Ata-ul-Haye Nasir, Ahmadiyya Archive & Research Centre

The Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamaat has faced significant persecution in Afghanistan since the early 20^th century. During the time of the Promised Messiah^as, two of his companions, Hazrat Maulvi Abdur Rahman^ra and Hazrat Sahibzada Abdul Latif^ra were martyred in Afghanistan. The hostility against the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamaat continued in the coming years as well.

Persecution in the early 1920s

In the early 1920s, anti-Ahmadiyya sentiments were rising in Afghanistan, resulting in the brutal killings of three Ahmadis in 1924-25. It was believed that the prevailing rumours about Amir Amanullah’s conversion to Ahmadiyyat had prompted the “desire of Amir to advertise his orthodoxy.”¹ British diplomatic correspondence from this period indicates a complex political landscape, wherein the officials seemed to be somewhat hesitant to protest against these brutalities due to certain diplomatic interests. On the other hand, Jamaat-e-Ahmadiyya recorded significant protests to raise awareness and, more importantly, to make it clear that such violence did not reflect the true teachings of Islam.

In 1924, while the anti-Ahmadiyya rhetoric was intensifying in Afghanistan, we find an interesting series of correspondence to and fro the Foreign and Political Department of the British Indian Government, wherein the officials enquired about the history of Ahmadiyyat in Afghanistan. A correspondence, dated 3 May 1924, stated, “Many years ago some Afghans Mullahs who came to Qadian in the Punjab, saw the founder of the sect & on return to Afghanistan were killed by a former Amir’s orders – since then the number of followers is said to have increased.”²

This correspondence continued throughout May 1924 and the next month, it was reported by the Military Attaché at the British Legation in Kabul that “an anti-Qadiani sermon” was preached on 20 June 1924. Another correspondence, dated 4 July 1924, mentioned the reports that Amir Amanullah “had started active persecution of Qadianis again to prove the orthodoxy of his own faith.” Another report stated, “Two Mullahs named Abdul Halim and Niamatullah were recently arrested on a charge of being Qadianis.” This was followed by some further correspondence between the officials with reference to a news report of The Bombay Chronicle, dated 14 August 1924, publishing the Jamaat’s appeal for the release of the imprisoned Ahmadis.

After severe torture for a month, Maulvi Abdul Halim Sahib was released, however, Maulvi Nematullah Sahib was stoned to death on 31 August 1924. The opponents’ hostility had reached a strange level, as the NWFP Intelligence Bureau Diary for the week ending on 15 January 1925 reported that “the possession of any photographs of the late Maulvi Niamatullah, Qadiani, has been prohibited in Afghanistan.”³

His Majesty’s Chargé d’Affaires at Kabul mentioned the martyrdom of Nematullah Sahib in a letter dated 2 September and expressed that this action “is evidently due to desire of Amir to advertise his orthodoxy.”⁴

In her book, Fire in Afghanistan: 1914-1929, Rhea Talley Stewart has mentioned the persecution of Ahmadis in Afghanistan and stated that “two members of this sect entered Afghanistan in the summer of 1924, preaching their doctrines, and were arrested by the ecclesiastical courts and charged with heresy.”

She further wrote:

“Maulvi Niamatullah was executed for his beliefs on August 31. And the form of his execution was this: he was led onto an open place at Sherpur, just outside Kabul, and those who attended took up big stones and threw them at him until he was dead. […]

“A week after this stoning Amanullah spoke in the mosque following midday prayers and asked for the denunciation of all Qadianis, who he said would be executed according to law. […]

“In India, whence the Qadianis had come, news of the stoning was a source of distress. The leaders of the Moslem League in India wrote Amanullah a strong letter of protest; Indian newspapers carried such condemnatory articles on the subject that the official Afghan newspaper, the Aman-i-Afghan, felt it necessary to defend both the conviction of Niamatullah and the manner of his execution. […]

“In spite of his public optimism and vigor, Amanullah privately was worried about the future. He issued an order forbidding any more arrests of Qadianis, but there lingered the history of having betrayed his principles.”⁵

In September 1924, when a certain individual was deputed at the British Legation in Kabul, a person named Jalal Khan Kabuli of Rawalpindi wrote to the Secretary to the Government of India (Foreign Department) that the deputed individual was a “staunch Ahmadi,” and advised to verify it from either “Khalifa Mirza Mahmud Ahmad Qadian” or “Maulvi Mohammed Ali”. He further said, “The appointment of an Ahmadi will be looked upon with feelings of hostility at Kabul, for Ahmadis are considered to be the chief source of mischief there.” He added, “Another way to find out if the man is an Ahmadi is to ask him to pronounce Mirza Ghulam Ahmad a heretic and he would never do it.” Later on, it was concluded by the officials that he was not an Ahmadi.⁶

The anti-Ahmadiyya sentiments continued to intensify and the clerics were being “appeased” by the government – a fact that was acknowledged (details to be presented later in the article) by the then Afghan Foreign Minister, Sardar Mahmud Tarzi Khan, who was also the father-in-law of Amir Amanullah.

