Note: The Alislam Team assumes full responsibility for any errors or inaccuracies in this translation of the Friday Sermon.
Friday Sermon — 14 December 1923 Source: Al-Fazl, 21 December 1923
Topics: Husn-e-Zann (Good Opinion), Unity, Internal Dissension, Arabic vs. English Scholars, Khilafat
After recitation of the tashahhud, ta'awwudh, and Surah al-Fatihah, Huzur(ra) addressed the congregation as follows.
In the Friday sermon delivered two weeks ago, I drew attention to the truth that the entire machinery of the world rests upon husn-e-zann — good opinion of one's fellow human beings. If we were to abandon good opinion, no department of life could function in an orderly manner. Neither could the bonds between husband, wife, and children remain sound, nor could a friend maintain his relationship with another friend. Neither the buyer could purchase any goods, nor the seller could sell them. No ruler could maintain a relationship with his subjects, no bonds between cities and neighbourhoods could remain intact. In short, there is no department of life from which good opinion may be removed. Indeed, the reality is that every undertaking begins with good opinion — without it at the outset, no work can even commence. I mentioned in that sermon that the topic was by way of preamble, and that I would elaborate upon the principal subject the following Friday. However, by the wisdom of Allah the Almighty, news reached me last Friday of the passing of Maulvi 'Ubaidullah Sahib, on account of which I was obliged to speak on that matter and could not address the intended subject. I therefore take it up today.
During a recent visit to Lahore, a young associate relayed to me certain matters that made a very deep and troubling impression upon my heart, for they were entirely founded upon ill-opinion and were capable of producing most dangerous consequences. The potential harm arising from them was so grave that, in comparison, even the fitna of the Paighamis would amount to nothing. Because the matter was of great importance, I immediately appointed Chaudhry Zafrullah Khan Sahib to conduct an investigation. The report he submitted as a result of that inquiry confirmed that the narrator had indeed said those things. I do not wish to name him, for the one who spoke those words was an inexperienced young man who still had much to learn; his inexperience played a considerable role in what he said, and afterward he repented with a sincere heart. I therefore overlooked the matter and pardoned him. Equally, I do not name the one who conveyed those words to me, for he too is young and it is possible that someone might press him to reveal the identity of the speaker. As for Chaudhry Sahib, I mention his name because I consider him a man of sound judgment whom no one can trouble with impertinent questions — and also because I had appointed a responsible person to carry out the investigation. He continued his inquiry until two or three o'clock in the morning.
The investigation established that the following allegations had indeed been uttered. The young man had stated: that the maulvis of Qadian harbour great enmity toward the English-educated and regard them with contempt; that this is not merely a matter of inward feeling but that the coming generations are being taught and shaped in the same mould. Accordingly, the students of Madrasa Ahmadiyya do not offer the greeting of salaam to the teachers of the English school, while the teachers and students of the English school do offer salaam to the students and teachers of Madrasa Ahmadiyya and treat them with respect. He further alleged that the primary instigators and originators of this offence are Maulvi Sayyid Sarwar Shah Sahib and Sheikh 'Abdur Rahman Sahib Misri. The basis of this ill-opinion, he claimed, was a sermon delivered by Maulvi Sahib in which he had stated that it was necessary to send abroad missionaries who were grounded in religious knowledge. Certain phrases in that sermon gave the impression that in his view the missionaries currently being sent were deficient, and since they happened to be English-educated, the implication drawn was that English-educated persons could not do the work. From this sermon, the young man concluded how deep the enmity of the maulvis toward the English-educated was, and how they believed the English-educated incapable of tabligh. He further alleged that Maulvi Sarwar Shah Sahib could not have spoken so openly in a Friday sermon unless a group of maulvis stood behind him — which proved that the other maulvis too were with him.
He went on to claim that the hostility toward the English-educated was growing to such a degree that some English-educated workers were themselves being given the title of maulvi — so that the outside communities would be told that all the work being accomplished was the work of maulvis, and that it was the maulvis who were running the affairs of the Movement. He mentioned in this connection that Maulvi Rahim Bakhsh Sahib, Maulvi 'Abdul Mughni Sahib, Maulvi Dhulfiqar 'Ali Khan Sahib, and Maulvi Bashir Ahmad Sahib had taken great care to promote this and had encouraged people to address these individuals by the title of maulvi, so that the maulvis might gain renown.
