Prophecy Concerning the Muslih Mau’ud
From page 30 to 50 of his book, Mr. Faruqi has devoted nearly 29 pages to a discussion of the prophecy of the Promised Messiah in regard to the Muslih Mau’ud, in the course of which discussion he has, unfortunately, tried to throw a shameful quantity of filth on Hazrat Khalifatul Masih II. In this connection, he has brought under discussion the question of Khilafat after the passing away of the Promised Messiah. We shall thrash out this question in a separate chapter.
The prophecy in regard to the Muslih Mau’ud is a sign of grace and mercy Allah pledged to bestow on the Promised Messiah following his deep and earnest prayers and solicitations for a concentrated period of forty days, in an intense devotion and contemplation. This pledge the Promised Messiah has set down in writing in an Ishtihar, a leaflet, dated February 20, 1886, to the following effect:
“This first prophecy, based on Revelation from God, The most honored, The most High, Merciful and Great, The most ascendant, Who has the power to encompass everything, jalla shanohu, wa azza ismohu, conveyed to Me, addressing me in the Revelation: “I give you a sign of grace and mercy, even as you had solicited from Me, so I have heard your entreaties and your prayers, in My mercy. I have placed among those accepted and your journey, which is a journey to Hosbiarpur and Ludhiana, I have made blessed for you. So a sign of power and grace, and nearness in favor is being given to you. A sign of grace and bounty, and on you is bestowed the key of victory and triumph. Ye, O’ Victor, on you be peace. God said this, that those who seek life, should be released from the clutches of death, and those who lie inert in their graves, should come out, that the value and worth of Islam, and the eminence of the Word of God should become clear and manifest, that the truth should come, with all its blessings, and falsehood, with all its misfortune and curse should flee, that people should realize I am powerful. I do just what I like, so that they are convinced I am with you, and to those who do not yield faith to the existence of God, those who deny God, and deny the Deen of God, deny His Book, His pure apostle, Mohammad Mustafa, they see with the eyes of denial and falsification, they should get a clear sign and the path of the guilty one should become manifest. Therefore, rejoice that an impressive and imposing, and pure boy shall be given to you. A highly intelligent son shall be granted to you. That boy shall be of your own seed, from your own progeny and descent. A beautiful and pure boy comes to you as a guest. His name is Emanuel, and also Bashir. He has been gifted with a sacred soul. He is free from dirt and impurity of all kinds. He is the Light of God. Blessed is he who comes from heaven. With him is Fazl, who will come, with his coming. He has majesty and grandeur, and greatness, and wealth. He shall come into this world with his healing breath, and the blessings of the soul of truth he will cure many, purify many of sickness, and disease. He is the Word of God, since the mercy and grace of God and His sense of jealousy in point of love and honour, has sent him with His Word of Tamjid. He would be exceedinlgy intelligent and full of understanding, soft of heart he shall be made full of external and internal comprehension. He shall be one who would make three into four (meaning of this I have not able to grasp). Doshamba, (Monday) blessed Doshamba ! A son attractive for the heart renowned, and blessed. Manifester of the First and the Last, manifester of the truth and greatness, as though Allah Himself had come from heaven. His descent shall be exceedingly blessed, and a cause for the greatness and grandeur of God to be made manifest. Light comes, Light, whom God has touched with the perfumed essence of his approval. We shall put our soul into him and the shielding shadow of the Lord shall be with him. He would grow at a very great speed and he would work up the release of many. His fame shall spread to the corners of the earth, and nations receive blessings from him. Then to the focal point of his entity, he will be lifted into the heavens. And this is a matter already fully determined, fully decided.”
In the eyes of members of Ahmadiyya Movement, this prophecy has been fulfilled in an impressive, grand manner, in the person and life of Hazrat Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmad, Khalifatul Masih II. Since this prophecy had been very helpful in the establishment of his Khilafat, and since leading Ahmadies of the Lahore Section, and some of their helpers, were opposed to his becoming Khalifa and desired very much to see him humbled in this trial of strength, they have done their best, in a number of ways, not to let membership of the Movement concentrate their mind on the question of this prophecy in order to keep the truth wrapped up for the general membership.
As chance would have it, in the wording of the prophecy, since there is an expression, immediately to comprehend, namely, “he would be the one to make three into four,” and since the Promised Messiah himself had remarked that it had not been grasped by him, as to what it meant precisely, Maulvi Mohammad Ali has tried his best to turn and twist the meaning, to imply that the son in question would come in the fourth century after the Promised Messiah. So he wrote in his Al-Muslihil-Mau’ud:
“The way Hazrat Sahib has attempted to interpret this difficult passage, by trying to fit into it various meanings, such as the possibility that it might mean the promised son in some connection or agency, which, for instance might turn three months, or three hours, into four months, or four hours, similarly it is possible that the true meaning of the passage might well turn out to be the fourth century after the prophecy had been made, and that the Muslih Mau’ud in question might turn out to be one who would turn three centuries into four in the sense that he would follow the Promised Messiah in the fourth century after the prophecy had been made.”
In his Khilafat-i-Mahmud and Muslihil Mau’ud, Mir Qasim Ali took Maulvi Mohammad Ali to task over the point, to the following effect:
“Would it not mean, that the agency to turn three centuries into four would be the fourth century, not the person of the Muslihil Mau’ud. Suppose the Muslih Mau’ud is not born in the fourth century; the fourth century, even then, would turn the third century into the fourth century or would it not? After the first century of any era has passed, does not the new century turn the first century into the second century? And does not the next century turn the period into the third century? Every one in his proper senses would perceive that the second century of any era turns the first century into the second century; similarly the third century turns the second one into the third century, and the fourth century would turn the third century into the fourth. No human being can turn the first, or second, or third century into the second, or third, or fourth century, quite irrespective of whether the Muslih Mau’ud had been born, or not. Only the fourth century would be able to turn the third century into the fourth century. This cannot be done by any kind of Muslih Mau’ud.” (Khilafat-i-Mahmud, page 40)
“The person of the Muslih Mau’ud can form no bar against the advent of the fourth century. If you say that the Muslih Mau’ud would be born at the end of the day of the third century, and at the earliest commencement of the night between the third and fourth century, even then it would not be said, in human parlance, that the person born at this particular time, had turned the third century into the fourth. 1) Because this statement would be just a statement that he would be born on that particular day. There is no argument or reason to establish it. 2) Let us assume that this can happen, and it has actually taken place, even then the person of the Muslih Mau’ud will not turn the third century into the fourth, just as in the case of the first and second centuries there was no human-being to turn the first century into the second and second into the third. What turns one century into the second and the third or fourth century, is the passage of the required measure of time, nothing else. In the same way, what turns the third century into the fourth is the rolling of the days and nights, nothing else.” (Khilafat-i-Mahmud, page 40)
Since, for Mr. Faruqi, the weakness of Maulvi Mohammad Ali’s position in this discussion had become evident, that the Muslih Mau’ud would come in the fourth century after the Promised Messiah he has altogether abandoned that argument; and in Truth Triumphs, page 30, he writes:
“In 1886 A.D., Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Sahib was given the glad tidings by Allah about a boy in his progeny, who would possess both worldly and outward rank and power as well as spiritual greatness and holiness. So in a `Notice’ published on 20th February, 1886, Hazrat Mirza Sahib proclaimed this prophecy to the world, and gave one most important and mysterious sign of his identification that he would `increase three into four’. The exact time of birth of this great promised boy is known only to God, as without His Divine Communication, nobody can say for certain. It may be that this boy would be born in this very generation ; or the fact of his `increasing three into four’ may mean that he would appear in the fourth generation. It can also be that he may not be a physical son but a `spiritual son’, however Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Sahib, like other such appointees from Allah naturally longed for this promise of Allah to be fullfilled in all its glory as soon as possible. So in the interpretation of this promise of Allah, he used his own personal judgement, and applied it to some of his own boys, which later on proved to be incorrect.”
Allah’s Promise that the Promised Son would be born within Nine Years.
In this passage Mr. Faruqi advances the view that the promised son may be born in the fourth generation after the Promised Messiah. But the Divine promise given to the Promised Messiah was that he would be born within nine years, in any case. We find that in the Leaflet published under title ishtihar wajibul-izhar, dated March 22, 1886, he wrote:
“To this time, March 22, 1886, no son has taken birth in my home, apart from two sons born earlier, now more than 20 or 22 years. But we know that such a son will, most certainly, be born within nine years, in fulfilment of Allah’s promise. Sooner, or later, in any case, he will be born within this period.”
We see here that Allah had promised that the promised son, the Muslih Mau’ud, would be born within nine years of the date when the passage was written. The meaning is, therefore absolutely clear that the son in question is one among the sons of the Promised Messiah born within this time limit of nine years.
To talk of a son to be born in the fourth century, or in the fourth generation, after the date specified here, is entirely irrelevant. We must mark the following words in the prophecy:
“That boy would be from your own seed, your own progeny and descendants.”
These words give a clear indication that the son in question would be a son in the immediate first generation, not a distant descendant. To talk of the fourth generation in this context falls far too wide of the meaning. The fact that he was to take birth within nine years puts him firmly within the sons in the first generation from the Promised Messiah. The time limit of nine years was not on the basis of any desire of the Promised Messiah: it was definitely set down in the Divine promise itself, and we have to remember that “Allah never violates a pledge.” (Al-Ra’d, 4: 32)
Evidently, the ambiguity in the expression, `He would make three into four’ was to be cleared by the way itself the events would fall.
Element of Concealment in Prophecies
In the matter of principles relating to Prophecies, the usual way and style with Allah is that He maintains a measure, or element, of some concealment, that at the time a prophecy comes to be fulfilled, it should provide a test for those who witness it, to accept or reject it, according to their intelligence and sincerity in faith. Concerning the expression “He would make three into four”, the Promised Messiah, openly, quite candidly, set it down that the meaning was not clear to him. But quite in the first place, the mind went to the conclusion that possibly there would be four sons, one of the four to be the Promised boy, the Muslih Mau’ud, though the reservation remained in the mind that the real meaning of the expression might well unfold itself to be entirely different from the one which appeared to be quite obvious. Later on, at one time, the Promised Messiah did draw a conclusion that he may come to be blessed with four sons and he expressed the idea that the Promised boy might turn out to be one of the three born earlier and when the time came for the fourth son to be born, he wrote in his work entitled Anjam-i-A’tham :
“In the regions of revealment, the soul of the fourth boy stirred in my loins.” (Page 183)
“Allah gave me the happy tiding of the fourth boy, and said that, undoubtedly, he would turn three into four.” (Anjam-i-A’thum page 182)
Mr. Faruqi has also reproduced the following passage from Zamima Anjam-i-A’tham :
“…Then there was another Ilham which was proclaimed on 20th February, 1886, and that was that God will increase three into four. At that time there was no sign of my three sons (Mirza Mahmud Ahmad, Mirza Bashir Ahmad, and Mirza Sharif Ahmad) who are present now, so it seemed that the Ilham meant that first of all three sons will be given, and then another one will be added who will make the number four.”
After giving this quotation, Mr. Faruqi writes:
“Now after this in 1899, the fourth son (Mubarak Ahmad) was born. After his birth Hazrat Mirza Sahib wrote clearly in his book Tiryaqul Qulub : `This prophecy of increasing three into four was announced on 20th February, 1886, and after the birth of the three sons e.g. Mahmud, Bashir, and Sharif, it was again mentioned in Anjam-i-A’tham, and its Appendix, that as informed by God, the Promised Muslih (or reformer) who will increase three into four will now appear.”