Looking at the Afghan press, we find that a prominent newspaper – Aman-i-Afghan of Kabul – published multiple articles about Ahmadiyyat, as indicated by Rhea Talley Stewart. As for the question of who controlled this newspaper, the statement of Sir F Humphrys – His Britannic Majesty’s Minister at Kabul – would suffice, wherein he wrote to the Indian Government that “it is unfortunately true that Aman-i-Afghan is semi-official organ of Afghan Government. It is controlled by Ministry of Interior.”⁷

A four-page article featured in Aman-i-Afghan on 17 September 1924 (see below) which mentioned the martyrdom of Hazrat Maulvi Abdur Rahman^ra and narrated some details of the visit of Hazrat Sahibzada Abdul Latif^ra to Qadian, the bai‘at at the hands of the Promised Messiah^as, and the martyrdom when he returned to Afghanistan. After mentioning the martyrdom of Maulvi Nematullah Sahib, the article went on to give a detailed introduction of the Promised Messiah’s^as claims.

Another article was published on 4 October 1924, which mentioned some telegrams from the Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind and scholars of Deoband. While this barbaric act of the Afghan government was receiving open condemnation from various Muslim circles, the above-mentioned telegrams justified it and even congratulated the Amir. This newspaper also published a series of articles following the martyrdoms in 1925; details to follow later in this article.

An extensive account of how the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamaat reacted to the martyrdom of Maulvi Nematullah Sahib in 1924 has already been published in Al Hakam, so this article will remain focused on the events that followed the martyrdoms in 1925.

The martyrs of 1925

As a result of the state-sponsored hostility, two more Ahmadis were martyred exactly a hundred years ago. Maulvi Abdul Halim Sahib and Qari Nur Ali Sahib were stoned to death on 5 February 1925, just for the sake of their belief in Ahmadiyyat. This atrocity was committed under the Amir’s umbrella, however, he gave the impression as if he had nothing to do with this barbaric act and wanted to convey this sentiment to the West as well.

A day after these martyrdoms, Sir Francis Henry Humphrys wrote to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in London (see below), mentioning that a month ago, he had a discussion with the Amir who expressed his abhorrence against the killing of Maulvi Nematullah and “said with great feeling that Mullahs had taken the law into their own hands.” The Minister continued, “Two Afghan Qadiani shop-keepers” were “publicly stoned to death yesterday by a large crowd in outskirts of Kabul after charge of apostasy and sentence had been read out by Chief Qazi.” The Minister expressed his opinion that “it is not easy to tap attitude of Amir towards these crimes against humanity which must have been given his sanction.” A similar telegram was sent to the India Office as well.⁸

Aman-i-Afghan of Kabul published the news of these barbaric killings in its 9 February 1925 issue (see below). Its English translation, provided to the Indian Government by the Officer Incharge of the Intelligence Branch, NWFP, stated:

“Execution of Two Qadyanis.

“Mulla Abdul Alim [sic., Halim] of Chahar Asia, and Mulla Noor Ali, who sold old things, were the followers of the Qadyani creed. They preached this creed to people and led them astray from the right path. The public was excited and set up a case against them. As a result they were sentenced to death on Thursday the 16^th Dalv (5^th February) and were put to death by the people. According to what we have heard, a case has long been proceeding against them. Some of their letters, to a number of foreigners with whom they had correspondence, which are against the interests of the country were caught. Details of the matter will be published later, after ascertaining the truth.”⁹

From the above-quoted letter and news report, one point is clear that it was their belief in Ahmadiyyat and its preaching for which they were sentenced to death and executed. Though Aman-i-Afghan mentioned the alleged political activities, it surely did not present it to be the reason behind their execution. However, in the coming weeks, this newspaper began emphasising the political aspect along with the religious one, though they had no evidence to support this rhetoric. Clearly, it was a desperate attempt to neutralise the backlash received from all over the world.

A file in the India Office Records, titled “Afghanistan: Persecution of Ahmadiyya Sect (P.3607/24)”, manifests that following the martyrdoms in 1925, the British bureaucracy was extremely hesitant in conveying even an informal protest to the Amir of Afghanistan, considering their diplomatic interests and relations. In light of Sir F Humphrys’ suggestion about “an informal demarche”, the officials suggested that it was better “for Sir F. Humphrys to refrain from any comment, however informal.” However, they also expressed that it was “rather repugnant to one’s sense of fitness that the British representative should condone, in any degree, the perpetration of these brutalities under the approval of a Ruler to whom he has recently been delivering messages of personal sympathy from His Majesty the King.” Another point was raised that the “Government of India may be expected to deprecate any comment by Sir F. Humphrys, seeing that in the case of Niamatullah (when there was more direct pressure on us), they ‘considered that it would be dangerous to make any representation, however informal’ (P.4828/24).” Moreover, they feared a “possibility that if Sir F. Humphrys protests to Tarzi, and Tarzi informs the Amir (as he will), the Amir (especially if his conscience is really a little uneasy) may resent the interference.”

