The author of the extremely grotesque publication, Two in One, states in the opening pages of his book that while he would have preferred to remain aloof from this controversy, he was prompted to take action by the Mubahala challenge issued by the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community 'on the cover of which he came across such startling titles for Muslims like enemies, disbelievers and liars1.' In the first instance, if his conscience had been as clear as that of the majority of people who happened to read the Mubahala, he would have neither had any cause to consider these titles as being directed towards Muslims nor be offended since the cover of the publication on which these words appear does not specify Muslims but states that it is the:

Furthermore, had Abdul Hafeez been as honest in his views and opinions in relation to the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, as he pretends to be before reading the Mubahala3, he would have realized that these titles are not directed to any particular community but to two categories of people only:

What, if one may ask Abdul Hafeez, would he expect the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community to call people who indulge in such active enmity of the Community; who not only disbelieve in the truth of Hadhrat Ahmadas but also fabricate lies against him and accuse him and his Community of serious moral and criminal charges? If he can suggest a more appropriate title for these people, then maybe one would take his suggestion into consideration. In the meantime, his objections leave a distinct impression that a mere profession of being a Muslim safeguards a person from having these appellations applied to one. In that event, the question that needs to be considered is whether it is proper or not to call a person who professes to be a Muslim an enemy, a disbeliever and a liar when such description is appropriate and truthfully applicable.

Linguistically, an enemy is a person who shows malice or hostility to another or who opposes the purposes or interests of the other person. A disbeliever is a person who refuses to believe and a liar is a person who deliberately presents a false statement or piece of information as being true with intent to deceive. In view of these definitions of the words to which exception is being taken, one would recall Abdul Hafeez's attention to the age of Hadhrat Muhammadsa and ask him as to how would he define 'Abd Allah ibn Ubayy ibn Salul who embraced Islam after the battle of Badr but continued to nurture sentiments of hostility towards it for the rest of his mortal life - to become a centre of dissatisfaction in Medina; assume the position of the leader of the disaffected and thereafter utilize every available opportunity to suffer harm to the faith he verbally professed. Would he not accept that although Ibn Ubayy professed to be a Muslim yet he conspired against Islam from within?5 Would he not agree that although Ibn Ubayy swore allegiance to Islam yet he was not convinced of the truth of Prophet Muhammad'ssa claims?6 Would he not acknowledge that although Ibn Ubayy uttered unfavourable remarks in relation to Prophet Muhammadsa, yet when questioned, he swore that neither he nor any of his associates ever made any such statement?7 Was Ibn Ubayy, therefore, not a hypocrite, an enemy of Islam and a liar?

The Holy Quran has often used these descriptions to which offense is being taken for people who outwardly professed faith in Islam but inwardly never reconciled to it.8 Although they identified themselves with the Ummah and claimed to be Muslims, yet God Almighty denounced them as transgressors who enjoined evil and forbade good9; hypocrites who found fault with believers10 and mocked them11'; seditious people who devised plots against Islam12; enemies of Islam who cherished enmity against believers even after they had embraced the faith13; disbelievers who disbelieved in Allah and His Messengers14; people upon whose heart a seal had been set15; liars whose conduct was evil16 and enemies against whom Muslims should beware and upon whom God has placed a curse17. What would Abdul Hafeez say to such descriptions being applied to nominal Muslims who professed faith in Islam and yet, were denounced as hypocrites, enemies of Islam disbelievers and liars by God Almighty in the Holy Quran?

Hadeeth literature also indicates that such descriptions were employed by Hadhrat Muhammadsa against Muslims not on one18 but several occasions.19 In view of these precedents in the Quran and Hadeeth, scholars of Islam have expressed an opinion that to say something about a person which is appropriate is perfectly permissible and in order.20 Hence, amongst the many companions of Prophet Muhammadsa, Hadhrat Umar ibn Khattabra 21, Hadhrat Sa'd ibn 'Ubadara 22 Hadhrat 'Abd Allah ibn Abbasra 23, Hadhrat 'Abd Allah ibn Salamra 24 as well as Hadhrat 'Ubada ibn Samitra 25 used these appellations against Muslims whenever considered appropriate. What judgment would Abdul Hafeez now like to pronounce upon God Almighty, His apostle Prophet Muhammadsa and his blessed companions for having described some people, albeit Muslims, as enemies, disbelievers and liars? Would he take exception to God Almighty and His Prophetsa as well as early Muslims for having used these descriptions for people to whom these aptly applied? And if not, then is his entire premise for getting involved in this century old controversy not rather judged and without reasonable cause?

