Intro
Historically, MGA alleged himself in Izala Auham (1890-1891) and Tohfa Golarvia that he (MGA) had a share in the prophecy of Ismuhu Ahmad (61:6), Mussailma Kazzab was saying the exact same thing (see the clip on tik tok, twitter and youtube, 47:00 time stamp).

In John 14:26, the word “Paraclete” refers to Muhammad (saw), this is authenticated by the Quran (61:6). However, Christians allege that this is referring to the Holy Spirit. In the Christian New Testament, paraclete appears only in the Johannine texts, and it is used only on five occasions: Gospel of John 14:16, 14:26, 15:26, 16:7, and First Epistle of John chapter 2, verse 1 (see Boring, M. E. [October 1978]. “The Influence of Christian Prophecy on the Johannine Portrayal of the Paraclete and Jesus”).

There seems to be a 17-page essay about the “Paraclete” by an unknown author (edited by Maulvi Muhammad Ali) in the July-ROR-1902, pages 266-283. The author quoted Deuteronomy 18:18. On Page 275, the author writes that Muhammad (Saw) is the “Paraclete” or Farkleet. He even says that the Promised Messiah (MGA) has appeared to be a servant of this Ahmad (see page 276 and 282) and seems to disqualify MGA altogether. This was immediately refuted by Dr. Griswold in his work vs. Ahmadiyya in 1902. In fact, Griswold pointed out that MGA’s name was “Slave of Ahmad” (Ghulam Ahmad), and thus, it was not Ahmad.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
1891
Roohani Khazian 17- Page 254, Tohfah Golarhviyyah
1902–Sep

“This is the same thing which I (Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani) have written in Izala Auham that I am Partner in Name Ahmad with Holy prophet peace be upon him. Some insane Mullahs have raised their voices upon it as per their habit on it .If it is denied then whole Prophecy becomes zero but it is the denial of Quran, and that God Forbid in Kuffar”.

MGA also says that Muhammad (Saw) only came into this world twice.

Scan

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
1892-1893
A’ina-e-Kamalat-e-Islam, Ruhani Khaza’in, vol. 5, pp. 41-42, Essence of Islam, Vol. 3, pages 203-204

“””When the Muslims of our time affirm the death of the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and his burial on earth, and at the same time affirm that Jesus is still alive, they furnish the Christians with a written acknowledgement that Jesus possessed qualities different from those of the common man and also different from all the Prophets. If it were true that while the Best of Mankind (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), who appeared six hundred years after Jesus, died after a brief life thirteen hundred years ago, yet Jesus has not yet died, would it not prove that Jesus possesses qualities that are superhuman? Though the Muslim divines of these times formally reject every form of association of partners with God, yet they lend their full support to those who are guilty of such association. It is an outrage that while Allah the Glorious, in His Holy Word, proclaims the death of Jesus, these divines create countless
difficulties in the way of Islam by adhering to the notion that he is still alive. They acknowledge Jesus as ever living and self-subsisting in heaven, and affirm the death and burial upon earth of the Chief of the Prophets (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)! The Holy Qur’an records the testimony of Jesus to the effect:

Al-Saff, 61:7 [Publisher]

That is: ‘I give glad tidings of a Messenger who will come after me (i.e., after my death,) whose name will be Ahmad.’ Hence, if Jesus is still bodily alive, it follows that the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) has not yet appeared on earth.””””
______________________________________________________________________________________________
1901
“Ijazul Masih” – “The miracles of the Messiah” (1901) by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, quotes and background info – ahmadiyyafactcheckblog

In MGA’s arabic only book, Ijaz-ul-Masih (1901), he claims that the phrase “Ismuhu-Ahmad” (61:6 of the Quran). This was quoted in the ROR of April-1941.

______________________________________________________________________________________________
1902
Review of Religions (ROR), July-1902, pages 266-283

There seems to be a 17-page essay about the “Paraclete” by an unknown author (edited by Maulvi Muhammad Ali) in the July-ROR-1902, pages 266-283. The author quoted Deuteronomy 18:18. On Page 275, the author writes that Muhammad (Saw) is the “Paraclete” or Farkleet. He even says that the Promised Messiah (MGA) has appeared to be a servant of this Ahmad (see page 276 and 282) and seems to disqualify MGA altogether.  


