(Oh Messiah! pray to God for our safety from the epidemic).” (The Badr, 10th May 1906, page 8)After dealing with the alleged resemblance between my Jama‘at and the followers of Jesus (as), Maulawi Muhammad Ali proceeds to describe the history of dissensions in the Ahmadiyya Movement, and endeavours to show how after the death of the Promised Messiah (as) a certain conjunction of circumstances gradually led the present writer to introduce changes in my former beliefs.
These changes, according to Maulawi Muhammad Ali, relate to three matters; (1) that I propagated the belief that Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was actually a Nabi; (2) the belief that he was “the Ahmad” spoken of in the prophecy of Jesus (as) referred to in the Holy Quran in Al-Saff 61:7; and (3) the belief that all those so-called Muslims who have not entered into his Bai‘at formally, wherever they may be, are kuffar and outside the pale of Islam, even though they may not have heard the name of the Promised Messiah (as).
That these beliefs have my full concurrence, I readily admit. What I deny is the statement that I have been entertaining these views since 1914 or only three or four years before. On the contrary, as I shall presently show, the first and the last of these beliefs were entertained by me even during the lifetime of the Promised Messiah (as), while the second belief developed soon after the death of the Promised Messiah (as) as a result of the teachings I received from Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih I (ra), and of the various discourses I had, with him on the subject.
I shall speak first of the question of prophethood. My arguments on the subject will be stated at length in their appropriate place later on. For the present I only deem it necessary to state in brief that, in my opinion, the fact that the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sas), who was the most truthful of all men and the most jealous guardian of the honour of Islam, repeatedly gave the name of Nabi to the Messiah that was to come, is ample evidence of the fact that the expected Messiah was to be actually a Nabi. But since it has been claimed by the Holy Quran that its teachings are for all countries and for all ages, it follows that no new Prophet could be expected who may bring a new Law. The saying of the Holy Prophet (sas) with reference to himself—“Ana Akhirul Ambiya” (I am the last of the Prophets) goes also to prove the same thing, viz. that after the Holy Prophet (sas) no other Prophet is to appear who should attain the rank of prophethood except through obedience to him. In other words, whoever should after the Holy Prophet (sas) attain the rank of Nabi must be one from among the followers of the Holy Prophet (sas) and must achieve the rank through the spiritual grace of the Holy Prophet (sas).
Regarding the prophecy Ismuhu Ahmad contained in the Holy Quran (Al-Saff, 61:6), my opinion is that the passage contains a double prophecy, relating to two persons, one a counter-type and the other his prototype. The counter-type of course is the Promised Messiah (as), while the prototype is the Holy Prophet (sas). The passage under reference speaks directly about the counter-type. A reference to the prototype of course comes in, but only indirectly inasmuch as the counter-type of a Prophet necessarily presumes the existence of his original. Thus the verse does furnish a prophecy regarding the original Prophet from whom the immediate subject of the prophecy derived his dignity. The prophethood of the Holy Prophet (sas) was not a derived one. He was an original Prophet who was not indebted to any human teacher for the grace of prophethood, but was himself a dispenser of grace to others. To consider him as a recipient of spiritual grace from any human teacher is in my view a detraction from his proper dignity. For these reasons and on certain other grounds, I hold the opinion that the subject of this prophecy is primarily the Promised Messiah (as) who is the reflex of the Holy Prophet (sas) and the counter-type of Jesus Christ. But the whole question is one regarding which no decision on the basis of revealed authority has been left by any of the Prophets. Any discussion of the question therefore has little more than mere academic interest. If any person holds a different view regarding the interpretation of the verse, all that I shall say is that he is mistaken, but I shall never deem him, on that account, any the less an Ahmadi and much less shall I deem him a sinner. In short, the question as to who is the proper subject of this Quranic prophecy is not at all of such moment as to make it a problem of any great religious importance.
As for the question of Kufr (unbelief) of non-Ahmadi Muslims, my belief is that Kufr really arises from a denial of God. Hence, whenever there comes any revelation from God of such a nature that its acceptance is obligatory on every man, a rejection of the same leads to Kufr. Belief in such a revelation, however, presupposes belief in the bearer of the revelation. Hence it follows that a belief in the bearer of such revelation is a necessary part of one’s faith. The man who rejects a Prophet thus necessarily becomes a kafir, not because he denies the truth of any particular Prophet X or Y, but such denial will necessarily lead him to reject a revelation of God. To me, the Kufr which arises from the denial of any Nabi has its basis in this principle and not in any personal quality of the Nabi. And inasmuch as the revelation of which the acceptance is obligatory on mankind comes only through Prophets, it is the rejection of such recipients of Divine revelation, and not of others that leads to unbelief. Now, as we hold that the revelation which came to the Promised Messiah (as) are such that their acceptance is obligatory on mankind in general, to us, the man who rejects the Promised Messiah (as) is a kafir agreeably to the teachings of the Holy Quran, although he may well be a believer in all the other truths of religion because the presence even of one of the necessary conditions of Kufr is sufficient to make a man kafir. I may however add that in my opinion Kufr arises from a denial of one or more of the fundamental articles of religion, not because such a denial makes a man the object of unending punishment, but because the denial makes him guilty of rebellion against God and leads to the extinction of his spiritual life. Now, as Islam bases its judgments upon what is patent and not upon what is possible, it cannot but class as kafir such as fail to accept any of the Prophets, even though such failure may be due to their want of information concerning him. In the latter case, they will not, of course, be the objects of Divine punishment. The denial would be due to causes altogether beyond their control. It is in accordance with the same principle that Muslims have so long with one accord designated as kuffar all those who have not accepted the faith of Islam, without taking into consideration the question whether or not such failure is occasioned by want of adequate information concerning the Holy Prophet (sas). And the doctor is yet to be born who will class in the category of Muslims the Esquimaux of the North Pole, the Red Indians of America, the Hottentots of Africa or the Maoris of Australia, or those millions of Christians, who living in central Europe or in other out of the way places have not yet heard anything regarding the teachings of the Holy Prophet (sas).
Such are my convictions. Whether they are right or wrong it is not my present purpose to discuss. I shall discuss their merits later on. My object here is only to present in brief only a statement of my convictions as they are, for the benefit of the reader.
After this statement of my convictions, I wish next to make certain observations on the account of the course of events which, according to Maulawi Muhammad Ali, led up to the split in the Ahmadiyya Movement. I hope, to make clear to every fair minded reader, who will care to weigh the facts without bias or prejudice, how Maulawi Muhammad Ali in his narration of the events has intentionally departed from truth and dispensed with the fear of God. For it is possible that a wrong exposition of doctrine, or a wrong use of argument may be attributed to some misunderstanding on the part of the writer, but what if we find him perverting not one or two but a long series of events to suit a premeditated purpose? In the latter case we are constrained to attribute the action to a conscious design of deceiving the unwary reader.
Maulawi Muhammad Ali1 has related the story as follows: (1) The first man who promulgated belief in the Promised Messiah’s (as) Nubuwwat was one Zahiruddin, a clerk in the Canal Department at Gujranwala, and his writings containing the belief may be traced as far back as 1911. The first of these writings was entitled Nabiyyullah Ka Zahur or The Appearance of a Prophet of God, which was published in April 1911 and must have been written towards the close of 1910 or in the early months of 1911. In this book the writer tried to prove that Muhammad (sas) was not the last of the Prophets but that Prophets would continue to appear after him. (2) Much notice of this book was not taken by the Ahmadiyya Community. But probably the contents of the book or some other leaflet on the same subject was brought to the notice of Khalifatul-Masih I (ra). Upon this there was some correspondence between the Khalifa and Zahiruddin and as a result an announcement was made by the Khalifa to the effect that as Zahiruddin was promulgating new beliefs he was not to be considered to have any connection with the Ahmadiyya Community. This was followed by repentance on the part of Zahiruddin. (3) But the repentance was not long-lived. On the 20th April 1913, he published another pamphlet in which he sought to reply to the objection taken by the Ahmadis that he had started a new formula of faith. The reply was nothing but an admission of what was alleged. Upon this the Ahmadiyya Community again cut off all connection with him and although the ostensible ground for his ostracism was his alleged claim to Khilafat but—as he himself disowned making any such claim—the real reason was no doubt the promulgation of these new beliefs. No direct refutation of the latter was published by the Community although an indirect refutation of them was to be found in the saner views which found expression in the newspapers of the Ahmadiyya Community and in some books. (4) In 1909 Maulawi Muhammad Ahsan brought out a book on the subject of a controversy held at Rampur, between himself and Maulawi Sanaullah of Amritsar, under the auspices of the Nawab of Rampur. On page 67 of the book under the heading “Discussion relating to partial prophethood in subordination to complete prophethood,” Maulawi Muhammad Ahsan wrote: “By following the Holy Prophet (sas) one can be granted partial prophethood in subordination to complete prophethood for helping the cause of the religion of Islam.” Later on, the same learned old man wrote an article in the monthly journal Tashhidhul Adhhan edited by me (the writer of this book) under the heading: “Prophethood among the followers of Muhammad,” in which he showed that the only prophethood which could be granted to Muslims was Nubuwwati Juzwi i.e. partial prophethood. (5) While Zahiruddin was circulating his peculiar views, I (the writer of this book) broached the question of Kufr of those who did not formally accept the Bai‘at of the Promised Messiah (as). This article, it was stated, was shown to Khalifatul-Masih I (ra), but in what sense he understood the article is clear from a later announcement issued by Khwaja Kamaluddin and signed by the Khalifa. In this announcement it was explained that the article written by me could be accepted only if it was interpreted as signifying that those who did not accept the Promised Messiah (as) are only deniers of or unbelievers in the Promised Messiah (as), and not actually outside the pale of Islam, for otherwise the article would be opposed to the plain teachings of the Promised Messiah (as). (6) Towards the end of the life of Khalifatul-Masih I (ra), the question again came into prominence, and towards the close of 1913, once again, I made the announcement that the deniers of the Promised Messiah (as) were all kuffar. I also found fault with the fatwa of the first Khalifa allowing Ahmadis to pray behind non-Ahmadi Imams, though in the pilgrimage which I performed in 1912, I myself said prayers in congregation behind a non-Ahmadi Imam and so did all the Ahmadis who performed the pilgrimage at that time. When the news of the renewal of the question reached the Khalifa, being seriously ill himself, he asked Maulawi Muhammad Ali to enlighten the Ahmadiyya Community on this question and gave him some notes regarding the same. (7) He even warned me (the present writer) that I had not realised the true significance of the question of Kufr and Islam. (8) Accordingly Maulawi Muhammad Ali wrote a pamphlet and read it out to the Khalifatul-Masih who approved of views expressed therein. This pamphlet, however, although written in the lifetime of Khalifatul-Masih I (ra) could not be published before his death. (9) People had accepted me (the present writer) as their Khalifa under a misconception and now many of them were openly expressing their aversion to my doctrines. Maulawi Sayyid Muhammad Ahsan of Amroha, the oldest and the most learned living companion of the Promised Messiah (as), was one of the adherents of the present writer at the time of the dissension of March 1914, but in 1916 he published a handbill declaring that I was not fit for the position to which I had been elected, as I was misleading the Community into false beliefs viz. (i) that all the followers of the Qibla professing the Kalima (the Muslim formula of faith) are unbelievers and outside the pale of Islam, (ii) that the Promised Messiah (as) is a full and real Prophet, not a partial Prophet or a Muhaddath (iii) that the prophecy relating to Ahmad (Al-Tahrim, 66: 6) is for the Promised Messiah (as) and not for the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sas). (10) The learned Sayyid was not the only one who made such a declaration. Many educated persons had done the same before him in the Paigham-e-Sulh and besides them other educated Ahmadis were realising the great error into which the Community was being led and their dissatisfaction with the beliefs taught by me was becoming more and more pronounced every day. (11) But there was one step which, according to Maulawi Muhammad Ali, I took in the beginning and by which I have succeeded in keeping my section of the Community in the dark. I condemned the opposing section of Ahmadis (i.e. friends of Muhammad Ali) as Fasiqs and prohibited my followers from having any relations with the members of that section, so much so, that they were forbidden to take food with them at the same table or to have friendly relations with them or to read any literature issued by them. Thus, my followers remained generally ignorant of the arguments which were given against the novel beliefs which I was teaching and, being ignorant, they thought that my teachings were not different from those of the Promised Messiah (as).
These are the eleven points raised by Maulawi Muhammad Ali in describing the history of the dissensions. Before entering upon a discussion of the merits of the beliefs which divide us, I wish to deal with these points in order to make it clear to the readers, unacquainted with these matters how far our opponents have been regardful of truth and facts.
In describing the history of the dissensions, the first misstatement made by Maulawi Muhammad Ali is that the disputed beliefs had their origin in one M. Zahiruddin who in April 1911 wrote a book named Nabiyyullah Ka Zahur and thus laid the foundation of the belief in the Nubuwwat (prophethood) of the Promised Messiah (as). I wish to point out that in making this statement Maulawi Muhammad Ali has done a plain violence to truth. Muhammad Zahiruddin is too small a person to be the author of the belief in the prophethood of the Promised Messiah (as). Was he present with the Holy Prophet (sas) when the latter said that the Masih Ibni Maryam to come would be a Nabi? Was it M. Zahiruddin who put these words into the mouth of the Holy Prophet? Were the words—revealed to the Promised Messiah (as)—“A Nabi came to the world but the world accepted him not, etc. etc” revealed to him by God or by M. Zahiruddin? To attribute these words to a person as ignorant, benighted and full of self-conceit as M. Zahiruddin is nothing less than a blasphemy against the Divine words and against the Holy Prophet (sas). I may even ask—was there any Ahmadi present with the Holy Prophet (sas) when he declared the Nubuwwat of the Promised Messiah (as)?
Moreover, let us all remember that long before the publication of Zahiruddin’s book I had announced the prophethood of the Promised Messiah (as). If Zahiruddin was really the originator of the doctrine I may well inquire—how was it that full five years before the publication of this book, and during the lifetime of the Promised Messiah (as), I could describe the Promised Messiah (as) as a Nabi, in my writings? How was it that Maulawi Muhammad Ali himself could commend those writings of mine which contained open reference to the prophethood of the Promised Messiah (as) and even cite them in proof of the truth of the Promised Messiah (as). Maulawi Muhammad Ali admits that M. Zahiruddin’s book had been finished in April 1911, and thinks that it must therefore have been written towards the close of 1910 or in the early months of 1911. The book contains 120 pages of small size and might have taken at the most a month in writing. But even assuming Maulawi Muhammad Ali’s estimate to be correct, it may well be asked how could the contents of this book published in 1911, have possibly been, known to me in 1906, when I so emphatically declared the prophethood of the Promised Messiah (as)? What I say relates to the year 1905 when I was only seventeen years old. In that year in collaboration with the late Shaikh Abdur Rahim of Malerkotla, Chaudhary Fateh Muhammad Siyal M. A—later Muslim Missionary—and some other students, I decided to publish a periodical to advance the cause of the Movement and to create in the younger members zeal for the service of religion.
Accordingly after securing the approval of the Promised Messiah (as) and requesting him to select a suitable name for the periodical, we published the same under the name Tashhidhul Adhhan. At the instance of these friends I myself undertook the editing of it. The first number was issued on the 1st March 1906. In the introductory article written by me and published in the first number, I made mention of the prophethood of the Promised Messiah (as) and explicitly called him by the name of Nabi. On page 10 of that issue, writing about the Promised Messiah (as) and addressing the people of the world in general I wrote: “Do you think that because you belong to a great nation or because you possess gold and jewels, or because you have a large following, or because you are a millionaire or a king or a scholar or head of a pious foundation or a fakir—that there is, therefore, no need for you to obey this Rasul?” Again in the same article on page 11 of that issue I wrote: “Only a few have accepted him, most have rejected him. This has been the Divine rule in the case of all previous Ambiya’; and the same has been the case now.” Similarly on page 8, I wrote: “In short, every nation has been expecting a Nabi and the time assigned for his advent is the one we are now in, Our beloved Prophet Muhammad (sas) mentioned certain signs which were to mark the advent of this Nabi and in other ways made it easy for us to recognise him. Such predictions go to prove how high and great the rank is of our Prophet.” Similarly on pages 5 and 6, I wrote: “We are now to see whether or not there is any need for a Nabi to appear in this age, and whether we should call this age a good or an evil one. So far as can be seen, no age of the world has exceeded the present in vice and crime. The whole world has been crying with one voice that the high water mark of iniquity has been reached. This is the age which more than any other stands in need of a Divine Messenger.” This article was so much approved by Khalifatul-Masih I (ra), that in the mosque he urged many people, among them Khwaja Kamaluddin, to read it. He also praised the article in the presence of the Promised Messiah (as). But perhaps such encomiums by the Khalifatul-Masih (ra) will not be so convincing to Maulawi Muhammad Ali as his own remarks. He may therefore look upon the comments which he himself made on this article in the Review of Religions while reviewing the Tashhidhul Adhhan. Those comments bear sufficient testimony to the nature of the views then entertained by him. He wrote: “The editor of the magazine is Mirza Bashir-ud-Deen Mahmood Ahmad, son of the Promised Messiah (as). In the first number there is an introductory article from his pen running over 14 pages. The article will, of course, be read in due course by members of our Movement but what I wish to do is to cite this article before the opponents of our Movement as a manifest evidence of the truth of the Movement. The article purports to say that when disorders prevail, on the earth and the majority of the people abandon the path of God, and betake themselves to the path of vice, and sit down like vultures to feast on the carrion of a dead world forgetful altogether of the life to come, at such a time it is always the rule with God that from among the same people He raises a Nabi to remind the people of the time of His true teachings and to point out to the people the right way to Him. Then such of them as have been blinded by their vices in the intoxication of material enjoyment, either laugh at the words of the Nabi, or persecute him and his followers, and seek to overthrow his Movement. But since the Movement is founded by God, it cannot be destroyed by the machinations of man. On the contrary, the Nabi even under such circumstances informs his adversaries in advance that it is they who will ultimately be overthrown and that a portion of them will be destroyed and making of them an example God will guide the rest to the right faith. All these prophecies come to pass as predicted. This is the rule with God, which has always held true, and the same has happened in the present case.” These were the remarks made by Maulawi Muhammad Ali on my article published as introductory to the Tashhidhul Adhhan on the 1st March 1906 during the lifetime of the Promised Messiah (as). After this I may leave it to every fair-minded reader to consider for himself the question that if it is true, as is stated by Maulawi Muhammad Ali, that the belief in the Nubuwwat (prophethood) of the Promised Messiah (as) was an invention of M. Zahiruddin and that the Promised Messiah (as) was not a Nabi, then how could it be that, as early as 1906, while the Promised Messiah (as) was yet alive, it was already known to me that he was a Nabi and I attached so much importance to the point that I made it the central theme of my introductory article in the Tashhidhul Adhhan that just as in the past Ambiya’ had been raised by God so also in this age there was need for another Prophet and he was no other than the Promised Messiah (as)? But I may waive the question for a while and assume that even then I was acting under the influence of M. Zahiruddin and it was at his suggestion that I spoke of the Promised Messiah (as) as a Nabi but there still remains the other question viz. how was it that in reviewing the article a writer of Maulawi Muhammad Ali’s experience, who now poses as the sole mandatory for the reform of the Community, should have expressed himself in such laudatory terms? In that article I had said very explicitly that the Promised Messiah (as) was a Nabi and had said so not once or twice but quite a number of times, and had moreover added that it was the Promised Messiah’s (as) claim that God had vouchsafed to him His revelations just as he did to Adam (as), or Noah (as) or Abraham (as) or Moses (as) or Jesus (as) or Muhammad (sas). [Tashhidhul Adhhan No. 1, Vol. I, page 1—9]. If it had been a fact that at that time the members of the Community did not regard the Promised Messiah (as) as a Nabi, then my words should have come to Maulawi Muhammad Ali as an unpleasant surprise, inasmuch as in the said article another person after the Holy Prophet (sas) had been styled a Nabi. It is not open to Maulawi Muhammad Ali to say that he had reviewed my article without proper scrutiny because in his review he was able to quote a summary of my article in my own words. He must, therefore, have read at least that portion of the article which he had quoted and even in this portion there was mention of the Promised Messiah (as) as a Nabi. If the belief in his Nubuwwat had been promulgated after the death of the Promised Messiah (as), then it was only natural that Maulawi Muhammad Ali should have raised a cry of protest on coming across such a claim in my article. But on the contrary, we find him referring to it as a miracle of the Promised Messiah (as) that there should arise such a noble thought in the bosom of one of his children at an age when young men are apt to be occupied with play, which fact according to Maulawi Muhammad Ali was proof of the complete unison between the public and private life of the Promised Messiah (as), since such unison alone could produce a deep impression upon the young mind of a child. All this, however, has now changed. According to the present opinion of Maulawi Muhammad Ali, my views published in the Tashhidhul Adhhan are highly dangerous, dark and full of error. In other words, the article had put the axe at the root of Islam and things had been said in it which in the opinion of Maulawi Muhammad Ali were to prove the source of a dissension hitherto unknown in Islam. The article was a poison cup intended to destroy all spiritual life. What therefore was meet was not to refer to it as a miracle, but to greet it with execration and abhorrence and instead of saying that such excellent views of his son proved the truth of the Promised Messiah (as), Maulawi Muhammad Ali should have likened me to the son of Noah and seriously warned the people not to be deceived by my doctrines, which were not those taught by the Promised Messiah (as), who never claimed to be a Nabi and never intended that the term should be applied to him. He might have gone even further. Apprehensive of the harm that was likely to be caused to Islam by my article, he might have gone to the Promised Messiah (as) crying and lamenting and told him of the mischief that had been done and might have urged that I should be expelled from the Community. By this means he might have saved the Community from a grave calamity and won a great reward. But on the contrary we find at that time Maulawi Muhammad Ali heartily commending my views. May we now ask whether at that time Maulawi Muhammad Ali himself was one of that undiscerning set of admirers regarding whom he wrote, “Being brought up within the narrow circle of admirers of his father, he contracted the narrow views which fall to the lot of young men brought up under similar circumstances” (The Split p. 23), or was it that he was aiming merely at flattering me when he wrote the remarks quoted above? Or, was he aware that the Promised Messiah (as) really claimed to be a Nabi, but feared that as he was still alive a rejection of his prophethood might lead to an exposure of his (the Maulawi’s) own secret thoughts and the discovery of the truth? Or, was it also his own conviction at that time that the Promised Messiah (as) was really a Nabi! These are the only three possible motives which could have actuated Maulawi Muhammad Ali when he commended my views. One would naturally feel curious to ask which of them it was that inspired his action? Was it a desire to humour me? Was it the fear of an exposure? Or was it real personal conviction? For myself, I am disposed to think that at that time Maulawi Muhammad Ali honestly shared the conviction that the Promised Messiah (as) was a Nabi. To attribute the origin of the doctrine to M. Zahiruddin is thus a very unhappy invention on the part of Maulawi Muhammad Ali. Maulawi Muhammad Ali had a passing fancy and proceeded to use it as a foundation to build upon it an airy castle. As a matter of fact the Ahmadiyya Community has since the lifetime of the Promised Messiah (as) recognised him as a Nabi. In particular, Maulawi Muhammad Ali as well as myself have alike borne written testimony to this conviction and the only difference between us is that I have up to this time remained faithful to my old convictions while Maulawi Muhammad Ali has already retracted them.
