The Perilous Condition of the Muslims & the British Government

1
O Bedouin! I wonder how you can reach the Ka‘bah,
When the road you have taken leads to Turkistan.

The laxity, lack of concern, and neglect shown these days by our brothers in faith—the Muslims—with regard to fulfilling their religious obligations, fostering brotherhood among Muslims, and nurturing national sympathy, is such that the like of it cannot be found in any other people. In truth, the very spirit of national and religious sympathy has vanished and internal feuds, animosities, and differences have led them to the brink of destruction. Their unwarranted acts of omission and commission have driven them far from the true objective. Owing to the egotistic manner with which they fight one another, the danger is not only that their baseless prejudices will continue to grow, devouring one another like insects and causing their own annihilation, but also that Islam will suffer greatly at their hands if they continue in this same state. Because of them, mischievous external enemies shall find ample pretext to level criticism and create disorder. It is also unfortunate that some ulema of today are quick to criticize their fellow brothers and, before acquiring true and certain knowledge themselves, are ready to attack their brother. And why would they not be so prepared when, under the dictates of their ego, they wish to destroy, by any means possible, a Muslim who dares to differ from them, and they desire that he should be defeated, disgraced and humiliated, so that their own victory and supremacy be proven? This is why they have to engage in pointless disputes over everything. God has altogether deprived them of humility, meekness, goodwill and brotherly love. [Surely, to Allah we belong and to Him shall we return].2

Recently, some Muslims objected to the article that I included in Part III [of Barahin-e-Ahmadiyya] wherein I wrote about the gratitude we [Muslims] owe to the British government. Some people have also written letters to me about it—and some have used harsh and hard words—questioning why I preferred the British government over other governments. It is apparent, however, that the superiority a government enjoys on account of its decency and good governance cannot be concealed. A virtue remains a virtue in its own right, irrespective of the government in which it is found. [A word of wisdom is the lost property of the believer; he takes it wherever he finds it].3 One should also bear in mind that it is certainly not the teaching of Islam for Muslims—who enjoy the favours of a government whilst living under its rule, and who earn the livelihood that God has ordained for them under the shadow of its protection in peace and comfort, and who are nurtured by its consistent favours—that they should sting it like a scorpion and utter not a word of gratitude for its magnanimity and kindness.

What our Benevolent God has taught us through His Beloved Prophet is that we should recompense good with even greater good and express gratitude to our benefactor. Whenever we get the opportunity, we are enjoined to reach out to such a government with heartfelt sincerity and utmost sympathy, and to willingly obey it in all that is good and obligatory. Hence, whatever gratitude my humble self expressed for the British government in the article included in Part III was not merely on the basis of my own opinion; rather, I was obliged to express this gratitude in view of the lofty directives that were before me as stipulated by the Holy Quran and ahadith [sayings] of the Holy Prophet sas. Some of our ignorant [Muslim] brothers—on account of their short-sightedness and inherent stinginess—have mistaken their extreme view of theirs to be a part of Islam.

O cruel one, making excuses is not the way of true lovers;
Without cause, how can you be so derogatory towards those who are known to be righteous?

I have mentioned one extreme view held by some of my brothers, but there are others who take the opposite extreme and have no concern with religion. All of their thoughts are focused upon the world; but, alas, even the world eludes them. They have become like those described as [‘They are losers both in this world and in the Hereafter’]. And how can it be otherwise? They have not only lost their faith, but have also failed to develop the skills which are needed for material progress. Just like Sheikh Chilli,4 their hearts are filled with thoughts of the world but they have not actually followed the path that leads to worldly gain, nor have they moulded themselves accordingly. Hence, now their current state has left them bereft of both the worlds.

If the British call them semi-savages, it is generous of them to do so; otherwise, most Muslims seem to be in a state worse than savages. They possess neither wisdom, nor courage, nor a sense of honour, nor love. The plain truth is that they do not care for their community, their brothers, and the affairs of their truthful religion even to the extent that their Aryah neighbours do to revere and honour an insignificant animal—the cow. We see that, in their endeavour to preserve the sanctity of the cow, the resolute Aryah nation is able to collect hundreds of thousands of rupees, whereas the Muslims are unable to collect even a thousandth of that for upholding the honour of Allah and His Messenger. Rather, whenever an appeal is made for a religious donation, they immediately hide their faces like women [behind veils].

