Note: The Alislam Team assumes full responsibility for any errors or inaccuracies in this translation of the Friday Sermon.
(Delivered: 4 April 1924) Published: Al-Fazl, 15 April 1924
Topics: Hypocrisy, apostasy, Bahaism, truthfulness, tabligh
After recitation of the tashahud, ta'awwudh, and Surah Al-Fatihah, Huzoor(ra) said:
Today, as I was preparing for Friday and about to leave home, someone sent me a copy of the pamphlet Paigham-e-Sulh. My intention had been to deliver a sermon on the subject of tabligh. However, upon receiving this pamphlet, I thought it might contain something relating to me personally, or something worth reading. I therefore opened it and cast my eye over its contents. On the very second page I found an editorial in which a letter by Maulvi Mahfuz-ul-Haq was reproduced — a letter he had written to Maulvi Muhammad Ali Sahib after leaving Qadian, and whose underlying motive is apparent from the very act of sending it. I read that letter, and also the critique that was directed at us on the basis of it. What an astonishing piece of writing it was — both as a demonstration of how, the moment a person abandons truth and departs from the true religion, he immediately plunges headlong into filth; and as a demonstration of how, when a person makes enmity toward someone his defining trait and becomes blinded by hatred, he begins raising objections at every turn, without rhyme or reason, and levels accusations with remarkable boldness. I have brought the pamphlet along with me, because I concluded that since the purpose of a Friday sermon is to inform the community of matters that concern it, it would be fitting to say something about this subject.
First, let me read out the letter that Mahfuz-ul-Haq wrote to Maulvi Muhammad Ali. He writes:
"We had wondered why your honour was compelled to leave Qadian when your disagreement with the Qadiani Jama'at became known. But now we have seen the reasons with our own eyes. We have observed that the Qadiani Jama'at has destroyed the spirit which Hazrat Sahib had brought into being. We do not regard Hazrat Sahib (Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad(as))as a prophet. We do not declare a Muslim to be a disbeliever on account of his rejection of him. We consider it permissible to pray behind a non-Ahmadi. We consider it permissible to enter into marriage with a non-Ahmadi. We regard the exaggeration taking place in Qadian concerning the person of Hazrat Sahib as harmful to the Muslim world. Our community has not engaged in any mischief or dishonesty. God is witness that we chose the path of peace and well-being in every way. But what is to be done about the fact that the leaders of Qadian treated us unjustly — in a manner which they themselves will be compelled, with a sense of shame, to acknowledge as unjust. We were summoned like criminals; we were mocked; looks of anger and fury were cast upon us; we were taunted; we were prevented from walking through the streets; men carrying sticks were sent, who took us from one place to another; we were boycotted in every possible way; even at the time of departure we were not allowed to meet our own family members. It is surprising — where has that moral strength gone which is boasted of in the newspapers? And what more could have happened than that we were considered disbelievers and apostates in the eyes of the leaders of Qadian? We had differed with certain of their views. Did we deserve the treatment that was meted out to us? After all, when people do the same to a non-Ahmadi who has become Ahmadi, the leaders of Qadian cry out and raise a hue and cry in the newspapers. Yet more strange is the fact that Miyan Sahib (Hazrat Musleh Maud(ra)) announced among his followers that for three days these people could ask him whatever they wished — yet we were given no formal notice of this. Your honour wrote well in 'Akhri Nabi' that Miyan Sahib, on account of his new beliefs regarding prophethood, has joined the Babis. And indeed there is no doubt that Miyan Sahib's statements have done great work in this regard, and it is on account of this very movement that we too have appeared today in this form. And several other people in the Qadiani group have also been coloured in the same hue today."
This is the letter. The editor of the newspaper says: we had been warning all along that the 'Mahmudi' (referring to Hazrat Mirza Bashirudeen Mahmood Ahmad(ra)) beliefs would cause destruction, and so it has come to pass — now people are beginning to become Babis on account of these beliefs, and the root cause is the beliefs of Miyan Sahib.
