Piggot Mubahala
The claim we are advancing is as follows: John Hugh Smyth Piggot made a claim of divinity, was challenge to a Mubahala and never responded. Thus no "prophecy" failed and no prophet was proven a liar.
What is a Mubahala?
[3:62]
فَمَنۡ حَآجَّکَ فِیۡہِ مِنۡۢ بَعۡدِ مَا جَآءَکَ مِنَ الۡعِلۡمِ فَقُلۡ تَعَالَوۡا نَدۡعُ اَبۡنَآءَنَا وَ اَبۡنَآءَکُمۡ وَ نِسَآءَنَا وَ نِسَآءَکُمۡ وَ اَنۡفُسَنَا وَ اَنۡفُسَکُمۡ ۟ ثُمَّ نَبۡتَہِلۡ فَنَجۡعَلۡ لَّعۡنَتَ اللّٰہِ عَلَی الۡکٰذِبِیۡنَ ﴿۶۲﴾
ENGLISH
Now whoso disputes with thee concerning him, after what has come to thee of knowledge, say to him, ‘Come, let us call our sons and your sons, and our women and your women, and our people and your people; then let us pray fervently and invoke the curse of Allah on those who lie.’
The Commentary of this verse is:
The present discussion on Christian doctrines with which this Surah began has been brought to a close in this verse. The reference, as mentioned above, is to the Christian deputation from Najran which consisted of sixty persons and was headed by their chief, ‘Abdul-Masih, known as Al-‘Aqib. They met the Holy Prophet in his Mosque and the discussion on the doctrine of the divinity of Jesus continued at some length. When the question had been fully discussed and the members of the deputation were found to be still insisting on their false doctrine, the Holy Prophet, in obedience to the Divine command contained in the present verse, invited them as a last resort to join him in a sort of prayer contest technically known as مباھلة i.e. invoking the curse of God on the holders of false beliefs. As, however, the Christians did not appear to be sure of their ground, they declined to accept the challenge, thus indirectly admitting the falsity of their doctrine (Zurqani, Khamis & Bayan under 3:3). On this occasion, the Holy Prophet brought out ‘Ali, Fatimah, Hasan and Husain (Khamis & Zurqani) as well as Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthman and others (‘Asakir) in the field and is reported to have said: "If the Christians had accepted the challenge of مباھلة and agreed to pray to God to send His punishment on the lying party, God would have surely destroyed the liars before a year had passed" (Bukhari, Muslim & Tirmidhi)
It may be noted that the prayer contest known as مباھلة is in the nature of seeking God’s arbitration in fundamental religious differences. When other methods of settlement fail, the parties approach Almighty God to decide between them according to His eternal scheme of helping the righteous and destroying the wicked. The act of cursing is thus not in the form of abusing but an earnest supplication to God to uphold the truth and destroy falsehood—to amputate the diseased limb in order to save the healthy one. Thus مباھلة is a very serious affair and should be resorted to in very rare cases, subject to the following conditions, which are deducible from the present verse as well as from the relevant sayings of the Holy Prophet; (1) the point in dispute should be a matter of supreme and fundamental religious importance and should be based on clear scriptural authority; (2) the matter should first be fully argued and discussed between the parties; (3) the مباھلة should take place only if and when after the aforesaid discussion each party still continues to adhere to its views, definitely holding the other party to be in the wrong; (4) for the actual contest the parties should assemble in a suitable place together with the members of their families and a suitable number of others holding similar views, and there solemnly invoke the curse of God on the party sticking to falsehood. As to the form or time of punishment which, as a result of مباھلة must overtake the offending party, the verse sheds no light. The matter rests entirely with God. From the above quoted tradition, however, it may be deduced that if any period at all is to be fixed, it should be not less than a year. But the form of punishment must still rest on Divine will. The Judge in heaven reserves the right of deciding each individual case as He thinks fit. The result is left to speak for itself.
It may be noted here incidentally that during the discussions with the Christian deputation from Najran, the Holy Prophet allowed them to pray in his Mosque in their own way, which they did facing the east—an act of religious toleration unparalleled in the history of all religion (Zurqani).
