This is an interesting essay that I came across. I have the scans in my garage. The issue here is that MGA didn’t claim prophethood until Nov. of 1901. Why is this Qadiani-Ahmadi referring to MGA’s writing’s before he ever claimed prophethood? It seems like even Qadiani-Ahmadi’s were unsure of the nature of MGA’s prophethood by 1914. Read this essay also: https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2017/10/05/ahmad-as-a-prophet-review-of-religions-of-april-1913/
“The philosophy of baruz has been clearly expounded in a long letter pregnant with truth and wisdom which in 1892 Ahmad addressed to Nawab Muhammad Ali Khan of Malerkota in order to resolve some of his doubts.”
Then in the very next installment of this series (Review of Religions, December 1914), he writes:
“Thus convinced, Ahmad set forth his philosophy of baruz in some of his later writings, and avowedly laid claim to the prophetic office”
Some additional background data
The letter to Nawab Muhammad Ali Khan of 1892 that Mr Ataur Rahman referred to in his article in the Review of Religions, November 1914, is contained in the Promised Messiah’s famous book Ainah Kamalat-i Islam, published in 1893, from p. 331 to 357.
This is a book in which the Promised Messiah wrote:
“It does not befit God that He should send a prophet after the Khatam-un-nabiyyin, or that He should re-start the system of prophethood after having terminated it.” (p. 377)
“I am not a prophet but a muhaddas from God, and a recipient of Divine revelation so that I may re-vitalise the religion of the Holy Prophet” (p. 383)
“Has it ever happened in the world that God should have so helped an imposter that he could be speaking a lie against God for eleven years, to the effect that His wahy wilayat and wahy muhaddasiyyat [revelation as granted to saints] comes to him, and God would not cut off his jugular vein.” (p. 323)
“O brothers, I have been sent as a muhaddas from God, to you and to all those on earth.” (p. 367)
“There have been hundreds of persons in whom the essence of Muhammad was established, and with God they had the names Muhammad and Ahmad by way of reflection (zill).” (p. 346)
“This is the Umma which, though not having any prophets (nabi) in it, has those who receive the word of God like prophets, and though not having any messengers (rasul) in it, has those who show God’s clear signs like messengers.” (p. 224)
“If the door of prophethood had not been closed, a muhaddaspossessed in himself the power and capability to become a prophet” (p. 238).
Even more interesting is the fact that in the Review of Religions in 1904 (which is after 1901 and within the lifetime of MGA), in both the English and the Urdu editions certain extracts from Ainah Kamalat-i Islam appeared. These include the one given above from p. 224 (April 1904 issue, p. 137).
There is also the following:
“When a person reaches this stage, he is no more a man of this world, and is granted the guidance and high place granted to the holy prophets and messengers of God before him, as if he were their image. Such a man becomes the inheritor of the blessings granted to the prophets and he is their vicegerent upon earth. What is termed mujiza in the prophets is termed karamat in him, and what is termed ismat(sinlessness) in the prophets is called mahfiziyyat(protection) in him, and what is called nubuwwat(prophethood) in the prophets is designated muhaddasiyyatin him.”
(Review of Religions, English, April 1904, p. 120-121; Ainah Kamalat-i Islam, p. 237)
The MGA’s claim in this book was that of being a muhaddas and the concept of zill and buruz presented by him in this book was that it is a wali and muhaddas who is the zill and buruz of a prophet. These statements were re-published in the Review of Religions in 1904 when Maulana Muhammad Ali was the editor. And interestingly, even after the split, in the November 1914 issue, the Qadiani Jamaat writer Mr Ataur Rahman is quoting from the same book to show the concept of buruz.