1
2
3

The Turkish Peace and the Responsibilities of Muslims

Today on 11 Ramazan, which corresponds to 30 May 1920, I received a letter from Maulawi Abdul Bari of Firangi Mahal, Lucknow, that a conference is scheduled to be held from 1-2 June in Allahabad to discuss the terms of peace offered to the Ottoman Empire and to determine the future strategy of the Muslims [of India]. I too am invited to attend and share my thoughts on this matter.

If my participation in this conference was likely to prove beneficial, or if I felt that my being there in person would serve my brethren or fellow countrymen, I would happily call off my numerous other commitments and attend this meeting to express my views on this far-reaching and important subject. However, experience suggests that such people who hold opinions contrary to the majority view are rarely given the chance to speak at such gatherings. Therefore, in my estimation, it would be a misuse of my time to attend the conference in person. But both a sense of sympathy and love for my people and an earnest desire to serve Islam prevails on me to articulate my thoughts, regardless of how they might be received. I have written this tract to express my views before those gentlemen who will convene together on this occasion, and send it through some of my esteemed companions. Accordingly, if by the grace of God Almighty my recommendations have an affect on certain individuals, they can further discuss the issues mentioned therein with my representatives.

Worthy gentlemen! During the last conference held in September, I made it clear through a written correspondence that your efforts regarding the future of the Ottoman Empire should have their basis in the fact that a significant number of Muslims regard the Sultan of Turkey as their khalifa, and among the rest of the Muslim world, he is held in the highest esteem because of his position as a Muslim ruler. Therefore, it is necessary that when settling any terms of peace with Turkey due consideration ought to be given to the sentiments of the international Muslim community and [the Allies] ought to conduct their dealings with the Turks in accordance with the same principles they have adopted for [opposing] Christian nations. I further said this would allow Islamic sects, regardless of their mutual differences, to cooperate in this matter from a common platform. Unfortunately, you did not support my recommendation. As a result, the Europeans were able to argue that there is no unity among the Muslims in relation to the question of the Ottoman Khilafat and, therefore, it would not be proper to speak of any consensus of opinion regarding the future of Turkey among the Muslims.

Had this recommendation been accepted, there would have arisen no need for the Ahmadiyya Community to make a public announcement regarding our own views on khilafat, and we could have united with our brethren in demanding, through all legitimate means, a just settlement for the people of Turkey. Again if this proposal had been welcomed, Shia Muslims, who number in the tens of millions, would not have disassociated themselves from this movement and would have united with their fellow Muslims to express sympathy for the plight of the Turkish people. I repeat that had this recommendation been accepted, the Arabs would not have declared that the rightful khilafat belonged only to the Quraish. At the time, influenced by what was happening around them, the Arabs were inclined to enter into friendly relations with the Turks and sympathy for their cause ran high. And even despite their differences, they could have voiced their support in unity with the Turks. Owing to certain grievances that had arisen between them and certain European governments, the Arabs were ready to reach a settlement with Turkey within certain parameters. If my recommendation had been endorsed, the Wahabis of Arabia would have had no problem in making common cause on this issue with [Muslims] from other countries. Moreover, the Europeans would not have found an opportunity to deride the Muslims by taunting them that they have to appeal to the kindness of Christian nations to preserve the khilafat of Islam.

And if my written recommendation had been followed in order to resolve this issue, then the terms of the peace treaty would have been different to what they are now. The sending of delegations was so delayed that the chance for coordinated action slipped through our fingers. No delegation was sent to the United States of America. It was also necessary to send representatives to Iraq, Syria, the Arab Peninsula and Constantinople, but no such action was taken. Permanent delegations also needed to go to France, Italy and indeed Japan which was neglected entirely. A mission was sent to England, but only at the last minute. Instead, energy and resources were spent in idle criticism of the government of India and abusing those, who while sympathetic to the Turkish cause, were not prepared to recognise the Sultan’s khilafat. Invectives never yield tangible results—one has to strive and work towards the fulfilment of a goal.