Now that we have gone over what a Mubahala is and the context around let's have an accurate rendition of the Piggot incident narrated by an eminent Sahaba:
Hadrat Chaudhry Muhammad Zafarullah Khan (ra)’s explanation:
On 9 December 1902 the Rev John Hugh Smyth Piggot, Pastor of a church called the Ark of Covenant, in Clapton, London E.5, announced that he was the Messiah and son of God who had descended from heaven according to His promise. He said: 'I am the same Jesus Christ who died on the cross and then after resurrection ascended to heaven.' On hearing this the congregation, with tears in their eyes, knelt in devotion to worship him. His announcement became front page news in the papers and evoked widespread interest and excitement. There was not only interest in, but a storm of opposition to, his claim.
The Rev Mr Piggot was born 1852, and joined the ministry of the Church of England in 1882. In 1892 a church was built in Clapton by one Henry James Prince, where Piggot was invited to preach on Sundays. In his addresses he often referred to the prophecy of Henry James Prince, who claimed to be the messenger of the Holy Ghost, that the Redeemer Jesus Christ was about to appear. Prince died in 1899. Thereafter, Piggott's sermons and addresses adopted a definite line. He emphasized that the second advent of Jesus Christ was at hand. He even suggested that he might already be with them. Having thus prepared the minds of his congregation he made his announcement that Henry James Prince had come as the fore-ninner of the Messiah who had promised to return to earth from heaven and that he himself was the Messiah and God who stood before them.
When the news of his claim reached India, Dr Mufti Muhammad Sadiq Sahib, a disciple of the Promised Messiah, immediately wrote to Mr Piggot inviting him to accept the true Messiah who had appeared at Qadian. Mr Piggot ignored his letter and continued to proclaim his own Godhead.
The Promised Messiah then issued a challenge to Mr Piggot and announced that if Mr Piggot accepted the challenge God would humiliate him and demonstrate that his claim was false. The Sunday Circle of 14 February reproduced the challenge in the following terms:
. . . Then follows the terrible warning of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. The jealousy of God, he says, has been roused on account of the insult offered to His sacred name and to His messengers by the haughty assertion of a man who calls himself God and the Lord of earth and heaven, and my True Holy Perfect and Mighty God has commanded me to warn him of the punishment that awaits him. If he does not repent of this irreverent claim he shall be soon annihilated, even in my lifetime, with sore torment proceeding from God and not from the hands of man. This warning of punishment is from the God of earth and heaven. His jealousy shall consume the pretender, so that no one may defile the earth again with such false and arrogant claims.
Piggot made no response to this challenge, but became completely silent and never thereafter repeated his claim of divinity. He retreated to his country hide-out in Somerset and was forgotten by everyone. Yet, he was overtaken by divine wrath and the latter part of his life brought ruinous disgrace upon him. It was established that he was living in adultery and was defrocked by the Church. Mr C. T. Baker-Carr, in an article on 'Bogus Messiah', printed in the Evening News of 1 February 1955, said:
In July 1904, a very attractive girl called Ruth Annie Preece went to live with Smyth Piggot and his wife, whom he had married on August 14,1886. Miss Preece was one of three sisters whose father had left them comfortably provided for. A year later there came news of the birth at Agapemonie (Abode of Love) of a child. The record at Somerset House shows that onJune 23 1905, a male child was born to Ruth Anne Preece (of independent means) and John Hugh Smyth Piggot (Priest in Holy Orders). The name given to the baby boy was Glory
On 20 August 1908, Sister Ruth, as she was now referred to, gave birth to another boy. The Bridgwater registrar, Sidney W. Hook, was called to the Agapemonie on 18 September, when the same details of parentage were recorded. This child was named Power.
After the birth of Power, the Bishop of Bath and Wells took action and ordered that Smyth Piggot be arraigned before a Consistory Court on a charge of immorality. He was found guilty and was defrocked in Wells Cathedral in March 1909.
Public attention was then focused on Agapemonie and it was discovered that there were nearly one hundred women there and only a handful of men. Piggot lived on in ignominious circumstances in Somerset in austere loneliness and died in March 1927.
What proof for a Mubahala is there?
On October 22
Source: Malfuzat Volume 2 [Urdu] Pages 438-440
In November 1902 Hazrat Ahmad(as) wrote the following on a piece of paper and instructed his Companion Maulvi Muhammad Ali M.A. to translate it to English and get it published and sent to England. The anouncement was published in newspapers of England:
Now it is time to address the objections that one critic raised against the Mubahala argument namely:
Does a Mubahala require a formal repentance?
Malfoozat and the Invitation Letter
The Review of Religions, April 1907
No Anticipation in Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's Own Lifetime
We will address each topic one by one.