Thereafter, Sir F. Humphrys had a meeting with Sardar Mahmud Tarzi Khan, the then Foreign Minister of Afghanistan and Father-in-law of Amir Amanullah. A telegram to London, dated 13 February 1925, narrated its details. Humphrys told Tarzi that “deplorable impression of Afghan civilisation would be conveyed to outer world by public stoning to death of Qadianis in Kabul.” In response, Tarzi said that the “Mullahs held upper hand temporarily and had to be appeased.” He assured the British Minister that once Amir regained complete control over the country’s situation, such events would be impossible to occur. Concluding the letter, the Minister wrote, “It is reported that another Afghan Qadiani of heresy has been seized by Mullahs and convicted.” A similar telegram was sent to the India Office as well.¹⁰

The Ahmadiyya response

The Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamaat’s reaction in 1925 was similar to what had been in the past; patience and prayers amidst persecution and hardships. However, Hazrat Musleh-e-Maud^ra also wanted to make the world aware of this barbaric act and to raise awareness. For this, Huzoor^ra not only sent telegrams to The League of Nations, Viceroy of India and the Secretary of State for India, but also instructed the Ahmadiyya Mission in London to hold a protest meeting to highlight this atrocity. Hence, a protest meeting was held in Harrow, London, at the Greenhill Hall of the Harrow Spiritualist Society. This issue caught the attention of the press from around the world, including England, Scotland, Ceylon, Australia, Canada, America, Hungary and the Netherlands. Its details will be narrated later in this article.

As for the question about the need for such protests and condemnation, it must be noted that these barbaric killings in the name of Islam had provided fuel to the non-Muslims who were already leaving no stone unturned in their anti-Islam rhetoric. It was as if their propaganda of portraying Islam as a violent religion got a new life. On one hand, statements from various prominent non-Muslims leaders, for instance MK Gandhi, attributed false notions to the Holy Quran and Islam in relation to the punishment by stoning to death, on the other, certain Muslim sections commended this barbaric act of the Afghan government and declared that it was in accordance with the Islamic sharia. In such a situation, it becomes clear that the Jamaat’s protest did not aim to harm Islam – as asserted by the Afghan press and certain Muslim leaders – but rather, the objective was to save Islam from the false objections and to highlight the fact that Islam is a peaceful religion and its teaching is against any kind of violence. The need of the time was to clarify that in case of such incidents, Islam cannot be blamed, however, those people must be condemned who have committed such brutality in the name of Islam.

Anyway, when the news reached Qadian, Hazrat Musleh-e-Maud^ra delivered a heartfelt speech and emphasised that such oppressions can never halt the progress of a divine community and that the victory always belongs to the Truth (sadaqat). Huzoor^ra declared that he held no grudge or anger in his heart against the Afghan government in response to its barbaric act. However, Huzoor^ra declared, “This era will ultimately end, the Amir will also diminish and his helpers and supporters will be gone as well. However, the belief on the basis of which they committed these atrocities shall live on in the world.”

Huzoor^ra stated that though the opponents of the Promised Messiah^as will exist in the world, they will be reduced to a minority, and speaking of that time, Huzoor^ra advised Ahmadis to never leave morality in the times of majority and power. Huzoor^ra expressed his hope from the coming generations that upon reading about these atrocities in history, their grudge and passion may not lead them away from morality, just like the Christians drifted away from morality upon gaining power. Huzoor^ra concluded:

“I advise the coming generations that when God Almighty grants them government and kingdom in return for our humble services, they should not look upon the atrocities of these tyrants, but ought to act with patience as we are enduring now. Moreover, they should not lag behind us in showing morality, but rather, they ought to even surpass us.”¹¹

Hazrat Musleh-e-Maud^ra sent a telegram (see below) to the Viceroy of India, informing him about this inhumane act of the Afghan government. It was received by his private secretary office on 17 February 1925.

Another telegram was sent to the Secretary of State for India in London. Later, the Secretary wrote to the Viceroy of India, informing that “Telegram dated 16^th February received from Khalifatul Masih appealing for protest to Afghan Government. If you think it desirable he might be informed confidentially of action taken by H.M. Minister [Sir F Humphrys].”

Huzoor^ra sent a cable to Hazrat Maulvi Abdur Rahim Dard^ra – the then incharge of the London Mission – and stated that though these barbaric acts “cannot intimidate us and the result will prove to be the opposite of what the Afghan Government means to achieve, yet such results cannot justify the action of Kabul Government; hence it is our duty as well as that of every lover of freedom of conscience to protest against these outrages.”¹²

According to an earlier programme, Dard Sahib^ra was scheduled to visit the Netherlands to deliver lectures in Amsterdam on 19 and 22 February 1925, as he was invited by a society called Vrij Religieuse Tempel. However, after the martyrdoms in Afghanistan, he had to stay in London. So, the martyrdoms caught the attention of the Dutch press as well. For instance, Algemeen Handelsblad of 19 February 1925, mentioned that Dard Sahib^ra had to stay in London due to the martyrdom of two Ahmadis in Afghanistan. The same periodical mentioned this postponement in its 24 February 1925 issue, along with an introduction to Ahmadiyyat and claims of the Promised Messiah^as, originally published in De Tempel.

Huzoor^ra sent a telegram to The League of Nations as well (see below). An acknowledgement was received on 18 February which stated, “The Secretary General of the League of Nations has the honour to acknowledge the receipt of a telegram, dated February 17^th, from the Head of the Ahmadyya Community at Batala, concerning the execution of two Ahmadies at Kabul.”

According to The Evening Star of Washington D.C., dated 20 February 1925, “The League of Nations received a communication” from the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, “protesting against the execution of ‘two more members of their community’ at Kabul by order of the government. The community appeals to the league for intervention. The secretariat turned over the matter to the section for protection of minorities, under which it falls.”