Let me first answer the editor of the newspaper. Observe how, when a person becomes blinded by prejudice, he draws false and inverted conclusions. He says Bahaism and Babism are the result of Miyan Sahib's beliefs — but tell me, where did Babism first arise? Hashmatullah of Agra, and Muhammad Ismail, and other Bahais found in Bombay and Karachi — from which group did they become Bahais? Did they also become Bahais from among the Mahmudis? These people considered it permissible to claim divine inspiration even after the Holy Prophet(sa) — how did they become Bahais then? Then in Iran, Egypt, and elsewhere, thousands of people calling themselves Muslims became Babis — did they too emerge from among the Mahmudis?
If the world had known no Babism or Bahaism prior to the propagation of our beliefs, then this argument could be made and this religion could be attributed to our beliefs as their consequence. But if the Bab had made his claim fifty years before my birth, and if Baha'ullah had made his claim forty years before my birth, and if thousands of people — those who believed the Holy Prophet(sa) to be the Seal of the Prophets in the sense that no prophet of any kind would come after him, and who considered the Quran complete in the sense that after the death of the early commentators the understanding of the Quran had vanished — had already entered Babism and Bahaism, then what mind could say that Bahaism spreads as a result of the ideas I have published?
Furthermore, they say that Maulvi Muhammad Ahsan Sahib was with them from the beginning, but had taken the bay'at of Miyan Sahib out of love for the Ahl-e-Bait. What was it that caused his son to become a Bahai? That same Maulvi Muhammad Ahsan Sahib whom they regard as fully observant of the teaching of Hazrat Masih-e-Mau'ud(as), and whom they consider a denier of prophethood — how did his son become a Bahai? And he did so even before the present split — and declared Babism with great fervour, to the extent that some people suspect that books such as Burhan-us-Sarih and others were also written by him. Wa Allahu A'lam (And God knows best) as to how true that is. In any case, Bahaism and Babism emerged from the Paighami household. So since Babism is not the result of my views, what charge can be levelled against me?
Furthermore, thousands from among those who consider even the understanding of the Quran to have ceased after the early scholars — their becoming Babis is the result of what beliefs? These people cannot see the ruin in their own homes. Let them consider: these thousands of Babis and Bahais are under some influence. Hazrat Masih(as) rightly said: one notices the speck in another's eye, yet cannot see the beam in one's own.¹ This is exactly why the non-mubai'een (Those who have not taken bai’at) level objections at us but do not look at their own homes.
Then I ask: has there ever been an era in which there were no apostates? Did not Abd-ul-Hakeem apostatise during the time of Hazrat Masih-e-Mau'ud(as) — on precisely these issues: that you call all Muslims disbelievers, and that you are excessive regarding your own station, and so on? Was Abd-ul-Hakeem's apostasy the result of my teaching?
Similarly, those who believed in the early period of the Holy Prophet(sa) and then became apostates — were they too the result of Mahmudi beliefs? Or did the Holy Prophet(sa) also commit some exaggeration, as a result of which that community apostatised? Then in the time of Hazrat 'Isa(as), the hundreds who apostatised before his very eyes — what exaggeration was responsible for them? Was I present there too? In the same way, apostasy also occurred in the time of Hazrat Musa(as); the Quran records those apostates — they were swallowed up by the earth, destroyed, humiliated. What beliefs caused that? Was it the exaggeration of Hazrat Musa(as) — or was I present at that time too, as a result of whose influence apostasy occurred? When apostasy happened in the time of Hazrat Musa(as), and in the time of Talut(as), and in great numbers in the time of Hazrat 'Isa(as), and then in the times of the Holy Prophet(sa) and of Hazrat Mirza Sahib(as) — what is the reason that if two or three apostates appear today, the same cause that existed in those cases is not applied here?
Are there not, furthermore, those who rejected me and joined the Paighamis, and then became atheists entirely? What teaching and what beliefs produced that result? But it is true — one can see the speck in another's eye, yet cannot see even the beam in one's own.
