Khilafat and Anjuman
While on the prophecy regarding the Muslih Mau’ud, under a heading “Hazrat Masih-i-Mau’ud’s Al-Wasiyyat “, Mr. Faruqi writes on page 33 of “Truth Triumphs”:
“Hazrat Mirza Sahib, on getting indications from God, that the time of his death is drawing nigh, wrote his last will in the shape of a pamphlet entitled Al-Wasiyyat. In this he announced the establishment of an `heavenly burial-ground’ for the righteous mureeds of his community. One of the conditions was that such persons must give at least one tenth (and at the most one third) of their property and wealth in the way of Allah. To handle such donations, and to conduct other community works, Hazrat Mirza Sahib organised a Sadar Anjuman-i-Ahmadiyya, and made this central organisation the true successor of God’s Caliph on earth (i. e. Mirza Sahib himself). In fact at one occasion later on, he gave the following statement which is a `magna carta’ of the Ahmadiyya Community:
`My ruling is this, that on whatever matter Anjuman takes a decision and the majority is in its favour, then the decision should be considered right, and should be given effect to. However, I would like to add this much, that in certain religious matters which intimately concern our communal organisation, I would be informed about it. I am confident that this Anjuman will not go against my wishes. But I am mentioning this as a matter of precaution that it is possible that such matter may be of a nature about which God has some special design. This condition, however, is confined to my life-time only. After me all the decisions of this Anjuman, shall be considered final and sufficient.'”
The implied conclusion, here, on the part of Mr. Faruqi is that there is no room, in the affairs of the Ahmadiyya Community, for a Khalifa, as the supreme authority, since the executive work has been entrusted by the Promised Messiah to the Sadr Anjuman-i-Ahmadiyya.
As for our reply to the questions involved in the conclusion, the correct position in regard to the matter is quite simple, though friends of the Lahore Section are always doing their best to confuse, beyond hope of redemption.
Of course, the Promised Messiah had passed some duties to the shoulders of this Anjuman, even during his own lifetime, to lighten the weight on his own shoulders, to some extent. The written statement under reference here, he had given that those working under the Anjuman should work with the due zeal and earnestness, even when he himself was not always directly in the picture before their immediate eyes. It is also true that in the fields of work entrusted to the Anjuman at that time, its decision, on the basis of a majority vote, was given a position of finality. What we need to determine now, with due care, how did the Anjuman in question use its mandate, in the light of Al-Wasiyyat, and the statement of October 27, 1907.
Wrong Statements of Mr. Faruqi in regard to the Khilafat
What Mr. Faruqi has written in this behalf is:
“Let it be clear that, in the entire body of the writings of the Promised Messiah, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, and his Ilhams. there is no mention, at all, of the establishment of Khilafat, after he had passed away from this world.” (Truth Triumphs page 34)
For a due reply, we have only to ask Mr. Faruqi, if his view is correct, as its very first act, immediately after the Promised Messiah had passed away, what did the Anjuman decide to do, without the least delay, without any fumbling, without faltering in any way? Well, it is now an incontestable part of history, that its first and foremost act with the fullest deliberation, was to elect Hazrat Maulvi Nuruddin as Khalifatul Masih, the supreme executive head in all affairs of the Movement, in the administrative field, or the academic where the intent of the Sharia needed to be spelled out, and applied to a situation.
Today, Mr. Faruqi has ventured to make the claim that in the entire body of the writings of the Promised Messiah, his Ilhams and his Revelation, there is absolutely no mention of the desirability of establishing the institution of Khilafat. But how can we, and other people with a sense of history, forget that following the demise of the Promised Messiah, the members of this Anjuman itself, with common consent, in the light of Al-Wasiyyat, decided that the best among the disciples should be elected Head of the Movement, as the first Successor to the Founder? It was freely and fully conceded by all that the order, the decision of the Chosen Khalifa would be obeyed, as if it were the decision of the Promised Messiah himself. This is how the directive in the statement of October 27, 1907, was fully interpreted, and fully carried out, by bringing the Islamic administrative mechanism into being, of which the need has always been so acutely felt, and yet no one had so far been able to achieve this objective, once the authority of the Khalifa had fallen a victim to the forces of disruption in the days of Hazrat Usman and Hazrat Ali. The Holy Prophet Mohammad proclaimed long ago that his Ummat will never yield a consensus of opinion on a point which would lead them astray.
Thus the first consensus of opinion among members of the Ahmadiyya Movement came on the essential need for a Khalifa, to be elected as the head of the Movement, supreme in all the affairs pertaining to the activities, in whatsoever sphere of its essential duties. After this had been done, following the death of the first Khalifa, the raising of the question was inadmissible whether the successor to the authority of the Promised Messiah was the Anjuman, or the Khalifa to be elected. Nor was the idea at all acceptable, even admissible for consideration, that there was no need for a Khalifa in the administrative set up of the Movement. Raised on the occasion of the death of the first Khalifa, when the second Khalifa was due to be elected, these, and all questions of a similar import, were disruptive, and rebellious.
Besides, the Sadr Anjuman represented the Promised Messiah even in his life, but always within the specific sphere entrusted to it, under a mandate always subject to the latent, or open, control of the Promised Messiah, just whenever he might have felt the need to exercise this supreme authority. Exactly the same would be the position of the Anjuman in the administrative set up under the Khalifa. These important points had all been decided, in principle, when the first Khalifa was elected, and his authority accepted by the entire membership of the Movement, old or new.
