1
2
3

The Future of Turkey and the Responsibilities of Muslims

Yesterday on 17 [September 1919], I received a dispatch signed by various leading figures in India which expresses concern that in the present circumstances, the future of the Turkish state is in grave peril. Therefore, all Muslims are urged to join together to raise their voice in protest, so that the relevant arbitrators may be made aware about their keen interest in this issue.

Alongside this, I further received a letter of invitation for this conference4 from barrister Syed Zahoor Ahmad5, the Secretary of the Muslim Conference. I was also urged to attend by Maulawi Muhammad Salamatullah of Firangi Mahal. However, owing to my health and the fact that I see little benefit in going, I will not be joining the event in person. Therefore, I will convey my views through this treatise which I am sending with some of my representatives. My hope is that these sincere recommendations will be given due consideration.

The question of the future of Turkey is such that it naturally elicits the concern of those who identify as Muslims. It is essential to show sympathy with their cause unless this contravenes an injunction of the sharia. For as long as the Turkish government was at war with the British, a great number of Indian Muslims took up arms and fought against it. It might even be that thousands of Turks were killed by them, however, this does not mean the Muslims of India do not have an affinity or bond with the people of Turkey. Rather, it is merely an illustration of the principle that something inferior can be sacrificed for a higher cause. Since it is a religious obligation [for Muslims] to show obedience to the state, and since they were honour-bound to the British government, the [Muslims of India] fought with them against a country that identifies itself with Islam, and took up arms against it under a religious requirement and for the sake of establishing peace. But as soon as the war ended and British-Turkish relations were resumed, the natural sympathy of the Muslims was rekindled. Currently, there is no religious obligation preventing them from identifying with the Turkish cause.

It is true that the whole of the Muslim world looks upon the future of Turkey with a degree of sorrow and misgiving. It is also the case that dissolving the Turkish government or curtailing its powers would be a source of anguish for them. But, at the same time, it would be wrong to suggest that their grief stems from the fact that the Sultan of Turkey is the Khalifatul-Muslimeen as there are many Muslims who do not accept him as such, yet still harbour sympathy for him.

Apart from this, in my estimation, at such a time as when the material grandeur and glory of Islam is threatened, making the case for Turkey in a manner that only permits people of a certain standing and persuasion to rally around its [cause] is politically mistaken. A great number of Indian Muslims are Shias, and as such, they do not accept the Sultan of Turkey as the Khalifatul-Muslimeen. That said, excluding a section of extremists, the educated and reasonable among them still hold sympathy for him. Similarly, some people from among the Ahle Hadith recognise the Ottoman Khilafat, but their [religious] beliefs preclude them from accepting the Sultan as the Khalifatul-Muslimeen. The Ahmadiyya Community cannot accept him at all, for we believe Allah the Exalted has raised Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (as) in this age as the Promised Messiah and Mahdi, in accordance with the prophecies of the Prophet Muhammad (sas) to establish his truth in the world and to secure the Muslims and lead them to success. Therefore, in the present time, only an individual who is from among the followers of the Promised Messiah (as) can be appointed as the khalifa. By entering into an allegiance with khilafat at my hands, almost the entire Ahmadiyya Community has, in effect, declared that it cannot accept any other khilafat.6

Outside of the aforementioned three sects, there are other groups who associate themselves with Islam, but do not recognise the Ottoman Khilafat. Indeed, there is even one group from among the Ahle Sunnat wal Jama‘at who do not believe in the Ottoman Khilafat, as otherwise they would never have been able to take up arms against an individual who they had truly accepted as a vicegerent of the Holy Prophet (sas). Therefore, given these circumstances, it is wrong to hold a conference in which the whole Muslim world is expected to express their views about the future of Turkey, and base it on a principle which is not acceptable to all of them, and will lead to nothing more than confusion and dismay.