In connection with this changed attitude of Maulawi Muhammad Ali, it is remarkable how close a parallel it offers to the case of Maulawi Muhammad Husain of Batala, one of the greatest opponent of the Promised Messiah (as). The latter also in the early years of the Promised Messiah’s (as) career held up to universal admiration the very revelations of the Promised Messiah which later on he pronounced to be heretical, and in his review of the Promised Messiah’s (as) work Barahin-e-Ahmadiyya attributed to it an excellence nothing short of the miraculous. Regarding the said work he wrote. “In my opinion it (Barahin-e-Ahmadiyya) is a book the like of which has not up till now been produced in the history of Islam … and its author has proved himself such a loyal steadfast servant of Islam offering in its service his wealth, life, pen and tongue, that an example equal to his it is hard to find even among the early Muslims. If there is any one who is disposed to consider my words a mere oriental exaggeration, then I would request him to mention at least one book of like merit.” And similarly the greatest opponent of the Promised Successor of the Promised Messiah (as) in reviewing in early years an article by that Successor containing views, stigmatised later as false by that very opponent, has expressed himself in the following laudatory words. “The editor of the magazine is Mirza Bashir-ud-Deen Mahmood Ahmad, son of the Promised Messiah (as). In the first number there is an introductory article from his pen running over 14 pages. The article will be read in due course by members of the Movement but what I propose to do here is to cite before the opponents of the Movement, this same article as a manifest proof of the truth of the Movement.” Further on he wrote alluding to the same article, “But the intense love for religion and zeal for the service of Islam so transparent in the above unvarnished words are some-thing miraculous.” He continued: “Now let those black-hearted people who call Mirza Sahib an impostor answer this question: If all this is an imposture then whence arose this genuine zeal in the heart of this young boy? Falsehood is dirt and ought to produce only obnoxious fruits and not something so pure and beautiful of which we can hardly find a parallel.” Again he wrote: “Consider whether we can ever deem him an impostor whose teaching and training have produced such a fruit.” [The Review of Religions (Urdu ed.), Vol. V, p. 119]. Thus it would appear that there is a most extraordinary coincidence between the case of Maulawi Muhammad Ali and that of Maulawi Muhammad Husain of Batala. Bold indeed must be the man who can say that such a coincidence was there without a Divine purpose. The hand of God can clearly be seen at work behind the two conjunctions of circumstances. “A sufficient matter for reflection for any one who will reflect.”
In short, it is incorrect to say that it was from M. Zahiruddin that I first derived this belief in the prophethood of the Promised Messiah (as). The facts are that some five years before the publication of M. Zahiruddin’s book, and during the lifetime of the Promised Messiah (as) in my introductory article in the Tashhidhul Adhhan I had already declared the prophethood of the Promised Messiah (as), and Maulawi Muhammad Ali had commended that very article and published a summary of the same in his own magazine The Review of Religions (Urdu edn), and Maulawi Sahib referred to my views as a miracle of the Promised Messiah (as), and used the same as an argument against the opponents of the Movement. All these facts are sufficient to prove that at that time Maulawi Muhammad Ali himself believed that the Promised Messiah (as) was really a Nabi. Nor was the article the only one published by me. There were also others in which I mentioned the prophethood of the Promised Messiah (as). For example, one of my article was published in the Badr of 10th May 1906, which concluded with the following words:
“For God’s sake take warning and bow down your heads in humility before Him, and supplicate His true Rasul saying (Oh Messiah! pray to God for our safety from the epidemic).” (The Badr, 10th May 1906, page 8)
Again, on page 10 of the Badr of 1st May, 1906, in my article entitled Al-Hakam and Watan there occurred the sentence “The earth and the Heavens may pass away but the word of this divine Nabi can never fail of fulfilment.”
These two quotations also serve to show that even in the lifetime of the Promised Messiah (as) I entertained the belief that he was a Nabi, and that I did not keep the conviction a secret in my own bosom but availed myself of every opportunity to declare it in public.
After quoting these references published during the lifetime of the Promised Messiah (as), I would now quote some others published after the death of the Promised Messiah (as), so that it may be clear to all seekers of truth that at no time has it been my policy to make a secret of my convictions, nor have I ever been slow to give publicity to them. On the contrary, ever since I have begun to write, I have repeatedly brought these views to the notice of the public and my writings from, first article on the subject up to now, form a long, connected and continuous series without a link missing.
The most important events in the history of the Community subsequent to the death of the Promised Messiah (as) are of course those which immediately followed his death. Agreeably to the Divine rule in the case of the Promised Messiah (as) as in the case of the previous Ambiya’, his death took place under circumstances which led his enemies to believe that the work which he had set out to accomplish would now be completely undone. Even some of the professed Ahmadis were shaken much as the tribes of Arabia were shaken on the occasion of the death of the Holy Prophet (sas). In view of such circumstances, it was felt necessary in order to frustrate the attacks of enemies and to strengthen the hearts of friends that steps should be taken to allay those doubts and misgivings which the opponents of the Promised Messiah (as) sought to create regarding his work. Accordingly, Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih I (ra) as well as many other Ahmadis including myself wrote articles refuting the objections raised by the opponents. One of my articles was published in the Tashhidhul Adhhan of June and July 1908, and was also issued separately as a booklet. It was named “Sadiqoń Ki Raushni Ku Kaun Dur Kar Sakta Hai” (Who Can Extinguish the Light of the Righteous) by Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih I (ra), acting under the direction of a revelation. The book and the magazine were largely circulated both among Ahmadis and non-Ahmadis, with a view to counteracting the doubts and misgivings which the enemies of the Promised Messiah (as) had sought to create after his death. In this little book, at no less than 22 places I called the Promised Messiah (as) by the name of Nabi.
It is not necessary here to quote all the passages in full. The interested reader may consult the book itself for his satisfaction. Here I wish to quote only a few lines by way of example. This will suffice to convince the reader how in this book the Promised Messiah (as) was called a Nabi by me: (Tashhidhul Adhhan Vol. 3 page 217)—“Well, if they should still persist in their denial, then what else can one do than say in the words of the Promised Messiah’s (as) revelation i.e.
(Yusuf, 12:87)
“There came a Nabi and spent days and nights grieving for the people till he departed from this life. But still the people persisted in their denial.” We do not pray to God for the destruction of these unbelievers; we have anguish in our hearts for their sake and a yearning that God may grant to them His guidance and the grace to recognise His Nabi. They may mock and scoff at us but we would still pray for them “God Omnipotent! Thou knowest our hearts and art aware how sorely stricken they are for the sake of these erring ones. Thou Knower of the unseen and the manifest! Mark our sufferings and have pity on us and relieve us of our woe and inform our brethren of the path of Thy guidance, the path of light which Thy Nabi has opened for us and grant them the grace to recognise the same.”
Thus, at a time when the death of the Promised Messiah (as) had thrown the whole Ahmadiyya Community into a spasm of grief, the fact that I repeatedly called him a Nabi while Khalifatul-Masih I (ra), Maulawi Muhammad Ali himself, and all the other members of the Community raised not a voice against my action, rather on the contrary, they looked upon it with approving eyes conclusively proves that it was at that time, not only my own conviction but a conviction of the Community as a whole that the Promised Messiah (as) was a Nabi.
Similarly, on the occasion of the Annual Conference of the year held in April 1909, the speech delivered by me contained the following words. This speech was published both in The Badr and in the Tashhidhul Adhhan. Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih I (ra), was in the chair, I said: “This Divine promise was not made to us in order that we might believe in the death of Jesus (as); rather, God promised to us through His Rasul, the Promised Messiah (as) that if we should make a purchase similar to what was made by the previous people, then we too should receive a similar favoured treatment” (Tashhidhul Adhhan, February 1909, p. 28). Further on I said, “God is no tyrant. We may look to ourselves and observe that one of His Ambiya’ came to us and left us having done his work.” (ashhidhul Adhhan, February 1909, p. 39). Later on, I again spoke on the same subject in the Annual Conference held in December, 1910, This speech was published in the Badr of 19th January, 1911. In this speech also I laid special stress upon the prophethood of the Promised Messiah (as), which point might be said to have been the central topic of the whole discourse. The reason for this lay in the following circumstances. In 1910, my respected and valued friend Mufti Muhammad Sadiq, and Maulawi Sadruddin, one of the friends of Maulawi Muhammad Ali, were sent out on a missionary tour. In the course of their tour they had occasion to meet Maulawi Shibli, the well-known founder of the Nadwatul Ulema. In the conversation that ensued, mention was made of the prophethood of the Promised Messiah (as). In answer to a question by Maulawi Shibli the two gentlemen said that they called the Promised Messiah (as) a Nabi in the strictly literal sense of the word. Although the answer was quite accurate, seeing that the literal significance and the theological connotation of the term Nabi are identical, yet the form of the answer conveyed a certain impression that the word Nabi bore a certain technical meaning when used by the Divine Being. It seemed to me undesirable that such a dubious mode of expression should find general currency in the Community. The apprehension was further deepened when I marked that during that year a number of Ahmadis had mixed themselves up with some of the secular topics of the day (e.g. agitation over the Muslim University question) and were gradually breaking away from the central purpose of the Movement. This knowledge made me resolve to draw the special attention of the Community to this question on the occasion of the Annual Conference. Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih I (ra), was not present during the speech, but Khwaja Kamaluddin, Maulawi Muhammad Ali, and Maulawi Muhammad Ahsan were all present. In the presence of these gentlemen and before the Community at large I spoke on the point, and that speech of mine clearly shows that I had all along believed the Promised Messiah (as) to be a Nabi. A few extracts from the speech which was published in the Badr of 19th January, 1911, may be quoted.
“He is God who out of His bounty granted to you the grace to follow a Nabi.”
Again referring to the difference between Ahmadis and non-Ahmadis, I said: “I have seen two dealers trafficking in the same article, each averring with reference to his own goods ‘sir! my goods are of a special quality.’ But in your case you may even point to an obvious difference between the two parties. Nevertheless, there are those among you who will say ‘No, no, there is no difference.’ What, is it no difference that you follow a Nabi whereas the other party rejects that Nabi?”
“Remember also that Mirza Sahib was a Nabi and that this rank of Nubuwwat he attained by following closely the Holy Prophet (sas) who was the Khatamun Nabiyyin (the Seal of the Prophets), and I do not know how many others there are who may be destined to attain to the same rank. Why should we not call him Nabi whom God called Nabi?2 We may see in one of his later revelations God addressing him saying:
(O Nabi! feed the hungry and the poor)
“Whoever considers even a single word of the Promised Messiah (as) to be false is rejected of God, because God does not keep any of His Nabis in error till the time of his death.”
“Why would you renounce one mark which distinguishes you from others. You have accepted a Nabi, one who was the elect of God; while your opponents have rejected him. In the lifetime of the Promised Messiah (as) a suggestion was made that Ahmadis and non-Ahmadis might work together in the preaching of Islam. But the Promised Messiah (as) asked ‘Which Islam will you preach to the world? Will you hide the signs which God has vouchsafed to you and conceal the favours which He has shown to you?’”
“Even so, one Nabi came to us from God. If we follow him we shall be the recipients of the same rewards which were promised to the Companions of the Holy Prophet (sas).”
From these passages it is evident what my convictions were regarding the prophethood of the Promised Messiah (as). The speech was delivered in the presence of Khwaja Kamaluddin, Maulawi Muhammad Ali and Maulawi Muhammad Ahsan. They had particular reason for being present at the time, as my speech was to be followed by the reading of the Annual Report of the Sadr Anjuman Ahmadiyya and the appeal for contributions, and they were all members of the Anjuman. Thus, it would appear that none of them could plead want of knowledge of my views on the subject of the Promised Messiah’s (as) prophethood.
From the above it should also be evident that all my writings from the year 1906 to December 1910 go to prove that I had all along believed the Promised Messiah (as) to be a Nabi. Later on, in March 1911, I wrote an article on the status of those who did not believe in the Promised Messiah (as). This was published in the April issue of the Tashhidhul Adhhan and in the Badr of 4th May 1911, and Al-Hakam of 14th May 1911. This was followed by a long succession of writings and lectures on the subject, knowledge of which has not been denied and cannot be denied even by Maulawi Muhammad Ali.
In the light of the above facts, I would now ask every fair-minded reader to say whether it could be said or even imagined that the influence of Zahiruddin’s teachings and particularly a study of his book Nabiyyullah Ka Zahur led me to a belief in the Nubuwwat of the Promised Messiah (as). This book, on the admission of Maulawi Muhammad Ali himself, is the first book written by Zahiruddin on the subject of the prophethood of the Promised Messiah (as). Maulawi Muhammad Ali also admits that the writing of the book was completed in April 1911. On the last page of the book there is a note saying “Finished writing, the 26th of April, 1911,” and on the same page there is another note, “This is by the publisher Chaudhary Barkat Ali” from which it appears that the book was sent to the press on some date subsequent to the 5th July 1911. On the other hand, it may be observed that my article on the subject of “Kufr or Islam” of non- Ahmadis, which was in fact not the first but the last article on the above controversy (as has been already explained), was published in the Tashhidhul Adhhan of April 1911 and, as will appear from the following quotation from the Badr of 15th April 1911, had been written in March 1911. The learned editor of the Badr in one of his replies to Maulawi Sanaullah published in the Badr of 16th April 1911, while explaining his views regarding the status of non-Ahmadis, wrote as follows: “On this subject Hazrat Sahibzadah Mahmood Ahmad Sahib has already written an elaborate article and submitted the same to Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih I (ra). It is to be hoped that every important aspect of the question will be found thoroughly discussed in that article.” It is a general rule with newspapers that they bear a date one day in advance of the actual date of publication, that is, they bear the date on which they are made over to the post office. Thus this number of The Badr must have been actually written on 15th April, 1911. The editor remarked that the article was already before Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih I (ra), from which it would appear that the article had been submitted to the Khalifatul-Masih (ra) sometime before the writing of this note. It may therefore be concluded that the article was written in March 1911. The question therefore arises—How could my article which was written in March 1911 and published in the following month, be the result of M. Zahiruddin’s book which was written in April 1911 and published in July 1911? And what can be said regarding the honesty of an author who, though fully aware of the respective dates of the two writings, does nevertheless, only in order to mislead and misguide people living in distant parts of the world, proceed to state that the work which was written one month after my last article on the subject of the prophethood of the Promised Messiah (as) and published three months after the same, was the origin and source from which I had derived my views. Can a person be deemed worthy of calling people to faith who does not himself shrink from practising deception in matters of faith? A man who has no scruples while indulging in such a distortion of facts can hardly be a fit person to invite others to truth.
I really wonder how Maulawi Muhammad Ali could venture to state that M. Zahiruddin’s book was the origin of my writings, and his beliefs the source of my inspiration. He admits that my article on “Kufr or Islam” was published in April 1911, and the note—quoted above—in the Badr bears ample testimony to the fact that it had been written in the month of March preceding. On the other hand, in the book written by M. Zahiruddin on the page which bears the note referred to by Maulawi Muhammad Ali and only four lines below the note is to be found the statement that the work was published in July 1911. The date—5th July 1911—has in fact been noted in bolder type than that in which has been printed the date quoted by Maulawi Muhammad Ali. In view of facts so obvious, and in spite of possessing full knowledge regarding them, the statement of Maulawi Muhammad Ali that it was Zahiruddin’s book which inspired my article could not but be due to a design on his part to mislead his unwary readers. Errors of reasoning may be assigned to some honest mistake, but the manipulation of a long series of facts and their presentation in a distorted manner cannot be ascribed to any such mistake. The fact of the matter is that M. Zahiruddin by reason of his obnoxious beliefs had deviated far from the true teaching of Islam and Maulawi Muhammad Ali thought that if somehow or other he could trace my beliefs to the influence of Zahiruddin, there would result a general disinclination in the public mind for my beliefs, while a corresponding inclination would result for the beliefs advocated by Maulawi Sahib. It is, however, futile for him to entertain such a hope for who could succeed in throwing dust at the moon or in concealing a light describing it as darkness!
