"Non-law-bearing prophethood", 'zilli' and 'buruz' prophethood - are they actual prophethood? Or are they something else?

In his book, 'Eik Ghalti ke Izala', Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (MGA) refers to himself as a 'non-law bearing prophet' as well as a 'zill' and 'buruz' prophet. Naturally, being born and raised as a Qadian Jamaat Ahmadi, and not knowing that such references are esoteric 'terms of art' in Sufi tradition, I was taught to take these references as clear claims by MGA to (a type of) prophethood. By stark contrast, Lahore Jamaat Ahmadis see these exact same references as MGA negating any claim to actual prophethood. Both the Qadian and Lahore Jamaat's claim Sufi tradition as support for their respective interpretations of MGA's claim. However, having been born and raised as a Qadian Ahmadi, I note that the Qadian Jamaat does not include teaching of Sufi tradition and terminology in its Tarbiyyat curricula nor have I met any elder or murabbi who appears well-versed in it. Indeed, whenever I have questioned why, despite being an essential backdrop and context which informs the understanding of MGA's books and Ahmadiyya theology, Sufi tradition/terminology is not taught by the Qadian Jamaat, the response I have always received is essentially, "MGA's books are sufficient".

In his book 'From Sufism to Ahmadiyya: A Muslim Minority Movement in South Asia' https://iupress.org/9780253015235/from-sufism-to-ahmadiyya/explores, Prof Adil Hussain explores the evolution of the Qadian Jamaat, from originating as an Indian Sufi-style (non-hierarchical) brotherhood grounded in Sufi mysticism and terminology in the 19th century to, later on, morphing into a highly structured, institutionalized and hierarchical organization. As the current Qadian Jamaat Khilafat leadership and its membership are now apparently quite removed from their originating Sufi tradition, they also appear to assert and argue for their core belief in MGA's prophethood in a manner that is not informed by and thus completely divorced or isolated from the original Sufi context in which he framed it.

When one actually delves into studying the Sufi tradition underlying and informing MGA's writings, most notably, Muhyuddin Ibn 'Arabi (who wrote volumes on the subject), in my humble view, the entire Qadian Jamaat narrative crumbles.

The concept of law-bearing vs non-law-bearing prophethood is entirely a Sufi construct and is not meant by Sufis to distinguish between two types of prophethood, but rather, to distinguish between actual prophethood (nubuwwat) and sainthood (wilayat) in a post-Muhammad/khatam-an-nabiyeen world. This non-law bearing prophethood concept was discussed by Ibn 'Arabi and he did so to show that, while prophets arose through the Mosaic dispensation and the same/akin blessing would/should neceessarily be granted to the Muhammadan dispensation, but due to the "khatam', this blessing would/could only be manifested through 'nubuwwa 'amma' (universal/general/non-law-bearing prophethood) which is just a Sufi esoteric term for 'wilayat' (sainthood), and thus not actual prophethood as it existed prior to Prophet Muhammad.

For example, Ibn 'Arabi stated:

"Know thou that wilāya (providential Intimacy) is a universal, all-encompassing firmament-sphere (al-fulk al-muḥīt al-`āmm) which can never be terminated-circumscribed-abstracted. Al--anbiyā’ al-`āmm (universal prophets**) channel it**. As for legislative prophethood (nubuwwat al-tashrī`) and the conveyors of the sent messenger (al-risāla) this may come to be cut off. This was the case with Muhammad (upon him be peace). This was indeed terminated for there can be no prophet (nabī) after him. Certainly not, in other words, one Law-generating, one subject to one Law-generating or even a Messenger (rasūl) given to legislation." (Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam, 2nd printing, ed Afīfī, 1980: 134-137; trans. Lambden) (bolding added). 

According to the above, 'nubuwwa 'amma' means to channel 'wilayat', and later in the same quote, Ibn 'Arabi makes clear that actual nubuwwat (law-bearing and one subject to or subordinate to one law-bearing), as well as risalat, is "cut off" post-Muhammad.