In my opinion, this conference ought to have been primarily convened to demonstrate that the dissolution or division of a Muslim state ruled by a sultan who is accepted as a khalifa by a certain section of Muslims, is a measure which is strongly condemned by all Muslim sects. Indeed, the idea is abhorrent to them. Muslims of all sects would likely participate in any such movement regardless of whether they accept the Ottoman Khilafat or whether they hold one another to be disbelievers or not. By uniting around this principle, they would be able to unanimously express their views on the subject. Although different sects may look on others as heretics, it is also true that the world considers all Muslims as belonging to Islam and, moreover, all Muslims are equally affected by any prosperity or harm that comes to the grandeur of the faith. The Ahmadiyya Community accepts that His Royal Highness King George V is the ruler of the British Empire and that I, a humble individual, am the khalifa of the Promised Messiah (as). But despite this, at the current time, and for as long as there is no conflict with the interests and dignity of the British government, our full sympathies are with the Turkish Sultanate. Although there are differences in our beliefs, their prosperity brings honour to the name of Islam which is of common interest to us both.

With this sincere proposal, I wish to say to all the respectable members of this conference that if you are prepared to unite over this point and are ready to take action, then I believe this will be fruitful not only for the sake of the cause for which this gathering has been convened, but also in bringing about blessed results in the future. All of you should understand that the greater the cause, the greater effort and sacrifice it demands. Such conferences never resolve important matters of state and governance, nor are they a true reflection of the ideas of the participants. It is common for people to be overtaken by emotion over petty issues and convene such gatherings where speakers discourse in high-pitched tones, without their speeches bearing an imprimatur of their true beliefs. Within a few days, the issues at hand are forgotten, and there is silence because the actions of the participants of the conference are inconsistent with their words. No nation can succeed until it believes in the immutable law of God that there is a fixed time for everything, and that all forms of success have their own avenue and pathway; it is not just difficult, rather it is impossible to accomplish anything until one’s efforts are channelled with the proper resources and at the appropriate time. The recent war, and the haste of some people who predicted that it would not last beyond a few months, is a prime example of this. Instead, the war lasted for over five years and the latent fire [which caused it] still occasionally flares up from place to place. How did the people of the nations at war function?

They did not merely hold gatherings in support of their governments and then cease in their endeavours. Rather, for the most part, men, women, the old and young, did everything they could for the [war effort]. Those who were able to, took part in the fighting, while those who could not go to combat undertook tasks that would facilitate the fighters and ease their workload and difficulties. For four and a half years, the people of these countries paid no heed to the cycles of the day. They sacrificed not only their time, but their intellectuals also offered up their knowledge and expertise. The wealthy helped fund the effort and land owners gave over their properties as they were all united by a single cause. Everything else became irrelevant to them and only then were they able to emerge victorious. Even after victory, they did not pause for breath, rather today, hundreds of those who were involved in the war effort spend their nights and days helping to negotiate a peace settlement. They know well that those who do not act with wisdom, may well win the war but face defeat in peace. All these nations have their objectives clearly set out before them and show no negligence towards their goals. Indeed, after all the sacrifices they have made, it would be intolerable for them to see those bounties which are their right or which they consider themselves to have a legitimate claim to, slip away from their grasp.

So before you set yourself on this course, know well that this is no ordinary undertaking. The Turks have been defeated in the theatre of war and now find themselves a conquered nation under the control of external powers. The victors believe they have rights over them and their territories and see it as absolutely just for them to reshape their government and divide their territory. No nation or movement can persuade them to relinquish this right. To convince the victorious parties to leave the Turkish Sultanate as it is, or to only partially restructure it, is an incredibly difficult task; perhaps akin to snatching away prey from the jaws of a lion. It is normal in our country to see small communities fight for their most minor rights which they are unwilling to relinquish at any cost, therefore, how can one expect that in the case of such an empire, upon whose existence rests the life and death of their civilisation, any decision or speech made at one of our conferences will influence the participant nations of the [Paris] Peace Conference7 to immediately forgo the privileges they have achieved? Instead, this requires a level of industry and struggle that turns young men old, and a sense of endeavour that is well thought out, streamlined and founded on unity, and one in which the importance of wealth and time pales into insignificance. Set against this, the Allies have united together through various treaties [which uphold their mutual interests], belong to the same religion, share the same civilisation and have assembled thousands of people together to help settle these matters. Hundreds of thousands of their people are working towards bringing about a fitting resolution. They have formed sub-committees and commissions, they seek advice from experts of all disciplines and walks of life, spend months deliberating over key issues and [even then they often] find it hard to reach a decision. Therefore, think of the effort it would require from a people who have no political vision, who belong to a different faith and civilisation and who are materially weak, to have their frail voices heard? If the organisers and participants of this convention have the strength for this undertaking and are happy to take on the burden of this strenuous effort, then they must turn to the question of how they can meet this challenge. My opinion on this third point, which is binding on the whole of the Ahmadiyya Community, is thereby presented for your consideration.

