:
’’انبیاء گرچہ بودہ اند بسے
من بہ عرفان نہ کم ترم زکسے‘‘
(I am better and Superior to all the prophets who have come
’’آنچہ داداست ہر نبی را جام
داد آن جام دا مرا بہ تمام‘‘
(He who gave the cup to every Nabi gave me the same cup to the fullest measure, brimful.)
Again he says he was better and superior to all the prophets that have come. But at the same time he does not claim superiority, till this stage over the Holy Prophet of Islam but only says that his Wahi and his status is similar because Vahi is similarly pure.
I pointed out, it was my duty to point it out to Mirza Nasir Ahmad, as to what this meant and he did not deny it. The Committee will remember when he said that they were equal in status because of the source. The source is Allah. They considered 3009them to be equal. Then, Sir, throughout this period, that we have covered so far, he says. "I am an 'Umati' Nabi; I am 'Ghair Sharai Nabi', but here he thought he has attained equality with the Prophet of Islam except that he was an 'Umati'. By this he naturally gets a subordinate position because he does not get revelation which brings new law. He said he has not got a law of his own, but here we find- now he further promotes himself and says, and I am again quoting from 'Roohani Khazain' volume:17, pages: 435 and 436.
’’ماسوا اس کے یہ بھی تو سمجھو کہ شریعت کیا چیز ہے۔ جس نے اپنی وحی کے ذریعہ چند امر اور نہی بیان کئے اور اپنی امت کے لئے ایک قانون مقرر کیا۔ وہی صاحب الشریعت ہوگیا۔ پس اس تعریف کی رو سے بھی ہمارے مخالف ملزم ہیں۔ کیونکہ میری وحی میں امر بھی ہے اور نہی بھی۔‘‘
Here he says that, well, "in my وحی there is also the law the do's and donts which Moses law contained." Sir, these are the three stages, very briefly, because I have to cover some more grounds and I will not go in any further details, but here I would submit that it is now for this Committee to judge whether he claimed to be a Prophet; Prophet of what nature and character and kind. Now, Sir, after he claimed this, the question arises as to what is the effect of this claim? Why this agitation? Why were there sharp reactions against this claim? And that will take us to the concept of خاتم النّبیین; as to what it means, Why there was sharp reaction throughout the Muslim society, why those who considered him as, a hero, for after all Musalmans are not ungrateful people, they respect their leaders, their ulema, and challenge a person as I submitted yesterday, who was their hero, and is attacked by them, as his own son says:
’’کہ اس کی بھیڑیں بھیڑیے بن گئیں۔‘‘
Why? To show that, Sir, I will seek leave to submit very humbly as to what is the meaning of the concept of ختم نبوت and I hope that the learned friends here and he the Ulema will correct me if I make any mistake in explaining this concept according to my own dim light.
3010Now, Sir, literally خاتم النّبیین means the Seal of the Prophets. By the Seal of the Prophets, the Muslims generaly, throughout 1400 years, have meant that the Prophet of Islam was the last of the Prophets, the Message of Allah was delivered, finalised compeletely, finalized, sealed and delivered, and therefore the Message was complete and he was the last prophet, and the wisdom that appeared is that as mankind had matured, as mankind has matured mentally as well as physically, Allah thought that the final Message should be given to them, the code of conduct should be given to them, which should be applicable to all ages because the basic human needs, problems, difficulties are the same although conditions change and their character changes. Allah delivered His final Message through His final Prophet. He said nobody can ever add anything to it or detract anything from it or modify it or change it now. This was the concept of خاتم النّبیین or ختم نبوت. It simply meant that, the doors of revelation are closed for future. Now, Sir, what is the philosophy, what is the wisdom of the concept, because we know what is meant when we say, خاتم النّبیین Muslims interpret it, but the authoritative interpretation for Muslims could only come from the Holy Prophet himself, he interpreted it by saying لا نبی بعدی (after me there shall be no Prophet) and that interpretation is binding on every Musalman, and no school of thought has disputed the authenticity of this Hadis that he was the last Prophet as he said himself. But, Sir, when you look at the wisdom, this becomes clearer when we find that during his last illness, the Holy Prophet told his followers that while he was with them, they should listen to him and obey him. After he was gone from this world, then they should, in his words, "Hold on fast to the Quran and whatever is forbidden there should be considered forbidden and whatever is permissible therein should be considered permissible for you". Sir, we have not appreciated the beauty and the wisdom of this lesson. As I submitted, mankind had matured, mentally man was mature, the Message was complete. Now, when the Holy Prophet uttered these words, what were the conditions in this world, what were the circumstances? Fourteen hundred years ago, we find rulers, kings, tribal chiefs, and that was the stage of society that whatever they said was law, the word of ruler was law, the word of king was law; there was no other law known to mankind. Here in this small Message, for the first time, mankind has been given the concept of rule of law and the Prophet said; after him you do not have to obey anybody. You only obey Allah and his Message, Allah and his 3011Prophet. Hold on fast to Quran, whatever is forbidden therein that is forbidden for you, whatever is permissible therein that is permissible for you; and there lies the beauty that the concept of rule of law appeared for the first time. This is, in my humble opinion, emancipation proclamation for mankind that you will no longer be governed by kings and their word, or by dictators or rulers. You will be governed by law, here is the law, and if you will carefully study the history, what do we find? We find that the moment Prophet passes away, حضرت ابوبکر is elected. What is his inaugural address? What does he say? Here is the message, he says, "Obey me so long as I obey Allah and his Prophet. If I revolt against Allah and his Prophet, you are not obliged to obey me." This is the rule of law; the concept of rule of law was there. That is why, I think, the Muslim society agitated when another person appeared and said that in future "I would give you rulings, I will receive divine messages and this shall be binding on you, my divine revelations". That was the main reason why Muslim society agitated.
Another aspect, I hope, I am correct in explaining it, this was emancipation of thought. Muslims were free to think for themselves and interpret the Holy Quran for themselves. Nobody can give them a binding ruling on any provision and say this is binding on you. As Allama Iqbal said, "After the Holy Prophet there shall be no surrender in spiritual matter to any other individual". So, this was meant to be a charter of freedom to think for your-self. There is no doubt, Sir, that we got the freedom of interpretation, of course, that freedom of interpretation was limited within the frontiers of the cardinal Principles of Islam. For instance, the first principle was of توحید that is, Unity and Oneness Allah. So, the interpretation cannot challenge that.
The second principle was the principle of finality of Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him). That could not be challenged; and so the other cardinal principles but within those forntiers you were free to interpret the way you like, the way you thought was correct. There was no doubt that because of this freedom of interpretation we go divided in many sects, in many 'Firqas' but that also leads to the synthetic character of Islam and that also shows the democratic process. In this regard I will respectfully draw your attention to what Allama Iqbal says about these 'Firqas' 3012and their calling each other 'Kafir'. Sir, I read; this comes from the controversy which was raised at the time when pandit Jawaharlal Nahru, who said something about Ahmadis and Allama Iqbal got into this controversy. So, I will read some passage from Allama Iqbal's reply and what he wrote to "The Statesman" paper. Here he says:
"The idea of finality should not be taken to suggest that the ultimate fate of life is complete displacement of emotion by reason. Such a thing is neither possible nor desirable. The intellectual value of the idea is that it tends to create an independent critical attitude towards mystic experience by generating the belief that personal authority claiming a super- natural origin, has come to an end in the history of mankind. This kind of belief is a psychological force which inhibits the growth of such authority. The function of the idea is to open up fresh vistas of knowledge in the domain of man's inner experience."
Then, again, with reference to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Allama Iqbal continues to say:
"The opening sentence clearly shows that a saint in the psycholigical sense of the word or men of saintly character will always appear; whether Mirza Sahib belonged to this category or not is a separate question. Indeed as long as this spiritual capacity of mankind endures, they will rise among all nations and countries in order to show better the ideal of life to man. To hold otherwise would be to fly in the face of human experience. The only difference is that the modern man has a right to critical examination of their mystic experiences. The finality of prophethood means among other things that all personal authority in religious life, denial of which involves damnation, has come to an end."
So, in future, Sir, no one individual will come and say, "I have received divine revelation and this is the message of God and naturally binding on you." The only thing binding is what has already come in the Holy Quran. Then he further says, I quote Allama Iqbal:
3013"The simple Faith of Muhammad (Peace be upon him) is based on two propositions that God is one and Muhammad is the last of the line of those holy men who have appeared from time to time in all countries and in all ages to guide mankind to the right ways of living. If, as some Christian writer thinks, a dogma must be defined as an ultra rational proposition which, for the purpose of securing religious solidarity must be assented to without any understanding of the meta- physical import, then these two simple propositions of Islam cannot be described even as dogmas; for both of them are supported by the experience of mankind and are fairly amenable to rational argument."
(جاری ہے)
It was in 1889 that the second stage comes. After that I was submitting that in the course of this stage what his views were, and why those views were expressed and a new interpretation of the concept of 'Khatm-e-Nabuwwat' was given, according to which many prophets will come from time to time as the world needs prophets to re-interpret the message of Allah given to Prophet Muhammad.
----------
3005(At this stage Mr. Chairman vacated the Chair which was occupied by Dr. Mrs. Ashraf Khatoon Abbasi)
----------
Mr. Yahya Bakhtiar: Madam, at this stage, I submitted that the second Caliph of Ahmadis or Qadianis had given reasons for which this series of Prophets will not stop, and I have also submitted that although they ostensibly and apparently gave a very rational reason for this, but still when we ask them whether there was any other prophet before Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, they say 'No'; when questioned as to whether any other prophet is going to come after him, they say 'No'; and ultimately it comes to this that 'Khatimun Nabiyeen', according to them, is Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.
I will now go further and submit before the Committee as to what was the proof that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was 'Masih-e-Mauood' according to the Ahmadis. They say that he was to appear in a period of history when the means of communications would change and there would be earthquakes, there would be wars, and so forth, the donkey and the camel would be replaced by more efficient means of communication, and they say all these signs which were mentioned in the old books, apply to the age of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, and further they say, and I will read out from the book called "Ahmadiyyat or the True Islam" in support of their contention, that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was that Promised Messiah. I quoted from this book, page:20
"Similarly, it was foretold that the Promised One would suffer from two maladies, one in the upper part of his body and the other in the lower, that the hair of his head would be straight, that he would be wheat coloured, that he would slightly stammer in his speech, that he would belong to a family of farmers, that, while talking, he would occasionally strike his hand against his thigh, that he would appear in a village named Kada, and that he would combine in himself the offices of the Messiah and the Mahdi. And so it has turned out be. Ahmad, the Promised Messiah, suffered from vertigo and diabetes; he had straight hair, was wheat- coloured, and occasionally faltered in his speech. He had the habit of striking his hand against his thigh while giving a discourse, 3006and belonged to a family of landowners. He was a native of Kadian or Kade as Qadian is popularly called. In short, when we consider all these prophecies collectively, we find that they apply to no age but to the present, and to no person but to person but to Ahmad (on whom be peace); and it appears that the present age is clearly the age of the advent of the Promised One whose apperance was foretold by the former prophets, and that Ahmad alone is the Promised One whose advent had been eagerly awaited for centuries."
This is the proof or the argument in support of his being a Messiah. I do not want to comment on this. The Committee can judge for itself whether, it applies only to him or could have applied to hundreds and thousands of people living in this age.
Now I come to the third stage of his religious career. Here he claims to be a full- fledged prophet, not a prophet of a subordinate or a temporary kind. Then we find gradually in this period that from a full fledged prophet, although he goes on saying that he is an 'Umati' prophet, he claims superiority first over Hazrat Essa then over all other prophets and then he claims epuality with the Holy Prophet of Islam, (Peace be upon him) and ulimately he claims, nauzubillah, superiority over the Holy prophet of Islam as well. This is in short his religious career. I will now just very briefly draw the attention of the Committee to some of those citations in support of what I hav said just now.