Scan

______________________________________________________________________________________________1902
Review of Religions (ROR), Aug-1902, English, pages 306-336
RR190208.pdf (reviewofreligions.org)

A letter by Maulvi Abdul Karim is reproduced by the editor (Maulvi Muhammad Ali) of the ROR-Aug-1902 (see pages 306-336). The title/heading of the letter is given as “Muslim Resuscitation and The Means By Which It Can Be Brought Out”. This is a letter, which was written to the “Nudwat ul Ulema”, this was in response to their invitation to MGA to attend their annual Jalsa at Calcutta (Dec-1902). Maulvi Abdul Karim starts off with saying that he is looking out for Muslims and their welfare and yearns for Islam to dominate once again. Maulvi Abdul Karim gives a long speech and then finally says Muhammad (saw) is the best example of morals. He then presents MGA as the second coming of Muhammad (Saw)(naozobillah) and as a unifier for the Muslims in India. Maulvi Abdul Karim was critical of the Mutazalite‘s, and Sir Syed and his Aligarh College and that entire thrust of modernism and mixing it with Islam. Maulvi Abdul Karim then poses a question to the “Nudwat ul Ulema”, he asks as to who is the “perfect manifestation of the glory and attributes” of Muhammad (saw), Maulvi Abdul Karim then poses another question: “Who is it that claims to be Baruz? (representing the spiritual appearance) of the Great Arabian Prophet” (this is implying that MGA is the Baruz)(note by AFCB). Maulvi Abdul Karim then asks the “Nudwat ul Ulema” to point to anyone else that they had in mind who could fit as the 2nd coming of Muhammad (saw)(nauzobillah)(see page 321). Maulvi Abdul Karim then gives a long speech on the objectives of the “Nudwat ul Ulema”. On page 328, Maulvi Abdul Karim tells how (and laments) all Muslims, from the Ahl-e-Hadith to the “Naichri” (the English word ‘nature’ pronounced like a desi)(Sir Syed type of Muslims) believe that prophethood has finished. Maulvi Abdul Karim does describe other means of communication by Allah and he could mean the good dreams (which are 1/46th of prophethood) and seems to be implying MGA’s prophethood. Maulvi Abdul Karim criticizes the “Nudwat ul Ulema” and says that they keep trying to unite Muslims and will never achieve that. Maulvi Abdul Karim mentions Dowie and calls him a crazy old man. On page 330, Maulvi Abdul Karim presents the common Ahmadi argument that since Islam is a living religion, and thus, that must also mean that Allah is still speaking and via miracles and signs. Maulvi Abdul Karim then argues that any religion that is devoid of Allah’s speech should be laughed at. Maulvi Abdul Karim then argues that it’s sad that the Jews were blessed with so many prophets, but not in Islam. On page 332, Maulvi Abdul Karim argued that the previous Jalsa failed. Maulvi Abdul Karim the quotes 62:3 and presents MGA as someone who fulfills this so-called prophecy and as the second coming of Muhammad (saw)(naozobillah). On page 333, Maulvi Abdul Karim writes:

“””In other words, the wise and knowing God has raised Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian with the same spirit and power, the same blessings and favors and the same miracles, with which he raised the Holy Prophet. Since the same and even greater evils and corruption had appeared in the world, and the same teachings, the same sanctifying power, the same heavenly blessings, the same miracles, supernatural signs and grand prophecies were needed as at the time of the Holy Prophet, therefore, the God of jealousy and power has sent his true representative and perfect manifestation who has annihilated his own self in obedience to his Holy Master and tries day and night to re-establish his honor, glory and greatness, and he has given the same power and magnetism that the whole world may be replenished…..”
______________________________________________________________________________________________
1902–Sep
Roohani Khazian 17- Page 254, Tohfah Golarhviyyah
TUHFA-E-GOLARHVIYYAH by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (1902) – ahmadiyyafactcheckblog

“This is the same thing which I (Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani) have written in Izala Auham that I am Partner in Name Ahmad with Holy prophet peace be upon him. Some insane Mullahs have raised their voices upon it as per their habit on it .If it is denied then whole Prophecy becomes zero but it is the denial of Quran, and that God Forbid in Kuffar”.