I believe that before pursuing this undertaking, Muslims need to fully realise that of the powers who are set to decide the fate of Turkey, only the British are willing to uphold their interests and are prepared to cooperate with them to some degree. British diplomats have been striving to make a clear case about how the Muslims view the future of Turkey to the members of the Peace Conference. The British government alone supports the government of the Hijaz at the Peace Conference and this has been repeatedly acknowledged by Qibla, the semi-government owned newspaper of the region. Thus whatever actions they choose to adopt, Muslims should not be unmindful of the goodwill of the British government, lest in their rashness and blind emotion they lose an [important] friend and are guilty of ingratitude. After all, the British are not Muslims; their sympathy for the Turks is not based on a shared community of faith. Nor does the political defeat of Turkey affect British interests as their experience of the last war has shown them that the threat of pan-Islamism is only illusory. If Britain, therefore, has any sympathy for Turkey it is out of consideration of the sentiments of their Muslim subjects. So any sympathy or goodwill they demonstrate, obliges the Muslims to be grateful to them and to respect their friendly overtures. It should also not be forgotten that while we expect the British to take into account our sentiments, they are also obligated to respect the views of their allies whose troops fought for Britain alongside the Muslims and indeed outnumbered them. Their financial sacrifices to help bring about victory for the British were also far greater than those of the Muslims. If the British consider it a [diplomatic] necessity to respect both the sentiments of their allies and the Muslims, we ought not to overlook this, but instead we ought to recognise the difficulties they face. Another thing to be considered is that before the United States of America joined the alliance, certain powers within the Allies had signed agreements that leave Britain bound and unable to voice the opinion of the Muslims to the full extent that the Muslims desire.

Therefore, before assuming this undertaking, guarantees need to be in place that no such agitation will be fomented or allowed to be started as might create amongst the public the impression that the British have slighted the Muslims or ignored their rights; for there is a great difference between wilful negligence and genuine difficulty. Muslims should work towards strengthening the hand of the British, rather than creating internal strife for them. It is all the more necessary to keep this in mind, as certain people in pursuit of their vested interests, often exploit such situations by moving away from making appeals and sincere assertions, and instead start issuing threats and applying antagonistic pressure. In my opinion, for as long as the British voice the concerns and sentiments of the Muslims, the Muslims in turn ought to be grateful to them and entreat them to strive even harder for their cause. Although there are agreements and treaties in place which hinder the British government, it ought to be made clear to the British intelligentsia that an unjust treaty which has no ethical or moral grounding, cannot be thought of as any sort of settlement. Yes people make mistakes but it is not correct for them to persist in their errors. If a person commits to give something to a second party, but then realises that what they had offered was not theirs to give, they cannot be forced to adhere to this commitment, nor should they seek to fulfil it out of courtesy. While it is true Britain has committed itself to hand over control of certain regions of Turkey to various Allied nations, the fact remains that the people of the country do not approve of this, and they have been given reassurances that their opinion, as long as it does not lead to civil unrest, will be honoured. Therefore, there is no justification to hand over Turkey to the control of such nations whom they do not wish to be ruled by and are anxious about how this will affect their religious sentiments. Although Europe is advanced in secular education, not all Europeans exercise religious tolerance like the British do. There are [various] examples of European nations interfering in religious matters and forcing people to change their beliefs. British correspondents have reported on such incidents during both the Balkan war and the Trablus8 conflict. This sufficiently demonstrates that the British government should not assume that all European nations are as forward-thinking as they are in such matters. Accordingly, an effort should be made through well-reasoned arguments to convince them that Muslims have legitimate concerns. The British public should also be made aware of the actual state of affairs. Thus keeping in mind the traditional norms of British justice, we should rest assured that Britain, as far as it is possible, will not upset the sentiments of the Muslims. The Muslims should also abstain from taking steps that may create misunderstandings among the general public or cause passions to run high as this would result in the focus of the government being diverted to question of internal administration. If such a situation were to arise, the British would not be able to properly present the opinions of the Muslims to those who are set to decide the future of Turkey, and the Muslims alone would bear responsibility for this. I further propose that while Britain should be urged to favour the position of the Muslims to a greater degree, the general public should also be made aware that Britain has been striving for their cause and continues to do so as is evident from the testimony of the government of the Hijaz.