A Dangerous Interpolation by Mr. Faruqi
For Mubarak Ahmad, the fourth son, Mr. Faruqi accepts the passage in Zamima Anjam-i-A’thum as an identification based on Ilham and then he proceeds to introduce a serious, a grave interpolation into a passage from Tiryaqul Qulub, to the effect that after the words `making three into four’, he adds `i.e. Muslih Mau’ud’, dishonestly on his own behalf, to create a wrong impression that, under this identification based on Ilham, the Promised Messiah had been led to hold Mubarak Ahmad, son born number four, to be the Muslih Mau’ud. Now this is very far from the true basic facts of the situation. The Promised Messiah, nowhere in his writings, neither in Zamima Anjam-i-A’tham, nor in Tiryaqul Qulub, has identified Mirza Mubarak Ahmad, the son born fourth to be the Muslih Mau’ud. We definitely claim that Mr. Faruqi can never show us, from Tiryaqul Qulub, that the Promised Messiah ever took up a definite position that Mubarak Ahmad was the promised son, destined to be the Muslih Mau’ud.
This is how Mr. Faruqi builds up a web of a unjustified statements and conclusions, to leave an impression on the mind of the reader that in the eyes of the Promised Messiah, Mubarak Ahmad, the fourth son, under a firm identification done by Ilham, was to become the Muslih Mau’ud. The basic fact, which conclusively proves that here he is taking up an entirely false position, is that Mubarak Ahmad was born outside nine years, the clear time limit in the case. In fact TiryaquI Qulub carried the following passage, wherein the Promised Messiah takes up a clear and candid position in regard to the matter:
“Ilham had said four sons would be born of which the number one had been held in the Ilham to become a stalwart of God, with qualities of a Messiah. So, by the grace of Allah, four sons have been born.” (page 14)
Evidently, the Promised Messiah says very clearly that one of the four sons was going to be the Expected Muslih. There is here no trace of any basis for the view that he identified Mubarak Ahmad as the son destined to become the great Muslih Mau’ud.
There is another reason why the Promised Messiah could not have felt sure that Mubarak Ahmad was destined to be the Muslih Mau’ud, because, even before his birth he was aware there was a possibility, in the light of the Ilhams concerning him that he might die in childhood. Under Sign number 21, in Tiryaqul Qulub where the birth of this son was foretold, the Promised Messiah wrote:
“Allah has informed me He would give me another son. This is the same fourth son, born now, who has been named Mubarak Ahmad. It was this same boy intimation of his birth had been given two years before. Then, again, the intimation was given at a time when there still were two months to go before his birth; and then came the following Ilham, when he was to be born:
`Inni asqoto minallahi wa usibohu ‘. i.e., `From the hand of God, I fall on the earth and it is to him I will go.’ From this, on the basis of my own judgement I drew the meaning that he would be a pious boy. His face always turned to Allah. His movement always directed towards Him or that he would die soon. God alone knows out of these two possibilities which is the one to concide with His will and purpose.” (Tiryaqul Qulub, Edition 1, page 30, Large Size)
This interpolation on the part of Mr. Faruqi is highly regrettable. In fact this interpolation was made, in the first instance, by Mr. Faruqi’s father, Doctor Basharat Ahmad, the father-in-law of Maulvi Mohammad Ali, in his book entitled Mojaddid-i-A’zam, in the course of his discussion on the Promised Messiah’s prophecy with respect to the Muslih Mau’ud. It is possible Mr. Faruqi walked in the footsteps of his father, relying completely on the integrity of his own father in quoting from the works of the Promised Messiah, Mr. Faruqi may not have taken the trouble to check the reference himself. Otherwise, if Mubarak Ahmad had really been taken by the Promised Messiah, to be the Muslih Mau’ud, on the basis of his own Ilhams, it will have to be conceded that the prophecy of the Promised Messiah, in this behalf, has been falsified – not that the ijtihad of the Promised Messiah in regard to this matter has turned out to be wrong.
There are evident contradictions in Mr. Faruqi’s “Truth Triumphs”. On page 31, he states that the Promised Messiah’s ijtihad turned out to be wrong. Then, further on, in open contradiction of what he has written on page 31, according to his conception of the ilhami identification, he takes Mubarak Ahmad, the fourth son, to be the Muslih Mau’ud, full in the teeth on the fact that Mubarak Ahmad died in early childhood, proving for all time to come that he was not the Muslih Mau’ud.
Even before February 20, 1886, there had been an Ilham in 1883, that Mubarak Ahmad would be the fourth son. The Promised Messiah wrote on page 196 of Nozulul Masih :
“In 1883, I received an Ilham `Turner of three into four, Mubarak’.”
So Mubarak Ahmad was indeed the fourth son. In this sense he was, indeed, the boy who made three into four. But he was not the Muslih Mau’ud, neither in the light of the identification done by an Ilham, nor was he held by the Promised Messiah to be the son destined to become the Muslih Mau’ud, on the basis of his own ijtihad. Mubarak Ahmad’s death in childhood proved beyond doubt of any kind, that in one respect he was the son who made three into four; and that the Muslih Mau’ud would be the maker of three into four, in some other sense.
Mr. Faruqi writes, however:
“Then again at page 40 of the same book, Tiryaqul Qulub, in the 25th Sign, Hazrat Mirza Sahib considers the birth of Mubarak Ahmad as a fulfilment of this promise. But the death of Mubarak Ahmad in September 1907, disillusioned Hazrat Mirza Sahib, for he wrote in his Notice Tabsira dated 15th November, 1907. `When Mubarak Ahmad died, then Allah sent another Ilham to me: We give you good news of another gracious son who will take the place of Mubarak Ahmad (both physically and spiritually).'” (Truth Triumphs, page 31)
Further, on page 32 of `Truth Triumphs’ Mr. Faruqi gives the following note:
“Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad made an error of interpretation in the understanding of these Ilham and prophecies.”
Had the Promised Messiah said Mubarak Ahmad was to become the Muslih Mau’ud, Mr. Faruqi would have been right, after the death of this son, in saying that the Promised Messiah had made an ijtihadi error, and he would have been free to hold that the Ilham : `Inna nobasshiroka bighulamin halimin yanzilo manzilal mubrake ‘ `I give you the glad tiding of a kind and gentle son, to take the place of Mubarak’ – indicated that the son destined to become the Muslih Mau’ud was to be a fifth son, yet to be born. But the Promised Messiah never said Mubarak Ahmad was the Muslih Mau’ud, neither on the basis of any identification made in some Ilham, nor on the basis of his own understanding and ijtihad. Therefore the Ilham just quoted above cannot be said to have any bearing on the question of the identity of the Muslih Mau’ud. Thus we come to the final position of this prophecy, that the Muslih Mau’ud now was to be one of the three sons left after Mubarak Ahmad had passed away.
Mr. Faruqi’s Genius for Mixing Up Thread Ends
Walking in the footsteps of his father, Mr. Faruqi first made an interpolation in a passage in Tiryaqul Qulub, to the effect that the Promised Messiah had believed Mirza Mubarak Ahmad, the fourth son, was the Muslih Mau’ud. But seeing that Mubarak Ahmad had died in early boyhood, he then takes up the position that the Muslih Mau’ud was to come among the distant descendants of the Promised Messiah, in probably the remote future, and by holding this view, he is contradicting his own earlier conclusions that the Muslih Mau’ud was to be in the immediate first generation, or in the fourth (Truth Triumphs, page 30). He makes a reference to an Ilham in Tazkira, page 691, to the effect that “All the victory was to come after him, the manifestor of truth and dominance, even as though Allah Himself had come down from the heavens”, and proceeds to conclude on this basis:
“All glory will come after his advent. He will be the personification of Truth and Uprightness, as if Allah had descended from the Heaven.” (Tazkira, Page 691)
“Hazrat Mirza Sahib indicates in his book Tazkirat al-Shahadatain as to when that victory of faith and religion will come… And three hundred years from today will not have passed, when those Muslims and Christians who are awaiting the second advent of Jesus Christ, will become utterly disappointed and will forsake the idea. Then there would be only one predominant religion, and one guide (The Holy Prophet Mohammad). I have come to sow the seeds and I have done it. Now the plants will grow and flourish and there is none who can prevent this.” (Truth Triumphs, Page 33)
After quoting this passage, Mr. Faruqi proceeds to draw the conclusion:
“This statement indicates that the Promised Muslih will be the Mojaddid of the sixteenth century Hijrah, and at his hands the complete dominance of Islam will be accomplished. Allah, of course, knows best.”
It is surprising that, according to the statements and writings of the Promised Messiah, the Ilhami promise of God was that the Muslih Mau’ud was to be born within a period of nine years. But on page 30 of his book, Mr. Faruqi, first places the son in the first generation or in the fourth; and now on page 33 of the same book, he takes another view, namely, that he well might turn out to be the Mojaddid of the sixteenth century of the Hijrah, although the fourth generation of the descendants of a man can normally come within one hundred years; while the sixteenth century after the Promised Messiah would come two hundred years afterwards.
In the Ilham here under reference, what has been stated is that the complete victory would come after the Muslih Mau’ud, not in his life-time. But to beg his own pet and particular point, Mr. Faruqi is now doing his best to interpret this Ilham to mean that the Muslih Mau’ud would be the Mojaddid of the sixteenth century of the Hijra.
Mr. Faruqi’s interpretation that the Muslih Mau’ud will come in the fourth generation of the descendants of the Promised Messiah, is evidently falsified by his own second line of thought that the Promised Muslih would come in the sixteenth century; and this thesis of his advent in the sixteenth century is ruled out, on the basis of the Ilhami promise of God, since, under the Ilhami promise, the Promised Muslih was to take birth definitely within nine years of the date when the prophecy was made. Above all, in view of the Ilhami identification on page 14 of Tiryaqul Qulub, he was to be one of the four sons, namely, Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmad, Mirza Bashir Ahmad, Mirza Sharif Ahmad, and Mirza Mubarak Ahmad. Since the last named, died in early boyhood, as had been foreshadowed in certain Ilhams received by the Promised Messiah, the question, indisputably, boils down to just this that the Muslih Mau’ud was to be one of the remaining three sons. Therefore, only the interpretation given by Mr. Faruqi on page 30 of his book: “It may be that this boy would be born in this very generation” can be held to be in accord with the Ilhami identification, to the effect that the Muslih Mau’ud was to be one of the three sons, left after the death of the youngest, namely, Mirza Mubarak Ahmad.
Identification of The Muslih Mau’ud
The discussion, thus, boils down to this that we have to look for the Promised Muslih in the very first generation of the Promised Messiah’s descendants; and Mr. Faruqi should realise the enormity of his offence against decent behaviour, in the foul and violent language he has stooped to employ in regard to Hazrat Khalifatul Masih II; for among the sons of the Promised Messiah, it was essential for the Muslih Mau’ud that he should be one of his successors; and this honour has fallen to the share of Hazrat Khalifatul Masih II, alone, against whom Mr. Faruqi has shown himself so full of a low kind of wrath.