Among those Paighamis there were those who became atheists, those who apostatised from Ahmadiyyat, those who were ill-behaved and abandoned Islam — yet these they do not remember. Apostates in the time of the Masih-e-Mau'ud, and those who went astray in the time of the Holy Prophet(sa) — these are invisible to their eyes. But the apostasy of these two or three people sticks in their eyes as if no one had ever apostatised before. How thoroughly Allah has answered them. They levelled the accusation against us that our beliefs lead toward Bahaism — yet Allah had already made the son of Maulvi Muhammad Ahsan Sahib a Bahai beforehand, thereby slapping their faces. If only they would understand that Bahaism came forth from their own household, and yet they make the accusation in reverse against us.
Now let me take up the substance of the letter. The writer says: "We had wondered why your honour was compelled to leave Qadian when your disagreement with the Qadiani Jama'at became known. But now we have seen the reasons with our own eyes."
Those reasons are stated further on, and I will respond to them in turn.
He writes: "We do not regard Hazrat Sahib as a prophet." How strange — yet in his statement here it is recorded that he wrote: Hazrat Sahib was in a certain sense truthful in his claim to prophethood. And witness after witness testified in great numbers that just four or five days before his departure he was saying: "What has come over Muhammad Ali's mind, that he denies prophethood? Prophethood is something no one can deny." Yet after leaving Qadian he writes that he does not regard Hazrat Sahib as a prophet. What a great deception this is. He did not write that since he accepts Baha'ullah, he therefore does not accept Hazrat Sahib as a prophet. Rather he wrote: "We do not regard Hazrat Sahib as a prophet" — so that Maulvi Muhammad Ali Sahib might be pleased, thinking his position was being corroborated. Whereas the real meaning is: how could he accept Mirza Sahib at all, being a follower of Baha'ullah, who stands opposed to him? He held this belief before as well — but in order to be absorbed among us and to remain part of our community, he kept saying Mirza Sahib was a prophet. Now, to be absorbed among them, he says: "We do not regard Mirza Sahib as a prophet." In truth, he considers Mirza Sahib neither a prophet nor a righteous man.
Then he writes: "We do not declare a Muslim to be a disbeliever on account of his rejection of him." How could anyone become a disbeliever through rejecting Mirza Sahib, from his point of view — they have already become disbelievers through rejecting Baha'ullah. The Bab wrote in his books that whoever rejects his books is a disbeliever. Those who became disbelievers approximately a hundred years ago — what sense is there in their becoming disbelievers again? But this was written to deceive the reader into thinking he was defending Islam.
He writes: "We consider it permissible to pray behind a non-Ahmadi." This specification of non-Ahmadis is purely for purposes of deception. These people consider it permissible to enter a Christian church and pray behind a Christian — for under Bahai teaching, not only a non-Ahmadi, but even praying behind a Christian in a church is permissible. Their missionaries in Europe and America do precisely this.
He says: "We consider it permissible to marry a non-Ahmadi." This too is a deception. Under the Bahai doctrine, these restrictions on marriage are entirely superfluous. In their view, marriage with Christians, Hindus, Zoroastrians, and Sikhs is also permissible — Bahai women in America live with Christian husbands.
He writes: "We regard the exaggeration taking place in Qadian concerning the person of Hazrat Sahib as harmful to the Muslim world." This is a strange statement — when you consider Islam to be abrogated, what meaning is there in deeming something harmful or beneficial to it? But by "Islam" they do not mean the Islam that comes to the mind of the reader of this letter. What they mean by "Islam" is the religion that Baha'ullah brought. They give this argument for calling Baha'ullah's religion Islam: since the religions of earlier prophets have also been called Islam, "Islam" is the name for every true religion — and since Baha'ullah's religion is now the true one (according to him), it alone is Islam. So by "the Muslim world" they mean Baha'ullah's world. Since it is entirely correct that the teaching of Hazrat Aqdas will result in the Bahai religion being unable to spread, he wrote that he considers Ahmadiyyat harmful to the Bahai religion — but he wrote every sentence with hypocrisy, so that on the surface people would think he was defending Islam, whereas the real intent is support for Bahaism.
Then he writes: "Our community has not engaged in any mischief or dishonesty. God is witness that we chose the path of peace and well-being in every way."
