With-Love-to-Muhammad

Statements of Hazrat Muhy-ud-dīn Ibn ‘Arabī rh 171
intrinsic qualities of the Mahdī would be essentially
those of the Holy Prophet sa himself. 175
This is the greatness of the Promised Messiah and Imām
Mahdī as ! However, it seems that Farhan Khan insists upon
belittling the status of the Messiah.
Other than the above, Farhan Khan criticizes the
Promised Messiah as again by saying, “[Hazrat Mirzā Ghulām
Ahmad as ] understands khātam al-nabīyīn to mean finality of
prophethood, but in the same sentence, he says all future
prophets will be zillī or burūzī prophets. The finality of
prophets is an unconditional statement leaving no room for
exceptions. Zillī or burūzī prophets are a subset of prophets that
khātam al-nabīyīn has terminated. This is a contradiction.” 176
This is in fact not a contradiction in the writings of the
Promised Messiah as . Instead, it most certainly is a contradiction
in Farhan Khan’s arguments! When Ibn ‘Arabī’ rh says that one
form of prophethood continues after the Holy Prophet sa , he does
not have any problem with that but when the Promised
Messiah as says that one form of prophethood continues after the
Holy Prophet sa , then it becomes a contradiction! How ridiculous
and unacceptable! Why did he not apply the same rule to
Hazrat Ibn ‘Arabī rh and write a book against him? Why did he
not try to refute Hazrat Ibn ‘Arabī rh that the phrase Khātam-an-
Nabiyyīn does not allow any kind of prophethood to continue,
whatsoever? In addition, in accordance with his usual practice,
the actual quotation of the Promised Messiah as was not
presented. Khan was deceptive enough to know that his
criticism would have been invalidated had he presented the
175
Sharah Fusūs Al-Hikam, Page 35
176
Khan, With Love, Page 40