I have already cited yesterday when he said: "without prophets you cannot do; you have to have a prophet." ’’بغیر نبیوں اور رسولوں کے ذریعہ تم نعمتیں کیوں کر پاسکتے ہو۔‘‘
And then he says, and here also I think the basis for his claim to be there only Prophet after Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him) is found:
’’جس قدر مجھ سے پہلے اولیائ، ابدال، اقطاب اس امت میں سے گزر چکے ہیں ان کو حصہ کثیر اس نعمت کا نہیں دیا گیا۔ پس اس وجہ سے نبی کا نام پانے کے لئے میں ہی مخصوص کیا گیا ہوں اور دوسرے تمام لوگ اس نام کے مستحق نہیں۔‘‘
3007So, this applies to past and future and this is again form "Haqiqatul Wahi" published in 'Roohani Khazain', volume:22, page:406 and 407. During this stage he also says:
’’میں رسول اور نبی ہوں یعنی بہ اعتبار فضیلت کاملہ کے میں وہ آئینہ ہوں جس میں محمدی شکل اور محمدی نبوت کا کامل انعکاس ہے۔‘‘
And then he says:
’’اﷲجل شانہ نے حضرت محمد ﷺ کو صاحب خاتم النّبیین بنایا۔ یعنی آپ کو افاضۂ کمال کے لئے مہر دی جو کسی اور نبی کو ہرگز نہیں دی گئی۔ اس وجہ سے آپ ﷺ کا نام خاتم النّبیین ٹھہرایا گیا۔ یعنی آپ کی پیروی کمالات نبوت بخشتی ہے اور آپ کی توجہ روحانی نبی تراش ہے اور یہ قوت قدسیہ کسی اور نبی کو نہیں ملی۔‘‘
This is also the stage when he, as I have already submitted said: ’’سچا خدا وہ ہے جس نے قادیان میں اپنا رسول بھیجا۔‘‘
Now, the interesting stage comes when he claims to have the attributes of all the prophets in him and here he says, and this I quote again from 'Brahin Panjum', 'Roohani Khazain', volume:21, page:117-118:
’’اس زمانے میں خدا نے چاہا کہ جس قدر نیک اور راست باز اور مقدس نبی گزر چکے ہیں ایک ہی شخص کے وجود میں ان کے نمونے ظاہر کئے جائیں تو وہ میں ہوں۔ اس طرح اس زمانے میں بدون کے نمونے بھی ظاہر ہوئے۔ فرعون ہوں یا یہود ہوں۔ جنہوں نے حضرت مسیح کو صلیب پر چڑھایا۔ ابوجہل ہوں، سب کی مثالیں اس وقت موجود ہیں۔‘‘
So, here he says that the best and the finest attributes of all the Prophets of Allah were combined and God wanted that they should be shown through one person and that he was that person. This is also the stage when he says:
’’میں خدا کی تیس برس کی متواتر وحی کو کیسے رد کر سکتا ہوں۔ میں اسی کی اس پاک وحی پر ایسا ہی ایمان لاتا ہوں جیسا کہ ان تمام وحیوں پر ایمان لاتا ہوں جو مجھ سے پہلے ہوچکی ہیں۔‘‘
3008Again, Sir, this is from 'Roohani Khazain', 'Haqiqatul Wahi' volume:22, page:154, again he says:
’’میں خدا کی قسم کھا کر کہتا ہوں کہ میں ان الہامات پر اسی طرح ایمان لاتا ہوں جیسا کہ قرآن شریف پر اور خدا کی دوسری کتابوں پر اور جس طرح میں قرآن شریف کو یقینی اور قطعی طور پر خداتعالیٰ جل شانہ کا کلام جانتا ہوں، اسی طرح اس کلام کو بھی جو میرے پر نازل ہوتا ہے۔‘‘
Now, Sir, this is a very big claim that he puts forward at this stage. He says the revelation that he receives from Allah is of the same quality and purity as that which came to the Prophet of Islam. Whatever his revelations, they are similar in nature and character to those of the Holy Prophet of Islam. So whatever he has said is just as good, according to him, as has come in the Holy Quran. This is his claim. He starts claiming equality with the Prophet of Islam and at this stage he has composed those laudable verses in Persian in which he said:
’’انبیاء گرچہ بودہ اند بسے
من بہ عرفان نہ کم ترم زکسے‘‘
(I am better and Superior to all the prophets who have come
’’آنچہ داداست ہر نبی را جام
داد آن جام دا مرا بہ تمام‘‘
(He who gave the cup to every Nabi gave me the same cup to the fullest measure, brimful.)
Again he says he was better and superior to all the prophets that have come. But at the same time he does not claim superiority, till this stage over the Holy Prophet of Islam but only says that his Wahi and his status is similar because Vahi is similarly pure.