So all of this was done covertly in order to maintain peace and prevent any kind of disorder? The analogy for this is that if someone catches a thief and says, "Why did you steal?" and the thief replies, "Your honour — because if I had lifted the item openly in front of him, he would have fought with me, so for the sake of peace I took this path." What a peculiar kind of peace this is. You burrow through walls and then say: God is witness, I did this purely for peace. Is this what peace means? Remaining within a community, drawing a salary for propagating that community's beliefs, covertly propagating your own beliefs — and calling yourself that community's missionary — while teaching the members of that community against its own principles, and instructing them not to tell anyone, lest someone else undo the effect of this poison: if this is peacefulness, then what in the world would dishonesty, shamelessness, treachery, and bad faith be called? What meaning would those words, found throughout human language, have left?
If this is peacefulness, then the inmates of prisons must be very pious and righteous. The thief who goes out to steal at night, ruining his own sleep, must be very peace-loving — because he does not want to start a fight with anyone. Likewise, the murderer who kills and hides must be very peace-loving, sparing the world from the fire of conflict, suffering hardships himself and wandering through jungles. Similarly, the secret poisoner — how peace-loving he is! If he were to poison openly, there would be a fight. In the same way, the fraudster who forges false documents and fabricates false bonds to acquire another's property can claim to be peace-loving by saying: I took possession through forged documents via the government in order that peace might prevail and no fight might break out.
If this is what peacefulness means, then all the people sitting in jails were the most peace-loving and righteous of persons. And if all these are trustworthy, then so too are those who, setting aside piety and righteousness, took salaries from us, wrote articles against us, called themselves Maulvis and posed as missionaries of Ahmadiyyat, misled our people — and then told them: "See that you tell no one, so that no one may neutralise the poison we are feeding you" — they too can be called peace-loving.
Then he writes: "Despite our having chosen such a peaceful path, the leaders of Qadian treated us unjustly." In childhood one used to hear a story: there was a foolish king who said he would marry his daughter only to a man who fell from the sky. By chance a whirlwind came and lifted a hill-dweller from the forest and dropped him there. People informed the king; he said this man had fallen from the sky, and married his daughter to him. The poor fellow, accustomed to lying on bare ground and living on jowar bread — or if even that was not available, surviving on forest fruits — for him living in a royal palace became a torment. When he returned home, his mother asked, "My son, how were you treated?" He said, "O mother, beneath me they spread cotton, above me they draped cotton, and they made me quite tired from above [i.e., he was placed in quilts and bolsters and pressed down upon]." "And yet, mother, I still did not die." At this his mother wailed and cried, saying, "My child, all these sufferings came upon you!" Similarly, the boy complained about the pulao — "They fed me insects to eat, yet I still did not die." The same is the analogy for these people. Despite all the favours shown to them, they turned out so shameless — having been of ours, calling themselves ours, eating at our expense — they began to attack us. And then they complain that they were mistreated without cause. The claim of "without cause" is itself a cruel joke, as should be obvious to all.
The injustices listed are these: "we were mocked" — but he does not write what the mocking was. From the manner of the description it appears that the questions asked during investigation are being called mockery. If investigation is mockery, what then is seriousness? Then he writes: "looks of anger and fury were cast upon us." Gauging the content of looks is a difficult matter — but if people felt anger over the actions described, what is wrong in that? Then he writes: "we were taunted." This too is a meaningless statement, meant only to obscure the truth. Who taunted them, and how? To the best of our knowledge, nothing of the sort took place. Then he writes: "we were prevented from walking through the streets." This too is a complete fabrication. No one prevented these people from walking through the streets. You who are seated here know this to be an outright lie.
Then he writes: "men carrying sticks were sent, who took us from one place to another." This is a remarkably shameless and immodest account — an astounding example of ingratitude. The actual facts are these: at the time of the Majlis-e-Shura, Maulvi Rahim Bakhsh Sahib handed me a note from Mehar Muhammad Khan addressed to Mir Muhammad Ishaq Sahib, in which the request was conveyed to me that Mahfuz-ul-Haq's wife's relatives posed a danger of creating trouble. Since it is natural for tempers to flare on such occasions, I feared lest this happen and these people would turn even a slap into something called murder. I at once appointed Maulvi Rahim Bakhsh Sahib to tell Miyan Bashir Ahmad Sahib to immediately counsel those individuals and arrange a guard such that no one could do anything to them. They appointed Muhammad Amin Khan Sahib Bukharai and a few other men. Since Maulvi Mahfuz-ul-Haq was due to depart, these men accompanied him to the ikka and saw him off, so that none of his relatives would quarrel with him along the way — and they even carried his heavy luggage. This act of protection and favour — this person has labelled it: "men carrying sticks took us from one place to another." Is this not a shameful display of ingratitude? Do men assigned to escort someone from place to place also carry their luggage and let them slip away quietly?
Then he says: "we were boycotted in every way." This is a pure fabrication. We only prohibited conversation — and that is nothing new. Baha'ullah himself abandoned conversation with people for two years at a time. If we forbade it, what great injustice did we commit? It was our right to treat treacherous hypocrites such as you in this manner; it was our duty to punish you. And when you left the community, what other punishment was there except prohibiting friends from conversing with you? As for the claim of "boycotted in every way" — that is a pure fabrication. Regarding provisions of food and drink, I was asked whether they should be provided or not. I said: certainly they must be provided — it would be an injustice not to provide the necessities of life. Attend to their needs as long as they are here. Otherwise what difference would remain between us and the non-Ahmadis? And so it was done. Yet despite this, to say they were "boycotted in every way" — is that not an outright lie?
Then he writes: "even at the time of departure we were not allowed to meet our own family members." One is astonished at this brazenness. He writes that he was not allowed to meet his family — yet he has no shame over having misled my followers, telling them not to present their doubts to me lest I neutralise with the antidote the poison he was feeding them. The connection of a mureed (follower) is even closer than that of a wife. What right does he have to complain of being prevented from meeting his family, when he himself administered poison and then said: "Do not go to the physician, lest he remove its effect with an antidote"? He deceived, presented himself as an Ahmadi, and on that basis married an Ahmadi girl. Does he still consider it his right to be allowed to meet her? In any case, we did not prevent him — it was her parents who wished her to remain with us for a time, so that she might learn what Baha'ullah's religion actually teaches, and then do as she pleased.
Then he says: "when people do the same things to a non-Ahmadi who has become Ahmadi, the leaders of Qadian cry out." Firstly, non-Ahmadis do not treat us in the way we treated them. Secondly, we do not take salaries from them; we do not pledge to propagate their religion and then treacherously spread our own beliefs; we do not become their missionaries and carry out covert tabligh in their employ; we do not practise treachery and bad faith. Despite all this being the case — when we do engage in tabligh, we do so openly and publicly, in full view of opponents; and when someone wants to take bai'at from us, we say: wait, reflect, consult with others, so that you do not stumble later.
Then he writes: "more strange is the fact that Miyan Sahib announced among his followers that for three days these people could ask him whatever they wished — yet we were given no formal notice." This is a complete fabrication — that I ever made such an announcement. When the decision regarding their case was being deliberated, my own view was that they should be given time so that if they wished to ask anything, they could. But the friends said: we are sitting here to decide their case and propose their punishment — whether to give them an opportunity or not is unrelated to that. However, if they make a request, then someone could be appointed for them. This argument was rationally sound, and so I accepted their view. This was with regard to Mahfuz-ul-Haq and Allah-Ditta. As for Mehar Muhammad Khan — he was summoned and told: if you have anything to ask, ask. He said: I have no need to ask anything; I am fully satisfied. Could Mehar Muhammad Khan have kept silent afterward? If he informed the others, then what a lie it is to say: "We were given no opportunity" — when one among them was summoned, told that someone could be appointed, but he refused. When one of them was called into the deciding committee and asked whether he had anything to ask — and he said, "My decision is correct, I have no need to ask anything" — how can it then be said that they were given no opportunity? The decision that had been pronounced was regarding punishment. If they had questions, they should have raised them themselves. If we had refused, then they would have had the right to say they were given no opportunity. That was their task, not ours. This letter, from beginning to end, is nothing but lies upon lies.