As I have already proved and, as is well known to Maulawi Muhammad Ali himself, though he may not find it convenient to admit it in public, belief in the Nubuwwat of the Promised Messiah (as) has been entertained and openly advocated by me since the lifetime of the Promised Messiah (as). After his death, during the years 1908, 1909 and 1910, to be quite precise, the belief was preached by me continuously through my various writings. My last contribution on the subject, which to suit his ends Maulawi Muhammad Ali has described as the first, was written one month before the book by M. Zahiruddin was written and three months before it was published. Under the circumstances, to describe Zahiruddin as the source of my inspiration and the author of beliefs which I advocate, is a travesty of facts of which there are but few parallels in the world. The author of the belief is the Promised Messiah (as) or rather, we may, say, the Holy Prophet (sas) himself who spoke of the Promised Messiah (as) as a Nabi. We may go even further and say that the author of the belief is God Himself, in as much as He it is who addressed the Promised Messiah (as) as Nabi.
We know there are Christian historians who, blinded by prejudice, seek to deceive the world by affirming that Islam was the product of the collective deliberation of certain little known persons of the time of the Holy Prophet (sas). Their rashness in making such a statement is, however, put in the shade by the hardihood displayed in this instance by Maulawi Muhammad Ali. For, as the proverb goes, “Bold must be the thief who goes with a light in his hand.” Christian historians seek to distort things which happened a long time ago, while Maulawi Muhammad Ali speaking about views which he himself endorsed in 1906, which have since been continuously promulgated, and of which he has been well aware himself, now seeks to assign their origin to a book published in 1911!
We now proceed to the next point in Maulawi Muhammad Ali’s narrative of the history of the dissensions. He writes: “Much notice of the book was not taken by the Ahmadiyya Community. But probably the contents of the book or some other leaflet on the same subject were brought to the notice of the first Khalifa. Upon this, there was some correspondence between the Khalifa and Zahiruddin and as a result an announcement was made by the Khalifa to the effect that as Muhammad Zahiruddin was promulgating new doctrines he was not to be considered as having any connection with the Ahmadiyya Community.” (The Ahmadiyya Movement, part IV, The Split, by Maulawi Muhammad Ali)
The following points deserve special attention in the above statement;
The contents of the book—Nabiyyullah Ka Zahur—or some other leaflet on the same subject were brought to the notice of Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih I (ra).
This led to some correspondence between Khalifatul-Masih I (ra) and Zahiruddin. Apparently this means that after reading the book or some other leaflet, Khalifatul-Masih I (ra) wrote to Zahiruddin.
When nothing fruitful resulted from the correspondence, Khalifatul-Masih I (ra) made an announcement to the effect that as Muhammad Zahiruddin was promulgating new beliefs he was not to be considered as having any connection with the Ahmadiyya Community.
Before entering upon a systematic refutation of these statements, I wish to say at once that all these statements are incorrect and have been made designedly with a view to misleading the public.
There is no doubt that M. Zahiruddin now entertains beliefs repugnant to the teachings of Islam and of the Promised Messiah (as), but no such beliefs found a place in the book Nabiyyullah Ka Zahur nor was the book at all looked upon with disfavour by the Ahmadiyya Community. Maulawi Muhammad Ali says that the book Nabiyyullah Ka Zahur or some other leaflet on the same subject was brought to the notice of Khalifatul-Masih I (ra), who was therefore displeased with it. This statement is altogether unfounded. Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih I (ra) was not displeased with the book Nabiyyullah Ka Zahur. Evidence of this will be seen in the facts narrated below.
In the years 1911 and 1912, some tracts were published by two men named Maulawi Yar Muhammad and Abdullah Timapuri. Each of these men claimed to be the Imam (leader) of the Community under special authority from God. There was therefore some danger of people being deceived by their tracts and notices. Hence, Khalifatul-Masih I (ra) was obliged to make an announcement against them in one of his speeches. But the words used by him in the announcement were general and only Abdullah Timapuri was mentioned by name. The words of the announcement were as follows:
“Again, there are young men who are in too great a hurry to write books although they possess neither the wisdom nor the insight required by an author. Mere fancies are of little avail so long as one does not get into touch with facts. Such writings give rise to dissension. If, therefore, difficulties should arise, one ought to seek help from God and have recourse to prayer.
I would warn our members to shun such people. There is a number of them who go about giving publicity to their pretensions.” (The Badr 25th January 1912)
When the above was published, friends of Maulawi Muhammad Ali, namely Khwaja Kamaluddin, Dr. Ya‘qub Baig, Dr. Muhammad Husain and others gave out that the announcement was concerning M. Zahiruddin’s book Nabiyyullah Ka Zahur. Zahiruddin thereupon in a letter to Khalifatul-Masih I (ra), made the inquiry whether the Khalifatul-Masih (ra) had made any such announcement about his book. In reply, the Khalifatul-Masih (ra) wrote to him saying that the announcement did not appertain to his book but to notices issued by Maulawi Yar Muhammad and Abdullah Timapuri. Subsequently we find M. Zahiruddin in his letter dated 22nd June 1912 to Khalifatul-Masih I (ra), referring to the Khalifa’s assurance in the following words: “Your favour is to hand. In reply I beg to submit that if in making the announcement the men you had in mind were only Abdullah Timapuri and Maulawi Yar Muhammad, then it would have been well to mention the names of the two men in the announcement as it would have saved people from all risk of misunderstanding.” In answer to this letter Khalifatul-Masih (ra) wrote: “You said that it contained a reference to you. I answered that it contained no reference to you, and contrary to my views of what is proper in such cases. I mentioned to you the names of the persons to whom my announcement referred. But in spite of that you have now declared in very plain words that you are opposed to the beliefs entertained by Nuruddin (meaning himself)” [letter of Khalifatul-Masih I (ra), dated 11th July 1912]. This correspondence was published in Al-Hakam, the oldest organ of the Movement, on 14th October 1912, i.e. in the lifetime of Khalifatul-Masih I (ra), and it is from the same journal (pages 6 and 7) that the above excerpts have been made. A perusal of the two excerpts will make it clear to the reader that in making the statement that Khalifatul-Masih I (ra) disapproved of Zahirudin’s book and held a correspondence with him on the subject Maulawi Muhammad Ali has not been faithful to facts. For, as is evident from the correspondence held between Khalifatul-Masih I (ra) and Zahiruddin, Khalifatul-Masih I (ra) denied the fact that he had made any announcement adverse to the book Nabiyyullah Ka Zahur. If it was a fact that the correspondence had originated from a perusal and disapproval of the book, then what need was there for Zahiruddin to refer to the announcement in order to prove the Khalifa’s displeasure, for in that case the letter of the Khalifa itself could have served as sufficient evidence of the Khalifa’s displeasure. But instead of referring to any such letter, we find Zahiruddin writing to the Khalifa that he had made an announcement against Zahiruddin’s book, which fact we find was being denied by the Khalifa. The latter wrote that the announcement had in view the notices circulated by certain men and in order to substantiate his word he had, contrary to his usual practice, mentioned even the names of those against whom the announcement had been made. These facts are sufficient to prove chat the Khalifa did not disapprove of the book Nabiyyullah Ka Zahur or any other leaflet on the same subject. He rather, repudiated the suspicion that he had in any announcement expressed a disapproval of the book and found fault with Zahiruddin who, in spite of the assurance on his part, had proceeded to assert in clear terms that he was opposed to beliefs entertained by the Khalifa. If it was actually after a reading of the book Nabiyyullah Ka Zahur or some other leaflet on the subject that the Khalifa began his correspondence with Zahiruddin, then there appears no reason why the Khalifa should have tried to dispel the suspicion that there was reference to Zahiruddin in the Khalifa’s announcement, nor any reason why Zahiruddin should not have been included among the persons alluded to in the said announcement. Under the circumstances one also fails to understand why the Khalifa should have had to complain that when he had clearly pointed out that Zahiruddin was not the subject of the announcement, the latter should still persist, in saying that he differed from the Khalifa in his beliefs. If the Khalifa had actually disapproved of Zahiruddin’s book, then whether the fact was mentioned in the announcement or not, a difference in beliefs would still have been an established fact. But, the Khalifa denied the existence of any such differences and asked why Zahiruddin still insisted that he had differences with the Khalifa, when the Khalifa had already assured him that the announcement bore no reference to him. From this statement, it is clear that up to that time the Khalifa did not think that there were any differences between him and Zahiruddin in the matter of beliefs, and considered it groundless and unreasonable that Zahiruddin should speak of differences with the Khalifa.
The second point in which Maulawi Muhammad Ali has departed from the truth in his narrative of facts relating to M. Zahiruddin, is that the Khalifa started correspondence with Zahiruddin after a perusal of the book. As a matter of fact, the correspondence was started not by the Khalifa but by Zahiruddin. The reason why Maulawi Muhammad Ali has used language which would convey that it was the Khalifa who started the correspondence seems to be that Maulawi Muhammad Ali wants to prove that the Khalifa, when he read the book, was highly displeased with it and wrote to Zahiruddin about it. But as would appear from the contemporary notices of these events, correspondence on the subject was initiated by Zahiruddin and the occasion for it, as can be ascertained from Al-Hakam of 14th October 1912, arose as follows: The Khalifatul-Masih (ra) had gone to Lahore to take part in a certain function. There he delivered a speech on this same question, which divides to-day the two sections of Ahmadis—the adherents and the seceders. The editor of the Zamińdar was also present at the speech of which he subsequently published a garbled report3 in his paper.
He wrote that Khalifatul-Masih I (ra) had declared all non-Ahmadis to be Muslims. Zahiruddin, when he read the report, made haste to write without adequate deliberation a very impertinent and disrespectful letter to the Khalifa. He found fault with the Khalifa’s views and declared them to be opposed to the teachings of the Promised Messiah (as). Upon this, the Khalifa wrote to him with the greatest affection and tried to explain matters to him. But Zahiruddin was lacking in uprightness and understanding. He increased in his impertinence, and in spite of the fact that a correct, version of the speech had in the meantime been published in Al-Hakam and many of his objections had already been satisfactorily answered, he remained obdurate and doubtful of the good faith of the Khalifa. This may be seen from his letter published in Al-Hakam of 14th October 1912, wherein he wrote: “Your favour is to hand. If the persons you had in view were only Abdullah Timapuri and Yar Muhammad.” These words clearly show that, in spite of the assurance by the Khalifa that his announcement did not relate to Zahiruddin and that it related only to Maulawi Yar Muhammad and Abdullah Timapuri, Zahiruddin was still unsatisfied with the assurance, and signified his disbelief by an “If ”. He also proceeded to reiterate his former statement that he was opposed to the beliefs of the Khalifa.
All this correspondence and the way in which it began has been set forth in Al-Hakam of 14th October 1912. It fully contradicts the version given by Maulawi Muhammad Ali that it was the Khalifa who began correspondence with Zahiruddin, after he had read Nabiyyullah Ka Zahur. It shows, on the contrary, that it was Zahiruddin who really began the correspondence, and that the origin of the correspondence did not lie in the fact of the Khalifa’s disapproval of the book Nabiyyullah Ka Zahur but in the fact of Zahiruddin reading a garbled version of the Khalifa’s speech at Lahore and his taking exception to it. It is therefore no small thing on the part of Maulawi Muhammad Ali that he should venture to distort facts published and known to the public, should in fact invent a new set of facts quite different from those already published, and then incorporate them in The Split.
The third point relating to Zahiruddin, which Maulawi Muhammad Ali has mentioned is that after the correspondence an announcement was published by Khalifatul-Masih I (ra) to the effect that “as Muhammad Zahiruddin was promulgating new doctrines he was not to be considered as having any connection with the Ahmadiyya Community.” As I have already said, this statement of Maulawi Muhammad Ali is also wholly false and contrary to facts. Maulawi Muhammad Ali found it necessary, in order to compass his purpose, to prove that the book Nabiyyullah Ka Zahur was really at the root of all these dissensions and that the Khalifa was opposed to the views set forth in it. He, therefore, tried to distort the actual facts and to fabricate new facts which would lend support to his version. In the announcement by the Khalifa, it was not mentioned that as Muhammad Zahiruddin was promulgating new doctrines, he was not to be considered as having any connection with the Ahmadiyya Community. What the Khalifa wrote was that as, notwithstanding his assertion that a certain announcement did not refer to him (Zahiruddin), he still persisted in saying that he was opposed to beliefs held by the Khalifa, therefore, on the basis of his letter (and not on the basis of his book) the Khalifa announced that Zahiruddin had no connection with the Ahmadiyya Community.
As stated by Maulawi Muhammad Ali, this announcement by the Khalifa, was published in the Badr of 11th July 1912. I shall here quote the announcement in full in order that readers may judge for themselves how far Maulawi Muhammad Ali has been honest in his statement of the case. The announcement was as follows:
“Zahiruddin Arupi,
“Some time ago, an announcement was made in the Badr to the effect that people some times published notices of their own accord, which notices must not be considered to have been published on behalf of the Movement, inasmuch as they are not published with the permission or approval of the Khalifatul-Masih (ra). Soon after this, upon a communication received from Munshi Zahiruddin Arupi, Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih (ra) has been pleased to order the following announcement in the papers: The recent notice had no reference to Muhammad Zahiruddin, but referred to Maulawi Yar Muhammad and Abdullah Timapuri, It is a pity, however, that Muhammad Zahiruddin has chosen to make a strange response to that announcement. In a recent letter he has informed me that he disagrees with my beliefs. Accordingly, on the basis of his letter, I inform my Community that Muhammad Zahiruddin differs from me in his beliefs. Under these circumstances, he has, as it were, run from the shower to stand under the gutter. If he had mentioned some minor point of difference, it could have been passed over in silence. But now as he speaks of a difference of belief and is firm in his convictions, therefore, I have no further connection with him, nor have my Community anything to do with him. This is a very strange response which Muhammad Zahiruddin has made!
(Al-Baqarah, 2:157)
“‘Verily for God we are and to Him we return.’ The above is a translation of the announcement in the Badr. One may well mark that in this announcement there is neither directly nor indirectly any reference to the fact that Zahiruddin had been promulgating new beliefs. The announcement merely states that as notwithstanding the Khalifa’s assurance that a certain announcement did not refer to him, instead of feeling ashamed of what he had written and making amends for the impertinence of his conduct, Zahiruddin wrote to the Khalifa that he had differences of belief with the Khalifa. It was therefore, on the ground of his letter that the Khalifa announced that under the circumstances Zahiruddin had no connection whatsover with the Khalifa, nor anything to do with the Khalifa’s followers.”
Now let any one read the above announcement side by side with the following words of Maulawi Muhammad Ali: “As Muhammad Zahiruddin was promulgating new doctrines he was not to be considered as having any connection with the Ahmadiyya Community.” The words “promulgating new doctrines” have obviously been put intentionally by Maulawi Muhammad Ali in order to prove the connection that the reason for excommunicating Zahiruddin from the Ahmadiyya Community was his book—Nabiyyullah Ka Zahur or some other leaflet on the same subject. As a matter of fact, in the Khalifa’s announcement there is no reference to any book or tract published by Zahiruddin but only to a letter which he addressed to the Khalifa, wherein—in spite of the written assurance given by the Khalifa that his announcement was not, directed against any of the publications of Zahiruddin but was directed against the notices published by Maulawi Yar Muhammad and Abdullah Timapuri—Zahiruddin impertinently proceeded to address the Khalifa in the words: “Sir, I differ from certain beliefs held by you, and so long as you do not prove the error of my views I shall continue to stand by them” (Al-Hakam, page 46, October 1912). Accordingly, we find that in the reply to the letter which was sent to him privately by the Khalifa, he proceeded to say: “You contended that it had reference to you. I assured you that it bore no reference to you and contrary to my practice, I even mentioned to you the names of the persons referred to in the announcement. But in spite of that, you state very boldly that you are opposed to beliefs entertained by Nuruddin and stand firmly by your own beliefs.” In another letter, the Khalifa wrote, “Because you state in your letter that you differ from beliefs held by me, I do not consider you an Ahmadi.” If one were to read those quotations side by side with the public announcement, one would clearly see that the Khalifatul-Masih (ra) expelled Muhammad Zahiruddin from the Ahmadiyya Community, not on account of any actual differences of belief, but on account of Zahiruddin’s own profession in writing that he differed from the beliefs held by the Khalifa, and that he was firmly attached to his own beliefs. In fact, the Khalifatul-Masih (ra) was sorry that when he had explicitly stated that Zahiruddin was not the subject of his announcement, the latter should persist in stating that he was opposed to the Khalifa’s beliefs. And when a follower confesses that he holds beliefs contrary to those of the Khalifa of his time and that he will not give in spite of explanations, but will only further stiffen in his opposition, what remedy is there for such a case but to exclude the recalcitrant from the Community?
The question may now be asked, when there were no actual differences of belief or doctrine between the Khalifa and Muhammad Zahiruddin, and when the incorrect version of the speech published by the Zamińdar had already been corrected by Al-Hakam, and when the Khalifa himself had contradicted the unfounded report regarding Muhammad Zahiruddin’s book to which some persons had given publicity, what ground was there for Zahiruddin to urge that he had differences of doctrine with the Khalifa? To understand this, it should be remembered that although the book Nabiyyullah Ka Zahur contained nothing repugnant to the teachings of the Movement, yet at the time (1912), when his differences with the Khalifa began, a change had begun to come over the views of Zahiruddin. He had begun to entertain the belief that he too was the subject of some prophecies by the Promised Messiah (as). He had, in fact, actually begun to spread such views among Ahmadis and was aiming at a rift in the Community. In his letters, he had made it a rule to charge the Khalifa with want of veracity. For instance, as already pointed out it was clear from his letters that he received with suspicion the assurance by the Khalifa that his announcement did not relate to Zahir, and inwardly believed that the report of the speech as published by the Zamindar was the correct one, while the one published in Al-Hakam was intended to satisfy Ahmadis. It was on account of this that in his correspondence, in spite of the repeated assurances by the Khalifa, Zahiruddin persisted in declaring that he was opposed to the doctrines of the Khalifa. When, however, he found that the Khalifa had expelled him from the Community and that nobody took his part, he recanted outwardly and apologised for his conduct and was received back into the Community. But in reality he was only waiting for a more favourable opportunity. Thus, his professed doctrinal difference with the Khalifa was not based upon any actual facts. It had its basis in the secret conviction that the doctrines outwardly avowed by the Khalifa were sheer camouflage, his actual beliefs being far other than those which he openly professed. Zahiruddin wanted to persuade the Community to this view about the Khalifatul Masih (ra). But his machinations proved unavailing and he met with complete discomfiture. In corroboration of my view about Zahiruddin it may also be mentioned that Zahiruddin is one of those few men who held that in fulfilment of one of the visions of the Promised Messiah (as), Khalifatul-Masih I (ra) had turned an apostate towards the latter part of his life.
This is some of the internal evidence which goes to disprove the allegation made by Maulawi Muhammad Ali that Khalifatul-Masih I (ra) expelled M. Zahiruddin because he disapproved of his book Nabiyyullah Ka Zahur. I shall now proceed to adduce some external evidence. First, there is the fact that reference to the book Nabiyyullah Ka Zahur is to be found in various places in the Ahmadiyya literature, but nowhere has a voice been raised in condemnation of the book. On the contrary, wherever any comment is to be found, it is invariably in commendation of the book. In The Badr, volume for 1911, may be seen an acknowledgement of the receipt of the book and an advertisement of it issued by the editor, but not a word which may be said to be adverse to the book. If the book was really so objectionable, how was it that notices regarding it, were issued in the newspapers of the Movement by the editors of the papers but not a word was said to warn the Community against its obnoxious contents? It is no doubt true that particular notice need not be taken of every minor difference of view but doctrines promulgated in the book in question were, in the words of Maulawi Muhammad Ali himself, so dangerous in their nature that the Khalifatul-Masih (ra) had to expel Zahiruddin from the Community on account of them. How then could such a dangerous book have been passed without an adverse notice?
