Neither the Quran nor Hadith anywhere mention zilli, buroozi, ghair tashri`i nabis. Even shari`ah in the sense of Islamic law, as this term is widely used, is not mentioned anywhere in the Quran or Hadith.

According to Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din, the term majaz is not found before the 3rd century of Islam.

Wilayat is the perfect zill (reflection) of prophethood. (Hujjat Allah).

So anytime we see the two words zill (in the form of zilli) and nabi in HMGA’s writings, should we think that these two words point to a claim to some kind of prophethood, or are they words which describe some kind of a relation?

Just as Rasul Allah and Nabiullah describe a relationship between a Man and God (Messenger of God or Prophet of God respectively), similarly zilli nabi means a Saint who is the perfect reflection of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Just as the Messenger or Prophet does not become some kind of deity through the use of the above words, similarly a Saint does not become some kind of prophet through the use of the words zilli prophet. Zilli Nabi are just relational words.

I actually argued this topic with a fellow ahmadi(q) in early 2007.  It’s amazing how I wasnt the only person to discover this.  This guy kepy asserting that ummati aur nabi means ummati nabi.  I told him that they were different.  In my opinion ummati-nabi is a classification that is gray in definition, while ummati aur nabi means that these are polar opposites. 

Ummati aur nabi means that:  I am a perfect follower and I am an imperfect nabi.  But I can be called a nabi in a certain sense.  That sense was always classes as imperfect, metaphoric, partial, reflective and counter-type.  HMBMA argued that the sense changed in 1901, it went from imperfect to perfect.

Certainly Hafiz Sher Muhammad sahib was most insistent on saying “ummati aur nabi” and not ummati nabi. In a article by him, I once translated his heading “ummati aur nabi” from Urdu as if it were ummati nabi and sent it to him in Cape Town. He had the translation amended to the term he had used.

He also challenged the Qadiani Jamaat to show anywhere where Hazrat Mirza sahib ahd used the term Ummati nabi.

See pages 26-32
 

Thank you for your reply. I assumed that ZA’s post covered this issue well and did not feel the need to respond myself (since I don’t have that book). I did not realize that you were expecting a response from me. I do see that you had addressed the post to me. Sorry if there was any confusion.

On the issue of the compound phrase “ummati-nabi” I just wanted to know if there was a place that HMGA had actually used it. I have not come across it in any of his writings or any writings that pertain to the issues of the split (and these latter contain all manner of quotes from his writings).  I have not read all of his writings and was wondering if anyone had come across this phrase.

And yes, I read the data from ZA, I responded to that data, but by response was not posted.  I had written that it seems SMZK had decieved me at the least, and the general readers in general.  I think HMN’s(noorudin) book should be examined.  Does it have two contradictory statements?  I dont know, i havent read the book, if I could read urdu, I would have already read it…….

How about that…..

Secondly, I have always written that HMGA never called himself as an ”ummati nabi”.  The closest that he ever came was BA Vol.5 where he wrote something to the effect that this was a compound name.  But he always insisted to be called, “an ummati from one angle and nabi from another”.  But he never said “ummati nabi”, that is a fact.

is there anything else I should clarify?