``This letter should be answered in detail so that our beliefs are conveyed to him.''

(Newspaper Al-Hakam, 30 November 1901, p.\ 2)

In obedience to this instruction, the Maulana wrote a letter to Hafiz Muhammad Yusuf which was also published in the Ahmadiyya community's paper Al-Hakam. The editor added the following introductory note:

``Below we reproduce an invaluable letter by Maulana Sayyid Muhammad Ahsan of Amroha which, although written by him as a reply to a postcard from Muhammad Yusuf of Amritsar, is in fact a subtle exposition of that pamphlet which Hazrat Aqdas [Hazrat Mirza] published under the title Ayk Ghalati Ka Izala. The points of truth and knowledge contained in this letter need no advertisement from us --- the name 'scholar of Amroha' is sufficient. But we would say that in this letter the scholarly gentleman is speaking with support of the Holy Spirit.

(Al-Hakam, 24 November 1901, p.\ 9)

 The letter, published under the title "Raqimat al-Wudud", is as follows:

 ``Sir, the pamphlet with reference to which you say that Mirza sahib has claimed prophethood in it, that very pamphlet contains the following texts in which this claim is clearly and explicitly denied. It is to be regretted that you neither understood the claim itself nor the denial. The texts are as follows:

 `There certainly cannot come any prophet, new or old.'

 `Such a belief [i.e., in the continuity of `wahy nubuwwat', the revelation which distinguishes a prophet from a non-prophet] is undoubtedly a sin, and the verse `he is the Messenger of God and the Khatam an-nabiyyin' along with the hadith `there is to be no prophet after me' is conclusive proof of the absolute falsity of this view.'

 `I am strongly opposed to such beliefs.'

Look how strong is the denial.

 `I have true and full faith in this statement.'

That is, the Seal of the Prophets verse.

 `After the Holy Prophet Muhammad, the doors of prophecies have been closed till the Day of Judgment. But one window, that of the path of Siddiq, is open. That is to say, the window of self-effacement in the Holy Prophet (fana fir-rasul).'

I.e., perfect successorship to the Holy Prophet, which is known in other words as `burooz' [manifestation].

`It is not possible now for a Hindu or a Jew or a Christian or a nominal Muslim to apply the word nabi to himself.'

That is, without reaching the station of `fana fir-rasul'.

'All the windows of prophethood have been closed.'

That is, without becoming `fana fir-rasul'.

`There is no way to the graces of God except through the Holy Prophet's mediation.'

`After our Holy Prophet Muhammad till the Day of Judgment, there is no prophet to whom a new shari`ah is to be revealed.'

Look, in this extract it is denied that a law-bearing prophet will ever come after the Holy Prophet.

`And whoever makes a claim of prophethood bearing a new law commits heresy.'

`I am not the independent bearer of a shari`ah.'

Mr. Hafiz, open your eyes to read this!

`Nor am I an independent prophet.'

Mr. Hafiz, read this sentence for God's sake!

`I am not a bearer of law.'

Read this with fear of God!

`All these graces have not been bestowed upon me without mediation, rather, there is a holy being in heaven, namely, Muhammad mustafa, whose spiritual benefit I receive.'

`In other words, the term Khatam an-nabiyyin is a Divine seal which has been put upon the prophethood of the Holy Prophet. It is not possible now that this seal could ever break.'

Look how strong is this denial.

`A seal has been put upon prophethood till the Day of Judgment.'

See how often this denial is repeated in a 3-page poster.

'Ignorant opponents raise the allegation against me that I claim to be a nabi [prophet] or rasul [messenger]. I make no such claim.'

Mr. Hafiz, it is the height of ignorance to level this charge after all these denials.

`I am neither a prophet nor an apostle in the sense which they have in mind.'

`Hence the person who maliciously accuses me of claiming prophethood and apostleship is a liar and an evil-minded one.'

``O Mr. Hafiz, if you have any fear of God in you, can you say of a man whose writing in a 3-page poster so frequently denies a claim to independent prophethood, that he is a claimant to independent prophethood? Or, can any sensible person say that this fana fir-rasul has claimed that prophethood and apostleship which is denied by the consensus of opinion of the entire Muslim nation? Both you and I are nearing the end of our lives. How, then, can you be so bold as to make this accusation?''