Gentlemen! Consider for a moment what in the present age has caused the greatest harm to Islam. [The answer is quite simple]—Nothing has damaged Islam more than the unrighteous state of the Muslims; their cowardice, their impertinence, their lack of resolve and their hypocrisies. Only by overcoming these failings can Islam progress again. Regrettably, little thought has been given to these matters in this time of affliction. Today, the Muslims are numerically stronger than they were five centuries ago; and yet where they were once victorious, they are now among the vanquished. Why has this happened? It is because in the past, Muslims had not succumbed to those [lowly characteristics] mentioned above which plague them today. And what have they done to cast off these unworthy attributes and seek noble character traits instead? Have the Muslims availed themselves of this time of pain and difficulty to repent and turn towards Allah? Instead we observe individuals, whose sole objective is to gain fame and renown, working towards corrupting the moral state of the Muslims still further and instead of encouraging them to fear God, they have diverted them towards other ostentations. Accordingly, the tongues of Muslims everywhere flow with abuse and arrogance, and they clap at and whistle and mock in the most vulgar manner those who hold opinions and beliefs contrary to their own. Moreover, they take pride in these acts of degradation as they consider it a great service to Islam.

Representatives of Islam! As you sit in solemn discussion to deliberate over the future of the Ottoman Empire with hearts laden with grief and sorrow, there are throughout India, in the heat of a midsummer’s day, many innocent children and women who suffer from the pangs of thirst for no reason other than that their parents or husbands do not recognise the Turkish Sultan as the khalifa of Islam. And there are those who profess to be Muslim and yet in this matter follow an anonymous precedent and refuse to supply these [suffering souls] with the water of life, which God Almighty has not denied to even the worst of infidels. Will not the cries of these unfortunate souls reach the throne of God Almighty? And do you think they will plead for the success of their oppressors or ask God to fulfil the desires of those who wrong them? As you deliberate on questions like the preservation of sacred sites like Karbala and Najaf, events are taking place within the borders of India similar to those enacted by Yazid and his followers. And because Ahmadis do not recognise the validity of the Ottoman Khilafat, they are denied water, they are persecuted economically, they are prevented from hiring sweepers and when they pray they are pelted with stones. In this time of struggle, are these the types of efforts Muslims should have made to earn the grace and favour of God? And if Ahmadis tire of their injustices and hypocritically assume a position which matches their own (because the heart is never truly satisfied by force), will the Muslims be able to achieve success through this duplicity? The demands of the time were such that Muslims ought to have been instilled with a sense of bravery and courage, rather than be made to compromise on hypocrisy. Is there no one who will explain to these ignorant souls that those people who are made to discard their opinions out of fear, will eventually become their enemies under pressure from more powerful actors?

It pains me to say that in this time of trial and tribulation, Muslims have not behaved in a manner which might inspire hope of success. However, since you are meeting again to ref lect over a most momentous question, I will sincerely convey to you my opinions on this matter. Perhaps, my words may have some effect on those who truly wish the best for Islam and they might boldly rise up for the sake of its assistance.

The first question which needs to be resolved is whether the terms of peace that have been put forward are appropriate and in accordance with the principles of justice. In my estimation, there is little point in devoting much time to this issue, as it will not yield any practical results. However, I will still tackle this question so future generations and the present framers of this treaty may come to know of my opinions on the matter—therefore, to put it succinctly the terms of peace offered to Turkey are not in keeping with the fundamental principles defined by European statesmen as a necessary requisite for justice.

The people of Iraq have been accorded no say in choosing a government for themselves as certain parts of the German Empire have. Nor have they been consulted over the administration or system of government they would prefer to live under. The Syrians also, despite making it clear they wish to exist as an autonomous state, have been placed under the mandate of the French. Palestine, where Muslims comprise two-thirds of the population, has effectively been declared a new Jewish territory, even though Jews form only one-fourth of its population. This too has only come to fruition since 18784 and according to the Encyclopaedia Britannica is ‘consisting principally of refugees from countries where anti-Semitism is an important element in politics’ (such as Russia). To separate such territories from the Ottoman Empire which have majority Muslim populations and give over their control to the [world’s] Jewry so they can find sanctuary there, is perhaps a fitting form of retribution for when the Turks gave shelter to the Jews as they were forcibly turned out of their homes by various Christian states in Europe.