The author of Two in One may deceive the masses by pretending to have taken exception to these words contained in the Mubahala challenge issued by the Caliph of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community but it is an established fact of Islamic history that Muslim saints and scholars have employed such descriptions for other Muslims whenever considered appropriate. In fact, Islamic literature is full of instances where, in the interest of truth, Muslim divines have branded their co-religionists as enemies of the faith, disbelievers in Islam and personified liars. Had Abdul Hafeez been conversant with Islamic literature, he may have yet abstained from being engaged in this controversy which according to his own claim, he would have rather avoided.


The Mubahala challenge to which Abdul Hafeez has taken exception may not have been necessary had the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community not been forced into a situation to finally take recourse to the Court of Allah against the persistent abuse being directed towards it and also its active persecution by its adversaries. This is clearly indicated by the announcement of Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmaday prior to the challenge wherein he stated that since:

This statement indicates that the adversaries of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community had, with their century old persecution and vulgar abuse as well as fabrications, pushed Ahmadi Muslims to resort to Divine judgment in this controversy since this dispute has assumed such proportions that it is now not within human powers to bring it to conclusion. Where is the harm in this when there is a precedent for it in the history of lslam27 and the permissibility of such a challenge is itself acknowledged by Abdul Hafeez with his own four point Mubahala? 28

Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad'say challenge to Mubahala is an exceptionally bold and courageous step worthy of only such people who have absolute faith in the truth of their convictions and also ample proof of it. It has been divided into two Parts, the first dealing with the rejection of Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad'sas claims by his adversaries who impute charges of falsehood against him and the second concerns the false allegations made against his Community, which has been further categorized into seven groups dealing which every fabrication concocted against Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas, his righteous successors and also the beliefs and conduct of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community.29 But, such a bold step proved to be extremely unsettling to the leadership of the inimical organizations. Therefore, rather than accept this extremely comprehensive, yet a simple and straight-forward challenge and leave the judgment in the hands of Allah, these hostile elements made numerous attempts to wriggle out of their predicament.

Hence, Abdul Hafeez himself, rather than come in the open and accept the invitation to Mubahala, issues a restricted four point counter challenge30 in which he dare not address the issues which prompted the Mubahala challenge in the first place. The question which one need ask him is that if he is so thoroughly convinced of the truth of his position, then why does he not just accept the challenge already issued by Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmaday, which within its content embraces all the false allegations made against the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community by the author of Two in One in his book? Is it possible that he does not possess the moral courage to stand up to his false statements and allegations under oath - an oath invoking the curse of Allah upon the liar?

Nonetheless, since he has raised four points in his counter Mubahala, one considers it essential that these be analyzed and responded to so that in his conceit, he may not claim victory by default.


In the first of his four point Mubahala challenge issued by Abdul Hafeez, he demands that:

In making such a demand, the author of this grotesque publication has demonstrated that he does not understand the Holy Quran at all or else he would have known that a Mubahala is engaged into only after all avenues to reconcile differences between two parties have been exhausted and there is absolutely no prospect of the dispute being brought to an amicable conclusion through human efforts. Hence, to make such a demand at this late stage after an invitation to Mubahala has been issued or one engaged into is rather naive.

Secondly, a Mubahala challenge is issued on the command of Allah on behalf of the claimant to those who reject his claims and not to him and the ultimate judgment is left to Him to demonstrate the truthfulness of either party. If, at this stage, either of the party is required to provide evidence of its truthfulness, then the entire exercise of entering into a Mubahala contest would become superficial and there would be absolutely no point whatsoever in referring the dispute to the Court of Allah.

Alas! if this petty pir of Gujjo had a better understanding of the Holy Quran and the philosophy behind the need to engage in a Mubahala contest, he would not have made such naive demands. However, since he has demanded proof of the righteous life of Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas, one shall oblige him and leave it to his honesty and Islamic sense of justice, if he has any, to judge how far it fell within the expectations of the life of any prophet.


In the absence of a criterion upon which the lives of the previous prophets have been judged being provided, one would have to rely upon the general criterion upon which the truth of a claimant to prophethood is evaluated. However, since an evaluation of a person's life by his own followers could be as prejudicial in one's favour as the evaluation of one's enemies prejudiced against him one would therefore, refer to the opinions expressed by Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad'sas contemporaries who did not accept his claim to be the Promised Messiah and the Imam Mahdi but have had an opportunity to observe his life from close quarters. These should establish beyond any doubt that Hadhrat Ahmad'sas life did not fall short of the expectations of the life of any prophet in history.