The second matter that needs to be dealt with for the success of this endeavour is to set aside the issue of the Hijaz altogether. Anyone who is aware of the regional situation, will know about the losses suffered by the Arabs in their culture and language at the hands of foreign powers. It is also no secret that the Arabs have ardently struggled to gain their independence. The national pride of the Arabs has come to life and their desire for independence has awakened. They cannot, therefore, be placed under Turkish control against their will. After 1300 years they have once again become masters over their homeland and have proved their right to govern through their administrative skills, and sense of justice and equity. No new suggestions in this regard will be successful; nor should any sensible person entertain such ideas and nor will the Arabs accept any such thing. The independence of the Hijaz is now advantageous to Islam. The Arabs are better off as an autonomous nation rather than as a part of the Turkish Empire, and the holy sites of Islam are better off under the control of smaller nations rather than an empire stricken by grief. So this issue should be taken as resolved forever.

The third point of importance is that after close deliberation, a standing committee should be formed which should work towards raising support for the Turkish cause. Hosting conventions, lectures, fundraising events and issuing tracts and handbills while funding a committee in England is not going to be of any benefit. Instead it would be more profitable to carry out a streamlined campaign across the entire world. We live in an age of reason in which people demand arguments in support of propositions. It is, therefore, important for us to collate as much evidence as possible in support of this cause and use reason to convince those responsible for deciding this question. It took four and a half years to end the recent war through violence and though the use of force offers an easy resolution against one’s enemies, it is much harder to change the convictions of people through reasoning and persuasion. The chief difference being that though the sword need only be struck against a few people, arguments need to be presented to thousands, rather hundreds of thousands of people at a time. Hence, there should be a systematic and organised strategy to accomplish this task and it should be executed with the same seriousness of purpose as is found in other nations. Expending energy on futile efforts is not befitting of any sensible person and it is better not to toil in this way.

It must not be forgotten that even if Britain does decide to fully endorse the Muslim stance, it is not the only participant at the Peace Conference and the other world powers are represented there as well. [Currently] the United States is insistent that its claims be given precedence. France is arguing that it has made great sacrifices and the Italians complain about being overlooked. Japan and China might be largely indifferent, but the Chinese need to win over American sympathy. The Americans are also backing the old promises made to Greece with full force. The primary point of contention between these nations is not how much territory should be placed back under Turkish rule, but rather whether the Turks ought to be governed by the Italians or the Greeks. Fearing such an outcome, a group in Turkey has launched a campaign for the country to be placed under the rule of the British, if it is necessary for them to be governed by a foreign power, for at least their religious rights will not then be compromised. Yet it is difficult for Britain to assert itself amidst this myriad of competing claims. The French cannot occupy Syria unless Anatolia is given to the Italians; and the Americans feel that they cannot show themselves as just arbiters until Turkey is placed under the authority of the nations of Europe. If Bulgaria is to be given access to the sea, then Greece would have to be compensated with a piece of territory. The whole situation is like that of a pack of dogs competing after a bone. In circumstances such as these what is Britain supposed to do? One can only appeal to it to ensure that the Turks are dealt with in a humane way and this the British are doing already.When the French press, make accusations against the Arabs about creating agitations in Turkish territories to serve their own interests, it is the British media which reports more favourably towards them. Nor can a strategy be adopted to advise Britain to threaten war against the Allies. The British would view any such aggression as an act of great shame, against a group of countries that less than a year ago were their allies, and helped them win a war against the enemies of culture and civilisation. And that too in favour of a country that was their enemy during the war. Therefore, despite all their grandeur and might, the British cannot be expected to go to war with an alliance of great powers. We live in a time of hard realities where fanciful delusions have no bearing or influence.

