My analogy was only meant to illustrate how persons in a lesser category can excel someone in a higher one, or as someone used to put it, the governor of California excels the Presidents of many countries in the resources that he commands, but he doesn’t sit with them at a world summit.

The “only one in the Umma who was openly a Nabi” found that he couldn’t call himself nabi without the addition of several explanations and restrictions such as zilli, buroozi etc., and wrote in his Will that to call him only as nabi “would be derogatory to the completely perfect prophethood of the Holy Prophet Muhammad”.

Also, Qazi Muhammad Nazir was the author of Truth Prevails, that is where myself and Tahir Ijaz came across this particular reference. 

Its very strange how QMN doesnt show the previous pages.

“Islam is the only religion in the world having the virtue that, provided the truest and fullest obedience is rendered to our Leader and Master the Holy Prophet Muhammad, peace and the blessings of God be upon him, one can have the privilege of Divine revelation. For this reason it is recorded in Hadith: Ulama ummati ka-anbiya Bani Israil, that is, ‘the godly ulama from among my followers are like the prophets of Israel’. In this Saying too, the godly ulama are on the one hand called ummati, and on the other hand they are called the likes of prophets.” (Supplement to Barahin Ahmadiyya Part V, pp. 183 – 184)

This explains what is “an ummati and a nabi”.

Immediately following, he goes on to mention that among the Israelites even women such as the mothers of Moses and Jesus received revelation from God. So this Umma would be wretched if its men were not even as blessed as the women of the Israelites. Thus the revelation he is talking about as continuing among Muslims is the revelation to non-prophets.

In Izala Auham in 1891 he had written the same:

“Of all the leaders of Tasawwuf that there have been till the present day, not even one has disagreed with the point that in this religion the path to become the likes of prophets is open, as the Holy Prophet Muhammad has given the glad tidings for spiritual and godly learned persons that ‘the Ulama of my nation are like the Israelite Prophets’. The words of Abu Yazid Bustami given below, which are recorded in Tazkirat al-Auliya by Farid-ud-Din Attar, and are also found in other reliable works, are on this basis, as he says: ‘I am Adam, I am Seth, I am Noah, I am Abraham, I am Moses, I am Jesus, I am Muhammad, peace be upon him and upon all these brothers of his.’ … Similarly, Sayyid Abdul Qadir Jilani, in his book Futuh al-Ghaib, refers to this point, i.e. that man, by leaving his ego and annihilating himself in God, becomes the like, rather the very form, of the prophets.” (Izala Auham, pp. 258 – 260)

This “becoming the very form of the prophets” is exactly what he discussed in 1901 in Ayk Ghalati Ka Izala:

“I am that same prophet, the Khatam al-anbiya in the sense of burooz, … And as, in the sense of reflection (zill), I am Muhammad, … As I am Muhammad in the sense of burooz, and all his attainments including his prophethood are projected as an image by way of burooz in my mirror of reflection,…”

Whether it is 1891, 1901 or 1905, he said exactly the same thing.

Seems his careful explanations didnt work.  A split occurred in his movement.  Two groups emerged, both explaining it.  I am still not sure which group is correct.

FUN FACT OF THE WEEK:  HMGA never called himself an ummati-nabi in EGKI.  In fact he didnt even call himself an ummati aur nabi.  EGKI seems like an explanation of baruz.
EGKI was for new members of the movement to read.  It wasnt for the likes of m. ali, maulvi abdul kareem, Maulvi noorudin etc etc.

Rememeber HMBMA was only 12.  We arent even sure if he read this book in 1901 or not.  HMBMA never revealed this secret. 

I have always thought.  Who explained to HMBMA the story of EGKI that he later present in 1915???  HMBA admitted that Maulvi Noorudin taught him some things about the Ismuhu Ahmad prophecy(later, he contracted from this view).  But he never revealed his knowledge of EGKI.

Of course m. ali alleged that Zahirrudin was the culprit of most of this.  See aaiil.org books section.

The closest he came was in BA vol.5.  He writes:

“In the course of the wahyi (revelations) coming down on me, Allah has repeatedly called me an Ummati, as well as a Prophet. Hearing myself called by these two names gives me a great joy and comfort, and I render thanks for having been called by this compound name in which there appears to be this implication that it should strike the Christians like a lash to make them realise that whereas they raised Jesus Christ, son of Mary, to Godhead, our Master, the Holy Prophet Mohammad, was a Prophet of such extraordinary eminence, that even a member of his Ummat could become a Nabi, a Prophet, and come to be called Isa, even though he is an Ummati, a follower of the Holy Prophet Mohammad.” (Zamima Barahin-i-Ahmadiyya, part V, page 184)

On the topic of “superiority” over Jesus, Hazrat Mirza sahib wrote in a late book, Haqiqat-ul-Wahy, as follows:

“It must also be remembered here that as I was charged with the service of the reform of the whole world, for the reason that our master and leader (Holy Prophet Muhammad) came for the whole world, so in accordance with that great service I was granted the powers and faculties necessary for bearing this burden, and I was granted the knowledge and the signs which were necessary to conclusively establish the argument for this age. But it was not necessary that Jesus should be granted that knowledge and those signs because they were not required at that time. So he was granted only those powers and faculties that were necessary for the reform of a small sect of the Jews. Also, we are inheritors of the Holy Quran, whose teaching is a collection of all perfections and is for the whole world but Jesus was inheritor of only the Torah whose teaching was incomplete and meant for a particular nation.” (p. 151)

“The summary is that as I am the follower of a prophet who combined in himself all the excellences of mankind, and his Shari‘ah was perfect and complete and was meant for the reform of the whole world, so I have been granted those faculties that were necessary for the reform of the whole world. There is no doubt that Jesus was not granted those faculties which have been granted to me because he came for a particular nation, and if he were in my place he would not, by his nature, be able to accomplish the work that the grace of God has granted me the strength to do — this is by way of expression of gratitude for a bounty of Allah, not by way of pride.” (p. 153)

One can put forward many analogies. A physicist today knows physics more accurately and better than Newton, because he is a follower of Einstein who perfected Newton’s work. In that sense the physicist is superior to Newton. But still it does not make him a greater physicist or a greater genius than Newton.

An airline pilot today has more flying skills than the Wright brothers or Charles Lindburgh (see the film The Spirit of St Louis starring James Stewart). He flies faster and handles much more sophisticated aricraft. Is he then a greater aviator than the Wright brothers or Charles Lindburgh?

“So the fact that he [the Messiah to come] has been called a follower [of the Holy Prophet Muhammad] as well as a prophet indicates that the qualities of both discipleship and prophethood will be found in him, as it is essential for both of these to be found in a muhaddas. The possessor of full prophethood, however, has only the quality of prophethood. To conclude, muhaddasiyyat is coloured with both colours. For this reason, in [the Divine revelations published in] Barahin Ahmadiyya too, God named this humble one as follower and as prophet.” (Izala Auham, p. 533)