So this is a great Sign that, in accord with Revelations from the Lord God, the second son, born under glad tidings conveyed before time, even that son became the second Khalifa, and held the reins of the Movement in his hand, as the supreme executive, for more than fifty years. On the death of his son, Bashir Awwal, the Promised Messiah wrote in the Green Leaflet:
“The second boy, in regard to whom the Ilhams said that a second Bashir would be given, whose second name is Mahmud – although to this time, the first of December, 1888, he has not yet taken birth; but in accord with the promise, he would most certainly be born, within the time limit in regard to the matter. The earth and the heavens can stumble in their stride, or falter to fall away; but it is impossible that promise extended by the Lord should fail to be fulfilled. Ignorant people laugh at the Revelations coming from Him; and fools throw ridicule on the pure tidings of joy proceeding from Him. But this is because the last day is hidden from their eyes, and the final end is not open before them, that they could see it.” (Green Leaflet)
Further on, in this Leaflet, replying to the criticism of opponents, on the death of the Bashir Awwal, the Promised Messiah wrote:
“To this day, we have not written in any Ishtihar, that this boy whould have a long life. Nor did I say that he was the Muslih Mau’ud. In fact in our Ishtihar of February 20, 1886, there was a prophecy in regard to some of my sons, that they would die at an early age. Therefore, the point needs proper thought whether by the death of this boy, a prophecy had come to be fulfilled, or falsified. In the entire number of the people, among whom we have had this Ishtihar distributed, most of them bore on the death of this boy. For instance, the following passage in the Ishtihar of February 20, 1886, that a `handsome and pure boy comes to you, as your guest.’ The word `guest’ used here seems to be the name given to the boy; it conveys the hint that he would pass away from this world, soon, at a very early age. For a guest, in any case, is one who, goes away soon. He departs, while you stand looking on, watching him, and he wends his way. The man who, stays behind, saying farewell to those who depart, cannot be called a guest. In the Ishtihar under reference here, the expression that he would be free from rijis (i.e. sin) this also is an indication of the short span of his life. Nor should anyone fall into the error that the prophecy mentioned is the one concerning the Muslih Mau’ud since, on the basis, of Ilham, it has been made clear that all these passages concern the son who has passed away. The prophecy concerning the Muslih Mau’ud starts from the following passage, i.e., `With him is Fazl who will come with his coming.’ Thus the name given to the Muslih Mau’ud in the Ilhami expression, is Fazl. Also his second name is Mahmud; and his third name is Bashir Thani as well (meaning the second Bashir). In another Ilham, his name has been shown as Fazle-i-Omar. And it was necessary that his coming should have been held up, till such time that this Bashir, who had died, should have taken birth, and carried back; since all, these matters, in the wisdom of the Lord, had been kept under his feet. And Bashir Awwal, who has died, was a fore-runner for Bashir II. This was the reason why both were, mentioned in one and the same prophecy.” (Green Leaflet)
So that is the crux of the matter. The Promised Messiah himself has cleared away the jungle growth reared up around this question by fools or knaves. After one has read the passage quoted here, no room is left for any kind of doubt about the fact that Hazrat Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmad, Khalifatul Masih II is the Muslih Mau’ud, born within nine years, from the time when this prophecy was made.
In the light of events, as they have unrolled themselves, Hazrat Fazl-i-Omar has made three into four in the following way. Among the surviving sons of the Promised Messiah, Mirza Sultan Ahmad, from the first marriage, was the eldest. But for a long time he did not join the Movement. During the Khilafat of the Fazal-i-Omar, he tendered his allegiance to the Promised Messiah, who now had four sons of his own, shouldering the responsibility of the mission, whereas formerly, there had been only three – Mirza Mahmud Ahmad, Mirza Bashir Ahmad, and Mirza Sharif Ahmad.
Wrong Statements by Mr. Faruqi
It is highly regrettable that, after reproducing two Ilhams, namely `Sa-ahabo laka ghulaman zakiyyan’ and `ja’al haqqo wazahaqal batilo’, Mr. Faruqi has also written the following, which has no basis in fact:
“And then, in between these Ilhams, by putting an Ilhami prayer on the lips of the Promised Messiah, a subtle hint was also given that the offspring present at the time was not pure and righteous, as implied in the Ilham `O Lord, bestow on me pure and righteous offspring’. From Tazkira, page 738, it is clear that after this Ilhami prayer, the Promised Messiah had no more children.” (Translation from Urdu passage.)
“Then during this period one Divinely inspired prayer came on the tongue of Hazrat Mirza Sahib which delicately pointed to the fact that the present sons (of Mirza Sahib) do not come up to that high standard; for the wording of the prayer said: `O my Lord! grant me godly offspring!’ (Tazkira, page 738) After this prayer no more children were born to Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.” (Truth Triumphs, page 32) Passage from English Edition.
Now this is altogether a wrong statement, which bears witness to a lot of hostility, even malice, in the heart of the author, for the offspring of the Promised Messiah. It is very interesting, and instructive, to note that the meaning extracted by the mind of the learned author from the Ilham in question is something so brilliant, out of the common, that even the Promised Messiah failed to dive to such a profound depth. In fact, the person to whom the Ilham was addressed, could not catch the hint intended for him. But Lo, and Behold! The learned author has proved himself sensitive enough in the matter – far more sensitive than even the Promised Messiah himself, to whom it never seems to have occurred that the children he had been blessed with were not pure in mind, and righteous in conduct and behaviour. In fact, in his work entitled Siraj-i-Munir The Promised Messiah wrote quite to the contrary, under prophecy number 17:
“This is the prophecy entered in the Barahin-i-Ahmadiyya on page 239, which is to the following effect: `Allah will complete His blessings on you, that they should constitute a Sign for those who believe.’ In other words, whatsoever of this life shall come to be conferred on you, they would all be so many Signs, i.e., what you say shall be a Sign. For instance people saw this in the proceedings of the Conference of Religions held in Lahore, and in the books I have written in Arabic; and my acts, my work, also shall be a Sign, as so many acts of the Lord God Himself, being manifested as such in my favour; and my offspring, too, shall be a Sign, as the Lord promised to bless me with righteous and blessed offspring, and then fulfilled this promise.” (Siraj-i-Munir, page 57)
Then Mr. Faruqi has said something which is really very curious, to say the least. He sets down the Ilham from Tazkira, page 401, `You shall see a long and far off line of descendants,” and he has felt himself impelled to make the following wonderful remarks:
“You will see (it) in (still) far off generation.”
“That is, the Promised Muslih is to appear among some future descendants of yours.” (Tazkira page 465)
Would it be permissible for us to ask one question? How, on what authority does Mr. Faruqi, connect this Ilham, namely, that the Promised Messiah shall see a long line of his descendants, with the advent of the Promised Muslih. Had there been any connection of this kind between the two, the Promised Messiah certainly would not have written in Tiryaqul Qulub :
“The Ilham had indicated that four sons would be born and one of these has been described by the Ilham as a stalwart with the qualities of a Messiah. So, with the grace of God, four boys have been born.” (Tiryaqul Qulub, page 14)
On page 37 of his book Mr. Faruqi has written:
“Soon after Mirza Mahmud Ahmad became the Khalifa at Qadian, his `kept’ Maulvis (who acted as his scribes and publicity agents) started saying and writing that Mirza Mahmud Ahmad is that person in whom the prophecy of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad about the Muslih Mau’ud has been fulfilled. So much so that even Mirza Mahmud Ahmad himself began to think of himself as such; for in the early years of his Caliphate, his following increased considerably and wealth started pouring in. The feeling of power and wealth and glory made him dream of becoming a world conqueror. But since he did not then consider himself appointed by Allah as Muslih Mau’ud, other people were not bound to accept him as such. Having been given some latitude by God, he became bolder still and impertinent; and finally on 28th January, 1944 A.D. he issued the following proclamation: `I swear by that God Who is One and Almighty, and taking a false oath in Whose name is the act of the accursed people and one who attributes a false thing to Him cannot escape His wrath and punishment, that God Himself informed me in this city of Lahore, at No. 13, Temple Road at the house of Sheikh Bashir Ahmad Advocate, that I am the one in whom the prophecy of `Muslih Mau’ud ‘ has been fulfilled; and I am that `Promised Reformer’ through whose efforts Islam will spread to the four corners of the world, and the worship of the One and Only God would be established.” (Al-Fazl, 1st February, 1944)
The reader will not fail to note the polite style of expression used here by Mr. Faruqi. He calls Hazrat Khalifatul Masih `impertinent’. In regard to the learned divines of the Movement, he uses the word `paltu ‘ an expression of immeasurable contempt. All that we need say in this connection is to remind him of the following Hadith: “Jealousy is a fire which eats up the virtues, as fire eats up the fuel”.
Mr. Faruqi here shows himself prone to a low type of expression. According to him, the `kept’ Ulama of the Movement, flatteringly started to call him the Muslih Mau’ud. He does not seem to have any adequate measure of the background of this question, during the stages of the bitter controversy heaped up on the point, though, at the root it is a very simple and straightforward question, which can be fully answered, from all sorts of possible angles. Perhaps he is not aware that the man who was the first to raise this question, of the identity of the Muslih Mau’ud, was not any scholar of the later period, towards the commencement of his Khilafat. The man who raised the question, to begin with, was an old venerable Companion of the Promised Messiah, Pir Manzur Muhammad. His study of the works of the Promised Messiah led him to the conclusion that Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmad combined in himself all qualities and circumstances which marked him out, very clearly, as the Muslih Mau’ud. Pir Manzur Muhammad, wrote a paper on this prophecy. He deduced 14 points, and applied the Prophecy to Hazrat Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmad, and he put it before Hazrat Maulvi Nurruddin Khalifatul Masih I whose reaction was: “I have known it for a long time. Have you never noticed that in my attitude towards him, on a personal level, there is an inner shade of deference.” Pir Manzur Mohammad, then, wrote the gist of this talk and put it before Hazrat Khalifatul Masih I, requesting his signature in confirmation. Hazrat Khalifatul Masih wrote the following on that Paper, and signed it:
“We have known this for a long time. Haven’t you noticed that in our personal attitude towards him there is a deep inner shade of deference? I confirm that I said this in the course of a talk with brother Pir Manzur Muhammad.”
(Signature bears the date December 10) (Tashhizul Azhan, 1914, and Tarikh-i-Ahmadiyyat, Vol. IV, page 369) which carries a photographic reproduction of the original.
We have, thus, the verdict of Hazrat Khalifatul Masih I, whom the Lahore Section accept as Khalifa – a verdict which leaves no room for doubt that out of the surviving sons of the Promised Messiah, Hazrat Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmad, second son of the Promised Messiah, was the Promised Muslih in the prophecy.
Maulvi Abdul Mannan Umar, whose opinion has been available for Mr. Faruqi, published in a periodical entitled `Furqan ‘ May 1945, some notes of Hazrat Khalifatul Masih I (Maulvi Abdul Mannan was editor of the journal at the time). The sense of these notes was that the advent of the Muslih Mau’ud would take place thirty years after the date when Hazrat Khalifatul Masih I, gave a discourse to this effect. Presumably in his Dars-i-Quran. The notes were published subsequently to the declaration by Hazrat Khalifatul Masih II, on the basis of a Revelation to him from God, the wording of this Revelation, in Arabic, was: “I am the Promised Messiah, his like and his Khalifa.” Hazrat Khalifatul Masih II took the Revelation to mean that he was the Muslih Mau’ud of this prophecy, which described him as gifted with the breath of a Messiah, in excellence and virtue, like the Promised Messiah himself.
The declaration was made in 1944, exactly thirty years after the light shed on this question by Hazrat Khalifatul Masih I. Here we have the prophecy made by the Promised Messiah, fulfilled, and the view upheld by the Companion of the Promised Messiah, and of the First Khalifa. In the face of this evidence it is highly unseemly for Mr. Faruqi to say that the view was manufactured or supported by hypocritical and paid Maulvis, playing the role of flattering adherents. Let us hope Mr. Faruqi and Maulvi Abdul Mannan would not want to include Hazrat Khalifatul Masih I, in the list of `paltu ‘ adherents. Hazrat Khalifatul Masih I, was Maulvi Abdul Mannan’s father. Pir Manzur Muhammad was his paternal uncle. Below we reproduce the notes in question as published in `Furqan’, in two columns, to facilitate proper grasp on the part of the reader:
|Difference between us and the others
||No Mojaddid during the last thirteen hundred years has said that he had received Wahyi. Our Mirza Sahib received both Wahyi and Ilham. Next the word Nabi has not been applied to any anyone. Moreover such clear and remarkable success has not fallen to the share of anyone else.
||Allah gave a promise to Moses that his followers would conquer the Holy land, and that he could go if he liked. But his people disobeyed him, with the result that they had to wander in the wilderness for forty years; and during this time Moses passed away. I am afraid Allah had given a similar promise to Hazrat Sahib (Promised Messiah) of which destined fulfilment is being delayed by your inappropriate deeds.
||After thirty years, insha Allah, I hope the Mojaddid, i.e., the Mau’ud… Qudrat-i-Thania would appear.
||A small impertinence of the Ansar, impelled the Holy Prophet Mohammad to say that to the moment of the Qiyama, they would never be favoured with an opportunity to rule over others. You too are becoming insolent.
The notes in question are from Darsul Quran in 1912. When Maulvi Abdul Mannan Umar published them in the `Furqan ‘, he appended the following note:
“These words are very clear, and so is their meaning. Hazrat Khalifatul Masih I says the promises given by Allah to the Promised Messiah are being postponed, it appears, on account of some mistakes on the part of some of us. And now, thirty years from today, a promised righteous servant of the Lord would renew and re-invigorate the Movement; and he would be the Manifester of the Second Might and Glory, (Qudrat-i-Thania ) at whose hands the promises shall come to be fulfilled which Allah had given to his chosen Messiah. And it is the grace and mercy of God that from the time these words were said, just after thirty years, to Hazrat Khalifatul Masih II, Manifester of the Second power and glory, the revealment was made that he was the Muslih Mau’ud in whom these prophecies had come to be fulfilled; and on this basis he made the claim that he was the Muslih Mau’ud we have been expecting.”
Here we cannot refrain from saying it is highly regrettable that Maulvi Abdul Mannan Umar did not advise Mr. Faruqi not to take up his pen on this question, to falsify the verdict given by his own father, Hazrat Khalifatul Masih I.
It is rather strange to note that in dedicating his `Truth Triumphs’ to Maulvi Mohammad Ali, he has written:
DEDICATION: To Hazrat Maulana Mohammad Ali who can rightly be called the Mojaddid of Ahmadiyyat.
As against this, Hazrat Khalifatul Masih I, called the Mojaddid of Ahmadiyyat, Manifester of the Second power and glory of God, giving us to hope that after thirty years from that time the prophecy shall come to be fulfilled. This prophecy has been fulfilled in 1944 when Hazrat Khalifatul Masih II claimed to be the Muslih Mau’ud.
Mr. Faruqi concedes that in the declaration that he is the Muslih Mau’ud, Hazrat Khalifatul Masih II had said he was not a Mamur (Truth Triumphs, page 37). This is exactly what Hazrat Khalifatul Masih II said in 1961, when some one asked a question:
“Where the fact is conveyed to a man that you are the Muslih Mau’ud, and the argument has been fully put before him, but he persists in denial, what shall we say to him, after that? Hazrat Khalifatul Masih replied: `We shall say nothing. Whenever Allah desires to do so, He will guide him. Persistence, and insistence on acceptance is not the task of one who is not a Mamur. ‘” (Al-Fazal, June 3, 1961)
Mr. Faruqi, therefore, has no right to include the Muslih Mau’ud among the Mamurs, (i.e., those appointed to a mission) and to test him on that criterion, by going into the question whether, or not, he lived for 23 years after he made public his claim.
We might here also remind Mr. Faruqi that he has himself put forth a reference to Arba’in No. 3:
“Thousands of Muslim savants and spiritual leaders have advanced this argument before the infidels, and no Christian or Jew has yet come forward to identify, or point out, one such person, who having fabricated a claim to be an `Appointee of Allah’ (as per prophecy), had then passed twenty three years of his remaining life.” (Truth Triumphs, page 37)
Again this also is a fact that the Promised Messiah made his first claim to this position in 1891. After he had put forth this claim, he remained in this world for seventeen years. But his term as a Mamur had started far earlier. To count the duration of his Mamuriat, we have to go to that early date; and counting from that date, after this claim, he lived for more than 23 years.
In the case of Hazrat Khalifatul Masih II, the claim did not amount to Mamuriat. But even at that, we must bear in mind that even many years before he came to be the Khalifa, he had received an Ilham : “Those who follow you, shall remain dominant over those who deny you, and this shall remain true to the Day of the Qiyama ” (Al-Fazal, November 2, 1937)
It is very revealing to note here that in 1937 Hazrat Khalifatul Masih II put himself on a solemn oath, with a prayer for heavenly punishment, in case in the eyes of the Lord he was a liar in this claim that he did receive this Ilham. He said: “If this is a lie fabricated by me, I call for the curse of the Lord to fall on me!”
Then, some time after he received this Ilham, he became Khalifatul Masih II, and he remained in that office for a long, long period of more than fifty years. Since the prophecy in regard to the Muslih Mau’ud held him to be an extraordinarily great and distinguished Khalifa of the Promised Messiah endowed with a Messianic breath, not as a Nabi, a Rasul, and a Mamur, after his Ilham bearing on his success as a Khalifa, and the discomfiture of those who stood opposed to him, he lived in this world not for 23 years, but for a little more than 60 years. After he put himself on oath on the validity of this Ilham, he lived for 28 years.
Thus we feel we are perfectly justified in holding that the Ilham `I am the Promised Messiah, his like, and his Khalifa’, is in fact an exposition of the earlier Ilham, namely, `Those who follow you, they will remain dominant on those who deny you’ – an exposition given by the Lord God Himself. Similarly the Ilhams of the Promised Messiah, on the basis of which he put forth his claim that he was the Promised Messiah; and in which be announced that Jesus had long ago died his natural death; and which held him up as having come in the likeness of Hazrat Masih, was in fact no more than an exposition of the earlier, published in Barahin-i-Ahmadiyya, namely: `O Isa, I shall cause you to die, and I shall raise you toward Myself’, and the exposition of another Ilham, namely, “You have close relationship with Isa, son of Mary, and you have the greatest resemblance with him in point of character and conduct, and real nature of the mind, and the times (at which the two of you have lived and worked).” (Izala-i-Auham, page 124,) The general sense in both cases is the same: i) that Allah was about to cause Isa to die, and raise him up closer to Himself. ii) that you bear a very close resemblance to Isa, the son of Mary, in character, personality, pattern, and in point of time.
Heartless Attack by Mr. Faruqi on the Illness of Hazrat Khalifatul Masih II
Giving expression to the poison he carries in his mind, against Hazrat Khalifatul Masih II, Mr. Faruqi has alleged that towards the end of his life Hazrat Khalifatul Masih II had practically gone insane, and had fallen a victim to paralysis, coming to resemble Dr. Dowie, who claimed Prophethood, and in regard to whom the Promised Messiah wrote in Tatimma Haqiqatul Wahyi.
“At last he was struck down by paralysis, went stiff all over the body, and had to be carried about by attendants, as if he were a plank of wood. Then, from many kinds of griefs, and acute mental strains, he went insane, so that his senses became deranged.” (page 76)
We find ourselves constrained to remark that Mr. Faruqi here has not reproduced the full passage. In the background of the quotation is a conclusive statement bearing on the frustration and failures he suffered before he passed away from this world. Nor that he fell a victim to disease and failures, as a result of his confrontation against the Promised Messiah, who made a remarkable prophecy, which miraculously was fulfilled even in the minutest detail. Wrote the Promised Messiah at one point in regard to him:
“If I had not called him for a Mobahila ; and if I had not called for a curse on him, and if I had not published a prophecy bearing on his destruction, his death, which followed as foretold, would not have constituted an invincible argument in favour of Islam.” (Tatimma Haqiqatul Wahyi page 77)
So there was nothing remarkable in the disease which struck him down; the entire point lay in the prophecy, clearly fulfilled. Otherwise there is nothing specially odious in the disease which ended in his death. Paralysis is a common enough disease; it has struck down many people in human history – it has struck down many pious and righteous people, as well. Some prominent members of the Lahore Section also are known to have died of this ailment, Dr. Mirza Yaqub Beg, for instance.
Mr. Faruqi has also likened Hazrat Khalifatul Masih II to Atham, who, too, died under a prophecy made by the Promised Messiah, who described one result of this prophecy, in Anjam-i-Atham, as follows:
“He lost his peace of the mind; and he often cried and wept.”
Mr. Faruqi, we hope, would not dare to deny that these two champions of Christianity died as foretold by the Promised Messiah. They had both shown themselves to be bitter enemies of Islam, the Holy Prophet Mohammad, and the Promised Messiah himself; and it is very curious that the fairminded Mr. Faruqi has not hesitated to liken a champion of Islam, like Hazrat Khalifatul Masih II, who fought most strenuously all his life, to take Islam and the Holy Quran to the remotest corners of the earth, to bitter and foul-mouthed enemies, like the American Dr. Dowie and Abdullah Atham, an Indian Christian. Mr. Faruqi has seen no harm in ignoring altogether the great and outstanding service Hazrat Khalifatul Masih II has rendered to Islam, in a steadfast endeavour, for nearly half a century, defending Islam on many fronts; and he has proceeded straight to assail him on a low and mean personal level, which a man with the least sense of decency would think a thousand times, before opening his lips in such vile attacks. Mr. Faruqi, conveniently, has forgotten all about the service done by Hazrat Khalifatul Masih to the Holy Quran. Towards the closing years of his life, Hazrat Khalifatul Masih II was attacked by an intending assassin, who plunged a murderous knife into his neck. The wound would have become fatal, if the dagger had not just missed vital muscles and chords in the neck. This wound bothered him for a long time even after it had healed on the surface; and the physical pain, and strain, involved was great. But Hazrat resolutely threw it aside, and busied himself in his work comprising a commentary on the Holy Quran. He completed it after a heavy and prolonged effort, which suffered no break, even during times when he was not entirely fit for such extremely sensitive intellectual work, which called for a sustained application over a long period, not compatible with poor health in old age. The outcome of this labour has been published under title `Tafsir-i-Saghir ‘, to remain forever in future as a monument of his love for the Holy Book. The copyright of this great work he has bequeathed to the Movement, so unlike Maulvi Mohammad Ali.
From this background, let us call to the mind of Mr. Faruqi, a Hadith:
“It is reported from Abu Darda, the Holy Prophet said: `Whosoever suffers a wound in the way of the Lord, a seal of Shahadat is put on it. For him, on the day of the Qiyama, is a heavenly light with a touch of safron, and a fragrance like that of musk. Everybody before and after him will exclaim in wonder that on so and so was a seal of martyrdom from the approval and appreciation of God.'”
Thus we have a man like Mr. Faruqi trying hard to throw abusive filth on this outstanding Champion of Islam.
A word here would not be out of place about the medical report Mr. Faruqi has quoted in support of his low and unworthy point of view:
“Nervous prostration like the loss of memory and emotional outbursts (like at the mention of holy names, places and events) are more or less, prevalent. Some days the symptoms dwindle, but again they intensify; and so the trouble goes on. Because of remaining in prostrate position, there is tension followed by numbness in the leg muscles. All possible efforts to make his holiness walk a little, have failed all along.” (Truth Triumphs, page 38)
This report bears out that the ailment was only a nervous strain and restlessness. It was not paralysis, or insanity at all – the conclusion with which Mr. Faruqi has tried to run away. In paralysis, the nerves become too lax, this being one reason why the ailment has another name in Arabic isterkha. The report reproduced by Mr. Faruqi, indicates that for long periods in bed, there was a degree of strain, and a certain measure of stiffness, which is quite the opposite of symptoms which go with paralysis. The important symptom of paralysis is laxness of the nerves, and a lack of sensation, lack of feeling, which make the legs of the patient unable to move. Strain and stiffness, on the other hand bear testimony to the fact that the nerves were quite all right. Translation into English, from the original inUrdu is not very good. There is no record in the Urdu original which can rightly be translated as `numbness’, which means lack of sensation, usually taken as a sign of paralysis.