The only way to achieve success in this matter is by shifting the opinions of the nations participating in the Paris Peace Conference, especially the United States and France. If their stance can be changed, the issue will be resolved.

But before any such attempt can be made, the question of why these nations bear such enmity towards Turkey has to be addressed. It is only by transforming the motives that drive their decisions that success can be attained. As of now, Germany, which initiated the war and during the course of the fighting committed every type of inhumanity, has only had to give independence to a modest territory that it gained from the French, as well as a small part of Poland. The Germans still rule over their own country. The Austrians, who also played an integral role in starting the war, have lost various territories that demanded their independence, but they too have kept control over their own country. The Bulgarians also, despite their disloyalty, broken promises and acts of cruelty, still administer their own affairs and there are even talks underway to provide them with an access route to the sea. Romania altered its stance a number of times [during the war years], yet has been afforded more territory. Turkey on the other hand, who according to the Europeans themselves, fought valiantly under German pressure, showed restraint and did not commit any atrocities has been declared unfit to govern not only its colonial territories, but also itself, even though very few ethnic minority groups reside there. Instead, it has been considered necessary for it to be occupied and ruled by foreign powers. The reason given for this is the genocide in Armenia and Muslims are hastily trying to respond to this accusation which so far has little evidence to support it. [History has already shown us] How in Spain, Christians would go into mosques, insult Islam and be killed by zealots, and then these acts of provocation would be presented as examples of Islamic extremism and be loudly condemned across the continent. Hence, any such allegations made by the Allies need to be properly investigated. And even if these allegations are accepted as true, other nations have committed similar atrocities. The horrors faced by the Jews in Russia were much worse than the Armenian massacre. The killing of hundreds of thousands of Jews by the Bolsheviks has shaken the entire world. Their atrocities are such that they cannot be comprehended or reconciled with, and yet they are there for all to see. But those nations which oppose the establishment of the Turkish Empire, are not only reluctant to interfere in the affairs of the Russians, but are also holding Britain back from doing so, a country which would otherwise never tolerate such brutalities. Not only is there no direct action against the Russians, they are not even being boycotted. Even within the United States, shocking atrocities which leave one astounded are committed, not in the name of religion, but because of racial divides. This is a country which claims to be the torchbearer of justice and equity and holds up the banner of liberty. And yet President Wilson has declared that if the Turkish Empire is not broken up, it would defeat the purpose of the war. Recently, a nineteen-year-old African American man called Lloyd Clay was accused of a crime, though later shown to be innocent. Yet while in custody in Wicksburg, a 1500-strong mob made up of members of the public broke in to his cell with the intent to seek retribution. He was stripped naked and hanged from a tree. Some people wanted to kill him immediately, while others felt he deserved a slower death. They threw paraffin oil on his body, lit a bonfire, and all the men and women gathered there revelled in his screams and cries for help for almost an hour and a half. Afterwards, his dead body was taken down and the pieces of the burnt rope he was tied to were kept as a souvenir, and the tree he was hanged from was declared a sacred memorial.