Lebanon has met with a similar fate. There is no valid reason for it to be placed under a French mandate. Similarly, there is no justification for the formation of an independent Armenian state, particularly as it is surrounded by countries with majority Turkish populations. An independent Armenia means that the various Turkish peoples will not be able to unite again as one nation and the Turks of Russian Turkestan will forever be cut off from their brethren in Asia Minor. Moreover, vast swathes of territory granted to Armenia are inhabited by majority Muslim populations. There are also proposals to give Armenia even further territory where Muslims make up almost the entire population. This is happening despite the fact that Armenian Christians have committed such grave excesses against Muslims that even the British Prime Minister cannot deny the truth of this charge. If the Turks are being deprived of these territories for having failed to restrain the Kurds from committing atrocities against the Armenians, then why are Armenian Christians who are guilty of killing Muslims being given governance over them. And if safeguards are being put in place to prevent the Armenian Christians from inflicting such cruelty again, why not impose similar safeguards on the Turks so that they can retain rule over Armenia while curtailing Muslims from committing excesses against Christians.

Again, it defies justice for the [port city of] Smyrna to fall under Greek rule. A national minority which forms a majority in a particular city or place does not entitle it rights of governance. No such political principle exists and [the implementation of something like this] can only be a source of future conflict. Such a policy will, in a few years, inevitably lead to the Greeks of Smyrna fomenting instability in the surrounding territories as they seek to enlarge their sphere of influence.

Further, there was no reason for control of Thrace to be taken from Turkey and given to the Greeks. Even the British Prime Minister, Lloyd George, conceded that the Turks formed the majority of the population there. How then can the handover of this territory to Greece be justified? Even if a later statement made by a British minister claimed that larger parts of the population in this territory are non-Turks, the fact remains that a significant portion of them are still Muslims. Therefore, if the Turks must cede their control on the grounds that a majority of the population are not Turkish, there is even less justification for Greece to govern there. Under these circumstances, the territory should become an independent state. Handing control over to the Greeks will, in a few years, ultimately result in them perusing an age-old policy, whether openly or covertly, of forcing people to accept Christianity, or by way of persecution, compelling them to leave their region.

In short, as I see it, many of the conditions of this treaty have resulted in the circumventing of the rights of [certain peoples], therefore, the sooner these matters are rectified the better it will be for the standing and good name of Europe. However, here the question arises that if the Allied powers do not modify these terms what should Muslims do about it? For me, this seems to be the most important question, for as far as I can tell the Allied powers will not soften the terms of the treaty.

Various proposals have been forwarded in response to the question of what measures Muslims ought to take if the Allies do not offer better terms in the treaty. Some have suggested migrating [from India], others have called for a general jihad, while others still have called for a policy of non-cooperation [with the British government]. To me, however, none of these steps seem suitable or possible to implement.

First, 70 million Muslims cannot just simply leave India, nor does this serve any benefit or purpose. Migration is only necessary when people living in a certain place are prevented from fulfilling the obligations of the sharia which relate to the community as a whole. But here there is no such hindrance in fulfilling any [Islamic] injunction pertaining to Muslims. Further, from a practical perspective, this suggestion is quite impossible to implement in India. How many people are willing to follow through with this? Thus not only does this proposal go against the sharia, it will result in a loss of respect and esteem in the sight of other people. It is noticeable that even those who have forwarded this proposal are yet to put it into practice.

The second proposal calls for a jihad. [With regards to this] It is unlawful to wage a jihad while living in this country. Our choice of residency here means that we have accepted the authority of the British government and this is, by implication, a covenant we have undertaken with the administration. Therefore, to work against the interests of the state while continuing to live under its rule, would be tantamount to treason which is forbidden in Islam. Our faith should take precedence over everything else. If we were to compromise on it, even for the sake of gaining authority over the world, it would be an unprofitable exchange. Therefore, it is not proper for any Muslim who has reverence for their faith to try and bring harm to the British government or to conspire against it for as long as we continue to live under its rule and derive the benefits of its protection. Anyone who honours Islam cannot act upon this proposal.

If it is suggested that the Muslims first leave [India] and then wage jihad, this goes back to the question of migration which as I have already demonstrated is both improper and impractical. Secondly, one of the conditions of jihad stipulates that it be undertaken against a government which attacks Muslims with the purpose of eradicating Islam. In the case of Turkey, the Allies were not the first to enter into a confrontation, nor did they engage in battle in order to destroy Islam. Therefore, until it is established that the Allied powers initiated the war and attacked the Turks to force them to accept Christianity, there can be no justification for the Muslims of India to wage a jihad against the British government under whose authority they live.