``Afterwards, Husain Bakhsh, who is familiar with the history of Hazrat Mirza, asked me if he had advanced a new claim. I told him that there was no new claim. The claims were the same as in the beginning. He said that he had heard that, in a recent poster, a claim to prophethood had clearly

been made. I told him that he could see the poster, which did not contain anything of the sort. Therefore, upon his request, Mian Muhammad Yusuf brought the poster entitled Ayk Ghalati Ka Izala from his home and read it out seriously and thoughtfully, which made a deep impression upon the audience. He could not understand the issue of burooz. Sometimes he would call it re-incarnation, and sometimes he would say that Mirza sahib will in future lay claim to divinity, as Shams Tabriz and Mansur had done. I tried my best to make him understand this point, and quoted parallels from the lives of Hazrat Mujaddid of Sirhind and Sayyid Ahmad Barelvi, etc.''

``Objection: In Tauzih Maram you call yourself a muhaddas and say that a muhaddas too is a prophet in one sense. But now in this poster you write that `my title cannot be muhaddas because in no lexicon does the word tahdees convey the meaning of disclosing the unseen'.

 ``Answer: We say that there could only have been a contradiction between these two places if there was an affirmation of being a muhaddas in a certain sense, and then a denial made with regard to the same sense. But here the senses in the two places are different. Therefore, in accordance with the principle, lau l-al-i`tibaraat la-batal-al-hikma, your alleged contradiction disappears. In the poster [Correction of an Error], he has made the denial in the sense that in Arabic lexicology the meaning of tahdees is not that of disclosing the unseen. And in Tauzih Maram he has made the affirmation in terms of the technical meaning, despite having made it explicit there that a muhaddas is also a prophet in a sense.''

 Tashhiz al-Azhan, October 1914, vol. ix, no. 10)

This magazine was edited by Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad, and the issue cited above dates from a few months after the split in the Ahmadiyya Movement, when he had become head of the Qadian Section.

``We, the undersigned, declare on oath that when Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian, the Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement, announced in 1891, that the prophet Jesus was dead according to the Holy Quran, and that the `son of Mary' whose advent among the Muslims was spoken of in Hadith was he [Hazrat Mirza] himself, he did not lay claim to prophethood. However, the Maulavis misled the public, and issued a fatwa of kufr against him by alleging that he claimed prophethood. After this, the Promised Messiah declared time after time in plain words, as his writings show, that to ascribe to him a claim of prophethood was a fabrication against him, that he considered prophethood to have come to a close with the Holy Prophet Muhammad, and that he looked upon a claimant to prophethood, after the Holy Prophet, as a liar and a kafir. And that the words mursal, rasul, and nabi which had occurred in some of his revelations, or the word nabi which had been used about the coming Messiah in Hadith, do not denote a prophet in actual fact, but rather a metaphorical, partial or zilli prophet who is known as a muhaddas. After the Khatam an-nabiyyin the Holy Prophet Muhammad, no prophet can come, neither new nor old.

``We also declare on oath that we entered into the pledge of the Promised Messiah before November 1901, and that the statements of Mirza Mahmud Ahmad, the head of the Qadian section, that though in the beginning Hazrat Mirza Sahib did not claim prophethood, but that he changed his claim in November 1901, and laid claim to prophethood on that date, and that his previous writings of ten or eleven years denying prophethood are abrogated --- all this is entirely wrong and absolutely opposed to facts. We do swear by Allah that the idea never even entered our minds that the Promised Messiah made a change in his claim in 1901 or that his previous writings, which are full of denials of a claim to prophethood, were ever abrogated; nor, to our knowledge, did we ever hear such words from the mouth of even a single person until Mirza Mahmud Ahmad made these statements [in 1914/1915].''

No person was ever able to counter this statement by testifying on oath that as an Ahmadi he came to know in November 1901 that Hazrat Mirza, by publishing `Ayk Ghalati Ka Izala', was retracting or in some way modifying his previous statements, of the ten-year period 1891 to 1901, in which he had clearly denied claiming prophethood and, as against this denial, claimed to be a `muhaddas'.

Opening line of pamphlet

`Correction of an Error' opens with the following line:

``Some people among my followers who are not well-acquainted with my claim and its arguments, not having had the occasion to study the books carefully, nor having stayed in my company for a sufficient length of time to complete their knowledge, in some instances in response to an objection of the opponents give a reply which is against facts.''

Therefore it is the error of some followers that Hazrat Mirza is correcting, and not any error on his own part. Moreover, the said followers would not have committed these errors about his claims if they had studied his previous books and statements to gain knowledge of these matters. Therefore, Hazrat Mirza has not only confirmed here the validity of his previous writings and statements, but has instructed that these should be studied to get accurate information about his claims.