Since Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas did not consider it proper for Muslims to engage in violent dispute with the British, Abdul Hafeez concocts a charge of British sponsorship against him and alleges:

'If qadiani movement is looked at in historical perspective, it will become obvious why this seedling, namely Mirza, was implanted amongst Muslims of India.'2

He then proceeds to state that in the wake of the 1857 mutiny and the movement of Hadhrat Sayyid Ahmed Shahrh, the British were facing great difficulties and therefore:

'To deal with this problem, in 1869, a delegation of British journalists and Christian leaders came to India to find a solution. A renowned historian and scholar Agha Shorish Kashmiri mentioned in "Ajami Israel" p.19, their report was published under the title of "The Arrival of British Empire in India." In this report amongst other recommendations one was made, stated that the majority of Indian Muslims had a blind faith in their spiritual leaders and as such if the Government acquired the services of a person who claimed to be an apostolic prophet", many people would gather around him. Agha Shorish Kashmiri also mentions in his "Khatm e Nubuwwat" that three persons were short listed from all over India for this purpose and after interviewing them, Mirza of Qadian was found to be most suitable.'3

In the course of this publication against the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community its author has been shown to have often repeated a prayer that the wrath of God descend upon the liar and slanderer and this allegation by Abdul Hafeez is yet another fulfillment of his prayer which should indicate to the world that he has been exposed as one for the world to recognize. For instance, at this juncture of his book Two in One, he asks as to who was Hadhrat Ahmadas and what were his objectives and then proceeds to state that 'once again Hadhrat Ahmad'sas writings provide an insight to this.'4 The conclusion which he then derives from the literature of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community which apparently provides an insight to this question is that he was a seedling of the British.5

However, what this lying and manipulating pir of Gujjo seems to have forgotten is that when he attempted to manipulate the Ahmadiyya Muslim literature to answer his ow question as to 'who was Hadhrat Ahmadas', he cited the following passage from Hadhrat Sahibzada Mirza Bashir Ahmad'sra biography of Hadhrat Ahmadas, titled Seerat ul Mahdi:

'The British confiscated our family lands and fixed honorary pension of Rs. 700/- only per year in the form of cash which was reduced to Rs. 180/- only at the death of my Grandfather and stopped completely after my uncle's [Father's elder brother] death.'6

Now, if all these allegations made by the author of Two in One are correct then would he explain as to why should the British Government fix an honorary pension of seven hundred rupees to Hadhrat Ahmad'sas father which it subsequently reduces to a mere one hundred and eighty rupees when his elder brother becomes the lord of the manor and yet when a person whom it allegedly 'short lists and finds most suitable' takes control of the affairs of the family on the death of his elder brother, it completely stops this pension and pays no consideration thereafter?

Secondly, this historical perspective which allegedly makes it obvious to Abdul Hafeez that Hadhrat Ahmadas was a seedling of the British suggests that this delegation of journalists and Christian leaders, if it ever did come to India to find a solution to its Governments problems, came in the year 1869. First of all, one is at a loss to understand as to why should the British Government have used journalists and church leaders to advise it on a question which required the finesse and secrecy of the diplomatic and intelligence services. One is also lost as to why, if such a delegation was ever sent to India, then, it has only been recorded in publications hostile to the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community and not any other independent historical work, whether British or Indian. And then, why is it so that there is no trace whatsoever of any such alleged report of this delegation, titled 'The Arrival of British Empire in India.' If ever there was such an alleged report published, then why is it not available anywhere in the world?

The other question which needs to be addressed here is that this entire scenario is stated to have allegedly taken place in 1869 and it was at this point in time that the said delegation which came to India recommended that the 'Government acquire the Services of a person who claimed to be an apostolic prophet' But in 1869, Hadhrat Ahmadas was occupied with the management of his family's land under the supervision of his father and led a life of an unknown person in Qadian. He had not stated himself to be a spiritual leader of any congregation at that point in time, nor had he claimed to be an apostolic prophet, nor did he have any people gathering around him. Hence, there was absolutely no reason whatsoever for the British to either short list him or interview him nor find him suitable for this alleged task. It was not until March 1889, some twenty years later that he first announced the initiation of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Movement and 1891, twenty two years after this alleged recommendation by the said delegation in 1869; that Hadhrat Ahmadas set forth his claim of being the Imam Mahdi and the Promised Messiah. How does Abdul Hafeez explain all this in the light of his historical perspective?