Does a Mubahala require a formal repentance?
The critic writes:
“It’s worth pausing for a brief digression. Specifically, the apparent need for a combatant to formally accept a challenge in order for any of the parties to claim victory. Consider the case of the former military dictator of Pakistan, Zia-ul-Haq. He died in a mysterious plane crash, just days after Mirza Tahir Ahmad had called him out in one of his Friday Sermons.
Can we really attribute Zia-ul-Haq’s death to Mirza Tahir Ahmad’s earlier warnings of punishment, given that Zia-ul-Haq never formally accepted any challenge of mubahila?
Proponents of Ahmadiyya Islam continue to weave post hoc rationalizations around every failed prophecy in order to claim a win. No doubt, apologists will propose that persistent opposition serves as an implicit acceptance to a mubahila. This would explain the case of both Dowie and of Zia-ul-Haq.”
As the critic as mentioned both the Dowie Prophecy/Challenge as well the Zia-ul-Haq prophecy I shall expound upon them. Firstly it seems that the critic isn’t well acquainted on the details of the Zia affair. For a person seeking the truth regarding the Zia affair one can look at the documentary of Hadrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad (rh)’s life. A shorter form of the documentary relating to Zia-ul-Haq can be looked at here. While it is true that Hadrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad(rh) did challenge General Zia to a mubahala and Zia didn’t accept, but it is false to claim that the sudden death of Zia was not the work of God. After the challenge of mubahala, Hadrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad (rh) continuously warned Zia and then Allah gave him ilham that Zia would be destroyed and Hadrat Sahib announced this. Therefore the sudden death of Zia fulfilled the prophecy and the death of Zia-ul-Haq is not some post hoc failed prophecy. The situation of Dowie and Piggot is not the same so they can not be compared.
The Promised Messiah challenged Dr. Dowie in 1902 and repeated this challenge in 1903:
“I am about seventy years of age, while Dr. Dowie (as he himself states) is about fifty-five and thus, as compared with me, is still a young man. But since the matter is not to be settled by age, I do not care about this great disparity in years. The whole matter rests in the hands of Him, Who is the Lord of heaven and earth and Judge over all judges. He will decide in favour of the true claimant.
“Though he may try as hard as he can to flee from the death which awaits him, yet his flight from such a contest will be nothing less than death to him; calamity will certainly overtake his Zion, for he must bear the consequences either of the acceptance of the challenge or its refusal". (The New Commericial Adviser of New York)
Further proof that there was a condition that if Dowie ignored the challenge, he would meet doom comes in 1907 after Dowie had died:
The “Truth Seeker” of New York remarked at the grandeur of the fulfillment:
“The Qadian man predicted that if Dowie accepted the challenge, ‘he shall leave the world before my eyes with great sorrow and torment’. If Dowie declined, the Mirza said, ‘the end would only be deferred; death awaited him just the same, and calamity will soon overtake Zion.
This was the Grand Prophecy: Zion should fall and Dowie die before Ahmad. It appeared to be a risky step for the Promised Messiah to defy the restored Elijah to an endurance test, for the challenger was by 15 years the older man of the two, and odds, in a land of plagues and religious fanatics were against him, as a survivor. But he won out”. (The “Truth Seeker” June 15, 1907)
Clearly the difference here was that if Dowie had ignored the Challenge he would meet doom. There was no such condition in the case of Piggot that if he ignored the challenge he would die within the life of Ghulam Ahmad(as).
The critic further writes:
“It doesn’t explain why the Jama’at continued to cite this 1903 announcement in 1907, knowing that newspaper outlets continued to do so as well”
And in the footnote for this quote he states:
“On June 23, 1907, The Sunday Herald of Boston reprinted the Pigott death prophecy snippet from Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s August 1903 announcement.”
As proof the critic provides only the Boston Herald to say that Jamaat was talking about the 1903 challenge in 1907. To answer the critic’s question there is a very good reason why the Boston Herald talks about Piggot in 1907, the reason being that Piggot and Dowie were challenged around the same time and while Dowie had indirectly accepted there was no condition for Piggot to indirectly accept. The newspaper hadn’t accounted for the fact that it had been 5 years since the original challenge and in that time Piggot had not accepted.
Malfoozat and the Invitation Letter
In this section the critic responds with a tweet of his and one of another and some commentary on the authenticity of Malfuzat and Tadhkirah.