Similarly that allegation of insanity, too, is altogether wide of the mark. The fact of the matter is just this, that a long period of illness had resulted in a certain measure of the lack of a proper control on emotions, therefore, the proneness to weeping at the mention of names or places, with deep seated associations, touching the most sensitive and delicate chords of one’s being – a very natural result, even in normal degrees of health and physical well being, which a prolonged illness can understandably intensify, and make more frequent. Tears are a natural result in moments of emotional strain even in conditions of perfect health. We have such occasions in the lives of even the Prophets of God, recorded in the Holy Book, to endure for all times, as in the case of Hazrat Yaqub (remembering his son Yousuf). Nor are these moments of emotional crisis absent in the life of the Holy Prophet Mohammad himself at the death of his son Ibrahim.
For Mr. Faruqi to insist that these emotional strains in the prolonged illness of Hazrat Khalifatul Masih II were symptoms of insanity, or a derangement of the mind, constitute an unmistakable sign of blinded jealousy, and a mean desire to hurt. Mr. Faruqi only exposes the hidden poison in his mind, when he says, with respect to the illness of Hazrat Khalifatul Masih. This illness was due to an attack made by an enemy with a knife, in the agitation days of 1953. Fath-e-Haq urdu edition Page 38:
“This also was a sign of punishment from God.”
Such things written by the eminent Mr. Faruqi seem to spring from malicious prejudice, for a man to get wounded on the battlefield, under arms or in the course of a most strenuous struggle in the intellectual field of defence for the Islamic ideals, and the most precious human values, is not a thing of which any decent human being need feel ashamed in the least. In fact they confer an honour, a rare honour and distinction, on the stalwart fortunate enough to win them. No one can dare to deny that hundreds of Muslims received wounds in the field. Many of them died of these wounds on the field, or later, after the particular engagements were over. The Holy Phophet himself was grievously wounded in the battle of Ohad. When Shahzada Abdul Latif was stoned to death in Kabul, would Mr. Faruqi insist it was a sign of the wrath and punishment of God? Hazrat Umar got the knife planted into his side, when engaged in leading the prayers. Would Mr. Faruqi insist this was another case of divine punishment?
There appears to be no need at all for this list to be lengthened. This tendency in him is rooted in his desire to hurt the feelings of those who are attached to Hazrat Khalifatul Masih II in a relationship as compared with which all material loyalties pale into insignificance.
Dirty Allegations by Mr. Faruqi
On pages 40 and 41 of his Truth Triumphs, Mr. Faruqi has reproduced allegations characteristic of the conspiracies of the Mistrees, Abdul Karim, Sheikh Abdul Rehman Misri, and the so called Haqiqat Pasand Party. But these are attacks of which the real and proper reply they would get from God Himself, in His own good time, since the Quran has instructed us to answer filth of this nature simply by saying: “This, of course, is a manifest lie”. But we cannot, we should not, refrain from saying here very clearly, in these things Mr. Faruqi is treading the same paths wherein the dirty-minded among the Christians and Aryasamajists have always taken such keen and mean delights by leading such assaults against the Holy Prophet, Mohammad himself, and his dear ones. These dirty attacks have never been able to inflict any real harm on Islam, the Holy Prophet, or his friends and companions. Nor can Mr. Faruqi and others of this like do any real harm to the names and reputations they are so mad in desiring to injure. The froth they work up so fiercely round the corners of their mouths is worse than useless; in time it will pass. We know that the people who tried to raise a scandal designed to hurt Hazrat Ayesha, spouse of the Holy Prophet, they were Muslims – at any rate they called themselves Muslims; and they were generally known to be Muslims. Let us see what the Holy Quran says in regard to them:
“Verily, those who brought forth the lie are a party from among you: think it not to be an evil for you; nay, it is good for you. Every one of them shall have his share of what he has earned of the sin; and he among them who took the chief part therein shall have a grievous punishment. Why did not the believing men and the believing women, when you heard of it, think well of your own people, and say, `This is a manifest lie.'” (24:12-13)
Further, on the same event, we read:
“When you received it and then talked about it with your tongues, and you uttered with your mouths that of which you had no knowledge, and you thought it to be a light matter, while in the sight of Allah it was a grievous thing.” (24:16)
“And wherefore did you not say, when you heard of it, `It is not proper for us to talk about it, Holy art Thou, O God, this is a grievous calumny.'” (24:17)
So, observing this clear commandment, let us give the lie to Mr. Faruqi, in the words of the Holy Book: “Holy Art Thou, O Lord, this is a grievous calumny.” There is nothing more that needs to be said.
“Allah admonishes you never to return to the like thereof, if you are believers.” (24:19)
Unfortunately, however, if our dear Mr. Faruqi is bent upon totally divesting himself of the mantle of human decencies, we cannot help it; we leave him to his own unfortunate devices, in ignorant, or willfull defiance, of the commandments from the Lord.
Further says the Holy Book:
“Those who love that immorality should spread among the believers will have a painful punishment in this world and the Hereafter, And Allah knows while you know not.” (24:20)
These verses of the Holy Book should more than amply suffice to show Mr. Faruqi and his friends, how they stand on the questions they have tried to rake up, to discredit Hazrat Khalifatul Masih II.
The Fraud of Mobahila
In his reference to Mistri Abdul Karim, Mr. Faruqi has also said that this man put forth a serious allegation against Hazrat Khalifatul Masih II, and threw a challenge to him for a mobahila on the issue, which straight cut road to a heavenly decision, Khalifatul Masih II has been avoiding, under various pretexts.
We gladly take this opportunity to state the precise position. The Promised Messiah has held that recourse to mobahila is justified, exclusively, where i) a man who does not hold belief in Islam, likes to have the issue decided in a direct reference to Allah, by means of, prayer and supplication, that the party on the right path be upheld, the other put into distress and destroyed, ii) where a man raises a serious scandal against an innocent party, with intent to drag it into the mire.
We accept the view that a recourse to mobahila is justified in these two cases alone. There is no provision to support the challenge of a party to mobahila which flings a calumny against another party, then tops that allegation with challenge for mobahila. In a case of accusation the accused and the wronged party would be justified to propose recourse to mobahila, not the accuser. The Islamic Sharia does not envisage a mobahila at the instance of the party that manufactures a scandal, then tops it with a challenge for mobahila. So there is no question here of Hazrat Khalifatul Masih II being evasive over a justified challenge. The true position is that the throwing out the challenge has no valid basis in the Islamic Sharia for the stand taken by it. The challenge being unjustified, un-Islamic, Hazrat Khalifatul Masih was never free to upset the principles of the Sharia by accepting this challenge.
Hazrat Khalifatul Masih’s Challenge for Mobahila
Hazrat Khalifatul Masih II could not accept the challenge for mobahila given by Mistri Abdul Karim, since the Sharia did not permit him to do so. But from his own side, Hazrat Khalifatul Masih challenged him to come in for mobahila on the validity of his Khilafat. On this point Hazrat Khalifatul Masih spoke, very feelingly, to the following effect:
“I put myself on a solemn oath, in the name of God, Who holds my life in His hand; Who is the master in everything connected with punishment and reward; and from Whom proceed all kinds of honour and disrepute, that I am the Khalifa appointed by Him; and those who stand opposed to me, and demand that I should engage myself in a mobahila, they are acting in defiance of His wishes, and the laws coming from Him. In this if I am working a fraud of some kind – then, O Lord, make the truth clear by means of some unmistakable Sign. Now that I have taken this solemn oath, let whosoever believes he is justified in his opposition to me in this behalf, come forward to take a similar oath, on his own part, then leave the matter to be decided by Allah.” (Letter dated October 21, 1927, addressed to Babu Abdul Hamid Shimlavi, published in leaflet entitled Jawab Mobahila, page 10, June 30, 1929)
It is needless to add that Mistri Abdul Karim did not have the courage to accept this straight forward challenge.
Another Wrong Statement by Mr. Faruqi
On page 41 of his book, Mr. Faruqi writes:
“The Khalifa Sahib started persecuting Sh. Abdul Rehman Misri and his few friends who sided with him. On some, even murderous attacks were made. In this connection, in one of the court cases, the trying magistrate, Mr. J. D. Khosla wrote in his judgement: `To propagate their ideas and to expand the number of their Community, these people (the mureeds of Mirza Mahmud Ahmad) started using such weapons and methods which are generally considered as objectionable. So that those people who refused to tow the line, were subjected to (social and economic) boycott and expulsion (from the town or Community); and at times they were threatened by dire and ghastly consequences'”
It is altogether wrong that any court proceedings against Abdul Rahman Misri went before Mr. J. D. Khosla. The case to which Mr. Faruqi is referring here, was decided at last in the High Court, on November 11, 1935, while Sh. Abdul Rahman was expelled from the Community in 1937. The case to which reference has wrongly been made here was the Government versus Syed Ataullah Shah Bokhari, over a speech by Bokhari, held objectionable by the Government, in which he was convicted to imprisonment for six months. Syed Ataullah Shah went before Mr. Khosla, the Sessions Judge in Gurdaspore. Mr. Khosla reduced the term of imprisonment, and he made some remarks in regard to the Imam of the Ahmadiyya Movement, irrelevant for the case, and offensive against the Imam and the Movement.
Naturally these remarks were bitterly resented by the Ahmadiyya community, for they were not a party in the case. Recourse was, therefore had to the legal proceedings in the High Court for getting such unwarrantable passages expunged from the decision in question, under 541 A, of the Criminal Procedure Code. The case was heard by Justice Coldstream, the honourable Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru, argued the case for the Ahmadiyya Movement. Justice Coldstream first reproduced the objectionable passages in the judgement of the Sessions Judge, J. D. Khosla as follows:
I come to the words:
“In order to enforce their argument and further their cause they called into play weapons which would ordinarily be termed highly undesirable. They not only intimidated the person who refused to come within their fold with boycott and ex-communication and occasionally threats of something worse, but they frequently fortified the process of proselytizing by actually carrying out these threats. A volunteer corps was established in Qadian with the object probably of giving sanction to their decrees.”
“This is not altogether an accurate description of the evidence. There is no evidence that the Qadianis intimidated persons who refused to come within their fold other than persons belonging to their community who had left it or had quarrelled with them. There is ample evidence, of which there is corroboration in the statement of the Mirza Sahib himself, that persons who had become obnoxious to the Community were excommunicated or forced by social pressure to leave Qadian, though there is very little to indicate that this pressure was brought to bear illegally. So far as `threats of something worse’ concerned, there is the evidence of Abdul Karim, that he was threatened with death. The learned Sessions Judge has believed this.” (The Punjab Law Reporter PP. 649-650)
Then Justice Coldstream gave his own Judgement to the following effect:
“The language of the judgement in the present case is in some places as such, must tend to raise a doubt whether the learned judge approached the case from a perfectly fair point of view. Much of it is exaggerated. This is clear from some of the passages to which objection has been taken. As an instance, he describes the Qadiani creed in the beginning of the judgment, where it sets forth some facts which in the opinion of the judge have a bearing on the points of issue as `new fangled.’ The merits or demerits of the Qadiani beliefs were not and could not in this case be a matter for the Court’s consideration. This is unfortunate, and the more to be regretted because the circumstances of the time (and this is a matter of common knowledge) are such as to necessitate especial care that, in cases which have assumed a communal aspect, the proceedings in Courts and the language of their judgments should not themselves promote the feelings of enmity, the promotion of which by others, it is their duty to punish under the law.” (The Punjab Law Reporter PP. 643-644)
It is thus quite evident that this learned Judge of the High Court repudiated the view taken by Mr. Khosla, wherein the Sessions Judge at Gurdaspore had sought to establish that the Ahmadiyya Movement, in its central set up, resorted to persecution of its opponents in the religious field. The temperament and mentality of Mr. Faruqi which even now is eager to make use of a view repudiated by a learned Judge of the High court, only exposes the violent poison of prejudice in its own psychology in regard to the Qadiani, now Rabwah Section of the Movement. The reproduction of the remarks of Mr. J.D. Khosla quoted by Mr. Faruqi, after they had been repudiated by the High Court, is a nefarious trick to deceive the public.