I pointed out, it was my duty to point it out to Mirza Nasir Ahmad, as to what this meant and he did not deny it. The Committee will remember when he said that they were equal in status because of the source. The source is Allah. They considered 3009them to be equal. Then, Sir, throughout this period, that we have covered so far, he says. "I am an 'Umati' Nabi; I am 'Ghair Sharai Nabi', but here he thought he has attained equality with the Prophet of Islam except that he was an 'Umati'. By this he naturally gets a subordinate position because he does not get revelation which brings new law. He said he has not got a law of his own, but here we find- now he further promotes himself and says, and I am again quoting from 'Roohani Khazain' volume:17, pages: 435 and 436.
’’ماسوا اس کے یہ بھی تو سمجھو کہ شریعت کیا چیز ہے۔ جس نے اپنی وحی کے ذریعہ چند امر اور نہی بیان کئے اور اپنی امت کے لئے ایک قانون مقرر کیا۔ وہی صاحب الشریعت ہوگیا۔ پس اس تعریف کی رو سے بھی ہمارے مخالف ملزم ہیں۔ کیونکہ میری وحی میں امر بھی ہے اور نہی بھی۔‘‘
Here he says that, well, "in my وحی there is also the law the do's and donts which Moses law contained." Sir, these are the three stages, very briefly, because I have to cover some more grounds and I will not go in any further details, but here I would submit that it is now for this Committee to judge whether he claimed to be a Prophet; Prophet of what nature and character and kind. Now, Sir, after he claimed this, the question arises as to what is the effect of this claim? Why this agitation? Why were there sharp reactions against this claim? And that will take us to the concept of خاتم النّبیین; as to what it means, Why there was sharp reaction throughout the Muslim society, why those who considered him as, a hero, for after all Musalmans are not ungrateful people, they respect their leaders, their ulema, and challenge a person as I submitted yesterday, who was their hero, and is attacked by them, as his own son says:
’’کہ اس کی بھیڑیں بھیڑیے بن گئیں۔‘‘
Why? To show that, Sir, I will seek leave to submit very humbly as to what is the meaning of the concept of ختم نبوت and I hope that the learned friends here and he the Ulema will correct me if I make any mistake in explaining this concept according to my own dim light.
3010Now, Sir, literally خاتم النّبیین means the Seal of the Prophets. By the Seal of the Prophets, the Muslims generaly, throughout 1400 years, have meant that the Prophet of Islam was the last of the Prophets, the Message of Allah was delivered, finalised compeletely, finalized, sealed and delivered, and therefore the Message was complete and he was the last prophet, and the wisdom that appeared is that as mankind had matured, as mankind has matured mentally as well as physically, Allah thought that the final Message should be given to them, the code of conduct should be given to them, which should be applicable to all ages because the basic human needs, problems, difficulties are the same although conditions change and their character changes. Allah delivered His final Message through His final Prophet. He said nobody can ever add anything to it or detract anything from it or modify it or change it now. This was the concept of خاتم النّبیین or ختم نبوت. It simply meant that, the doors of revelation are closed for future. Now, Sir, what is the philosophy, what is the wisdom of the concept, because we know what is meant when we say, خاتم النّبیین Muslims interpret it, but the authoritative interpretation for Muslims could only come from the Holy Prophet himself, he interpreted it by saying لا نبی بعدی (after me there shall be no Prophet) and that interpretation is binding on every Musalman, and no school of thought has disputed the authenticity of this Hadis that he was the last Prophet as he said himself. But, Sir, when you look at the wisdom, this becomes clearer when we find that during his last illness, the Holy Prophet told his followers that while he was with them, they should listen to him and obey him. After he was gone from this world, then they should, in his words, "Hold on fast to the Quran and whatever is forbidden there should be considered forbidden and whatever is permissible therein should be considered permissible for you". Sir, we have not appreciated the beauty and the wisdom of this lesson. As I submitted, mankind had matured, mentally man was mature, the Message was complete. Now, when the Holy Prophet uttered these words, what were the conditions in this world, what were the circumstances? Fourteen hundred years ago, we find rulers, kings, tribal chiefs, and that was the stage of society that whatever they said was law, the word of ruler was law, the word of king was law; there was no other law known to mankind. Here in this small Message, for the first time, mankind has been given the concept of rule of law and the Prophet said; after him you do not have to obey anybody. You only obey Allah and his Message, Allah and his 3011Prophet. Hold on fast to Quran, whatever is forbidden therein that is forbidden for you, whatever is permissible therein that is permissible for you; and there lies the beauty that the concept of rule of law appeared for the first time. This is, in my humble opinion, emancipation proclamation for mankind that you will no longer be governed by kings and their word, or by dictators or rulers. You will be governed by law, here is the law, and if you will carefully study the history, what do we find? We find that the moment Prophet passes away, حضرت ابوبکر is elected. What is his inaugural address? What does he say? Here is the message, he says, "Obey me so long as I obey Allah and his Prophet. If I revolt against Allah and his Prophet, you are not obliged to obey me." This is the rule of law; the concept of rule of law was there. That is why, I think, the Muslim society agitated when another person appeared and said that in future "I would give you rulings, I will receive divine messages and this shall be binding on you, my divine revelations". That was the main reason why Muslim society agitated.
