Taken from “2 sections of the ahmadiyya movement” by m. ali
PG 6&7.  http://www.aaiil.org/text/books/mali/twosectionsahmadiyyamovement/twosectionsahmadiyyamovement.pdf

Lahore May 25th 1908:

Mohiyudin ibn-i-arabi has also written to the same effect.  Hazrat Mujaddid (Ahmad of Sirhand) has also expressed his belief like it.  Would you then call all of them Kafirs?  Remember this instiution continues until the last day”.  BADR 1908

Match that up with Sarwar Shah:

“The word ‘Nabi’, depending on its roots, carries two meanings. Firstly, one who receives news about the unseen from his Allah. Secondly, a spiritually elevated person, whom Allah favours with lots of divine speech and informs him in news of the unknown or future. He is a Nabi and in this sense I consider all Mujaddideen of the past as Nabis of various degrees.” (Badar, February 16, 1911)

Then somebody tell this guy to go back to the drawing board:

http://www.alislam.org/library/books/Khataman-Nabiyyeen-20080611MN.pdf

This guy argues that previous saints believed that perfect prophets could come.

SMMA always thought HMGA was a juzvi nabi.  After the split SMMA was told that m. ali was lowering the position of HMGA.  SMMA began to write that m. ali was a fool etc etc.  A couple of months later he learned that HMBMA and company considered HMGA as a perfect nabi.  Mr. Akmal(see 2 sections of the ahmadiyya movement by m. ali) wanted SMMA to change his beliefs.  SMMA was shocked by all this.  He visited qadian and saw this with his own eyes.  He realized that M. ali was in the right.  He must have almost had a heart attack.  He never imagined that HMGA was a perfect prophet. 

1.  HMBMA made the same excuse in AS.  This is very ignorant.  It’s obvious SMMA thought HMGA was in the circle of juzvi nabi’s, not in the circle of mustaqil nabis. 

2.  Firstly, HMBMA defamed the character of SMMA:

“In the first place, the words of Maulawi Muhammad Ahsan possess no special authority. They may be regarded as possessing the same value as the words of any other learned man.” AS pg.125

3.  Then HMBMA writes that he cannot be held liable for this”

“………in October, 1913, when I had already for two years ceased to have any active connection with the magazine.”AS pg. 125

4.  Then, HMBMA tries to explain that juzvi nabis=perfect nabis:

“What concerns us is the writer’s intention, not the terms which he uses. A difference of terms is of no great moment so long as we agree on the meaning of those terms.”  AS pg. 126.

5.  HMBMA explains that he has no difference with SMMA in terms of the definition of HMGA’s nubuwwat, except one thing:

“The only objection I can take to the article is that he calls this kind of Nubuwwat, Nubuwwati Juzwi. We do not describe the Promised Messiahas’s Nubuwwat as Nubuwwati Juzwi.”

6.    SMMA was writing that HMGA was “LIKE” them.  Refferring to the Hadith in which the HP said that the saints of the muslim dispensation were like the Israeli prophets.

6.a.  Juzvi nubuwwat(imperfect nubuwwat) and non-law bearing prophethood(perfect prophethood) share a similarity.  That is DIVINE COMMUNICATION.  HMGA shared this similarity with the nabis in the Mosiac order.

6.b.  In fact, this one element(mubashirat), was given so much to HMGA that he was greater than all the prophets in the mosiac order.

6.c.   Even average saints like Bilal were greater than prophets of the mosaic order based on this element(mubashirat).  

6.d.  This is the concept that SMMA is refferring to!!!!!!!
 

Both sides agree that HMGA was a nabi un-like all the nabis in the Mosaic dispensation.  The similarity is in terms of divine communication. 

So when refferring to HMGA being like the nabis in the mosaic order, it is in terms of divine communion.  GOD spoke to HMGA like he spoke to Israelite nabis.

Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad wrote:

“…there is no doubt that I have come as a muhaddas from God, and muhaddas is, in one sense, a prophet, though he does not possess perfect prophethood; but still he is partially (juzwi) a prophet, for he is endowed with the gift of being spoken to by God…

However, it should be remembered with presence of mind that this prophethood which continues forever is not perfect prophethood but, as I have just explained, it is only a partial (juz’i) prophethood which in other words is named by the term muhaddasiyya.” (Tauzih Maram, 1819, in Ruhani Khaza’in, v. 3, p. 60)

Mirza Mahmud Ahmad wrote in Haqiqat-un-Nubuwwat in 1915:

The books in which he has denied being a prophet in clear words, and has called his prophethood as partial (juz’i) and imperfect, and as the prophethood of saints (muhaddas), are all without exception books from before the year 1901 … and in the books after 1901 there is not one book in which he has declared his prophethood as juz’i.” (Haqiqat-un-nubuwwat, on alislam.org in the Anwar-ul-Uloom series, v. 2, book 10, p. 443-444)

Therefore Maulana S. M. Ahsan Amrohi has actually confirmed the Lahore belief by using the term nubuwwat-i juzwi for the Promised Messiah’s status.