As for the purity of mind of Hazrat Khalifatul Masih II , and the grandeur of his personality, in view of his extraordinary service to Islam, we hope Mr. Faruqi would allow us to remind him that the Holy Prophet Mohammad himself was delighted to tell the world about his greatness by a prophecy that the Messiah of his own dispensation would contract a marriage, of which the issue would be given for his benefit.
In regard to this prophecy made by the Holy Prophet Mohammad, the Promised Messiah has remarked:
“In this prophecy of the Holy Prophet Mohammad it has been hinted that the Messiah of his own dispensation would be blessed with a boy, righteous of temperament, who would grow up in the likeness of his father, not in denial, and he would be counted among the eminent and honoured servants of the Lord.” (A’ina Kamalat-i-Islam pages 578, 579 footnote)
It is to be noted further, that the Promised Messiah, in his work entitled Nishan-i-Asmani, has referred to a prophecy made by the renowned saint, Ni’matullah Wali, in regard to the son of the expected Reformer among the Muslims, worded in a beautiful poetry, the couplet being to the following effect “When the lifetime of the Promised Messiah will come to close in glory, a son of the Reformer would grow up in a miraculous resemblance with his father, in temperament, and the task he would accomplish.”
Also, the Promised Messiah has brought out the import of this prophecy in the following words:
“When his times shall have passed, in success and grand achievement, on the example set by him, a son of the stalwart would live in pursuits as would perpetuate the memory of his great father. In other words, Allah would bless him with a righteous son, set as a living example of the father, dyed altogether in the same colour. He would be a worthy memorial, in flesh and blood, of the service to Islam rendered by the father. This, in fact, is in conformity with a prophecy made by my humble self, in regard to a son of mine own.” (Nishan-i-Asmani, page 13)
We have already stated that all the issue of the Promised Messiah took birth under glad tidings thereof, given beforehand, to him in the first instance, and through him to the rest of the world, accompanied by assurances that they would be righteous and pure in their lives, noble and virtuous in their dealings. For instance:
“His issue also shall constitute a Sign, even as Allah gave a promise to this effect, and fulfilled that promise.” (Siraj-i-Munir, page 57)
In another place, the Promised Messiah says:
“Let me remember, O Lord,
The great blessings
Showered upon me.
You gave glad tidings
In regard to my issue,
And then the birth of these
Children. You said: No,
They would not be destroyed.
They would multiply,
And prosper, like stately
Trees in the parks.
Repeatedly you have said
All this to me. So Holy
Indeed, is the One
Has brought my enemies
To such dire disgrace!”
May we venture to hope Mr. Faruqi will take the trouble to ponder over these things?
Acquittal from Allegations
In regard to the vile allegations made by Mistri Abdul Karim and Sheikh Abdul Rahman Misri, against Hazrat Khalifatul Masih II, Mr. Faruqi writes:
“Although Khalifa Mahmud Ahmad says that after the `Claim’ by a person to some spiritual rank, there is always a barrage of criticism and fault-finding by newly made enemies; but in reality, in spite of the fact that accusers are busy finding faults and criticising; God, through Revelation and Divine aid, always shows and proves His Messenger to be innocent of the charges levied.” (Truth Triumphs, page 41)
This statement of Mr. Faruqi is quite correct. This is the reason why Allah has refuted the charges brought against Hazrat Khalifatul Masih II by means of Wahyi from Himself, the Wahyi authenticity which Mr. Faruqi himself would not want to impeach. This Wahyi received by the Promised Messiah himself, on the point of the purity and righteousness of his spouse, and his children, came to the Promised Messiah on four separate occasions, in words from the Holy Quran, the words being:
“Allah intends that He should take away from you all kinds of impurity, ye of the household, and that He should make you pure, as pure should be.”
The first time, on January 22, 1907 Tazkira, page 687.
The second time, February 3, 1907 Tazkira, page 688.
The third time, March 2, 1907 Tazkira, page 695.
The fourth time, March 13, 1907 Tazkira, Page 701.
It is possible that in this Wahyi, sent down four times, there may be a hint that four separate attempts would be made to throw dirt on them, in view of which fact the innocence of the people concerned has been declared four times: first against attacks by Mistri Abdul Karim, second by Sheikh Abdul Rahman Mistri, third by the so-called Haqiqat Pasand Party, and fourth by Mr. Faruqi.
It is also interesting to note here that on the occasion this Wahyi came in the first instance, in a state of Kashf the Promised Messiah called out loudly to someone, saying `Victory’, `Victory’ twice.We are therefore justified in holding victory was assured on the basis of Ilham for the Ahl-i-Bait, not for the enemy under reference here.
For some man, burning in jealousy, an Ilham came on March 13, 1907
“In Lahore, a shameless person: Woe for you, and for the calumny you have fabricated!” (Tazkira, page 700)
We leave the reader free to draw his own conclusion in regard to the identity of this person.
The fact is that a test was coming for members of the Movement that seems to be the reason why in the wake of the last of the four Ilhams bearing on the righteousness and purity of the Ahl-i-Bait, another Ilham also was received:
“There is a test. Some shall be caught, while some shall obtain their release.” (Tazkira, page 700, March 13, 1907)
This test was the death of Hazrat Khalifatul Masih I, seven years after this Ilham was received. The Movement split into two. Since a promise in favour of Ahl-i-Bait had already gone forth, it so came to pass that the party supported by the Ahl-i-Bait became the party that prevailed. That day another Ilham was fulfilled:
“There are many small ones who shall be made big and there are many big ones who shall be made small. This, therefore, is the time and the place where one should tread with the greatest care.” (Tazkira, page 535)
So now, when you come to think of it, is it not really a disgrace when you find a sensible man like Mr. Faruqi giving credence to the filth mucked up by Mistri Abdul Karim and Sheikh Abdul Rahman Mistri– not only giving credence, but going a step further by trying to spread the mean and vile calumnies over a wider area? This is, perhaps, a novel method Mr. Faruqi has invented for enhancing the dignity of the Ahmadiyya Movement, and its Holy Founder, by showing that his prophecies in regard to his own Ahl-i-Bait have all been belied by events and facts.
The Promised Joseph
Apart from the Ilham with respect to the Ahl-i-Bait, we have reproduced above, there is another, as well:
“I am getting to feel the fragrance of Joseph, though for my saying this you will, perhaps, only say that my senses and my mind have started to wander, from old age.”
It is hoped that by calling the Muslih Mau’ud by the symbolic name `Yousuf’, a hint has been given that severe charges shall be brought against him, and then his name shall come to be cleared of the stigma. The idea here sought to be conveyed by saying that the fragrance of Joseph was becoming perceptible, is that the advent of the Muslih Mau’ud shall begin to be perceived. Along with this, another Ilham was also received:
“I am along with the Holy Spirit, with you, and with your Ahl-i-Bait. ” (Tazkira, page 524)
Still another Ilham, with the same bearing, is:
“I am with you, and with these your Ahl-i-Bait. ” (Tazkira, page 747)
“Look at Joseph; mark his greatness and glory.” (Tazkira, pages 215, 246, 284, 832)
Wrong Interpretation by Mr. Faruqi
Some Ilhams of the Promised Messiah, which have no connection with the Muslih Mau’ud, Mr. Faruqi, from the hostility in his mind, has tried to misinterpret, and apply to the Muslih Mau’ud. In this frame of mind, he writes:
“After Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad had proclaimed himself as the Mojaddid of the century, some time passed before he was permitted by Allah to form a community and take bai’at, (Pledge of initiation and loyalty). The Ilham from God said, `Put your faith in God, and before Our eyes, under Our orders, prepare a boat (meaning a community thereby).’ In somewhat similar words, the Prophet Noah (on whom be peace) was also addressed by God, as mentioned in the Holy Quran. After this, Hazrat Mirza Sahib used to pray for Divine Aid, and for the gift of spiritual successors, like the Quranic prayer, `O my Lord! leave me not alone; and Thou art the best of inheritors!’ In answer to his prayers, he was given the glad tidings of a Muslih Mau’ud (Promised Reformer) from his descendants, to guide his community.” (Truth Triumphs, page 46)
We hope Mr. Faruqi would not fail to note here that Allah had said: “Even as you had supplicated, I have heard your prayers, and I have blessed them with acceptance.” (Ilham bearing on Muslih Mau’ud, published in Ishtihar, dated February 20, 1886) It seems to bear out that the Promised Messiah was asking that some Sign should be granted to him in the immediate period when the divine mission was being entrusted to him. Then how can it be that in answer to these prayers he should be told the Muslih Mau’ud would come in the 16th century. The idea does not fit into the frame work of the situation with which the Promised Messiah was confronted at the time when Islam was being so sore pressed by enemies on all sides. The deep desire of the Promised Messiah, naturally was for some Sign to strengthen his hands for fighting the battles for Islam, at a time when Atheism was so much in the air. So his prayers obtained response from God, who told him that he would be blessed with a son, gifted with a Messianic breath; and that he would take birth within nine years.
Further Mr. Faruqi writes:
“One such Ilham said: `The real disruptive element is already present here.’ (Tazkira, page 108) Then about the coming of Muslih Mau’ud, and his overwhelming his opponents, an Ilham said: `And withdraw aside today, O guilty ones!’ (Tazkira, page 624) And then when the guilty ones become known, then they admit: `Verily we are the ones to blame.’ (Tazkira, page 651) All these warning notes were clearly pointing to the fact that a mischief mongering son (of Hazrat Mirza Sahib) would precede the coming of the Muslih Mau’ud.” (Truth Triumphs, page 47)
This conclusion, claimed, to be drawn from these Ilhams, is preposterous, absolutely unwarranted. Out of these, of one the exact words in Arabic are “Alfitnato Hahona ” which Mr. Faruqi has put into English as “The real disruptive element is already present here.” This is not a satisfactory version of the original in Arabic, which Faruqi has put in Urdu as “Khas fitna yahan pehle se maujud hai “. To begin with, both renderings of the orignal in Arabic are not satisfactory. The Promised Messiah has himself translated the whole Arabic Ilham in Urdu. Taken in its entirety, it runs as “Is jaga ek fitna hai, so olulazm nabiyun ki tarhe sabr karo, jab mushkilat ke pahar par tajalli karega, to inhen pash pash kar dega. Yih Khuda ki quwwat hai, jo apne bande ke liae woh ghani mutlaq zahir karega.” A careful reproduction of this Ilham in English would be:
“At this place, there is mischief. (Or, let us put it as `The real mischief lies here’) So like the Prophets of high resolve, show patience. When God makes Himself manifest on the mountains, He would break them to pieces. This is the might of the Lord, which that absolutely Independent Master will make manifest in any way He likes.”
The date of this Ilham is 1883 (Tazkira page 108) and Hazrat Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmad was born six years after this Ilham. As seen by Mr. Faruqi, it gives information about some mischief of importance, which Mr. Faruqi puts down as “This special mischief is present here already.” Therefore, it cannot, in any case, be taken as connected with Hazrat Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmad in any way; rather, the mischief to which it refers, is the mischief of the Decree of Takfir issued by the Muslim Ulema ranged in opposition, and given a great deal of prominence after this Ilham had been received.
Anyway, Mr. Faruqi’s interpretation of this Ilham is wrong. When he further explains its meaning to say that the source of the mischief, namely, the boy, would have taken birth already, this also is not correct.
