``If Mirza Ghulam Ahmad claims to be the Mahdi and the like of the Messiah, this does not militate against the Shari`ah. Nor do we have any reason to deny it because the services he has rendered to the religion of Islam can undoubtedly prove him true in the claim to be Mahdi. As regards the saying that he was a prophet and messenger, and recipient of revelation, and that the Holy Prophet Muhammad was not the Khatam an-nabiyyin and prophethood did not end with him --- this cannot at all be accepted.''

(Hikmat Baligha, vol. ii, p. 4)

According to this statement, the claim to be Mahdi and the like of the Messiah is permitted by Islamic Shari`ah. What is objectionable is to deny that the Holy Prophet was Khatam an-nabiyyin, and to claim prophethood for oneself. We have already proved that Hazrat Mirza believed the Holy Prophet to be Khatam an-nabiyyin and the Last Prophet, and he held that no prophet could come after the Holy Prophet Muhammad, neither new nor old. The revelation which he claimed to receive was wahy wilayat (revelation received by saints in Islam), which, as shown earlier, is recognised by Muslim theologians as continuing, and which many Muslim saints in history claimed to receive.

Maulana Abul Kalam Azad

In his well-known book Tazkira, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, Indian Muslim theologian and political leader, wrote:

``This shows how the Reformers among Muslims have always had to face trickery, cheating and blood-thirsty verdicts from the Ulama. And unlimited fraud and deception was employed against them in order to incite the governments of the day against them. What has the question of whether a certain individual was or was not the Mahdi to do with the beliefs in Islam? It is not the basis of sin or goodness, nor the criterion of faith and unbelief. If a person accepts as Mahdi a man who calls to the law of Islam, enjoins good and forbids evil, it does not corrupt his Islamic beliefs.''

(Tazkira, Lahore, first published 1919, p. 69)

Khawaja Ghulam Farid of Chachran (d. 1904)

This famous Sufi saint was a contemporary of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. Commenting upon the latter's claim to be the Mahdi, he said:

``Mirza sahib has given many signs in support of his claim to be Mahdi. Two of these signs which he has explained in his book provide a high quality of evidence about his being the Mahdi… ''

(Isharat-i Faridi, Persian edition, p. 70)

When someone put to him the objection: If we do not find the characteristics of the Messiah and Mahdi in Mirza sahib, how can we accept him as such? The Khawaja replied:

``The characteristics of the Mahdi are secret, and not those which people have in mind. Why is it surprising that this very Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib could be the Mahdi? One hadith says that Messiah and Mahdi is the same person. It is not necessary that all the signs of the Mahdi should appear as people have them in mind in accordance with their views and comprehension. If it had happened as people expected, everyone would recognise the Mahdi and believe in him. In fact, when we look at the prophets we find that only a few people in a prophet's nation would recognise the signs and believe in him. Others would remain doubtful, and some would not recognise him at all. These people would deny and be known as unbelievers. If the entire nation of every prophet could recognise him, they would all become believers. Look at the history of the Holy Prophet. His qualities and signs were prophesied in the scriptures. When he appeared, people did not find some of the signs to be as they had thought them to be. Those to whom these things became clear, they became believers. Those to whom these things did not become clear, they denied. The same applies to the Mahdi. So if Mirza sahib is the Mahdi, what is the thing which prevents it?''

(ibid., pp. 123,--,124)

Sayyid Abul Ala Maudoodi (d. 1979)

He is the best known Sunni religious and political leader of this age in Pakistan, and well-known all over the Muslim world. He wrote:

``Whatever may be said about the Mahdi, everyone can see that his position in Islam is not such that being a Muslim and receiving salvation depends upon recognising and accepting him. If that had been his position, he would have been explicitly mentioned in the Quran, and the Holy Prophet would not have rested content with explaining this to a couple of individuals, but would have conveyed it to the whole nation in the way in which we find that Unity of God and the Last Day have been preached. Anyone having even a little understanding of religious matters cannot see for an instant why a question which is so crucial to the faith could be left to a few isolated reports. And these reports are of such a low order that compilers like Malik, Bukhari and Muslim did not like to include them in their collections.''

(Rasa'il wa Masa'il, Maktaba Jamaat-i-Islami, Lahore, 1951, Part I, p. 68)

``The scholars of Hadith have criticised the reports about the coming of the Mahdi so much so that one group does not believe at all in the coming of the Mahdi. Criticism of the reporters shows that most of these hadith were related by Shiahs. History shows that every faction has used these reports for political and religious purposes, and attempted to apply the signs contained in them to their own man. For these reasons I have concluded that these reports are correct so far as the basic fact of the coming of the Mahdi is concerned, but the explanation of the detailed signs is probably not genuine.''

(ibid., p. 64)