MGA also says that Muhammad (Saw) only came into this world twice.

Scan
______________________________________________________________________________________________
1902
Badr, 21 November 1902 (Malfuzat, vol. 4, pages 197-198)
The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement Blog » Blog Archive » “Two phases” of Promised Messiah

There is a report about this article in Badr, 21 November 1902 (Malfuzat, vol. 4, pages 197-198). It is headed: Farqleet and Ahmad, and runs as follows:

“After the prayer Maulvi Muhammad Ali sahib, M.A., said that a man had raised the objection about Farqleet that as its meaning in the magazine [Review of Religions] is given as one who distinguishes between truth and falsehood, how can this meaning apply to the word Ahmad. How can Ahmad be meant by Farqleet? Where is the prophecy using the word Ahmad in previous scriptures?”

Hazrat Mirza sahib replied:

“It is not our responsibility to show this word in the present scriptures like the Torah etc. When the Holy Quran has declared these books to have been corrupted, where can we find this word? When the word Farqleet itself is the result of corruption, it is possible that there was another word which meant Ahmad. …

Farqleet is composed of farq and leet, farq meaning he who separates and leet meaning the devil. It means one who separates the devil. The name of our Holy Prophet is Farqleet because he received the Furqan. … Ahmad means one who praises God greatly. Who can be greater than him, who removes every kind of devliishness by means of Tauhid? To become Farqleet it is essential to be Ahmad. … The meaning of Farqleet is in other words Ahmad.
______________________________________________________________________________________________
1902
griswold-the-mehdi-messiah-of-qadian-1902.pdf (ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com)

Griswold quoted John 14:26 and 16:7 and alleged that in the Aug-1902 English ROR (pages 331-332), MGA claimed to be Muhammad (saw)(astagfarullah) and thus, was also part of these biblical prophecies. However, I checked the ROR, and Griswold committed a blunder. The article never said so.

Griswold writes on page 8:

“This is the Koranic version of Christ’s prediction….The mirza sahib refers this prophecy to himself, became he professes to have come in the “spirit and power” of Muhamad (ROR Aug 1902 pp. 331-332)   and because he bears the name of Ahmad.  (Vid. Izala Auham p. 673).
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
1915
“Anwar-i Khilafat” a speech by Mirza Basheer ud Din Mahmud Ahmad at the Jalsa of 1915 – ahmadiyyafactcheckblog
(pages 25-27)
Dr. Tahir Ijaz vs. Dr. Zahid Aziz, the famous debate from 2003-2004, Lahori-Ahmadi vs. Qadiani-Ahmadi – ahmadiyyafactcheckblog

“Another argument which our opponents use against us is that they try to prove the ‘Ahmad’ prophecy from the prophecy of the Paraclete given in the Gospels and say that the word Paraclete shows the name ‘Ahmad’ …

In short, the ‘Ahmad’ prophecy has no connection with the Paraclete prophecy, which in any case is about the Holy Prophet”

Page 40
Dr. Tahir Ijaz vs. Dr. Zahid Aziz, the famous debate from 2003-2004, Lahori-Ahmadi vs. Qadiani-Ahmadi – ahmadiyyafactcheckblog

“The mention of the word rasul in the prophecy in the Quran clearly points to the fact
that it contains a reference to the prophecy of Paraclete, and not to the second advent of
Jesus (page 40).”
______________________________________________________________________________________________
1918
H.A. Walter’s, “”The Ahmadiya Movement”” (1918)
H.A. Walter’s, “”The Ahmadiya Movement”” (1918) – ahmadiyyafactcheckblog

Walters made a huge blunder herein, in this book, he alleged that the article from the Review of Religions for Aug-1902 (pages 306-336) was about MGA being the “Paraclete”, it simply doesn’t exist as such. However, Griswold was quoting the ROR of Aug-1902 (page 333, English edition) and asserting that since MGA was claiming to be the second coming of Muhammad (saw), it also implies how MGA fulfilled the biblical prophecies about Muhammad (saw)(See John 14:26 and 16:7).

the even quoted Griswold as having pointed out that MGA’s name was “Ghulam Ahmad” (Slave of Ahmad) and thus not simply “Ahmad”. This was a huge blunder.
______________________________________________________________________________________________1941
see pages 127-128

Click to access April-1941.pdf

The ROR of Feb-1941 has an essay on Muhammad (Saw) being mentioned in the Gospels. The Comforter and Parcletos.