If the notice in the Badr were all we had on the point, it might be said that the editor of The Badr had published the advertisement in the way of an acknowledgment of the book and had not actually scrutinised its contents. We find, however, that even The Review of Religions, of which Maulawi Muhammad Ali himself was at the time the editor, published a highly commendatory notice of the book, which I quote below in full:
“Nabiyyullah Ka Zahur Part I … This is a booklet of 126 small sized pages written recently by our friend Munshi Zahiruddin in support of the claim of the Promised Messiah (as). In this book there is a long and elaborate dissertation on the word Khatamun Nabiyyin. It also contains many other matters both instructive and important. It has resolved a large number of doubts and objections by cogent arguments. It discusses a large number of Quranic verses from new standpoints. The signs, which have been adduced by the Holy Quran in evidence of the truth of a genuine Prophet, have been enumerated in the book together with their original references, and they have been illustrated in their application to the Promised Messiah (as). Some of the peculiar and novel arguments of the Chakrhalawi sect have been very satisfactorily refuted. The book is really worth a perusal. The paper and the print are also good.” (The Review of Religions, October 1911)
Regarding the above quotation, Maulawi Muhammad Ali is reported to have said that at the time to which this quotation from the Review relates, he was busy with the translation of the Holy Quran, and could not devote sufficient attention to The Review of Religions, and that therefore any matter published in The Review of Religions at the time cannot fairly be cited against him. I am prepared to accept this plea. But what I say is not that this review was composed by Maulawi Muhammad Ali himself, and that therefore, it is admissible as evidence against him. What I say is that the Ahmadiyya Community did not regard the book in the light suggested by Maulawi Muhammad Ali and this, because we find that in the accredited organ of its central executive—the Sadr Anjuman Ahmadiyya—a very emphatic and favourable notice of the book was published by the editorial staff, it matters not whether by the pen of Maulawi Muhammad Ali or by any other writer. If the book was considered as objectionable as Maulawi Muhammad Ali would have us believe, such a review of it was quite impossible. It should be remembered that there is one important difference between “articles” and “reviews” published in any paper. Articles may sometimes be published which express views opposed to those of the editor. It is not necessary that opinions of correspondents should always conform to those held by editors. But with reviews the case is different. Commendatory notices of books are always evidence of the fact that the editorial staff of the paper is in full agreement with the views expressed by the reviewer. If, however, in this instance, it was a case of mistaken judgment on the part of the reviewer, then it was the duty of members of the Community to raise a voice against the reviewer. And the least one could expect was that as soon as—according to Maulawi Muhammad Ali, Khalifatul-Masih I (ra), after reading the book and corresponding with the author had ordered his expulsion from the Community, the Sadr Anjuman Ahmadiyya, in whose organ the appreciation had been published or Maulawi Muhammad Ali himself who was formally, if not actually, the editor of that organ and was therefore, in the eyes of the public, responsible for its reviews, or the writer of the appreciation himself, should have taken steps to undo the harm that had been done to the Community by means of the notice and to inform the Community that the book contained sentiment so dangerous as to have led Khalifatul-Masih I (ra), to expel its author from the Community, and that whatever commendation of the book had been published in the Anjuman’s magazine was a mistake which need not mislead any of the members.
In addition to evidence furnished by this commendatory notice in The Review of Religions, there is other strong evidence which disposes of the allegation by Maulawi Muhammad Ali. This is that the whole story of the expulsion of M. Zahiruddin and his re-admission into the Community was published in Al-Hakam, the oldest newspaper of the Movement, during the lifetime of Khalifatul-Masih I (ra). The same article which contained the story, contained also a commendation of the book Nabiyyullah Ka Zahur. It could not possibly be that while announcing the pardon granted to Zahiruddin Al-Hakam should at the same time have been commending the book, publication of which had led to the author’s excommunication, and had compelled him to sue for pardon. Would not such levity on the part of the editor of Al-Hakam have rendered himself liable to excommunication by Khalifatul-Masih I (ra)? Is it possible that the editor, while noting that Zahiruddin had committed a mistake and now repented and was sorry, should have himself committed the same offence and commended that very poisonous book? Anyone who cares to peruse the article in Al-Hakam, cannot but arrive at the conclusion that the expulsion of Zahiruddin from the Community was not based on “the contents of the book (Nabiyyullah Ka Zahur) or some other leaflet on the same subject.” (It is important to remember that up to that time no other book or leaflet on the same or a kindred subject had been published by Zahiruddin.) In expressing his views on the story of the excommunication and pardon, the editor of Al-Hakam wrote: “The service rendered to the Movement by Maulawi Zahiruddin by his publication of the books Nabiyyullah Ka Zahur, Vedon Ka Fatur and Radd-e-Chakrhalawi, is not such as we can afford to forget.” These words clearly show that the book Nabiyyullah Ka Zahur did not provide the ground for expulsion for had it been so, the oldest organ of the Movement, while dwelling on the story of the expulsion, could not have expressed itself in such glowing terms in appreciation of the book.
But in addition to the above, there is yet another consideration which proves the groundlessness of the allegation made by Maulawi Muhammad Ali. This is that while, according to Maulawi Muhammad Ali, it was the book Nabiyyullah Ka Zahur which was the ground for the expulsion of Zahiruddin, it remains to be explained why I was not similarly expelled on the ground of what I wrote on the subject of Kufr of those who had not accepted the Promised Messiah (as), especially as what I wrote was, according to Maulawi Muhammad Ali, founded on the doctrine of Nubuwwat taught by Zahiruddin, although as a matter of fact my article had been published before Zahiruddin’s book, and had been read in its entirety by Khalifatul-Masih I (ra), himself?
I feel sure that a consideration of the whole evidence—internal and external—will force upon every judicious reader the conviction that Maulawi Muhammad Ali has knowingly and intentionally attempted to compile a false history of the Movement in order to mislead those who live in distant lands. Whoever makes a study of the facts and the references to newspaper writings quoted above cannot fail to confess to a feeling of amazement at the following words of Maulawi Muhammad Ali:
“Much notice of the book does not seem to have been taken by the Ahmadiyya Community.”
“But probably the contents of the book or some other leaflet on the same subject were brought to the notice of the late Maulawi Nuruddin Sahib then head of the Ahmadiyya Community, and after some correspondence between Zahiruddin and Maulawi Sahib, an announcement was made by the latter in the paper The Badr dated 11th July 1911 (this announcement has already been quoted at length some pages back and is itself sufficient disproof of Maulawi Muhammad Ali’s allegation) to the effect that as Muhammad Zahiruddin was promulgating new doctrines, he was not to be considered as having any connection with the Ahmadiyya Community.” (The Split pp. 13, 14).
The third point, worthy of note in Maulawi Muhammad Ali’s account of the dissensions, is that in April 1913, Zahiruddin published another tract in which he tried to prove that the new Kalima (formula of faith) promulgated by him was not an error and that therefore he was once more out off from the Community, and though ostensibly this was because he was a claimant to the Khilafat, really it was because of the promulgation of the new beliefs.
There is no doubt that Zahiruddin published another tract in April 1913, but, so far as I am aware, there was nothing like an announcement of his expulsion from the Community, because the opinion, expressed by him in the tract, was so much at variance with Islam that no need was felt either by the Head of the Ahmadiyya Community or any learned member of it to excommunicate him from the brotherhood. The person who formulates a new Kalima after the Holy Prophet (sas), ispo facto withdraws himself from the Movement, and there is no need for his formal expulsion from the Community. This, in my opinion, was the reason why no announcement regarding him was published by the Community. It is, therefore, incorrect to say that either the Community or their leader said anything regarding Zahiruddin’s claim to the office of Khalifa. Like Maulawi Muhammad Ali himself, M. Zahiruddin was one who did not recognise the validity of Khulafa’. He could not, therefore, be a claimant to that office. What he claimed was that he was the Promised Muslih (reformer). He held the opinion that a claim to the leadership of the Community was valid only if established on the basis of a revelation vision or prophecy. Accordingly, we find that he was never charged by the Community with having made a claim to the Khilafat, nor was there any announcement ever made of his exclusion from the Community on the ground of any such claim. It is true that the Community, in actual practice severed all connection with him, but that was because of the novel doctrines forged by him, e.g. formulating a new Kalima (formula of faith), turning the face towards Qadian while at prayer, asserting that the Promised Messiah (as) was a Nabi with a new Shariah (Law), denying the authority of Khalifatul-Masih I (ra) and charging him with various malpractices. So far as I can recollect, the only person who took any notice of his writings was Mir Qasim Ali, editor of the Al-Haq. In his paper, then published from Delhi, he referred to him in the following words:
“A perusal of Zahiruddin’s book has given me a mixed feeling of regret and disappointment. Regret, because the said gentleman has apparently taken ‘the road to Turkistan, thinking that he was going to the Kaaba’; and disappointment, because I fail to discover in the book any evidence of scholarship or any new information which might prove of advantage to the Ahmadiyya Movement or to Islam; or if there is any, it is at any rate too deep to be perceived by a man of my understanding and attainments.”
He continues,
“I would respectfully request members of the Movement, who are given to public writing, to bestow on the bills of Zahiruddin the same amount of attention which they have been devoting to Abdullah and Yar Muhammad.” (Al-Haq, May 30th and June 7th, 1913)
From the above extracts it is clear that apart from dismissing Zahiruddin’s doctrines with contempt, the only notice taken by the Community of those writings was to leave them severely alone, and this has been ever since the attitude of the Community towards writings of this kind.
The fourth misstatement in the account of Ahmadiyya dissensions as related by Maulawi Muhammad Ali, is that Maulawi Muhammad Ahsan, in his report of a controversy held at Rampur, published under the heading: “Discussion relating to Partial Prophethood in Subordination to Complete Prophethood,” has stated that, “by following the Holy Prophet (sas) one can be granted partial prophethood in subordination to complete prophethood for helping the cause of the faith of Islam.” Maulawi Muhammad Ali writes: “The same learned old man wrote an article in the monthly paper Tashhidhul Adhhan edited by M. Mahmood under the heading ‘Prophethood among the Followers of Muhammad’ in which he showed that the only prophethood which could be granted to Muslims was Nubuwwti Juzwi or partial prophethood.” What Maulawi Muhammad Ali means to prove by this citation is that the belief of the more eminent Companions of the Promised Messiah (as) was that the door of prophethood was closed after the Holy Prophet (sas), the door only of partial prophethood being left open. Another point which Maulawi Muhammad Ali seeks to prove from the fact that the article was published in the magazine of which I was myself the editor, is that at that time I either shared the same views with Maulawi Muhammad Ahsan or did not venture to give public utterance to my own views for fear of Khalifatul-Masih I (ra). I am, however, sorry to submit that the facts of the case fail to bear out either of the two conclusions which Maulawi Muhammad Ali seeks to draw from them. In the first place, the words of Maulawi Muhammad Ahsan possess no special authority. They may be regarded as possessing the same value as the words of any other learned man. In the second place, the publication of his article in the Tashhidhul Adhhan cannot lend any special value to the views expressed therein, because the article was published in October, 1913, when I had already for two years ceased to have any active connection with the magazine. At that time Qazi Muhammad Zahuruddin Akmal was the de facto editor of the Magazine. The managing body of the paper, however, continued to print my name on the cover in order to retain its popularity, inasmuch as it was I who had been editing it since its foundation. Under the circumstances, if any particular view was at that time published in the magazine, it cannot justly be cited against me. I was not then its active editor nor were the articles published in the magazine shown to me whether in original or in proof. Nevertheless, if Maulawi Muhammad Ali would still insist upon holding me responsible for the matter in the magazine, on the ground that my name was connected with it as its nominal editor, then it would be only right and proper that Maulawi Muhammad Ali should himself accept responsibility for the notice of the book Nabiyyullah Ka Zahur, published in The Review of Religions.
But apart from the question of responsibility, I deem it necessary to point out that a consideration of Maulawi Muhammad Ahsan’s articles goes to show that they by no means justify the conclusion drawn by Maulawi Muhammad Ali. For, excepting the use of the term Juzwi Nubuwwat, the articles serve only to confirm the Nubuwwat of the Promised Messiah (as) in the sense claimed by us.
What concerns us is the writer’s intention, not the terms which he uses. A difference of terms is of no great moment so long as we agree on the meaning of those terms. It is true that Maulawi Muhammad Ahsan in his article in the Tashhidhul Adhhan spoke of the Nubuwwat of the Promised Messiah (as) as a Juzwi Nubuwwat (or Partial Prophethood) but at the same time he added regarding all the Israelite Prophets, raised after the Prophet Moses (as), that their Nubuwwat also was Nubuwwati Juzwi. He wrote: “Hence it follows that prophecies regarding future events granted in proof of the truth of Islam will be transmitted through the medium of Nubuwwat and that is what is meant by Nubuwwati Ghair Tashri‘i (Prophethood without Law) or Nubuwwati Juzwi Partial Prophethood). All the Ambiya’ who came after Moses (as), were honoured by the gift of this kind of Nubuwwat because the Nubuwwat of Ahkam (Law-bearing Prophethood) had ceased among the Israelites with the advent of the Torah” (Tashhidhul Adhhan October 1913, page 500). From these words it is clear that according to Maulawi Muhammad Ahsan, the Mubashshirat (Gift of Prophecy) promised to the followers of the Holy Prophet (sas) in 
(Nothing remains of Nubuwwat except Mubashshirat), was nothing else than Nubuwwati Ghair Tashri‘i or Juzwi Nubuwwat, and that it was this kind of Nubuwwat which was granted to the Israelite Prophets after the Prophet Moses (as). Now, this exactly is our own position, and to add to it even so much as a title is regarded by me as an act of heresy. I go even further and think it necessary to add that the Prophets, who came to the Israelites after Moses (as), although they were Prophets without Law, all derived their prophethood without the intermediation of Moses (as). But the Promised Messiah (as), although he was a Prophet without Law like the Israelite Prophets who came after Moses (as), yet received the gift of prophethood, not directly but through the intermediation of the Holy Prophet (sas). Thus, I have no difference with Maulawi Muhammad Ahsan in the views expressed by him in the Tashhidhul Adhhan regarding the nature of the Promised Messiah’s (as) Nubuwwat. The only objection I can take to the article is that he calls this kind of Nubuwwat, Nubuwwati Juzwi. We do not describe the Promised Messiah’s (as) Nubuwwat as Nubuwwati Juzwi. Thus the attempt of Maulawi Muhammad Ali to cite the article of Maulawi Muhammad Ahsan in support of his position serves only to prove his own lack of understanding. He seems to have been taken in by the terra Nubuwwati Juzwi but what one can see from Maulawi Muhammad Ahsan’s article is that all the Prophets who came to the Israelites after Moses (as) were endowed with Nubuwwati Juzwi. Thus, if the prophethood of David (as), Solomon (as) and Jesus (as) is to be classed as Nubuwwati Juzwi, I have no objection in this sense of the term, to apply it to the prophethood of the Promised Messiah (as). But I am sure Maulawi Muhammad Ali will never accept this sense of the term. He cites authority only so long as it agrees with his own views.
I wish here to quote a few passages from some of the other writings of Maulawi Muhammad Ahsan in order to prove my contention. Maulawi Muhammad Ahsan, elsewhere speaks of Maulawi Muhammad Ali in the following words:
“Maulawi Muhammad Ali has not understood the meaning of the term Juzwi Nubuwwat (partial prophethood) nor of Majazi Nubuwwat (metaphorical prophethood), nor of Zilli Nubuwwat (reflex prophethood), because he is of opinion that just as we may call somebody a lion because of his great prowess, so likewise the name of Nabi has been given to the Jariullah fi Hulalil Ambiya’ (revelation title of the Promised Messiah (as), meaning Fighter for Allah in the mantles of the Prophets). God protect us! Maulawi Sahib does not even understand to whom the term Majazi is being applied. My dear friend, metaphor strictly is false. If the Promised Messiah (as) is Nabi-i-Majazi in this sense, then his prophethood is false! God protect us from such views! The fact is that the Holy Prophet (sas) is the original Prophet, and the Promised Messiah (as) a succeeding Prophet. Whatever of the original Prophet may be attributed to the succeeding Prophet is in the nature of a Majaz (metaphor), as may be seen in many of the revelations of the Promised Messiah (as), as for example in the revelation:
(Al-Saff, 61:10)
This is the meaning of Majaz. Similarly Maulawi Muhammad Ali has also failed to understand the meaning either of Nubuwwat Juzwi or Zilli. I have already explained in Sitta-i-Daruriya that under such circumstances if there should happen to arise an equality between the original and the reflex, there is still no harm, because the superiority will still remain with the original on account of its priority. This is what is signified by Zilliyyat (Reflexion). Nor has Maulawi Muhammad Ali understood the meaning of the term Juzwi; because, according to the generally accepted Hadith, “nothing remains of Nubuwwat save Mubashshirat” (prophecy). Thus, only because the Jariullah (the Promised Messiah (as)—Tr.) has not brought any new Shariah (Law) save the Shariah of Islam nor any new book superseding the Holy Quran, he is called a Juzwi Nabi.”
Likewise, the following lines of Maulawi Muhammad Ahsan are quoted from his book Sitta-i- Daruriya where, in order to confute the deniers of the prophethood of Ahmad the Promised Messiah (as), he proves from the verse Khatamun Nabiyyin the continuance of prophethood in the Khairul Umam the best of people meaning the Muslims), and refutes the doctrine advocated by Maulawi Muhammad Ali. He writes:
“Regarding the meaning of the word Nabi and Rasul, there is a very great divergence of opinion prevailing among the doctors of religion, but if from among the conflicting mass of opinion we are to accept the meaning furnished by the Tafsir-e-Kabir what is there to prevent us from such a course? The meaning given there is as follows: ‘Rasul is a Nabi who in addition to miracles, has had a book revealed to him, and a Nabi other than a Rasul is one to whom no book has been revealed and who has simply been commanded to call people to a book previously revealed’ (Volume VI, page 92). Thus, if it is proved that, in accordance with the above definition the Promised Messiah (as) is a Nabi and not a Rasul and wherever the name Rasul has been applied to him it is to be understood in the sense of Nabi, I do not see what objection can there be to such a view” (Sitta-i-Daruria, p. 67).
He writes further:
“The verse should be understood in a sense that would signify praise and exaltation of the Holy Prophet (sas) with God. That is the proper sense of the verse. Now, let us see what this sense can properly be. It is that after the advent of the Holy Prophet (sas), there can arise no Prophet such as will bring any new command of Shariah (Law), which is not already to be met with in the Holy Quran or in the Sunna (Practice) of the Holy Prophet (sas) or which will abrogate any command of Islam.” (Sitta-i-Daruria, p. 59).
Again:
“The Holy Prophet (sas) was the ‘Seal of the Prophets,’ which means that the excellences of all the earlier Prophets were to be found in him. (Sitta-i-Daruria, p. 61). What is signified by the term, ‘Seal of the Prophets,’ is that the Holy Prophet (sas) had attained the highest stage of perfection granted to Prophets, not that the grace of his prophethood would never reach any of his followers” (Sitta-i-Daruria, p. 64).
Again he writes:
“If the Holy Prophet (sas) is the Prophet of Prophets only in reference to the Prophets before him, then, in the first place such a claim would be lacking in evidence, inasmuch as there is no Prophet who has attained to the rank of Prophet by following the Holy Prophet (sas). In the second place, such a belief will attribute to the Holy Prophet (sas) one kind of excellence—that of personal perfection.
(Al-Ahzab, 33:41)
But it will withhold from him the other kind of excellence—that of making others perfect. May God save us from such a view! Now, as a matter of fact even the Prophets of whom he is the Master, enjoyed this kind of excellence—that of making others perfect. For example, among the followers of Moses (as), there arose hundreds of Prophets who attained to the rank by virtue of faithfully following Moses (as) their teacher; and yet let us remember what the Holy Prophet (sas) said: ‘Had Moses (as) been alive, he would have had no choice but to follow me.’” (Sitta-i-Daruria, p. 71).
Maulawi Muhammad Ahsan writes further on:
“To understand the term Khatamun Nabiyyin in this sense adds to the dignity and glory of the Holy Prophet (sas), inasmuch as it makes both the preceding and the succeeding Prophets depend upon him.” (Sitta-i-Daruria, p. 66).
