Intro
Majlis-e Ahrar-e Islam (Urdu: مجلس احرارلأسلام), also known in short as Ahrar, is a religious Muslim political party in the Indian subcontinent that was formed during the British Raj (prior to the Partition of India) on 29 December 1929 at Lahore.
The group became composed of Indian Muslims inspired by and supporting the Khilafat Movement, which cleaved closer to the Congress Party. The party is based in Punjab and gathered support from the urban lower-middle class. Chaudhry Afzal Haq, Maulana Habib-ur-Rehman Ludhianvi and Syed Ata Ullah Shah Bukhari were the leaders of the party.
Religious leaders from all sects Sunni Barelvi, Deobandi, Ahle Hadith, Shia Progressive and politically Communists were the members of Majlis-e-Ahrar. Chaudhry Afzal Haq, Syed Ata Ullah Shah Bukhari, Habib-ur-Rehman Ludhianvi, Mazhar Ali Azhar, Maulana Zafar Ali Khan and Dawood Ghaznavi were the founders of the party. The Ahrar was composed of Indian Muslims disillusioned by the Khilafat Movement, which cleaved closer to the Congress Party.
In 1942, the Ahrar’s and Ahmadi’s had a huge confrontation in a village called Bhamari (See page 103/356, and many others, this is a document from the British library).
We have posted internal British government reports from 1934–1946 which explain the true story of Ahmadiyya vs. Muslims in the Punjab. Also check out The 2nd Khalifa’s speech on Oct-19-1934 vs. the Ahrar’s. These reports prove that the Ahmadiyya Movement was upset with the Governor of the Punjab and all of his police since they were trying to be fair with Muslims. These documents prove that the Ahmadiyya Movement were the aggressors and they ran wild in the Punjab. These documents prove that the Mirza family was always in-concert with the British government. We have written many essay’s based on these reports. Check out are additional essays on the Ahmadiyya Movement vs. Ahrar. Also read about Syed Ata Ullah Shah Bukhari and the Ahmadiyya Movement herein. He led a movement against Ahmadis and held a Ahrar Tableegh Conference at Qadian in 21–23 October 1934 (see the details in the below). In 1949 he founded Aalmi Majlis Tahaffuz Khatm-e-Nubuwwat and served as first Emir. Bukhari was a central figure in the Khatme Nabuwwat Movement of 1953, which demanded that government of Pakistan declare the Ahmadis as non-Muslims. He was given the death penalty (1952)(which was later redacted), for his breach of peace vs. Ahmadi’s. You can listen to a rare speech of his herein.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Beef with the Ahmadiyya movement?
As the early 1930’s approached, the governor of the Punjab was Herbert William Emerson (see page 268). He had many issues with the Ahmadiyya movement and their modus operandi. In those days, it was impossible to publically criticize the Ahmadiyya Movement. The Majlis Ahrar, which was a political movement, they had lots of beef with Ahmadis in this same era and had resolved to conduct a conference in Qadian during the winter of 1934. Governor Emerson approved of the Ahrar conference in the vicinity of Qadian in 1934 and stunned the Ahmadi Khalifa. The governor assured the Ahmadi Khalifa that he would take care of the security of Qadian, however, the Ahmadi Khalifa still sent out letters to the various branches of Ahmadiyya in British India and asked for young men to be sent to Qadian to patrol the streets, since there was no police department. This seems to have angered the governor. He ordered that all visitors of Qadian (see the 6th paragraph from the bottom) be recorded and that every Friday Khutbah of the Khalifa to be recorded and sent to him for review (see page 270). This is a very strange reaction by the Governor of the Punjab, his motives are unknown. However, the Ahrar conference took place and Ataullah Shah Bukhari delivered its keynote speech. Ataullah Shah Bukhari was then promptly arrested for anti-government speech. It should be noted that Muhammad Zafrullah Khan was a close friend of Governor Emerson and even had taken his mother to meet with Governor Emerson’s wife in an attempt to secure support for the Ahmadiyya movement. Bukhari was sentenced to 6 months. He did fight his case on appeal, wherein Justice Khosla reviewed the judgement of the high court and commented as such:
“To propagate their ideas and to expand the number of their community, those people (the Mureeds of Mirza Mahmud Ahmad) started using such weapons and methods which are generally considered objectionable. So that those persons who refused to tow their 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.” (see PDF 593/623).
______________________________________________________________________________________________Tarikh e Ahmadiyya Vol-7 page 489 onward
WHEN AHRAR SHATTERED THE EMPIRE OF KHALIFA BASHIRUDDIN MAHMOUD AHMAD IN QADIAN.
During his Khilafat, Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmoud Ahmad Khalifa-II of Jamaat e Ahmadiyya has established a reign of terror in Qadian. He has unleashed furious forces against his opponents in Qadian. Two prominent opponents of Mirza Mahmoud namely Fakhruddin Multani and Mistry Muhammad Hussain, were killed at the hand of his followers during the period.
One of his dissidents, originally an ahmadi who left ahmadiyya later on, was Molvi Abdul Karim Mubahila. After he came to know of the secret life of Khalifa, he put Mubahila challenge before khalifa Mahmoud many times but Khalifa avoided to accept this as he knew his real status against Abdul Karim Mubahila.
Abdul Karim Mubahila requested Majlis Ahrar e Islam to open office in Qadian so that they could resist their heretic activities and creat awareness among simple Muslims. Ahrar opened their office in Qadian and subsequently, announced Tabligh Conference to be held from 21 to 23 October 1934.
Khalifa Mahmoud got very anxious to know of Ahrar Tabligh Conference in Qadian. He used every efforts that this Tabligh Conference may not be held but he failed as the British Government has issued permission for this conference. Since Mirza Mahmoud wanted to stop this conference by hook or by crook so he wrote a letter to his Jamaat officials in Gurdaspur, Batala, Ludhiana and other towns to send 3000 men to stop this conference by force.
A CID Police officer visited Qadian and showed Khalifa his circular to the officials of Jamaat of Gurdaspur, Ferozpur and Batala for sending three thousand men force to Qadian to counter Ahrar,s activities. The Police Officer warned Mirza Mahmoud not to summon such persons from out of Qadian as the government has already ensured the security of Qadiani leaders and Jamaat and ordered to deploy sufficient police men for maintenance of Law and order.
Mirza Mahmoud promised the CID Officer for compliance of the government instructions. However, another circular was sent to Jamaat officials of Gurdaspur by Nazir Amoor Amma to send men to Qadian for fighting Ahrar during their Tabligh conference.
______________________________________________________________________________________________
1934
https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2022/09/14/the-2nd-khalifas-speech-on-oct-19-1934-vs-the-ahrars/
The ROR of Nov-1934 has reproduced the Friday Sermon of the 2nd Khalifa on Oct-19-1934. This was just a few days before the famous “Ahrar Tableegh Conference”, just outside Qadian on 21–23 of October 1934. In December of 1934, Syed Ata Ullah Shah Bukhari was given 6 months of prison for disturbing the peace. However, he won on appeal in the summer of 1935 (the Khosla judgement) and never spent a single day in prison.
Nevertheless, back to the Friday Sermon of Oct-19-1934, in this sermon, the 2nd Khalifa ordered all the Ahmadi Murrabi’s to come to his house (Dar ul Anwar) after the Friday service. They were going to be sent out to gain influence in terms of the forthcoming assembly elections. They would be sent to Sarghoda, Jhang and Mianwali districts.
The 2nd Khalifa then announced that the Punjab government had placed certain restrictions on the Ahmadi’s at Qadian (which the 2nd Khalifa disagreed with, however, was outwardly cooperating). The Punjab government didn’t want any Ahmadi’s hold a stick in their hand, up to the 27th of October. The 2nd Khalifa complains that he came to Masjid Aqsa without a stick today and he expects Ahmadi’s to do the same, even though this was against his family traditions. He goes to claim that he has 2 announcements, the first one is that NO Ahmadi should do any violence vs. Muslims, in fact, the Khalifa says that even if an Ahmadi is about to get killed, an ahmadi shouldn’t stop walking, just take photo’s. The 2nd announcement is delayed by the Khalifa until after the “Ahrar Tableegh Conference”.
The Khalifa goes on to claim that the Government (the punjab government) has insulted the Ahmadiyya Community by allowing the “Ahrar Tableegh Conference”. The 2nd Khalifa argues that the Ahmadiyya Community is the most loyal community in the entire British Colonial Empire. The 2nd Khalifa argues that the Ahmadiyya Community has spent 100,000’s of rupees on loyalty to the government and supporting the government and has never even asked for copper in return.
1934
Civil and Military Gazette of Sep-7-1934
The Ahrar seem to have complained about Qadiani’s getting special treatment by the British.
Scan
______________________________________________________________________________________________
1936
The 2nd Khalifa mentions the Ahrar’s at the 1936 Jalsa at Qadian (See ROR of Jan-1937). The 2nd Khalifa then discussed Tehreek-e-Jadid and claimed that without the vituperation of the Ahrar, Tehreek-e-Jadid would have never been launched, and thus it was a bi-product and had brought in lots of money (allegedly). The 2nd Khalifa then reviewed the work of some of the businesses at Qadian that the jamaat owned like, carpentry, ironsmithy, bookmaking and sales department, and reported that they are all successful. The 2nd Khalifa explained how these local industries were working under Tehreek-e-Jadid. The 2nd Khalifa urged young Ahmadi men to go out in the world and spread Ahmadiyya, via working blue collar jobs or whatever. The 2nd Khalifa urged young Ahmadi men to live poor, to curtail their own costs and work forever!
______________________________________________________________________________________________
1941
The ROR of Feb-1941 mentions the Ahrar’s and their agitation of 1934.
The ROR of March-1941 mentions the Ahrar and their agitation of 1934.
The ROR of April-1941 mentions the Ahrar’s and their connections with Ghandi and his congress, are they members of not? In this essay, they call the Ahrar’s as “unwanted” followers of Ghandi.
______________________________________________________________________________________________
1942
The Ahrar were mentioned in the ROR of July-1942.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Historical analysis of Ahrar’s anti-Ahmadiyya agitation – Part 3
Historical analysis of Ahrar’s anti-Ahmadiyya agitation – Part 3
Historical analysis of Ahrar’s anti-Ahmadiyya agitation – Part 3
Ata-ul-Haye Nasir, Ahmadiyya Archive & Research Centre
Ahmadiyyat continued to progress
Despite severe opposition from the Ahrar, Jamaat-e-Ahmadiyya continued to flourish and marched towards its objective — propagating the message of Islam to all corners of the world.
Arjun Singh, editor of the newspaper Rangeen, states:
“Upon reading the Ahmadi newspapers, one finds that since the time Majlis-e-Ahrar has raised the alam-e-jihad [opposition] against Ahmadiyyat, the Ahmadi Jamaat is progressing with each passing day. Hence, their financial condition is better than before, their institutions are functioning with greater fervour, and not a day goes by without five to ten individuals from the [non-Ahmadi] Muslims joining Jamaat-e-Ahmadiyya. We have come to know from some credible Ahmadis that they consider the Ahrar movement to be very beneficial for the progress of their Jamaat. Therefore, it is their claim that Ahrar could never succeed in effacing Ahmadiyyat. But rather, they believe that as long as the Ahrar continue their efforts to destroy Ahmadiyyat, harm and persecute them, the more will be the progress of Jamaat-e-Ahmadiyya.” (Sair-e-Qadian, Sardar Press, Amritsar, pp. 29-30)
Ahrar and KL Gauba
Mr KL Gauba, also known as Kanhaiya Lal Gauba or Khalid Latif Gauba, son of Lala Harkishen Lal, converted to Islam in 1933. He was a politician and member of the Punjab Legislative Assembly from a Muslim constituency.
As far as his connections with the Ahrar are concerned, it is evident from the fact that in the 1934 general elections, KL Gauba contested the election as an Ahrar nominee. (Tarikh-e-Ahrar, p. 198; Karwan-e-Ahrar, Vol. 2, pp. 94-95)
Mr Gauba’s anti-Ahmadiyya stance emerged openly when he raised false allegations against the Promised Messiahas and stated that, God forbid, he had disrespected the non-Ahmadi Muslims by using abusive language. He proposed to put the question in the Assembly whether the government was aware that the Founder of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community has, God-forbid, used “abusive” language against the non-Ahmadi Muslims. Mr Gauba’s false allegation was refuted in detail in the March 1935 issue of The Review of Religions. It was also published as An Open Letter.
Mr Gauba once said, “If the Government genuinely wants Muslim friendship, it must remove the sources of irritation; it must give up its support of the Qadianis. […] However great the task which the Ahrar party has set itself, it has been achieved, Kashmir, Kapurthala, Alwar and now Qadian are milestones in its march of triumph. Its successes lie in the causes that it champions. It is the party of the Muslim masses and the masses regard it as their own.” (The Civil and Military Gazette, 16 May 1935, p. 7)
Muslim Tabligh Conference in Saharanpur
On 19 May 1935, Ataullah Shah Bukhari delivered a speech at the Muslim Tabligh Conference in Saharanpur and used inappropriate language against Jamaat-e-Ahmadiyya. He asserted that Ahmadis were working against the interests of Islam and helping its enemies. A detailed report on this speech can be found at the National Archives of India (Government of India: Home Department [Political Section], File No. 36/5/35-Poll).
Ahrar Conference in Lyallpur
On 29 June 1935, an Ahrar Conference was held in Lyallpur [now Faisalabad], where a resolution was passed demanding the showing of Ahmadis “as a section separate from Muslims.” (The Civil and Military Gazette, 2 July 1935, p. 13)
Attack on Hazrat Mirza Sharif Ahmadra
On 8 July 1935, Hazrat Sahibzada Mirza Sharif Ahmadra, son of the Promised Messiahas, was attacked in accordance with a vicious plan by Ahrar. It was around 6 pm when he set off from his office on his bicycle for his residence that someone attacked him with a long and sharp club three times. Hazrat Mirza Sharif Ahmadra courageously blocked this sudden assault with sharp reflexes.
Accepting the responsibility for such a vile act, the official historian of Ahrar, Janbaz Mirza, states under the heading “Ahrar ki Anokhi Jasarat”:
“In those days, Master Tajuddin Ansari was in-charge of the Ahrar office in Qadian,” and he “formulated a plan. Accordingly, he prepared a youngster, Muhammad Hanif, who was the son of the beggars. He was given the responsibility to publicly beat Sharif Ahmad[ra], the brother of Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud[ra], Khalifa of Qadian, and then to run away from the scene.” (Karwan-e-Ahrar, Vol. 2, Maktaba Tabsarah Lahore, 1977, pp. 311-312)
Ahmadiyya-Ahrar situation discussed in the British Parliament
On 2 August 1935, the Ahmadiyya-Ahrar situation came under discussion in the House of Commons of the British Parliament.
Mr Charles Emmott from the Conservative Party asked the Under-Secretary of State for India, “Whether he is aware that grave and increasing unrest is being produced among the Ahmadiyya community at Qadian by the hostile activities of the Ahrar, and that these activities have assumed an aggravated form since October of last year; and whether he intends to take any measures to prevent their continuance?”
Mr Butler, the Under-Secretary of State for India, responded, “I am aware that there has been serious tension between the Ahmadis and Ahrars at Qadian since last autumn, which still unfortunately continues. The Government of the Punjab are keeping a close watch on the situation.”
Mr Emmott asked, “Will my hon. friend give an assurance that the Government of the Punjab will continue to watch this situation with close attention?”
Mr Butler responded, “I can certainly give the hon. member that assurance. The Government of the Punjab have been giving the matter very serious consideration.”
Then, Mr William MacColin Kirkpatrick of Conservative Party asked, “Is it not a fact that the two parts referred to are not Hindu and Moslem but are both Moslem?”
Mr Butler replied, “They are both Moslem.” (Hansard, HC Deb, 2 August 1935, Vol. 304, cc. 2982-3, https://api.parliament.uk)
Shahidganj Mosque and Ahrar
In the 18th century, during the Mughal rule in India, a mosque was built in Lahore, known as “Abdullah Khan Mosque”, later named the “Shahidganj Mosque”. Due to the historical background of its location, this mosque remained a cause of controversy between the Sikh and Muslim communities. On 8 July 1935, the Mosque was demolished by some members of the Sikh Community. This created a new wave of Sikh-Muslim disturbances. (The Civil and Military Gazette, 9 July 1935, p. 1)
Ahrar showed great passion at the beginning of this dispute and initiated civil disobedience, though their leaders had divided opinions on this movement.
The Ahrar were intensifying their violent acts in relation to this issue, and the then Governor of Punjab, Sir Herbert William Emerson, mentioned it to the then Viceroy of India, Lord Linlithgow, stating that “the Ahrars do not appear to have secured much Muslim sympathy, as it is generally recognised that their action has been inspired entirely by political motives.” (Punjab Politics, 1936-1939: The Start of Provincial Autonomy [Governor’s Fortnightly Reports and other Key Documents], Lionel Carter (ed.), Manohar, 2004, p. 154)
Thereafter, the Ahrar ceased their violent movement and claimed that this was in fact a conspiracy by Ahmadis against the Ahrar to damage them politically. Mentioning this, the Governor of Punjab wrote to the Viceroy, on 19 October 1936, and stated:
“The Ahrars had found a popular platform; they were entirely unscrupulous in making the best use of it; and by raising the cry of ‘Danger to Islam’ they were fast increasing their strength. Then came the Shahidganj incident. The Ahrars, believing that the Ahmadis were at the back of it, refused at a critical time to take the popular Muslim side. They lost a great deal of their influence and have not yet fully recovered the ground that was lost. But they have recovered a great deal of it, and because of their antagonism to the Ahmadia community, they gain more sympathy and support on this account than their merits deserve. They are anti-Government and have flirted with Congress from time to time. They have no outstanding leaders of position, but have several good mob orators and their Party is fairly well organised.” (Ibid, p. 51)
Two years later, the then Governor of Punjab Sir Henry Duffield Craik wrote to the then Viceroy of India Lord Linlithgow, on 10 May 1938, and stated:
“The Ahrar party has now announced its decision of abandoning civil disobedience, but unfortunately Maulana Zafar Ali Khan’s rival party, the Ittihad-i-Millat, has decided to continue the process, their decision being based, in the words of their resolution, on ‘the irreconcilable attitude adopted by the Akalis and Master Tara Singh and the wayward policy of the Majlis-i-Ahrar.’” (Ibid, p. 212)
Ahmadiyya response on Shahidganj Mosque issue
As far as the Jamaat-e-Ahmadiyya’s response is concerned, The Civil and Military Gazette reported on 10 September 1935:
“Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad[ra], head of the Ahmadiyya community of Qadian states that the Ahmadis are willing to cooperate with other Muslims in the campaign for the reservation of the Shahidganj mosque. They do not, however, believe in the method of civil disobedience recently proposed, since there are other and more constitutional means of settling this issue. He says: ‘Ahmadis are prepared to make great sacrifices in this cause.’”
This news report was referring to the Friday Sermon of Hazrat Musleh-e-Maudra, dated 6 September 1935, in which he refuted the Ahrar’s false allegation against the Jamaat that the dispute of the Shahidganj Mosque was created by the Ahmadis.
On one hand, Huzoorra categorically stated that the government could have avoided such an incident and the following chaos by taking preventive steps, and on the other, he made it clear that though Ahmadis would be ready to cooperate with the Muslim community in a peaceful way, it could never support any kind of violence such as civil disobedience. Huzoorra also granted valuable guidance and advice to the Muslims as to how they should have reacted and what steps they needed to take in the future. (Khutbat-e-Mahmud, Vol. 16, pp. 562-568)
Huzoorra also issued the following statement:
“I want it to be known that we have always been against what is known as ‘civil disobedience’. We shall try our best to dissuade Muslims from having recourse to it, although Ahrars, by opposing us, have weakened our influence with the general Muslim community. In the days of the Congress agitation, Muslims were prepared to listen to our advice, but if they reject it now, the responsibility would be with the government, whose policy has encouraged the Ahrars to excite the public against us.
“I and my community believe that the mosque can be regained without employing any unlawful or unconstitutional method. I was silent hitherto, because If I had spoken, the Ahrars would at once have raised a cry that the Ahmadis were at the back of the agitation. We are ready today to render all lawful and permissible assistance—legal, financial, or otherwise—if the present workers declare that our joining them would not injure the cause from their point of view. I feel far more acutely in regard to this question than I have been able to give expression to that feeling in words. Our only regret is that on account of the agitation of the Ahrars against us, we have not been able to participate in the movement as we should have done.
“Government’s Mistakes
“In connection with the mistakes committed by the Government, I also want to point out that it placed the law-abiding Muslim leaders in a very awkward position. It should have informed them that the Sikhs were not willing to compromise, and that they were free to explore further lawful means of attaining their object. Similarly it should have informed the Sikhs to do what they pleased. But in both cases it should have been made clear that whoever broke the law would be punished. It was clearly unjust to allow Sikh Jathas to pour in, and prevent parties of Muslims from coming into the city. The Government knows that only a short time ago it took a decision in a similar situation here in Qadian, in conformity with which it had no right to stop Muslim Jathas, but instead should have prevented the Sikhs from coming into the city.” (The Civil and Military Gazette, 22 September 1935, p. 7)
Ahrar’s anti-Ahmadiyya activities echoed in Hejaz
In a letter dated 21 January 1936, the then Undersecretary to the Foreign Affairs of Saudi Arabia, His Excellency Fuad Bey Hamza, inquired about Majlis-e-Ahrar from the Indian Government’s Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary in Saudi Arabia, Sir Andrew Ryan.
Sir Ryan sent a telegram to the Foreign Office in New Delhi on 6 February and received the following response on 13 February:
“Your telegram No. 10 dated 6th February. Reference is to Ahrar movement. Movement was started in 1931 by group of nationalist Muslims who finding association with Hinduised Congress uncomfortable sought to rehabilitate themselves by emerging as champions of Muslim interests wherever threatened. Movement attained wide publicity in Kashmir agitation of that year, and subsequently gained notoriety by attacking Ahmadiya community. Recently Ahrars have turned attention to where they have taken line of condemning action of Bin Saud in granting mining contract to British firm. On 20th December 1935 they staged observance of Hejaz day, which, however was a failure, and followed this up by decision to send deputation to Hejaz. This phase of agitation may possibly be inspired by personal hostilities to Ismail Ghaznavi.
“Ahrar agitation is practically confined to Punjab, and has recently lost much ground by decision of party to refrain from engaging in Shahidganj agitation in Lahore with apparent object of appearing nationalist and not communal in sentiment.” (Coll 6/11 ‘Hejaz-Nejd Affairs: Economic Development in the Hejaz’ [29r] (58/504), British Library: India Office Records and Private Papers, IOR/L/PS/12/2077, in Qatar Digital Library, http://www.qdl.qa [accessed 29 September 2023])
Thereafter, on 25 February 1936, Mr Metcalfe from the Foreign and Political Department of the Indian Government, sent a telegram to Sir Ryan, including a “Note recording the history of the Ahrar Movement in India”, which stated:
“This Majlis lost no opportunity to advertise itself and it was fortunate in securing an ideal stage in the Kashmir agitation of 1931-32. When this died down the Ahrars found their importance diminishing and therefore they turned their attention to fresh fields and at the close of 1933 they embarked on an attack on the Ahmadiya community. For nearly two years they maintained their influence but their failure to take part in the Shahidgunj agitation (August and September 1935) resulted in a considerable loss of their prestige among their co-religionists. Their indifference was attributed partly to the ‘nationalist’ views of their leaders and partly to a desire on their part not to alienate the Sikhs and Hindus who had been supporting them in their campaign against the Qadianis and whose sympathy they hoped to retain in future.
“The Ahrars have recently been making efforts to regain their lost influence by diverting the attention of the Muslim masses to other avenues of agitation (e.g. the Hejaz).” (Ibid, [32r] (64/504), British Library: India Office Records and Private Papers, IOR/L/PS/12/2077, in Qatar Digital Library, http://www.qdl.qa [accessed 22 September 2023])
In light of this note, Sir Ryan wrote to Fuad Bey Hamza on 28 February 1936 and stated:
“The society in which you were interested would appear to be identical with the Anjuman-i-Ahrar-i-Islam, whose headquarters are at Lahore. Their movement was started by a group of Indian nationalists of the Moslem faith, who had found it unpalatable to work with the ‘Congress’ party.
“The Ahrar movement at one time achieved much publicity in Kashmir and later became notorious for its attacks on the Ahmadiya Community. Still more recently the promoters of the movement have turned their attention to the Hejaz and appear to have interested themselves in certain affairs of internal concern to this country […].
“The activities of the Ahrar in India seem to be confined almost exclusively to the Punjab and even there they have recently lost ground owing to their refusal to co-operate with those concerned in another movement known as Shahidganj, of whom, however, I know very little.” (Ibid, [27r] (54/504), British Library: India Office Records and Private Papers, IOR/L/PS/12/2077, in Qatar Digital Library, http://www.qdl.qa [accessed 22 September 2023])
Hazrat Musleh-e-Maud’sra poem about the Ahrars
In September 1935, Hazrat Musleh-e-Maudra wrote a poem in which he described the true image of the Ahrars and mentioned that despite their utmost efforts, they had failed to cause any harm to Ahmadiyyat and that their only objective was to create disorder and chaos. The first four verses of this poem are as follows:
پڑھ چکے احرار بس اپنی کتابِ زندگی
ہو گیا پھٹ کر ہوا ان کا حبابِ زندگی
لوٹنے نکلے تھے وہ امن و سکونِ بیکساں
خود انہی کے لٹ گئے حسن و شبابِ زندگی
دیکھ لینا ان کی امیدیں بنیں گی حسرتیں
اک پریشاں خواب نکلے گا یہ خوابِ زندگی
فتنہ و افساد و سبّ و شتم و ہزل و ابتذال
اس جماعت کا یہ ہے لُبِّ لُبابِ زندگی
“The Ahrars have now completed their lifetime; the bubble of their life has burst into the air. They desired to snatch away the peace and ease of the weak ones; instead, their own life’s peace and happiness have gone away. You will surely witness that their desires will remain unfulfilled and their dreams will turn into nightmares. This group, in a nutshell, is disorder, chaos, oppression, abusive language and immorality.” (Al Fazl, 6 September 1935, p. 1)
In response, Maulvi Mazhar Ali Azhar wrote a poem and used extremely abusive and disrespectful language. In fact, he portrayed the true face of the Ahrar, as narrated by Huzoorra in his poem. (Al Fazl, 12 September 1935, p. 4)
Ahrar’s hesitance in accepting the mubahala challenge
The Ahrars were spreading false notions against Ahmadiyyat and attributing certain beliefs to the Jamaat. When this act of theirs went out of bounds, Hazrat Musleh-e-Maudra challenged the Ahrar for a mubahala (prayer duel) during his Friday Sermon on 30 August 1935. (Al Fazl, 3 September 1935, p. 6). Mentioning this whole episode, Huzoorra wrote an article that was published as a tract on 30 October 1935:
“For a long time, the office-bearers of Majlis-e-Ahrar and their missionaries have been raising various false allegations against Jamaat-e-Ahmadiyya, and misleading the people who are not aware of the true facts. For instance, they are saying that, God forbid, the Founder of the Ahmadiyya Community [Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian, the Promised Messiahas] has disrespected the Holy Prophetsa and considers himself superior to him, and that Jamaat-e-Ahmadiyya holds the same belief. In the same way, they are alleging that, in view of the Promised Messiahas, [God forbid] Qadian has superiority over Mecca al-Mukarramah and Medina al-Munawwarah, and that the Ahmadis hold the same belief as well. […] When such misattributions from the Ahrar crossed all bounds, and they did not mend their ways despite continuously calling their attention, I issued a challenge to the Ahrar.” (Majlis-e-Ahrar ka mubahala ke mut’alliq na-pasandidah rawaiyyah, Anwar-ul-Ulum, Vol. 14, p. 27)
After this, Huzoorra formed a committee of some members of the Jamaat and instructed them to inform the Ahrar leaders through letters, stating all the conditions of the mubahala. Ahrar did not respond to those letters, and there was no response in regard to the conditions of the mubahala as proposed. However, after some time, on 14 October 1935, Maulvi Mazhar Ali Azhar sent a telegram to Huzoorra and said that the mubahala would take place on 23 November 1935. Huzoorra instructed Nazir Da’wat-o-Tabligh to reply to the telegram and ask Mazhar Ali Azhar as to why he did not state their view on the proposed conditions. The Ahrar did not respond to that question either and hesitated to respond directly to the Jamaat in written form so as to settle the terms and conditions of mubahala. However, they were announcing through newspaper articles, for instance in Mujahid, that they were ready for the mubahala and all conditions were accepted.
In this regard, Huzoorra said:
“If, in reality, Ahraris have accepted all of these conditions, why are they not responding in written form, since a response in the newspaper cannot be deemed a responsible reply. Due to the fact that the initial challenge is not termed a formal proceeding, it can be published in newspapers; however, the settlement of the terms and conditions should necessarily be done in writing along with the signatures of both parties.” (Ibid., p. 29)
Despite the above-mentioned article from Hazrat Musleh-e-Maudra, there was no appropriate response from the Ahrar, and therefore, Huzoorra wrote another article and said:
“On 30 October 1935, I had published a poster and tract entitled ‘Majlis-e-Ahrar ka mubahala ke mut’alliq na-pasandidah rawaiyyah’ [Inappropriate response from Ahrar in relation to the mubahala]. I hoped that after this announcement, Majlis-e-Ahrar would mend its behaviour and incline towards a serious discussion about the mubahala, however, regretfully, in contrary to my hope, Majlis-e-Ahrar has made its behaviour even worse, and instead of adopting the correct method, they are committing alterations of facts. […]
“Mr Mazhar Ali Sahib has stated in Chiniot that ‘I went to Qadian and told that the mubahala should take place in Qadian and on the truthfulness of Mirza Sahib [the Promised Messiahas], and Mirza Mahmud has accepted it.’ (Mujahid, 6 November 1935, p. 2)
“Further in this regard, the sajjada nasheen of Alo Mahar, Syed Faiz-ul-Hassan Sahib has stated during his speech in Chiniot:
“‘Mirza Mahmud has challenged the Majlis-e-Ahrar to do a mubahala with him at Qadian on the prophethood of Mirza [Sahib]. The leaders of Ahrar have accepted this challenge.’ (Ibid)
“However, the fact is that I had given a challenge to the Ahrar to do a mubahala in Lahore or Gurdaspur, on the allegations of Ahrar that [God forbid] the Founder of the Ahmadiyya Community and Jamaat-e-Ahmadiyya gives higher status to Mirza Sahib than the Holy Prophetsa and that they disrespect him. Upon this, I came to know that the Ahrar said that a mubahala should also happen in Qadian on the truthfulness of the Founder of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. In response, I wrote that if they wish to do a mubahala on the truthfulness as well, then let it be, but that mubahala should be separate from the one on the allegation of giving higher status to the Founder of the Ahmadiyya Community than the Holy Prophetsa. And in regards to Qadian, I wrote that if Ahrar have any specific reservations concerning Lahore or Gurdaspur [where the mubahala on the allegations was supposed to be held], they can come to Qadian. Now, everyone can understand that the president of the Ahrar Conference has lied during his Chiniot speech.” (Ahrar Khuda Ta’ala ke khauf se kaam letay huay mubahala ki sharait tay karein, Anwar-ul-Ulum, Vol. 14, pp. 37-39)
Huzoorra went on to narrate the reason behind Ahrar’s hesitation and said:
“The truth of the matter is that the government did not allow Ahrar to hold their conference in Qadian this year. When they read my mubahala challenge, they thought, ‘Well, we will see what to do about the mubahala, we will benefit from the opportunity and hold a conference in Qadian without confronting the Government, because the mubahala challenge is from Jamaat-e-Ahmadiyya, and we will go there on their invitation, and the Government would not stop us.’ Thus, keeping in mind this point, they decided to accept the mubahala without bringing the terms and conditions into written form. Hence, due to the fact that the conditions would be undecided, various points could be raised on the spot in order to reject the mubahala. Meanwhile, in this way, they would have the opportunity to hold a conference in Qadian.” (Ibid., pp. 42-43)
Meanwhile, the Ahrar were mobilising their masses and appealing to them to gather in Qadian on 22 and 23 November for a conference:
“Sheikh Bashir Ahmad, President of the All-India National League, referring to the challenge for a ‘prayer ordeal’ issued by the Head of the Ahmadiyas of Qadian, says that the Ahrars have not accepted the challenge on the terms stipulated, but that they are preparing to assemble in Qadian on this pretext.” (The Civil and Military Gazette, 14 November 1935, p. 5)
On 21 November 1935, Huzoorra wrote another article and mentioned that the Ahrar were spreading lies by announcing that ‘We have accepted the mubahala challenge, but Imam Jamaat-e-Ahmadiyya is hesitating from accepting it.’
In this article, Huzoorra refuted this false notion in light of the true facts, narrated the whole episode, and stated what the actual objective of the Ahrar was. (Kiya Ahrar waqe’ie mein mubahala karna chahtay hain?, Anwar-ul-Ulum, Vol. 14, pp. 53-61)
Government bans Ahrar from holding the conference
The Ahrar requested the government for permission to hold a conference in Qadian, however, the response was as follows:
“From the Chief Secretary, Punjab Government, to Maulvi Mazhar Ali Azhar, dated November 18, 1935.
“‘I am directed to acknowledge receipt of your letter, dated November 18, 1935. In the present state of the relations between the Majlis-i-Ahrar and the Ahmadiyya community, Government must regard any gathering of the nature and on the scale contemplated by you as likely to lead to a breach of the public peace. They cannot, therefore, alter their attitude to such a gathering.’ […] It is understood that the District Magistrate of Gurdaspur has issued an order under Section 144, Cr.P.C., prohibiting the adherents of the Majlis-i-Ahrar from assembling in large numbers in the vicinity of Qadian, in fact, within eight miles of Qadian, on any date from November 21 to November 24, inclusive.” (The Civil and Military Gazette, 20 November 1935, p. 4)
On 20 November 1935, the Government issued a notice to the Ahrar leaders to inform them about the ban on any gathering in Qadian:
“Orders of the Punjab Government under the Criminal Law Amendment Act were served today on Sheikh Hissam Din, Municipal Commissioner, Maulvi Habib-ur-Rehman and some other Ahrar leaders, prohibiting their entering Gurdaspur and participating in or organising a gathering of Ahrars within an eight miles’ radius of Qadian, in the Gurdaspur District. Another notice, issued by the District Magistrate, Gurdaspur, under Section 144, directs them to abstain from convening or attending a meeting, debate or discussion at Qadian and three other places in the Batala Tehsil on or about November 23, owing to the danger of a disturbance of the peace.” (The Civil and Military Gazette, 21 November 1935, p. 5)
Ahrar procession in Amritsar
On 21 November 1935, the members of Majlis-i-Ahrar gathered in Amritsar and held an anti-Ahmadiyya procession, where they shouted anti-Ahmadiyya slogans. “After the procession the volunteers intended to go to Batala, to hold a meeting of ‘Mubahila’ against the Mirza of Qadian, as the entry of Ahrar leaders has been prohibited in Qadian and in the Gurdaspur District.” (The Civil and Military Gazette, 23 November 1935, p. 18)
Call for even greater sacrifices
The Civil and Military Gazette reported on 26 November 1935, “Information has been received here that Friday prayers [on 22 November] at Qadian were held peacefully. Ahmadis from every centre assembled in response to the appeal made by the President of the National League. In consequence of the order issued by the District Magistrate of Gurdaspur, prohibiting Ahrars from assembling within eight miles of Qadian, Ahrars did not go to Qadian. The Friday sermon was delivered by Hazrat Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad, the head of the community. He exhorted Ahmadis ‘to be prepared to make even greater sacrifices in the following year.’”
Ahrar’s inflammatory efforts
Janbaz Mirza falsely alleges that in December 1935, “the government announced Section 144 in Qadian upon the behest of” Ahmadis, just to prevent any outsider Muslim from offering Jumuah prayer in Qadian. Obviously, this order was an interference in religion. The Ahrar decided to disobey this order.” (Karwan-e-Ahrar, Vol. 1, 1975, Maktabah Tabsarah, Lahore, pp. 57-58)
He further states:
“While on the way to Qadian,” Syed Ataullah Shah Bukhari “was arrested between Batala and Qadian; however, I somehow reached Qadian and offered the Jumuah prayer at the ‘Beri Wali Masjid’”, and “addressed the local Muslims who had gathered for the prayer and made them aware of the mutual connections between the [British] Government and the” Ahmadis. “For the coming Jumuah, Maulana Abul Wafa Shahjahanpuri was to visit Qadian, and I was instructed by the Jamaat [Ahrar] to accompany Maulana up to Batala. Since I had been to Qadian a week ago, the government handed a notice to me also along with Maulana Abul Wafa at the Batala Railway Station, stating that I could not enter Qadian. However, I ripped off the notice and prepared to go to Qadian along with Maulana. Upon entering the marked boundary, both of us were arrested by the police. On the same day, the court gave both of us three-month imprisonment, a 50 rupee fine, and one month of further imprisonment in case of non-payment of fine. […] Upon reaching the Gurdaspur Jail, we met Shah Ji. After some days, both of the elders were transferred to another jail, and I was alone there. However, the next Friday, Maulana Qazi Ahsan Ahmed joined me.” (Ibid., p. 58)
Narrating this incident with more details, he wrote under the heading “Ahrar ki Qadian mein Civil Naa-Farmani” – Ahrar’s Civil Disobedience in Qadian:
“In response to the government’s decision that Ahrar could not enter Qadian, Ahrar leaders decided to disobey this order,” and that “Syed Ataullah Shah Bukhari will lead the Jumuah prayer in Qadian on 6 December [1935] and then return. If the government interfered, it would be considered a ban on Jumuah [prayer], thus, Ahrar would take it as interference in religion, and initiate a movement in response.” Hence, “Syed Ataullah Shah Bukhari departed from Amritsar on the morning of 6 December, and upon reaching the Batala station, the government wanted to stop him from entering Qadian through a notice. However, according to the party’s order, he proceeded towards Qadian.” The “police were also aboard the same railcar where Shah Ji was sitting. As soon as the train reached Jaintipur railway station, the police inspector went to Shah Ji and said that ‘beyond this will be the disobedience to Section 144. Thus, you must get off at this very place.’ However, Shah Ji refused to obey this police order and continued the journey. At last, police arrested him.” (Karwan-e-Ahrar, Vol. 2, 1977, Maktabah Tabsarah, Lahore, p. 302)
Ataullah Shah Bukhari was sentenced to four months’ imprisonment by the Additional Magistrate, Gurdaspur, on a charge of “disobedience of the order prohibiting his entry into Qadian or any other place four miles around Qadian. Bukhari was placed in the ‘B’ class.” (The Civil and Military Gazette, 8 December 1935, p. 7)
On 21 December 1935, a member of the Ahrar from Shujabad, Qazi Ahsan Ahmed, went to Batala with a view to proceeding to Qadian to lead the Jumuah prayer there. He was arrested by the police of Gurdaspur District since they had banned the entry of any Ahrar worker within a four miles’ radius of Qadian. Qazi Ahsan Ahmed had entered the prohibited limit and was taken into custody. “It is understood that Ahrar workers will be going in this manner at the rate of one every week in contravention of orders.” (The Civil and Military Gazette, 22 December 1935, p. 6)
‘Ahrar Bubble Pricked’
The Civil and Military Gazette wrote on 22 December 1935, “The Ahrars have so far never cared to have a constructive programme. ‘Down with the Qadianis!’ appears to be the be-all and end-all of their political creed. This cry, by arousing religious feelings among Muslim masses, may ensure the Ahrars a certain number of votes during the elections, but it is obvious that this cry cannot form the political programme of any party in the Council. […] The Ahrar bubble has been pricked. Their political game of winning popularity for electioneering purposes by unduly emphasising the Qadiani issue is no longer as successful as it used to be once.”
Ahrar’s demand from Muslim Anjumans
On 31 January 1936, “Majlis-e-Ahrar demanded from all Muslim Anjumans [societies] from all over India to expel” Ahmadis “from their institutions.” When the Anjuman Himayat-e-Islam did not expel the Ahmadi members, the Ahrar made a desperate move and “presented a resolution on behalf of the public, at the annual Jalsa of the Anjuman Himayat-e-Islam,” demanding that the Ahmadis “must be expelled from the Anjuman immediately, since they are non-Muslims, and a non-Muslim cannot be a member of the Anjuman Himayat-e-Islam. Upon this resolution, there was a bit of a hue created; however, at last, the resolution was passed.” (Karwan-e-Ahrar, Vol. 2, 1977, Maktabah Tabsarah, Lahore, pp. 328-329)
Ahrar’s demand from Jinnah
In 1936, some Ahrar leaders had a meeting with Mr Jinnah in Lahore, in which they offered him their support in the upcoming Provincial elections on one condition that the doors to join the Muslim League would be closed for Ahmadis. Upon this, Jinnah said that this decision can only be made by the All-India Muslim League. (Karwan-e-Ahrar, Vol. 2, 1977, Maktabah Tabsarah, Lahore, pp. 372-273)
An attack
On 17 September 1936, when Hazrat Musleh-e-Maudra was returning from the Qadian railway station after saying goodbye to Hazrat Sahibzada Mirza Nasir Ahmadrh who was going back to England for his studies, an opponent threw a stone at the car of Huzoorra. However, by the grace of Allah, Huzoorra remained unharmed. (Al Fazl, 19 September 1936, p. 2)
Reporting on this, The Civil and Military Gazette wrote on 20 September 1936, under the heading “Serious Situation in Qadian”:
“Sheikh Bashir Ahmed, President of the All-India National League, has issued the following statement to the press:
“‘A very serious situation has arisen in Qadian as a result of an attack on the head of the community. When Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad, Head of the Ahmadiya community of Qadian, was returning from the Qadian railway station after saying goodbye to his son [Hazrat Sahibzada Mirza Nasir Ahmadrh], who was returning to England to continue his studies at Balliol College, Oxford, stones were thrown at his car.
“‘The culprit could not be traced. Great concern prevails among members of the community throughout the Punjab, and volunteers are going to Qadian to defend the sacred person of their leader.’”
On 29 September 1936, the Ahrars held a conference in Sialkot, where “Maulana Habib-ur-Rehman Ludhianvi said that they had determined to oppose the Ahmedyas and to secure freedom.” (The Civil and Military Gazette, 2 October 1936, p. 7)
Anti-Ahmadiyya propaganda in Ahrar’s electoral manifesto
In their manifesto for the upcoming Provincial elections of 1936-37, which was in fact a speech of Chaudhry Afzal Haq, they also included hateful propaganda against Ahmadiyyat, which stated:
“It is the duty of every patriot person to remain aware of the plans of this ‘enemy’ of the country. I expect from the Islamic communities of the country, in addition to the political parties, that they should keep an eye on” the “activities of this ‘enemy’ of the Muslim world. They pretend to be friends but are the enemies of the Muslims. […] Due to the full encouragement from the Government, they pose themselves as Muslims and are very swiftly seizing the rights of the Muslims.” (Karwan-e-Ahrar, Vol. 2, 1977, Maktabah Tabsarah, Lahore, p. 451)
In this manifesto, they also declared Ahmadis to be the “enemies” of the Holy Prophet Muhammadsa.
The only purpose behind such false and hateful propaganda against Ahmadiyyat was to get some sympathy from the Muslim community during the elections; however, despite all these desperate moves, “Majlis-e-Ahrar faced a huge defeat in Punjab and other provinces.” (Ibid., p. 495)
A failed ‘prediction’ of Chaudhry Afzal Haq
Mentioning the Ahrar’s efforts against Ahmadiyyat, during the All-India Ahrar Conference at Peshawar in April 1939, Chaudhry Afzal Haq, known as the Mufakkir-e-Ahrar, made the following statement:
“We have faith in the mercy of God that the vast system of the Ahrar will, despite financial difficulties, definitely eradicate this ‘fitna’ within ten years’ time.” (Khutbat-e-Ahrar, Vol. 1, compiled by Agha Shorish Kashmiri, Maktaba-e-Ahrar, Lahore, 1944, p. 37)
The early part of this article has narrated the details in light of facts as to how the Ahrar’s activities caused unrest and chaos in British India in general and within the Muslim community in particular. So, the history is clear on this point that Ahrars were the real fitna of that time.
As far as the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamaat and its progress is concerned, after 84 years of his ‘prediction’, I would like to let the readers assess the validity of his ‘prediction’.
In another instance, Chaudhry Afzal Haq states:
“Ahrar’s current condition and [the level of] determination does not make us proud at all. There are many who have been associated with us for a very long time; however, their passion for Islam has not taken any significant shape. Regardless of how great the passion is, what is the significance of one’s life if they do not begin to make [practical] efforts? There is a huge army of Ahrar’s sympathisers; however, each of those sympathisers has not become a soldier of Islam. Right now, they are wasting their time, and for this reason, this movement is now limited to cities alone. By now, we have learnt destructive work; a constructive mindset is also required along with a destructive one.” (Tarikh-e-Ahrar, Maktaba-e-Majlis Ahrar-e-Islam Pakistan, 1968, pp. 260-261)
Ahrar’s internal dilemmas
Professor Dr Muhammad Khurshid and Professor Dr Muhammad Akbar Malik, both from the Department of Pakistan Studies at the Islamia University Bahawalpur, have concisely described Ahrar’s internal dilemmas:
“The Ahrar often acted imprudently,” and “their leaders did not care for the public sentiments in certain locations and created resentment against themselves by speaking unnecessarily against popular religious and spiritual personalities, highly venerated by the local people.” The Ahrar “had always been facing a paucity of funds.” Towards the end of 1932, “the Ahrar organ Hurriyat had to discontinue its publication due to non-availability of funds.” Next year, the Ahrar were “reported to be in a deplorable financial position, which continued to be so till the Quetta earthquake when the Ahrar leaders appealed to the public to give contributions to the Ahrar for relief work instead of contributing to the Government. How people gradually became reluctant to give contributions to the Ahrar? It is well demonstrated by the fact that on the occasion of Eid at Lahore, the Ahrar could collect only an amount of Rs. 41 from a gathering of more than 40,000 Muslims. […] One possible reason for failure of the Ahrar in collection of contributions from the public was the frequent charges of embezzlement of funds.”
They further state:
“In 1932, on at least three occasions, apprehensions were raised regarding the funds etc. In Sialkot, the Secretary of the Majlis filed a suit against the treasurer accusing him of embezzlement. In July, Zain-ul-Abdin Shah, the president of Multan branch resigned and refused to render an account of the funds at his disposal. There were instances of stealing the property of the organization by responsible workers of the Majlis. The Manager of Hurriyat, Hussain Mir, was dismissed on the charges of stealing 250 reams of newsprint. Sometimes, the Ahrar workers were found guilty of stealing petty office goods and misappropriating cash from the office of the organization. Janbaz Mirza, General Secretary Majlis-i-Ahrar Amritsar, was accused by his Ahrar friends of stealing Rs. 300 from the Ahrar office and he resigned from [the] secretary-ship. There was a split again among the Lahore and Sialkot Ahrar in March 1933, and the Ahrar Leaders were accused of misappropriating funds and not accounting for expenditure. Next year the Jullundur Muslims accused Ahrar leaders of accepting bribe from Kapurthala state authorities and of embezzlement of funds collected for propaganda purposes.” (The Political Activities of Majlis-i-Ahrar: A Critical Study, Pakistan Annual Research Journal, 2015, pp. 44-45)
Pakistan: Ahmadis and Ahrar
While much has been written on Jamaat-e-Ahmadiyya’s support for the Indian Muslims and its role in the formation of Pakistan, and readers can find various Al Hakam articles on this topic as well, let us shed some light on the Ahrar’s opposition to the Muslim League and the formation of Pakistan.
The Civil and Military Gazette wrote under the heading “Ahrar’s Opposition to Pakistan”:
“At a public meeting of the Ahrars held last night, Maulana Mazhar Ali Azhar, M.L.A., described Pakistan as being opposed to the tenets of Islam. He regarded Hakumat-i-Elahia as a real substitute, which could solve the difficulties of Muslims.” Moreover, “he criticised the policy of the Muslim League and of the Ahmediyas of Qadian.” (The Civil and Military Gazette, 13 August 1944, p. 5)
Mentioning the Ahrar’s support for the Indian National Congress in the non-cooperation movement and their opposition to the creation of Pakistan, Muhammad Jalaluddin Qadri states:
“‘The supporters of the non-cooperation’ interpreted and inferred the Quranic verses and Ahadith of the Prophetsa in accordance with the ‘policy of Gandhi’. We are unaware as to under the influence of which magic of trust, Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind and Majlis-e-Ahrar-e-Islam cooperated with the Congress in its ideology of ‘Nationalism’ that was based on unacquaintance of the Faith. […]
“An active volunteer of the Pakistan Movement, former MPA Sheikh Muhammad Saeed (of Jhang), writes in his memoirs in relation to the Majlis-e-Ahrar:
“‘Majlis-e-Ahrar and nationalist Muslims, under the leadership of Chaudhry Afzal Haq, Maulana Habib-ur-Rahman Ludhianvi, Mian Hassamuddin, Syed Ataullah Shah Bukhari, Maulana Dawood Ghaznavi, and the survivors of Maulana Sanaullah Amritsari, staunchly stood in opposition to the Pakistan Resolution. Majlis-e-Ahrar, which was in fact a branch of the Jamiat [Ulema-e-Hind], now openly came forward in opposition to [the creation of] Pakistan.’ (Mushkilat-e-Laa-Ilaah, Faisalabad, 1981, p. 56).” (Khuli Chitthi Banaam Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind wa Majlis-e-Ahrar-e-Islam [Taqdim by Muhammad Jalaluddin Qadri], Maktaba-e-Rizwiyyah, Lahore)
The Munir Inquiry Report stated:
“Though they had cut themselves off from the Congress, the Ahrar continued to flirt with that body right up to the Partition. One of the resolutions passed by the Working Committee of the Majlis-i-Ahrar which met at Delhi on 3rd March, 1940, disapproved of the Pakistan plan, and in some subsequent speeches of the Ahrar leaders Pakistan was dubbed as ‘Palidistan’. […] In the resolution passed by the Punjab Provincial Ahrar Conference held at Gujranwala from 17th to 19th March 1943, and in a subsequent resolution passed at Saharanpur in the same year they declared themselves against the proposed Partition which they described as vivisection of the country.” (Report of the Court of Inquiry constituted under Punjab Act II of 1954 to enquire into the Punjab Disturbances of 1953, 1954, p. 11)
It further states:
“The Partition of 1947 and the establishment of Pakistan came as a great disappointment to the Ahrar because all power passed to the Congress or the Muslim League, and no scope for activity was left for the Ahrar in India or in Pakistan. The new Muslim State had come to them as a shock, disillusioned them of their ideology and finished them as a political party.” (Ibid, p. 12)
It is stated in the Encyclopedia Pakistanica:
“In cooperation with the Congress, Majlis-e-Ahrar staunchly opposed the Muslim League and the creation of Pakistan until the general elections of 1946. Following the formation of Pakistan, general Ahrar accepted the reality; however, some of their leaders did not accept it from the heart. As a result, in order to get control over the unlawfulness and rebellion-like situation in its political activities, the Government of West Pakistan banned this Party on 27 June 1957. Since none of their pioneer leaders were alive at the time, thus, general volunteers did not take the path of protest. However, they diverted the attention of their efforts with greater fervour in favour of the Khatam-e-Nabuwwat movement, which was being run against” Ahmadiyyat. (Encyclopedia Pakistanica, Syed Qasim Mahmud, Al Faisal, p. 164)
Conclusion
The Ahrar, having a confused ideology, harboured sentiments of hate against the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community and, hence, faced a huge downfall.
On the other hand, Tahrik-e-Jadid, the scheme launched by Hazrat Musleh-e-Maud, Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmadra, in response to the Ahrar’s onslaught on Ahmadiyyat, is continuing to bear fruits. Jamaat-e-Ahmadiyya has been able to build hundreds of mosques around the world, translate the Holy Quran into multiple languages, defend the teachings of Islam amidst harsh attacks by anti-Islam movements, and take the message of Islam to the corners of the world.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Historical analysis of Ahrar’s anti-Ahmadiyya agitation – Part 1
Historical analysis of Ahrar’s anti-Ahmadiyya agitation – Part 1
Historical analysis of Ahrar’s anti-Ahmadiyya agitation – Part 1
Ata-ul-Haye Nasir, Ahmadiyya Archive & Research Centre
Emergence of the Ahrar
Some Muslim political activists in the All-India National Congress, who later broke away from the Congress due to some differences, joined hands and formed the Majlis-i-Ahrar-i-Islam on 29 December 1929.
It “was a religious-cum-political organisation founded on the ruins of the Khilafat Movement in Punjab. It was a group of Muslim leaders who had participated in Khilafat Movement of India,” and “very often cooperated with Indian National Congress in its normal activities.” (Kashmir’s Struggle for Independence (1931-1939), Muhammad Yusuf Ganai, Gulshan Books, 2003, p. 102)
The founding members of the Ahrar were Maulvi Zafar Ali Khan, Maulvi Dawood Ghaznavi, Syed Ataullah Shah Bukhari, Chaudhry Afzal Haq, Maulvi Mazhar Ali Azhar, Khwaja Abdur Rahman Ghazi, and Maulvi Habib-ur-Rahman Ludhianvi.
The Ahrar movement gathered “a group of Indian nationalists of the Moslem faith, who had found it unpalatable to work with the ‘Congress’ party.” (Coll 6/11 ‘Hejaz-Nejd Affairs: Economic Development in the Hejaz’ [27r] (54/504), British Library: India Office Records and Private Papers, IOR/L/PS/12/2077, in Qatar Digital Library, http://www.qdl.qa [accessed 22 September 2023])
Although the Ahrari leaders were pro-Congress, “they felt the need to establish a separate party, because they deemed it wise for them to be identified as a Muslim party from its name. Thus, on the suggestion of Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, the nationalist ulema laid the foundation of the Majlis-e-Ahrar-e-Islam.” (Khuli Chitthi Banaam Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind wa Majlis-e-Ahrar-e-Islam [Taqdim by Muhammad Jalaluddin Qadri], Maktaba-e-Rizwiyyah, Lahore)
Hence, “Syed Ataullah Shah Bukhari was elected its first president. In December 1929, the Congress passed the resolution of complete self-government, and in April 1930, it initiated the Salt Satyagraha. The Ahrar were mentally consorted with the Congress, they left their own organisation unattended, and accompanied the Congress in the civil disobedience.” (Syed Ataullah Shah Bukhari: Sawaneh wa Afkar, by Agha Shorish Kashmiri, Matbu‘at-e-Chitan, Lahore, p. 98)
Maulvi Mazhar Ali Azhar states that initially, the Ahrar had “no disagreement with the Congress,” and their prominent leaders “endured imprisonment during the civil disobedience movement in 1930,” which was led by the Congress. (Khutbat-e-Ahrar, Vol. 1, compiled by Agha Shorish Kashmiri, Maktaba-e-Ahrar, Lahore, 1944, p. 145)
In May 1930, Hazrat Musleh-e-Maud, Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmadra advised Muslims to refrain from such unlawful acts:
“The best option for the Muslims is to oppose any breach of the law and to urge the government to fulfil their demands.” The Muslims “ought to prove that they also desire the country’s freedom, just like the Hindus.” Ahmadi Muslims “should support Muslim rights in particular and the country’s rights in general,” and ought to “confront those who disrespect the law. Such people are not the country’s well-wishers, but rather, they are its enemies. They must be confronted in order to discourage the ideology that undermines the country’s freedom.” (A letter to the Viceroy, 1930: Hazrat Musleh-e-Maud’s efforts in preventing Indian Muslims from indulging in agitation and violence”, Al Hakam, 5 May 2023, Issue 268, pp. 14-17)
Ahrar’s anti-Ahmadiyya campaign
Chaudhry Afzal Haq, known as the Mufakkir-e-Ahrar, has stated that opposition to Ahmadiyyat “was an important part of the Ahrar’s tabligh.” (Tarikh-e-Ahrar, Maktaba-e-Majlis Ahrar-e-Islam Pakistan, 1968, p. 198)
The Ahrar initiated the anti-Ahmadiyya campaign, and as soon as this propaganda emerged as one of their strongest sentiments, they started to gain popularity amongst the Indian Muslims. While the Ahrar were taking gradual steps in their opposition to Ahmadiyyat, Hazrat Musleh-e-Maudra expressed:
“There is no doubt that we are less in number, however, being in the minority can never be a cause for fear. It is mentioned in the Holy Quran: کَمۡ مِّنۡ فِئَۃٍ قَلِیۡلَۃٍ غَلَبَتۡ فِئَۃً کَثِیۡرَۃً [‘How many a small party has triumphed over a large party’ (Surah al-Baqarah, Ch. 2: V. 250)], meaning that it has always been a practice in the world that the small truthful communities became victorious over hugely large parties. If it is true that we are a community that has been established by God Almighty, we will certainly be victorious in the world despite being in the minority.” (Khutbat-e-Mahmud, Vol. 12, p. 396)
Reasons behind the opposition
The Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamaat, since its beginning, has been at the forefront of serving the Muslim cause. For instance, when the Shuddhi Movement reached its peak in 1923, Jamaat-e-Ahmadiyya greatly served the Muslim Cause to prevent the mass conversions of the Malkana Muslims to Hinduism. For more details, see “Hazrat Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmad’sra response to the Shuddhi movement and the Jamaat’s relentless services for Islam”, Al Hakam, 17 December 2021, Issue 196, pp. 18-20)
Similarly, when the plight of the Kashmiri Muslims reached its peak, Ahmadis were seen at the forefront of striving for their rights. The Ahrar considered it a great ‘threat’ to their political aspirations. Thus, they harboured an agitation against Ahmadiyyat.
All-India Kashmir Committee
In 1931, prominent Muslim leaders gathered in Simla and formed the All-India Kashmir Committee, and Hazrat Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmadra was unanimously elected as its president.
As soon as the charge of this committee was handed over to Hazrat Musleh-e-Maudra, a new wave of awareness and awakening regarding the rights of Kashmiri Muslims spread across India. Kashmir Day started to be celebrated all over India with the participation of people belonging to every Islamic school of thought. Huzoorra himself offered the most generous financial help. Upon Huzoor’sra encouragement, Muslims all over India began funding the Kashmir movement. Huzoor’sra efforts proved unparalleled, even at the level of negotiations and dialogue with the authorities.
For more details, see “Hazrat Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmad’s Services to the Muslim Cause: Guidance for Turkey, peace in the Arab World and the Kashmir Movement” (Al Hakam, 19 February 2021, Issue 153, pp. 41-44).
Ahrar’s reaction
Upon seeing the situation, Majlis-e-Ahrar-e-Islam realised that Jamaat-e-Ahmadiyya was a force against whom they would never be able to achieve their nefarious goals:
“To the chagrin of the Ahrars, Bashiruddin Mahmud[ra], leader of the Qadian section of the Ahmadis, was appointed president of the committee on Iqbal’s recommendation. […] The fact of an Ahmadi at the helm was an excuse to damn the All-India Kashmir Committee as a British plan to sabotage efforts to enlist Kashmir into a larger Muslim whole.” The Ahrar’s act of “discrediting the committee as an outpost of Qadian proved ineffective,” because “even the Jamiat-ul-Ulema-i-Hind decided to cooperate with the Kashmir Committee.” (Self and Sovereignty: Individual and Community in South Asian Islam Since 1850, Ayesha Jalal, Routledge, 2000, p. 356)
The Al-Adl of Gujranwala, dated 9 August 1931, alleged that the Kashmir Committee had been formed at British insistence since “the Ahmadis never participate in movements that criticise the policy of Government.” (Ibid, p. 358)
Thus, “the Ahrar leaders did not endorse the constitution of this Kashmir Committee,” in fact, “they were against Mirza Bashir-ud-Din[ra], who was chief of the Ahmadiya sect. The Ahrar, considering the people belonging to the Ahmadiya sect to be non-Muslims, felt that they had no right to speak for the Muslim community. Secondly, Ahrar leaders considered Ahmadiyas to be planted by the British, and therefore, they felt that Ahmadiya would serve the interests of the British in Kashmir. They also feared that the Ahmadiyas might establish an Ahmadiya state with the aid of the British in Kashmir.” (Pakistaniaat: A Journal of Pakistan Studies, Vol. 3, No. 2 (2011), p. 92)
This baseless and false idea has been floated by Shorish Kashmiri as well, who states that the British Government “convinced Allama Iqbal to join their ranks, and laid the foundation of the All-India Kashmir Committee. […] Mirza Mahmud Ahmad[ra] became its president; however, the Ahrar protested it, [and] naturally found a political ground which they were in need of to build up their stature as a separate party.” (Syed Ataullah Shah Bukhari: Sawaneh wa Afkar, Matbu’at-e-Chitan, Lahore, pp. 101-102)
On 28 February 1936, Indian Government’s Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary in Saudi Arabia, Sir Andrew Ryan, wrote to the then Undersecretary of Saudi Arabian Foreign Affairs, His Excellency Fuad Bey Hamza, and provided information about Majlis-e-Ahrar as requested by Fuad Bey on 21 January. He mentioned the Ahrar’s opposition to Ahmadiyyat as well:
“The Ahrar movement at one time achieved much publicity in Kashmir and later became notorious for its attacks on the Ahmadiya Community.” (Coll 6/11 ‘Hejaz-Nejd Affairs: Economic Development in the Hejaz’ [27r] (54/504), British Library: India Office Records and Private Papers, IOR/L/PS/12/2077, in Qatar Digital Library, http://www.qdl.qa [accessed 22 September 2023])
In addition to the agitational politics, another plank of Ahrar’s ideology was “their move to declare Ahmadis as non-Muslims.” And “the Ahmadi involvement in the movement for Muslim rights in Kashmir intensified the Ahrar’s opposition to the Ahmadiya community.” (“The Pre-History of Religious Exclusionism in Contemporary Pakistan: ‘Khatam-e-Nubuwwat’ 1889–1953.” Modern Asian Studies 49, no. 6 (2015): 1840–74. www.jstor.org/stable/24734820.)
Ahrar create disorder in Sialkot
Following a session of the All-India Kashmir Committee, a public jalsa was organised by the Committee on 13 September 1931, where Hazrat Musleh-e-Maudra was to deliver the keynote address.
While the president of the session began his welcome address, some mischievous individuals belonging to the Ahrar started making a hue, and police asked them to move away from the gathering. However, they began throwing stones at the gathering. Huzoorra was yet to arrive at the venue, and the administration of the jalsa informed Huzoorra about the situation and requested to not come to the jalsa. However, Huzoorra did not agree and came to the stage while the stones were still being thrown at the jalsa.
Upon seeing Huzoorra on the stage, the Ahrar intensified their vile act, and since most of the Ahmadis were seated around the stage, they were affected the most. The young Ahmadis made a circle around Huzoorra, but the Ahrar were throwing stones with such intensity that three stones hit Huzoor’s hand as well. Around 25 to 30 Ahmadis were seriously injured, and many others received minor injuries.
After an hour or so, once the situation calmed, Huzoorra delivered his speech. (Al Fazl, 20 September 1931, pp. 3-4)
Huzoorra narrated the details of the establishment of the Kashmir Committee, and stated that he wrote letters to the Ahrar leaders, such as Maulvi Mazhar Ali Azhar and Chaudhry Afzal Haq, and invited them to join the Committee. They did not even respond; however, Huzoorra came to know from other sources that they did not want to work with Ahmadis. Later on, when they were invited to cooperate in relation to Kashmir Day on 14 August 1931, they objected that since the president of the All-India Kashmir Committee was the Imam of the Ahmadiyya Jamaat, they were not willing to work along with it.
Upon this, Huzoorra wrote letters to Allama Iqbal, Maulvi Muhammad Ismail Ghaznavi, and Maulvi Ghulam Rasul Mehr, and said that if his being the president was the only cause of concern for the Ahrar, he was ready to resign from the presidency, provided they convinced the Ahrar to join the Committee and act according to the strategy of the Muslim majority. However, the Ahrar responded that they would work separately. (Al Fazl, 24 September 1931, p. 4)
Towards the end, Huzoorra said:
“I advise the Ahrar that – if anyone is present here from them, they ought to convey to their fellows – I do not care about these stones and do not hold any reactionary anger against them. There is still time; they ought to refrain from such acts for the sake of the oppressed brethren of Kashmir. They should come [to make peace], and I am ready to leave the presidency, but they must promise to obey the decisions of the Muslim majority. We have witnessed their morals today, and they can come to witness ours. I assure them that even after leaving the presidency, myself and my Jamaat will support them more than their own people. Presidency does not hold any significance to me; honour is attained by serving, [as it is stated by the Holy Prophetsa:] سید القوم خادمھم. […]
“I already have immense responsibilities. I am the Imam of such a great Jamaat and have to work so much that I rarely get the opportunity to sleep before 12 or 1 at night. I have accepted this duty [Kashmir Committee’s presidency] only with the thought that the future generations of Kashmir would pray for us, and say that may Allah the Almighty bless those through whose efforts we are living a peaceful life. They [Ahrar] also have this opportunity to be the recipients of the prayers of Kashmiris.” (Ibid, p. 9)
Hazrat Musleh-e-Maud’sra article in response to Inqilab
On 23 September 1931, a newspaper, Inqilab, wrote an article about the Kashmir Committee and the Ahrar. In response, Hazrat Musleh-e-Maudra wrote an article on 24 September and expressed his views on the points mentioned by Inqilab. Huzoorra mentioned the Ahrar’s anti-Ahmadiyya propaganda and stated that they had spread a false notion during their speeches at Sialkot and other cities that the president of the Committee was using his office to preach Ahmadiyyat. (Al Fazl, 29 September 1931, pp. 3-4)
Ahrar’s campaign to declare Ahmadis as non-Muslims
Ayesha Jalal mentions that the Ahrar began a propaganda campaign among the Muslim masses that Hazrat Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmadra was “discriminating” against the non-Ahmadi Muslims, and thus, the Ahrars “embarked upon a public campaign to expel the sect from Islam.” (Self and Sovereignty: Individual and Community in South Asian Islam Since 1850, Routledge, 2000, p. 293)
Arjun Singh, editor of the newspaper Rangeen, states in his book Sair-e-Qadian:
“Majlis-e-Ahrar […] has set aside all its previous principles just to engage in antagonistic activities against Ahmadis without any reason. Moreover, nowadays, they desire to expel Ahmadi Muslims from Islam, and perhaps in the future, they will try to banish them from their homeland and subsequently from the rest of the world. However, we firmly believe that if there is any living group among Muslims, it is the Ahmadiyya Jamaat. As we have established before, the organisation and way of life of Ahmadis ensure their protection and safety. […] As their fellow countrymen, it is our duty to tell the Ahrar that a community can never be effaced with religious compulsion. We wish to categorically tell the Ahrar that their behaviour is causing great disturbance for the neighbouring communities as well, and the non-Muslims are thinking that in the presence of people favouring religious compulsion, it is difficult and impossible for the country to attain freedom.” (Sair-e-Qadian, Sardar Press, Amritsar, pp. 29-31)
Baseless ‘fear’ which scared the Ahrar
Aziz-ur-Rahman Ludhianvi, son of Habib-ur-Rahman Ludhianvi (one of the founding members of the Ahrar), states that “the Ahrar leaders felt that through the Kashmir Committee, all Muslims would convert to” Ahmadiyyat. They even wrote to the Maharaja, assuring him of their loyalty, and alleged that the Kashmir Committee was “preparing grounds to dethrone” the Maharaja “on the behest of the British.” (Raees-ul-Ahrar Maulana Habib-ur-Rahman Ludhianvi aur Hindustan ki Jang-e-Azadi, 1961, p. 159)
Janbaz Mirza, the official historian of the Ahrar, writes that Majlis-e-Ahrar believed that the Ahmadis and the British were “harmful to Islam and the freedom of India.” Hence, “in case the leadership of Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud[ra] was acknowledged, it would have harmed not only the Faith of the 3.2 million Kashmiri Muslims, but rather, the non-Indian Muslims would also be harmed by its impact. As a consequence,” Ahmadiyyat “would have engulfed the whole of Islam.” (Karwan-e-Ahrar, Vol. 1, 1975, Maktabah Tabsarah, Lahore, p. 182)
Chaudhry Afzal Haq, known as the Mufakkir-e-Ahrar, mentions that the most surprising fact for them was that the “Jamiat-ul-Ulema announced to cooperate” with the Kashmir Committee, and “the well-aware religious people felt the danger that the Muslims of Kashmir would become apostates through the” Ahmadi Muslim missionaries. (Tarikh-e-Ahrar, Maktaba-e-Majlis Ahrar-e-Islam Pakistan, 1968, p. 94)
In relation to the members of the Kashmir Committee, Ravinderjit Kaur has cited an excerpt from the newspaper Siasat, which stated that the “Ahrars failed to realize that the six persons were themselves followers of different creeds. One of them is a Shia, another is Wahabi, the third is a Suni-Wahabi, the fourth is Hanafi, the fifth is a follower of the doctrine of naturalism, and the sixth has no religion at all. From this strong heterogenous body, an objection against Qadianism was very funny.” (Political Awakening in Kashmir, APH Publishing Corporation, New Delhi, 1996, p. 179)
Hazrat Musleh-e-Maud’sra response to such assumptions
Addressing a gathering of the All-India Kashmir Committee in Sialkot, on 13 September 1931, Hazrat Musleh-e-Maudra responded to such false notions and said:
“One must ponder as to what really went wrong that all of these people – which included leaders, religious scholars, flag-bearers of freedom and liberation, well-versed in philosophy – joined together and [supposedly] suddenly decided, ‘Let us betray everyone so that the whole world could become Ahmadi.’ What magic did I possess that I managed to include all of them in this ‘conspiracy’? […] Only a mad person can assert that all of these leaders have carried out this collective ‘conspiracy’, and they have joined me despite being aware that ‘I will convert the non-Ahmadis to Ahmadiyyat’. The truth is that they presume that all of the wise people are among them, and the rest are mad. These people consider me an enemy of Islam; however, what is their loss if Islam can be helped through me? […] Maulvi Meerak Shah Sahib knows that Ahmadis are not even one per cent in Kashmir, but still, the rumour was spread there that ‘I wish to gain its kingdom.’ […] These are all provocative and unwise thoughts.” (Al Fazl, 24 September 1931, pp. 7-8)
During his Friday Sermon on 13 November 1931, Huzoorra mentioned the plight of the Muslims in Kashmir, and said, “I extended my help to these 3 million people, who were weak and helpless like orphans, and I did so without thinking about the progress of Ahmadiyyat through this [service].” (Al Fazl, 19 November 1931, p. 6)
Then, during a speech on 27 December 1931, Huzoorra mentioned that Ahmadis were selflessly helping the oppressed Muslims of Kashmir, and “if God Almighty inculcates love in someone’s heart towards us due to this service, we cannot deny this blessing of God Almighty, however, we cannot make it a tool to preach Ahmadiyyat.” (Anwar-ul-Ulum, Vol. 12, pp. 405)
Civil Disobedience Movement in Kashmir by Ahrar
The peaceful movement for the rights of Kashmiri Muslims was achieving great success under the leadership of Hazrat Musleh-e-Maudra, however, “On 1 October 1931, the Working Committee of the Majlis-e-Ahrar held its emergency meeting in Lahore, where” they “decided to initiate the civil disobedience movement in Kashmir.” (Karwan-e-Ahrar, Vol. 1, 1975, Maktabah Tabsarah, Lahore, p. 193)
In fact, “the success of the constitutional methods of” Hazrat Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmadra “who also saw his way to sympathise with the State subjects, made Ahrars green with jealousy. Some prominent Punjab leaders admired the peaceful intervention of the Qadian community and made its head the President of the Kashmir Committee. That the head of the Ahmadiyya community should earn the tributes of the sober Muslim leaders was another thorn in the sides of the Ahrars. It was because their own extremist methods were deprecated. This is the primary cause of the Ahrar campaign against Qadian, while political jealousy was shelved, religious sentiments were roused. New-fangled schemes were propounded to exclude Ahmadias from the Muslim community. […] It was under the garb of religion that they approached the masses, who reacted to their tactics. But the expected success did not come, even though they sent so far as to launch their thunder in Qadian. Their hostilities were met with a calm policy of constructive work.” (The Civil and Military Gazette, 14 December 1937, p. 10)
A complicated situation which was faced by “both the British and the Dogra government was that the Ahrar party, watching Kashmir slipping through their fingers into the hands of the Kashmir Committee, decided to send jathas (bands of volunteers) into state territory through the Jammu province. They claimed that the Kashmir Committee was run by Ahmadiyyas for the propagation of their ‘sacrilegious’ sect in Kashmir.” (Languages of Belonging: Islam, Regional Identity, and the Making of Kashmir, Chitralekha Zutshi, Oxford University Press, 2004, p. 220)
It was feared that these acts of the Ahrar would “embroil the whole Muslim community with the Government of India, and it is common knowledge that some of their elders urge that the Ahrar sect should be disowned if they refuse to cease the recruitment and dispatch of jathas (bands of men).” (Aberdeen Press and Journal, 7 November 1931, p. 7)
It was due to their unconstitutional and unlawful methods that the Ahrar leaders failed to attract the support of decent Muslim opinion for themselves in order to satisfy their ambition to exist as an individual entity. (Political Awakening in Kashmir, Ravinderjit Kaur, APH Publishing Corporation, New Delhi, 1996, p. 158)
Baseless accusation by Ahrar and Hazrat Musleh-e-Maud’sra response
Janbaz Mirza narrates that since Syed Ataullah Shah Bukhari was expressing certain opinions against the British policy in India, the Government arrested him from Delhi under Section 124. As a protest against his arrest, Maulvi Mazhar Ali Azhar sent a letter to the Viceroy of India, stating that “it is generally believed that Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud[ra] is the factor behind the arrest of Syed Ataullah Shah Bukhari under Section 124. I have information that the Delhi government is not alone in approving the action against Shah Ji.” (Karwan-e-Ahrar, Vol. 1, 1975, Maktabah Tabsarah, Lahore, pp. 221-222)
Refuting this false allegation, Al Fazl wrote on 27 October 1931:
“Another false notion that is being spread nowadays is that the arrest of Syed Ataullah Shah Bukhari during his activities in Mughalpura occurred at the behest of Hazrat Khalifatul Masih II, may Allah be his Helper. Due to the fact that this incorrect statement is being spread widely and an attempt is being made to misguide the public, we announce that this is a completely incorrect and false statement. In this relation, Hazrat Khalifatul Masih II has stated, ‘I consider it to be against decency to hatch conspiracies of arrest and imprisonment against those with whom one has some disagreements.’ It is hoped that after this statement, no one will have any kind of misunderstanding.”
Ahrar’s desperation
In October 1931, a delegation of the Ahrar leaders presented certain demands to the Maharaja, such as the establishment of a Responsible Government in Kashmir, however, it was rejected. “The return of the Ahrar-i-Islam leaders from Kashmir in a bad temper led to renewed agitation. This took the form at first of very bitter and organized attacks on the” Ahmadi “leaders. The Ahrars thought that the” Ahmadis, “through their influence on the constitutionally inclined All India Kashmir Committee, had secured several points over the Ahrar leaders in Kashmir itself.” (Political Awakening in Kashmir, Ravinderjit Kaur, APH Publishing Corporation, New Delhi, 1996, p. 178)
Kaur further states:
“The Syasat of 31st October, 1931, criticizing the policies of the Ahrars, wrote that if Mazhar Ali’s party had been honest, it should have in the first place worked in cooperation with the Kashmir Committee; and if this had not been possible, it should have given an opportunity to the Committee to carry on its work and should not have come into the field until it had been proved that the Kashmir Committee did not want to do work. If the Ahrars were of the opinion that the work regarding Kashmir should not be entrusted to the Kashmir Committee, it was their duty to invite the Muslims of different schools of thought and form a united party after placing their views before them. But in this way, they would not have been able to collect funds and subscriptions which was their real object. ‘If there had not been an opportunity of making money out of it, surely the Ahrar would not have interfered with this work.’” (Ibid, p. 179)
Allah is the Protector of Ahmadiyyat
During his Friday Sermon on 13 November 1931, Hazrat Musleh-e-Maudra said that generally, the non-Ahmadi Muslim members of the All-India Kashmir Committee provided him with great support as the president of the Committee; however, “there is another group [Ahrar] that opposed us well, and in some areas they opposed us with such severity that the local Ahmadis found it difficult to even visit the markets. In some places, they even physically beat the [Ahmadi] women, children, and elderly, and it is said that they announced, ‘We would crush Ahmadiyyat, send mobs to Qadian, and make lives difficult for Ahmadis.’ However, if this Community is from God, and we firmly believe it to be so, no one can ever dare destroy it. […] It is time for us to instil diligence, wakefulness, and a spirit of faith within us, and not to frighten ourselves from these hardships, but rather, we ought to be happy that Allah the Almighty has provided means for bringing us closer to Him.
“Moreover, despite the people’s animosity towards us, it is our duty to treat them with benevolence and kindness. Ignorant is the one who says, ‘We should mistreat a certain person since they are opposing us.’ […] Thus, it is our duty to treat them in a good manner, despite them being our opponents, and not to commit any act that holds any aspect of animosity. […] Hence, the need of the time is for us to exhibit the same examples that have been taught to us by the Promised Messiahas:
گالیاں سن کر دعا دو، پا کے دکھ آرام دو
کبر کی عادت جو دیکھو تم دکھاؤ انکسار
“[‘If they abuse you, pray for them; if they hurt you, comfort them; If they show arrogance, you show humility.’ (Barahin-e-Ahmadiyya [English], Part 5, p. 201)] […]
“If we exhibit such examples, their hearts will also feel the anguish, and the sentiments of love will be inculcated in their hearts. At last, a day will come when Allah the Almighty will create perfect unity within the Muslims for their progress, and Satan will be disappointed in its efforts to create division and anxiety and will know that it is impossible to instil disunity within this community. […] So, we should never be disappointed and need to have firm faith that Allah the Almighty will create means for the betterment of the Muslims and will inculcate unity among them for their progress. Only those people who are followers of Satan get disappointed, whereas the beloved ones of God are always those who never get disappointed in His mercy.” (Khutbat-e-Mahmud, Vol. 13, pp. 285-287)
Maharaja’s announcement and Ahrar’s behaviour
On 12 November 1931, the Maharaja of Kashmir made an announcement and promised the Kashmiri Muslims to accept certain demands of them. The Maharajah “ordered that matters of immediate concern are to be inquired into before the handling of the question of constitutional reform by the Commission over which Sir Reginald Glancy is to preside.” (The Yorkshire Post, 13 November 1931, p. 9)
The next day, on 13 November, more than 20,000 Muslims gathered in Srinagar and passed a resolution to welcome this step from the Maharaja. However, it was “expressed by Muslim leaders that a continuation of the civil disobedience campaign by the Ahrars will only complicate a problem that is now in a fair way towards [a] satisfactory solution.
“Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad, President of the All-India Kashmir Committee, after expressing his satisfaction at the announcement, added:
“‘In my opinion, the Government of India and also His Excellency the Governor of the Punjab deserve our thanks for their choice of Mr. Middleton to inquire into the causes of the disturbances, for no better man could be chosen, but it must be pointed out that the scope of this commission has been limited to the time not covered by the Dalal report, which is a serious defect and must be remedied.” (The Civil and Military Gazette, 15 November 1931, p. 1)
It was believed that the “Ahrars have lost the little sympathy they ever had by their unreasonable behaviour, and except in the Nationalist section of the Urdu Press, they can find support in no Muslim paper. Indeed, their manifestos are definitely excluded from publication in the two English organs of the community.” (The Civil and Military Gazette, 16 November 1931, p. 3)
Chiragh Hassan Hasrat states that “the inquiry commission had been announced, and the Kashmiris seemed to be satisfied to a great extent. When the movement of the Ahrar intensified, the people feared that these agitated youngsters might spoil all the efforts.” (Kashmir, Qaumi Kutub Khana, 1948, p. 165)
Chaudhry Afzal Haq’s statement
Janbaz Mirza has mentioned that after the appointment of the Glancy Commission, a meeting took place at the house of Sir Sikander Hyat Khan, where Hazrat Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmadra was also present. Janbaz Mirza states that Hazrat Musleh-e-Maudra “validated the appointment of the Glancy Commission; however, Chaudhry Afzal Haq did not support any decision of the Glancy Commission and declared its appointment to be fruitless for the Kashmiris. On the same day, Sheikh Abdullah accepted the Glancy Commission in his statement issued from Kashmir. After these developments, Ahrar’s civil disobedience took a new turn, and in addition to the Maharaja of Kashmir, this battle began to be fought directly against the Hindu Press, toady Muslims,” Ahmadi Muslims, “and Britain.” (Karwan-e-Ahrar, Vol. 1, 1975, Maktabah Tabsarah, Lahore, p. 221)
Mentioning the meeting, Chaudhry Afzal Haq states that he addressed Hazrat Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmadra and said:
“With the grace of God, we have also made a resolve that we will try our utmost to efface this Jamaat [Ahmadiyyat].” (Tarikh-e-Ahrar, Maktaba-e-Majlis Ahrar-e-Islam Pakistan, 1968, p. 126)
During a speech on 28 December 1944, Huzoorra stated that during the above-mentioned meeting, Chaudhry Afzal Haq said that since Ahmadis did not support him in the elections, “we have made a firm resolve to crush Ahmadiyyat.” Upon this, “I smiled and said that if it was possible for a human to crush Jamaat-e-Ahmadiyya, it would have been crushed a long time ago, and even now, if it can really be crushed by a human, it surely does not deserve to live on.” Sir Sikandar tried calming down Afzal Haq; however, he repeated, “I have been disrespected, and now I am determined to crush Ahmadiyyat.” (Al Maud, Anwar-ul-Ulum, Vol. 17, pp. 591-592)
‘Do not threaten us with fire’
During a speech on 27 December 1931, Hazrat Musleh-e-Maudra said that the Ahrar are “opposing Ahmadiyyat everywhere. One of their leaders has stated that their opposition to Ahmadiyyat holds great benefit for them since they could never achieve fame among the public without it.” Now, “such circumstances have occurred in Punjab that upon witnessing them, one is reminded of the Promised Messiah’sas time. Particularly, the opposition in Sialkot is very serious, and Ahmadis are being made subject to hardships,” and they are threatening to bring mobs to Qadian.
“Our response to them is, ‘What is your significance? If you wish, bring along all the governments and nations of the world and try to overpower us, and if you succeed in your attempt, you would have the right to call us liars.’ If these people made such an attempt, they would come to know what power they were confronting. […] This is a Divine Community and it is His desire and Will to make it successful; no human power can ever do anything against it.” However, “we do not say, ‘We will crush them’, but rather, we say, ‘God will crush them, regardless of how great armies they gather along with them against us. In Islamic terminology, the synonym for the word ‘animosity’ is ‘fire’, and the Promised Messiahas had received a revelation:
آگ سے ہمیں مت ڈرا۔ آگ ہماری غلام بلکہ غلاموں کی غلام ہے۔
“[Do not threaten us with fire, for fire is our servant and indeed, the servant of our servants. (Tadhkirah [English], p. 537)]
“Thus, it is merely their imaginary thought that they could overpower us. Even if they kill us all and then burn us and throw the ashes in the air, Ahmadiyyat will still remain established in the world, spread to every nation and continent, and be seen in all corners of the world. This is a seed that has been planted by God,” and even if all nations joined together, they would be unable to harm Ahmadiyyat. (Anwar-ul-Ulum, Vol. 12, pp. 405-407)
Ahrar’s ‘Anti-Qadian Day’
To express their hate towards Ahmadiyyat, the Ahrar held a series of ‘Anti-Qadian Days’, such as on 17 January 1932. This act of the Ahrar was emphatically condemned by a newspaper, “Rahnuma” of Rawalpindi, on 21 January 1932. The article described their acts as an attempt to harm Muslim unity.
During his Friday Sermon on 22 January 1932, Hazrat Musleh-e-Maudra advised Ahmadis that though the Ahrar were spreading hate against the Jamaat and fueling the anti-Ahmadiyya sentiments within the Muslim Community, they were required not to fear this opposition and continue to help the oppressed Muslims of Kashmir through prayers and financial sacrifices. (Khutbat-e-Mahmud, Vol. 13, p. 341)
Tabligh: Response to Ahrar’s opposition
During his Friday Sermon on 5 February 1932, Hazrat Musleh-e-Maudra said that the Ahrar were spreading hate and mischief against Ahmadis and holding public gatherings, where they “used abusive language against the Promised Messiahas and carried out various kinds of mischief.” Ahmadis are required to respond to such acts through tabligh with more zeal, “and to show to the opponents that we cannot abandon the name of the Promised Messiahas with the fear or fright of anyone.” (Khutbat-e-Mahmud, Vol. 13, p. 358)
Kashmiri Muslims were ‘suspicious’ of Ahrar
Gradually, the reality of Ahrar began to unfold. The religious veil was used merely to attract the attention of the Muslim masses; however, the goals were completely political:
“The Ahrars in Lahore” are now “turning to the Congress campaign and initiating civil disobedience. […] These incidents are opening the eyes of all thinking Muslims to what we ourselves have maintained from the beginning, namely, that the so-called Ahrar Muslims were nothing other than a section of Congress, detached to entrap their brethren into the Congress fold. The same tactics, the same slogans, have been evidenced throughout the Maclagan Engineering College dispute, the contest with the Ahmadiyyas at Sialkot, the later phases of the Kashmir campaign and now openly in the civil disobedience movement.” (The Civil and Military Gazette, 3 March 1932, p. 2)
“Kashmir’s political and religious circles always remained suspicious of Ahrar’s support or help so they refrained from helping Ahrar emerge as a forceful political party in Kashmir.” (Pakistaniaat: A Journal of Pakistan Studies, Vol. 3, No. 2 (2011), p. 99)
According to Ayesha Jalal, “the story of the Congress’s unofficial support of Ahrars in the Punjab for the most part has been kept under wraps. Needing something of a base among Muslims in the province, the Ahrars were an obvious choice.” On the other hand, “having survived the ignominy of being bested by the Ahmadis in the contest for Kashmir, the Ahrars were not prepared to be dictated to by others.” When Sheikh Abdullah formally dissociated himself with the civil disobedience campaign, “the Ahrars charged him for being on the payroll of the Kashmir Committee and, more damagingly, a henchman of the Ahmadis. Refuting the accusations as plainly sinister, the Kashmiri leader maintained that he was proud of being a member of a non-sectarian organization devoted to the welfare of the persecuted.” (Self and Sovereignty: Individual and Community in South Asian Islam Since 1850, Routledge, 2000, pp. 361-362)
Chiragh Hassan Hasrat states that the Kashmiri leaders “were very hesitant to cooperate with the Ahrar. It had several multiple reasons. First, the Ahrar had a blemish for being a by-product of the Congress, which was not completely cleaned yet.” On the other hand, the Ahrar “did not respect the young Kashmiri leaders, and insisted that whatever is decided on the issue of Kashmir, must be done after consulting them. Whereas the stance of the young Kashmiri leaders was, ‘If you can help us like the Kashmir Committee is doing, you are most welcome, otherwise, do not interfere in our matters.’” (Kashmir, Qaumi Kutub Khana, 1948, pp. 165-166)
A Kashmiri leader, Sheikh Abdullah, wrote in his book Aatish-e-Chinar that “the All-India Majlis-i-Ahrar saw our misery as a good opportunity to build up their political stature.” (Aatish-e-Chinar, p. 139, Published by Ali Muhammad & Sons, Srinagar)
The Ahrar began spreading rumours about Kashmiri leaders, about which Sheikh Abdullah writes, “In order to put veil on their shortcomings, they gave currency to the story that Sheikh Abdullah has become an Ahmadi,” however, “I had no links at all with Ahmadiyyat in terms of beliefs.” (Ibid, p. 143)
Ahrar agitation was ‘un-Islamic’
It was believed that “the whole Ahrar agitation” was “un-Islamic, and undesirable in the interests of the community. The agitation began, for a purely sectional reason, in order to attack the lead of a sect, with which the Ahrars were not in sympathy.” (The Civil and Military Gazette, 7 March 1932, p. 3)
In an interview in Lahore, in 1932, Sheikh Abdullah “paid high tribute to the services rendered to the Kashmir Muslim cause by the Kashmir Muslim Committee and particularly by its president, the head of the Ahmadiyya community of Qadian. As for the Ahrars,” he “considered that the policy of their leaders had been ill-advised and certainly too dictatorial for the Kashmiris, and had done more harm than good.” (Ibid, 11 July 1932, p. 3)
By the end of 1932, witnessing their failure in various attempts to sabotage the peaceful movement for the oppressed Kashmiri Muslims, the Ahrar hatched a vicious plan to initiate a much stronger and dangerous campaign against Ahmadiyyat. Its details will be presented in the second part of the article, insha-Allah.
Click here for Part 2
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Historical analysis of Ahrar’s anti-Ahmadiyya agitation – Part 2
Historical analysis of Ahrar’s anti-Ahmadiyya agitation – Part 2
Ata-ul-Haye Nasir, Ahmadiyya Archive & Research Centre
Witnessing their failure in various attempts to sabotage the peaceful movement for the oppressed Kashmiri Muslims, the Ahrar hatched a vicious plan to initiate a much stronger and more dangerous campaign against Ahmadiyyat at the beginning of 1933.
Ahrar’s anti-Ahmadiyya campaign intensifies
The Ahmadis were at the forefront of advocating Muslim rights, which “was too much for the Ahrars, who were determined that the Ahmadis would not steal a march on them.” Hence, “Qadian, the Ahmadi headquarters, became the prime focus of the Ahrar’s assault. The Ahrar leadership had already instituted the Dawat-o-Irshad on 4 March 1933 with the purpose of raising funds as well as a volunteer corps of 100,000 men to combat the growing influence of the Ahmadiya. While this grandiose scheme never came to fruition, the Ahrar persisted in their anti-Ahmadiya activities.” Importantly, the “animosity towards the Ahmadis provided the glue for a movement that otherwise might have rapidly disintegrated.” (“The Pre-History of Religious Exclusionism in Contemporary Pakistan: ‘Khatam-e-Nubuwwat’ 1889–1953.” Modern Asian Studies 49, no. 6 (2015): 1840–74. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24734820.)
Chaudhry Afzal Haq, known as the Mufakkir-e-Ahrar, has stated that their opposition to Ahmadiyyat “was due to both political and religious reasons,” and “it was impossible to imagine about freedom [of India] without minimising the influence of this Jamaat.” (Tarikh-e-Ahrar, Maktaba-e-Majlis Ahrar-e-Islam Pakistan, 1968, pp. 178-179)
On 25 February 1936, Mr Metcalfe from the Foreign and Political Department of the Indian Government sent a telegram to Sir Andrew Ryan who was serving as the Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary in Saudi Arabia, including a “Note recording the history of the Ahrar Movement in India”. In January 1936, the Undersecretary to the Foreign Affairs of Saudi Arabia had inquired about Majlis-e-Ahrar from Sir Andrew Ryan.
The note stated:
“This Majlis lost no opportunity to advertise itself and it was fortunate in securing an ideal stage in the Kashmir agitation of 1931-32. When this died down the Ahrars found their importance diminishing and therefore they turned their attention to fresh fields and at the close of 1933 they embarked on an attack on the Ahmadiya community.” (Coll 6/11 ‘Hejaz-Nejd Affairs: Economic Development in the Hejaz’ [32r] (64/504), British Library: India Office Records and Private Papers, IOR/L/PS/12/2077, in Qatar Digital Library, http://www.qdl.qa [accessed 22 September 2023])
This note also highlights the fact that certain political sections of the Sikh and Hindu communities had been supporting the Ahrar in their campaign against Ahmadiyyat. (Ibid)
Due to their violent actions, the Ahrar were “shunned by Sheikh Abdullah and other volunteers. However, the Ahrars always claimed themselves as the ultimate saviors of Kashmir. They condemned the Ahmadiyyas as kafirs. They transformed the Kashmir agitation into a holy war against the Ahmadiyyas by launching an agitation against them in Punjab and Kashmir.” Moreover, “the pro-Ahrar newspapers referred to Ahmadiyyas and British intrigues in collaboration with Maharaja Hari Singh.” Further, “Sheikh Abdullah and his followers were alleged to be followers of the Ahmadiyyas.” (Social Scientist, Vol. 49, March-April 2021, p. 63)
In this regard, C. Bilqees Taseer states:
“Because of the fact that the first Chairman of the All India Kashmir Committee, Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmed[ra] and some other members, including Sir Zafrullah Khan[ra] were Ahmedis, Mian Amiruddin said in an interview with me in Lahore in January, 1984 that he asked Khawaja Saaduddin Shawl of Srinagar to bring Sheikh Abdullah, in September, 1932, to a pre-arranged meeting place at a restaurant near the Jhelum river, where Sheikh Muhammad Sadiq of Amritsar was also present, and Sheikh Abdullah was asked to prepare a statement for the press to the effect that he was not a member of either the Qadiani or the Lahore group of the Ahmedis and this statement was published in all the Lahore newspapers. Mian Amiruddin added that in Srinagar, where Mirwaiz Muhammad Yusuf Shah had been the first to make the same accusation against Sheikh Abdullah he was required to give a similar declaration in a public meeting. The fact that at this time he kept a small beard helped to lend credence to the rumour of his being an Ahmedi, but he was actually a Hanifi-Sunni. […]
“Because of being at the head of the relief and rehabilitation work being done in the years 1931-33 for the Kashmiris affected by the July, 1931 uprisings Sheikh Abdullah had a fair amount of correspondence with Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmed[ra], particularly regarding details of expenditure of funds entrusted to him. It was after the two meetings, one with Mian Amiruddin, one in a public meeting in Srinagar regarding allegations about his own faith that he wrote on 22-10-32 to Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmed[ra] (in Urdu):
“‘I have been asked about my faith. My God knows what I am, who I am. I know my God is fully aware about my faith and my mission for the liberation of the Kashmiris from the Dogra raj.’
“Sheikh Abdullah, Bakshi Ghulam Muhammad and Abdul Majid Qarshi of Jammu many times expressed their thanks to Mirza Bashiruddin[ra] for his great help to the Kashmiri cause and hoped he would continue his financial support after the immediate crisis was finished, which according to Sheikh Muhammad Ahmed Mazhar he did.” (The Kashmir of Sheikh Muhammad Abdullah, Ferozsons Pvt. Ltd, Lahore, 1986, pp. 10-11 and 16)
It was unfortunate that the Ahrar’s focus and emphasis was completely on their opposition to Ahmadiyyat. (Encyclopedia Pakistanica, Al Faisal, Lahore, p. 164)
‘Endure these trials with patience’: Hazrat Musleh-e-Maud’sra advice to Ahmadis
While the Ahrar were intensifying their opposition against Ahmadis, Hazrat Musleh-e-Maudra advised Ahmadis to endure these hardships with patience. During his Friday Sermon on 3 March 1933, Huzoorra mentioned his lecture which he delivered at a gathering in Sialkot, in 1931, where Ahrar attacked with stones resulting in many injuries to Ahmadis and three to four stones hit Huzoor’sra hands as well:
“It is our duty to endure these trials with patience, like the [Holy Prophet’ssa] Companionsra had endured all hardships with patience and perseverance. […] You ought not to be a coward, but rather, be courageous, however, you must act in accordance with the pathway taught to you by God. You are required to preach the Word of God which has descended from Him, and propagate the teachings which you have learnt through the Promised Messiahas. […]
“You are required to pay attention to tabligh, and endure the hardships with patience. If the opponents [wish to] kill you, you are required to preach with even more passion. If they abuse you, pray for them. If you exhibit such an example, a great revolution will occur within a year. […] You must remember that falsehood does not stand for long. It is stated in the Holy Quran:
جَآءَ الۡحَقُّ وَزَہَقَ الۡبَاطِلُ ؕ اِنَّ الۡبَاطِلَ کَانَ زَہُوۡقًا
“‘Truth has come and falsehood has vanished away. Falsehood does indeed vanish away [fast].’ (Surah Bani Israil, Ch. 17: V. 82)
“Thus, no doubt, they will mislead people for a short period of time, but falsehood always vanishes away, and the truth always prevails. Hence, during these days, carry out tabligh with greater zeal.” (Khutbat-e-Mahmud, Vol. 14, pp. 33-41)
Ahrar behind the unrest within the Kashmir Committee
While the movement for the rights of oppressed Kashmiris was achieving great success under the leadership of Hazrat Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmadra, through peaceful methods, the Ahrar created unrest within the Kashmir Committee. The Ahrar left no stone unturned to create suspicion within the hearts of Indian Muslims towards this Committee, and they would also declare certain Muslim leaders to be Ahmadi or well-wishers of Ahmadis, such as Khwaja Hassan Nizami Sahib, Maulvi Muhammad Ismail Ghaznavi, Syed Habib Sahib of Siasat and Maulana Ghulam Rasul Sahib Mehr. Moreover, they also took certain steps to undermine the efforts of local Kashmiri leaders who were in close relations with the Kashmir Committee.
Chaudhry Afzal Haq states that upon the establishment of the Kashmir Committee, Ahrar leaders went to Lahore and found Maulvi Dawood Ghaznavi a bit worried. Upon asking, he said that an Ahmadi Muslim being the president of the Kashmir Committee “would be detrimental for the Muslims; thus, I wish to meet the ulema of the city and then to make an announcement against their leadership [Hazrat Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmadra].” (Tarikh-e-Ahrar, Maktaba-e-Majlis Ahrar-e-Islam Pakistan, 1968, pp. 94-95)
He further states that “the same day or the next, there was a jalsa of the dignitaries of the city at the Muhammadan Hall, presided over by Allama Iqbal, where the disturbing situation of Kashmir was discussed. Maulana Mazhar Ali, probably Maulana Dawood Ghaznavi as well, and I went to the Muhammadan Hall with the aim of getting the support of all those [dignitaries] in favour of the Ahrar against the Kashmir Committee of Mirza Bashir[ra]. The attendees belonged to the elite class, who would express their disinterest even upon hearing the name of Ahrar; however, Dr Sahib [Allama Iqbal] insisted on taking the Ahrar ahead. Anyhow, we succeeded in compelling him to make an announcement in our favour. Now, we had gained a little room, and we just required some more courage to take complete control.” (Ibid, p. 95)
This was the level of their desperation for power. All of these actions taken by Ahrar were clearly against the Muslim interest.
According to Janbaz Mirza, official historian of Majlis-e-Ahrar, some Ahrar leaders had a meeting with Iqbal and asked, “Have you also acknowledged the” Ahmadi “leadership? If so, you would be deemed responsible in front of Allah the Almighty on the Day of Judgement if 3.2 million Muslims in Kashmir converted to” Ahmadiyyat, “following your example.” Moreover, Ahmadis “would have a misguiding impact on other Muslims as well. Therefore, you ought to announce your separation from them.” (Karwan-e-Ahrar, Vol. 1, 1975, Maktabah Tabsarah, Lahore, p. 182)
C. Bilqees Taseer states:
“The Ahrars, being pro-Congress it was said that the Congress was responsible for the rift between the All India Kashmir Committee and the Ahrars.” (The Kashmir of Sheikh Muhammad Abdullah, Ferozsons Pvt. Ltd, Lahore, 1986, p. 10)
Observing this situation, Hazrat Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmadra called a session of the Kashmir Committee on 7 May 1933 and resigned from the presidency.
During this meeting, a resolution was passed, which stated:
“This meeting deems it its duty to place on record its genuine and sincere appreciation of the valuable and sincere services rendered by Hazrat Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Sahib Mahmud[ra] to the cause of Kashmiri Mussalmans.
“That in view of the fact that Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud[ra] has volunteered to resign the Presidency of the Kashmir Committee, this Committee regretfully accepts that resignation.” (The Civil and Military Gazette, 16 May 1933, p. 8)
Sheikh Abdullah has also mentioned this sad episode in his autobiography:
“The Ahrar began emphasising that the Kashmir Committee should be vacated from” the Ahmadi members “in order to eradicate the issue of” Ahmadis. Further, a non-Ahmadi Muslim should “be appointed as the president of the Kashmir Committee. […] Consequently, Mirza Mahmud[ra] had to resign from the Committee’s presidency.” (Aatish-e-Chinar, pp. 142-143, Published by Ali Muhammad & Sons, Srinagar, Kashmir)
Mentioning these events, Janbaz Mirza states that after the meeting of Ahrar leaders with Iqbal, a session of the Kashmir Committee was called in Lahore, where “Chaudhry Afzal Haq, Maulana Mazhar Ali Azhar, and Maulana Dawood Ghaznavi attended without any invitation. Since Dr Iqbal was aware of the situation, he used his impact on the” non-Ahmadi “members of the session, separated Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud[ra] from the Kashmir Committee, and took the presidency himself.” (Karwan-e-Ahrar, Vol. 1, 1975, Maktabah Tabsarah, Lahore, pp. 182-183)
Here, he has intentionally given the false impression that Huzoorra was “removed” from the Kashmir Committee and its presidency, whereas history testifies that since Huzoorra did not want to let the rift escalate further, he himself resigned from the presidency. It also highlights the fact that Huzoorra was in no way ambitious for any worldly or political position, but rather, his sole objective was to help the oppressed people.
Janbaz Mirza added that Iqbal “occupied the presidency, from which he resigned on 3 August 1931, and all responsibilities of the Kashmir movement were handed over to the Ahrar.” (Ibid., p. 183)
Iqbal resigned by stating that the Ahmadi members of the Committee would not be loyal to anyone other than their Imam. Iqbal suggested forming a new Kashmir Committee and that it would not be open to Ahmadis. (Self and Sovereignty: Individual and Community in South Asian Islam Since 1850, Routledge, 2000, p. 364)
Agha Shorish Kashmiri acknowledges that Iqbal “resigned from the Kashmir Committee on the request of the Ahrar.” (Syed Ataullah Shah Bukhari: Sawaneh wa Afkar, by Agha Shorish Kashmiri, Matbu‘at-e-Chitan, Lahore, p. 102)
Mentioning Iqbal’s connections with the Ahrar, Chaudhry Afzal Haq wrote:
“‘Allama Sir Muhammad Iqbal was mentally an Ahrar.’ He would see danger for Islam within the aims of” Ahmadis. “Since the beginning, he believed that the” Ahmadis “are enemies of Islam, and would never adore them. Mirza Bashir-ud-Din[ra] was the president of the Kashmir Committee. Although he [Iqbal] was certainly a member, this situation was inevitable [for him]. Very soon, he recovered and began to [internally] destroy the Kashmir Committee. Moreover, he went on to encourage the organisation of Ahrar.” (Tarikh-e-Ahrar, Maktaba-e-Majlis Ahrar-e-Islam Pakistan, 1968, p. 196)
Ravinderjit Kaur states that “Mirza Sahib[ra] agreed to resign the presidentship of the Kashmir Committee on the condition that Ahrars should work in cooperation with [the] general Muslim public and in accordance with the wishes of the majority they should daily submit the accounts. The Ahrars refused to accept this offer.” (Political Awakening in Kashmir, APH Publishing Corporation, New Delhi, 1996, p. 179)
It is “a matter of regret that Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad[ra] should have retired, as I understand he has, from the Presidentship of the Kashmir Committee, where his counsels were always those of moderation and prudence. Quietly, but nonetheless with determination, he fought the battle of the Muslims of Kashmir. It was due to his efforts very largely that the important right of peasant proprietorship was conceded to the Muslim agriculturists of Kashmir and Jammu, that lawyers were sent who defended something like two thousand cases arising out of the riots free of charge—and, I think, not least important of all—he combatted the mischievous Ahrar influence.” (The Civil and Military Gazette, 15 May 1933, p. 3)
Dr Mohammad Iqbal Chawla, states:
“According to the Ahrar sources, the Ahrar leaders discussed this matter with Allama Iqbal, who allowed them to launch their separate committee to solve the problems of the Kashmiri Muslims.” (“Role of the Majlis-i-Ahrar-Islam Hind in the Kashmir Movement of 1931”, Pakistaniaat: A Journal of Pakistan Studies, Vol. 3, No. 2 (2011), p. 92)
Ahrar leaders such as “Choudhury Afzal Haq and Ataullah Shah Bukhari held a series of meetings with Iqbal and urged him to ditch Bashiruddin[ra]” and “Iqbal obediently agreed to let the Ahrars assume direction of the Kashmiri agitation.” (Self and Sovereignty: Individual and Community in South Asian Islam Since 1850, Routledge, 2000, p. 364)
On 24 to 28 August 1933, Ahrar leaders convened in Lahore and passed a resolution in which they celebrated their hollow “victory” and said that the Kashmir Committee had become purely an “Islamic party”. (Karwan-e-Ahrar, Vol. 1, 1975, Maktabah Tabsarah, Lahore, p. 362)
The demand to exclude Ahmadis from the Muslim community was “brought to a boil by the Ahrars seeking to avenge their failure to outshine everyone else in the contest to incorporate Kashmir into a larger Muslim whole.” The Ahrar succeeded in convincing Iqbal to demand the exclusion of Ahmadis from the Muslim community, the same Iqbal who, prior to 1935, not only “considered the Ahmadis a sect within Islam,” but also praised its Founder, Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas. (Self and Sovereignty: Individual and Community in South Asian Islam Since 1850, Routledge, 2000, pp. 365-366)
Allama Muhammad Iqbal had clearly declared Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas of Qadian to be “The profoundest theologian among modern Indian Muhammadans.” (The Indian Antiquary, A Journal of Oriental Research, 1900, Vol. XXIX, p. 239)
This whole episode and its unfavourable impact on Kashmiri Muslims was beautifully summarised by a political Muslim correspondent of The Civil and Military Gazette:
“The bulk of the Kashmiri Muslims themselves have no use for the Ahrars,” and “there can be no doubt from a practical point of view that the replacement of the Ahmadiyya influence on the Committee by that of the Ahrars is most deplorable in the public interests.” (The Civil and Military Gazette, 9 July 1933, p. 3)
Ahrar office in Qadian
In March 1934, Majlis-e-Ahrar opened their office in Qadian, and on the invitation of Majlis-e-Ahrar Qadian, the president of the All-India Majlis-e-Ahrar Maulvi Habib-ur-Rahman Ludhianvi visited Qadian on 23 March 1934. Upon his arrival, the Ahraris who accompanied him raised anti-Ahmadiyya slogans and used abusive language. This was followed by a jalsa, which was addressed by Habib-ur-Rahman Ludhianvi, who used vile language against the Promised Messiahas and Hazrat Khalifatul Masih IIra. He said that the British had raised Ahmadiyyat as a “fitna within Islam”, and asked his followers, “O Muslims of Qadian! It is your duty to efface this ‘fitna’ as soon as possible.” (Karwan-e-Ahrar, Vol. 1, 1975, Maktabah Tabsarah, Lahore, pp. 426-430)
According to Chaudhry Afzal Haq, the Ahrar office in Qadian was established through a certain Maulvi Inayatullah, and thereafter, Ahrar began to send their volunteers to Qadian to offer prayers at the non-Ahmadi mosques there. (Tarikh-e-Ahrar, Maktaba-e-Majlis Ahrar-e-Islam Pakistan, 1968, pp. 182-183)
Ahrar’s aim was to tempt the local Ahmadis into some kind of dispute with those volunteers in order to cause disorder. Implementing their agenda, they would use vile language against the Jamaat and the Promised Messiahas during gatherings at those mosques. They also initiated a series of anti-Ahmadiyya jalsas in various cities and during one such jalsa in Amritsar, Maulvi Habib-ur-Rahman Ludhianvi announced that Majlis-e-Ahrar “has now laid its foundations in Qadian,” and has made “a firm pledge to destroy” Ahmadis. “You ought to organise yourselves and strengthen your political power in order to compete with them.” (Al Fazl, 29 March 1934, p. 10)
Ahrar and Hazrat Sir Zafrulla Khanra
Ahrar opened up another front in their anti-Ahmadiyya agitation, in the shape of their opposition to the appointment of Hazrat Sir Chaudhry Muhammad Zafrulla Khanra as a member of the Viceroy’s Executive Council:
“Unable to resolve their internal dilemmas, the Ahrars turned to flushing out those they disapproved of in the Muslim community. Fazl-i-Husain was first to come under attack for recommending a learned and capable Ahmadi, Choudhury Zafrullah Khan[ra], as his temporary replacement on the viceroy’s executive council. Sections of the Punjab press led by the Zamindar and others in the Ahrar mould accused the Unionist leader for patronizing Ahmadi ‘infidels’ over ‘true’ Muslims like Muhammad Iqbal.” Iqbal was “evidently disappointed at being passed over for the highest office an Indian could occupy in the colonial system.” (Self and Sovereignty: Individual and Community in South Asian Islam Since 1850, Routledge, 2000, p. 364)
The Civil and Military Gazette reported on 22 September 1934:
“The most determined attempt is being made to whip up opposition to the Chaudhri Sahib’s appointment, and packed meetings are passing hole-and-corner resolutions in the name of the Muslim Community, and sending copies of them to the Viceroy, the Secretary of State, the Premier, and heaven knows whom.
“Factious Opposition
“The ostensible ground for this opposition is religious, namely that the Chaudhri Sahib belongs to the sect of the Ahmadiyyas of Qadian, whose loyalty to the Government, much more than any peculiarity in their theology, has rendered them unpopular in certain quarters. That this is so will be evident on consideration of the quarters whence the opposition comes — the discredited, but now resurgent Majlis-i-Ahrar, and the Congressite Muslims of the school of Mr. Zafar Ali Khan of the Zemindar. […] Since they could not attack him on political grounds, they have brought up his theology against him.”
Janbaz Mirza, official historian of Ahrar, states that Sir Mian Fazl-i-Husain “desired to elect Sir Zafrulla as his successor at the Viceroy’s Executive Council. As the guardian of the British interest, Sir Fazl-i-Husain was at the top of the list in Punjab; thus, upon his proposal, the Viceroy accepted to take Sir Zafrulla Khan into his Council.
“Meanwhile, when the news came to the Majlis-e-Ahrar that Sir Zafrulla was being granted representation in the Viceroy’s Executive Council as a Muslim representative, it caused great concern. Resolutions were passed all over the country, [and] protests were carried out saying that this seat is reserved for a Muslim and should be given to a Muslim. However, neither Sir Fazl-i-Husain had a second thought on this proposal, nor did the English Government deem it appropriate to ponder over it. In this regard, a deputation of Ahrar met the Viceroy, which included Maulana Habib-ur-Rahman Ludhianvi, Mir Ahmad Hussain and the lawyer of the Shimla and Allahabad High Court, Mr Muhammad Ahmad Kazmi. The Viceroy responded to the deputation:
“‘You do not consider Zafrulla Khan to be a Muslim; however, he has been elected through the Muslim votes.’ […]
“At last, through the official announcement in the newspapers on 10 October 1934, Chaudhry Sir Zafrulla Khan was appointed as a member of the Viceroy’s Executive Council.” (Karwan-e-Ahrar, Vol. 2, Maktaba Tabsarah Lahore, 1977, pp. 79-80)
When Mian Fazl-i-Husain “retired from the membership of the Indian Government [Viceroy’s Executive Council], Chaudhry Zafrulla Khan was appointed [in his place]. Upon this, ‘Zamindar’ and Ahraris made a great hue that Mian Fazl-i-Husain is favouring the” Ahmadis. “Many letters were sent to the Viceroy, stating that ‘You have appointed a “non-Muslim” to fill the vacancy of a Muslim. Remove Zafrulla Khan and appoint any other Muslim in his place.’” (Yaran-e-Kuhn, Abdul Majeed Salik, Matbu‘at-e-Chitan, pp. 87-88)
Ahrar Conference near Qadian
Majlis-e-Ahrar had planned to hold a conference in Qadian on 20-22 October 1934, and the government made precautionary measures to prevent any disorder. The correspondent of The Civil and Military Gazette reported that he visited Qadian on 13 October, “in order to inspect the preparations which are being made by the Ahrars for the conference they have advertised for October 20 to 22 and found that considerable interest was being taken by the Ahmediyas, who view with apprehension a possibility of trouble brewing between the Ahrar party and themselves.” (The Civil and Military Gazette, 19 October 1934, p. 7)
Chaudhry Afzal Haq states, “We announced to hold the ‘Ahrar Tabligh Conference’ in Qadian to defy the claims of Qadian’s sanctity.” (Tarikh-e-Ahrar, Maktaba-e-Majlis Ahrar-e-Islam Pakistan, 1968, pp. 183-184)
During these turbulent times, after receiving divine guidance, Hazrat Musleh-e-Maudra had intended to announce a scheme to propagate the message of Islam all around the world. However, before announcing the details of this scheme, during his Friday Sermon on 19 October 1934, Huzoorra informed the Jamaat about the upcoming Ahrar Conference and its mischievous objectives. Huzoorra advised Ahmadis “not to raise their hand against anyone, even if they are beaten,” and “even if they are about to be murdered, they do not have the right to lift their hand or open their mouth.” (“Tahrik-e-Jadid: The magnum opus of Hazrat Musleh-e-Maud – Part 1”, Al Hakam, 30 October 2020, Issue 137, p. 4)
The Civil and Military Gazette, on 25 October 1934, claimed that “no inflammatory speeches were made” during the Ahrar Conference. However, the truth was that the Ahrar jalsa was full of hateful and inflammatory speeches against Ahmadiyyat. Despite all these hateful speeches, Ahmadis remained peaceful and did not indulge in any violence.
Tahir Kamran, a notable historian from Pakistan, writes that “the Ahrar held a tabligh conference on the outskirts of Qadian,” where Ata Ullah Shah Bukhari “overstepped the mark in expressing his hatred of the Ahmadis.” (“The Pre-History of Religious Exclusionism in Contemporary Pakistan: ‘Khatam-e-Nubuwwat’ 1889–1953.” Modern Asian Studies 49, no. 6 (2015): 1840–74. www.jstor.org/stable/24734820.)
During his hateful speech against Ahmadiyyat, Attaullah Shah Bukhari used very abusive language against the Promised Messiahas, and while challenging Ahmadiyyat, he said, “This is Majlis-e-Ahrar. It will tear you into pieces.” (Tarikh-e-Ahrar, Maktaba-e-Majlis Ahrar-e-Islam Pakistan, 1968, p. 192)
The Munir Inquiry Report states:
“One of the main activities of the Ahrar was their opposition, in one form or another, of the Ahmadis. It may indeed be said that the Ahrar took their birth in the hatred of the Ahmadis. […] In 1934, the Ahrar decided to hold a conference in Qadian itself but on the meeting having been banned, they held the conference on 2lst October of that year in the playground of the Dayanand Anglo-Vedic High School in Rajada, a village only a mile away from Qadian, where they attracted an audience of many thousands. In that conference the popular Ahrar speaker Sayyad Ata Ullah Shah Bukhari delivered a 5-hour diatribe against the Ahmadis in the course of which he said ‘things which could have no other effect but to rouse hatred of the Ahmadis in the minds of the hearers’, the professions of peace in his speech alternating with abuse and wit of a very low order.” (Report of the Court of Inquiry constituted under Punjab Act II of 1954 to enquire into the Punjab Disturbances of 1953, 1954, p. 12)
Tahrik-e-Jadid’s announcement in a series of Friday Sermons
During his Friday sermon on 26 October 1934, Hazrat Musleh-e-Maudra commended the patience shown by Ahmadis in spite of the provocative acts by the Ahrar during the conference. Huzoorra informed members of the Jamaat about the tense situation created by the Ahrar, and said, “There is opposition from all sides, and it is your duty to uphold the dignity of the Jamaat while confronting it” and to “make whatever sacrifices you must make.” (“Tahrik-e-Jadid: The magnum opus of Hazrat Musleh-e-Maud – Part 1”, Al Hakam, 30 October 2020, Issue 137, p. 5)
During his next Friday Sermon, Huzoorra elaborated on the tribulations created by the Ahrar against the Jamaat and the unjust attitudes of some government officials. (Ibid.)
In his Friday Sermon on 9 November 1934, Huzoorra stated that at the time, religious and political parties were gathering against the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamaat and people of all religions were against this Community – not just people of one religion. Huzoorra said that after constantly praying to Allah the Almighty and after seeing a divine vision, he had prepared a scheme, which he would start outlining the following Friday. (Ibid, Part 2, Al Hakam, 6 November 2020, Issue 138, p. 10)
In his book, Tarikh-e-Ahrar, Chaudhry Afzal Haq has made the false assertion that Hazrat Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmadra had told the Ahmadis that Ahrar was the only hurdle in the way of Ahmadiyyat’s progress, and if they were defeated, Ahmadis should consider it a great victory. (Tarikh-e-Ahrar, Maktaba-e-Majlis Ahrar-e-Islam Pakistan, 1968, p. 202)
However, the fact is that Hazrat Musleh-e-Maudra advised Ahmadis that they ought not to consider the Ahrar agitation as the biggest hurdle in their way, but to be prepared for bigger and more dangerous trials. During his Friday Sermon on 16 November 1934, Huzoorra said:
“Greater trials are yet to come before the Jamaat,” and Ahmadis must realise that these hardships are “a prelude to great battles, and there are even greater trials than this to come which will be faced by the Jamaat. We are not to spread Ahmadiyyat in any one city or country, but it is to be promulgated to the whole world. So, while our goal is to compete with the whole world, how could we assume that we can easily conquer the whole world after overcoming Chaudhry Afzal Haq Sahib of Lahore, Maulvi Mazhar Ali Sahib, Ataullah Sahib Bukhari, and Maulvi Zafar Ali Sahib and their friends?” (“Tahrik-e-Jadid: The magnum opus of Hazrat Musleh-e-Maud – Part 2”, Al Hakam, 6 November 2020, Issue 138, p. 11)
Huzoorra explained that the ongoing trouble against Jamaat-e-Ahmadiyya was religious, economic and political at the same time. The people may despise us, but the Jamaat does not have enmity for anyone. The Jamaat is a well-wisher for Muslims and Hindus alike; in fact, the Jamaat wishes everyone well. (Ibid)
During his Friday Sermons on 23 and 30 November 1934, Huzoorra outlined the details of the Tahrik-e-Jadid scheme in the shape of nineteen demands. (Ibid., Part 2 and 3, Al Hakam, 6 and 13 November 2020, Issue 138 and 139)
On 30 November 1934, the Chief Secretary to the Government of Punjab wrote to the Secretary to the Government of India (Home Department), and stated:
“I am directed to report, for the information of the Government of India, that the Governor-in-Council has sanctioned the prosecution under section 153-A, Indian Penal Code, of Syed Ata Ullah Shah Bokhari, Son of Zia Ullah Shah, resident of Amritsar, in respect of an anti-Ahmadiya speech delivered by him at a public meeting held under the auspices of the ‘Shoba-i-Tabligh’ of the Majlis-i-Ahrar-i-Hind at Qadian on the 21st October, 1934, as the speech in question, of which a full translation is enclosed, is calculated to promote feelings of enmity and hatred between Ahmadiyas and other Muhammadans.
“Syed Ata Ullah Shah Bokhari is an ex-convict under Section 124-A, Indian Penal Code, and is the moving spirit of the Shoba-i-Tabligh of the Anjuman-i-Ahrar-i-Islam-i-Hind, which was responsible for the Ahrar Conference at Qadian on the 21st-23rd Octr., 1934.” (National Archives of India, Government of India: Home Department [Political], File No. 36-II/34-Poll.)
Hazrat Musleh-e-Maud’sra speech at Jalsa Qadian
During his inaugural speech at the Jalsa Salana 1934, Hazrat Musleh-e-Maudra mentioned various glad tidings of God Almighty which were granted to the Promised Messiahas, for instance:
میں تیری تبلیغ کو زمین کے کناروں تک پہنچاؤں گا۔
“I shall carry your message to the ends of the earth.” (Tadhkirah [English], p. 407)
Huzoorra continued:
“Nowadays, some people proclaim, ‘We will efface Ahmadiyyat’, others claim that ‘We have effaced Ahmadiyyat’, and certain individuals write ‘Fatih-e-Qadian’ [conqueror of Qadian] along with their names as well. However, every sane and wise person witnesses and understands that neither any ‘conqueror of Qadian’ has ever been born nor will ever be born, but rather, it is Qadian that is [spiritually] conquering the world. […] No other sect is being opposed as much as opposition has been carried out against Jamaat-e-Ahmadiyya, and is still continuing; however, Jamaat-e-Ahmadiyya has continued to flourish, is still growing, and will continue to do so. […]
“Satan will leave no stone unturned to attack along with all of its ‘armies’, however, this Community will flourish, it will flourish, and it will surely flourish. At last, the ones who have stood to efface it, will themselves be effaced. The world would witness every town of the world as the manifestation of Qadian, meaning, Ahmadis will be victorious in every town of the world, and they would exceed the others in numbers. […] Thus, I call the attention of the members that they should benefit from whichever opportunity they get to make a sacrifice, with sincerity, love, courage and steadfastness, so that God Almighty showers His special grace and blessings, and may we reach such level of progress which is essential for us to attain.” (Iftitahi Taqrir Jalsa Salana 1934, Anwar-ul-Ulum, Vol. 13, pp. 310-312)
Who was serving Islam?
On one hand, Ahmadiyyat had been serving to propagate the beautiful teachings of Islam for a half-century or so, and its Imam, Hazrat Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmadra, had recently launched the grand scheme of Tahrik-e-Jadid to enhance this endeavour, one must ponder what Ahrar were doing. In this regard, Chaudhry Afzal Haq stated during a speech at the Ahrar Tabligh Conference in Delhi in April 1941:
“I have heard the beauties and hallmarks of Islam being narrated during hundreds of speeches, however, I have not heard any Ahrar leader advising the Muslims to fulfil their religious and tablighi duties and to present the gift of Islam to the non-Muslims.” (Khutbat-e-Ahrar, Vol. 1, compiled by Agha Shorish Kashmiri, Maktaba-e-Ahrar, Lahore, 1944, p. 74)
Ahrar’s strategy: ‘Appealing to mob psychology’
On 9 January 1935, The Civil and Military Gazette published a certain Muslim’s ‘Letter to the Editor’, which stated:
“The Ahrar leaders” have “adopted a new course to win the favour of the Muslim masses by appealing to mob psychology. Today their whole attention is engaged in trying to discredit the Ahmadiyya community. […] It is sad that the Ahrars should be doing a great harm to the Muslim cause as a whole—harm that will lead to terrible consequence; for Muslim India. Let this be a timely warning to the Ahrars lest it should be too late.” The Ahrar “want to discard the members of the same creed, demanding from the Government that the Ahmadies should be treated as a separate minority. This will be a great blow to the Muslims, for even at present they exist as a poor minority, and with the departure of the Ahmadies they will be left poorer still. […] It remains the greatest tragedy of Indian Muslims, who still continue to be a backward community. Will the Ahrar leaders ponder over this vital point and exercise a measure of tolerance with regard to the Ahmadi problem?”
Governor’s letter
The then Governor of Punjab Sir Herbert William Emerson wrote to the then Viceroy of India Lord Linlithgow, on 19 October 1936, and mentioned the Ahrar’s anti-Ahmadiyya agitation. He stated:
“For some years Ahrars have been carrying on a most virulent campaign against the Ahmadis of Qadian, and especially against the present head of the community. In this campaign they had the sympathy of a large number of orthodox Muslims, and for some time the situation was one of great potential danger. It looked as if there might be a very widespread Muslim movement against the Ahmadis, and that it would be difficult for [the] Government to protect the latter. The Ahrars had found a popular platform; they were entirely unscrupulous in making the best use of it; and by raising the cry of ‘Danger to Islam’ they were fast increasing their strength.” (Punjab Politics, 1936-1939: The Start of Provincial Autonomy [Governor’s Fortnightly Reports and other Key Documents], Lionel Carter (ed.), Manohar, 2004, p. 51)
Further in this letter, he wrote:
“They are anti-Government and have flirted with Congress from time to time. They have no outstanding leaders of position, but have several good mob orators.” (Ibid.)
All-India National League
The Ahrar were continuously intensifying their anti-Ahmadiyya campaign, and the Jamaat was calling the attention of the Government to realise the severity of the situation. However, despite all these efforts, the Government was not only failing to eradicate these mischievous acts of the Ahrar, rather, some of the members of the Punjab Government were apparently supporting Ahrar in some form or another. Hence, on 25 January 1935, an organisation named “All-India National League” was formed with the aim of safeguarding the rights of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamaat and informing the Government about the true facts of the prevailing circumstances, so they could take the necessary actions.
Section 144 in Qadian
Due to the chaotic situation created by the Ahrar, the District Magistrate of Gurdaspur announced on 30 January 1935, the implementation of Section 144 in Qadian, for two months, under the Criminal Procedure Code. This step hugely impacted the daily routine life of the residents of Qadian and limited their movements and work to a great extent.
An article by The Civil and Military Gazette
The Civil and Military Gazette published a lengthy article on 9 February 1935, under the heading “Unrest at Qadian, Khalifa’s Statement on Ahmadya-Ahrar Friction”, and stated that one of their correspondents had a conversation with Hazrat Musleh-e-Maudra.
Unfortunately, this article also included certain points which were wrongly attributed to Huzoorra, and some of his words were misquoted. Thus, Huzoorra wrote an article to eradicate the misunderstandings created by this article. Huzoorra stated that since he was well aware of the fact that the interview was being held at night amidst insufficient light, and it would be very difficult for the press correspondent to accurately note down the key points of such a long discussion, thus, Huzoorra had also provided him all the relevant newspapers to later consult with. However, Huzoorra said, the press correspondent still made such huge mistakes while publishing the article. This article of Huzoorra was published in Al Fazl on 12 February 1935.
The Ahrar were continuously attempting to create disorder in Qadian, and while mentioning it, The Civil and Military Gazette stated in the above-mentioned article:
“The Khalifa Sahib described in detail the anti-Ahmadya activities of the Ahrars, who, he said, had been harassing his followers and threatening him with murder. He added that several attempts had been made on his life. The Khalifa Sahib described how a man named Mathews, recently tried on a charge of murder, had confessed in his statement in a court of law that he had listened to Ahrars at Batala and had come to the conclusion that the Khalifa Sahib was ‘an undesirable person and should be killed. With this object in view he went to Qadian, but failed.’ […]
“Recently a boy aged about thirteen was caught by a personal attendant of the Khalifa Sahib with a dagger hidden in his trousers. He was convicted. In another case, a young man went to Qadian with similar intentions but on seeing and hearing the Khalifa Sahib he confessed the object of his visit and declared his faith in him from that day. On Monday last a young Pathan, who gave his name as Sardar Khan of Peshawar, went to Qadian and said that he had gone there to declare his faith in the Khalifa Sahib. His talk gave rise to suspicion and he was handed over to the police, who on investigation, are alleged to have learnt that his real name was Feroz Din, that he belonged to Lahore, and that he had gone there with foul intentions. I have since verified that the police are prosecuting Feroz Din. […]
“During last Christmas week, when the Ahmadyas assembled in thousands to attend their annual conference at Qadian, the Ahraris also mustered strong and they distributed filthy literature amongst men, women and children of the Ahmadyas. This infuriated the latter and some of them approached their Head to take action in this matter. The Khalifa Sahib advised them to remain peaceful […and] they were not to go beyond the laws of the Government and Islam and to act according to the past traditions of their community.” (The Civil and Military Gazette, 9 February 1935, p. 6)
In the following months, the Ahrar continued the anti-Ahmadiyya propaganda, and published inflammatory literature as well:
“Several pamphlets against the Ahmadyas have been proscribed, editors have been warned and searches made in this connection. A prominent leader of the Ahraris, Maulana Sayed Attaullah Shah Bokhari, has been prosecuted, at considerable expenditure to the Government for some of his speeches delivered at Qadian. The fact that the whole of the Ahrar Press is attacking the Government as pro-Ahmadya and that Ahmadyas are not satisfied at the present state of affairs, leads one to believe that the Government is pursuing a middle course of even handed justice.” (Ibid.)
‘Seek help from God’: Guidance to Ahmadis by Huzoorra
On one hand, the Ahrar were leaving no stone unturned to harm Ahmadiyyat, on the other, Hazrat Musleh-e-Maudra was granting valuable guidance to Ahmadis during his various speeches.
During his Friday Sermon on 8 February 1935, Huzoorra advised the members of the Jamaat to endure the ongoing opposition and hardships with patience and prayers, and said that the hardships that are faced by the Divine communities are in fact the prelude to the great victories. (Khutbat-e-Mahmud, Vol. 16, pp. 108-112)
During his Friday Sermon on 22 March 1935, Huzoorra said:
“All communities are determined to oppose and humiliate us, and we have no other way than to reach out to our Lord and to pray: ‘O God, we have been made subject to disrepute, persecution, injustice and hardships without any reason, and we have been disrespected and dishonoured. We do not possess any power to confront the opponents, thus, manifest Your Power, since You are All-Powerful. O King of the kings, manifest Your Kingship. O Master, manifest your Mastership and stop them and help us.’ […]
“We have treated everyone in this world with humbleness and meekness,” and “have repeatedly said that we are not the enemy of anyone, and By God, we are well-wishers of everyone, but our words were discredited, our friendliness was ignored, our claims of obedience [to the rule of law] were made fun of, and it was said that ‘They are rebels.’ […]
“I call the attention of those for whose strength, power and betterment we are striving [Muslims]; we are those who sacrifice lives for the sake of the Holy Prophet Muhammadsa and offer sacrifices for the sake of Faith. Then, I call the attention of the Hindus and Sikhs to the fact that God is a Witness that we are not their enemy, we present to them Islam because we believe that therein lies their salvation. We do not wish for them to be disrespected or disreputed, but rather, we are their well-wishers. Then, I say to the Government that we do not desire any government; we have been born to serve [the nation]. […]
“We ought to seek help from God, but even then, we do not say that God may destroy them; rather, we only pray that He may reform their hearts and correct them. If they do not reform themselves despite being called out, we seek refuge from their evil, and if they reform themselves, may Allah the Almighty have mercy on them.” (Khutbat-e-Mahmud, Vol. 16, pp. 220-221)
Hazrat Musleh-e-Maudra in Gurdaspur
Towards the end of March 1935, Hazrat Musleh-e-Maudra visited Gurdaspur, to record his statement on the case against Ahrari leader Syed Ataullah Shah Bukhari, for his inflammatory speech at the Ahrar Conference in Qadian.
Huzoorra visited Gurdaspur on 23 March. While the statement was still being recorded, the court session was adjourned for a short break. Huzoorra proceeded to a temporary camp established for Huzoorra and his entourage. After having lunch, Huzoorra led the Zuhr prayer there and proceeded to the courtroom again. While the statement was yet to be completed, the court session was adjourned for 25 March 1935. (Al Hakam, 28 March and 7 April 1935, pp. 5-6)
Upon returning to the camp, Huzoorra delivered a short address in which he said that the believers should never get frightened by hardships, and since “it is the practice of Allah the Almighty to make the followers of prophets walk on the thorns [of opposition], we ought to understand that we would also have to endure hardships and trials; however, the ultimate victory is destined for us. You are required to supplicate, seek prayers, and inculcate the love of God Almighty in your hearts.” (Ibid., p. 7)
Reporting about Huzoor’sra statement, The Civil and Military Gazette wrote on 25 March 1935, “Khalifa Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud, head of the Ahmadya community, appeared as a defence witness today [23 March 1935] in a case against Attaullah Shah Bokhari, the Ahrar leader, who is being tried on a charge of promoting hatred between two communities. The case arose out of a speech delivered by the accused at the Ahrar Conference in last October in Qadian. […] The evidence of the Khalifa had not concluded when the hearing adjourned to Monday.”
On 25 March 1935, Huzoorra went to Gurdaspur again via a special train to continue his statement in the court. Huzoorra continued his statement, and then the court session was adjourned for a short break. Huzoorra proceeded to the camp, where he delivered a short speech, in which he advised the Jamaat to endure with patience and prayers. Huzoorra said that Divine communities are decreed to face severe opposition, however, they ultimately overpower their opponents. (Ahmadiyyat Destiny and Progress, pp. 27-32)
Hazrat Musleh-e-Maud’sra special message
On 30 March 1935, Hazrat Musleh-e-Maudra issued a special message for the members of the Jamaat, in which he advised the Jamaat “to control their emotions, to remain silent even if they are beaten, and to not care even if they are abused. On the contrary, with patience and endurance, they are required to fail the efforts that are being exerted to malign the Jamaat by the Ahrar and the officials who are backing them. […] God Almighty will soon manifest His Power, and will fail the opponents in their plans, and will manifest the innocence of our Jamaat and that we are being oppressed.” (Al Hakam, 28 March and 7 April 1935, p. 1)
Section 144 declared invalid
On 2 April 1935, the Lahore High Court issued a ruling against the implementation of Section 144 in Qadian:
“The restrictions which were imposed upon the residents of Qadian by the District Magistrate of Gurdaspur under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code and which remained in force from January 30 to March 30 last were invalid, according to a judgment delivered by Mr Justice Currie of the Lahore High Court on Tuesday.” (The Civil and Military Gazette, 3 April 1935, p. 6)
Ahrar Conference in Lahore
On 19-21 April 1935, the Ahrar held a conference in Lahore, where they “congratulated Bahawalpur on the judgment of a District Judge declaring the” Ahmadis “‘to be outside the pale of Islam’” and “opposed the appointment of Chowdhry Zafrullah Khan to the Executive Council.” (The Civil and Military Gazette, 23 April 1935, p. 8)
Judgement on Bukhari’s case
On 25 April 1935, the Magistrate Court in Gurdaspur announced its verdict on the case against Ataullah Shah Bukhari:
“The trial of the Ahrar leader, Syed Ata Ullah Shah Bukhari, in the court of a Gurdaspur Magistrate on a charge of creating hatred between two classes of His Majesty’s subjects, ended on Thursday and resulted in a conviction. The accused was awarded six months’ imprisonment and recommended to be treated as a ‘B’ class prisoner. The case, which created considerable interest among Punjab Muslims, arose from a speech delivered by the accused at an Ahrar conference in Qadian about six months ago. The object of the conference was religious propaganda against the tenets of the Qadiani sect of Muslims.” (The Civil and Military Gazette, 26 April 1935, p. 6)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Links and Related Essay’s
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majlis-e-Ahrar-ul-Islam
Click to access ahrar-ahmadiyya-despute-at-qadian.pdf
(See page 103/356, and many others, this is a document from the British library)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Tags
#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog #messiahhascome #ahmadiyyat #trueislam #ahmadianswers #ahmadiyyamuslimcommunity #ahmadiyya_creatives #ahmadiyyatthetrueislam #ahmadiyyatzindabad #ahmadiyyatrueislam #ahmadiyyamuslim #ahmadiyyatrueislam #mirzaghulamahmad #qadian #qadianism
7 Pingback