The same news was published by The Montreal Star of Canada, on the same day. The Sun of Sydney, Australia, also wrote on this subject in its 21 February 1925 issue.

Upon the direction of Hazrat Musleh-e-Maud^ra, a telegram was sent to the Viceroy of India, wherein it was stated that according to some private information received through Peshawar, the two martyrs in Kabul were Maulvi Abdul Halim Sahib and Nur Ali  Sahib, and that 30 more Ahmadis in lock-up there were awaiting a ruthless sentence.

This cable was quoted by a prominent British newspaper, The Manchester Guardian, under the heading “Stoned to Death in Afghanistan”, on 23 February 1925.

An acknowledgment from the Viceroy’s office was received on 25 February 1925, stating:

“To,

“Khalifatul Masih, Head of Ahmadiyya Community

“Qadian, Batala

“Sir

“I am directed to acknowledge the receipt of the telegram from yourself & your addit. Secy. dated the 16^th and 19^th Feb. 1925, to the address of H.E. the Viceroy & Gov. Gen. of India.”

Hazrat Musleh-e-Maud^ra sent the latest information to the London Mission as well, where Hazrat Malik Ghulam Farid^ra had already sent a letter to The League of Nations on 13 February; its acknowledgement was received on 17 February. He quoted an excerpt from The Times of 13 February 1925 that reported on this barbaric act. He informed The League of Nations, “As it forms a continuous series of barbarous and atrocious murders the representatives of the Ahmadiyya Community in London think of holding again a meeting of protest to condemn this recent outrageous act of the Afghan Government.”

The protest meeting in London

The Spalding Guardian reported on 21 February 1925 that the “Ahmadiya Moslems in London propose to hold a meeting of protest against the stoning to death after a trial for apostasy of two members of the Ahmadiya community in Kabul.”

Thereafter, the protest meeting was held in Harrow, London; wherein a resolution was passed and its copies were sent to The League of Nations, the Amir of Afghanistan, the Viceroy and Governor General of India, and press around the world. The signatories included Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and Sir Francis Younghusband. An acknowledgement was received on 28 March 1925.

The Yorkshire Post, dated 24 March 1925, published the correspondence received from Hazrat Malik Ghulam Farid^ra about the resolution.

We learn from the Harrow Observer and Harrow Gazette (see below) that this protest meeting was held at the Greenhill Hall of the Harrow Spiritualist Society, on Sunday, 8 March 1925. This hall was located at “325 Station Road, HA1 2AA”.

The President of this Society expressed his impressions about the martyrdoms and the protest meeting in his letter to the Harrow Observer, that was published on 13 March 1925. He stated:

“The Ahmadia movement represents an effort on the part of the best elements in the religion of Islam to bring about a more peaceful and brotherly attitude towards the Christian and other religious bodies on the part of the followers of the prophet Mohamed^[sa]” and it is “making great progress in India, but in Afghanistan the adherents to the new movement are meeting with great persecution: three of their leaders having been stoned to death, one in August last, and two in February of this year.”

Mentioning the protest meeting, he wrote:

“At a largely-attended meeting held in the Greenhill Hall, Harrow, last Sunday evening,” a “resolution was unanimously passed.”

After quoting the resolution, he stated:

“If you can find space for this appeal from a far country for the liberty which has been ours for so long, the cause of humanity will be helped forward.

“We are, Sir, yours faithfully,

“Richard McLellan, President,

“Helen Gregg, Secretary,

“Greenhill Hall, Station-road, Harrow

“March 9, 1925.”

A newspaper of Budapest, Hungary, also published an article that mentioned the martyrs and gave an introduction of the Promised Messiah^as, Hazrat Musleh-e-Maud^ra and Hazrat Sahibzada Abdul Latif^ra Shaheed. It also mentioned that “the London missionary of this sect, G. F. Malik, protested against the barbaric sentences.” (Pester Lloyd, 13 March 1925, p. 5)

Other newspapers which reported on this subject, included The Leicester Mail (12 February 1925), South Wales Daily Post (12 February 1925), Evening Despatch (12 February 1925), Edinburgh Evening News (13 February 1925), The Telegraph (16 February 1925), The Pioneer Mail and Indian Weekly News (20 and 27 February 1925), The Manchester Guardian (21 February 1925), The Times of Ceylon (5 March 1925) and The San Francisco Examiner (8 March 1925).

The Civil and Military Gazette of Lahore published a lengthy article, titled “The Kabul Executions” and stated:

“The barbarous execution of two humble Qadiani Afghan shopkeepers at Kabul has aroused feelings of horror in India and it will, no doubt, be the subject of severe comment in other countries besides. When a few months ago, the news reached India of the stoning to death of the Qadiani Niamatullah, it was accompanied by hints that the victim had been involved in a conspiracy against the Afghan Government! This was strenuously denied by the Community to which he belonged and it may be noted that the Afghan newspapers themselves did not hesitate to confirm those denials by publishing the judgment of the Court which tried him, a translation of which was reproduced in our columns. Whatever may have been his alleged offence, the terribly brutal character of the punishment inflicted received general condemnation.”¹³

We also learn that during a session of the U.P. Muslim League, a telegram from the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamaat was read out which mentioned the Kabul martyrs and urged the Muslim community of British India to condemn  this barbaric act of the Afghan government. It was demanded that “something practical should be done to make the Afghan Government realise that the outside Muslim world condemn these atrocities of the Kabul Court and asking the President to send a strong protest to the Amir on behalf of the Muslim community.”¹⁴

The Daily Mail of Brisbane, Australia, dated 27 February 1925, wrote that “in a telegram to the Amir,” the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community “declare: ‘The abhorrent and treacherous crime marks your Majesty as anything but a Moslem. By this deplorable practice you are bringing nearer the moral and material destruction of Kabul.’