While we are on the topic of Malfuzat we should take an effort to understand what it is exactly.
In the Introduction of First Volume of the the Five Volumes of Malfuzat Syed Abdul Hayee wrote:
Malfuzat refers to the holy and insightful words of the Founder of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian, the Promised Messiah and Mahdi, on whom be peace, which he expressed verbally from time to time in his pure and holy gatherings or before congregations at the Annual Convention, for the purification of his followers and for their spiritual and moral training, thus enabling them to forge a living relationship with God; to teach the knowledge and wisdom of the Holy Quran; to revive the religion of Islam and to establish the shariah of Muhammadsa.
These blessed sayings and discourses of his Holiness, on whom be peace, are an invaluable source of content that presents decisive verdicts issued by the divinely appointed Arbiter of this age regarding theological debates that had confused the Muslims for 1300 years and also sheds light on other matters of religion; it provides a rebuttal to the allegations levelled against Islam by the Christian priests and the Aryas; it provides evidence for the existence of God and refutes the objections of atheists and western philosophers with relation to life after death, revelation and prophethood; it provides for new converts, who have joined the Ahmadiyya Community, heart-warming advice and guidance of the Promised Messiahas; it showcases the unparalleled love that the Promised Messiahas possessed for his Master, the Holy Prophet Muhammad, the Seal of the Prophets, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him; it covers the divine claims and teachings of the Promised Messiahas and also various incidents from his day to day life; and also sheds light on the life and character of his Holiness and the important milestones in the history of Ahmadiyyat.
It is an immense favour of Allah the Almighty that in this day and age, He has made available such means that these spiritually rejuvenating and faith-inspiring, blessed words of the Imam of the Latter Days have been preserved until the end of time. May Allah Almighty elevate the station of pure-hearted, loyal, unrelenting and revered men such as Hazrat Maulvi Abdul Karimra, Hazrat Mufti Muhammad Sadiqra and Sheikh Yaqub Ali Irfanira, whom Allah had granted a unique fervour, passion and strength in this regard. Fulfilling their oath of giving precedence to the Faith over worldly affairs, these great men worked tirelessly, day and night, with immense toil and effort to preserve in writing the Malfuzat of the Promised Messiahas, exactly as he had spoken them; and continued to publish these blessed words in Badr and Al-Hakam, during the lifetime of the Promised Messiahas.
The index for the first four volumes was compiled by Hazrat Maulana Jalal-udDin Shamsra and the index for the remaining six volumes was prepared by Hazrat Maulana Abdul-Latif Bahawalpuri. This set was published in England some years ago. However, in light of the guidance of Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih IV (may Allah be his Helper):
i. The ten-volume Malfuzat has been printed in five volumes, and benefits from high quality script and binding.
ii. All verses of the Holy Quran quoted in the text have been referenced.
iii. As required, new subject headings have been added.
iv. For the ease of readers, a new index of subject matter, Quranic verses, names and places have been included.
Jalal-ud-Din Shams in Quetta, Pakistan in 1960 wrote:
“.....One reason for our change of plan is the strong feeling of our community that there is a dire need for spiritual training at present. The second reason is— as stated in the foreword to the first edition of Malfuzat, Volume 1—that the Malfuzat of the Promised Messiah, on whom be peace, is a valuable treasure of extraordinary content that commands the power to teach and train not only us, but also our future generations.
The words of the Promised Messiah, on whom be peace, may be divided into four categories:
Firstly: The books, written treatises, and announcements of the Promised Messiah, on whom be peace, which he wrote himself for publication.
Secondly: Letters of the Promised Messiah, on whom be peace, which he wrote with his own pen and sent to his friends, dear ones and others.
Thirdly: The Malfuzat of the Promised Messiah, on whom be peace, referring to those of his words that he spoke in the form of an address or discussion in the presence of a congregation or gathering, or during leisurely moments, etc., and which were noted down by scribes and published in the form of a diary, etc., in the very lifetime of the Promised Messiah, on whom be peace.
Fourthly: Narrations are also a form of Malfuzat, but they were not immediately put to writing; in fact, they are collected and recorded from the memory of narrators
As mentioned in the foreword to the first edition of Malfuzat, Volume 1, the reliability and authenticity of the four categories just mentioned ought to be taken in the sequence that they appear above. That is to say, in terms of authenticity, the books of the Promised Messiahas stand first, then his letters, followed by his Malfuzat, and finally, narrations.