In MGA’s arabic only book, Ijaz-ul-Masih (1901), he claims that the phrase “Ismuhu-Ahmad” (61:6 of the Quran). This was quoted in the ROR of April-1941 (see pages 127-128).

______________________________________________________________________________________________
2017
English with Short Commentary – Holy Qur`an Online 3.6 (alislam.org)

The Qadiani Jama‘at English translation of the Quran with short commentary (available online on their website www.alislam.org), in its footnote 3037 on this very ‘Ahmad’ verse (61:6), devotes more than a half of its discussion to the Paraclete prophecy and says that it “closely resembles the prophecy in the verse under comment except that instead of Ahmad the name stated therein is Paraclete”!
____________________________________________________________________________________________

“Two phases” of Promised Messiah

  1. November 17th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
    From Zahid Aziz:

I have the Review of Religions for 1902 but the Urdu version. The Urdu version largely corresponded to the English version.

In the July 1902 issue there is a lengthy article (p. 275 – 292) entitled Farqleet. It tries to prove the standard Muslim belief that Jesus prophesied about the Holy Prophet Muhammad in his prophecy of the coming of a “comforter”, the Greek for which is Paraclete (Arabic: Farqleet). Muslims have always claimed that this is Jesus’ prophecy about ismu-hu Ahmad.

There is a report about this article in Badr, 21 November 1902 (Malfuzat, vol. 4, pages 197-198). It is headed: Farqleet and Ahmad, and runs as follows:

“After the prayer Maulvi Muhammad Ali sahib, M.A., said that a man had raised the objection about Farqleet that as its meaning in the magazine [Review of Religions] is given as one who distinguishes between truth and falsehood, how can this meaning apply to the word Ahmad. How can Ahmad be meant by Farqleet? Where is the prophecy using the word Ahmad in previous scriptures?”

Hazrat Mirza sahib replied:

“It is not our responsibility to show this word in the present scriptures like the Torah etc. When the Holy Quran has declared these books to have been corrupted, where can we find this word? When the word Farqleet itself is the result of corruption, it is possible that there was another word which meant Ahmad. …

Farqleet is composed of farq and leet, farq meaning he who separates and leet meaning the devil. It means one who separates the devil. The name of our Holy Prophet is Farqleet because he received the Furqan. … Ahmad means one who praises God greatly. Who can be greater than him, who removes every kind of devliishness by means of Tauhid? To become Farqleet it is essential to be Ahmad. … The meaning of Farqleet is in other words Ahmad.

In the original article of July 1902 it is stated:

“Muslims have always claimed that the word paraclete in the Greek gospels is originally periclutos … which means one who is praised magnificently and who is renowned. These meanings are very close to the words Muhammad and Ahmad.” (p. 279)

So this is the claim, the claim always made by Muslims, which this article of ROR is trying to prove!

“It is very important to consider whether Farqleet came into this world for a special mission, and whether any claimant has come into the world who claimed to do the work which was described as the work of the Farqleet. (p. 281). …

“It is clear from this that the man about whom the prophecy was made was only the Holy Prophet Muhammad.” (p. 282)

“It is also worth considering that it is written about the promised Farqleet that he will abide forever” (p. 283) “The blessings of the Holy Prophet have not come to an end … He is always with his umma. The Promised Messiah has come as a slave of this Ahmad, and is a living proof of the everlasting life of the great Farqleet.” (p. 285)

So the claim made in the Review of Religions, July 1902, is that the Holy Prophet Muhammad is the Prophet that Jesus prophesied about, and that the Promised Messiah is the slave of that Ahmad!

A further, absolute proof that Hazrat Mirza sahib did not claim to be the Ahmad of the ismu-hu Ahmad prophecy is that the Qadiani Jamaat itself has given up this claim! I have written a detailed article of this available at this link.

I obviously can’t repeat that article here, but refer to the following point I presented in it:

In the 5-volumed English translation of the Quran with commentary by Mirza Mahmud Ahmad the commentary on the verse about the Ahmad prophecy consists of a total of 129 lines of print, out of which 122 lines are devoted to showing that the Ahmad of this prophecy is the Holy Prophet Muhammad. Having exhaustively argued that the Holy Prophet Muhammad fulfilled this prophecy, he writes in this footnote:

“Thus the prophecy mentioned in the verse under comment applies to the Holy Prophet, but as a corollary it may also apply to the Promised Messiah, Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement…”

The same is the situation in their 1-volume English Translation of the Quran with Short Commentary. 90% of the content of the footnote establishes that this prophecy applies to the Holy Prophet Muhammad.

So, how could Hazrat Mirza sahib have claimed to be the fulfiller of ismu-hu Ahmad, when even Mirza Mahmud Ahmad retreated from making this claim about him?
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
John 14:26

But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Paraclete – Wikipedia

Paraclete (/ˈpærəklt/GreekπαράκλητοςromanizedParáklētos) is a Christian biblical term occurring five times in the Johannine texts of the New Testament. In Christian theology, the word commonly refers to the Holy Spirit and is translated as ‘advocate’, ‘counsellor’ or ‘helper’.

Etymology

The English term Paraclete comes from the Koine Greek word παράκλητος (paráklētos). A combination of para (‘beside/alongside’) and kalein (‘to call’),[1] the word first appears in the Bible in John 14:16.[2] René Kieffer further explains the development of the meaning of this term:

The word parakletos is a verbal adjective, often used of one called to help in a lawcourt. In the Jewish tradition the word was transcribed with Hebrew letters and used for angels, prophets, and the just as advocates before God’s court. The word also acquired the meaning of ‘one who consoles’ (cf. Job 16:2, Theodotion’s and Aquila’s translations; the LXX has the correct word parakletores). It is probably wrong to explain the Johannine parakletos on the basis of only one religious background. The word is filled with a complex meaning: the Spirit replaces Jesus, is an advocate and a witness, but also consoles the disciples.[2]

Latin etymological precedent

Lochlan Shelfer suggests that the Greek term paraclete is a translation of the preceding Latin term advocatus:

παράκλητος [does not have] any independent meaning of its own, it is in fact a calque for the Latin term advocatus meaning a person of high social standing who speaks on behalf of a defendant in a court of law before a judge. When Greeks came into contact with the Roman Empire […] the word παράκλητοs was developed as a precise equivalent to the Latin legal term advocatus. Thus, its significance must be found not only in its very few extant appearances, but also in the specific use of the Latin legal term.”[3]

In Classical Greek

The term is not common in non-Jewish texts.[4] The best-known use is by Demosthenes:

Citizens of Athens, I do not doubt that you are all pretty well aware that this trial has been the center of keen partisanship and active canvassing, for you saw the people who were accosting and annoying you just now at the casting of lots. But I have to make a request which ought to be granted without asking, that you will all give less weight to private entreaty or personal influence than to the spirit of justice and to the oath which you severally swore when you entered that box. You will reflect that justice and the oath concern yourselves and the commonwealth, whereas the importunity and party spirit of advocates serve the end of those private ambitions which you are convened by the laws to thwart, not to encourage for the advantage of evil-doers.

— Demosthenes, On the False Embassy 19:1

A Greek–English Lexicon, apart from Demosthenes (above) cites also the example of a slave summoned as a help.

παρά-κλητος, ον,

A. called to one’s aid, in a court of justice : as Subst., legal assistant, advocate, D.19.1, Lycurg. Fr.102, etc. 2. summoned, “δοῦλοι” D.C.46.20, cf. BGU601.12 (ii A.D.).

II. intercessor, Ph.2.520 : hence in NT, Παράκλητος, of the Holy Spirit, Ev.Jo.14.16, cf. 1 Ep.Jo.2.1.

In Judaism

Philo speaks several times of “paraclete” advocates primarily in the sense of human intercessors.

The word later went from Hellenistic Jewish writing into rabbinic literature.[5]

Other words are used to translate the Hebrew word מְנַחֵם mənaḥḥēm ‘comforter’ and מליץ יושר mliṣ yosher.[6]

In Christianity

In the Christian New Testament, paraclete appears only in the Johannine texts, and it is used only on five occasions: Gospel of John 14:16, 14:26, 15:26, 16:7, and First Epistle of John chapter 2, verse 1.