“The [Ahmadis] have appealed to Indian Moslems against persecution by the Afghan Government, and it is stated that 30 other [Ahmadis] are imprisoned in Kabul, awaiting ruthless death sentences for heresy. Indian sympathy is being aroused, and it is probable that strong protests will be sent to Kabul.”

The martyrdom of Ahmadis in Afghanistan came under discussion during a session of the Central Legislative Assembly of India as well, where a member presented some questions in regard to this incident, asking for more elaboration on this.¹⁵

Aman-i-Afghan’s ‘violent articles’

The Aman-i-Afghan of Kabul was trying to neutralise the protest and condemnation – emerging through the worldwide press – against this barbaric act of the Afghan government. In an article, dated 9 April 1925, it was reiterated that the two Ahmadi martyrs were indulged in political activities against the country, though without any evidence. Two British Indian periodicals, Zamindar and Al Jami‘at were also commended for their articles. Maulvi Zafar Ali Khan’s Zamindar published multiple articles, justifying the killing of Ahmadis in Afghanistan by declaring them apostates.

In this article, it was stated:

“The Islamic Government of Afghanistan does not at all give room to the Qadyani creed and the Qadyanis in Afghanistan. If the Qadyanis of India desire that their followers should remain immune from the grip of Afghanistan’s Penal Law, they should not send their preachers to Afghanistan and should prevent them from coming to, and preaching in, Afghanistan. If they do not abstain they will be treated according to the Shari’at law, which has both the religious and political sides. Those of them who hold the policy will be responsible for the blood-shed of their followers!”¹⁶

On the other hand, the Zamindar of 16 April 1925 alleged that a large number of Ahmadis were employed at the British Legation in Kabul. Zamindar wrote that it was feared that the British Legation in Kabul became the centre for rendering secret help to the Ahmadis. It further mentioned that certain prominent Englishmen have also adopted a resolution disapproving of the stoning of some Ahmadis to death in Kabul. The British Government should restrain Englishmen from such reckless doings, otherwise its relations with Afghanistan will become strained. It should not interfere in the internal affairs of Afghanistan.¹⁷

Zamindar’s aim was just to fuel the anti-Ahmadiyya sentiments which were already growing in Afghanistan, as evident from the barbaric killings of Ahmadis.

Upon such statements, the Indian Government asked Sir F Humphrys, “Can we state that no Ahmadis are employed and do you think it advisable to issue contradiction?”  The response was, “No Ahmadis are employed in Legation. I consider in view of offensive articles in Aman-i-Afghan” that “it would be advisable to publish contradiction.”¹⁸

Hence, the Indian Government instructed Zamindar to publish a correction, which was published in its 28 May 1925 issue, which read:

“In our issue of April 16^th we wrote in the course of a leader headed ‘Incurable sore on the body of Islam’ as follows:

“‘We learn from some source that there is a preponderating majority of Qadianis at the British Legation, Kabul. If this report is correct, our fears are not groundless.’

“We learn now that the above report is not true.”¹⁹

Aman-i-Afghan published a series of articles, titled در اطراف رجم قادیانیھا (literally, “Regarding the stoning of Qadianis”), implying that Jamaat-e-Ahmadiyya was presenting incorrect information about this incident.

The first part of this series, dated 17 April 1925, stated that they aimed to write a response to the protests expressed against the stoning to death of these two Ahmadis.

The third part stated, “In Afghanistan also the Ulema, like the Ulema of other Islamic Countries, have declared the Qadyanis to be heretics and they demand their execution at the hands of the Government. The Government of Afghanistan, being an independent Islamic Government, considers the Ulema’s Fatwa worthy of execution. The agitation of a number of the enemies of Islam cannot prevent it from carrying out the commands of its religion.”²⁰

After the third part, Sir F Humphrys wrote to the Foreign and Political Department of the Indian Government and sent details of the “violent articles that have been appearing lately in the ‘Aman-i-Afghan’ on the subject of Qadianis.” He added, the Afghan Foreign Minister, “Mahmud Tarzi recently told me that he dissociated himself absolutely from the sentiments expressed in these articles, and I gather that the Amir has felt obliged to publish them as a sop to the fanatical party.”²¹

It was expressed in another correspondence that “the arguments ring hollow, and the clumsy attempt to associate the Qadiani creed with political intrigue and sedition is lacking in conviction.”²²

Aman-i-Afghan stated in the fourth part that Jamaat-e-Ahmadiyya had, God forbid, corrupted the religion of Islam and that they portrayed themselves as Muslims and helpers of Islam, however, on the contrary, they served the enemies of Islam.