In Barahin-i-Ahmadiyya, Part V, page 64, the Promised Messiah has reproduced the Ilham connected with Takfir, before this Ilham, where the wording is:
“Call to mind the schemer who would call you a kafir, and deny your claim. From one of his friends, he would ask for a decree that he should impassion the common people. Destruction descend on the two hands of Abu Lahab, with which that fatwa was written. And he, too, came to be destroyed. It was not proper for him to interfere in this matter, except with fear. Whatever harm reaches you, it will be not in his power to have created this trouble.” And then said: “At that time a great noise would rise in the world, and much trouble and mischief. Therefore you should have recourse to patience, as Prophets with great resolve have always done.” (Page 66)
It is evident, therefore that to the mind of the Promised Messiah connection of the mischief mentioned in this Ilham was with the trouble caused by Maulvi Mohammad Husain Batalvi, by preparing a fatwa of kufr, which created a deep stir among the people. Says the Promised Messiah:
“The prophecy, before this one, concerns the Istifta which came into being with the Istifta brought into existence by the hands of Maulvi Mohammad Husain, and Maulvi Nazir Husain, which raised a great noise in the world, and everyone broke away from me; and it came to be widely held that to call me a kafir, a faithless person, and a dajjal, came to be looked upon as a meritorious deed.” (Page 66)
The Ilham, namely, “Draw away from me this day, O ye guilty people” this too is not connected with the Muslih Mau’ud. Here is the proper setting and the wording of this Ilham :
“I shall give protection to everyone in this house. And draw away from me, this day, ye guilty people. The truth has come and falsehood has vanished. This is what you have been so eager to behold.” (Tazkira page 624)
In the first Ilham is a promise of protection against the plague for those resident in the house of the Promised Messiah – a promise which became a distinction between those who were believers and righteous people, and those who were guilty in the eyes of the Lord God – a Sign causing the truth to prevail, and falsehood to get uprooted, and run away. By the words: “This is what you have so eagerly been calling, and waiting for”. The sense implied is that of a chastisement, which the opponents demanded so vehemently, in their blindness and folly. So none of these Revelations has any bearing on the question of the Muslih Mau’ud.
The Ilham in Tazkira, page 651, namely, “Indeed we have been, making a mistake”, seen in its proper context, is found sandwiched between the following Ilhams :
“O Lord, cause some delay in the coming of the great earthquake. May God bring about some delay in the earthquake destined to be a sample of the Qiyama. On that occasion you will experience a strange kind of help, while your opponents shall fall down prone on their faces saying: `Pardon, O Lord, forgive us our sins; for, indeed we have been the transgressors’. And the earth shall say: `O Prophet of the Lord, I did not recognise you! Ye, those who are guilty, no blame shall be fastened on you this day. The Lord shall forgive you, since He is, indeed, the best and the greatest among those who have it in them to forgive.” (Tazkira, page 650-651)
This prophecy appears to have a bearing on the fifth earthquake to be fulfilled in its own good time, when the inhabitants of the earth will say with great contrition, “O Prophet of God, we are the losers, for not having recognised you, and now there is no room for doubt in regard to these things.” It is rather interesting to speculate, whether on such a day, people like Mr. Faruqi also shall come to yield faith in the Promised Messiah, as a Nabi.
These days the main point in the hostile propaganda of the Lahore Section, against Hazrat Khalifatul Masih II, is that he has erred by presenting the Promised Messiah as a Nabi. But it would be an extremely interesting situation for Mr. Faruqi and his friends, on the one hand, and for us, on the other, when, speaking in general the whole world shall have accepted the Promised Messiah, at last, as a Nabi.
Further on Mr. Faruqi writes:
“Then Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad received another Ilham which means: `And do not address Me in favour of those mischievous people for they shall be drowned (put to death)'” (Tazkira, page 607) Now when we open the Holy Quran, we find that Allah had used somewhat similar words to Prophet Noah (xi:37) about his son. Allah had said: `Surely he is the doer of other than good deeds.’ (xi. 46) Similarly Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was also addressed by God about his son, for he is a man of bad character.” (Tazkira, page 88)
We hope Mr. Faruqi would excuse us if we point out that he has lifted the words `Indeed, he is the doer of deeds unrighteous’ out of their proper context in the Ilham, of which they form a part. Moreover his translation ignores the exposition which the Promised Messiah has given in this behalf, and it has interfered with the sense as well, by saying `he is a boy with a bad character.’ (Urdu edition, Truth Triumphs p. 47)
These interferences with plain and open texts seem to offer a view that Mr. Faruqi himself has but a poor conception of moral responsibilities, for the full Ilham is:
“Will you kill yourself with grief because they do not yield faith. Do not pursue things in regard to which you have no knowledge; and with respect to people who are transgressors, do not say anything to Me. They will be drowned, O Ibrahim, draw yourself away from him; he is not a righteous person. You do but admonish. You are no monitor on them.”
After giving this translation, the Promised Messiah wrote by way of an exposition:
“These few verses which have come down in Ilham, on myself, apply to certain people.” (Barahin-i-Ahmadiyya. Part IV, page 509, 510)
And in Barahin-i-Ahmadiyya, Part V, he writes further with respect to this Ilham :
“Hazrat Ibrahim had to break relationship with some people who were to him close of kin. So this was a prophecy concerning myself that I too shall have to do the same with respect to some people with whom I am closely related; and this has actually come to pass, exactly as foreshadowed here.”
This is the interpretation given by the Promised Messiah himself, in regard to the Ilhams under reference here, which Mr. Faruqi has been wrongly trying to apply to Hazrat Khalifatul Masih II; and now that we have had the honour, and opportunity, to show him how the Promised Messiah interprets them, are we to hope he would hasten, as he should, to bring himself in line with the Promised Messiah, in whom he still professes to believe.
This particular prophecy was published in Barahin-i-Ahmadiyya, part IV, in 1884. But, the prophecy about the Muslih Mau’ud was made on Febuary 20 1886; and Hazrat Khalifatul Masih was born, within a stipulated period of nine years, from the date when the prophecy was made, on January 12, 1889. Thus at the time when the Ilham came to the Promised Messiah, none of the promised children had yet been born to him, so that this Ilham could be said to be applicable to him, and the boy held to be of an undesirable character.
The Promised Messiah has, himself, clearly brought out the fact that he was being visualised here in the likeness of Hazrat Ibrahim, not of Hazrat Noah. As Ibrahim, the Promised Messiah has here been advised to cut himself away from some of his close relatives, since their aims and objects in life offended against the essential moral values which determined the pattern of his own life. And he is here spoken of as Ibrahim because, as in the case of Ibrahim, he was to be the father of another great son, like Ismail. An Ilham bearing on this question came to the Promised Messiah as follows:
“His grief and anxiety would bring out the tree of Ismail. So keep it concealed, even until it comes forth.” (Tazkira, page 588)
The word Ismail means `Allah has heard you’. This was a hint that he would be born as a result of your prayers. By saying `keep it concealed’ it was intended to convey that fulfilment should be left to unfold itself, in its own good time. Eager, injudicious anticipation might lead to the creation, consciously, or unconsciously, of mental pictures as might endanger proper recognition of the reality, when it came. And so, indeed, it has happened. The events themselves have pointed out that the Ilham was about Hazrat Khalifatul Masih II, like Hazrat Ismail, who travelled to a verdureless valley, accompanied by his mother, to settle there, for the rest of their lives, bringing into being a new township named Rabwah. This Ismail has been called a tree, since many people were to find shelter, and a resting place, under his patronage and protection, in the new settlement; and since missionaries and members of the Movement were to fan out all over the world, carrying solace and peace of mind, in an adequate and proper conception of human life, emanating from the blessings of the Holy Prophet Mohammad himself.
Ejection of the Yazidis
Mr. Faruqi writes:
Then again Hazrat Mirza Sahib received another Ilham about Qadian (the town where he lived): `People having natures like Yazid would be born in this town’. (Tazkira, page 181). Now Yazid (son of Mu’awiya) was the second Khalifa of the Omayyad Dynasty, with capital at Damascus (Syria). He was istrumental in introducing a secular and absolute monarchy amongst the Muslims, and was guilty of killing Hazrat Imam Hussain (grandson of the Holy Prophet). So the Ilham refers to a time when a Khalifa like Yazid would appear amongst the Ahmadiyya community, who would of course claim to be a Holy one, but would actually be a worldly person. Then circumstances would arise which would cause this Yazid-like Khalifa and his followers to be driven out of Qadian. This is corroborated by another Ilham of Hazrat Mirza Sahib saying: `The Evil Spirits of Damascus’ so that just like Yazid was the evil spirit of Damascus, so would a similar evil spirit be born in Qadian. (Truth Triumphs page 47, 48)
This quotation is rather a nice example of a serious mucking up of a number of Ilhams, of several passages in writing, to produce a series of mucked up meaning, which is seen to stand in contradiction of the meaning attached to certain Ilhams by the Promised Messiah himself. He put this Ilham in Izala-i-Auham, then in a footnote gave a brief exposition of its meaning as follows:
“This small township of Qadian, due to the fact that mostly it is inhabited by people characterised by qualities like those of Yazid, has a strong affinity with Damascus.” (Pages 71, 72)
Again the Promised Messiah put down the Ilham under reference and wrote further:
“Allah is well aware; and He bears first hand witness to the fact that He has likened Qadian to Damascus; and in regard to its inhabitants He has said they, by nature and temperament, are like Yazid, i.e., the majority of people living here, are like Yazid in their nature.”
We see here that the Promised Messiah clearly applies the Ilham to the Yazid-like inhabitants of the township in his own early days. One literal meaning of the word “ukhrija ” is to get driven out. Taken to be embodying a prophecy, the Ilham would mean that the people with a psychology like this, shall come to be driven out of the place.
We know the Yazidis were characterised by a deep hostility towards the Ahl-i-Bait of the Holy Prophet Mohammad. If we take the meaning of this expression, with this historical background in our mind, it would certainly mean that people ill disposed towards the Ahl-i-Bait of the Promised Messiah shall come to be driven out of Qadian, at some time in the future. We believe Mr. Faruqi does not need being told who are the people characterised by a hostility towards the Ahl-i-Bait of the Promised Messiah.
The “Demon of Demascus”, Tazkira, page 710, has no connection with the Ilham “People, with the mind of Yazid, will be driven out from the place”. It is a pointing finger to focus attention on some tribulation to be experienced in Damascus, where our missionary, the eminent Maulvi Jalaluddin Shams was severely stabbed, following, popular fanatical passions roused by some mob leaders among the Ulama of the place. The Ilham conveys a warning of this kind. By the grace of God, Maulana Shams recovered, in a miraculous manner, from a wound which well might have proved fatal. Further Mr. Faruqi writes:
“The Promised Messiah writes at one place that he was praying to God about his community and Qadian, when the Ilham came: `They have gone astray from the (main current and) fashion – and they will be decimated (because of it)’ (Tazkira, page 512) So that the way in which the followers of Mirza Mahmud Ahmad were disrupted and driven out of Qadian (at the time of the Partition of the country) is now a part of history. Mirza Mahmud Ahmad himself had to don a burqa (a white shroud and veil) like a Muslim woman, and thus saved his life in flight.” (Truth Triumphs, page 48)
To our mind, the first Ilham pertains to our friends of the Lahore Section, since the fashion of life in the light of Islam is pivoted on the Institution of Khilafat. The people who have drifted far from the “Fashion of life”; are the people, after six years under the Khilafat of Hazrat Maulvi Nuruddin, refused to tender allegiance to the second Khalifa Hazrat Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmad.
Mr. Faruqi has applied the Ilham “Destroy them, as destruction should be” to the Hijrat of the Headquarters of the Movement from Qadian to Lahore, then to Rabwah, after the creation of Pakistan. But the Promised Messiah has explained this prayer concerns those who range themselves against a man appointed to a Divine mission. Says the Promised Messiah:
“From eternity, the way of the Lord has been that those who come to range themselves in opposition to those commissioned by Allah, that they are swept out of the path. These days are the days of great blessing from God. When we witness these things, faith in the existence of God is strengthened.” (Tazkira, page 513)
So this Ilham has no connection with the Hijrat of the Central Executive of the Movement from Qadian. It concerns those unbelievers who tried to block the path of the Promised Messiah. Besides, for the followers of a Prophet, Hijrat is never intended as a punishment. The Prophets, and their followers, in history, have had to take recourse to this important step, as a preparation for creating a healthy nucleus for proper growth; while for those who migrate in the way of the Lord, there is an encouraging pronouncement, according to the verse of the Holy Quran: “Those who migrate in the way of God, they would find ample means and open spaces in their path”. For the Ahmadiyya Movement, too, migration has proved to be a blessing. A firm Centre has come into being at Rabwah, from which place the light of Islam is being flashed all over the globe, while the old Centre at Qadian also is quite active, always sending out the Islamic teaching to every nook and corner of the country. In a way, the Ilham in regard to making “three into four” has also been fulfilled in the garb of this development under the control and supervision of Hazrat Khalifatul Masih II, the Muslih Mau’ud. The first Centre of Islam emerged at Mecca; the second at Medina; the third at Qadian; and the fourth, now, at Rabwah.
