Regarding your views about Ummati Nabi, I think you are mistaken that its mention should be more clear in the Holy Quran. The matter of the fact is that it is against the Sunnatullah and there is always a test of taqwa and Eeman bil-Ghaib of people, otherwise there would have been only one religion in the world. That is why Jews not only rejected the Promised Messiah, but tried to crucify him and became accursed of God.
I think there is not even a single verse in the Holy Quran testifying the meaning derived by non-Ahmadi regarding Khatamunnabiyyeen, where as Holy Quran has several verses supporting the meaning by Ahmadi Muslims.
Regarding Recognizing (Ummati) Nabi like their sons, you might have been well aware of that as per hadith, “ba’adal-Mia-tain” almost every house of the Muslim was waiting at the beginning of 14 century Hijra for the coming of Eesa ibn-a Meryam Nabi ullah (as per Saheeh Muslim) and Imamul Mahdee, whose signs of appearance have been mentioned in Dar-Qutnee: Eclipse of Moon and Sun in Ramdhan. The reference is traceable both in the Holy Quran and Bible as well. With the coming of Ummati Nabi, the finality of Hadhrat Mohammad (p. b. u. h.) doesn’t change. However if the Rasul of Bani Israeel comes again after him the Finality of Mohammad (p. b. u.h.) will definitely receive a setback. It is because shadow has no existence without original or shadow cannot be separated from the original. Ummati Nabi is in fact the shadow of Khatamunnabiyyeen. May Allah Guide us all to Sirat-al-Mustaqeem, Sirat-allzeen Anamta Alaihim…Aameen.
Answer
You have mentioned a few points in your message. I am responding to them one by one.
You have claimed that the mention of coming prophets was not as clear as recognising one’s sons otherwise Jews would have recognised Jesus. It is a test, you say, of Taqwa and Iman bil ghaib that such mentions have been kept vague. My submission is that if our reference point is the Quran then what you are saying is not consistent with its understanding. The Quran categorically states that the prophet, alaihissalaam, was mentioned clearly in the earlier books. (7: 157; 61:6) It tells us that the Jews recognised the prophet as they recognised their own children. (2:146)And it also states that those who denied the prophets and disagreed on the matters of religion did so not because they didn’t understand the truth. On the contrary, the truth was communicated to them clearly and yet they did not embrace it because of envy and grudge against each other “baghyam baynahum”. (2:213)
You have claimed that Muslims have been waiting for the promised Messiah at the turn of the fourteen century hijrah. My question is: Where is it written in the Quran, the last book of guidance from God, that the promised Messiah will come at the turn of fourteenth century? Are you telling us that although the Quran is a complete book of guidance on all important religious matters, He left a very important matter of understanding for a less authentic source?
You have claimed that the Ahmadi interpretation of Khataman Nabiyyin is the most authentic one. What is the basis of that claim? I have shown it in my previous message to you that the Quran has used the derivatives of khatama (from which khatamunnabiyyin emerges) in different verses. All of them mean one thing: Sealing an object in a way that nothing can enter it, like khatamallahu ala qulubihim (Allah sealed their hearts).
And then you mentioned something of the sort that says that shadow should be the reflection of the original like the Ummati Nabi was to be the follower of the prophet, alaihissalaam. That rhetoric and skewed logic has nothing to do neither with truth nor with the Quran.
I hope you appreciate that if we do not accept Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Sahib as a prophet of God it is based on our conviction that there isn’t any evidence in support of his claim in the Quran. In fact, the Quran is giving its verdict against his claim clearly and loudly.