The first maxim through which the truth of a prophet is generally evaluated concerns the claimant's personal purity and piety. The Holy Quran itself has established this criterion Hadhrat Muhammadsa was directed by God to refer the disbelievers to the period of his life which had already passed as evidence of his truthfulness.32 The question that arises now is whether there is any evidence in history to suggest that Hadhrat Ahmad'sas life was of singular purity and piety. If there is, then he passed this very essential test of the truthfulness of his claim. For the information of Abdul Hafeez, Maulana Siraj ud Din, the editor of the leading Urdu newspaper Zamindar of Lahore who had an opportunity to know Hadhrat Ahmadas from very early in his age stated in relation to him:

The age of early twenties is a period when young men normally begin to enjoy manhood and indulge in pursuits of fun and enjoyment. Yet at this stage of his life, Hadhrat Ahmadas impressed his contemporaries with his high sense of virtue and devotion to worship which draws one's attention to the life of Hadhrat Muhammadsa who, around the same age showed signs of singular purity and virtue and who also withdrew himself from worldly pursuits to dedicate his time in prayer and worship at the cave in Hira.

Hadhrat Ahmad'sas piety was also vouched for by the teacher of Allama Sir Muhammad Iqbal, Maulana Sayyid Mir Hasan when Hadhrat Ahmadas was a young man of around 29 years of age. He stated:

Maulana Abdullah al Imadi, another reputed intellectual and scholar of the Indian subcontinent was also the editor of the famous newspaper Vakeel of Amritsar which often engaged itself in the anti Ahmadiyya Muslim controversy. Yet he stated in relation to Hadhrat Ahmadas:

This statement in relation to Hadhrat Ahmad'sas early life once again draws one's attention to the life of Hadhrat Muhammadsa who, from the beginning, showed signs of being charged with religious fervour; spent most of his time in solitude at Hira; remained restless as if he has lost something and finally when the time was ripe he confronted the Kuffar of Mecca and the Jews of Medina as well as the Christians of Najran to overwhelm them with the superior argument of the Islamic faith. Although not a follower of Hadhrat Ahmadas, the Maulana added:

Maulvi Muhammad Hussain Batalvi, the then leader of the Jamait Ahle Hadeeth in India and editor of the popular Muslim periodical Isha'atas Sunnah knew Hadhrat Ahmadas since childhood. He stated on behalf of Hadhrat Ahmad'sas friends and foes alike:

'According to the experience and observation of friends and foes alike, the author of Braheen e Ahmadiyya regulates his life according to the Shariah of Islam and is a pious and truthful person by habit.' 37

He became one of Hadhrat Ahmad'sas arch enemies at some later date but this change of heart was not occasioned by any fault in the latter's character. It was a question of him not being able to reconcile to Hadhrat Ahmad'sas claim to be the Promised Messiah since he subscribed to the dogma of Hadhrat Isa ibne Mariam'sas physical descent from heaven. Although he subsequently issued edicts of apostasy against Hadhrat Ahmadas, yet he did not ever raise any objection against his character and continued to hold his personal piety and purity in high esteem. Hadhrat Khawaja Ghulam Farid , the patron saint of Chachran Shareef was a contemporary of Hadhrat Ahmadas and is today revered in Pakistan and India as a great saint of his time. He too held Hadhrat Ahmadas in high regard and vouched for his excellent character. He declared that:

The aforementioned testimonial admits that Hadhrat Ahmadas was a person of spiritual excellence and also acknowledges that he was a recipient of Divine revelation - a phenomenon every apostle of God must essentially experience in his life to be true in his claim since according to the Holy Quran, God does not reveal His secrets to anyone except whom He chooses to be a Messenger.39 Another seat sufi of the subcontinent, Hadhrat Sufi Ahmad Janrh of Ludhiana spoke of these revelations vouchsafed unto Hadhrat Ahmadas and declared that he:

This testimony alone should answer the question as to what extent Hadhrat Ahmad'sas life resembled that of other prophets for his contemporaries to consider him to be, not a common run of divines and spiritual preceptors, but specially commissioned by God. If they had not found his life to resemble that of other prophets, they would have never considered Hadhrat Muhammad'ssa hadeeth in relation to the divines of his ummah being like the prophets of Israel applicable to Hadhrat Ahmadas. Hadhrat Sufi Jan'srh opinion was shared by Maulana Muhammad Shareef of Banglore, the editor of Manshoor Muhammadi who wrote an extended review on the publication of Braheen e Ahmadiyya. He stated that Hadhrat Ahmadas was:

The Maulana had absolutely no doubt that Hadhrat Ahmadas was a recipient of revelation also and these revelations vouchsafed unto him were from God Almighty. Hence, he invited all those who doubted the Divine nature of these to stay in the company of Hadhrat Ahmadas and acquire certainty for themselves. He stated:

Maulvi Muhammad Hussain Batalvi was also convinced of the Divine nature of these revelations. He alluded to Hadhrat Ahmad'sas challenge to the deniers of revelation and stated that those who denied the possibility of it should come to Qadian and satisfy themselves that the challenger is a recipient of this bounty.43 He declared that Hadhrat Ahmadas:

He asserted that these revelations were positively of Divine nature since:

The aforementioned statement by the then leader Of the Jamait Ahle Hadeeth has raised a very appropriate question in relation to the nature of revelation and one is certain that no Muslim follower of the Quran could even remotely contemplate the feasibility of Satan being given knowledge of the hidden like the Prophets and angels of God. But people like Abdul Hafeez who profess faith in Islam and claim to be scholars of the Holy Quran believe Satan's knowledge to be superior to that of the Messengers of God Almighty. This is evident from his naive statement that, God forbid, 'Satan was the teacher of God Almighty's blessed Angels.'46 How could any sane Muslim believe that an accursed being could ever be blessed with the honour of being a teacher of Allah's Messengers?

According to the wisdom contained in the Holy Quran, apostles of God Almighty are also recipients of Divine help.47 Hence, one observes that Hadhrat Ahmad'sas, contemporaries bore testimony of being witness to him being assisted by God. For instance, at the time of the Conference of Religions held at Lahore in December 1896, a Muslim editor of an independent Indian periodical observed:

Pir Mehr Ali Shah of Golra Sharif in Punjab who later became engaged in a controversy with Hadhrat Ahmadas also believed him to be a recipient of Divine help. In a statement made to Babu Feeroz Ali, he stated:

This statement was published in 1904, more than six years after Pir Mehr Ali had turned against Hadhrat Ahmadas. He also lived another thirty three years after its publication and died in May, 1937. Yet, in all those years, he never contested the aforementioned statement attributed to him although it was published in Al Hakam after he became engaged in a dispute with Hadhrat Ahmadas and even proceeded to write a book against him. This is an indication of the fact that despite his later hostility, he continued to believe that his opponent was Divinely aided.

The Holy Quran defines various functions expected of the prophets of God during their mortal lives one of which being the dedication of their lives to establishing the Unity of God on earth.50 How far did Hadhrat Ahmadas strive to establish this may be gauged by the comments of his contemporaries. Hadhrat Khawaja Ghulam Faridrh referred to his endeavours in relation to this and stated:

Does this not recall one's attention to the life of Hadhrat Muhammadsa who sent such invitations to some of the mightiest kings and emperors of that period? Incidentally, while Abdul Hafeez demands proof of how Hadhrat Ahmad'sas life resembles that of any prophet in history, Hadhrat Ahmadas appears to be the only prophet in history who followed the Sunnah of the greatest prophet known to the history of mankind, the Khatamal Anbiyya, Hadhrat Muhammad Mustaphasa. History does not speak of any other prophet having sent letters of invitations to the mighty kings of their time to accept the faith of Allah, except the Prophet of Islam Hadhrat Muhammadsa and his prophesied Messiah, Hadhrat Ahmadas. All praise belongs to Allah!

The Holy Quran also indicates that Messengers of God are required to strive in the cause of Allah with their wealth and person52 which Hadhrat Ahmadas did with the greatest of dedication. Hadhrat Khawaja Ghulam Faridrh declared:

He was so impressed by the manner in which Hadhrat Ahmadas strove to serve the cause of Allah that he gave vent to his feelings of disgust with the ulema of his age who opposed him. He censured them and stated:

Incidentally, such ulema exist in this day and age too, Abdul Hafeez being a classical example. If he had any respect for Islam and the truth which he so numerously claims in his book, then rather than attack such a perfect, decent and venerable man as Hadhrat Ahmadas who was a complete follower of Prophet Muhammadsa and whose writings are full of inner knowledge and truths and guidance, he would have rather engaged himself in fighting the influence of the false creeds of Trinity which appears to have heavily burdened his own homeland. If he were to visit the Christian centers at Shikarpur and Hyderabad, he would gauge the extent to which ordinary Muslims are being lured to Christianity and deluded into believing in the plurality of God.55 But while he is able to do nothing to save Muslims at Shikarpur56 or Hyderabad57 in Sindh from falling into apostasy and being baptized into a faith which believes Christ to be either God, His partner of His son, Hadhrat Ahmad'sas high sense of dedication to the cause of Allah and establishing the Unity of God was applauded by many. Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad,