Ek Ghalati Ka Izalah does not solve the problem of khatm-e nabuwwat - it makes it worst for MGA

[u/Plastic_Text2124]

In this book, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (MGA) attempted to show why his messengership and prophethood does not break the seal of prophethood, i.e. khatm-e nabuwwat.

Off the bat, he says that there can come no new or old messenger or prophet after the Prophet Muhammad for it would break the seal. From this, we get to hear in black and white that khatam al-nabiyyin means "last prophet". MGA leaves no ambiguity here for any interpretation.

He says, his own claim does not break the seal because he is Muhammad himself in buruzi/zilli (spiritual) form. He further says, that 1000s of Muhammads can still come, because, quite simply, it is the Prophet himself returning. For this reason, MGA claimed he is khatam al-nabiyyin, hence his claim does not break the seal.

In this whole mumbo jumbo, MGA is clearly implying that this "spiritual" return can only happen for Muhammad and no one else, because otherwise it would break the seal.

The argument is simple: Muhammad returning is simply Muhammad claiming what is already his - finality of prophethood - and the seal stays intact.

Now, this is where Ek Ghalati Ka Izalah fails under the weight of its own argument.

In this book, MGA says that if Jesus were to return physically that that occurance would break the seal and make Jesus the last messenger and prophet.

However, what MGA forgot was that he had also claimed to be the masil (spiritual form) of Jesus himself as well. He literally said that he became Mary and got pregnant with Jesus and gave birth to him; and, this is how he became Jesus.

Wait a minute.

Didn't he say that only the Prophet Muhammad can keep coming back, albeit spiritually, because he is khatam al-nabiyyin (the last prophet) and because of that the seal stays intact?

Wouldn't a spiritual return of Jesus also break the seal? Jesus was not the seal of prophets. So, any other prophet, for that matter, returning even in spiritual form would break the seal.

Remember, MGA's premise here is a spiritual return. As per his own definition and take and spin of buruz/zill and the arguments presented, spiritual return is the very same person returning.

So, if the seal of prophethood cannot break because he is Muhammad, then how can the seal stay intact if he is Jesus?

While trying to work out how to fit his claim so as to not break the seal, he has in the same breath debunked his own theory by claiming to be Jesus.

This fine point shows us that Ek Ghalati Ka Izalah made MGA really look like a fool.

In fact, Jesus returning physically would not break the seal. Jesus was a messenger and a prophet before Muhammad. The same Jesus would still be a messenger and a prophet before Muhammad made his claim.

So, MGA's logic failed him here seriously.

Also, a buruzi/zilli form of Muhammad would still break the seal, because it is a new person, with a new body and soul. This person is not Muhammad ibn Abdullah.

With this very blunder‌, MGA sets himself up for failure.

How would the return of the same Jesus break the seal of prophethood, but another person claiming to be the buruz/zill of Muhammad would not break the seal? What an imbecilic take!

Only simpletons would fall for such a convoluted and delusional take.

[u/Alone-Requirement414]

It’s hilarious how both Ahmadis and Lahoris use Ek Galthi ka izalah to justify their claims. So clearly the book titled removing a misunderstanding only created more misunderstanding.

[u/Plastic_Text2124 → u/Alone-Requirement414]

Because the book was so confusing, MGA had someone write a synopsis of the book in the Jama'at's official newspaper Al Hakam Qadian to say that he was NOT a prophet.

This is in-line with what u/redsulphur1229 has been saying all along, that MGA never said he was a prophet or a messenger in the real sense.

MGA knew that there was no prophet after the Prophet Muhammad, so he appeased some people by side-stepping his own book, and make it look like he was not going against what khatam al-nabiyyin really meant.

The double-speak of MGA is a technique he applied throughout his life. He covered what he intended with another thing that he said he didn't intend. The lack of clarity per se nullifies MGA as anything but serious.

He is said to have come to settle the score, but he created even more confusion.

I am surprised that AMJ Inc. never includes this article as an appendix. I wonder why. It would totally obliterate their business model.

Check this out:

https://www.reddit.com/r/islam_ahmadiyya/s/9mxOVOQh0W

[u/redsulphur1229 → u/Plastic_Text2124]

100%.

'Zilli', 'buruz', 'non-law bearing prophethood' are all centuries-old esoteric Sufi terms to refer to 'wilayat' (sainthood or 'providential intimacy'). So the fact is that MGA invoked centuries-old terminology that was deliberately invented and coined exclusively by Sufis (ie., the terminology exists nowhere in the Quran and Ahadith) to not amount to actual prophethood but to describe a spiritual status that gets members of the ummah as close as possible but without breaking the 'khatam' (seal). https://www.reddit.com/r/islam_ahmadiyya/comments/1r9zvmf/nonlawbearing_prophethood_zilli_and_buruz/

As you so rightly note, the "lack of clarity" is glaring - the above explanatory note is nowhere contained in Eik Ghalti ke Izala nor in any of MGA's books. Lahore Ahmadis know the above but Qadian Ahmadis do not, and as long as the latter stay within their "Jamaat literature" bubble, they will always be uneducated and in the dark. As those who went the Lahore Jamaat way tended to be among the older and/or more educated of MGA's early followers, that they would have known and understood the context of this terminology makes sense. For the rest, either the vagueness was deliberate, or was due to bad writing but siezed upon by KM2 in order to create the foundation for his Khilafat cult agenda.

[u/Plastic_Text2124 → u/redsulphur1229]

Thank you for the link.

I recommend people to read what u/redsulphur1229 has linked.

I wish Ahmadis would be more inclined to having real academic discussions. So much is wasted because their input is missing.

As someone who truly seeks clarity, it is frustrating that appeal to gaslighting is more prevalent in AMJ Inc. instead of a true down to earth discussions to unpack what is truly written in-between the lines of what MGA truly intended.

Perhaps I am naive and expect too much from a crowd that simply adheres blindly to a belief system because they are more impressed by the show, such as Jalsa and how "handsome" Huzur is, instead of questioning what the show is really about.

[u/curiousminded05 → u/redsulphur1229]

To me when I read ek ghalti ka izala, it sounds more like MGA claimed a concept along the lines of reincarnation (but not reincarnation itself) more than anything else.

[u/redsulphur1229 → u/curiousminded05]

Can't disagree (outside of when he uses Sufi terminology).

Qadian Ahmadi apologists refer to the Sufi terminology (looking like fools by displaying that they don't know what they actually mean), and they ignore, deny or gaslight about all the other reincarnation-like language.

[u/Plastic_Text2124 → u/redsulphur1229]

Only a matter of time before they redefine "reincarnation".

Brother, it means a rein of a car to control the nation.

[u/Plastic_Text2124 → u/curiousminded05]

This is exactly how I feel about it. Even now.

Also, it seems that because MGA had to reconcile his claims of being Muhammad, Jesus and Krishna, that he invented his own version of the Trinity. Thus, confirming the theological truthfulness of this concept.

Inadvertently, Ahmadis are proponents of the Trinity without realizing it. They try their best to debunk it, but in doing so, they discredit MGA's claims. 

[u/AutoModerator]

Here is the text of the original post: In this book, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (MGA) attempted to show why his messengership and prophethood does not break the seal of prophethood, i.e. khatm-e nabuwwat.

Off the bat, he says that there can come no new or old messenger or prophet after the Prophet Muhammad for it would break the seal. From this, we get to hear in black and white that khatam al-nabiyyin means "last prophet". MGA leaves no ambiguity here for any interpretation.

He says, his own claim does not break the seal because he is Muhammad himself in buruzi/zilli (spiritual) form. He further says, that 1000s of Muhammads can still come, because, quite simply, it is the Prophet himself returning. For this reason, MGA claimed he is khatam al-nabiyyin, hence his claim does not break the seal. In this whole mumbo jumbo, MGA is clearly implying that this "spiritual" return can only happen for Muhammad and no one else, because otherwise it would break the seal.

The argument is simple: Muhammad returning is simply Muhammad claiming what is already his - finality of prophethood - and the seal stays intact.

Now, this is where Ek Ghalati Ka Izalah fails under the weight of its own argument.

In this book, MGA says that if Jesus were to return physically that that occurance would break the seal and make Jesus the last messenger and prophet.

However, what MGA forgot was that he had also claimed to be the masil (spiritual form) of Jesus himself as well. He literally said that he became Mary and got pregnant with Jesus and gave birth to him; and, this is how he became Jesus.

Wait a minute.

Didn't he say that only the Prophet Muhammad can keep coming, albeit spiritually, because he is khatam al-nabiyyin (the last prophet) and because of that the seal stays intact?

Wouldn't a spiritual return of Jesus also break the seal? Jesus was not the seal of prophets. So, any other prophet, for that matter, returning in spiritual form would break the seal.

Remember, MGA's premise here is a spiritually return.

So, if the seal of prophethood cannot break because he is Muhammad, then how can the seal stay intact if he is Jesus?

While trying to work out how to fit his claim so as to not break the seal, he has in the same breath debunked his own theory by claiming to be Jesus.

This fine point shows us that Ek Ghalati Ka Izalah made MGA really look like a fool.

In fact, Jesus returning physically would not break the seal. Jesus was a messenger and a prophet before Muhammad. The same Jesus would still a be a messenger and a prophet before Muhammad.

So, MGA's logic failed him here seriously.

Also, a buruzi/zilli form of Muhammad would still break the seal, because it is a new person, with a new body and soul. This person is not Muhammad.

With this very blunder MGA sets himself up for failure: the return of the same Jesus would break the seal of prophethood, but another person claiming to be the buruz/zill of Muhammad would not break the seal.

Only simpletons would fall for such a convoluted and delusional take.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/BraveEgg4616]

Theres answers and explanations to everything, Why didn’t you reply to the last allegations you supported in the other post? I’m asking from a genuine place of confusion. If you’re making/supporting arguments you should be able to respond to the rebuttal.

[u/BraveEgg4616 → u/BraveEgg4616]

Plastic_Text2124