Indeed, in his book 'Seal of the Saints: Prophethood and Sainthood in the Doctrine of Ibn 'Arabi' (Islamic Texts Society, 1993), Prof. Chodkiewicz (one of the the world's leading Ibn 'Arabi scholars) refers to Ibn 'Arabi's statement in this regard to be "a terrible blow for the awliya [saints]" because "it implies the impossibility of experiencing total and perfect servitude [through the attainment of prophethood]." However, Prof Chodkiewicz further adds: "But ... if prophethood stricto sensu has ended, 'general prophethood (nubuwwa 'amma) remains. This is what is more commonly termed walaya .... This is why a hadith says that the learned (al-ulama) -- and the awliya alone are truly worthy of the name -- 'are the heirs of the prophets'." (pg. 51, citing Bukhari, ilm, 10)

As per the above, according to Ibn 'Arabi,  'nubuwwa 'amma' (general/universal prophethood) = 'wilayat' (sainthood) and thus is not actual prophethood (ie., it is a term of art for referring to wilayat.

--

Also in 'Eik Ghalti ke Izala', MGA also referred to himself as a "zilli' and 'buruz' nabi. Just like all other Qadian Ahmadis, by referring to himself as a 'nabi' (regardless of being qualified with adjectives), without any other background or context, naturally, I viewed MGA as clearly claiming actual nubuwwat. As nowhere in my Qadian Jamaat Tarbiyyat was the background of such terminology ever taught to me or any Jamaat elder I ever spoke to, only when I embarked in finding out for myself did I discover that, just like the reference to so-called non-law-bearing prophethood, the terms 'zilli' and 'buruz' are also Sufi esoteric terms of art for referring to 'wilayat', and not actual nubuwwat.

For example, Ibn 'Arabi stated:

“Buruz means that the nature of some saints [walaya] resembles the nature of a particular prophet. Many saints are made to travel through the achievements of the great prophets and the saints are coloured with the colour of the prophets. In other words, the image of the achievements of the prophets is transferred to them. One could also say that the special qualities of the prophets are manifested and projected (buruz) through them. But after the journey is completed, each of them remains in their original position of natural belonging. For example, the saint who supports the cause of faith is referred to as one who has the nature of Noah(as) or who stands in the footsteps of Noah(as), or as one who manifests Noah(as), or as the buruz of Noah(as). The saint who accepts the will of God is called someone who has the nature of Moses(as), the one of sincerity and self-annihilation is called someone who has the nature of Jesus(as), and the one who is a perfect servant who combines all these qualities is called someone who has the nature of Muhammad(sa). Sometimes it is said that this or that saint is the buruz of this or that prophet, just as the moon is the buruz of the sun. In short, the Prophet is the original and the saint is his copy and the original of the Prophets is Muhammad(sa).” (Muhyi d-Din ibn ‘Arabi, Urdu translation of Fusus al-Hikam , ed./trans. Muhammad ‘Abd al-Qadir Siddiqi, Hyderabad, Dar at-Tab‘-i Jami ‘ah-i ‘Uthmaniyyah, 1942, p. 24)

Regarding the term 'zill', we also see that:

“Sainthood [wilayat] is the shadow (zill) of Prophethood and Prophethood is the shadow [zill] of Godhood.” (‘Ali ibn Yusuf al-Shattanawfi, Bahjat al-asrar wa-ma‘din al-anwar, Cairo, Mustafa al-Babi al-Halabi, 1912, p. 39.)

Just as a nabi is obviously not actually God, similarly, a zilli nabi is not actually a nabi, but is a wali, and so both the terms zilli and buruz nubuwwat are meant/intended to refer to walayat (achieved through devotion to a particular prophet), and not actual nubuwwat.

Oddly, in his correspondences (and not his published so-called "sufficient" books), MGA was often much more direct and precise regarding his claim. For example, MGA stated the following:

“Let it be clear to him that we also curse the person who claims prophethood. We hold that ‘there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah’, and believe in the finality of prophethood of the Holy Prophet Muhammad. And it is not wahy nubuwwat but wahy wilayat received by the saints (awliya) through the Prophethood of the Holy Prophet Muhammad due to their perfect following of him, which is what we believe in. If anyone accuses us of going beyond this, he departs from honesty and fear of God. In brief, there is no claim of prophethood from my side either, only the claim of sainthood (wilayat) and reformership (mujaddidiyya).” — Reply to Maulvi Ghulam Dastgir, January 1897; MI 2: 297-298

Based on the above, by saying that "MGA's books are sufficient" is not, by any means, true, and that only viewing his claims, and the terminology he used, in light of their Sufi background and context is absolutely essential and necessary.  Unfortunately, due to its historic evolution, the Qadian Jamaat's current state, as well as its membership, have become completely divorced and isolated from MGA's writings' necessary Sufi traditional backdrop. 

Note to Reader: Although I have referenced the above in various separate posts under different threads, I have been asked to include it in its own stand-alone post. I hope it is helpful.