And again:
“We claim two things for the Holy Prophet (sas). The first is that after the advent of the Holy Prophet, there cannot appear till the last day another Prophet who will bring a new Shariah (Law), and the second that obedience to the Holy Prophet (sas) keeps the door open for Juzwi Nabis (partial Prophets) to appear for the defence of Islam, and to function in subordination to the perfect Prophet.”
The fifth point raised in Maulawi Muhammad Ali’s account of the dissensions, is that while M. Zahiruddin was broadcasting his beliefs, I took up the question of Kufr (unbelief) of those who did not formally accept the Bai‘at (oath of allegiance) of the Promised Messiah (as); and that although it is stated by me that the article which I wrote on this subject, was shown to Khalifatul-Masih I (ra) the way in which the Khalifa understood the article was clear from a latter announcement, issued by Khwaja Kamaluddin and signed by the Khalifa. In this announcement it was explained that my article could be accepted only if it was interpreted as meaning “that those who did not accept the Promised Messiah (as) were only deniers of, or unbelievers in the Promised Messiah (as) and not actually outside the pale of Islam.”
Before I proceed to criticise this statement of Maulawi Muhammad Ali in the light of what actually happened I wish to draw the attention of the readers to the statement itself. The gist of Khwaja Kamaluddin’s article, reproduced by Maulawi Muhammad Ali, is so devoid of sense that it can hardly fail to surprise the intelligent reader. What sense can there be in the statement that those who did not accept the Promised Messiah (as) were deniers of the Promised Messiah (as)? Can anybody in his senses think it possible that one might not accept the Promised Messiah (as) and yet be a believer in the Promised Messiah (as)? If this and nothing more, was to be understood by my article, was not my article a piece of sheer inanity, and, in that case, was not the action of the Khalifatul-Masih (ra) in correcting it and sanctioning its publication something still less complimentary? To say therefore that the Khalifatul-Masih (ra) permitted the publication of my article because he understood it in the sense quoted by Khwaja Kamaluddin, is something altogether without foundation, and constitutes in itself a refutation of Maulawi Muhammad Ali’s contention.
But I do not stop here. I am prepared to cite the writings of Maulawi Muhammad Ali himself in refutation of his own statement. In his book, Maulawi Muhammad Ali writes: “M. Mahmood had taken up another point viz. the question of Kufr of those who did not formally accept the Bai‘at of the Promised Messiah (as).” Now if, as stated by Maulawi Muhammad Ali my article did not deal with the Kufr of non-Ahmadis, but, in the words of Khwaja Kamaluddin, merely laid down that those who did not accept the Promised Messiah (as) were deniers of the Promised Messiah (as), how could Maulawi Muhammad Ali trace my belief on the point, to the leaflet issued by Zahiruddin (of course, actually subsequent to my article)? To prove the point that those who did not accept the Promised Messiah (as) were deniers of the Promised Messiah (as), it was certainly immaterial whether the Promised Messiah (as) was a Nabi or a non-Nabi. A claim like that could be made about every claimant and every truth. I do not claim to be a Nabi, but a proposition like the one put forward by Maulawi Muhammad Ali, can, without breach of propriety, be made even about me. It can be said that those who do not accept me are my deniers. It is only the doctrine of Kufr, which could have been derived from the doctrine of Nubuwwat of the Promised Messiah (as). Thus, it is evident from the writings of Maulawi Muhammad Ali himself that the subject I had stressed in my article was the Kufr of those who did not accept the Promised Messiah (as).
This article of mine was read by Khalifatul-Masih I (ra), from beginning to end and was approved by him for publication. The following events prove the point.
The reason why in March 1911, I wrote an article on the subject of the Kufr of those who did not accept the Promised Messiah (as), was that at that time some Ahmadis, under the influence of non-Ahmadis, had begun to write in some non-Ahmadi papers that there was no material difference between Ahmadis and non-Ahmadis, both being Muslims. I was afraid lest this erroneous view should find currency in the Ahmadiyya Community.
So I wrote the article and submitted it to Khalifatul-Masih I (ra), for his approval. This was in March 1911. At that time he was seriously indisposed. The article therefore remained with him for a considerable time. During this time some organs of the Ahmadiyya Movement made references to the article. But as the article remained in the custody of Khalifatul-Masih I (ra), it began to be rumoured by some advocates of Khwaja Kamaluddin’s views that the article had been strongly disapproved of by the Khalifa. The Khalifa’s indisposition continued, and I thought it improper under the circumstances to trouble him with a reminder. At length, after a month, Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih I (ra), partially regained his health. He then looked through the article and, at several places, corrected it in his own hand. When he had finished I was sitting beside him. He returned the article to me saying, “Miyań, I do not like being hard. You are young, but I am old” (These, or to this effect, were the words he used). Among those also present at the time was Maulawi Sadaruddin. He, forthwith, reported it to his friends at Lahore, with what additions of his own, I do not know. But within a few days the report had gone round that Khalifatul-Masih I (ra) had disapproved of my article, while the fact only was that the article contained references to persons, who were at the time members of the Community, and Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih (ra) had disapproved only of these references, fearing they might prove a source of discord. He had, therefore, crossed out the objectionable passages. What remained of the article, fully accorded with his own views and conformed to his own beliefs. But as it had been rumoured that Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih (ra) had disapproved of my article, I thought it improper to publish it without obtaining his permission again. I had in fact resolved not to publish the article at all in case Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih (ra) disapproved of it in the slightest detail. Accordingly I wrote the following letter to Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih (ra):
“My Master and Leader! Peace be on you! You have not been pleased to put any marks on my article to show which words you think are too severe; also if I myself were to go through the article again, it would be of little or no use, because the words which failed to strike me as too severe when I first wrote the article, are not likely now to strike me as such. I, therefore, doubt whether it is at all proper for me needlessly to give you cause for displeasure. God is more jealous than I; He will Himself look after His own affairs, and He being All-Powerful, it is but vain on my part to be so solicitous about His work. If anything is going to happen contrary to His pleasure, He will Himself cause its prevention. It happens, however, that without my previous knowledge references to the article have been published in Al-Hakam and the Badr. If, under the circumstances, the article does not appear it may afford those already given to calling me names, occasion to think that all talk about the article was a hoax, intended to thwart and terrify them. If, therefore, there is nothing wrong in such a course, I would solicit permission to publish an announcement in the papers to the following effect: The editors of Al-Hakam and the Badr have, in their respective papers, made references to a certain article of mine. This was done without my knowledge or approval. But as it was impossible for me to publish the article without the permission of Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih (ra)—fearing it should cause discord in the Community—I submitted the article to Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih (ra) who has been pleased to disapprove of it. I am, therefore, not in a position to publish the article, and take this opportunity to request other friends also to write no more on the question, which may, henceforth, be considered as finally decided. In case, however, you consider it improper that such an announcement should be made, I shall refrain from doing so. It will but add one more reproach to where there already are so many.
MAHMOOD”
In reply to the above, Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih I (ra), wrote the following words on the margin of the letter (the original letter together with Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih’s (ra) reply are still with me):
“My dear, I have now marked the proper places. I have no disagreement regarding the main purport of the article—none whatever. But you see, even one commissioned by God, who would be justified by virtue of his commission to speak with some degree of severity, has been commanded:
(Aal-e-Imran, 3:160)
Your youth and physical weakness impel you to severity. To me, a milder course seems preferable. Let the article go to the press.”
It is evident from this reply that the Khalifatul-Masih marked the passages which appeared to him to have been strongly worded. It is also clear that what displeased him in the article were merely some words which I had used about some weak Ahmadis. This is evident from the fact that the Quranic verse quoted by Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih (ra) bore reference not to the disbelievers but to the followers of the Holy Prophet (sas). As it was, the objectionable words had now been crossed out by Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih (ra), who was also pleased for a second time to allow its publication. It was then that I made over the article to the printers. Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih (ra) had also directed that the proofs should be shown to him. The manager of the Tashhidhul Adhhan was accordingly directed not to print the magazine without first showing the proofs to Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih (ra). At this stage, I had to go to Amritsar for a few days on a certain business. During my absence, it was rumoured that the Khalifatul-Masih (ra) had been shown a passage from the Tiryaqul Qulub, from which it followed that the Promised Messiah (as) had not called his deniers kuffar. Thereupon, I submitted to the Khalifatul-Masih (ra) reference to the explanation which the Promised Messiah (as) had himself given of this passage, and once more, I put it to the Khalifatul-Masih (ra) that if he did not approve of the publication of the article, I would gladly withhold it. In reply, the Khalifatul-Masih (ra) said, “I am no hypocrite. You had better publish the article.” What he meant was that in granting me permission to print the article, he had not acted with duplicity. My purpose in putting the question again and again was to prevent all possible objections. Later on, the proofs of the article were also submitted to the Khalifatul-Masih (ra). But again there was delay in his looking through the proofs. This gave occasion to our friends to spread, for a second time, the report that the Khalifatul-Masih (ra) had the copy washed from the printing stone and prohibited the publication of the article. But ultimately the proofs also were looked through by Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih (ra) and so the article at last was published.
It is clear from all this that the article in question was not published in haste. It was read through twice, from beginning to end, by the Khalifatul-Masih (ra) himself, and was corrected at various places in his own hand (the original article, corrected by Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih is still with me and is evidence of my statement). The question of its publication was repeatedly submitted to Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih (ra). Under such circumstances, the article, although written by me could justly be regarded as that of the Khalifatul-Masih (ra) himself. For he looked through it more than once and corrected it with his own hand.
I shall now proceed to give here a summary of the article in question and to quote fully a few passages, in order to enable every reader to judge for himself whether it was possible to read into my article any meaning other than the one it really conveyed. The article was elaborately entitled—“A Muslim is one who believes in all the Messengers of God.” The title itself is sufficient to show that the article was not meant to prove merely that those who did not accept the Promised Messiah (as) were deniers of the Promised Messiah (as). Its object rather was to demonstrate that those who did not believe in the Promised Messiah (as) were not Muslims. The article commences with an introduction, in which it is stated that a certain similarity pervades the histories of all the Prophets and their Movements, and that likewise opponents of the Prophets also bear among themselves a certain resemblance. But as the Promised Messiah (as) bore a special likeness to Jesus, it followed that the history of the life of the Promised Messiah (as) and of that of his Movement would resemble, more than others, the history of Jesus (as) and his followers. Nevertheless, as the Promised Messiah (as) was also the spiritual counterpart of the Holy Prophet (sas), it was certain that the followers of the Promised Messiah (as) would be saved from the serious disasters which overtook the followers of Jesus (as). The article then proceeded to state that after the death of Jesus, non-Christian communities encompassed the ruin of the faith preached by Jesus (as) by adopting a policy of amity towards the Christians. Something similar was going on at the present time. Non-Ahmadis were trying to induce us to join their fold. The reason for this was that Satan had discovered that he could make no impression upon Ahmadis by a frontal attack; he had, therefore, set up after them irreligious folks of the day in the hope that they would succeed in injuring the Ahmadiyya Movement under the guise of friendship. Accordingly, the cry had been raised that the difference between Ahmadis and non-Ahmadis was not serious enough to justify their maintaining such a distance. It had also been urged that it is of no benefit to either of the two parties to call others kuffar, Those they say, who called the Mirza Sahib (the Promised Messiah (as)) kafir were obviously wrong, but it was now for Ahmadis to forgive and forget. Such were the specious arguments advanced by the advocates of rapprochement. But praise be to God—I proceeded to say—Who endowed some of us with insight, and they realised the true dignity of His Messenger. They were not prepared to regard as ordinary the denial of him for whom heaven and earth had borne testimony, who was the Promised One of all the earlier Prophets, for whose sake the great God humiliated and brought to naught so many of the learned savants and saints from amongst the so-called Muslims, and who had the promise that till the last day, God would let his followers have the upper hand over his enemies.
Regarding the main subject of my article, I wrote that as we believed the Promised Messiah (as) to be one of the Prophets of God, we could not possibly regard his deniers as Muslims. It is true we did not consider them to be kafir billah, (deniers of God), but how could we doubt that, they were kafir-bil-ma’mur (deniers of a God’s Messenger)? Those who say that they regarded Mirza Sahib as a righteous person and so did not deserve to be called kuffar, ought to consider whether a righteous person ever spoke an untruth. If Mirza Sahib (as), was indeed a righteous person, what possible objection could there be to their subscribing to his claim. After this, the article proceeded to quote passages from the writings of the Promised Messiah (as) to show that he regarded his deniers as kuffar. Some of the passages, quoted in the article, are reproduced here in brief: to the apostate Abdul Hakim of Patiala, he wrote: “At any rate, when the great God has revealed to me that every body whom my call has reached and who has failed to accept my claim, is not a Muslim, and is liable to account before God, how can I at the instance of one individual, whose heart is steeped in a thousand darknesses, ignore the command of God. It is easier to cut off such a one from my Community. Accordingly from this date I hereby exclude you from the Community of my followers.” Following this, I proceeded to explain the purport of the above passage in the following words: “The above words apply not merely to those who take an active part in denouncing the Promised Messiah (as); but every person who fails to accept him is not a Muslim. Further on, I explained, in the words of the Promised Messiah (as) himself, the meaning he attached to the expression ‘reaching of Call.’ This was that the Promised Messiah (as) had made his Call reach every part of the globe, and hence the whole world might be said to have received his Call. It was unnecessary for this purpose that the information should be carried separately to each individual. After this, I went on to prove from the writings of the Promised Messiah (as) that those who did not explicitly style the Promised Messiah (as) as a kafir but nor did they accept his claim, were to be classed with those who styled him as a kafir; so also were those who only waited for fuller information and put off entering into his Bai‘at.” Then in my own words. I summarised the purport of the quotations as follows: “Thus, according to these quotations, not only are those deemed to be kuffar, who openly style the Promised Messiah (as) as kafir, and those who although they do not style him thus, decline still to accept his claim, but even those who, in their hearts, believe the Promised Messiah (as) to be true, and do not even deny him with their tongues, but hesitate to enter into his Bai‘at, have here been adjudged to be kuffar.” After this, some more quotations were given in support of the main contention, and the weakness implicit in the overture for friendship was exposed, and the Promised Messiah’s (as) fatwa (pronouncement) which forbade Ahmadis to pray behind non-Ahmadi Imams was quoted. And lastly, it was argued from a verse of the Holy Quran that such people as had failed to recognise the Promised Messiah (as) as a Rasul even if they called him a righteous person with their tongues, were yet veritable kuffar.
Such was my article which was twice read through by Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih (ra), and corrected in several places in his own hand, and regarding the purport of which he remarked that he had no difference whatsoever. Now, after reading the above and after perusing those passages which I have quoted, is it possible for any intelligent person to imagine that Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih (ra) could possibly take the article to say no more than that those who did not accept Hazrat Mirza Sahib were only deniers of Hazrat Mirza Sahib?
The question now remains, how was it that Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih (ra) at all put his signature to the incorrect version of the article given by Khwaja Kamaluddin? In answering this, we should remember in the first place that, in view of the circumstances described above, it is altogether impossible to conclude, from the mere fact of Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih (ra) signing the announcement by Khwaja Sahib, that he disapproved of my article. This, because the written approval which Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih (ra) accorded to my article and the corrections he himself made in it still exist. Nor can it be supposed that Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih (ra) misunderstood the purport of my article, because it was impossible even for a mere schoolboy to receive the article in the sense attributed to it by Khwaja Kamaluddin. Seeing, therefore, the impossibility of both these alternatives, the only alternative left is to believe that either Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih (ra) did not actually read the Khwaja’s announcement, and authorised its publication merely upon hearing about it from Khwaja Sahib or that the ambiguous announcement, wherein Khwaja Sahib by the deft use of a tortuous style had tried to undo the effect of my article, had been wrongly understood by Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih (ra). The announcement by Khwaja Sahib as well as the substance of it, given by Maulawi Muhammad Ali, would show that Khwaja Sahib had intended to attain his end by the use of ambiguous language. But for this, he could well have declared in plain words that non-Ahmadis were Muslims. He had no business to try and interpret my article while I was alive and was well able to interpret it myself. If any doubt really existed regarding its intention, he ought to have referred the matter to me. The very line of action, adopted by him, shows that he aimed at hood-winking the public, and it was to this end that he employed an equivocal style of expression. If Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih (ra) really read the announcement and sanctioned its publication, then he must have misunderstood its purport; and there is corroborative evidence in support of this view.
It happened that when the announcement by Khwaja Kamaluddin was published, there was general whispering among the people that Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih (ra) was vacillating, sometimes saying one thing and sometimes another; that while on the one hand, he had put his signature to my article, he had, on the other, also signed the announcement by Khwaja Sahib. One gentleman brought this to the notice of Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih (ra). I was at the time sitting nearby. Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih (ra) denied that there was any discrepancy between his actions, and said that he had signed the announcement by Khwaja Sahib only because Khwaja Sahib had assured him that he had nothing to object to in Miyań Sahib’s (the present writer’s) article and that his announcement had been prepared only to save those thousands of Ahmadis who lived on the frontier from being molested by their opponents, and that it was simply to appease the frontier-men, that he had expressed the sense of the article in language calculated to avert trouble. I remember that there were present at the time two or three other persons also, and, so far as I remember, there was present also an Ahmadi from the frontier, who had in a letter already made reference to this very question. Very likely, it was Mufti Muhammad Sadiq who brought this question to the notice of Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih (ra). I do not know whether Mufti Muhammad Sadiq still remembers the incident but for myself I am prepared to affirm it on oath. I now ask Maulawi Muhammad Ali and his friends whether he or they are prepared to affirm on oath that Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih (ra) really understood the purport of my article in the sense alleged by Maulawi Muhammad Ali. I am sure, they will never venture to do so, and will only make excuses to escape the oath. They know full well that it is impossible to understand my article in any but its own evident sense.
The sixth item which calls for attention in Maulawi Muhammad Ali’s account of the dissensions, is his statement that towards the close of 1913, I once again made the announcement that the deniers of the Promised Messiah (as) were kuffar, that this announcement reached the ears of Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih (ra) and that his fatwa allowing Ahmadis to pray behind non-Ahmadi Imams was also criticised by me. Though during my pilgrimage to Mecca in 1912, I had myself said my prayers behind non-Ahmadi Imams, and so had all Ahmadis who went on pilgrimage during the time of Khalifatul-Masih I (ra); that as Khalifatul-Masih I (ra) was ill at the time, he ordered Maulawi Muhammad Ali to enlighten the Community on this question and even dictated to him some notes on it.
The whole of this account, including the allusion to a fatwa issued by Khalifatul-Masih I (ra), permitting Ahmadis to pray behind non-Ahmadi Imams is false, as false as any of the others. The facts are that Khwaja Kamaluddin, from a natural timidity of temperament and a desire to win the goodwill of non-Ahmadis had ever been trying to secure an order permitting Ahmadis to pray behind non-Ahmadis. When he went to England, he wrote repeatedly to Khalifatul-Masih I (ra) urgently requesting for the grant of such permission, even urging that unless such permission was given, there would be trouble. People in England would be prejudiced against Islam, and all his missionary activities would be jeopardised. As Khwaja Sahib was already looking for an excuse, Khalifatul-Masih I (ra), when he read his letter, said, “Let him pray behind them.” This, so-called permission was forthwith cabled to Khwaja Sahib by his friends, and was utilized by the former, in praying behind that prominent opponent of the Ahmadiyya Movement Zafar Ali Khan, editor of the Zamińdar, to the permanent undoing of his own faith. The permission, however, could in no way be treated as a fatwa, because neither the Khalifatul-Masih (ra), nor any other person has any authority to issue a fatwa contrary to the express fatwa of the Promised Messiah (as). It is the latter who is our proper Teacher and Guide. Nobody except him has the authority to issue a fatwa on his own account. Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih I (ra) himself was but a disciple of the Promised Messiah (as), and had like others, sworn allegiance to the Master. He was, therefore, bound to obey the injunctions of the Promised Messiah (as) as much as any of his other followers. As a matter of fact, Khalifatul-Masih I (ra) himself never claimed any superior authority. He once wrote, “I swear by God that I believe with my heart in all the claims of the Promised Messiah (as) and hold firmly to them, and it is my faith that the acceptance of them is a necessary condition of salvation. Nuruddin.” Again he once said: “Listen! your disputes fall under three classes. The first class relates to such matters and principles regarding which a decision has been left by the Promised Messiah (as). Those who go against any such decision cease to be Ahmadis. Then, there are matters regarding which the Promised Messiah (as) has remained silent. With regard to these, it is not for you to speak until you have first received permission thereof from me. Therefore, while the Khalifa is silent or till the Khalifa of the Khalifa does not appear in the world, you have no business to pronounce opinions on these matters”—(From a speech at Lahore: Al-Hakam June 21 and 28, 1912). If one were to read the above words of Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih (ra) side by side with the fatwa of the Promised Messiah (as) quoted below, one might see whether it was possible even to imagine Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih I (ra) issuing a fatwa permitting Ahmadis to pray behind non-Ahmadis.
