In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, Ever Merciful
Ahmadiyya Muslim Community Love for All, Hatred for None
HomeIntroductionMuslim TelevisionLibraryOnline Store

Book: Truth Prevails
Truth Prevails
Qazi Mohammad Nazir
Chapter I
Chapter II
Chapter III
Chapter IV
Chapter V
Prophecy Concerning the Muslih Mau’ud
    A Dangerous Interpolation by Mr. Faruqi  
    Mr. Faruqi’s Genius for Mixing Up Thread Ends  
    Identification of the Muslih Mau’ud  
    Wrong Statements by Mr. Faruqi  
    Heartless Attack by Mr. Faruqi on the Illness of Hazrat Khalifatul Masih II  
    Dirty Allegations by Mr. Faruqi  
    The Fraud of Mobahila  
    Another Wrong Statement by Mr. Faruqi  
    Acquittal from Allegations  
    The Promised Joseph  
    Ejection of the Yazidis  
    Mischievous Note  
Chapter VI
Chapter VII
Download Truth Prevails in PDF Format (864 KB).
Download the original Urdu version of Truth Prevails, Ghalba-e-Haq, in PDF Format (11.8 MB).
Read the letter by Maha Dabbous written after her experience in the Lahori Sect.

Another Wrong Statement by Mr. Faruqi

On page 41 of his book, Mr. Faruqi writes:

"The Khalifa Sahib started persecuting Sh. Abdul Rehman Misri and his few friends who sided with him. On some, even murderous attacks were made. In this connection, in one of the court cases, the trying magistrate, Mr. J. D. Khosla wrote in his judgement: `To propagate their ideas and to expand the number of their Community, these people (the mureeds of Mirza Mahmud Ahmad) started using such weapons and methods which are generally considered as objectionable. So that those people who refused to tow the line, were subjected to (social and economic) boycott and expulsion (from the town or Community); and at times they were threatened by dire and ghastly consequences'"

It is altogether wrong that any court proceedings against Abdul Rahman Misri went before Mr. J. D. Khosla. The case to which Mr. Faruqi is referring here, was decided at last in the High Court, on November 11, 1935, while Sh. Abdul Rahman was expelled from the Community in 1937. The case to which reference has wrongly been made here was the Government versus Syed Ataullah Shah Bokhari, over a speech by Bokhari, held objectionable by the Government, in which he was convicted to imprisonment for six months. Syed Ataullah Shah went before Mr. Khosla, the Sessions Judge in Gurdaspore. Mr. Khosla reduced the term of imprisonment, and he made some remarks in regard to the Imam of the Ahmadiyya Movement, irrelevant for the case, and offensive against the Imam and the Movement.

Naturally these remarks were bitterly resented by the Ahmadiyya community, for they were not a party in the case. Recourse was, therefore had to the legal proceedings in the High Court for getting such unwarrantable passages expunged from the decision in question, under 541 A, of the Criminal Procedure Code. The case was heard by Justice Coldstream, the honourable Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru, argued the case for the Ahmadiyya Movement. Justice Coldstream first reproduced the objectionable passages in the judgement of the Sessions Judge, J. D. Khosla as follows:

I come to the words:

"In order to enforce their argument and further their cause they called into play weapons which would ordinarily be termed highly undesirable. They not only intimidated the person who refused to come within their fold with boycott and ex-communication and occasionally threats of something worse, but they frequently fortified the process of proselytizing by actually carrying out these threats. A volunteer corps was established in Qadian with the object probably of giving sanction to their decrees."

"This is not altogether an accurate description of the evidence. There is no evidence that the Qadianis intimidated persons who refused to come within their fold other than persons belonging to their community who had left it or had quarrelled with them. There is ample evidence, of which there is corroboration in the statement of the Mirza Sahib himself, that persons who had become obnoxious to the Community were excommunicated or forced by social pressure to leave Qadian, though there is very little to indicate that this pressure was brought to bear illegally. So far as `threats of something worse' concerned, there is the evidence of Abdul Karim, that he was threatened with death. The learned Sessions Judge has believed this." (The Punjab Law Reporter PP. 649-650)

Then Justice Coldstream gave his own Judgement to the following effect:

"The language of the judgement in the present case is in some places as such, must tend to raise a doubt whether the learned judge approached the case from a perfectly fair point of view. Much of it is exaggerated. This is clear from some of the passages to which objection has been taken. As an instance, he describes the Qadiani creed in the beginning of the judgment, where it sets forth some facts which in the opinion of the judge have a bearing on the points of issue as `new fangled.' The merits or demerits of the Qadiani beliefs were not and could not in this case be a matter for the Court's consideration. This is unfortunate, and the more to be regretted because the circumstances of the time (and this is a matter of common knowledge) are such as to necessitate especial care that, in cases which have assumed a communal aspect, the proceedings in Courts and the language of their judgments should not themselves promote the feelings of enmity, the promotion of which by others, it is their duty to punish under the law." (The Punjab Law Reporter PP. 643-644)

It is thus quite evident that this learned Judge of the High Court repudiated the view taken by Mr. Khosla, wherein the Sessions Judge at Gurdaspore had sought to establish that the Ahmadiyya Movement, in its central set up, resorted to persecution of its opponents in the religious field. The temperament and mentality of Mr. Faruqi which even now is eager to make use of a view repudiated by a learned Judge of the High court, only exposes the violent poison of prejudice in its own psychology in regard to the Qadiani, now Rabwah Section of the Movement. The reproduction of the remarks of Mr. J.D. Khosla quoted by Mr. Faruqi, after they had been repudiated by the High Court, is a nefarious trick to deceive the public.

As for the purity of mind of Hazrat Khalifatul Masih II , and the grandeur of his personality, in view of his extraordinary service to Islam, we hope Mr. Faruqi would allow us to remind him that the Holy Prophet Mohammad himself was delighted to tell the world about his greatness by a prophecy that the Messiah of his own dispensation would contract a marriage, of which the issue would be given for his benefit.

In regard to this prophecy made by the Holy Prophet Mohammad, the Promised Messiah has remarked:

"In this prophecy of the Holy Prophet Mohammad it has been hinted that the Messiah of his own dispensation would be blessed with a boy, righteous of temperament, who would grow up in the likeness of his father, not in denial, and he would be counted among the eminent and honoured servants of the Lord." (A'ina Kamalat-i-Islam pages 578, 579 footnote)

It is to be noted further, that the Promised Messiah, in his work entitled Nishan-i-Asmani, has referred to a prophecy made by the renowned saint, Ni'matullah Wali, in regard to the son of the expected Reformer among the Muslims, worded in a beautiful poetry, the couplet being to the following effect "When the lifetime of the Promised Messiah will come to close in glory, a son of the Reformer would grow up in a miraculous resemblance with his father, in temperament, and the task he would accomplish."

Also, the Promised Messiah has brought out the import of this prophecy in the following words:

"When his times shall have passed, in success and grand achievement, on the example set by him, a son of the stalwart would live in pursuits as would perpetuate the memory of his great father. In other words, Allah would bless him with a righteous son, set as a living example of the father, dyed altogether in the same colour. He would be a worthy memorial, in flesh and blood, of the service to Islam rendered by the father. This, in fact, is in conformity with a prophecy made by my humble self, in regard to a son of mine own." (Nishan-i-Asmani, page 13)

We have already stated that all the issue of the Promised Messiah took birth under glad tidings thereof, given beforehand, to him in the first instance, and through him to the rest of the world, accompanied by assurances that they would be righteous and pure in their lives, noble and virtuous in their dealings. For instance:

"His issue also shall constitute a Sign, even as Allah gave a promise to this effect, and fulfilled that promise." (Siraj-i-Munir, page 57)

In another place, the Promised Messiah says:

"Let me remember, O Lord,
The great blessings
Showered upon me.
You gave glad tidings
In regard to my issue,
And then the birth of these
Children. You said: No,
They would not be destroyed.
They would multiply,
And prosper, like stately
Trees in the parks.
Repeatedly you have said
All this to me. So Holy
Indeed, is the One
Has brought my enemies
To such dire disgrace!"

May we venture to hope Mr. Faruqi will take the trouble to ponder over these things?

  Previous Next  

Copyright © by Ahmadiyya Muslim Community 1995- 2002 . All rights reserved.
If you have questions, comments or suggestions, email at
or call 1-800-WHY ISLAM  between 8AM and 5PM USA PST