This migration was bound to come, having been envisaged in an Ilham of the Promised Messiah, namely, Dagh-i-Hijrat. i.e., the Scar of Migration. (Tazkira, page 768)
It is not without interest to recall to mind what Dr. Basharat Ahmad, Mr. Faruqi’s father, wrote at one time:
“Today, under the executive authority of Mian Mahmud, the progress attained by the Qadian Section, has been possible because he has been helped by a number of favourable circumstances. He obtained a base in a Movement already firmly established; various institutions for handling numerous plans and programmes; schools; boarding houses; and the solid support of financial arrangements already made to provide funds for missionary activity. (In the treasury there were only a handful of coins when the Muslih Mau’ud became the Second Khalifa – author). He found a Centre already established; and the general goodwill of the membership of the Movement, being a son of the Founder. The progress attained on this basis is hardly a matter of credit for him. If he had started without these solid supports, and then obtained some measure of success, we would have been ready to give him credit for it. As things have transpired, however, there is little room for us to hold that, by propagating his views on Nabuwwat and the question of kufr, he had won a following initially, and essentially, on that basis – that would have been a measure of success for him to be proud of.” (Paigham-i-Sulha, December 15, 1934)
Does Mr. Faruqi find himself prepared to concede that Hazrat Khalifatul Masih II, the Muslih Mau’ud, has really obtained a grand measure of success after migration, working under a series of severe difficulties grouped round the circumstances attendant on the Partition of the country, and the creation of Pakistan.
If the blind eyes
Of the bat cannot see
In the flooding light
Of daytime, you can hardly
Blame the sun for this failure!
And listen Mr. Faruqi! someone really appears to have fooled you, when he got you to hold that at the time of Partition, Hazrat Khalifatul Masiah II slipped out of Qadian, disguised as a woman, wrapped up in a burqa. (Truth Triumphs, page 45)
The Holy Prophet said, on one occasion, it was enough to prove that a man was a liar, if he, indiscriminately, proceeded to pass on whatever he happened to hear, in any quarter.
Then Mr. Faruqi has stated a dream of the Promised Messiah as follows:
“Then I saw Mian Mahmud Ahmad. There was an Englishman with him. He entered our home. At first he took his stand where the pitchers of drinking water are kept; then he advanced towards the room in the upper storey where I do my work. It appeared as though he desired to go in there, and carry out a search.” (Tazkira, page 597, as quoted in Truth Triumphs, page 48)
However, it is very curious, and highly regrettable, that Mr. Faruqi has refrained from putting down the rest of dream as well, and the exposition given by the Promised Messiah himself. We hope Mr. Faruqi would not mind if we complete the statement.
“At this juncture I noticed a man standing in front of me, with features very closely resembling Mir Nasir Nawab. He beckoned that I too should go into that room, since the Englishman was likely to carry out a search. But the idea passed through my mind that there was nothing in that room, except freshly written sheets of the MS of my latest book, in hand at the time: that this was all he would find there. Then I woke up.” (Tazkira, page 597, 598)
This statement carries the following note made by the Promised Messiah:
“To have seen Mahmud in this dream, and to have seen Mir Nasir Nawab points to some good end, since the word `mahmud’ points to a happy close – i.e., this tribulation would end well, Allah opening a way out of the difficulty, and turning the incident into a clear and convincing Sign.” (Tazkira, page 598)
Mr. Faruqi has also reproduced another ro’ya (vision) of the Promised Messiah:
“Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad said that he saw in a dream that he was coming towards Qadian over a rough path and in complete darkness, I was stepping out haphazardly, but it seemed as if an invisible hand was guiding me along until I reached Qadian. I then saw the mosque which is in the possession of the Sikh community, and I then took the straight street which comes from the (residence of the) Kashmiris. I then felt myself greatly upset and perplexed, as if I am going to lose senses. And I am repeatedly praying to God in the words – `O my Lord, show Thyself, O my Lord, show Thyself and lighten this darkness’. I find that my hand is being held by a mad man who is also saying: `O my Lord lighten the darkness’; and I also pray loudly and earnestly. I remember that before this vision. I had been praying intently for myself, for my wife and son Mahmud Ahmad. (Tazkira, edition II, page 833, 834)
After putting down these two dreams, Mr. Faruqi writes:
“Now it is evident that, in view of these warning Ilhams and visions, Hazrat Mirza Sahib, with forehead on the ground, must have been crying aloud that these bitter ordainments be, put off, and that the Lord turn to him with grace and mercy.” (Truth Triumphs, page 48, 49)
Then Mr. Faruqi reproduces three prayers of the Promised Messiah:
i) “My God, my God, why have you deserted me?”
ii) My God, I am vanquished; be pleased to help me!” (Tazkira, page 655)
iii) “Eternal, Everlasting Lord, get these fetters off, and come to my help!” (Tazkira, page 655)
Mr. Faruqi then puts down the following note:
“To all these prayers and cryings, God did assure Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad that although his son (Mirza Mahmud Ahmad) would be instrumental in doing lots of spiritual damage to the Ahmadiyya Community, yet God in His grace would create conditions under which much of the damage would be repaired. To this the following Ilhams bear testimony: `Verily, with me is my Lord who will guide me. God would set right my Community through His grace. We will revert it (your community) back to your ways, and will save it like we did the Israelites (from the cruelties of the Pharoah)’ (Tazkira, 94, 283, 764)” (Truth Triumphs, page 49)
It is to be carefully remembered that these Ilhams, each a separate piece; have been culled by Mr. Faruqi from different places, without giving any reason why, and how, he has brought them up together, in this sequence. His translation, too, shows the same tendency to extract his own favourite meaning therefrom, by twisting the texts. There is absolutely no hint here that the Ahmadiyya Movement would come to be ruined, at the hands of one of his sons, where at the Lord God assured him that the damage would be repaired. Mr. Faruqi’s pet theory that the Ahmadiyya Movement would suffer severe damage at the hands of the Promised Messiah’s sons, appears to indicate the diseased condition of his own mind. The Ilham “We shall certainly return her to you” has its background and context in the prophecy concerning Mohammadi Begum, as borne out by Tazkira, page 283. In Tazkira, page 764, is found only one Ilham, namely, “Shall reform my Community, if Allah wills it”, this being a hint that his son, the Mus1ih Mau’ud, would accomplish the task. There is nothing hereto support the view that the Muslih Mau’ud would come as the Mojaddid of the sixteenth century.
Another Wrong Exposition
On page 50 of his book, Mr. Faruqi has put down an Ilham as follows:
“These Ulama have changed the shape of my dwelling; they have built their fireplaces in my prayer-house. They have kept their cups and saucers in the place where I worshipped and like rats they are nibbling at the sayings and traditions of my Holy Prophet, Mohammad.” (Izala-i-Auham, footnote, page 76)
On this Ilham, then, Mr. Faruqi has commented as follows:
“A clear proof of the truth of Hazrat Mirza Sahib’s above statement is that although the Prophet’s saying that there shall be no prophet after me, has been mentioned about forty times, in one way or another, in the books of Traditions, yet Khalifa (Mahmud Ahmad Sahib) goes against it, and accepts Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as a full-fledged prophet.” (Truth Triumps, page 5)
Exposition given by the Promised Messiah
Commenting on this, the Promised Messiah says:
“Thuthian are the small cups in India called sakorian. Place of worship here signifies the hearts of most of the Ulama these days, brimful with plans and programmes of worldly aggrandisements.” (Izala-i-Auham, page 77)
This is a startling example of how jealousy and prejudice can make a man totally blind. Mr. Faruqi ignores the exposition of the Ilham given by the Reformer who received it; and he blithely proceeds to apply it to Hazrat Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmad, Khalifatul Masih II, and the Muslih Mau’ud, after turning the meaning and sense of the piece, shamelessly, to suit his own petty, but pet, purpose. It is to be carefully noted, further, that whereas the Promised Messiah has called himself a Prophet in the presence of this Report, holding that his Zilli Nabuwwat did not clash with this Hadith, Mr. Faruqi insists that his own understanding of the piece is superior, and truer, than the one given by the Promised Messiah, who has stated very clearly that this Hadith barred the way only for a man who claimed to be an independent Prophet, risen to the height without being beholden to an earlier Prophet, in the relationship of a loyal and true disciple – as borne out in the Ishtihar entitled “Ek Ghalati ka Izala “.
It is also to be noted that Mr. Faruqi has made very serious, very dirty, charges against Hazrat Khalifatul Masih II; and he has done his utmost to show that he was a scheming person, with no moral principles, or scruples. In this he has behaved not like a follower of the Promised Messiah, but a follower of the renowned enemy of Islam and Ahmadiyyat. Pundit Lekhram, who claimed that no worthy issue would be granted to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad; that the Muslih he says will be granted to him, from his own sons, there would happen no such thing, and the son in question would live his life showing traits of character exactly the opposite of what was so fondly being expected by himself.
Mahmud in Heaven
Now we would like to bring this chapter to a close with a ro’ya, a vision, of the Promised Messiah, with a bearing on the virtuous end of the life of Hazrat Mirza Mahmud Ahmad, Khalifatul Masih II, and the Muslih Mau’ud, though there are some aspects which seem to carry a warning of danger, in some respects. The Promised Messiah writes:
“About 2 o’clock, during the night, today, I saw in a dream that in some distress my wife had gone somewhere. I called her, and said to her: `Come with me. I will show you that tree.’ So I took her out. When we approached the tree, where there was also a garden nearby, I asked her, where was Mahmud? She said, `In paradise’; then again she repeated, `in paradise of grave’ (Tazkira, page 832)
This Ilham points to the virtuous and meritorious end for Hazrat Khalifatul Masih II and since he passed away from this world in Rabwah, to be buried in the Behishti Maqbara in this new settlement, of the Ahmadiyya Community, there is an indicator herein, for those who would care to see it, that the Behishti Maqbara at Rabwah too is a real Behishti Maqbara virtually the same as the Behishti Maqbara at Qadian.
Another Ro’ya about Hazrat Mahmud
Hazrat Masih-i-Mau’ud writes:
“I saw in a dream, first, as if the clothes Mahmud had on, had caught fire, which I extinguished. Then another man caught fire. That fire also I put out. Then my clothes were set on fire, so I poured water on myself, and the fire was put out. In other words, all the fires had gone out. But some black scar was to be seen on the arm. Apart from this, things were all right. And I leave my matter in the hands of the Lord.” (Tazkira, page 269, 270)
This fire is the fire of mischief and disorder raised against Hazrat Mahmud, against the Promised Messiah and against the Ahmadiyya Movement, which God in mercy had extinguished.
The Promised Messiah writes:
“My first son who is now alive, had not yet been born, when in the manner of Kashf the glad news was conveyed to me. I saw his name written on the wall of the mosque – Mahmud. So, to broadcast this prophecy, I got an Ishtihar printed on a paper of which the colour was green, date December 1, 1888.” (Tiryaqul Qolub, page 45, Tazkira, page 170)
The mosque signifies a body of followers. The name “Mahmud” seen written on the wall of a mosque, means Mahmud was destined to become the Imam of the Ahmadiyya Movement.