The Promised Messiah writes: “Remember that God has informed me that it is forbidden to you and forbidden altogether that you should pray behind any Mukaffir (who attributes Kufr to another), Mukazzib (a denier) or Mutaraddid (a doubter). Your Imam should be one who is one of yourselves.” (Appendix, Tuhfa’- e-Golarhwiyyah, page 18).
What Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih (ra) wrote to Khwaja Kamaluddin pertained to Khwaja Sahib himself and was a comment on his individual condition. It was not a fatwa, as may easily be understood from the following incident. Somebody wrote to Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih (ra) for permission to pray behind a non-Ahmadi Imam, and Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih (ra) accorded the permission. Upon this, the elder brother of the applicant also wrote to Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih (ra) soliciting a similar permission. In reply, Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih (ra) directed that he should first make himself like his younger brother, and then a similar permission would be granted to him. The younger brother did not care even to say his daily prayers. If the permission sought were likely to induce him to be regular in his prayers, there would be no harm done. It is evident from the reply and even from the fact that the elder brother thought it necessary to write such a letter, that the permission granted by Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih (ra) was not of the nature of a fatwa, but a concession allowed to meet the special circumstances of a particular individual. Similarly, it was in view of the weakness of Khwaja Sahib and under the apprehension that withholding of permission might prove too severe a trial for Khwaja Sahib’s faith, that Khalifatul-Masih I (ra), accorded to Khwaja Sahib permission to pray behind non-Ahmadis. We would never be justified in treating the permission as a general fatwa. It was only a particular direction applied to a particular individual. As for the statement that I criticised the fatwa, it is absolutely without any kind of evidence to support it. For, when there was no fatwa, it is idle to speak of anybody criticising or denying the fatwa. When we believed that the authority of the Promised Messiah (as) is final, there was little need for me to find fault with anything contrary to the Promised Messiah’s (as) fatwa. Even assuming that Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih (ra) had actually issued a contrary fatwa, still, according to us, such a fatwa could not have formed part of our faith.
Maulawi Muhammad Ali has charged me with having offered prayers—while on pilgrimage to Mecca—behind a non-Ahmadi Imam, and this, in accordance with a fatwa of Khalifatul-Masih I (ra). This is a misstatement which, in spite of his knowledge of the true facts, Maulawi Muhammad Ali continues to repeat. The facts are as follows.
In the year 1912, I went on pilgrimage to Mecca in company with Sayyid Abdul Muhyi Arab, visiting Egypt on our way. My maternal grandfather, Mir Nasir Nawab Sahib, also went on pilgrimage the same year. He went to Mecca direct from Qadian. We met at Jaddah, and from there journeyed together to Mecca. On the very first day at Mecca, while we were circumambulating the Kaaba, time came for the evening prayers. I wished to withdraw, but our way was barred and the service had already commenced. Mir Nasir Nawab Sahib told me that Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih (ra) had ordered that, while at Mecca, we might pray behind non-Ahmadi Imams. Upon this, I joined the service. Later on, when we were still in the precincts of the Kaaba, came the time for the night prayers, and we joined as before. When we returned to our residence, I said turning to Sayyid Abdul Muhyi Arab,
“The prayers we offered were only to comply with the command of Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih (ra), let us now offer our prayers for the sake of Allah. Such prayers cannot rightly be offered behind non-Ahmadi Imams.” We, then repeated both the services. The next day, I believe, we joined another service behind a non-Ahmadi Imam. But I began to feel that although we subsequently repeated the service, a certain weight was oppressing my mind, and I felt that if I continued like that, I should certainly fall ill. At last on the second day, I was compelled to speak on the subject to Sayyid Abdul Muhyi Arab. I said. “My regard for my grandfather prevents me from putting the question to him, but will you kindly inquire of him whether Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih’s orders in this matter were given to him directly or was it that he learnt of them from a common report.” Upon inquiry, it transpired that there were no direct orders but that my grandfather had heard that some such orders had been given to some person. I thanked God for the news and from that time, in spite of objections from various quarters, we always offered our prayers in our own congregation. We were in Mecca for about 20 days. At all times we offered our prayers either in our own house or in the Kaaba in a congregation of our own. And it was a special favour of God that although, as a general rule, none save the few recognised sects were allowed to form a congregation within the quadrangle of the Kaaba, no one objected to our congregation; and it often happened that many latecomers joined us in our prayers and swelled our congregation to a considerable size. My grandfather felt apprehension lest his part in the matter might in future, prove a source of trouble. He, therefore, said that he would bring the question to the notice of Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih (ra) on his return to Qadian. When at last we returned, our friends one after another invited us to functions arranged to welcome us. Among others, Miyań Hamid Ali an old servant of the Promised Messiah (as), who had attended upon him for 40 years invited us to tea. The guests included Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih (ra), Mir Nasir Nawab Sahib, Sayyid Abdul Muhyi Arab and myself. One gentleman, Hakim Muhammad Umar, put the question to Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih (ra). The latter replied that he had never given any fatwa of that kind, that his permission was given only to such people as were weak and timorous. Such people, if they found themselves begird, by non-Ahmadis, might perform their prayers behind non-Ahmadis, and repeat their prayers when they returned to their places. Thanks to God that my action thus accorded both with the fatwa of the Promised Messiah (as) and with the views of the Khalifa of the day.”
But here the question may be asked, why did I choose to carry out the supposed command of Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih (ra), and perform Namaz behind non- Ahmadi Imams when there existed already a contrary fatwa of the Promised Messiah (as)? The answer is that from the practice of the Companions of the Holy Prophet (sas) of Islam it is evident that they considered it obligatory in such matters to carry out the commands of the Khalifa of the day, even when they did not agree with him regarding their propriety. Accordingly, we find in Bukhari and in other books of tradition and history that once, when Hazrat Usman (ra) was the Khalifa, he departed from the practice of the Holy Prophet (sas), and during a certain Hajj—while in a state of journey—performed four Rak‘at of Namaz at Safa, instead of two. This caused considerable excitement among some of the Holy Companions, but nevertheless they all followed him in performing the full four Rak‘at, Hazrat Abdur Rahman bin ‘Auf (ra) resolved that in his own congregation he would perform only two Rak‘at of Namaz. But he chanced to meet Abdullah bin Mas‘ud (ra) who inquired of him whether the Khalifa had issued any new command. Abdur Rahman (ra) said, “No,” and added that, as for himself, he had performed only two Rak‘at of Namaz, Abdullah bin Mas‘ud (ra) said that it was true that all evidence went to prove that the Holy Prophet (sas) had performed only two Rak‘at of Namaz, but then when he (Abdullah bin Mas‘ud (ra)) had heard that the Khalifa of the day had performed four Rak‘at, he too had performed the same number of Rak‘at (at the time of the pilgrimage, on account of the large number of pilgrims, the prayers at Mina are offered in several separate congregations). Abdullah (ra) also advised Abdur Rahman (ra) to do likewise and told him that it was improper to act in a manner contrary to the practice of the Khalifa. Upon this, Abdur Rahman (ra) admitted the truth of Abdullah’s remarks, and promised in future to follow his advice. All this is related in the Bukhari. Nevertheless, these people were so deeply attached to the Holy Prophet (sas) that Abdullah bin Mas‘ud (ra), when he had finished his prayer, besought Allah to accept only two Rak‘at of his Namaz. Agreeably to this precedent, when I was told that the Khalifa had issued certain orders, I chose to comply with the same (although later on it transpired that the Khalifa had issued no such orders), and just as a Companion of the Holy Prophet (sas) had supplicated to God that only two out of the four Rak‘at of Namaz, performed by him might be accepted, similarly, when I returned to my residence, I also performed my Namaz again. Thus, it was a special favour of God that He gave me the opportunity to follow in all respects the example of the Companions of the Holy Prophet (sas).
Full details of what happened during the pilgrimage have been narrated by me on occasions, and have several times been published in print, but Maulawi Muhammad Ali would still persist in misrepresenting the facts to the people, and try to induce them to believe that, while I had myself said my prayers behind non-Ahmadi Imams, I was now dissuading others from doing so. I would ask every fair-minded reader to say whether it is possible for any reasonable person, acquainted with the details of what happened, honestly to charge me with any such duplicity, and whether to describe facts in the way in which Maulawi Muhammad Ali has done, is not really an attempt to mislead the people? He learnt of them from me and my companions. Is it not unfair on his part to relate one part of the story and suppress the other parts?
Next, there is the statement that Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih charged Maulawi Muhammad Ali with the duty of enlightening the Ahmadiyya Community on the question of the Kufr or Islam of non-Ahmadis, and that he himself dictated some notes on the subject which were the basis of Maulawi Muhammad Ali’s pamphlet. Regarding this statement, so much, of course, is true that Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih (ra) who was at the time very seriously indisposed, did ask Maulawi Muhammad Ali to write a tract and also that he dictated some notes to Maulawi Muhammad Ali, but it is untrue and completely untrue to say that Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih (ra) asked Maulawi Muhammad Ali to prove that non-Ahmadis were Muslims, and that this direction by Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih (ra) was occasioned by any speech or writing of mine. The facts are that in those days Maulawi Muhammad Ali was busy translating the Holy Quran into English. He had often to consult Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih (ra) about the interpretation of particular verses. In the course of one such interview, while I was present with Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih (ra), the latter expressed himself saying, “Maulawi Sahib (addressing Maulawi Muhammad Ali)! There are verses in the Holy Quran regarding which people have a general misconception and find it difficult to reconcile them with other verses. For example, there is the verse:
(Al-Hajj, 22:41)
And the verse:
(Al-Nisa, 4:152)
And some other verses regarding which it is generally thought that they are in conflict with other verses of the Holy Quran. You are now writing your commentary. You would do well to write something in explanation of this supposed conflict. I shall help you with some notes.” Agreeably to these remarks, Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih (ra) continued from time to time to dictate notes about the meaning of these verses. This conversation took place, while I was present with Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih (ra), and I am prepared to vouch for its truth upon oath. May I inquire whether Maulawi Muhammad Ali also is similarly prepared to vouch upon oath for the accuracy of his version of the incident? The allegation that Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih (ra) ordered Maulawi Muhammad Ali because of some announcement made by me, is such an outrageous distortion of facts, that I really wonder how Maulawi Sahib could resort to it.
The seventh item in Maulawi Muhammad Ali’s account is the statement that Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih (ra) warned me that I had not understood the true significance of the question of Kufr and Islam. In this connection I wish parenthetically to note that in cases of difference of opinion, there are matters regarding which it is possible, without attributing actual dishonesty to one’s opponent to say that the latter is labouring under a misconception. But the account given by Maulawi Muhammad Ali is so far at variance with the facts that one can hardly help expressing the view that he has distorted the facts intentionally. The real facts of the case are as follows: Some 15 or 20 days before his death, Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih, while dictating notes to Maulawi Muhammad Ali, observed, in the course of a point: “There are people who wonder at me and ask what has happened to me that at times I call non-Ahmadis Muslims and at times kuffar. They have failed to understand it. Yes, even our Miyań (meaning the present writer) has not understood it.” Relating to this incident, I have already published in my Al-Qaulul Fasl sworn testimonies of several persons who were present at the time. The same are reproduced below:
“I was with Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih (ra) with several other friends including Miyań Sahib (the present writer) when in the course of his discourse Hazrat observed ‘The question of Kufr and Islam’ is regarded as a most difficult one but in spite of what people say regarding me—that I sometimes call non-Ahmadis Muslims and at other times kuffar—God has given me such an understanding of the question as has not been given to anybody else, not even to our Miyań. I swear by the Omnipresent and Omniscient God that this was what Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih (ra) said.” (Sd.) (Maulawi Sayyid) Muhammad Sarwar (Shah), Principal, Madrassah-e-Diniyyat, Qadian.
“The above statement, so far as I can remember, is quite true except that instead of the words:
i.e. ‘people say regarding me,’ my impression is that Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih said:
i.e. ‘people object to me,’ that I sometimes call the non-Ahmadis kuffar and at other times Muslims.” (Sd.) (Maulawi) Sher Ali, B.A editor, The Review of Religions.
“So far as I can remember Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih (ra) while hearing translation of the Holy Quran which was being done by Maulawi Muhammad Ali expressed himself saying ‘It is objected that I sometimes call non-Ahmadis Muslims and at other times kuffar. It is a difficult matter which has not been understood by any body, not even by the Miyań (the present writer).’ This is another of those questions which remain to be explained to non-Ahmadis.” (Sd.) (Khan) Muhammad Ali Khan, Jagirdar of Malerkotla uncle of the Nawab of Malerkotla.
“I went to the house of Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih to inquire about the state of his health. I saw Maulawi Muhammad Ali reading out the notes of his translation of the Holy Quran. Sahibzadah Sahib (the present writer) was sitting near the head of Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih (ra). At that time Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih (ra) observed ‘It is objected against me that I sometimes call non-Ahmadis kuffar and sometimes Muslims. It is a delicate point which even our Miyań (the present writer) has not quite understood.’” (Sd), Mehr Muhammad Khan of Malerkotla, at present resident of Qadian.
From this evidence it would appear that the observation made by Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih (ra) did not refer to the question of Kufr and Islam as such. It referred rather to the general complaint of inconsistency in his writings—that he sometimes called non-Ahmadis Muslims and at other times kuffar. It was about this complaint that he said, that it arose from a mistaken view of his writings, that there was a general failure to understand their proper sense, that the inconsistency was merely imaginary and that the misunderstanding was so common in the Community that even I had not escaped its influence. These observations of Khalifatul-Masih I (ra) were indeed well founded and as a matter of fact they still hold true. I have just observed that it is difficult to understand how Khalifatul-Masih (ra), I endorsed the article by Khwaja Sahib after having certified the correctness of views set forth in my article. The only possible explanation of the action lies in supposing that Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih I (ra) if he at all read the article by Khwaja Kamaluddin, did not on account of the ambiguity of its language, get at its real intention. He was, therefore, quite justified in remarking that even I had failed to understand the inconsistency. As a matter of fact, even to this day, I am at a loss to reconcile the two actions. As a last resort one may be driven to interpret the few in the light of the many, and the ambiguous in the light of that which is certain. But who can conclude from Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih (ra)’s remarks that according to him I had not understood the question of Kufr and Islam? Even supposing that a person had failed to understand how Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih (ra) could subscribe to an article which proved that non-Ahmadis were kuffar, and again endorse another article which negatived the conclusions of the first, does it necessarily follow that that person fails also to understand the very question of Kufr and Islam? The Holy Quran of course makes mention of a class of people who 
(Al-Nisa, 4:47)—“Change the words from their proper application”—but we were not prepared to meet with an illustration of the same in the learned author of The Split. May God have mercy on him and open his eyes!
Again, all thinking minds may well note the Khalifa’s remarks: “People generally have failed to understand the matter, and even our Miyań has failed to understand it.” From these words it rather appears that, according to Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih (ra), of all Ahmadis I was the person most fitted to understand the matter, and that as even I had failed to reconcile the inconsistency, it was obvious that others also had failed to do so. To quote the remarks of Khalifatul-Masih I (ra) is no advantage to Maulawi Muhammad Ali. The remarks in no wise lead to the conclusion that Maulawi Muhammad Ali understood the question any better. They prove, on the contrary, that the question had not been understood by any Ahmadi. If the remarks implied any warning to me, they implied a greater warning to Maulawi Muhammad Ali because while the remarks make a relieving qualification—even our Miyań—in my case, they include Maulawi Muhammad Ali in the general category. It may here be noted that the Maulawi Sahib has here again tried to trick the reader. While quoting Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih (ra) he has dropped out the word 
—even—which is the key to the whole intention of the remarks made by Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih (ra). The word, however, is present even in the distorted description which his own paper, the Paigham-e-Sulh, published of the incident. The words quoted in the Paigham-e-Sulh are:
—“Even the Miyań has not understood it.” (Paigham-e-Sulh March 3, 1914)
What is more important is that Maulawi Muhammad Ali in his own work, Kufr-o-Islam, has retained the word even in his reference to this incident. The omission of the word even from the quotation in The Split affords, therefore, yet another proof of Maulawi Muhammad Ali’s tendency to tamper with texts.
This offence of Maulawi Sahib increases in gravity when we remember that after the death of Khalifatul-Masih I (ra), and before the question of a successor had yet been decided, Maulawi Sahib, in the course of a conversation with me, made a reference to this incident, when I duly corrected his version of it. As the incident was then of recent occurrence, Maulawi Muhammad Ali did not at the time venture to question my statement. He murmured an admission, and then quickly changed the subject of conversation. Then again, sworn statements of those present on the occasion have since been received and published. There is thus little possibility that Maulawi Muhammad Ali may have forgotten the incident. All the circumstances, therefore, point to the inevitable conclusion that Maulawi Muhammad Ali has been purposely distorting the facts. In addition to the sworn testimony of several persons present on the occasion, I myself am prepared to affirm on oath the truth of my version of the incident, and shall de glad to know whether Maulawi Muhammad Ali, and his friends, who were present, are prepared to affirm on oath their version of the incident. I am sure none of them will be so bold as to take such an oath. They will only make pretences to escape the ordeal.
The eighth item in Maulawi Muhammad Ali’s narrative is the statement that he wrote a small pamphlet which was read over to Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih (ra) that the latter approved of the views expressed therein, but that the pamphlet could not be published in the lifetime of Khalifatul-Masih I (ra). There is no doubt that Maulawi Muhammad Ali did write a pamphlet on the question of the Kufr or Islam of non-Ahmadis, and read it over to Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih (ra). But the statement that he approved of the views referred to therein is what I find hard to believe. There is no written testimony which could bear out the fact of Hazrat’s approval, while, on the contrary “evidence” both external and internal, goes to prove the reverse. As external evidence, I quote below statements from Hafiz Raushan Ali Sahib and Dr. Khalifa Rashiduddin, L.M.S.