The sixth part began with the following statement:

“In the previous issues, we have discussed various topics related to the issue of apostasy and its punishment, the Qadianis and their religious and political harm to the general Muslim community and Afghanistan, as much as necessary to state the truth and establish evidence. In this issue, we would like to briefly criticise the statements of some newspapers that have written about the Qadianis and against us, and which have strayed far from the truth.”²³

Aman-i-Afghan criticised all those periodicals which highlighted the protest raised by the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamaat against this barbaric act, and it was asserted that the Anglo-Indian newspapers were unaware of the true facts and circumstances. Aman-i-Afghan’s above-mentioned article was discussed in The Civil and Military Gazette’s 2 July 1925 issue as it implied that this Indian newspaper was spreading incorrect notions and supporting the Ahmadiyya view on this incident. Aman-i-Afghan commended those Muslim leaders, periodicals and organisations which spoke against the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamaat. It particularly commended, once again, Maulvi Zafar Ali Khan and the editorial staff of the Al Jami’at.

The National Archives of India holds the record of various telegrams that were sent to the authorities, including the Viceroy of India, by various chapters of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamaat, to record their protest against these barbaric killings. These chapters included Ceylon, Karachi, Kerang, Sambrial, Burma, Malabar, Multan and Calcutta.²⁴

Conclusion

The history of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamaat testifies that the opposition could never halt its progress; rather, it has always proved to be fruitful. The most influential newspaper of Afghanistan, controlled by the Afghan Ministry of Interior,  served as a means to spread the claims of the Promised Messiah^as – though its articles incorporated particular perspectives pertaining to the Ahmadiyya beliefs which were based on the editor’s own comprehension or convictions. It surely testified to the Promised Messiah’s^as statement where he said that “my opponents are actually my servants and helpers, because they convey my message to the east and to the west.”²⁵

Endnotes:

1. National Archives of India (NAI), Government of India: Foreign and Political Department, File No. 60/11-E
2. Ibid., File No. 178-F
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid., File No. 60/11-E
5. Fire in Afghanistan – 1914-1929: Faith, Hope and the British Empire, 1973, New York, pp. 280-282
6. NAI, Government of India: Foreign and Political Department, File No. 60/11-E
7. Ibid., File No. 579-F
8. Ibid., File No. 178-F
9. Ibid., Translations of extracts from Afghan newspapers for the year 1925, File No. 187/1-F
10. Ibid., File No. 178-F
11. Al Fazl, 19 February 1925, p. 7
12. The Review of Religions, March 1925, p. 3
13. The Civil and Military Gazette, 17 February 1925, p. 5
14. Ibid., 26 February 1925, p. 11
15. NAI, Foreign and Political Department, File No. 31/35-F
16. Ibid., Translations of extracts from Afghan newspapers for the year 1925, File No. 187/1-F
17. Ibid., Government of India: Foreign and Political Department, File No. 579-F
18. Ibid.
19. Ibid.
20. NAI, Translations of extracts from Afghan newspapers for the year 1925, File No. 187/1-F
21. Ibid., Government of India: Foreign and Political Department, File No. 579-F
22. Ibid.
23. Aman-i-Afghan, 20 May 1925, p. 1
24. NAI, Government of India: Foreign and Political Department (Frontier), File No. 178-F
25. Malfuzat [English], Vol. 2, p. 112

Ata-ul-Haye Nasir, Al Hakam

9/11 and its background

11 September 2001, a day that brought a drastic change on the world stage, as it shook the world in an unprecedented manner. Attacks were carried out by al-Qaeda on the Twin Towers in New York City and the US department of defence headquarters at the Pentagon, resulting in hundreds of deaths and many injuries as well.

But the questions are: What was al-Qaeda? Who helped in its formation? Why and how did they confront a major power like the US?

In 1973, Mohammed Daoud Khan had taken power in Afghanistan by overthrowing the monarchy of King Zahir Shah, with the support of the People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA), and established the Republic of Afghanistan. Later on, in April 1978, the PDPA overthrew Daoud Khan in what is known as the Saur Revolution and a new government was established, the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan. (“Afghanistan: 20 years of bloodshed”, http://news.bbc.co.uk/)

This was followed by activities of some scattered rebellion, and while being “well aware of Soviet support for the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan, the United States immediately began discussing aid for the incipient rebellion.” (Parenti, Christian. “America’s Jihad: A History of Origins”, Social Justice 28, no. 3 (85) (2001): 31–38. www.jstor.org/stable/29768089)

On 30 March 1979, the former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Robert Gates attended a meeting where the Under Secretary of Defence, Walter B Slocombe asked whether “there was value in keeping the Afghan insurgency going, [and] sucking the Soviets into a Vietnamese quagmire.” And then, America was soon channelling aid to the rebels. In an interview in 1998, with Le Nouvel Observateur [now L’Obs], the former national security advisor to President Carter, Zbigniew Brzezinski explained that the US began aiding the tribalist uprisings as early as six months before the Soviet invasion. (Ibid.)

“It goes from meddling and funneling and agitating to outright saying, ‘Okay, we need to support the mujahedeen’, and allying themselves with the anti-communist resistance movement.” (“The history of US intervention in Afghanistan, from the Cold War to 9/11”, www.vox.com)

The People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan was factionalised. A seemingly pro-Western faction influenced by Hafizullah Amin, usurped the main faction of the group in mid-1979. Fear of US support for Amin’s faction led the Soviet government to order the invasion. The Soviets captured Kabul Airport on 24 December 1979, and the army crossed the border on the same day. (“Defeat of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan”, www.bbc.co.uk)

The militant groups – the so-called mujahideen – opposed the Soviet occupation, while the Afghan army supported the Soviet Red Army. The mujahideen were “heavily armed as they were supplied by China and the USA and they received training from the CIA. The mujahideen employed guerrilla tactics against the Red Army. Using hit and run attacks they gained control of the rural and mountainous areas of Afghanistan.” (Ibid.)