This high resolve of the Aryas is all the more remarkable considering that saving the life of a cow is, according to their faith, a matter of minimal significance and is not established by their scriptures. Indeed, the scholars among the pundits know very well that none of the Vedas teach the sanctity of beef. In fact, it is clear from the first part of the Rigveda that, during the Vedic period, beef was commonly sold in the markets and the Aryas ate it with relish. And recently, a renowned scholar, the Honourable Mountstuart Elphinstone, former Governor of Bombay, has written a book entitled The History of India, in which he has recorded the history of the Aryas in light of authentic Hindu Pustaks.5 He writes on page 89 that, according to the collection of Manu, the Brahmans were particularly enjoined to eat the flesh of oxen on their solemn festivals, failing which they would be considered guilty of sin. A pundit has also recently published a similar book from Calcutta in which he has written that, in the time of the Vedas, eating beef was considered a religious obligation for the Hindus, and the largest and best of it was served to the Brahmans. Similarly, in the thirteenth chapter of Mahabharata, it is clearly exhorted that beef is not only lawful and pure but is also the best meat to be served to the Brahmans on behalf of one’s ancestors; and as a result, the ancestors would remain satiated for ten months. Thus, all the rishis of the Vedas, as well as Manu Ji and Bias Ji, count the consumption of beef among their religious obligations and a source of heavenly reward.

This discourse of mine would have remained incomplete here—in the opinion of some—had I left out of this consensus the viewpoint of Pundit Dayanand, who passed away on 30 October 1883. It is worth noting that in none of his books has the Pundit written that beef is forbidden and impure, nor has he proven that eating beef and slaughtering cows are forbidden according to the Vedas. Rather, he says that the slaughter of the cow was forbidden in order to lower the price of milk and ghee. He also believes that there may be times when slaughtering of cows may be permissible, as is evident from his books Satyarth Prakash and Ved Bhash.

By what has been said here, my objective is certainly not to question why the Aryas disobey and repudiate the worthy sayings of their Holy Vedas and those of their saintly rishis, or the words of Bias Ji, Manu Ji, and those of their research scholars and learned pundits; rather, the purpose here is only to highlight how resolute, courageous, and unified the people of the Aryas are, who can agree on even a minor aspect of their faith which has nothing to do with its essence, and are able to collect thousands of rupees in no time. Considering their unity and zeal on such an insignificant matter, imagine the commitment and resolve such a people would show for greater endeavours.

The spiritless Muslims ought to die of shame. If they do not love God and the Messenger, then why do they claim to be Muslims? Is it Islam that they should squander enormous wealth in committing evil, following their nafs-e-ammarah [the self that incites to evil], and satisfying their self-conceit, while refusing to give up even a grain for the love of God and the Messenger; nay, this certainly is not Islam. It is an internal [i.e. spiritual] leprosy. Such is the decadent state of the Muslims that most of the affluent among them view religion as something that is deserving of sympathy from the poor alone—they themselves being exempt from any such responsibility to the extent that even extending a hand to carry this burden is prohibited for them.

My humble self had ample experience of this during the publication of this book. I widely publicized that the appropriate price of the book, owing to an increase in its volume, should now be 100 rupees and those who can afford it should pay accordingly—since it is being given to the less privileged for a meagre 10 rupees—as compensation for the loss is essential. It is unfortunate that, with the exception of seven or eight people, all the rest listed themselves among the poor. What a poor example of making up the loss! Whenever I investigated as to who had sent a money order of five or ten rupees as payment for the book, I found that they were sent mostly by some nawwab [a princely chief ] or ra’is-e-a‘zam [a great chieftain]. Among the exceptions, Nawwab Iqbalud-Dawlah of Hyderabad, as well as another ra’is [chief] of Bulandshahr District—who had requested that his name should not be disclosed—have each sent 100 rupees for a copy of the book. An official, Muhammad Afzal Khan, has sent 110 rupees, while Nawwab [Muhammad Ali Khan ra] of Kotla Malir has sent 100 rupees for three copies. A Hindu nobleman, Sardar Atar Singh, Ra’is-e-A‘zam of Ludhiana, out of his magnanimity and generosity, has sent twenty-five rupees as a donation. The Sardar, despite being a Hindu, has shown sympathy for Islam. Miserly and close-fisted Muslims—who enjoy grand titles and appellations and sit on enormous wealth like Qarun [Korah]6—should compare their own attitude with that of the Sardar. Given the fact that there are some among the Aryas who sympathize even for other religions, whereas there are very few among the Muslims who can sympathize even for their own faith—just tell me how such a nation can progress?

7

Sympathy for the faith is to be found among the affluent of every religion, except for the Muslims. Yes indeed, there is only an insignificant minority among wealthy Muslims who feel even an iota of concern for their true and holy religion.

A short while ago, my humble self had appealed to a nawwab who is of a very pious nature, righteous, renowned for his scholarly excellences, and is very knowledgeable of the commands of Allah and His Messenger, for a donation towards the book Barahin-e-Ahmadiyya. It would not have been a matter of regret if the esteemed nawwab had written back saying that in his opinion the book is not of such a standard that would merit his help. However, initially the esteemed gentleman wrote to me that he would certainly buy fifteen to twenty copies of the book, but when he was reminded of it, he said that it was contrary to the desires of the British government to purchase or to make any contribution towards books pertaining to religious debates, and so I should not entertain any hope that his State would be making a purchase or helping in any other way. So, I too do not place any hope in the nawwab. The Benevolent God alone is my hope and He indeed is sufficient. (May the British government be well-pleased with the nawwab.) But I wish to say with all due respect, that such notions are a sugar-coated critique of the Government.