Facts connected with the tract Kufr-o-Islam by Maulawi Muhammad Ali, as narrated by Hafiz Raushan Ali Sahib:
“I remember that towards the close of his life, while Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih (ra) was prostrate in his last illness, very likely sometime in the month of February 1914—he was still living in his own house in old Qadian—I was once sitting in the office of the Al-Fadl in company with Sahibzadah Mirza Bashir-ud-Deen Mahmood Ahmad, when there came to us my teacher Hafiz Ghulam Rasul Wazirabadi. He told us that Maulawi Muhammad Ali had written an article on the subject of Kufr which he would read out to Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih (ra) next Friday after the service, and that he intended to read it out in private. Upon this Sahibzadah Sahib said that he too would be present at the reading, and that as the subject concerned an important question of belief we also should be present at the time. Accordingly, when Friday came, I resolved to visit the house of Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih (ra) soon after the Juma prayers, and so I did. When I reached the yard of the house, the following came out of the room of Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih (ra): (1) Maulawi Muhammad Ali (2) Mirza Ya‘qub Baig (8) Shaikh Rahmatullah and (4) Dr. Muhammad Husain Shah. At that time Maulawi Muhammad Ali held some papers folded in his hand. They inquired of me whether the Juma prayers were over. I answered, “Yes.” I felt sure that they had foregone the Juma prayers in order to secure the desired privacy to read out the article to Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih (ra). I also learnt that Dr. Khalifa Rashiduddin had also been with them, but had left before my arrival. I then went over to the house of the Doctor for further inquiry and asked him whether they had attended the Juma prayers. He said that Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih (ra) had to be given a bath, so it was necessary for the doctors to remain in attendance. I said, that Maulawi Muhammad Ali and Shaikh Rahmatullah were no doctors. Why then did they miss the Juma prayer? To this, the Doctor replied that they had waited there in order to read out an article to Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih (ra). I inquired, “And did they read out the same to Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih?” The Doctor said, “No. Twice or thrice they asked leave to read, but Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih (ra) declined saying he was going to take rest. Thus they failed in the object for which they had forgone their Juma prayers.” After this I came back to Sahibzadah Sahib and related to him the whole story. Then I went back to the house of Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih and sat down determined not to leave the place till Maulawi Muhammad Ali had either read the article or returned home disappointed. Maulawi Muhammad Ali waited in the house of Maulawi Sadruddin looking for the time when I should leave Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih (ra), while I looked for the time when Maulawi Muhammad Ali should read out his article to him. At length came the time for the Maghrib prayers. Maulawi Muhammad Ali now departed for his house out of town, and I departed for the Maghrib prayers. After the prayers I said to Sahibzadah Sahib, “Friday has passed and Maulawi Muhammad Ali has not read out his article to Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih (ra).” To this Sahibzadah Sahib replied, “Well, when he is determined so far to keep it a secret and does not wish that we should know anything about it, it is better to leave him alone. How long can we keep watch over him? Let us instead pray to God and fast that these troubles and travails may be averted.” After this, we paid no further attention to Maulawi Muhammad Ali. The latter, however, did not have the opportunity to read out his article either on Saturday or on Sunday following. But the night following Sunday or, may be, the night following Monday he made arrangements, to prevent people from coming to Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih’s (ra) house and had the opportunity to read out the article. He posted some Pathans to guard the doors of the house and told them it was the Khalifa’s command that nobody should be allowed to enter in. At this time, Mir Nasir Nawab Sahib called to inquire about the health of Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih (ra). The guards told him that nobody was permitted to enter. Similarly, Sufi Maulawi Ghulam Muhammad B. A. also came to inquire of his health. He also was sent back. Then came Dr. Khalifa Rashiduddin. He too was stopped by the guards. But he said that he was a doctor and nobody could prevent his entrance. He forcibly made his way in. Coming to Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih (ra) he inquired of him whether he had given orders not to allow people to come in. Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih (ra) replied that he had given no such orders. Dr. Khalifa Rashiduddin subsequently reported that at that time Maulawi Muhammad Ali was reading out his article to Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih (ra). When he had finished, Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih (ra) asked him whether he felt fully satisfied with the article. Maulawi Muhammad Ali said, “Yes.” Thereupon, Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih (ra) said that he himself was not fully satisfied with the article. Maulawi Muhammad Ali made several attempts to get Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih (ra) to sign the article, but always remained unsuccessful.”
Written on the 27th August, 1919, by Ata Muhammad, Assistant to Hafiz Raushan Ali Sahib.
“I attest that the above account has been dictated by me.” (Sd.) Raushan Ali.
“I attest the correctness of the account dictated by Hafiz Raushan Ali and state that it is all in accordance with facts and is quite accurate.” (Sd.) Khalifa Rashiduddin, Civil Assistant Surgeon (Retired), Physician in attendance on Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih I (ra).”
In addition to the above testimonies, there was the testimony of the late Sahibzadah Abdul Hayi, son of Khalifatul-Masih I (ra), who told me that Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih (ra) did not approve of the article and said that it required further consideration and that therefore Maulawi Muhammad Ali must not make haste to publish it. This testimony received confirmation from actual facts, as we may notice that the article was not published so long as Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih (ra) was alive, although another pamphlet which Maulawi Muhammad Ali wrote later, in anticipation of the death of Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih (ra) on the subject of succession to the Khilafat, was published during his lifetime. What is the conclusion to be drawn from all this evidence? This question, which hardly needs an answer, will be answered by the conscience of every reader.
The ninth item in Maulawi Muhammad Ali’s account is that Ahmadis accepted my Bai‘at under several misconceptions, and that many of them are now openly averse to beliefs held by me. For example, even Maulawi Muhammad Ahsan, the oldest and the most learned living Companion of the Promised Messiah (as), has issued a handbill declaring that I am not fit for the office of Khilafat, because I have been promulgating the following erroneous beliefs.
That all the followers of the Qibla, professing the Kalima, are kuffar.
That the Promised Messiah (as) was a perfect and real Prophet and not a partial Prophet or Muhaddath.
That the prophecy about Ahmad in Chapter Saff of the Holy Quran relates to the Promised Messiah (as) and not to the Holy Prophet (sas).
In dealing with these charges, I wish in the first instance to state that it is altogether wrong to say that people accepted my Bai‘at under any misconception regarding my views. My principles and beliefs had been published long before I was elected to the office of Khalifa. My views on the question of the prophethood of the Promised Messiah (as) had been expounded in a lecture I delivered in 1910. This lecture was duly published in the organs of the Ahmadiyya Movement. They were also to be found in other writings of mine. I had also published a tract on the subject of the Kufr of those who did not accept the Promised Messiah (as), and, in the words of Maulawi Muhammad Ali himself, I had in 1913 once again announced that those who did not believe in the Promised Messiah (as) were kuffar. In the presence of so many repeated declarations, how can it be said that people entered my Bai‘at through a misconception? It is true that there are a few who first entered my Bai‘at and then renounced it. But, on the other hand, more than a hundred times their number have later replaced these defections. When I was elected there was only an inconsiderable number who accepted my Bai‘at. The majority of the Jama‘ats in centres outside held back through misunderstandings created by these very people. But God worked on my behalf and gradually gathered the whole Community to my side. It is wrong therefore to say that people entered my Bai‘at through any misconception. They continue still to enter and from December last up to now (March 1919), about 25 persons from among the followers of Maulawi Muhammad Ali have accepted me as the true Khalifa. All this has happened in spite of the fact that I have refrained from devoting any attention to my opponents who have been spending the bulk of their funds and energy against me. Wherever our men have gone to preach the truth of Ahmadiyyat, there their men have followed them in order to create an aversion in the public mind against us and often against Ahmadiyyat itself. If I, on my part, had cared to devote to these people even half the time which they have been wasting in their activities against us, then, by the grace of God, we could have had even larger results. It seems to us better, however, that our energy should be devoted to the propagation of Islam and the advance of Ahmadiyyat. Accordingly, all our lecturers are directed to work only among non- Ahmadis and non-Muslims. On the other hand, nearly all the lecturers of Maulawi Muhammad Ali’s party are engaged in misleading Ahmadis. Nevertheless, those who have deserted us to join Maulawi Muhammad Ali’s party are few, and have been compensated many time over by those who have left his party to join us. I am prepared, in case Maulawi Muhammad Ali desires, to furnish proof.
As for his statement that a majority of the enlightened Ahmadis are opposed to my views, it is but a claim for which Maulawi Muhammad Ali has still to furnish some evidence. Of course, if we start with the assumption that those who belong to his way of thinking are enlightened and those who do not are not, then certainly not a majority but rather all the enlightened members of the Community have abandoned my party and joined his. If, however, such an assumption is inadmissible, then there is no evidence for Maulawi Muhammad Ali’s claim. For, if there are any men learned in religion whom Maulawi Muhammad Ali can produce from among his followers, then there is a much larger number of them whom I can produce from among my followers. This is, however, a futile method of arguing, useless for the establishment of truth. If, however, Maulawi Muhammad Ali is fond of arguing in this way, we are quite prepared to stand even this comparison of strength.
Maulawi Muhammad Ali’s narrative seeks also to prove that the enlightened members of the Community who still continue as my followers, are opposed to the beliefs held by me. If words used by him, which carry the above sense, are deliberate and intentional, then I cannot but say that he has only attempted to mislead people. For those who are with me agree in my beliefs, and if there is anywhere any stray exception, the case is beyond my knowledge, and such exceptions can in no wise serve as the basis of an argument. I do not, of course, speak of those few men who are openly consorting with Maulawi Muhammad Ali, but who still for considerations of expediency are averse to making a public declaration of the renunciation of this Bai‘at. These men by their conduct have proved themselves hypocrites. But even they are negligibly small in number.
Now to those statements which Maulawi Muhammad Ali has made concerning Maulawi Sayyid Muhammad Ahsan. In the first place, I wish to say that the statement made by Maulawi Muhammad Ali that Maulawi Sayyid Muhammad Ahsan is the oldest living Companion of the Promised Messiah (as) is quite wrong. There are among my followers men still living who entered into the Bai‘at of the Promised Messiah (as) long before Maulawi Sayyid Muhammad Ahsan, and who had become attached to the Promised Messiah (as) at a time before the said Sayyid Sahib had even heard his name. For example, there is Shaikh
Hamid Ali Sahib (ra) who was the third of those who accepted the Bai‘at of the Promised Messiah (as), and Munshi Rura Sahib,4 retired Tahsildar of Kapurthala, who was the seventh or eighth of those who entered into the Promised Messiah’s (as) Bai‘at. This last gentleman, some years ago, migrated to Qadian. He is one of those who possessed a special attachment for the Promised Messiah (as), and about him the Promised Messiah (as) wrote on page 799 of Izala’-e-Auham: “He is attached to me by a bond of love.” The Promised Messiah (as) entertained a special affection for him, a fact well-known to visitors to Qadian. Munshi Rura Khan belonged to the Ahmadiyya Jama‘at of Kapurthala. With regard to this Jama‘at, the Promised Messiah (as) was pleased to remark, “I hope that by the grace and bounty of God you will be with me in this life and the next” (Letters of the Promised Messiah (as) to Muhammad Khan Sahib of Kapurthala, dated 27th January, 1894—reproduced from the Badr, October 1st, 1908). All members of this Jama‘at are in my Bai‘at. Similarly, there is Mir Inayat Ali Shah Sahib (ra) of Ludhiana who was the ninth of those who accepted the Bai‘at of the Promised Messiah (as). There is also Maulawi Abdullah Sahib of Sanaur, who is the witness of a great miracle of the Promised Messiah (as), and regarding whom the Promised Messiah (as) made the prophecy, “I am fully assured that God has filled your heart with sincerity and love. You possess a natural affinity and your love is such that it cannot change with the passing of time” (Extract from the Promised Messiah’s (as) letter to Maulawi Abdullah of Sanaur, dated 6th March 1908. This letter will be found fully reproduced elsewhere in this book). This gentleman too is, by the grace of God, among my followers. There is also Munshi Zafar Ahmad Sahib, who was one of the earliest to accept the Bai‘at of the Promised Messiah (as), and who entertains a more than ordinary attachment for the Promised Messiah (as), and is at present a member of the Kapurthala Jama‘at. Similarly, there are Munshi Abdur Rahman Sahib and Munshi Fayyaduddin Sahib, both of Kapurthala. All of them are deeply devoted members of the Movement, and all of them entered into the Bai‘at of the Promised Messiah (as) long before Maulawi Muhammad Ahsan. There is also Pir Sirajul Haq Nu‘mani who was not only one of the earliest to accept the Bai‘at, but had also at several times lived in the company of the Promised Messiah (as). These gentlemen not only joined the Promised Messiah (as) earlier than Maulawi Muhammad Ahsan, but are mostly such as enjoyed more of his society than was the case with Maulawi Sayyid Muhammad Ahsan. Thus it is altogether wrong to say that Maulawi Sayyid Muhammad Ahsan is the oldest Companion of the Promised Messiah (as). The earliest work in which the Promised Messiah (as) enumerated the names of the men who joined him is Izala-e-Auham. Of the persons mentioned therein, there are eighteen now alive regarding whom the Promised Messiah (as) was pleased to record his remarks. Out of this number, fourteen have entered my Bai‘at and four have joined the party of Maulawi Sahib. Can there still be any doubt as to which side enjoys the confidence of the majority of the Promised Messiah’s (as) Companions?
Nor am I prepared to agree with Maulawi Muhammad Ali that Maulawi Sayyid Muhammad Ahsan is the most learned man in the whole of the Ahmadiyya Movement. It is no easy matter to determine the extent of a person’s learning. In my opinion, Maulawi Sayyid Sarwar Shah Sahib and Qazi Sayyid Amir Husain Sahib are in no way inferior to Maulawi Sayyid Muhammad Ahsan in the matter of scholarship. I may also include Maulawi Hafiz Raushan Ali Sahib who, although young in years, may be reckoned among the aged in learning. Thus, neither on ground of years, nor on the ground of learning, does Maulawi Sayyid Muhammad Ahsan enjoy any such pre-eminence over the rest of the Community as might entitle his pronouncements to any special authority. It is true that by reason of his learning and his age he enjoyed the general regard of both the educated and the ordinary members of the Movement; and, as for myself, I do even now hold him in esteem for the sake of the respect he enjoyed in the past. I am of opinion that the said Sayyid Sahib is labouring under a sad delusion, and that God willing, when he recovers his normal self, he will turn again to the Centre. May God fulfil the hope that it is only a passing trial which he is undergoing, and that he will come out victorious in the end, and that God will save him from the fate of the old woman, spoken of in the Holy Quran, who span her yarn during the day and undid it during the night. Amen!
I now proceed to deal with the charges upon the grounds of which Maulawi Sayyid Muhammad Ahsan claims to depose me from the Khilafat. I would, however, note in passing that the appointment of a Khalifa is the work of God, and that it lies with God alone to depose him. It is in no man’s power either to appoint or to depose a Khalifa. Thus my appointment as Khalifa was not due to Maulawi Muhammad Ahsan, nor could I be deposed by his command. It is, indeed, one of the favours of God, that since the announcement of deposition by Maulawi Sayyid Muhammad Ahsan, further success has come and continues to come to me. From that time up to now (March 1919), some fifteen to twenty thousand new members have joined me and every day brings more and more success. May God add to the success. Amen!
It is not my intention at this stage to enter into a discussion of the charges brought against me by Maulawi Sayyid Muhammad Ahsan, nor shall I attempt here to prove or disprove the beliefs which he states. A full discussion of these beliefs will be made further on. All I wish to say at this place is that it is hardly proper on the part of Sayyid Sahib to attack me on the ground of those beliefs. It was certainly open to him to say that the error of those beliefs is now manifest to him, and that he has therefore, decided to renounce them, or he could have said that, in addition to those beliefs, there were some novel beliefs which I had adopted, and that it was on account of these that he would now renounce my Bai‘at. But he has no justification to speak of the beliefs held by me, as novel or heretical, or to make them the ground of an announcement against me. I say this because he has been familiar with those beliefs for a long time before now, and was well aware of them, when the Bai‘at of my Khilafat was held. For, as Maulawi Muhammad Ali admits, my article on the subject of Kufr of non-Ahmadis was published in the Tashhidhul Adhhan of April 1911 and, as he further admits, I have since been writing regularly on the subject. Thus when even in the lifetime of Khalifatul-Masih I (ra), I had declared non-Ahmadis to be kuffar, and this was well-known to members of the Movement, I can only wonder why Maulawi Sayyid Muhammad Ahsan, who knew all this, entered into my Bai‘at. If my beliefs were really such that their entertainment rendered me unfit for the office of Khalifa, how was it that on the day of the election in the Masjid Nur, it was he who stood up to propose me for the Khilafat, and he who made a powerful speech in my support? A more proper attitude for him, on seeing people wish to enter into my Bai‘at, would have been to dissuade them from doing so, to point out that I had pronounced all Muslims to be kuffar, and that therefore I was not fit to be their Khalifa. As it happens, I have had no occasion to enter into any elaborate discussion of this question of Kufr of non-Ahmadis, since my election as Khalifa. The most important article I wrote on the subject was the one published during the lifetime of Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih I (ra). Accordingly, if holding this belief is really a valid ground for my deposition from the Khilafat, the blame attaches to Sayyid Sahib who, in spite of my holding the belief, was so strong in his support of my election as Khalifa. Besides, it may also be noted that on the eve of the meeting at which God was pleased to decide the question of successor to the Khilafat, Maulawi Muhammad Ali came to pay me a call. There were present on the occasion Maulawi Muhammad Ahsan, Dr. Khalifa Rashiduddin, and Nawab Muhammad Ali Khan, Jagirdar of Malerkotla. Maulawi Muhammad Ali at that time laid stress upon this very question. He pointed out that it was difficult to proceed with the election of a Khalifa, because there was such serious disparity of beliefs prevailing in the Community. One party regarded the Promised Messiah (as) as a Nabi and his deniers as kuffar while the other party refused to subscribe to any such doctrine. Upon this, it was Maulawi Muhammad Ahsan who engaged Maulawi Muhammad Ali in argument, and tried to establish the validity of our beliefs. But I restrained him pointing out that the occasion was not one for the settlement of differences of belief. The question immediately before us was how to find a solution of the impasse, and in any case a settlement of beliefs required time. I am prepared to swear to the truth of this incident, and I ask Maulawi Muhammad Ali to say whether he too is prepared to swear that he did not refer at this meeting to our beliefs, and that Maulawi Muhammad Ahsan was not one of those who argued with him in order to establish their validity.
Now, to the subject of prophethood. On this subject also, as I have already stated, I had publicly explained my views in a speech I delivered on the occasion of the Annual Conference of the year 1910. I had there stated in plain words that the Promised Messiah (as) was a Nabi. I have already quoted a number of passages from this speech. Here I shall content myself with quoting one more passage: “A Nabi from God has appeared among us. If we follow him, we shall reap all the rewards promised to the Companions of the Holy Prophet (sas).” In this passage not only was the Promised Messiah (as) distinctly called a Nabi, but mention was also made of the eminence of his rank by saying that his followers were to be classed with the Companions of the Holy Prophet (sas). When I delivered the speech, Maulawi Muhammad Ahsan was present in the gathering and no sooner had I finished speaking than he broke out reciting in a loud voice the Quranic verse:
“They do not fear the slander of any slanderer.”
This, however, was not all. The next day, Maulawi Sayyid Muhammad Ahsan himself delivered an address in the Masjid Aqsa. In the course of this address also, he praised my lecture and in these words:
“There was a revelation to the Promised Messiah (as):
‘I give you glad tidings of a boy, the manifestation of truth and greatness.’”
The revelation was in accord with the prophecy contained in the Hadith relating to the Promised Messiah (as) 
—that he would marry and would be granted sons who would be great. We have accordingly, amongst us Mirza Bashir-ud-Deen Mahmood Ahmad who, in addition to being the noble son of a noble father, has in spite of his extreme youth disclosed, in the sermon he delivered in explanation of some Quranic verses, such a depth of knowledge and such an insight into truth as is indeed without a parallel. Now if any one were to slight him, and to speak about him saying that he was a child of yesterday, reared by their hands, given to sport and frolic, then one ought to remember that such remarks were the characteristic of the Pharaoh who spoke to Moses (as) saying, “Did we not rear thee in our midst as a child? You lived amongst us many a year of your life.” Well brother! If such thoughts were to arise in the heart of any of you, you should seek forgiveness of God, because the end of the Pharaoh was bad indeed (The Badr for January, 1911). Thus, it is impossible to say that Maulawi Sayyid Muhammad Ahsan had no knowledge of the beliefs which I held.
He knew all about them. He accepted my Bai‘at with full knowledge of their nature. And now, on the ground of those same beliefs, he has renounced my Bai‘at. Who is there who, under the circumstances, will look upon his action with approval? One more point to be remembered, in this connection, is that my belief regarding the nature of the Promised Messiah’s (as) prophethood is the same as that of Maulawi Sayyid Muhammad Ahsan, as stated by him in the Tashhidhul Adhhan. The difference is merely one of terminology.