Mentioning the CIA’s support for the mujahideen, Tim Weiner, an American author stated:

“The CIA smuggled billions of dollars in weapons into the hands of the Afghan resistance. That bled the Red Army, leaving at least 15,000 soldiers and commandos dead on the battlefield”, and the White House, CIA and State Department documents show that in 1980, President Carter’s CIA spent close to $100 million shipping weapons to the Afghan resistance. (“History to Trump: CIA was aiding Afghan rebels before the Soviets invaded in ’79”, www.washingtonpost.com)

He further states that the documents reveal that the CIA proposed on 28 February 1979 that it could buy “lethal military equipment” for the mujahideen of Afghanistan. Six weeks later, the CIA started a series of black propaganda operations designed to support the tribal revolt in Afghanistan. Carter signed a secret order on 3 July authorising the CIA support to Afghan insurgents, either in the form of cash or non-military supplies. Consequently, the Afghan insurgency grew. (Ibid)

The US funding for the mujahideen continued to increase. Matthew Erulkar, a lobbyist for the Afghan rebels and director of the Afghan American Educational Fund, said in 1985 that “the US has spent $380 million to $400 million on behalf of the resistance since 1979, most in the last two years. Of that, he estimates, only about $100 million in weapons and other military hardware reached the fighters.” (Terry Atlas, “US Aid Pipeline to Afghan Rebels Springing Leaks”, Chicago Tribune, 3 February 1985)

The ‘mujahideen’ was not a single group, in fact, they were four different kinds of groups that roughly aligned in resisting the new government. The US pressured Egypt to release a group of extremists that it had arrested. One of those arrested was Ayman al-Zawahiri.

The US started to bring in militants from Yemen and Saudi Arabia, who then went on to form al-Qaeda. Once the US and the Soviet Union withdrew their influence from Afghanistan, the country fell into a civil war, giving birth to both al-Qaeda and the Taliban. (“The history of US intervention in Afghanistan, from the Cold War to 9/11”, www.vox.com)

From 1979 to 1989, an estimated one million civilians, 90,000 rebels, 18,000 Afghan troops, and 14,500 Soviet soldiers were killed. (“The Soviet War in Afghanistan, 1979-1989”, www.theatlantic.com)

Unfortunately, the US support and upbringing of mujahideen during the last quarter of the twentieth century went on to haunt them a few years later, in the form of the 9/11 attacks.

The Taliban had promised to restore peace and security and enforce what they considered the “Islamic” law. However, they had nothing to do with Islam, they tarnished the image of that peaceful religion, which advocates peace, harmony, love and justice.

The US invasion

The Taliban had been ruling over three-quarters of Afghanistan since 1996, and on the US demand, they did not hand over the al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. Thereafter, the US invaded Afghanistan on 7 October 2001, soon the Taliban were removed from power, and a new government came into being.

The US had thought that they could easily overcome the Taliban impact, however, they proved to be wrong.

The new West-backed government in Afghanistan failed to bring any stability to the country, and there were continuous clashes between NATO and the Taliban. The consequence was that it was the civilian population which suffered the most.

On 1 December 2009, the then US president, Barack Obama announced to send 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan in the coming months, but he vowed to start bringing American forces home in the middle of 2011. He added that he could “bring this war to a successful conclusion”. (“Obama Adds Troops, but Maps Exit Plan”, www.nytimes.com)

In 2010, there were around 150,000 NATO troops in Afghanistan, but the casualties continued to increase. In 2011, Obama announced the plan to withdraw US troops from Afghanistan. Three years later, some 34,000 soldiers were left in the country.

By 2017, the US troops level had declined to about 8,400. The civilian casualties rose as the Taliban expanded their military campaign in different parts of the country. As a result, the new US president, Donald Trump sent 3,000 US troops to Afghanistan. The US also stepped up air raids, resulting in a dramatic increase in civilian casualties. (“From the 2001 fall of the Taliban to 2020 Afghan peace talks”, www.aljazeera.com)

The US-Taliban talks

In October 2018, US officials and Taliban representatives held their first meeting in Doha, and the talks continued into the next year for eight rounds. Despite the talks, violence intensified. In September 2019, Trump abruptly suspended the talks with the Taliban following the killing of a US soldier. The US president also cancelled planned secret meetings at Camp David with the Taliban. Following the suspension of the talks, the Taliban intensified attacks, with the last quarter of 2019 becoming one of the bloodiest since the US invasion in 2001. (Ibid)

In February 2020, the US and NATO allies agreed to withdraw all troops within 14 months if the militants upheld the deal, and the militants also agreed not to allow al-Qaeda or any other extremist group to operate in the areas they controlled. (“Afghan conflict: US and Taliban sign deal to end 18-year war”, www.bbc.co.uk)

The withdrawal

Despite grave concerns from Afghan officials over the government’s vulnerability to the Taliban without international support, Joe Biden announced in April 2021 that all American forces would leave the country by 11 September.