Having said this, as far as the spiritual and moral training of the community is concerned, in a way, Malfuzat stands first from among the words of the Promised Messiahas. The reason being that the Malfuzat of the Promised Messiah, on whom be peace, are those of his words that he spoke directly to his friends and followers. Moreover, these words of his Holiness, on whom be peace, were spoken by him mostly in such settings when he had the education and training of the community in view. Hence, from among the categories mentioned above, Malfuzat comprises the greatest treasure as far as moral training and the reformation of one’s inner self is concerned. As such, in his book Fath-e-Islam, the Promised Messiah, on whom be peace, sheds light on the significance and need of such words in the following manner:
There can be no doubt in the fact that these verbal discourses which have taken place in the past or even now, or if I make an address of my own accord at an appropriate time and place—in certain cases—proves more beneficial, effective and swifter in touching people’s hearts than reaching them through books. That is why all the Prophets have relied on this method. With the exception of the Word of Allah Almighty, which was recorded in writing with special care and published, whatever else the Prophets preached has always been in the form of discourses and addresses made at the appropriate time. The general practice of Prophets was to find strength from the soul and make addresses likewise lecturers at times of need, in various gatherings and assemblies, in view of their specific circumstances. However, they did not do so like the speakers of today, whose only purpose is to flaunt their wealth of knowledge in their speeches, or who speak to ensnare simple people through their own false logic and sophistries—making those
people more worthy of hell than even themselves. On the contrary, Prophets speak with immense simplicity and whatever would gush forth from their own hearts, they would fill into the hearts of others.
Their holy words would always fit the occasion perfectly and fulfilled the needs of the time. They would not speak to entertain their addressees or tell them false tales. They find the people ailing, drowned in diverse spiritual afflictions, and give them counsel in order to cure them, or dispel their doubts through conclusive arguments. Their words are few, but house a treasure of vast meaning. Thus, it is this very principle that my humble self keeps in view. As such, the door of dialogue and discourse remains open so that I may speak to my guests and visitors in accordance with the respective capacities, requirements and ailments which afflict them. To view evil as a target towards which one shoots the arrows of one’s vital counsel in order to prevent sin and reform the morals of others just as dislocated limbs must be restored is not possible fully unless people are cured face to face. (Ruhani Khaza’in, Volume 3, Fath-e-Islam, pp. 15-17)
Therefore, in view of the education, moral training and reformation of our community, Al-Shirkatul Islamiyyah has changed its initial plan and is now publishing the blessed Malfuzat of the Promised Messiah, on whom be peace, earlier than what was previously decided.
He further states in a subheading called ‘About the Present Volume’:
The text of this volume has been reproduced from Malfuzat, Volume 1, published in December of 1936, by the community’s central directorate of publications in Qadian. This first edition was arranged and compiled primarily by the efforts of Chaudhary Ahmad Jaan Sahib (Director Finances of Tahrik Jadid), Sheikh Abdul-Qadir Sahib (Maulvi Fazil and currently serving as missionary in Lahore) and Maulvi Abdur-Rashid Sahib (Maulvi Fazil). May Allah grant them the best of rewards. This edition of Malfuzat comprises a collection collated from various newspapers and periodicals that spans from 1891 to 1899.
Malfuzat-e-Ahmadiyyah, Part 2, which was compiled by the late Raja Manzur Ilahi (from the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement) contained extracts from the following sources: Al-Hakam, vol. 13, no. 19, pp. 3-4 (under the title ‘Before 1873’); Al-Hakam, vol. 7, no. 36, pp. 10-11 (under the title ‘Near 1879’); AlHakam, vol. 6, no. 23 (under the title, ‘Near the Time of 1879’); Al-Hakam, vol. 6, no. 44-45 (under the title ‘Before 1879’); Al-Hakam, vol. 6, no. 46 and Al-Hakam, vol. 7, no. 3 (under the title ‘Prior to 1879’); Akhbar-e-Aam Lahore, printed on 10 May 1885 (under the title ‘8 May 1885’); a treatise entitled, ‘The Responses to Three Questions by Abdullah James, the Christian’. Since all of these writings were treatises penned by the Promised Messiahas himself, they have not been included in Malfuzat. We shall include these sources when the announcements of the Promised Messiahas are compiled. As mentioned, Malfuzat refers to those words of his Holiness which he expressed verbally and which were then recorded by writers who kept a diary of his words.