It is not a principle of the British government to stop anyone from proving the truth of his religion or from giving a donation [for the publication] of religious books. The Government would only intervene if a piece of writing disrupts the peace or is subversive to the State. Otherwise, the Government permits every people to use all lawful means to promote their respective religions. Why, then, would this just Government be offended if a community—whose religion is in fact true, absolutely perfect, and the truthfulness of which is established by strong irrefutable proofs—were to publish its arguments with good intentions, civility, and humility for the benefit of mankind?

Our affluent Muslims seem to be unaware of the fact that it is in the equitable interest of this Government to wholeheartedly ensure freedom. Indeed, I myself have seen many able and good-natured Englishmen who detest duplicity and hypocrisy and appreciate righteousness, kindness, and sincerity. There is no doubt that all good lies in sincerity and fear of God, which makes an impact, sooner or later, on friend and foe; and when God is pleased with someone, His creatures eventually become pleased with him as well. In short, to be engaged in matters of religious and national concern, and to be a truly sincere well-wisher of mankind in worldly and spiritual matters, is such a noble quality that it is an honour for any government to have such people, and the land where such people abide becomes the recipient of blessings from heaven. On the other hand, a government would be extremely unfortunate if all of its subjects were hypocrites, who say one thing in private and another in public.

Hence, rest assured that it is indeed fortunate for the British government that its subjects become ever more sincere and deal with it frankly, considering the Government as a beneficent friend. This is the very reason that our benevolent officials do not just verbally teach us the lesson of liberty, but by acting freely in matters of religion, they wish to establish us upon liberty through their practical example. Just one instance should suffice here. About a month ago, our fellow countryman, Sir Charles Aitchison Bahadur, Lieutenant-Governor of Punjab, visited Batala, District Gurdaspur, where, upon laying the foundation stone of a church, he expressed in a simple and informal manner his sympathy for the Christian faith and said that:

I had hoped that in a matter of days this country would make remarkable progress in righteousness and piety, but experience and observation seem to show that very little progress had been made in this regard.

(Meaning that most people have not yet converted to Christianity and the ‘pure group’ of Christians still remains a minority.)

Nevertheless, we should not despair, for the work of the missionaries is not without benefit, nor will their efforts ever go in vain; rather, it being a good teaching does affect hearts and the hearts of many people are subtly being prepared to accept it. For example, hardly a month ago, I was visited by an honourable chieftain and we had an hour-long discussion about religion. It appeared that his heart required some preparation.

He said that he had studied many religious books, but the weight of his sins had not been lifted and he knew very well that he could not do good deeds, and he was greatly agitated by this.

In response, I explained to him, in my broken Urdu, about the blood that purifies and cleanses all sins, and about that righteousness which cannot be earned through actions, but is granted ex gratia.

He replied that he had studied the Gospel in Sanskrit and had even prayed to Yasu‘ Masih [Jesus Christ] once or twice, but now he would study the Gospel more closely and pray to ‘Isa Masih [Jesus the Messiah] much more fervently.

(Meaning that he was much affected by his [i.e. the Governor’s] words and was now totally inclined towards the Christian faith.)

What needs to be noted here is the effort made by Nawwab Lieutenant-Governor Bahadur to draw a Hindu chieftain towards his religion. Although it is true that some chieftains do indulge in hypocritical talk to please officials and to make them believe that they are their brothers in faith, my point in citing this discourse, as observed from this conversation, is to simply highlight that one should understand the freedom allowed by the British government. For how can the Nawwab Lieutenant-Governor Bahadur be offended when people of other faiths show concern for their respective religions, when he himself ardently wishes to spread his beloved faith in India and urges others to do the same whenever he finds an opportunity. In fact, to show sympathy with sincerity is a good quality for which hypocritical character needs to be done away with.

Urged by this very sincerity, the former Governor of Bombay, Sir Richard Temple, wrote an article regarding the Muslims that was published in a newspaper of England, the Evening Standard, and subsequently in Urdu papers as well. He writes:

It is a matter of regret that the Muslims do not become Christians and this is because their religion is not characterized by the impossible things into which the Hindu faith is plunged. It is easy to shake the faith of a Hindu or a Buddhist with simple and light-hearted arguments, but the religion of Islam stands up to reason and cannot be refuted with arguments. Christians can readily expose the inconceivable teachings of other religions and thus turn their followers away from their faith, but doing the same to Muhammadans is next to impossible.

This kind of sincerity is missing among the Muslim elite, let alone that they would ponder over the matter mentioned above.

Humbly,
[Mirza] Ghulam Ahmad