Moreover the Promised Messiah himself has decided these questions in Al-Wasiyyat, wherein we read:
“It is the way of the Lord God, and from the time He created man, He has always followed it, that He succours His Prophets and Apostles. He makes them dominant, as He has Himself indicated in the Holy Book – `Allah has been observing it as a settled, eternal principle, that He and His Apostles should succeed and dominate every time, in every case, for all times.’ By success and domination here is meant that the aim and purpose of the Prophets and Apostles being that the existence and kingdom of God should be realised and recognised all over the earth, and no one should be foolhardy enough to take up a posture of opposition; even to all that extent, Allah makes manifest their position, and their purpose with powerful Signs; and the truths, the verities, and the righteous ways of life, which He desires should come to prevail everywhere – of all these the seed He gets sown by their hands. But the full accomplishment He defers for a time; He makes them pass away from this life at a time where it looks, at the surface, as if they had died an untimely death, with a possible touch of failure in their mission, to let the enemies laugh and jeer at them, in a false and short sighted joy. But when these foolish people have had their insane laugh, Allah makes manifest another powerful hand to create conditions and circumstances, which give an invisible impetus to their mission to push their aims and plans to the point of a miraculous success. In short the Lord God manifests two kinds of power: i) at the hands of the Prophets, themselves, He brings into play his own mighty hand; ii) then, while still the difficulties abound, and the Prophets have passed away from the scene at an immature juncture; and the enemy appears to be coming up with a surge; and many begin to think that the pitch of their progress has been queered; and, many take it for granted that their handful of followers would die, or dwindle away; and when the members of his community themselves, here and there, begin to fall a prey to various anxieties; and they come to feel as if their backbone had been broken. Some unfortunate weaklings begin to seek safety in apostasy. When matters have reached such a pass, Allah shows a second time, then, the limitless power of the invisible hand, to prevent the newly created nucleous of honesty and virtue from crumbling, and falling to pieces. Thus, whosoever remains patient to the last, he witnesses a new miracle as happened in the days of Abu Bakr, when the death of the Holy Prophet was considered to be an untimely death; many nomads turned back from Islam; and the Companions looked as if they would die of grief. Then Allah made Abu Bakr take a stand, giving another manifestation of His unbounded might, He saved Islam from utter destruction, and fulfilled the promise that Allah would make firm the Din He had chosen for them, and He would give them a sense of security, after a period of grave danger, making them firm on their feet.” (Al-Wasiyyat, page 5, 6)
Then, in another place, the Promised Messiah writes:
“Dear people, when this has been the way of the Lord God, which He has invariably followed from the earliest times, that He gives two manifestations of His unbounded might, that He should trample down two false rejoicings of the opponents – it is not possible now that He should abandon this way. Therefore, at the thing I have said to you, (in regard to the near approach of my time) do not grieve. Do not let your hearts get depressed and be confused, since it is, essential for you that you witness also the second manifestation of His might. Besides, the coming of the second manifestation is a matter of the utmost importance for you, since it is going to be of a permanent duration, of which the chain shall not come to an end, till the time of the Qiyama. That second manifestation of power cannot come unless I go. But when I am gone Allah will send this second manifestation for you, which will abide with you, for ever, and ever.” (Al-Wasiyyat )
These quotations indicate, very clearly, that the Promised Messiah referred to Hazrat Abu Bakr, and the verse about Khilafat, to set the mind of the Jama’at at rest over anxieties in regard to the future. The assurance is that after the death of the Founder of the Movement, Allah will give the world a manifestation of His power and might, in favour of the Movement, according to the way and method characteristic of Him from the beginning of time. This second manifestation, termed Second Qudrat in Ahmadiyya literature, is also spoken of as Qudrat-i-Thania ; and this can be only the establishment of the Institution of Khilafat – not any Anjuman – since the Anjuman existed for some time in the lifetime of the Promised Messiah, while the second manifestation of the power and might of the Lord God, under discussion here, is something which cannot, and does not, come into play until after the Founder of the Movement has passed away from this world, as the Promised Messiah has very clearly stated in passages quoted above.
Of course, without a shadow of doubt, the Promised Son, among the sons of the Promised Messiah, who will be helped by the Holy Spirit (Ruhul Quds ) will be the manifester of the Qudrat-i-Thania ; but basically he is, first and foremost, his Successor, his Khalifa. So the first manifester of the Qudrat-i-Thania, in the first place, is Hazrat Maulvi Nuruddin, Khalifatul Masih I; and the second manifester of same power and might of the Lord God, is Hazrat Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmad, Khalifatul Masih II.
Mr. Faruqi writes:
“The acceptance of Maulana Nuruddin Sahib by the Ahmadiyya Community as the successor to the Promised Messiah, after the death of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, was in reality in obedience to Hazrat Mirza Sahib’s will that my mureeds should keep on working unitedly after me.” (Truth Triumphs, page 34)
In other words, from the instruction by the Promised Messiah, that “after me all should work together”, Mr. Faruqi concedes that the hint was in favour of the establishment of Khilafat, that being the basis under this order why Hazrat Maulana Nuruddin was chosen the supreme head of the Movement, obedience and loyalty to whom was binding on all members of the Movement, old and new. Otherwise to work together would have been possible even under an Anjuman. But the Sadr Anjuman and the Ahmadiyya Community, according to Mr. Faruqi, did not conclude from this sentence that it referred to the succession of the Anjuman, but the succession of the Khalifa. Therefore, having conceded this, Mr. Faruqi has slipped into a position where he has admitted that following the death of the Promised Messiah, the Institution of Khilafat, came to be established; and that the Khilafat of the first Khalifa was the true Khilafat, perfectly in order, in the light of directions by the Promised Messiah in this behalf embodied by him in Al-Wasiyyat. The Anjuman accepted his Khilafat; and the election of one individual person, to be the supreme executive head of the Community, was not found in conflict with the meaning or intent of Al-Wasiyyat.
Further, Mr. Faruqi writes:
“From the Islamic point of view, the Promised Messiah who was also the Mojadded of the 14th century Hijra, could be accepted as a caliph. Now to have caliph to the caliph is meaningless. Although Maulana Nuruddin was called in common parlance Khalifatul Masih and many Ahmadies pledged themselves with him. But those who had taken pledges at the hand of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad were under no obligation to take another pledge.” (Truth Triumphs, page 35)
The last sentence, which we have underlined, is entirely wrong. The decision of the Jama’at at the time when he was elected Khalifa was that all members of the Movement, old or new, should tender their allegiance. This was expressly the point where a clear consensus of opinion in the Jama’at took place, so that we find Kh. Kamaluddin, Pleader, Secretary Anjuman Ahmadiyya, writing in the Badr, June, 1908, under title “Announcement from the Anjuman Ahmadiyya” wherein there was first a description of how the body of the Promised Messiah was brought to Qadian from Lahore, followed by a declaration to the effect:
“Before the Janaza Prayer over the body of the Promised Messiah was offered, in accord with his last will and testament, and under the advice of Trustees of the Sadr Anjuman-e-Ahmadiyya, present in Qadian on the occasion, and the close relatives of the Promised Messiah, with permission from Hazrat Ummulmominin, the entire membership of the Movement present at the Centre, numbering nearly 1200, Hazrat Maulana Hakim Nuruddin was chosen successor and Khalifa, accepted in that position by all present; and pledges of allegience and loyalty were tendered to him by all. Trustees of the Sadr Anjuman present on the occasion were the following: Maulana Hazrat Syed Mohammad Ahsan; Sahibzada Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmad; Janab Nawab Mohammad Ali Khan Sahib; Sheikh Rahmatullah Sahib; Maulvi Mohammad Ali Sahib; Dr. Mirza Yaqub Beg Sahib; Dr. Syed Mohammad Hussain Sahib; Khalifa Rashiduddin Sahib; and my humble self – Kh. Kamaluddin.”
“Though the sad event came as a sudden and unexpected event, and there was not sufficient time for friends in other places to be informed, still from Ambala, Jallundhar, Kapurthala, Amritsar, Lahore, Gujranwala, Wazirabad, Jammu, Gujrat, Batala. and Gurdaspur, Ahmadies converged to the Centre, so that the funeral prayer was shared in by a large number, both in Lahore, when the journey back to Qadian started, and then at Qadian itself before the burial. Members of the Movement from places mentioned above, and other Ahmadies present, of which an approximate number has been given above, accepted Hakimul Ummat (Hazrat Maulvi Nuruddin) as Khalifatul Masih by common consent of all. This letter is being sent out now to inform all members of the Movement, and to request that immediately on reading this letter they should tender their allegience to Hakimul Ummat, Khalifatul Masih wal Mehdi, by coming to Qadian in person, for this purpose, or in writing, by mail.”
The same content was also published in a special issue of Alhakm, May 28, 1908. Words chosen to embody the pledge of allegiance, commonly called “bai’at ” were: Following three recitals of the Kalima-i-Shahadat, a pledge to the effect:
“At the hand of Nuruddin, today, I take bai’at subject to all those conditions operative in this connection when the pledge was taken by the Promised Messiah, himself, in his time. Also, I pledge that I would make special effort to study the Holy Quran, and the Hadith, listen carefully, wherever I get an opportunity to participate in gatherings where these scriptures are read, or expositions thereof are being given; and I shall do my best to live up to them; and to the best of my power and means, I shall endeavour to carry their message and teaching to others. I shall make arrangements to pay zakat, whenever, wherever it falls due on me. I shall strive to the utmost to create and maintain a relationship of sympathy, friendship, and love, with my brethern in faith. I seek forgiveness from God for my sins, my shortcomings, and my weaknesses; and I turn to Him (three times). O God, I confess that I have transgressed against my own better self. Be pleased to pardon me, since there is no one else who can save me from the consequences of mine own actions.”