What were the reasons behind the atrocities carried out against the African American residents of Muskego last month that made headlines in the news? Only that a young African American boy visited a side of a lake that was reserved for white people. The whites violently stoned him, igniting a fire that again left the world astounded. President Wilson once asked how America could promote democracy abroad, while it was undermining it at home by failing to protect its most vulnerable citizens. Hence, no other country except for the British is untainted by such atrocities. Even in certain parts of the British [Empire], where the state does not interfere with the local law or customs, such shameful things take place.

Why then does the United States bear such enmity towards Turkey? The reason cannot be greed because the Americans at least, have no desire to occupy other territories. It can only be the fact that the Turks are Muslim. I do not mean to say that since America or France or other such powers are Christian and, therefore, hate the Turks for being Muslim. The British are also Christians but they do not bear animosity against Turkey, rather, they protect the rights of Muslims and care for their sentiments.

Similarly, it would not be accurate to describe France and America as Christian nations. The educated people of Europe generally have little or no association with Christianity and are more inclined towards atheism or free thought. Thus in terms of their religion, they are far removed from Christianity and they do not have a solid grounding for their prejudice against Islam. Their enmity does not come from the fact that they are Christians and the Turks are Muslims, because religion does not play such an important role in their lives as to give birth to this prejudice within them. When I say that the Turks receive discriminatory treatment on account of the fact that they are Muslim, I mean that these nations are so distant from Islam and their forebears have induced such a high degree of ill-feeling in their hearts, that they do not consider it to be an ordinary religion. Rather, they view it as a belief system that turns human beings into animals, indeed into depraved beasts. They feel that the barbaric teachings of Islam leave no room for mercy and justice in the hearts of its followers and Muslims naturally consider all other religions and ideologies to be false. And though all other religions also see [other faiths as not being true], it is only Islam that the nations of the West hate and fear. Though they also think other religions are mistaken they do not view them as a target for their hatred and fear only Islam and see its progress as not only an impediment to their culture and way of life, but also as something fatal for humanity. So where they show empathy for the adherents of other religions, they look upon Muslim nations as incurable and terminally ill invalids and seek to suppress them. Is it not preferable to quell an individual or a country which seeks the destruction of others? Of course it is. Hence, Western nations feel duty bound by their mercy, to rid the world of the scourge of the Islamic state.

Not only is this my opinion, but in the past I have also shown that there is no other reason for discriminating against the people of Turkey. I have a special insight into this issue because I am the imam of a community whose sole objective is the propagation of Islam. Therefore, I have to keep abreast of the prevailing religious climate in all countries. In my estimation the more liberal religious sentiments become in Western nations, the more enmity arises within them against Islam. Liberal thought encourages sympathy, and in animosity to Islam, liberals are able to express sympathy for the rest of the world.

The state of Christianity in America and Europe is evident from the writings of their missionaries. Barely 5 per cent of their people are Christian in any true sense of the term. A significant majority is wary of Christianity, and yet they continue to spend large sums of money on proselytisation efforts in foreign countries. They do this in the belief that by embracing Christianity, the people of those countries will be salvaged from tyranny and ignorance, rather than necessarily for the salvation of their souls. They proselytise in Islamic countries with even greater zeal because they think that, through this, a large part of the world will move away from barbarity and towards enlightenment. So it is wrong to consider America or other such countries as enemies of Turkey. Rather they are enemies of Islam, not because of the biases of their faith or their ignorance, but due to the false understanding they have of Islam. Despite atrocities in other countries, despite the fact that a civilised white American can on occasions behave inhumanely, despite the fact that Russians can act with great cruelty, they are nonetheless assumed to be followers of belief systems that teach mercy and are morally reformative. Even though they lack in spirituality, these faiths are seen as upholders of humanity and virtue which redeem and elevate the souls of their followers. Hence their own barbarity is deemed to be a momentary lapse. But [as they see it] Islam, God forbid, transforms the very nature of its believers by replacing their humanity with savagery to the extent that those who follow it cannot enact any acts of piety. And even if Muslims possess a degree of virtue, it exists not because of Islam, but due to an acquaintance with Western culture. So [to the Western mind] the atrocities of the Turks and the aggression of Western countries are not analogous, because in their view, such a comparison would be like drawing a parallel between a doctor and a quack, as the treatment administered by both can result in either an improvement of health or death. Doctors more commonly cure while quacks more commonly cause death, although there are exceptions with both. Where they do find examples of Muslims not committing atrocities, they liken it to a lion in a cage that cannot hunt its prey. [For them] there has to be an external [moderating] influence, because in their mind, it is not possible to be a Muslim and not be a carnivorous beast looking to harm humankind. Such ideas about Islam prevail in the West and for as long as they continue to do so, they will always prevent Muslims from receiving fair treatment and justice.