May Allah the Exalted make these blessed Malfuzat a source of benefit for not only members of the community, but for others as well.
These quotes establish numerous things about Malfuzat. Firstly the idea of a book like Malfuzat is approved and encouraged for the Jamaat to make. Secondly Malfuzat contains statements from Books, letters, discussions in front of a congregation or during a lesiurly wlalk were recorded in the Companion’s diaries which were put in Malfuzat, and finally Narrations that weren’t immediately put into writings but are collected or recorded from the memory of the narrator. Thirdly, it is clear that Malfuzat is approved by multiple scholars and ulema of the Jamaat. Malfuzat is not some obscure book with questionable narrations.
Let's now analyze the objections of the critic and another fellow regarding Malfuzat.
“Consider also, that Malfoozat wasn't even published until 1960. What written work of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's was this snippet available in, when the announcement was made? And until today, it was only ever in Urdu.
Can you see how even if this tract supported your supposition, it would be suspect, since neither Pigott nor the contemporary audience would have seen it to know this was even remotely a condition?
Neither you nor I would be so incomplete in formulating a prophecy of importance.”
His sermons, sayings, lectures and such were written down by his companions and were compiled together in book form in 1960. What’s so hard to understand about that? Secondly regarding it’s authenticity we have already established that Malfuzat is an authentic piece of work. Saying that which written work of Hadrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad(as) was this snippet available in, displays a lack of knowledge of how Malfuzat was compiled. As shown before there are four sources from where Malfuzat is taken from and does not solely come from written work. The claim that Piggot has not seen what is written in Malfuzat therefore accepting the condition of mubahala would be unknown to Piggot and the contemporary audience. First of all Piggot did know about the mubahala as we have records describing the letter be sent as an event that did happen. As for a contemporary audience why is the critic assuming that the contemporary audience can not read Urdu? Is it because most of these critics happen to be westernised murtads (apostates) who can not read or understand Urdu? As for the statement that that people of today and especially the critics wouldn't be so incomplete in forming a prophecy of importance shows an extreme lack of understanding. Firstly, there is no prophecy here. Secondly, it should be noted that had Piggot responded "I respond to your Mubahala with curse of God upon both of us" to the letter in public then it would have been quite clear. Does everything need to be disclosed with the mindset that future generations want to see a letter written to a person. Do we do our actions in the present on the basis of what future generations want or do we do them based on what our whims and wills are? It is very simple, had Piggot responded, his response would have been enough and had he not responded there would be nothing of interest,
Then another critic, who had sparked the original critic's urge to make his post, wrote:
Malfuzat was not only published in the 1960s, but it is not even written by Mirza. It is accounts of what he said & did that were later recorded by his followers. Naturally a secondhand account after the Prophecy had failed is different then the words of the man himself
Considering such a statement only appears 33 years after Piggott’s death (which is itself many years after Mirza’s death), and is not written by Mirza, while also being in opposition to stuff that *was* written by him, it seems like a fabrication to cover up an obvious failure.
There are many things which show hypocrisy here. Malfuzat being published in the 1960s does not mean it is not authentic. As this critic is a Non Ahmadi Muslim we shall use parallalism to ahadiith. Shall it be a shock that the Mutawaa Malik's complier Imam Malik was born 79 years after the Prophet? Or that Sahih Bukhari, a key book of the Kutub al-Sittah, collector was born 179 years after the Holy Prophet Muhammad ﷺ. For a Muslim to make such an argument shows that heis applying the criteria of an Atheist rather than a Muslim on Ahmadiyyat while using a Muslim criteria to judge Ahadith. Under such an atheist argument it should be argued that Malfuzat is more credible than all the Kutub al-Sittah as Malfuzat appears 33 years after Piggot'a death while the author of first major hadith book, that is widely used today, appears 79 after the death fo Holy Prophet Muhammad ﷺ. Now as I am mentioning Ahadith an atheist may claim that as ahadith is not authentic by their conceived logic therefore Malfuzat is also a set of fake sayings. For proof that ahadith is not some sort of telephone game read 'Hadith and The Myth of the Telephone Game'. It is time to return to the topic of the authencity of Malfuzat. We have already established that scholars authenticated the sayings in Malfuzat and as Ahmadiyyat has a cerntalized body of scholars and an organization therefore authenticity can be better preserved in works like Malfuzat. Refer back to the notes.
This refutation was left incomplete as it was deemed unnecessary to finish the refutation.