Yet a third doctrine, alleged to have been newly promulgated by me, is my belief that the Promised Messiah (as) is the object of the prophecy relating to Ahmad which occurs in Chapter Al-Saff of the Holy Quran. Whatever may be the merit of this belief of mine, it was promulgated long before Maulawi Sayyid Muhammad Ahsan took the oath of Bai‘at; and even after its publication the said Maulawi Sahib remained for a long time on friendly relations with me. It was, in fact, during the lifetime of Khalifatul-Masih I, that I wrote an article on the subject of the prophecy relating to Ahmad; only, it could not be shown to Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih (ra). My friend Qazi Zahuruddin Akmal published the article in the Tashhidhul Adhhan soon after I became Khalifa, and it was no less than two years after its publication that Maulawi Sayyid Muhammad Ahsan announced his revocation of the Bai‘at. During all this time he consistently supported me and my party, and opposed Maulawi Muhammad Ali and his coadjutors. Thus, it would appear that even this belief could not be the real ground for his revocation of the Bai‘at.
Before finishing this point, I wish to cite one written testimony from the pen of Maulawi Sayyid Muhammad Ahsan himself which shows that all the three doctrines had met with his entire approval, that he had bestowed upon the opponents of these doctrines opprobrious names like Pharaoh, etc. In fact, it appears that it was due to my advocacy of these very doctrines that he recognised me to be the Promised son of the Promised Messiah (as).
When, towards the close of the year 1914, Khwaja Kamaluddin returned from England, he delivered a lecture at Lahore at a meeting of the friends and partisans of Maulawi Muhammad Ali. The lecture was printed and widely distributed. I published a reply to it in my book called Al-Qaulul Fasl. In that book I discussed all the three questions: (i) the prophethood of the Promised Messiah (as), (ii) Kufr of non-Ahmadis, (iii) the Quranic Prophecy relating to Ahmad. By way of illustration I shall here quote a few passages from the book, bearing upon all the three subjects:
“If one were to define Haqiqi Nabi (real Prophet) as a Prophet who is not an impostor or pretender but a Prophet who has really been sent by God, who bears the title of Nabi in the sense of an accredited messenger of God, agreeably to the sense in which the word is used in the Holy Quran and possesses all the attributes requisite in a Nabi in their proper measure, then in view of such a definition, I would say that the Promised Messiah (as) was a Haqiqi Nabi, but, of course, I would not give him that name if it is understood to mean that he brought a new Law.” (Al-Qaulul Fasl, page 12)
Again,
“According to us what is meant by the Promised Messiah (as) being a Zilli or a Baruzi Nabi, is simply this that his Nubuwwat (prophethood) was attained by virtue of his pupillage and obedience to the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sas), whereas the previous Prophets attained this rank directly, and the words do not imply that the Nubuwwat (prophethood) of the Promised Messiah (as) was something of the nature of an honorary title which had no real substance behind it, or that his Nubuwwat did not entitle him to the status and privileges of Prophets.” (Al- Qaulul Fasl, p. 18)
In the same book, there is to be found from page 2 to 26 a discussion of the question of the Nubuwwat of the Promised Messiah (as). Therein light has been thrown upon every possible aspect of the question, and nothing has been omitted from the discussion. Further on from page 27 to 32, has been discussed the prophecy concerning Ahmad. A few extracts from this discussion are now quoted: “The Promised Messiah (as) has called himself Ahmad, and said that it was he who was the real object of the prophecy, because he said that in this passage (the verse Ismuhu Ahmad in Chapter Al-Saff of the Holy Quran), there is a prophecy concerning Ahmad, alone, whereas the Holy Prophet was both Ahmad and Muhammad” (Al- Qaulul Fasl, page 27). Again, I wrote on page 31, “The person who is referred to in Ismuhu Ahmad is the Promised Messiah (as).” In short, in six pages of the book I proved by quotations from the writings of the Promised Messiah (as) and the testimony of Khalifatul-Masih I (ra), that the Promised Messiah (as) was the real object of the Quranic prophecy concerning Ahmad. Regarding the question of Kufr of non-Ahmadis, I wrote on page 33 of the book, “The other question discussed by Khwaja Sahib is that of Kufr of non-Ahmadis. Regarding this question, I have already published the writings of the Promised Messiah (as) which have a bearing on the subject. Further explanation is unnecessary. My belief continues to be the same as before.” Below in a footnote, it was noted, “For details, see Tashhidhul Adhhan for April 1911.” This was the number in which was published my article running over 40 pages on the subject of Kufr of non-Ahmadis, from which several extracts have already been quoted above. I wrote, “Thus, whatever the Holy Quran says concerning such people as disbelieve in any Prophet is applicable to the deniers of Mirza Sahib (the Promised Messiah (as)).” (Al-Qaulul Fasl, p. 33)
From the above quotations, it is evident that the book Al-Qaulul Fasl, declared in the clearest possible terms that the Promised Messiah (as) was a Nabi, and his deniers kuffar, and that he was the object of the prophecy contained in the Quranic verse relating to Ahmad. The book was published in January 1915, and a copy of it was forwarded to Maulawi Sayyid Muhammad Ahsan. Maulawi Sahib in a letter to Qazi Zahuruddin Akmal wrote about the book as follows:
“I have had the book Al-Qaulul Fasl read over to me from beginning to end. I have already expressed my opinion about it that it has given to the opponents of the Khilafat a conclusive argument in proof of their error.”
Further, a letter also came to me from Sayyid Muhammad Ya‘qub, son of Maulawi Sayyid Muhammad Ahsan wherein he wrote on behalf of his father: “The book Al-Qaulul Fasl was read over by me to my father. He was so glad to hear the claims and the arguments that he forgot, for the moment the discomforts of age and the pains of the ailments from which he has been suffering, and gave vent to his feelings in the words, ‘Praise be to God, I have lived to see the day for which I had been waiting for years.’” The writer continued, “I may mention here on behalf of my father regarding this tribe of the Pharaoh namely, the Lahore party, that it has transpired that one Devil5 among them, in speaking about the book Al-Qaulul Fasl, referred to its author saying that he was an evil minded man, a liar, a man of craft and that he would work to expose all his toils. These foul words are among the least uttered by the man. His condition is in fact similar to that of the Pharaoh. If he will not repent, then, in the end, he will be engulfed in a Hood of darkness. Amen!” (Dated, February 11, 1915)
From these letters, written by or on behalf of Maulawi Sayyid Muhammad Ahsan, it would appear that he had carefully heard the book Al-Qaulul Fasl from beginning to end, and had found its conclusions both valid and well-demonstrated. In other words, he considered the subject matter of the book to be at once correct and well-substantiated by the testimony of God and His holy men. He was so pleased to hear the book that he forgot his physical discomfort; and moreover its hearing enabled him to discover in me one he had been waiting for, for years (He was here referring to the prophecy relating to a Promised son of the Promised Messiah (as), a subject to which he was never tired of referring in all his writings and discourses). We may also note that he regarded the decriers of the book as the followers of the Pharaoh or like the Pharaoh himself—men who were in danger of being engulfed in a flood of darkness. After such exuberant assurances of approval and support which Maulawi Sayyid Muhammad Ahsan was pleased to accord to my beliefs, it seems altogether inexplicable that he should on the ground of those very beliefs, now announce his renunciation of my Bai‘at. Such an abrupt change is incredible in any rational person. I am certain the actual reasons must be far other than those avowed. Either the said Sayyid Sahib has been grossly deceived, or words have been attributed to him which he never uttered. At any rate, it is hardly right to say that the oldest and most learned of the living Companions of the Promised Messiah (as) has written against my beliefs, because after such an unreserved support of them, for the same person to call them heretical can never be expected from any rational man. Regarding the subject of the Kufr of non-Ahmadis I had, as already mentioned, published an article in Tashhidhul Adhhan. This article was cordially supported by Maulawi Sayyid Muhammad Ahsan in a certain letter, some extracts from which are quoted below and will, it is hoped, be found illuminating by every fair-minded reader. Maulawi Sayyid Muhammad Ahsan wrote in reference to my article above mentioned: “In my opinion, in the discussion on the subjects of Kufr and kafir, you have fully discharged your duty of conveying the message. Henceforth, there is no more need for you to devote your attention to this subject. As the Holy Quran says, ‘They can never do you any harm so long as you are yourself rightly guided.’” This letter dealt with the subject of my article on the Kufr of non-Ahmadis, which was published in April 1911. The letter itself was written by Maulawi Sahib on the 6th September 1911 from his home at Amroha.
The tenth item in Maulawi Muhammad Ali’s narrative is that, besides Maulawi Sayyid Muhammad Ahsan, other enlightened members of the Ahmadiyya Community are now realising the error of my beliefs and their dissatisfaction is becoming more and more pronounced every day.
I have already dealt with this subject, but I may mention here once more that, by the grace of God, all the members of my Jama‘at, except such rare instances as may be known to God alone, are quite at one with me in the matter of beliefs. It would indeed be surprising if in this age of free thought and speech, educated men should find themselves opposed to my doctrines and still remain my followers, and in spite of the fact that I possess no temporal authority or power. The fact that they are with me, is itself a positive proof of the fact that they are at one with me in their views. But, nevertheless if Maulawi Muhammad Ali still thinks that he is right in his statement, then the best course for him is to publish a list of such educated members as are dissatisfied with my beliefs. If, however, he has in his mind the few who have gone over to him from among my followers, then I would request him to compare their number with the number of those who have left his ranks in order to enter my Bai‘at.
The eleventh item in Maulawi Muhammad Ali’s account is his charge of narrow-mindedness against me. This, he says, has led me to condemn Ahmadis as Fasiqs (rebels). Such a charge comes with very bad grace from him who, in the very first pages of his book has been pleased to call me and my Companions by the name of Dal (perverts). I ask which is the harsher term, Dal or Fasiq. Dal implies such a bad sense that Muslims have been taught to pray five times a day, that is, in all their daily prayers, that they may be saved from being turned into Dal. But, nevertheless, Maulawi Muhammad Ali has not scrupled to bestow that title on us (pp. 3—8 of The Split). If, however, it is contended that we have been given that name under the authority of the Quran and the Hadith then our rejoinder is that the name of Fasiq has been given to Maulawi Muhammad Ali and his party in conformity with the verse relating to the institution of Khilafat in Chapter Nur of the Holy Quran, where after promising the advent of Khulafa’ from among Muslims, the Holy Quran proceeds to say that those who will not obey such Khulafa’ will be Fasiqs, Thus, whereas our opponents possess no justification for giving us the name of Dal, we have the sanction of the Quran in our use of the term Fasiq. Besides the explicit dictum of the Quran, we possess the precedent of Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih (ra) who openly called them Fasiqs who refused to obey his commands, and so far as we know Maulawi Muhammad Ali and his partisans still profess to respect his decisions.
The twelfth item in Maulawi Muhammad Ali’s narrative of the dissensions is that I have prohibited my followers from having anything to do with members of the other section; that I have prohibited them from eating at the same table with them, from mixing with them in social intercourse, and from reading any book or tract published by them. Thus my followers have been kept ignorant of the arguments which are being given in refutation of such of my beliefs as are contrary to the views of the Promised Messiah (as). This last link in Maulawi Muhammad Ali’s account of the events which led up to the split in the Community is as feeble and flimsy as any of his other statements. I have never forbidden any of my followers from making friends with any members of the seceding party, or from eating at the same table with them, or from reading their literature. The whole charge is a libel fabricated by Maulawi Muhammad Ali. In fact on the contrary, I find that when in the year 1915, at the death of Maulawi Abdul Hayi, son of Hazrat Khalifatul-Masih I (ra), Maulawi Muhammad Ali paid a visit to Qadian in company with some of his friends, I took the opportunity to invite him to my house, and sent Maulawi Sher Ali to escort him to my place, but Maulawi Muhammad Ali was pleased to decline the invitation. Similarly, when earlier in the same year, I had an occasion to pay a visit to Lahore for some medical consultation, some of my friends sent invitation to Maulawi Muhammad Ali and some of his friends. But they declined the invitation. On another occasion, Shaikh Rahmatullah, one of the partisans of Maulawi Muhammad Ali, paid a visit to Qadian and proceeded directly to the Maqbarah-e-Bahishti. Somebody brought the news to me, whereupon I sent somebody to escort him to my house, and also went personally to meet him. I requested him to stop at Qadian, but he declined the request on the plea of urgent work. In a like manner, members of my party make it a point to mix with members of the other party, wherever such meetings are possible. But there are people who are prone to pick quarrels and are intent upon mischief. Their sole object is to deceive others, and they always wait for an opportunity to create trouble. These are the men who sow the seeds of disbelief and dissension. From such people my followers, of course, make it a point to keep away; nor do I myself approve of such association. But, nevertheless, so far as I can remember, I have never as yet issued any pronouncement on this subject. Apart, however, from these considerations, may not one ask of Maulawi Muhammad Ali, what right has he to bring the present charge against me, seeing that he himself declined to accept my invitation? He himself stands charged with departing from the example of the Holy Prophet (sas) in declining my invitation. After that it was no longer my duty to accept his invitation. To accept his invitation, under the circumstances, would have been dishonourable, and believers ought never to compromise their honour. I sought long not to cut off relations with this opposite party, and to see them return to the fold of truth. But Maulawi Muhammad Ali, from the beginning, saw his advantage in dissension and strife. It was because of this that he departed from Qadian, and founded a new Anjuman of his own, and published various slanders against me. After that, what right has he to expect that I should continue to be friendly with him? In the first place, by their denial of the Khilafat and by their attempt to create a breach in the Community, Maulawi Muhammad Ali and his associates—who were at the bottom of these dissensions—made themselves liable in the eye of the Shariah to have all intercourse with them suspended,6 and to be left severely alone by the Community. But, nevertheless, when as a kind of special concession, I sought to keep up relations with them, they plainly declined to respond to my overtures, and refused to accept our repeated invitations. And now they have the grace to lay the same charge at our door! Maulawi Muhammad Ali and his associates sometimes point to a certain article by Qazi Zahuruddin Akmal in support of this charge. This article was written after the return of Khwaja Kamaluddin from England, and it contained an exhortation to the Community to beware of him. But my accusers ought to remember that, in the first place, the article was not written by me; it expressed the view of one individual member of my following. In the second place, the article contained an exhortation to Ahmadis generally relating to a leading disturber. It did not speak of the mutual relations of the two sides, or of their leading members. This was apparent from the fact that the writer himself called at their headquarters, in order to see Maulawi Muhammad Ali, but the latter paid no attention to him, and failed to show him the ordinary civility due to a visitor. If the article was intended by the author to have any general application, then their was no reason why he himself should have gone to meet Maulawi Muhammad Ali. The fact is that the charge is merely an excuse fabricated with a view to justifying their own aloofness from me and my Jama‘at. A careful inquiry will show how my Jama‘at have all along shown more readiness to mix with his adherents than they have shown to mix with mine. On the occasion of their annual gathering a good few of my followers invariably go and attend, but none of his adherents have ever attended our annual gatherings except on the last occasion when some of their members attended in response to a special invitation. Moreover, whenever any one of our members has happened to go among them, everything has been done to show him disrespect and contempt. For instance, only a few days ago I received a letter from one of my friends Miyań Abdul Aziz, a P. W. D. overseer, which said that he had gone to those people but they did not allow him to stop with them. In short, they have now increased so much in their animosity to my Jama‘at and have gone so deep in duplicity that any one of my friends who goes to mix with them runs the risk of hurting his self-respect. At present, their general attitude towards my adherents is one of indifference, save towards such people whom they expect to win over to their views or from whom they hope to derive some advantage.
As regards a study of their books, it may confidently be asserted that there will be found more members of my party who have studied their books than members of Maulawi Muhammad Ali’s party who have cared to make themselves acquainted with our books.
And lastly, I wish to state that while I have been busy writing this part of my reply there has been yet another opportunity to disprove and expose the utter groundlessness of the charge made by Maulawi Muhammad Ali that I have kept my followers in the dark by prohibiting them from hearing the arguments of his party. This happened as follows. Our annual gathering for the year 1918, which on account of my indisposition could not be held as usual in December 1918, was held in March 1919. On this occasion, I sent a special invitation to members of the other section. In response, some 30 selected members of Maulawi Sahib’s party attended our meetings. They requested me for permission to speak at one of our meetings. Seeing that they were our guests, I acceded to the request, and asked them to appoint one of their number who might explain their views to those assembled, and speak for such time as they granted to one of our members to speak at one of their meetings. To this, they replied that among their number there was none who could speak on the occasion. They, therefore, asked that Sayyid Mudassar Shah might be permitted to speak on their behalf. They also requested that the time allotted to the speaker should be longer than that which was allowed in their meetings to our representative. I acceded to both these requests. Accordingly, after a speech by Maulawi Hafiz Raushan Ali on the subject of the prophethood of the Promised Messiah (as), Sayyid Mudassar Shah was granted one hour in which he explained to the audience, consisting of some 6,000 Ahmadis assembled from all parts of the country, the views of the rival section. After he had finished, his arguments were refuted by Mir Muhammad Ishaq. The arrangement removed once for all the complaint of the rival party that Ahmadis were prevented from hearing the arguments of their side. Praise be to God, the address of the rival party only served to strengthen the conviction of Ahmadis in their beliefs and to expose the weakness and error of the rival views. Mir Muhammad Ishaq’s speech, in fact, served as another illustration of the Quranic truth: When truth comes falsehood vanishes.
I have now refuted one after another all those items in Maulawi Muhammad Ali’s account which needed refutation. I am confident that whoever goes through my refutation with an impartial mind will be fully convinced that Maulawi Muhammad Ali in his book The Split has indulged in a whole series of misstatements, that in his account of the dissensions he has on not less than twenty-four occasions, taken recourse to intentional prevarications entirely oblivious of the awe and fear of God. People who live far away from the headquarters of the Movement, who are not in direct touch with its affairs, who have not been eyewitnesses cannot realise the gravity of those prevarications. Nevertheless, the strong evidences here produced should enable them to arrive at a just appraisement of the truth. And as in the proverb—a few grains from the pot are sufficient to show what the rest of the contents are like—the many prevarications and misstatements noticed above cannot but serve as index of the nature of the person who had recourse to them. Matters for which I have furnished documentary evidence require no further proof. As for matters, for which written evidence is not forthcoming and which must therefore rest upon oral evidence, I challenge Maulawi Muhammad Ali, in case he regards any of them to be false, to say on oath that they are so and that I have deliberately so stated them. But I am certain that Maulawi Muhammad Ali will never adopt this method of testing the truth. He looks upon oaths and prayer trials—as methods of settling the truth—with scorn and scoffing, even though they are fully recognised as methods of evidence by Islam, and constitute one of the signs of its truth. The truth is, he is troubled with a bad conscience and is afraid that such a trial would lead to his undoing.
And our last words are, “Glory to Allah, the lord of the worlds.”
1 For a long time I have shown every deference to Maulawi Muhammad Ali and refrained from making any imputation regarding his motives. But moderation on my part has only resulted in increasing the harshness of his tone and making him forget the necessity of being mindful of the feelings of others. I therefore think that now the time has come to expose his real character before the people and to show how he has been designedly trying to mislead them. Of course, as I have already stated, it will be far from me to emulate him in his abusive style.
2 These lines were specially underlined in the Badr.
3 This report was wrong. The editor of the Al-Hakam had recorded the whole speech which, after due perusal and corrections by the Khalifatul-Masih was published by him in his own paper. Between this authoritative report and the Zamińdar report there was a great difference.
4 Both of them were living at the time of the writing of the book, but have since died.
5 This term Maulawi Muhammad Ahsan used with reference to Khwaja Kamaluddin.
6 Sa‘ad who did not acknowledge the Khilafat of Hazrat Abu Bakr had all relations cut off with him by the Companions.