He then writes: "Several other people in the Qadiani group have also been coloured in the same hue." This too is pure deception and falsehood. Those who were under their influence are known to us. Secret societies, for the purpose of sowing suspicion between brothers, always say such things. The Paighamis have always claimed: prominent people in Qadian are with us; a member of the family of prophethood has made a bequest to us. Similarly, the claim that several people in Qadian are with us — the intent is for each person to become suspicious of the other. A person quickly leans toward suspicion; he does not know what the enemy's objective is and what approach he has in mind. Tell me — if scholars or others in Qadian are Bahais, what is it that prevents them from declaring it openly and compels them to conceal it? Not all people are hypocrites. If some are hypocrites, some also have courage. Are they all cowards? Is Bahaism something that turns a person into an absolute hypocrite, peace-loving in the manner of thieves, robbers, and poisoners? The purpose of writing this was to make each person suspicious of the other, to sever love, and to break relations. Yet the matter is an outright lie.
In short, reading this letter astonished me greatly — how, the very moment a person abandons truth, he falls into lies. An act of protection is called being escorted by stick-bearers. One is summoned and given the opportunity, yet it is said no opportunity was given. Maulvi Fazl-ud-Din came and asked me: Mahfuz-ul-Haq says an announcement was made of three days' permission to ask questions. I said: no such announcement was made. However, this was discussed in the deciding committee, and the decision was that if they wished to understand, they should submit a request themselves. If he now wishes to ask anything, he may submit a request and someone can be appointed for him. But observe — in Qadian he himself inquires what announcement was made, yet upon going outside he publishes the claim that such was said but we were not informed. From beginning to end, the path of hypocrisy was followed throughout.
Furthermore, the beliefs that were revealed, and the manner in which they were revealed, were designed to give others the impression that these people had been unjustly and deceptively expelled — that they were of superior character, advocates of peace and well-being in the world.
The real purpose of this writing is to find some field for covert activity among non-Ahmadis or non-mubai'een, and to carry out tabligh in that manner. But falsehood can never succeed. There is a limit even to falsehood. In ages past, the Batinis and the Qaramita passed through the world — but in the end they were destroyed.
The difference between truth and falsehood is this: truth spreads with truth, while falsehood spreads with falsehood — and only falsehood-worshipping nations have need of lies. Observe how we are opposed everywhere, and yet we engage in tabligh openly and publicly — not sneaking covertly into others' ranks and displaying their beliefs while secretly spreading ours through lies.
We are bound by Islam. It was the practice of the Holy Prophet(sa) that he would not attack at night; rather, he would attack after the morning prayer.² In the same way, we too attack our enemy in broad daylight — we fight, and we declare: O sajjada-nashins! O scholars! O pandits! O priests! Come, let us compete — we are coming to attack your citadel. But these people, like thieves, raid and plunder under the pretence of working for peace. The reason for this is that they lack the strength to compete. They cannot stand openly before us. This is the difference that distinguishes truth absolutely from falsehood. Yet few are those who understand this.
Nevertheless, the day will come when those who have considered Islam to be a collection of narrow and dark ideas will have their error made clear to them, and the eyes of those who charge the Quran with narrowness will be opened. The Quran offers a broad teaching. The needs of the world to come can be fulfilled by the Quran, and the Quran alone. All other ideas are like a narrow boat — they will soon perish.
(Al-Fazl, 15 April 1924)
Footnotes
¹ This saying — "You see the speck in your brother's eye but cannot see the beam in your own" — is attributed in the sermon to Hazrat Masih(as) (Jesus). It appears in the Gospel of Matthew 7:3–5 and Luke 6:41–42.
² Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith 610 — Narrated by Anas bin Malik: "Whenever the Prophet(sa) went out with us to fight in Allah's cause against any nation, he never allowed us to attack till morning; he would wait and see: if he heard the Adhan he would postpone the attack, and if he did not hear the Adhan he would attack." https://readhadith.app/hadith/bukhari-610
Related Resources