God Almighty has made it incumbent on Muslims to propagate Islam to the corners of the earth and wield its light to give sight to the blind. But, when Muslims showed complacency in this obligation and set aside Islam by failing to recognise its importance, God left them to their fate. God Almighty is not cruel. He chose Muslims because:

9

As long as Muslims abided by this commandment and practised it, Allah granted them abundant success but reprimanded them when they went against it. As Allah the Exalted says:

10

That is, Allah the Exalted bestows blessings on nations and does not withdraw them until those nations themselves adversely alter their national character and cease to walk on the path of virtue. However, if mistakes have been committed at any stage, it is for the Muslims to repent and turn back to God Almighty, to understand Islam and come to recognise its essential truths, and make them known to others so as to bring to an end the hardships that afflict them, and to be loved again by their beloved. If they have not yet propagated their faith, nor obeyed the commandment of God to spread these teachings throughout world, they ought to act now for the sake of their own survival which is conditional on the propagation of Islam.

I need not speak on this matter any further. I quote here a passage from the work of a famous Indian Arya Samajist that has recently been published in the Leader of Allahabad and leave it to you to decide the truth or falsity of what he has to say. This Arya Samajist is Lala Lajpat Rai. In a lengthy letter published in the Leader, Allahabad, writes:

During my travels, nothing else has troubled me more than the prejudice and lack of knowledge that is spreading in America about Islam and Muslim countries. Out of the Allies, you will come across proponents of China, Japan and India but in all my five years of travel, I have not come across a single person uttering anything good about Islam and Muslim states. I had the chance to accompany a Muslim friend to a meeting where the future of Turkey was under discussion. There was only one Turk advocating Turkey but all those who stood up to reply to him expressed so much ignorance, prejudice and open enmity that I found it hard to listen with patience. The Turkish advocate presented his case so badly that he created a high tide of opposition against himself. The Turks have a scary reputation and a great deal of intelligence, intellect and cleverness is required to present the case of Muslim nations in a way that it earns them some sympathy. My friend, on my encouragement tried to defuse the prejudice, but his was the only voice to do so.

The Indian Muslims are now duty-bound by their faith, fellow men and own conscience that they appoint some competent men as advocates in all influential countries. This is a need that requires immediate attention. It is the duty of India, regardless of faith, to save Islam from the grief of disrepute. Whenever they expect a good result, they should demand the same rights and justice for Muslims as they would for any other nation. But without doubt it is a great duty of Muslims which they should not try to avoid and carry out without delay. If they delay in fulfilling this responsibility, they will suffer the consequences themselves.