Request put up before Hazrat Maulvi Nuruddin
Mufti Mohammad Sadiq, Editor of Badr, wrote:
“When Hazrat Ummulmoninin was asked, she replied there was no one more deserving to become the Successor of the Promised Messiah than Hazrat Maulvi Nuruddin. Hazrat Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmad also agreed fully. So when the janaza was placed in the garden, and all the friends were present there, with the concurrence of them all, my humble self (Mohammad Sadiq, Editor of the Badr ) stood up and read the following, as a request addressed to Hazrat Maulvi Sahib: `In compliance with instruction from the Promised Messiah, vide Al-Wasiyyat, we, the Ahmadies, whose signatures, appear below, sincerely agree that Hazrat Maulvi Nuruddin, the most learned and erudite among us, and the most pious, the most loyal and devoted follower of the Imam of the age, whose example has been approved and appreciated by the Promised Messiah himself – to which fact the following couplet of the Promised Messiah bears witness: `How happy it would have been, if everyone in the Ummat had been Nuruddin; and indeed it would have been quite possible if only everyone had been as firm in faith as he has been.’ It has been decided that all members of the Movement, old and new, should take bai’at at his hand as Khalifatul Masih, in which capacity his wishes and orders shall have the same authority for us as the wishes and orders of the Promised Messiah.” (Badr, June 2, 1908, page 6)
Among the signatures, there are some Trustees of the Sadr Anjuman, including the names of Maulvi Mohammad Ali and Kh. Kamaluddin.
Both in the announcement by Kh. Kamaluddin, and the request reproduced above, it has been held that a pledge of bai’at at the hand of Hazrat Khalifatul Masih would be binding on all members of the Ahmadiyya Movement, now in the fold, and those who join the Movement in the future. Mr. Faruqi, therefore, has no basis when he says that the taking of bai’at for Ahmadies who had given the pledge to the Promised Messiah, in his lifetime, was not held necessary.
Therefore, when the first Khilafat became established in the Jama’at, and all members of the Movement, old and new, gave the pledge of loyalty and devotion to Hazrat Khalifatul Masih I, there came into existence a precedence, and pattern, to be followed when Hazrat Khalifatul Masih I passed away from this world, and the Second Khalifa had to be elected. On this occasion, those who did not yield the pledge of bai’at to Hazrat Khalifatul Masih II, and went off to Lahore, to create there a new Anjuman, and a Centre for their activity, in fairness and justice, they had no right to do this because an Anjuman founded by the Promised Messiah himself was present in Qadian, the Centre of the Community. Besides, the Sadr Anjuman Ahmadiyya which was present at the time of the Promised Messiah could not be held a Successor of the Promised Messiah, in the sense and meaning of Qudrat-i-Thania, because with respect to the Qudrat-i-Thania the Promised Messiah has written quite categorically that it could not, and would not come while he himself was present in this world in flesh and blood. This position belonged to Hazrat Khalifatul Masih I, and to Hazrat Khalifatul Masih II, after the death of the first Khalifa.
Mr. Faruqi, quite arbitrarily, has applied the Ilham “Count this work, this affair, at the head of Three Centuries”, to the Muslih Mau’ud. There is no justification for this. In Tazkira, second edition, pages 764 and 833, there is no note on this Ilham that it applies to the Muslih Mau’ud. On the other hand, the Promised Messiah set a clear time limit of nine years for the birth of the son destined to be the Muslih Mau’ud.
Without doubt, one manifestation of the Qudrat-i-Thania is the Muslih Mau’ud as well, for whom it was necessary that he should be Sahib-i-Ilham, i.e. one to whom Ilham came from the Lord God. But Promised Messiah has nowhere given indication that he would be a Mamur, i.e. specifically ordained by the Lord for a specifically appointed mission; nor did the Promised Messiah ever visualised him as such. If he had visualised him as a Mamur from Allah, he would not have held that he would be one of the sons he had been blessed with a stalwart of the Lord, endowed with the qualities of a Messiah (vide Tiryaqul Qolub, page 14). Instead, the Promised Messiah would have said that he would come in the 4th century, since his own period of Mamuriat extended to three centuries. Thus we find that the Ilham “Count this affair at the head of three centuries” only meant that the period of his own Mamuriat comprised a period of three hundred years – not that the advent of the Promised Muslih would take place after three hundred years, since, according to Allah’s promise, his birth was to take place within nine years.
Conspiracies Against the First Khilafat
In the eyes of Hazrat Khalifatul Masih I, as well, Qudrat-i-Thania meant the Institution of Khilafat in the Ahmadiyya Jama’at. During the period of his Khilafat an anonymous tract, “Izharul Haq”, was published by someone in Lahore; it was widely distributed in various places. Following this, Babu Manzur Elahi, and Syed Inamullah Shah, manager of the Paigham-i-Sulha, expressed agreement with the views embodied in this tract; and in an open letter addressed to “Ansarullah”, held this organisation to blame. Naturally, then, the Ansarullah replied by bringing out a similar tract entitled Khilafat-i-Ahmadiyya. This tract was published on November 23, 1913. In the appendix of this tract we read:
“If we fail to express our thanks to Hazrat Khalifatul Masih I, it would be the height of ingratitude on our part. In spite of his old age, and great pressure of his duties as head of the Movement, he read the MS of this tract then gave permission for it to be published with a kind promise of prayer in furtherance of the aim and purpose of the tract.”
In “Izharul Haq ” the point was argued that Qudrat-i-Thania in Al-Wasiyyat could not mean the Institution of Khilafat, since the Khalifa, in any case, would be a human being, with a limited span of life, while the Promised Messiah had stated that the Qudrat-i-Thania would stay with the Jama’at for ever. One answer given in Khilafat-i-Ahmadiyya was that this expression stood for a chain of successive Khalifas, which was the interpretation given by the Promised Messiah himself. To support this view a quotation was given from Al-Wasiyyat, where the manifestation of two powers is mentioned, with a specific reference to Hazrat Abu Bakr, as an instance of how Qudrat-i-Thania worked after the death of the Holy Prophet, to promote the emergence of Hazrat Abu Bakr as the first Khalifa.
And now we give the same answer to Mr. Faruqi, which Hazrat Khalifatul Masih I gave to the question in his clearance of the contents of “Khilafat-i-Ahmadiyya” for publication. The basis of the objection in “Izharul Haq” was that Qudrat-i-Thania had been visualised in Al-Wasiyyat as everlasting, while a Khalifa, being a human being had only a limited span of life. The answer given in Khilafat-i-Ahmadiyya, page 17. was that the Promised Messiah had himself written “And after me, there would be other personalities who would be manifesters of the Qudrat-i-Thania.”
So we perceive here, beyond any shadow of doubt that Qudrat-i-Thania cannot be interpreted as the combined will and purpose of a body of men, in the sense of a democratic purpose. Basically, and essentially, the repositories of the will and purpose are individual bearers of fundamental qualities indispensible for the role, with respect to which point, the Promised Messiah himself had written that they would be the Khalifas (page 17).
In another tract, “Izharul Haq II “, thirty holes where picked in the Khilafat of Hazrat Khalifatul Masih I. The reply to this was “lzhar-i-Haqiqat “, which said, among other things, that these were the plots and conspiracies beginning to be hatched against the Institution of Khilafat, in the days of Hazrat Khalifatul Masih I himself.
At that time Maulvi Mohammad Ali had disliked this stuff published in the Paigham-i-Sulha ; and he had written that it contained expressions derogatory for the eminent position of the Khalifa. For instance, he wrote:
“As Secretary of the Sadr Anjuman-i-Ahmadiyya on the basis of my experience for five years, I can say that in whatsoever affairs he issued an order, there was none to disobey, or deny. On all occasions, he entrusted matters to the consultation and emergent view of competent friends.”
So the position of Maulvi Mohammad Ali himself, on points and affairs involved was that in regard to the authority and control of Hazrat Khalifatul Masih I, was such that no one could dream of denial and disobedience (vide Zamima Khilafat-i-Ahmadiyya, page 17).
It is also interesting to note here that in regard to Hazrat Khalifatul Masih I, the author of “Izharul Haq “, had the insolence to write:
“For Maulvi Nuruddin I have respect in my heart. But it is regrettable that a moahadd (one who does not tolerate infringement of the Unity of God) of his stature, full in the teeth of the teachings of his Imam, in a capable Community, he is sowing the seed of the worship of Pirs.” (Tract entitled `Ba’z Khas Karname ‘, by Hazrat Maulvi Mohammad Ismail)
Note: The tract entitled `Ba’z Khas Karname ‘ bears the entire text of `Izharul Haq ‘. (The above passage we have taken for reproduction).
This same also happens to be the objection which our friends of the Lahore Section repeat time after time against the Qadian (now Rabwah) Section.
In `Izharul Haq ‘ No. 2, we read:
“Due to the negligence of venerable members of the Sadr Anjuman, the entire membership of the Movement found itself constrained to tender a pledge of bai’at to Maulvi Nurruddin; and in the grief and confusion over the death of the Founder, the guidance he had embodied in his last will and testament (Al-Wasiyyat ) has been thrown behind the back.”
The author of this tract, who claims that there is respect in his heart for Hazrat Maulvi Nuruddin, pens down another insult:
“A man who is a great scholar of the Holy Quran, and the Hadith, with a rich experience, on which Shar’ie basis did he fly into a rage? The accused is not told what crime he has committed. He has not been charge-sheeted in an arbitrary and biggoted judgement, characteristic of the Sikh rule, the Editor of the Paigham-i-Sulha, and other people connected with the journal, are being brought into disgrace by means of verbal pronouncements, and stuff sent into print in the Al-Fazl. Is this the sense of fairness and justice being engendered in the heart of the Ahmadiyya Community?”
In another place the worthy gentleman says:
“Worship of the Pir, in a period of bare five years, has deprived the Community of moral courage.”
We need not waste our time over these two tracts. The fullest answer to all points raised has been given in `Ba’z Khas Karname’. But it is even more deplorable that Maulvi Mohammad Ali adopted the same method of anonymous pamphleteering against Hazrat Khalifatul Masih II. He also attacked us on the point of Pir Worship, which, however, is no wore than a sign of frustration at his own failure, and at the brilliant success gained by Hazrat Khalifatul Masih II.
Mr. Faruqi has reproduced one sentence from the address of Hazrat Khalifatul Masih II, in the Annual Gathering at Rabwah in 1956:
“Mian Sahib even went to the point of such arrogant boastfulness as to claim that even where anyone raised a justifiable question against him, even he would draw the wrath of heaven upon himself.” (Truth Triumphs, page 42).
“Mirza Mahmud Ahmad went so far as to say that even a person who criticised him justly would be punished.” (Truth Triumps, page 42).
The intention of Hazrat Khalifatul Masih II was only to bring out, that the tendency to raise questions and objections, was not always a very good and useful tendency, since in many cases it becomes an unreasonable habit; and that, as such, it needed to be carefully kept under control; and this is a point where even Maulvi Mohammad Ali agrees with him. After a long experience as head of the Lahore Section, in 1937 he advised his followers:
“Allah… in the absence of a man, forbade that anything should be said against him, even what was true.” (Paigham-i-Sulha, April 27, 1937)
Again he says:
“Get rid of the disease of finding faults in other people. Seek the shelter of God against it. Pull yourself back from things which tend to weaken the Jama’at. There just is not a thing that is faultless. If you remain intent on this, you will not be able to accomplish anything.”
“If you decide that your aim is to find faults in others, your real work will come to an end. Therefore, avoid criticising others, and learn to repudiate everything harmful for the community.”
But curiously enough, just the things which our friends of the Lahore Section have been condemning in us as blind worship of pirs, at other times become identically just the kind of things which we find Maulvi Mohammad Ali trying to cultivate in his own people. For instance:
“The basis of organisation is just one thing: Listen, and obey. Unless this spirit is cultivated; unless all train themselves that they respond unitedly, and immediately, when the gesture comes unless all rise to the same level and quality of obedience, progress is almost impossible.” (Khutba, Paigham-i-Sulha, Feb. 27, 1937).
And then the Paigham-i-Sulha itself says:
“Unless the reins are held by a leader to whom the people are pledged to make financial, intellectual, and all other kinds of sacrifices, permanent and lasting progress is not possible. This will come only when the control of the entire affairs of the Community is vested in one man whom all are pledged to obey. All individual members should jump into action when he gives the signal. All eyes should remain rivetted on his lips. The moment they move to give a command, all should hasten to carry it out.” (Paigham-i-Sulha, February 7, 1937).
If Hazrat Khalifatul Masih gave this training to his followers, our friends of the Lahore Section took it as the worship of a pir, as blind hero worship. But, after an experience of 33 years, they learnt that this was essential for progress in every field; and they tried to vest the qualities of this kind of leadership in Maulvi Mohammad Ali. We need not go into the question how far they have succeeded in this. But we hope they would allow us to say that the name for a leader of this type, in terms of the Islamic teaching, is `Khalifa’.
It is very important that one incident should be set down here. In the days of Hazrat Khalifatul Masih I, whispers started in some circles that there were people trying to lower the power and position of the Khalifa, and to give to the Anjuman a position of higher authority. At this stage Mir Mohammad Ishaq drew up a number of questions, which he placed before Hazrat Khalifatul Masih I, with a request that he be pleased to throw proper light on the question of Khilafat, and the position of a Khalifa. Hazrat Khalifatul Masih I directed that the questions should be sent to the Ahmadiyya Communities in various places. When answers came in, Hazrat Khalifatul Masih fixed a date for a meeting in Qadian, to be attended by representatives of the Jama’ats where the questions had been sent. On this occasion some people held a meeting at the residence of Kh. Kamaluddin, in Lahore, where prominent Ahmadis from Lahore were especially invited, on the plea that this was a moment of crisis, which called for serious thought, since the consequences of a wrong step would be extremely harmful, and far reaching. The central idea in these circles was that the real Successor of the Promised Messiah was the Anjuman. If anything was done which disturbed this view, the Movement would run into danger of being wrecked. Signatures of various people were obtained on this thesis. Since the Ahmadis of Lahore had been generally given to understand that these were the thoughts of Hazrat Khalifatul Masih as well, many put their signatures, who otherwise, would not have wanted to associate themselves with this drift. But Quraishi Mohammad Husain, a well known Ahmadi from Lahore declined to sign. His idea was that efforts to obtain signatures on questions of this kind were inadvisable. Members of the Movement were under a pledge of loyalty and obedience to a man who was a great scholar of Islam, in all its aspects. He was also more sincere to the Movement, and to Islam, than anyone else. So the best thing was to wait for his verdict, and to accept it when it came to be given. Following the example set by Quraishi Mohammad Hussain, some others also witheld their signatures.
On the date fixed for the meeting people assembled in Qadian, and Hazrat Khalifatul Masih rose to address them. He said:
“By what you have been doing, you have given me so much pain that I have stood up to address you, not in the portion of this mosque constructed under your supervision, but in a part built by the Promised Messiah himself.”
When people heard his views on the questions circulated, they readily perceived the error involved in the view taken by Kh. Kamaluddin and his friends; and many who had been influenced by this view to some extent repented. Cries of distress of the mind began to rise in the audience, and very soon tears were trickling down from the eyes of all. Some were actually rolling on the ground where they sat, as if mortally hurt. Hazrat Khalifatul Masih went on:
“It is being said that the work, the function, the purpose, and the duty of the Khalifa is only to lead prayers in the mosque. This is something which even an ordinary mulla can do. For doing this no Khalifa is needed; and this is a kind of Khilafat on which I would not even care to spit. The real bai’at is one where it is accompanied by immediate and implicit obedience, without the slightest infringement, anywhere.”
The address lit up the minds even of those, in some measure, who had partially accepted the views held and propagated by a particular group. After the address, Hazrat Khalifatul Masih asked Maulvi Mohammad Ali and Kh. Kamaluddin to tender, anew, their pledge of bai’at. Similarly he expressed disapproval of the action taken by some people to counter the plans of the Lahore group of the friends of Maulvi Mohammad Ali and Kh. Kamaluddin. Hazrat Khalifatul Masih said there was no need for these people to make any move on their own, in respect of which the Khalifa himself was sized of the question. He said he had not appointed them to counter the underground movement against the office he held, at a time and in circumstances, where he himself was strong enough to crush the move, at any stage he thought fit. Sh. Yaqub Ali had been the most prominent man on this side, and he as well, was directed to tender a fresh pledge of bai’at. He did so gladly, from the bottom of his heart.
But this could not be said in regard to the frame of mind in which Maulvi Mohammad Ali and Kh. Kamaluddin renewed their bai’at. When the meeting was over, and the people were dispersing, going down the steps, Maulvi Mohammad Ali said he had been deeply insulted, and he could not now continue to live in Qadian. As chance would have it, Khalifa Rashiduddin came to know of it. In his anxiety, he went before the Khalifatul Masih without loss of time, and apprised him of the situation which threatened to develop. But Hazrat Khalifatul Masih took it very calmly, firm like a rock. “Tell Maulvi Mohammad Ali from me,” he said, “that instead of leaving Qadian tomorrow, he would be much more welcome to leave today.” This reply, however, only increased the uneasiness in the mind of the deeply sincere and simple Hazrat Khalifa Rashiduddin. He submitted that a pretty awkward situation might very well ensue. Hazrat Khalifatul Masih, however, remained entirely unmoved. “What I wanted to say, I have said”, he added, “If some untoward situation arose, it would be for me to cope with it. Why are you worrying so much about it? If he really desires to go away from Qadian, I would be happy to see him leave tonight. Please tell him that.”
Subequently, however, Maulvi Mohnmmad Ali came to be more and more influenced by Kh. Kamaluddin, and gradually points emerged which gave rise to ideas which soon crystallised as deep seated differences in religious doctrine, such as the Nabuwwat of the Promised Messiah, and the question of the kufr, or Islam, of those who did not accept the Promised Messiah. Originally, in 1908, and in 1909, the question of differences centred only on Khilafat; the doctrines of the Nabuwwat of the Promised Messiah, and the kufr, or Islam, of those who did not accept him, or opposed him tooth and nail, had not cropped up. Now the idea was born in the mind of these people, and it continued to get more and more hold on their mind, that they made a serious blunder when they accepted a man in a position of such supreme authority as Khalifatul Masih in the extraordinarily firm tradition of the Khilafat-i-Rashida. They found that they could not succeed in getting the Movement entirely under their own control, without cleaning the mess they had made over the question; and they bent all their endeavour in the direction that this position of strength of the Khalifa should melt away, and they should ensure that they did not repeat the mistake they had made once, already. So at the time of the election of the second Khalifa, they ignored the directions given by Hazrat Khalifatul Masih I, in his last will and testament, and flatly denied the need for the Institution of Khilafat.
A Glorious Pronouncement
During the period of his Khilafat, Hazrat Khalifatul Masih I made a great and glorious pronouncement, of an extraordinary strength and grandeur, which shall remain as a beacon light on the question of Khilafat, for all time to come. In the course of this pronouncement he said:
“No human being, nor any Anjuman has made me Khalifa; nor do I take any Anjuman as having the capacity and power to confer Khilafat on anyone. So neither has any Anjuman made me Khalifa, nor do I have the slightest regard or sense of obligation towards it, for conferring this favour on me; and I would not care even to spit on it, should it desire to deprive me of its support. Nor does anyone now have the power to snatch the mantle of Khilafat from me.” (Badr, July 4, 1912).
Evidently, therefore, Hazrat Khalifatul Masih I did not believe that any earthly agency had the authority and power to remove a Khalifa from this office. He also declared:
“He (the Lord God) has given me this mantle to wear. To do due honour to this mantle, and to appreciate it properly, is a binding duty that lies squarely on my shoulders. I stand in no need of your wealth and riches; nor of anything else, which you happen to have. I do not have the slightest desire, in any corner of my heart, that anyone should extend recognition to me, even to the extent of greeting me with a salam.”
“Your gifts, tendered to me as nazrana, first, to the time of April last, I used to pass on to Maulvi Mohammad Ali. But someone created a misunderstanding, or he himself fell into an error, he said: `this is our money, and we are to guard it.’ Then, solely to seek the pleasure of the Lord, I stopped passing it on – curious to see what these people could do. The man who said this, he made a colossal blunder. It is encumbent on him to repent. He should repent even now. People of this kind, if they do not repent, it will not be good for them.” (Badr, February 1, 1912)
Another Important Event
A building in Bhera was bequeathed to the Anjuman by Hakim Maulvi Fazaldin, under his last will and testament, under Al-Wasiyyat. A man from Bhera approached Hazrat Khalifatul Masih I, with a request that it be sold to him at a price cheaper than the prevailing market values, on the basis that he had a special claim, in view of certain circumstances, which he must have stated in the interview. Hazrat Khalifatul Masih entertained the claim, and gave instructions that the building be sold to him at a concession price. But Maulvi Mohammad Ali and some of his friends, who were members of the Board of Trustees of the Sadr Anjuman, expressed a difference of opinion, and went to the length of resisting the decision of the Khalifa. Hazrat Khalifatul Masih then declared that he was giving these people a margin of time, to think over the matter, and change their attitude. Otherwise; he would turn them out of the Jama’at, on the day of the coming Eidul Fitr, if they did not repent by that time. On the occasion of this Eid they apologized and begged pardon. Hazrat Khalifatul Masih forgave them and stated in course of Eid Sermon:
“In his book, the Promised Messiah had embodied a subtle point for comprehension. I proceed to untie that knot, to make you understand. The man who was to be made Khalifa, his affair he left to God. But, on the other hand, to 14 people (Members of the board of Trustees of the Sadr Anjuman ) he said collectively, they were Khalifatul Masih. Their decision was final; and in the eyes of the government, too, their decision was final. Then he tied up these 14 eminent and worthy gentlemen and made them sell themselves in a pledge of loyalty and devotion, by making them accept a man as Khalifa, bringing you all together in this way. Subsequently, not only these 14, but the whole Jama’at rallied around my Khilafat, in a unanimous vote. Now, whosoever proceeds to act against this consensus, he would be opposing God Himself. Therefore, listen with ears quite open. If you violate this pledge, you would expose yourself to the verdict given in these words, فاعقبھم نفاقتا فی قلوبھم Why have I given to you this warning? It is because there are, among you, people, who from a lack of proper understanding, again and again show weakness. I do not think their comprehension goes farther than mine.”
“The task to which God has appointed me, with great force I put myself on oath before God, that I can never make myself put away this mantle. If you, and the whole world, were to turn against me, in the least I do not care for you. Under this contract, discharge your duty properly and fully; then wait to see how rapidly you will march ahead; how, and to what extent you succeed… What I have said here, I have said under a sense of great need. With me abides a promise that He would always befriend me. I do not need to call for a fresh oath of allegiance. Stay firm on the pledge you have already given me. Take care you do not fall a victim to hypocrisy. It is easy to fling out a sentence from your lips; but it is very difficult to swallow the implications. Some people say they are not seeking to confine my authority; that their intention is to circumscribe the authority of the Khalifa to come after me. But how do you presume to know? He might come even greater than Abu Bakr, and the Mirza Sahib. Sheikh Sahib once said to me, `I have taken up residence here, and I would keep my eyes on you’. I replied he was fully welcome. There are two angles already keeping watch on me. Now you have come. Today I was to do something. But Allah has stopped me from that act; and I am overwhelmed by the immeasurable range of His wisdom… I do not turn them out of the Movement, hoping they might reform their ways… hoping they might begin to understand. I try not give them an excuse for stumbling. At the end, I say again. In your relations and dealings, among yourselves, give up jealousies and animosities. Whenever anything happy, or alarming happens to come to your ears, do not convey it, indiscriminately, to the common people. Of course, however, when a decision has been taken on the matter, then you can talk to people about it, without doing any harm.”
“Now I tell you that you have got to accept these things. Finally, you shall have to come to me and say you have come prepared to render obedience. Whatsoever I am saying to you, I am saying only for your good. May Allah keep me, and you, firmly on the guidance, and bring us all to a good end! Amen!” (Khutba Eidul Fitr, Badr, October 21, 1909).
Meaning of the Passage from Sirrul Khalifa
Writes Mr. Faruqi:
“According to the Promised Messiah `Khilafa ‘ (he seems to mean `Khalifas ‘) are of two kinds. One kind is that which falls under the verse of استخلاف `Succession’, and the second kind falls outside this sphere. At page 20 of his book Sirrul Khalifa, he mentions the caliphate of Hazrat Ali (the fourth Khalifa after the Holy Prophet) during which there was hardly any peace in the land; and Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) was put into great trouble and difficulties by the people of his time. Muslim community was split into sections and the doors of bickering and unrest were opened. Therefore, Hazrat Ali was, no doubt, a Khalifa, but it could not be according to the verse of `Succession’. Since the selection of Khalifa could not be attributed to God, therefore the question that he cannot be deposed, does not arise.” (Truth Triumphs, page 43).
It should be remembered that the underlined portion of the above quotation from “Truth Triumps” does not correspond to the full context of Sirrul Khilafa. It is merely a wrong inferrence by Mr. Faruqi. No doubt all the four Khalifas after the Holy Prophet were from Allah. So the question of deposing any of them does not arise.
The Promised Messiah wrote his Sirrul Khilafa to remove certain misunderstandings prevailing among the Shias ; and in this study he has proved that Hazrat Abu Bakr was, in truth, the immediate Khalifa, after the demise of the Holy Prophet; and pre-eminent in comparison with the other Khalifas. It was not the aim to establish that the Khilafat of the other Khalifas was not entirely under the intention, and conditions, of the verse pertaining to the question of the making of Khalifas. On page 18 of Sirrul Khilafa, the Promised Messiah writes, by way of a statement of the proposition under dispute:
“In the entire number of the Companions, the position of grandeur of Hazrat Abu Bakr was greater and higher. Without doubt, he is the first Khalifa; and it was in regard to him that the verses in respect of Khilafat came down. If you consider that there is someone other than him, after his time, to whom these verses apply, then bring a clear prophecy to that effect, if indeed you are right in holding such a view.”
Now if we take this passage to mean that, apart from him, in the subsequent days, there is no one to whom the promised Khilafat applies, then this view lies in conflict with other writings of the Promised Messiah. In Shahadatul Quran, after quoting this verse, the Promised Messiah writes:
“This verse, in fact, lies as an exposition of the other verse, namely, `Indeed, We Ourselves have sent down this Zikr ; and We Ourselves shall guard it’; and it supplies an answer to how and in what manner shall the Quran be guarded. So Allah gives the assurance that from time to time He would be sending Khalifas of this Prophet” (Page 43)
Then, after quoting two more verses, he writes:
“If anyone gives due thought to these verses, I cannot imagine how he could fail to understand that Allah, here, is giving a clear promise of an ever-abiding Khilafat to this Ummat. If the Khilafat was not ever-abiding, then what was the meaning of making a comparison with Khalifas of the Dispensation of Moses? Moreover, if the Khilafat-i-Rashida lasted for thirty years only; and after that period if it was eliminated for ever, it becomes binding to hold that the Lord God did not at all desire that for this Ummat He should keep the doors of goodness, virtue and blessings, open for ever.” (Shahadatul Quran, page 57)
Thus we get that in Sirrul Khilafa, the Promised Messiah has stated this only against the Shia view that, in case it is not held that Abu Bakr, alone, fell under this verse as the only Khalifa to whom it applied, fully and properly, the Khilafat of Hazrat Ali could not at all be proved, since one portion of the verse stands to the effect that by means of the Khilafat the sense of danger and insecurity would be replaced with peace and security – a circumstance, a condition which never came true in the Khilafat of Hazrat Ali, because in his time there was all along, disorder and unrest, while tranquility and peace could not be established. But apart from this, The Promised Messiah fully accepts the Khilafat of Hazrat Ali as rightful and true. In fact he has feelingly prayed: “Lord God, whosoever has love for Hazrat Ali love him Thou as well; and whosoever is an enemy of Hazrat Ali, Thou too become the enemy of such a man.”
And in Sirrul Khilafa the Promised Messiah has written in very clear words:
“The fact is that the truth was on the side of Ali al-Murtaza ; and whosoever fought against him, in his time, he was guilty of rebellion. All the same, his Khilafat did not fulfill the condition relating to peace and a sense of security, promised by Allah. In fact Murtaza experienced a great deal of trouble at the hands of his contemporaries.” (Sirrul Khilafa, page 30)
Evidently, therefore, the real intention of the Promised Messiah is that immediately after the Holy Prophet Mohammad, the verse of Istikhlaf applied fully to Hazrat Abu Bakr; and in the first instance, too, it applied only to him. Accordingly we read:
“In the verse of Istikhlaf, Allah has promised Muslim men and Muslim women that, in any case, under His mercy and blessings, some of the believers would be made Khalifas ; and Allah would replace the sense of danger in their hearts with a sense of security and peace. So this is a circumstance, a condition, which does not properly and fully apply to any except the Khilafat of the Siddiq.” (Sirrul Khilafa, page 15)
This is an indication that the Promised Messiah does not seek to deny that the remaining Khalifas were properly under the verse of Istikhlaf, even though he held that the first and foremost Khalifa under the conditions and circumstances, the attendant specifications, was Hazrat Abu Bakr.
So we find that the question of deposing any of the Khulafa-i-Rashidin does not arise here in any way, the point being entirely irrelevant to the angle of this study.
Meaning of the first Khutba of Hazrat Abu Bakr
To prove that his views on the deposition of a Khalifa are well-based and correct, Mr. Faruqi has sought support from certain words and expressions in the first address Hazrat Abu Bakr gave after his election:
“O Muslims, I am only another member of the same community as you are. I will follow the spiritual laws as laid down; and I can’t introduce anything new into it. If I follow correctly the spiritual laws then you must obey me; but if I go astray from that path, then you must put me right.” (Truth Triumphs, page 34, 44)
It is only too evident here, that the first part is a bare expression of an utter sense of humbleness characteristic of Hazrat Abu Bakr. The rest embodies a solid and permanent fact namely, that a Khalifa has no authority, whatsoever the circumstances, of making any alteration in the body of the Sharia. The sentence “As long as I remain obedient to Allah and His Apostle, remain ye obedient to me; but if I go astray, in the very least, correct me”, is Abu Bakr’s characteristic manner and style of saying that he too was subject to the same laws as were the rest of the Muslims; that he had not come to look upon himself that, in any way, he had not now been placed in a different position, than the rest of the Muslims.
Mr. Faruqi holds that the Promised Messiah was an ordained and appointed Khalifa. It is not to be imagined that he would want to deny this. We beg him to have a look at the conditions of bai’at ; if he is prepared to indulge us to that extent, he would find that these hardly seem to go beyond binding the devotee to obedience in things involved, better let us say, embraced in `obedience in things which can generally be classified as معروف “ma’ruf”. In fact it is stated in the Holy Quran itself that in the terms of bai’at for women the expression used is “we shall not disobey your teaching on points taken to be included in ma’ruf “. Do we here take the expressions to imply the possibility that the Holy Prophet Mohammad or the Promised Messiah was not beyond the possibility of asking the disciples to engage themselves in pursuits held to be disreputable and sinful, in view of which danger, this condition had to be imposed by the devotee that he should not be taken to be prepared to render obedience, even if asked to do something which society did not look upon as lawful, or respectable. So you see, the presence of expressions of this kind, in pledges given by devotees, or terms fixed by reformers or religious mentors for initiation, do not yield valid ground for inferring legality of action taken to depose a Khalifa, on the basis that certain expressions used by Hazrat Abu Bakr furnish, to the disciples, the power to topple the Khalifa on a pretext that he had gone wrong on a certain point of teaching, or conduct, or in his conception of the duty he owes to the public. In Al-Wasiyyat, when the Promised Messiah has called the Khilafat as a manifestation of the Qudrat-i-Thania of the Lord God Himself, who, in his proper senses, would want to claim that he has the power and authority to depose a duly elected, or appointed, Khalifa?
Expulsion of Sheikh Misri
In every genuine organisation, there are some hypocrites as well, who seem to be very honest members, but nevertheless they have their own selfish ends in seeking and maintaining their membership. They keep their inner mind carefully concealed. Mr. Faruqi has written that Sheikh Abdul Rahman Misri renounced his membership of the Qadian (now Rabwah) Section of the Ahmadiyya Movement (page 41). But the fact is that for a long time he remained in the Movement in a hypocritical manner. But when the hypocrisy in his mind came to be detected, and proved, he was turned out of the Jama’at. He did not renounce his membership himself.
So-called Haqiqat Pasand Party
Similarly, in 1956, a few hypocrites broke away from the Movement. They tried to organise a group, calling themselves, “Haqiqat Pasand Party”, with a good deal of encouragement from the old enemies of the Institution of Khilafat in the Ahmadiyya Movement. In regard to this group, Mr. Faruqi writes:
“So much so that in 1956 A. D. quite a number of his mureeds got so disgusted that they openly announced their separation from the Qadiani Community.” (Truth Triumphs, page 41, 42)
A small group of a few individuals has been described here as “quite a number of his mureeds”. This is another instance of Mr. Faruqi’s general tendency to exaggerate everything which appears to throw discredit on the Qadian Section. Hypocrites were found in the Muslim body politic from the early times; and their nefarious tendencies and actions have been alluded to in the Holy Quran as well. Their favourite method has been to exaggerate trifles into big lies, with intensified rumours, supplying details from an inflamed imagination. There is a whole chapter in the Holy Book which carries the title “Al-Munafiqun”. If people of these types are found in the Ahmadiyya Movement as well, it is nothing unusual; nor is there anything unusual if some of them have been expelled from the Movement, nor if some of them have left the Movement themselves, because life on the general pattern in Ahmadi society does not suit them, for various reasons. In fact the history of the hypocrites in the Ahmadiyya Movement is a solid argument in favour of the truth on which the Ahmadiyya Movement has been founded. Sooner or later, the hypocrites betray themselves; or they get exposed from time to time. It is extremely difficult to find any genuine movement, entirely free of this doubtful element; though, of course, it is seldom in a position to inflict any real damage on those it tries to harm.
Method for Election of the Khalifa
The simple and easy way for the election of the Khalifa suggested by Islam has been described by Ibni Khaldun as follows:
“After it is conceded that the selection of Imam, in a collective procedure, the burden of the implied duty falls on those considered capable for discharging the obligation, while the mass of the body politic would be expected to accept the choice made, and proceed to render allegience and obedience to the Khalifa, the moment he emerges from the deliberations, since the Commandment from Allah stands: `Obey Allah and the Apostle, and those in positions of authority over you.'”