Another aspect, I hope, I am correct in explaining it, this was emancipation of thought. Muslims were free to think for themselves and interpret the Holy Quran for themselves. Nobody can give them a binding ruling on any provision and say this is binding on you. As Allama Iqbal said, "After the Holy Prophet there shall be no surrender in spiritual matter to any other individual". So, this was meant to be a charter of freedom to think for your-self. There is no doubt, Sir, that we got the freedom of interpretation, of course, that freedom of interpretation was limited within the frontiers of the cardinal Principles of Islam. For instance, the first principle was of توحید that is, Unity and Oneness Allah. So, the interpretation cannot challenge that.
The second principle was the principle of finality of Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him). That could not be challenged; and so the other cardinal principles but within those forntiers you were free to interpret the way you like, the way you thought was correct. There was no doubt that because of this freedom of interpretation we go divided in many sects, in many 'Firqas' but that also leads to the synthetic character of Islam and that also shows the democratic process. In this regard I will respectfully draw your attention to what Allama Iqbal says about these 'Firqas' 3012and their calling each other 'Kafir'. Sir, I read; this comes from the controversy which was raised at the time when pandit Jawaharlal Nahru, who said something about Ahmadis and Allama Iqbal got into this controversy. So, I will read some passage from Allama Iqbal's reply and what he wrote to "The Statesman" paper. Here he says:
"The idea of finality should not be taken to suggest that the ultimate fate of life is complete displacement of emotion by reason. Such a thing is neither possible nor desirable. The intellectual value of the idea is that it tends to create an independent critical attitude towards mystic experience by generating the belief that personal authority claiming a super- natural origin, has come to an end in the history of mankind. This kind of belief is a psychological force which inhibits the growth of such authority. The function of the idea is to open up fresh vistas of knowledge in the domain of man's inner experience."
Then, again, with reference to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Allama Iqbal continues to say:
"The opening sentence clearly shows that a saint in the psycholigical sense of the word or men of saintly character will always appear; whether Mirza Sahib belonged to this category or not is a separate question. Indeed as long as this spiritual capacity of mankind endures, they will rise among all nations and countries in order to show better the ideal of life to man. To hold otherwise would be to fly in the face of human experience. The only difference is that the modern man has a right to critical examination of their mystic experiences. The finality of prophethood means among other things that all personal authority in religious life, denial of which involves damnation, has come to an end."
So, in future, Sir, no one individual will come and say, "I have received divine revelation and this is the message of God and naturally binding on you." The only thing binding is what has already come in the Holy Quran. Then he further says, I quote Allama Iqbal:
3013"The simple Faith of Muhammad (Peace be upon him) is based on two propositions that God is one and Muhammad is the last of the line of those holy men who have appeared from time to time in all countries and in all ages to guide mankind to the right ways of living. If, as some Christian writer thinks, a dogma must be defined as an ultra rational proposition which, for the purpose of securing religious solidarity must be assented to without any understanding of the meta- physical import, then these two simple propositions of Islam cannot be described even as dogmas; for both of them are supported by the experience of mankind and are fairly amenable to rational argument."
(جاری ہے)