These are the words of a Hindu, rather those of an Arya Samajist, who seeks to awaken the Muslims from their slumber. The state of the Muslims has declined to such an extent that even their religious enemies have now begun to take pity on them and seek to rouse them awake. Much of our time has been wasted and very little is left. Further complacency will leave scarce hope for improvement. As long as people see Islam as an inhumane [religion] and a virus on the world, it is futile to expect any justice from the West. Until other nations, and in particular the Americans come to an agreement with the British, one cannot expect the voice of Britain to prevail. The British cannot act alone and are in need of support. Since this cause belongs to the Muslims, the onus is on them to win the backing of the British and to introduce their people to Islam. As I have mentioned above, the propagation of Islam is a religious duty, a weighty responsibility and an intimate covenant the Muslims have made with God and His Messenger. However, they have neglected this obligation. Whatever negligence they may have thus far shown towards this injunction, they need to now take heed for the sake of their honour and survival. All other measures are temporary, while this alone is a permanent means to success. When the human body is afflicted by multiple ailments, a physician recognises that there is likely to be a primary cause for these illnesses. Rather than remedy each malady individually, they seek to treat the source of the problem. Accordingly, the true cause of the worldly afflictions of the Muslims is that those nations who currently hold power and dominance [in the world] have a flawed understanding of Islam. Hence, it is futile to treat the problems [affecting the Muslim world] separately. If the source of the problem is remedied the other ailments will end. It is of course true that it would take centuries to convert these nations to Islam, however, it would take significantly less time to cure them of their prejudices. If a large number of individuals who are well-versed in Islamic teachings go to America and France, the prejudices and antipathy of the people there can be removed in just a few months. [Our community] has had some success with this [strategy] in England. Close to 200 people native [to the British Isles] have become Muslim, while hundreds of thousands of others have overcome the prejudices they held against Islam after being acquainted with it. So make haste and learn something from this experience. I was preparing to establish a mission in America in the near future, and the opinions of a non-Muslim from America have convinced me to do so even sooner. But your aims and objectives demand a greater number of people and far more urgency. To achieve any degree of success, certain people with the necessary knowledge of Islam should be posted in France to not only highlight the beauties of the religion through the media, but to also meet with dignitaries and educate them that Islam strives to establish civilisation and culture rather than destroy it. Similarly, others should be commissioned to the United States, again with the purpose to better acquaint the people there with Islam through the press and to travel across the country and introduce Islam to all Americans from one end of the nation to the other. While they may not accept Islam straight away, what is certain is that they will cease being hostile to it.

The next question which arises is where such representatives will come from? No one is in a better position to answer this than myself. The truth cannot be hidden. Having seen the rise of corruption in the world and Islam facing death, God Almighty has sent the same messenger He promised to the Holy Prophet (sas). This messenger, despite the opposition and animosity of those who have no knowledge of Islam, has established a community devoted to the cause of the faith. Both the English and Arabic speaking followers of this movement are not only well-versed in the teachings of Islam, but they also act upon them. They are ever ready to sacrifice their lives for its sake. As of right now, this community is weak, lacks resources and is small in number, however, it has followers posted across various countries for the sake of propagating Islam. Christian missionaries cannot hope to compete with them and even their enemies concede that they are a bulwark against the missionary activities of Christians. Why is this so? Because they have recognised and understood Islam in its pristine form. Four men from this community are currently serving in England and I plan to increase this number closer to fifty. As soon as travel routes open up, they will embark for this mission. So there are people in this community ready to serve and travel anywhere in order to introduce the world to Islam. I can provide a considerable number of such individuals and if you agree to earnestly pursue this matter, I would be able to spare three out of the four missionaries we have based in England and have them posted to the United States. They can leave directly for America and introduce the local population to Islam and raise awareness of the unfair treatment of the Turkish people. Indeed, I can provide an even greater work force.

There is no doubt that Islam cannot be seen in its full glory unless it is shown to the world in accordance with how the reformer of the age has presented it, and its grandeur cannot impact the hearts of people unless it is shown to be a living religion by way of living signs. These men will not conceal their beliefs, but if you are ready to accept this offer for the sake of the prestige of Islam and the survival of the Muslims, I am ready and willing to provide individuals who would be suitable for this undertaking. Some of them will work in America, the rest in France and they will continue to [serve this cause] until an agreement is reached with Turkey.

In my estimation, this is the only solution to the matter and if success is denied through this path then it would be a folly to hope for it at all, and all conventions, resolutions and deputations would be nothing more than games that may induce a child, but have no effect on those who are wise and experienced. If you think that my advice holds any weight, you are free to deliberate with my representatives. Otherwise, by Allah’s decree and injunction, I have fully laid out the argument before you, as have now people of different faiths like Lala Lajpat Rai and others.

11

With Humility,
Mirza Mahmood Ahmad
Qadian, 18 September 1919
(Alfazl, 27 September 1919)