In his Al-Khilafa, the learned editor of Al-Minar of Egypt has supported this view. He has quoted from Allama Sa’eeduddin Taftazani, out of Sharhil Maqasid, wherein he agrees with the authorities on the subject to hold that capable people in this behalf would be the Ulama, and the prominent people in the body politic. (Al-Khilafa, page 11)
In the procedure laid down for the purpose in the Ahmadiyya Movement, these statements have been kept in view. It is true that Hazrat Khalifatul Masih II, in his Lecture entitled “Khilafat-i-Haqqa Islamia “, has also referred to the simple procedure in practice for the selection, or election, of the Pope. But in the same Lecture there is also due notice taken of the view expressed by the learned editor of Al-Minar, as well as the foundation on which Allama Rashid Raza has taken this stand. From the reference to the procedure for selecting or electing the Pope. Mr. Faruqi tries to conclude that this is the true interpretation of a dream in sleep the Promised Messiah had seen, that Mahmud had brought with him into the house, an Englishman which word Mr. Faruqi takes to mean the Dajjal. Similarly he refers to an Ilham of the Promised Messiah, namely, نردھا علی النصاریٰ (we shall send it back to the Christians) Tazkira page 766; and he concludes that this, too, seems to have been intended to warn against the cunning of the Khalifa at Qadian, and the Jama’at going astray in his hands. He says the pronoun ھا “ha” is feminine, which indicates a body of men characterised by a feminine gait, accepting a similarity with the Christians in ordinary life and social culture. (Truth Triumphs, Page 45, 46)
These are only so many more wrong statements by Mr. Faruqi; so many more distortion of texts, to give a measure of seeming plausibility to the meaning and conclusions he wants to extract from them. In the dream under reference, he quietly adds “Dajjal “, after the word “Angrez “, Britisher; our home, or our house, he interprets to mean the Ahmadiyya Community, which is not the meaning in which the Promised Messiah took this expression. Nor does the pronoun “ha ” stand for the Ahmadiyya Movement. This Ilham stands in Tazkira, page 284, in its complete form. It has been interpreted by the Promised Messiah himself in Tazkira 292 as follows:
“The Christians have changed the reality, so We shall throw disgrace and defeat back on them; and Athum shall be thrown into a consuming fire.”
This plain translation, and interpretation, given by the Promised Messiah, positively bears out that he took it to be referring to Abdullah Athum, a Christian missionary, with respect to whom the Promised Messiah had prophesised that he would die within a period of fifteen months, if he failed to show a reformation in himself, on the low anti-Islamic front, where he was strutting as a hero. However, since in his mind and manner he did accept a reformation in the language he had been employing when he referred to Islam, or the Holy Prophet Mohammad, this having been his main fault, which had drawn the wrath of heaven on him, he did not die within fifteen months. His friends took this fact as a great triumph of Christianity against Islam, and did their best to exploit it fully in favour of Christianity. Therefore, the Promised Messiah called upon Athum to testify publicly whether or not he had accepted a reformation, to mitigate his original guilt. But he hid the truth, by failing to testify, as called upon. At this stage Allah said to the Promised Messiah in the Ilham here under reference, that the disgrace and defeat the Christians were doing their best to throw on Islam, would be flung back on them, and that the culprit, Abdullah Athum, would be thrown into the fires of Hell. Another prophecy in regard to him was made by the Promised Messiah, and he died as foretold, bringing the Ilham under reference to a fuller and proper fulfillment.
This is a most glaring example of an almost inhuman lack of the moral sense in Mr. Faruqi, intent on his genius for distortion, and for lifting Ilhams and passages out of their proper text to misapply them, in crazy attempts, to throw discredit on Hazrat Khalifatul Masih II.
Hazrat Khalifatul Masih II has set up a procedure for the election of a Khalifa, which has barred the door against certain harmful possibilities. This is a matter of solid service to the world of Islam; it seems to have made the heart of Mr. Faruqi burn with an insensate jealousy. He has indulged in some sniping over the reference made by Hazrat Khalifatul Masih to the method in practice for the election of the Pope, but he has had nothing to say in regard to the Muslim Foqaha on this subject. He writes:
“Accordingly Mirza Mahmud Ahmad gave a ruling. In the future, the previous system is to be done away with in which more than five hundred Ahmadi delegates were to come from Multan, Karachi, Hyderabad, Quetta and Peshawar, and so on, and elect the successor to the Khalifa. But now the various secretaries of the departments of the Sadr Anjuman Ahmadiyya, along with serving Vakils (sort of advocates) and prominent representatives, if they happen to be present will elect the Successor to the Khalifa; after which a proclamation would be made to the community who would do obedience to him.” (Truth Triumphs, page 45)
This passage Mr. Faruqi has taken from Khilafat-i-Haqqa, page 56. But, as usual with him, he has resorted to interpolation. The correct wording of the passage is:
“Therefore, on the pattern of the Islamic procedure, which I shall set down later, for the future in regard to the election of the Khalifa, I abrogate the provision that the election would be done by the Shura, and lay down, instead, that in future whenever the time comes for a new Khalifa to be elected, the Nazirs and members of the Sadr Anjuman Ahmadiyya; the Vokala of the Tehrik-i-Jadid; the living members of the House of the Promised Messiah: (at the time of revision, under suggestion from some friends) the Sahaba of the Promised Messiah, to whom certificates of Sahabiat would be issued by the Sadr Anjuman, after due inquiry; Principal of the Jamiatul Mobashirin; Principal of Jami’a Ahmadiyya; the Mufti of the Ahmadiyya Movement; the Amirs of the Local Jama’ats in Sindh and the Punjab; and the Amir of the Jama’at in East Pakistan, would carry out the Election.”
“Similarly, (when revising this document) I add: those who have twice been elected as Amir of some local Jama’at, at the time of an election, though they may not happen to be Amir of any local Jama’at : those who may have served in some foreign mission for a period of at least one year, free of any blot in the eyes of the Centre (List of such missionaries to be maintained and publisbed by Tahrik-i-Jadid; missionaries who have worked for at least one year as Raisut-Tabligh for any district or provincel; List to be the responsibility of the Sadr Anjuman Ahmadiyya) provided they arrive in time. Secretary of the Shura would flash the news all over the country. After this, those who fail to reach, would fail to their own disadvantage, the procedure not to be held up, to wait for them.” (Khilafat-i-Haqqa, published by Al-Shirkatul Islamia, Ltd., Rabwah, page 15, 16)
Now I have the reader free to draw his own conclusions in regard to the reliability of Mr. Faruqi, when he is reproducing a passage in the course of his argument in any discussion; and also leave the reader to judge whether the procedure laid down by Hazrat Khalifatul Masih II is in accord with the lines in this respect taken by the Foqaha of the Ummat, or not in such accord.
Further, in this connection, it is to be carefully noted that Hazrat Khalifatul Masih II did not, in any way, impose this procedure on the membership of the Movement, in some arbitrary manner. The draft was put before the of Shura of 1957. After due deliberation, it was approved in the form of a resolution unanimously passed, and submitted for the final approval or rejection by the Khalifa. (Report Majlis-i-Mushawarat, 1957, pages 9 to 16)
Nor, in truth or justice, is there any reasonable ground for Mr. Faruqi when he says:
“Thus Mirza Mahmud Ahmad managed for his eldest son to succeed him after his death; and Qadian or Rabwah became another seat of professional Pirs scattered all over the country.” (Truth Triumphs, page 49)
As a matter of principle, it is not possible for anyone to find fault with the procedure laid down by Hazrat Khalifatul Masih II, in regard to the election of the Khalifa. It has closed the door against many kinds of dangers. Under the procedure laid down, which does not offend the Sharia, if a son of the Khalifa, or someone else, who is not irrelevant to the spirit and the principle of the procedure, comes to be elected.
The son of a Khalifa, after his father’s death, if found suitable, and gets elected under the rules, cannot be debarred from the duties and the prerogatives of the office. Mr. Faruqi has likened Hazrat Khalifatul Masih to Yazid. But it has to be remembered that Yazid, was openly appointed by his father as an heir to the Khilafat after him, and his father had taken bai’at from people in his favour. It would be the height of injustice to say that Hazrat Khalifatul Masih II, in discharging the duties of his office had any resemblance to Yazid, who usurped supreme authority for himself, without any mandate from an electorate.