The third proposal is one of non-cooperation with the government. As far as I am concerned, this too is a form of rebellion, and by following any such course of action, peace cannot be maintained in India. It is inevitable that those who give up their employment will, over time, have to live in straitened circumstances and their worldly needs will compel them to undertake unlawful and violent means to sustain a living. Moreover, before any such policy is implemented its objectives need to be determined. By my reckoning the only possible reason for such a course of action is to exert pressure on the British government to rectify the mistakes it has made in the terms of peace offered to Turkey. In any case, if this boycott makes a difference it will be limited to India and its effects will be felt after a number of years. Even if we accept that all Muslims will be ready to act upon such a course of action, it is still beyond dispute that it will take years of effort and persuasion to prepare them for this undertaking and by the time this proposal becomes a practical reality, the treaty with Turkey would have long been settled. At such a time, the British government would be unable to take back territory from the likes of France, Greece and Armenia even if it wanted to. Secondly, it ought to be kept in mind that if all Muslims acted upon this proposal, it would still be insufficient to exert any pressure on the British as Muslims form only one-fourth of the population of India. The remaining three-fourths is comprised mainly of Hindus and close to 4 million Christians. Even if Muslims renounce their honours and titles this will have no bearing on the government. And if they choose to give up their official posts, three-fourths of the population will be ready to fill the void.

There is no doubt that certain Hindu leaders are willing to co-operate with the Muslims [on this issue] at the current time. However, there is also fierce opposition among the Hindu community against this proposal, and perhaps not even 5 per cent of Hindus are willing to join the Muslims in this. If Muslim lawyers go on strike their clients will turn to their Hindu colleagues for help, and the latter will be more than happy to take on their case. Similarly, if a Muslim judge quits his post, a Hindu candidate will immediately come forward to replace him. Likewise, if Muslim soldiers were to quit their positions, not only would they be subject to a court martial for an offence against military law, their resignations would be of little consequence as the Hindu community have, for the most part, come to realise the importance of serving in the military and they will never agree on compromising the security of their ancient homeland. Therefore, in every field of employment there will be available candidates from other communities who would be more than happy to take up the positions [vacated by their Muslim counterparts], for in our country there is no shortage of people searching for employment. Any such decision on the part of the Muslims would be like a Godsend and in their hearts they will take pleasure at their foolishness. Thus any such proposal will result in hundreds of thousands of Muslims losing their jobs and being deprived of education. It will further jeopardise the various rights of the Muslim community which are already under threat given the low number of Muslims employed in government positions. No practical outcome will emerge from this.

Here I wish to make it clear that my words should not be taken to mean that Hindu leaders are actively encouraging Muslims to take measures [which will work against their own interests] so that the field ahead is left clear for Hindus. I consider as honest those Hindu leaders who have made common cause with the Muslims on this issue. Instead, what I am suggesting is that in terms of this proposal, the majority of Hindus are unwilling to extend their support to the Muslims. Moreover, aside from other fundamental flaws, it ought to be remembered that until and unless the entire country decides to act on the requirements of this proposal, no benefit can come from adopting it. Indeed, even if the Hindus were to join with Muslims there would still remain a sufficient amount of Europeans and Christians to fulfil the needs of the state of India at a national level. All military requirements could be easily met by the Europeans as well as the Sikhs and Gurkhas who could never be expected to make common cause with the Muslims on this matter. Therefore, even if this proposal does not foment disorder, though I believe it most certainly will, and even if all Muslims are able to rally around it which is unlikely, there still remains the fact that hoping the adoption of this proposal will put pressure on the British government is both fanciful and a grave mistake. Conversely, what is certain is that implementing such measures will diminish any remaining power and influence the Muslims have, and here in the one country where they still possess some degree of outward prosperity, they will be left weak and impotent and the blame for their downfall will fall squarely on their own shoulders.