Israelite prophets after Moses still received books, and Jesus according to the Quran was given the Injil as his book.

According to the Promised Messiah, because Jesus was a prophet to whom a book like the Injil was revealed by angel Jibreel, this means that if he came again he would be bound to follow the revelation that came to him and he would receive in revelation “a new book which would abrogate the Quran, Torah and the Injil”.

He concludes: “God will never tolerate such disgrace and humiliation for this Umma, and insult to His Prophet, as to send a rasul with whom Jibreel must come” (Izala Auham, p. 575-585 of original edition).

Therefore, a prophet holding the office of prophethood that Jesus held certainly cannot come.

“The prophecies regarding future events granted in proof of the truth of Islam will be trasmitted through the medium of Nabuwwat and that is what is meant by Nabuwwat Ghair Tashir (non Law bearing Nabi) or Nabuwwat i Juzvi (Partial Prophethood).
ALL THE NABIS WHO CAME AFTER MOSES WERE HONORED BY THE GIFT OF THIS KIND OF NABUWWAT BECAUSE THE NABUWWAT AHKAM (LAW BEARING NABUWWAT) HAD CEASED AMONG THE ISRAELITES WITH THE ADVENT OF THE TORAH”
So HMGA (as) was an actual nabi without bringing a new law the same way Israelites had prophets who brought no new law,  like Aaron, David, Solomon and Jesus.

Similarly, members of the Qadiani Jamaat could be given the recent English translations of Asmani Faisala and Nishan-i Asmani on the alislam.org website to read, and see if they spot any difference between the claims of Hazrat Mirza sahib in these books and their own beliefs. I think they will not spot any difference, despite it being there clearly.

Dr Ijaz writes: “Also before AGKI, HMGA said replace word ‘Nabi’ with ‘Muhuddus’, but with AGKI he didn’t tell his followers to do that.”

That declaration came at the end of a debate between HMGA and one Maulvi Abdul Hakim in Lahore in 1892. (Read declaration here.)

After 1901, HMGA confirmed what his position in that debate was:

“In Lahore I had a debate with a Maulvi Abdul Hakim. I put to him: Why do you object to God speaking, when Hazrat Umar was a muhaddas. He denied it flatly and said that the Holy Prophet had only stated hypothetically [that Hazrat Umar was a muhaddas], and that Hazrat Umar was not a muhaddas. He did not at all believe that there was any revelation after the Holy Prophet.” (Malfuzat, 1984 edition, v. 3, p. 54-55; 24 May 1903)

“In Lahore I had a debate with a Maulvi on the word muhaddas, that it says in Hadith reports that muhaddas is one to whom God speaks, and this applied to Hazrat Umar. The Maulvi replied that as in Islam there is no revelation after the Holy Prophet, therefore Hazrat Umar did not achieve this rank.” (v. 7, p. 229, statement made on 28 October 1904)

Apart from this, he also stated on 24th October 1902:

“In the verse of the Quran “And We did not send before you any rasul or any nabi…” [22:52], the words “or any muhaddas” are added in a less well-known reading, and that reading has the status of a sahih hadith. Just as the revelation of a nabi or rasul is protected, so is the wahy of a muhaddas protected, as stated in this verse.” (v. 4, p. 121)

According to Islamic authorities going back to Sahih Bukhari, where the verse 22:52 says “any rasul or any nabi”, the words “or any muhaddas” are understood as included in it.

I presented the article for him to read, and his response was: ‘yes, good article. thanks for letting me see it’.

I can agree.  We believe the nabuwwat of HMGA is not of the type that violates khatamun nabiyyin or hadith ‘no prophet after me’. He was a non-law bearing Nabi, which Maulvi Ahsan keeps stressing, and also not a ‘mustaqil’ Nabi, which again the Maulvi sahib keeps stressing at the end of the article.

The ambigious part is of course, is HMGA a Nabi like the previous non-law bearing Prophets were also called Nabi, or is he a Nabi like previous Mujaddids/Saints can be called Nabi.

In AGKI itself HMGA states previous Nabis were called Nabis since they received knowledge of the unseen and in other quotes he has stated he is a prophet like the way Israelites had non-law-bearing Prophets.

Also before AGKI, HMGA said replace word ‘Nabi’ with ‘Muhuddus’, but with AGKI he didn’t tell his followers to do that.

Even my friend Mr Chaudhry answered without having the benefit of this.

Chapter 7, page 51, & pdf page 49 of this book is an attempt to explain Muhammad Ali sahib’s 1908 quote. I don’t find it satisfactory.

Mr Choudry is saying Allah has the theoretical power to make someone a nabi NOT that it can actually happen since no amount of supplication can make one a Nabi.

However Mr Choudhry has not presented the full 1908 quote, since it is also stated that for Allah to bestow any one of these four stations, ‘there has to be one who asks’. It is thus NOT a theoretical statement of the potential powers of Allah, but an achievable blessing.