And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate, to be with you forever. This is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, because he abides with you, and he will be in you.

1 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.

In John 14:16-17, ‘paraclete’ is Παράκλητον and ‘spirit’ is Πνεῦμα (pneuma), meaning ‘breath’. Pneuma appears over 250 times in the Christian New Testament, and is the word used to refer to the Holy Spirit, i.e., the Spirit of God. As a result of the immediate explanation in John 14:17, the Paraclete in John 14:16 is considered to be the Holy Spirit.

Depiction of the Holy Spirit as a Dove, from the Throne of Saint PeterSaint Peter’s Basilica

M. E. Boring, writing in the Cambridge University journal New Testament Studies, describes a “striking similarity” between the defined attributes of what the Paraclete is, and is to do, and what the outcome of Christian prophecy has spoken to, explaining the Paraclete as the post-Passover gift of the Holy Spirit. “The Paraclete represents the Spirit as manifested in a particular way, as a pneumatic Christian speech charisma. Every verb describing the ministry of the Paraclete is directly related to his speech function.”[7]

The early church identified the Paraclete as the Holy Spirit.[8] In first-century Jewish and Christian understanding, the presence of the Holy Spirit is to claim the rebirth of prophecy.[7]

During his period as a hermit in the mid-12th century, Peter Abelard dedicated his chapel to the Paraclete because “I had come there as a fugitive and, in the depths of my despair, was granted some comfort by the grace of God.”[9]

Today, the Holy Spirit continues to be referred to as the Paraclete in a prayer known as the Divine Praises, recited during Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament.

Scholarly interpretations

John 14:16 quotes Jesus as saying “another Paraclete” will come to help his disciples, implying, according to Lawrence Lutkemeyer, that Jesus is the first and primary Paraclete.[10] In 1 John 2:1 Jesus himself is called “paraclete”.

Raymond Brown (1970),[11][12] supported by George Johnston (2005),[13] also says that the “another Paraclete” of John 14:16 is in many ways another Jesus, the presence of Jesus after Jesus ascends to his Father.[10][14]

The Gospel of Matthew twice uses the passive form of the corresponding verb παρακαλῶ, in 2:18 and 5:4. In both instances, the context is of mourning, and the meaning of the verb is ‘to be comforted’.[15]

Paraclete first appearing in gospel

Here is the context of the passage in John 14:15-27[16] with the translation of Paraclete as Advocate shown in bold:

15 “If you love me, keep my commands. 16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate to help you and be with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth.[7] The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.[7] 18 I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.[10] 19 Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. 20 On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you.[7][10] 21 Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love them and show myself to them.”

22 Then Judas (not Judas Iscariot) said, “But, Lord, why do you intend to show yourself to us and not to the world?”

23 Jesus replied, “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them.[7][10] 24 Anyone who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.

25 “All this I have spoken while still with you. 26 But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit,[7] whom the Father will send in my name,[10] will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. 27 Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid.[7][10]

In Islam

Many Muslim writers have argued that “another Paraclete” (John 14:16)—the first being Jesus—refers to Muhammad. This claim is based on Quran 61:6.

“And [mention] when Jesus, the son of Mary, said, “O children of Israel, indeed I am the messenger of God to you confirming what came before me of the Torah and bringing good tidings of a messenger to come after me, whose name is Ahmad.” But when he came to them with clear evidences, they said, “This is obvious magic.”

— Sahih International

A few Muslim commentators, such as David Benjamin Keldani (1928), have argued the theory that the original Koine Greek used was periklytos, meaning ‘famed, illustrious, or praiseworthy’, rendered in Arabic as Aḥmad (another name of Muhammad), and that this was substituted by Christians with parakletos.[17][18] There are currently no known Greek manuscripts with this reading (all extant Greek manuscripts read παράκλητος parakletos), although the earliest manuscript evidence available is from the 3rd century.[19]

Regarding what the original Greek term was, according to A. Guthrie and E. F. F. Bishop:

“Early translators knew nothing about the surmised reading of periklutos for parakletos, and its possible rendering as Ahmad …. Periklutos does not come into the picture as far as Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Hisham are concerned. The deception is not theirs. The opportunity to introduce Ahmad was not accepted—though it is highly improbable that they were aware of it being a possible rendering of Periklutos. It would have clinched the argument to have followed the Johannine references with a Quranic quotation.”[20][21]

“Once more, if we omit the phrase, ‘bearing the name Ahmad,’ and regard Muhammad as still drawing lessons from previous history, the dubious passage might refer to what happened at Pentecost, and other incidents recorded in the earlier chapters of the Acts. With the absence of any claim on this passage either by Ibn Ishaq or Ibn Hisham, may we go further and suggest that the two Arabic words rendered by Dr. Bell, ‘bearing the name Ahmad,’ are an interpolation to be dated after the death of Muhammad.[21][22] (emphasis in original)

Sean Anthony agrees that the connection of Ahmad to the Paraclete in the Gospel of John may have been a later tradition that is not found in the work of Ibn Ishaq and that the earliest extant attempts by Muslims to connect these two figures that inspire later discussion on the subject goes back to Ibn Hisham and Ibn Qutaybah.[23]

A later interpolation of this passage to the Quran has been rejected in modern Islamic studies.[24] This has been supported by the fact that the earliest as well as the later manuscripts of the Quran contain the same passage and wording in chapter 61.[25][26][27]

Historical development

In Łewond‘s version of the correspondence between the Byzantine emperor Leo III (r. 717–741) and the Umayyad caliph Umar II (r. 717–720), a letter is attributed to Leo:[28]

We recognize Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as the authors of the Gospel, and yet I know that this truth, recognized by us Christians wounds you, so that you seek to find accomplices for your lie. In brief, you admit that we say that it was written by God, and brought down from the heavens, as you pretend for your Furqan, although we know that it was `UmarAbu Turab and Salman the Persian, who composed that, even though the rumor has got round among you that God sent it down from heavens…. [God] has chosen the way of sending [the human race] Prophets, and it is for this reason that the Lord, having finished all those things that He had decided on beforehand, and having fore-announced His incarnation by way of His prophets, yet knowing that men still had need of assistance from God, promised to send the Holy Spirit, under the name of Paraclete, (Consoler), to console them in the distress and sorrow they felt at the departure of their Lord and Master. I reiterate, that it was for this cause alone that Jesus called the Holy Spirit the Paraclete, since He sought to console His disciples for His departure, and recall to them all that he had said, all that He had done before their eyes, all that they were called to propagate throughout the world by their witness. Paraclete thus signifies “consoler”, while Muhammad means “to give thanks”, or “to give grace”, a meaning which has a connection with the word Paraclete.[29]

By the 8th-century, the identification of the Paraclete with Muhammad was already a known concept.[30] Evidence shows that the Abbasid caliph al-Mahdi (r. 775–785) debated the concept with the influential Christian patriarch Timothy I (d. 823).[30] The Persian theologian Ali al-Tabari (d. 870) believed that only Muhammad could have been the Paraclete since he taught people what they previously didn’t knew.[30] The Syrian scholar Ibn Abi Talib al-Dimashqi (d. 1327) asserts that the verses were generally believed to be about the coming of a prophet, until the reign of Constantine I (r. 306–337) when the Christian priests altered the verses to refer to the Holy Spirit, fearing that Constantine would recognize the true faith.[30]

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Links and Related Essay’s

GRISWOLD, H.D. – “Mirza Ghulam Ahmad: The Mehdi Messiah of Qadian.” Lodiana, India, American Tract Society. 1902. – ahmadiyyafactcheckblog

GRISWOLD, H.D. – “Mirza Ghulam Ahmad: The Mehdi Messiah of Qadian.” Lodiana, India, American Tract Society. 1902.

RR190208.pdf (reviewofreligions.org)

The Qadiani-Ahmadi’s declared that MGA was “Ismuhu-Ahmad” in Quran 61:6, not Muhammad (Saw), then changed it later – ahmadiyyafactcheckblog

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Tags

#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog #messiahhascome #ahmadiyyat #trueislam #ahmadianswers #mirzaghulamahmad #qadiani #qadianism