As regards the question of Hadhrat Ahmadas being complimentary to the British Government if Abdul Hafeez was to see this in the historical perspective of what the Muslims of the Indian subcontinent had to suffer under the Sikh rule before the annexation of the Punjab by the British Government he may yet understand Hadhrat Ahmad'sas motivation in being favorably inclined to them. Nonetheless, if his favorable opinion makes him a seedling of the British, then what does the opinion of the then most revered leader of the Jami'at Ahle Hadeeth wal Ahle Sunnat, Maulvi Nazir Husain Delhvi make him since he is on record for his statements that

'God Almighty has decreed that the British rule India'7

and that the

'British rule in India is an act of God Almighty's mercy?'8

The Muhaddith of Delhi also 'gave preference to the British over and above his own parents since he found them more affectionate than one's parents'9 and stated:

'Having examined all the monarchies surrounding India, including those of Burma, Nepal, Afghanistan and also Persia, Egypt and Arabia, and having searched from one end of the world to another, I could not find one emperor who was worth of being the monarch of India. There is not one amongst these prospective candidates who deserves to be the emperor of this country. It is my conclusion that the British alone deserve, nay, have the right to rule India and may they continue to rule the domain.'10

According to Shurush Kashmiri, whose hostile statements against the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community are cited in this hostile publication Two in One, the Muhaddith of Delhi, Maulvi Nazir Husain was

'amongst those people who expressed an opinion that the authority of the British in India is lawful and in accordance with the Quranic injundion: 0 ye who believe, obey Allah and His Messenger and those in authority among you.'

Hence he is stated to have declared it

'unlawful to wage war against the British.'11

The Ahle Hadeeth leader Nawab Siddiq Hasan Khan of Bhopal is also stated to have written the book, Tarjuman e Wahabiyyat to assure the British Government that the Ahle Hadeeth in India were loyal to the British Government12 and within this book he stated:

'No Muslim subject of India and the Indian states bears malice towards this great power.'13

The leader of the Wahabbia Movement in India, Maulvi Muhammad Jaffar was also grateful to the British Government and considered it better than the regime of the then Khalifatul Muslameen of the non Ahmadiyya Muslims, the Sultan of Turkey, He stated:

'Before a111 I thank the British government under which we can publicly, and with the beat of drums, teach the religious doctrines of our pure faith without interference whatsoever, and we can pay back our Opponents whether they be Christians or others in their own coin. Such liberty we could not have seen under the Sultan of Turkey.'14

The Jamaat e Ahle Sunnat considered the British rule of India lawful also and according to its leadership, India, under the British, was considered to be a country of Islaml5 while the leadership of the Nidawatul Ulama of Deoband in India claimed that its:

'main objective was to produce enlightened ulama whose bounded duty it is to be fully aware of the beneficence of the British rule and also to inculcate the spirit of loyalty towards the Government of the country.'16

It is also stated in relation to the Nidawatul Ulama and Maulvi Rashid Ahmad Gangohi of Deoband:

'The Deobandis made sure that they conformed in every way to a posture of loyalty. Rashid Ahmad, for this reason, refused to accept a grant of 5000 rupees a year from the Shah of Afghanistan.'17

They are on record for having 'celebrated all ceremonial occasions like coronations with appropriate pomp, and observed times of crisis, like Queen Victoria's last illness, with fitting prayers and messages'18 while Alama Muhammad Iqbal composed an eulogy in honor of Queen Victoria and held her death in similar reverence to the martyrdom of Hadhrat Hussainra. He also bestowed upon her the epitaph of shadow of God Almighty and lamented that India had been deprived of the Divine shadow with her death.19 The Ahrar leader, Maulvi Zafar All Khan stated that

'Muslims cannot for a minute contemplate being cynical of the British and if any bad natured Muslim did dare show cynicism towards it then he would affirm that that Muslim was not a Muslim.'20

He also stated:

One does not know of any protest recorded by the hereditary pirs of Gujjo to the above declaration by Maulvi Zafar Ali. Was it because they also shared these sentiments of the entire Muslim populace as the editor of Zamindar had stated or was it because they were not Muslims?


  1. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p.87
  2. Ibid., p.88
  3. Ibid. pp.88/89
  4. Ibid., p.87
  5. Ibid., pp. 87/89
  6. Ibid., p.9
  7. Delhvi, Maulvi Nazir Hussain. Majmu'a Lectures, 1890, p.54
  8. Ibid., p.19
  9. Ibid.
  10. Ibid., p.62
  11. Kashmiri, Shurush. Ata Ullah Shah Bukhari, p.135
  12. Metcalf, Dr, Barbara Daly. Islamic Revival in Briush India, p.279
  13. Khan, Nawab Siddiq Hasan. Tarjuman e Wahabiyyat, p.4
  14. Jaffar, Maulvi Muhammad. Barakat ul Islam. p.2
  15. Hunter, W.W. Indian Musalmans, p.122
  16. Al Nadwa, Deoband, vol, 5, 1908
  17. Metcalf, Dr. Barbara Daly. Islamic Revival in British India, p.155
  18. Ibid.
  19. Iqbal, Muhammad. Bakayyat e Iqbal
  20. Khan, Zafar Ali. Zamindar, Lahore, 23 November 1911
  21. Ibid., 11 November 1911