He then claimed that the Khalifa himself had some share in this, because only maulvis were invited to consultations. He argued: if the Khalifa invites maulvis to his councils, it shows that they are considered capable. As evidence he noted that the teachers of Madrasa Ahmadiyya were invited to such councils while the teachers of the English school were not. Yet in reality, he maintained, it was the English-educated who were doing the actual work — the work being accomplished in foreign lands was being accomplished by the hands of the English-educated. For tabligh, English was the truly essential language, while Arabic was only needed at a rudimentary level. When it was pointed out to him that certain complex problems arose from time to time that could only be resolved through knowledge of the Arabic language, he replied that one did not need Arabic for such matters — a man could work them out by his own reason. When the listener again pressed him, saying that if the Khalifa also invited only maulvis to his councils, it showed the maulvis were the capable ones, he replied: the real reason was that when the dispute over Khilafat arose, it was the English-educated who had stirred it up, while the maulvis had stood in support of Khilafat — and for this reason the Khalifa showed them favour.
During the inquiry, when the young man was asked whether he had actually said these things, he replied that he had been feverish and had spoken in a state of passionate agitation. But when asked what his view was at the present time, he said his view remained the same. He did, however, add that in terms of public address and lecturing, English-educated individuals could speak more ably than the maulvis. He argued that if Sheikh 'Abdur Rahman Sahib were set to work on extracting references on one side, and a young English-educated man on the other, the English-educated youth would accomplish more. Similarly, he contended that Sheikh 'Abdur Rahman Sahib could not expound the deep meanings of the Quran as well as a certain English-educated person could — from which it followed that the English-educated possessed greater capacity for the service of Islam, and that it was in fact they who were truly serving it.
These utterances reflect a most dangerous spirit — one that, if it were to continue, could give rise to a very great fitna. It cannot be dismissed by saying that such ideas belong to only one or two persons and are therefore no cause for concern. No person can remain healthy unless all their limbs are sound and their whole body is in order. If even one limb becomes diseased, every other limb is affected. In the same way, a community cannot be called safe from tribulations if even some of its members harbour this spirit.
If this spirit were to spread in the community, the result would be growing division — the entire community would come to resemble the English and Germans locked in battle on the fields of France, or like two lions confined together in a single cage. But remember that a community is built upon the unity of hearts; if the hearts of its members are not one, it cannot be called a community. As the Promised Messiah(as) stated in Paigham-e-Sulh¹ regarding the Muslims: they have no community, because their hearts are scattered. If then we call ourselves the Ahmadiyya community while our hearts are not one, that would be a lie.
It is possible that some others also harbour such ideas; and though these ideas are still concealed and only two or three persons are afflicted by them, I considered it necessary to address them publicly so that they may not spread to others and the rest of the community not fall prey to them. This matter was so serious that had that young man not repented with a sincere heart, I had resolved to expel him from the community — because the Khalifa's very duty is to keep the entire community united upon a single hand and a single word. I believe I would have been failing in my responsibilities had I turned a blind eye to such occurrences, for a Khalifa who watches his community breaking into pieces before his very eyes and remains silent cannot be called a Khalifa. The whole purpose of Khilafat is to keep all united in one place and upon one word. When I received word of these matters in the evening, I immediately called upon some friends for consultation and summoned Chaudhry Sahib, instructing him to investigate and report back to me with the full facts before morning.
Today I have delivered this sermon so that the rest of the community may not fall prey to these ideas, and I present the true state of affairs. In response to the claim that the Arabic-educated harbour enmity toward the English-educated and hold them in contempt, I cite the hadith: hal shaqaqta qalbah¹ — "Did you split open his heart?" From this hadith it is clear that even though outward circumstances appeared to support the Companion's action, the Holy Prophet(sa) held him to be at fault and said: why did you not lift your sword from him, and why did you not consider him your brother, when he had declared himself a Muslim? Did you split open his heart to look inside? The Holy Prophet(sa) stressed the importance of good opinion to such a degree that even when outward circumstances appeared contrary, one must still exercise husn-e-zann.
Enmity and contempt are matters of the heart. We therefore cannot say that the Arabic-educated harbour enmity or contempt toward the English-educated, because we have not split open their hearts to look inside. Then I ask: how did this person conclude that these maulvis — who have for years been serving the religion, who abandoned their homelands, left behind their ancestral faiths, renounced their relatives and made sacrifices truly worthy of esteem, who demonstrate in their actions what they profess with their tongues, and who deny that they harbour enmity toward the English-educated — how could anyone say of such people that their hearts contain enmity? Could there be a greater ill-opinion than this? If one is to exercise ill-opinion, then by the same logic I too should harbour suspicion about every person who takes the pledge of allegiance, wondering what purpose drives them and with what intention they perform every act — and in that case how would any work ever get done?
