dfgiVej

90 With Love to Muhammad sa the Khātam-un-Nabiyyīn
وَرَ‏ سُ‏ وْ‏ لاً‏ اِلىٰ‏ بَنىِ‏ ْۤ اِسرْ‏ ‏ٰٓءِيْلَۙ‏ ...80
This means that Hazrat ‘Īsā bin Mariam as is a “Prophet for the
Banī Isrā’īl” and was meant to establish the law of the Torah
among the Jews. Now, when he returns and attempts to join the
ummah of the Holy Prophet Muhammad sa , would he be given
the authority to modify the law of the Holy Qur’ān to make it
aligned with the law of the Torah? Or would he be allowed to
abrogate the verse above as it restricts his message to the Banī
Isrā’īl only? Farhan Khan should probably think about these
numerous paradoxes that exist in his own concept of the return
of Hazrat ’Īsā bin Mariam as , whom he considers to be a “lawbearing
Prophet,” before criticizing Islām Ahmadiyya.
Questions for Farhan Khan:
1. Why does he always present the Ahmadiyya Muslim
side of the arguments in his own words instead of
quoting from the official literature of the Jamā‘at?
2. If Hazrat ‘Īsā as was a law-bearing prophet, why does
Allāh say that he judged for the Jews according to the
law of the Torah in 5:45?
3. When Hazrat ‘Īsā as returns, according to Farhan Khan,
what happens to 3:50?
80
Sūrah Āle ‘Imrān, 3:50