In my view, all the proposals hitherto put forward are either contradictory to the dictates of the sharia or they are impossible to implement. For me the only course which is advantageous for the Muslims and which, given the prevailing circumstances, offers an avenue to them is that they join together, and with one voice, convey to the Allies that the terms of peace they have offered to Turkey go against the basic principles which the Allies themselves have set. It ought to be [further conveyed to them] that Muslims see these terms [as being driven by] the hidden hand of Christian enmity and in appeasement to the needs of capitalists. Therefore, Muslims should appeal to the Allies to reconsider their decision and if they do not, Muslims should appeal before the consciences of their future generations and then in accordance with the injunctions of their faith they ought to avoid any kind of disorder and discord and leave the matter to God. It is quite certain that the implementation of the proposals put forward so far or the pursuit of my own recommendations will not lead to an alteration of the terms resolved upon by the Allies. But if the Muslims will follow through with my suggestions, then undoubtedly those same people who are happy with this decision, or their future generations, will look back on this treaty and hang their heads in shame. And just as future generations tend to look back at historical events and the decisions taken by their elders with bitterness and indignation, so will the future generations of the Allies look back at the present decision with astonishment and remorse. If, however, Muslims resort to anarchy and disorder the weight of justification will shift to the side of the authors of this treaty, and future generations of Muslims will feel a sense of shame when recalling the actions of their forbears. Rather than proving beneficial, such chaotic measures will merely serve to hide the failings of the terms of the [treaty] and divert the focus of the world elsewhere.

My recommendation does not end here. Those people who do not work towards reversing an established decision which runs against their own interests cannot hope to achieve success. And Muslims are a people who call on God Almighty to alter even His own decisions and who through their prayers and entreaties are able to absorb His mercy. Therefore, beyond just my proposals, I believe Muslims ought to also draw up practical plans for the future.

First, we need to consider what effects the terms of peace will have on the interests of Islam when implemented. When seeking to answer this question the thing that comes across most clearly is the need to look at the governance of those countries which have [majority] Muslim populations and which have been made over to the control of Armenia and Greece. The enmity these two nations harbour against Islam is so evident it stands without need of proof. In light of recent outrages committed by both of them against Muslim communities, it can be said with a great deal of certitude that despite the assurances of the Europeans, Muslims will have no peace living under their control. It is similarly true that under the new territorial changes, there are several other territories in which the lives of Muslims will not be at peace. Therefore, in order to safeguard our brothers in faith who reside in these places from potential harm, it is necessary to establish an international league of Islam with immediate effect whose objective will be to watch over the religious condition of the world’s Muslims and keep abreast of any secret or open attempts to force Muslims to change their religion or to somehow cause their extinction anywhere in the world. For this purpose, it will be necessary to send representatives to all countries of the world whose task it will be to encourage Muslims everywhere to remain steadfast in their religion and to keep informed as to whether they are being pressurised to recant their faith, openly or in secret. They should strive towards this and if they should discover any such infringements they ought to inform the central organisation straight away so that the news can be conveyed across the civilised world. Those who commit injustices, no matter how tyrannical they might be, are always forced to check themselves and give consideration to their reputation when they feel the eyes of others are watching them. Therefore, by adopting such a measure, a degree of security will be provided to afflicted Muslims living under oppressive governments without using forceful means, and the world will be kept informed of the clandestine intrigues pursued by certain governments to wipe out Islam. In short time, Europe will come to [see the truth] that Muslims are not oppressors rather they are the oppressed.

The recommendation set forth is greatly significant, and though I am unable to expand upon it here at further length, I am sure that anyone who will give it serious consideration will understand its importance and be in a position to form an opinion on its immense potential.

I also wish to announce that while waiting to see how others will receive this proposal, I have already taken steps to implement it and have arranged to despatch two representatives each to various countries and a group of devoted members of my community have dedicated themselves for this cause and they will embark for their respective destinations as soon as the opportunity to travel presents itself.

Another matter which we have to turn our thoughts to is why so many calamities are inflicting Islam. After all, why would God Almighty [appear] to have broken off His friendship with Islam and begun to deal with it as an enemy. Why does God, Who previously shown signs of wrath in support of Islam, no longer manifest the wonders of His glorious power for its sake? Clearly, Muslims have become prey to calamities because they have cast aside the teachings of the Holy Qur’an. They have, through their own volition, conferred greater rank on Jesus (as) than the Holy Prophet (sas). Hence God Almighty has allowed Christians to prevail over them. Therefore, I advise you to stop wasting your time on trivial matters and make your peace with God Almighty and seek His blessings. Also, you may remember in the September conference, I wrote to you that as of now the only way to ensure the success of Islam is to come together to spread its message. As I have mentioned before, the Europeans do not look upon the Turks with antipathy because of a lack of systematic development. Rather, they see Islam as hostile to civilisation, and consider it an enemy of everything they hold dear in the world and, therefore, seek to wipe it out. So as long as the hearts of the Europeans and indeed the entire Christian world are not purged of this idea, the problems faced by Muslims will not cease.