History records many incompetent kings who entertained ill-opinion and had their loyal servants killed over trivial matters — yet they were never regarded with respect; others always considered them contemptible. They put their faithful ones to death on the basis of mere ill-opinion. The one who harbours ill-opinion can never succeed. Some people imagine that ill-opinion brings benefit — but here no benefit can possibly arise from it. What good could this ill-opinion conceivably bring to the English-educated? I therefore say, just as the Holy Prophet(sa) said: have you split open the hearts of the Arabic-educated to discover that they harbour enmity toward the English-educated?
As for the conclusion drawn from Maulvi Sarwar Shah Sahib's sermon, and the mistaken meaning attributed to it — I in fact refuted it at the very following Friday sermon. I had stated then that I had not heard that sermon; sometimes when I am unwell and unable to speak I still attend Friday prayers and the sermon is delivered in my presence, but on that occasion I had not even been able to attend and had not heard what Maulvi Sahib said. I therefore stated that I could not accept that the content attributed to Maulvi Sahib was truly what he had delivered, and I provided clarification. But look at where ill-opinion leads and how far it can take a person: this young man used ill-opinion to argue against the very person who had been a benefactor to him. The very first person who came to me regarding Maulvi Sahib's sermon, saying that people had drawn a wrong conclusion from it and that there was a risk of English-educated persons being hurt, and therefore Maulvi Sahib should quickly address the misunderstanding — that person was Sheikh 'Abdur Rahman Sahib Misri himself. It was a maulvi who first brought it to my attention on his behalf. Yet it was this same man against whom the ill-opinion was directed, with the allegation that the sermon had been delivered on his advice and counsel. Had the young man not harboured ill-opinion, he would not have fallen into the dangerous error of counting as enemies those who had treated him with goodness.
As for the allegation that the students of Madrasa Ahmadiyya do not offer salaam to the teachers of the English school — I cannot offer any opinion on this, since I am neither a student of those schools nor a teacher at the high school, and such conduct could not occur in my presence. Nor do I harbour ill-opinion about the students that they do such a thing. But if they do, it is a most reprehensible act and entirely contrary to Islam. The very purpose of studying at Madrasa Ahmadiyya is to prepare oneself for the service of Islam — and Islam commands that salaam be offered to everyone, whoever they may be. Some Companions, such as 'Abdullah ibn 'Umar(ra) and others, would on occasion go out to the market or into the lanes specifically to offer salaam to people. Madrasa Ahmadiyya exists for the service of Islam, not for acting in contradiction to it. I therefore do not harbour ill-opinion about those students — yet I still say: if any of them is afflicted by this fault, he should repent and reform himself. Beyond this I cannot say more on the matter.
As for the allegation that Miyan Bashir Ahmad Sahib addressed Master 'Abdul Mughni Sahib, Master Rahim Bakhsh Sahib, Khan Sahib Dhulfiqar 'Ali Khan Sahib as maulvis and encouraged others to call them thus — so that the maulvis might gain renown and the good deeds of the English-educated be attributed to them — my investigation has thus far not established that Miyan Bashir Ahmad Sahib said any such thing, nor has any witness been found for it. Moreover, we have not yet been able to determine who among us desires to be called a maulvi or feels any affection for that title, because the word maulvi naturally carries no particular respect or affinity among the people of our community. In the early period of Islam no one was called a maulvi, and the great scholars of the intermediate period did not call themselves maulvis either — they were called Imam. The maulvis we have encountered in our own time are those who bitterly opposed the Promised Messiah(as) and levelled charges of disbelief and wickedness against him. The great scholars of Islam were addressed as Imam or 'Allama — such as Sheikh 'Abdul Qadir, the fuqaha, and other learned men. The maulvis of today are our most bitter enemies. It therefore does not even enter my mind that any of us would feel affection for the title of maulvi or wish to be called one. Furthermore, the suggestion that by calling these people maulvis one could deceive the community into thinking it was the maulvis who were doing all the work — this too is false. Not once has a letter ever reached me from anywhere saying: "There is a debate at such-and-such a place with Maulvi Sha'ullah; please send Maulvi 'Abdul Mughni, or Maulvi Dhulfiqar 'Ali Khan Sahib, or Maulvi Rahim Bakhsh Sahib." It is simply not possible that if these people were called maulvis, the community would think that the ones doing the work were maulvis. The whole community understands them to be English-educated. The word maulvi has attached itself to some of their names colloquially — not because they are actually considered maulvis. For example, Maulvi Rahim Bakhsh Sahib: if he is sometimes called maulvi, it is because he holds an M.A. in Arabic, and he is also sometimes called Master because he is English-educated. Equally, no deception can befall the community regarding Master 'Abdul Mughni Sahib, for the community knows full well that he is English-educated.
As for the claim that I invite only maulvis to my councils — this too is entirely contrary to fact. For example, in the consultations recently held regarding housing matters, those invited were not only maulvis but English-educated persons as well, and the English-educated in fact outnumbered the others. Among the English-educated were: Miyan Bashir Ahmad Sahib, Master Rahim Bakhsh Sahib, Master 'Abdul Mughni Sahib, Maulvi Sher 'Ali Sahib, and Dhulfiqar 'Ali Khan Sahib. Among the maulvis were: Hafiz Roshan 'Ali Sahib, Sheikh 'Abdur Rahman Sahib Misri, Maulvi Sarwar Shah Sahib, and Maulvi Isma'il Sahib. Then there were Sheikh Muhammad Yusuf Sahib, Qadhi Akmal Sahib, and Mir Qasim 'Ali Sahib — persons who can be counted neither as English-educated nor as Arabic-educated. Qadhi Akmal Sahib has read the Arabic curricular texts but has not directed his subsequent life in such a way as to be called a maulvi. Then there was Waliullah Shah Sahib, who is half English-educated and half Arabic-educated — he studied Arabic but in the manner of the English-educated. If the count is taken, the maulvis were actually in the minority. Chaudhry Nasrullah Khan Sahib was also present, who is neither English-educated nor Arabic-educated; he is a lawyer. The Nazirs of various departments are also English-educated, not maulvis.
As for the claim that I use the Arabic-educated and do not use the English-educated — this is also untrue. Whenever I appoint someone to a task, my mind considers only whether that person is suited to the work and capable of doing it. The question of whether he is English-educated or Arabic-educated never enters my mind. The question I ask is simply: can such-and-such a person do such-and-such a work? And whomever I consider capable of a task — whether English-educated, Arabic-educated, or otherwise — I appoint him, because what I have in view is not a degree or certificate but the capability to do the work. Whoever remains with us must do so as an Ahmadi; a person who wishes to remain with us as an English-educated or Arabic-educated person as such can never endure here. For this is a community — a single community — in which one works by moving upon the point of unity that is Ahmadiyyat, not by being a maulvi or an English scholar.
As for the claim that the teachers of Madrasa Ahmadiyya are invited to councils while teachers of the English school are not — the reason is this: the English-educated are more numerous, and from among them we have already selected the most capable men for the higher tasks. But the Arabic-educated are few in number, and from among them we have placed capable persons in the madrasa because we have no others available to run the madrasa. This should not be understood as meaning that they are invited merely as ordinary schoolteachers; rather, they are invited in their capacity as learned scholars of the Movement. Despite their learning and accomplishments, it is in fact a sacrifice on their part to be running the madrasa — for that is not in truth their proper occupation. If we could find a sufficient number of Arabic-educated persons to replace them, we would need to deploy them on other tasks.
As for the statement that the Khalifa himself has a hand in these affairs and shows favour to the Arabic-educated because they stood in support of Khilafat during the dispute — this is a notion whose holder cannot remain within the Khilafat. For what it implies is that the Khalifa is so foolish as to not even know what Khilafat is or who it is that makes a man Khalifa. At the time of the Khilafat dispute, while some English-educated persons did stand in opposition, some English-educated persons also stood in support — such as Maulvi Sher 'Ali Sahib, Dhulfiqar 'Ali Khan Sahib, and others. Similarly, while some maulvis were in support, some were in opposition too — such as Maulvi Ghulam Hasan Sahib Peshawar.
Then I say: what benefit does anyone derive from being Khalifa, except to carry the grief and anguish of the people's afflictions and their reform — to keep struggling over how the ship of the community may reach safe harbour? Khilafat is nothing more than a thing that destroys its bearer; it is a most swift-acting instrument of a man's slaughter, one that kills the strongest and most youthful of men in a short time. It makes a free man into a slave and gnaws at him like a wood-borer. As for the favours and blessings of God — these are not exclusively tied to Khilafat. Is not Prophethood granted directly? Undoubtedly, spiritual blessings also descend upon the Khalifa, but that is not the only spiritual door through which God's bounties may be entered. If anyone becomes Khalifa by his own desire, such a Khilafat is a torment rather than a blessing, and such a man is accursed — he is brought to disgrace and dishonour and can never obtain any divine support. Moreover, in my view one of the greatest difficulties of Khilafat is that the Khalifa cannot step down from Khilafat. He is helpless and constrained. He cannot give a practical reply to those who object. A headmaster, if people object to him, can — regardless of what others think — resign and say: take it, I am done with this. But a Khalifa cannot step down from Khilafat, and therefore cannot answer in that manner. This is the very office in which the one who assumes it is stripped of the right to step back. The Khalifa is precisely that person whose hands are tied — he cannot respond to another's blow. His tongue too is bound; and in the eyes of any honourable person there can be no greater meanness than to attack such a person whose hands and tongue are both bound. If the Khalifa had the option of stepping aside, there would have been many Khalifas who would have said to their critics: take it, manage this Khilafat yourselves, we are done. But since that option is taken away from the Khalifa, whatever the circumstances, he cannot even entertain the thought of relinquishing Khilafat.
After these responses, I counsel both sides: if such ideas exist in your hearts, remove them. Remember that sowing discord is never beneficial in any way. No advancing nation in history has ever lacked a section devoted to religious learning; nor can any nation advance whose one section does not turn toward worldly sciences. Just as no house can be built or maintained without walls, so too the class that is most capable of serving as the worldly pillar and support of the Movement, and of rendering financial service — without it a community cannot advance either. Equally, if the maulvis were removed, the community could neither be sustained nor advance.
This community was not formed by the English-educated alone, nor by the maulvis alone. In the community there are not only these two classes — in fact ninety-eight percent of the community consists of others beyond both of them, and they render more service to the Movement. Yes, one thing remains to be addressed: it was said that an English-educated person can find references more quickly than Sheikh 'Abdur Rahman Misri — but what is mere facility with references without knowledge? Even the Promised Messiah(as) used to have references extracted by others; in the same way I too have references extracted by others. I convey the subject and have the verses located. On one occasion in Lahore I delivered a lecture and had Hafiz Roshan 'Ali Sahib recite the verse — whereupon a journalist wrote that the lecture had fine content, but the speaker was asking someone else as he went. The task of retrieving references belongs to one who has memorised; the task of the scholar is to prepare the substance.
As for the claim that an English-educated person can expound the deep meanings of the Quran better than the maulvis — and it was said in such a manner as if that English-educated person had already accomplished it — if that is indeed the case, it is a cause of joy for us. But this does not make the English-educated independent of the need for learned scholars. Consider: everyone knows prescriptions and remedies, but if there were no doctors in the world, prescriptions too would cease to exist — for prescriptions are transmitted through doctors. In the same way, whatever deep meanings you expound will be those you learned from the maulvis, however far you may progress. They will ultimately be what the maulvis expounded, or the fruit of their teaching. And these deep meanings can only be attained if there is a group entirely dedicated to this work night and day.
Both sides must therefore understand that both are components of the community's machinery. If the English-educated are working in England, America, and so forth, they cannot do there what the maulvis are doing here. And what the maulvis do in Egypt, Iran, Afghanistan, and other such lands, the English-educated cannot do. Beyond all of these, there are yet others who make great sacrifices for the Movement. Our brother Muhammad Amin Khan has just returned from Bukhara — he is neither English-educated nor Arabic-educated — yet the sacrifices he has made are immense; he has been imprisoned. Among the English-educated or Arabic-educated, who has been in prison? Every single person in the community is working. Even the humblest sincere Ahmadi is rendering service. So keep husn-e-zann in your thoughts and live as brothers. Just as those children draw the love and affection of their parents who live with mutual love among themselves, so too — if you wish to obtain the blessings of God, the prayers of His Prophet(sa), and the prayers of His Khalifa — then remove ill-opinion from your hearts and regard every one as your brother, for therein lies the secret of your progress.
I pray that Allah the Almighty may create love and affection among you.
(Al-Fazl, 21 December 1923)
Footnotes
¹ Sahih Muslim, Kitab al-Iman, Chapter: "He who dies not associating anything with Allah enters Paradise" — this is the hadith of Usamah ibn Zayd(ra) in which the Holy Prophet(sa) said: "Hal shaqaqta 'an qalbih?" ("Did you rip open his heart?") upon learning that Usamah had killed a man who had declared La ilaha illallah.https://readhadith.app/hadith/sahih-muslim-132
² Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad(as), Paigham-e-Sulh (A Message of Peace).https://new.alislam.org/library/books/message-of-peace?option=options&page=9
Related Resources