In truth, the humiliations being inflicted on the Muslim world are not so much afflictions of the earth as they are visitations from heaven. These circumstances have arisen owing to the Muslims turning away from the clear teachings of the Holy Qur’an and their only salvation lies in offering a suitable atonement for their past negligence, in reforming their character and by passing on to the world the message they have been entrusted to deliver. God Almighty has decreed on Muslims as a duty that they spread the message of Islam to all the corners of the earth. But they cast aside this obligation as though it had less value than a piece of straw. Then did God Almighty make it clear to them that the fulfilment of this obligation was not for His benefit, but for their own. Even if there was not a single person who had faith in Islam, it would make no difference to the divinity and holiness of Allah the Exalted. The difference would come in the faith of the Muslims and in their security.

Therefore, even now the only remedy which might grant Muslims respite from these calamities is that they take a stand for the sake of the victory of Islam. Political power did not come to Muslims before Islam, it followed afterwards. Today if Islam is established once more, political power will come again. Know well that there is no greater concord than religious union. When the nations of the world accept Islam there will be nothing left to induce them to destroy all traces of the faith, rather they themselves will seek to uphold it. Therefore, why do you not endeavour to bring within the fold of Islam those communities who are working towards its destruction? Is it because you yourselves are not fully certain of the excellences of Islam and have not experienced the power of its allure? If this is true, you can have no complaints about the enmity of the Europeans against Islam. If Muslims themselves are not convinced of the qualities of Islam how can they expect its enemies to be won over by its beauty? Be sure that Islam possesses a most powerful force of attraction and God Almighty has decreed to spread this faith throughout the whole world and for this end, He has sent His messenger to the world. Now is not the time for despair, for though it is a negative emotion at all times, it is particularly repulsive when the sun of hope has ascended.

Rise up and instead of letting the water of your passions flow uncontrollably through the land, channel it through the waterway of the spreading of the message of Islam, so that it can prove beneficial and be properly utilised. When water flows unrestrained across the surface of the land it serves no purpose, but when the same water is confined to a channel, it can irrigate thousands of acres and in the form of a waterfall it can produce electricity.

Therefore, I call on all respected delegates not to waste the present fervour and passion of the [Muslim] community on useless pursuits. Channel this enthusiasm for the progress of Islam and then see how God Almighty comes to your aid and manifests the glory of Islam before the world. My community is already engaged in this endeavour and can provide necessary people for this enterprise. Let anyone among you who is a true friend of Islam, come forward for this task, for at the current time it is the most blessed of endeavours. And this alone is what constitutes genuine love for our faith, otherwise conferences and resolutions hold no meaning.

Islam is God’s appointed religion and the Holy Qur’an is the word of His mouth. It is impossible that it can be defeated at the frail hands of others, especially such people who have taken a weak mortal as their god and prostrate themselves before him. In truth, the misfortunes [which have overtaken the Muslims] are due to the neglect of their faith. But I regret to say that even now they do not seem to have directed their focus towards this. One can only wish that the Muslims would turn their attention to this need and partake of those rewards God Almighty wants to bestow on the servants of Islam. Indeed, He is merely waiting to see how many Muslims will devote themselves to this task and seek to earn His pleasure. Otherwise the hour of the victory of Islam has arrived and even if the whole world unites to defeat it, they will be thwarted. This is the final agony. The days of Islam’s march to success now approach. We will see what Christianity can do to halt its progress. God has manifested His sense of honour for Islam through His messenger and the whole world will witness how Islam prevails over Christianity and the future religion of the world will be the one which currently appears to people as the weakest.

5

With Humility,
Mirza Mahmood Ahmad
Imam of the Ahmadiyya Community
Qadian Darul-Aman
30 May 1920