On 31 August 2021, the US withdrew its last remaining troops and concluded a huge and chaotic airlift that evacuated more than 120,000 civilians but left thousands of others stranded. The US president, Joe Biden said in a statement, “Now, our 20-year military presence in Afghanistan has ended”. (“US withdraws from Afghanistan, bringing an end to 20-year war”, www.ft.com)

Foreign forces were stunned by the speed of the Taliban’s advance and had to accelerate their exit. Many Western-backed Afghan government leaders fled, while thousands of their compatriots and foreigners fearing Taliban rule scrambled to find room on flights out of the country. Within weeks, the Taliban were in control of all of Afghanistan – something they had not managed to do in their first stint in power between 1996 and 2001. (“Who are the Taliban?”, www.bbc.co.uk)

What did the US achieve in 20 years?

The Wall Street Journal, published a piece on 31 December 2021 titled “Who Won in Afghanistan? Private Contractors”, saying that while the US lost its 20-year campaign to transform Afghanistan, many contractors won big; those who benefitted from the outpouring of government money ranged from major weapons manufacturers to entrepreneurs.

The story read, “Since the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, military outsourcing helped push up Pentagon spending to $14 trillion, creating opportunities for profit as the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq stretched on […] One-third to half of that sum went to contractors, with five defence companies – Lockheed Martin Corp., Boeing Co., General Dynamics Corp., Raytheon Technologies Corp., and Northrop Grumman Corp. – taking the lion’s share, $2.1 trillion, for weapons, supplies and other services.”

According to a report by UNHCR, since 1979, there were more than 6 million Afghan refugees, which continued to make up one of the largest and most protracted displacement situations under UNHCR’s mandate. (“Afghanistan Humanitarian Crisis”, www.unrefugees.org)

The US and NATO’s withdrawal from Afghanistan could have happened in a far better way, than the way it actually happened. They had occupied the country for 20 years and certainly attained various political and geographical advantages as well, however, failed to establish peace.

It was their duty to at least leave the country in a state where the civilians could have a safe place to live in accordance with basic human rights and freedom.

However, the West exhibited selfishness by leaving the Afghans under the Taliban rule, who had a history of violence, oppression, inhumane treatment, un-Islamic style of government and that too in the name of Islam which in reality advocates peace, harmony, freedom and human rights.

One year of Taliban rule: Expectations, promises and ground reality

Now, a year has been completed since Taliban rule in Afghanistan post-withdrawal.

In the first official press conference after taking over Kabul, a Taliban spokesperson Zabihullah Mujahid said that they would not seek revenge against government officials or the Afghan soldiers it had fought for the past two decades. Women would be permitted to work and study and will be very active in society but within the framework of what they considered “Islam”. (“Taliban pledges to respect women’s rights ‘within the framework of Islam’”, www.ft.com)

In another statement, Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid said that the Taliban had met “all the requirements” for their government to be given diplomatic recognition, however, the world needed to realise that political engagement with the Taliban was in everyone’s interest, as it would allow the world to formally discuss “the grievances” they had with the Taliban. (“Taliban Say US Is ‘Biggest Hurdle’ to Diplomatic Recognition”, www.voanews.com)

He added that the US was the biggest obstacle which did not allow other countries to recognise the Taliban government. (Ibid)

On 25 November 2021, Amnesty International reported:

“Since taking control of Kabul on 15 August 2021, the Taliban have imposed severe restrictions on women and girls. Apart from healthcare workers and a few other isolated exemptions, women have been told they cannot return to work or travel in public without being accompanied by a Mahram (male guardian).” (“Afghanistan: Women call on the international community to support women’s rights amid ongoing Taliban suppression”, www.amnesty.org)

Afghanistan had to face a severe economic crisis post-withdrawal, and the population struggled to find enough money to eat and access other essentials.

Afghanistan had reserves of more than $9 billion in the banks in the US and Europe, at the time of US withdrawal. Whereas, another $500 million belonging to individuals who hold accounts with privately owned Afghan banks is also frozen. The money had been managed by Da Afghanistan Bank, the central bank, and used as reserves to keep the currency stable, finance imports, and provide liquidity to the banking system. (“Afghanistan Still Wants Its Frozen Funds”, https://foreignpolicy.com/)

In February 2022, Afghanistan’s central bank “criticised Washington’s plan to use half the bank’s $7 billion in frozen assets on US soil for humanitarian aid and set aside the rest to possibly satisfy lawsuits over the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.” Whereas, the US administration officials said that they would work to ensure access to $3.5 billion of the assets would benefit the Afghan people, amid calls for the money to be used to address a deepening economic crisis since the Taliban seized power last year. “The other half of the funds would remain in the United States, subject to ongoing litigation targeting the Taliban, including by relatives of those who died in the Sept. 11 attacks”, the officials said. (“Afghan central bank says U.S. plan for frozen funds an ‘injustice’”, www.reuters.com)

On 25 April 2022, alarmed by the critical humanitarian situation in Afghanistan, UN human rights experts called on the US government to unblock the foreign assets of Da Afghanistan Bank of more than $7 billion to enable the unimpeded provision of humanitarian assistance to cover the basic needs of tens of millions of people in the country. (“Afghanistan: UN experts call on US Government to unblock foreign assets of central bank to ease humanitarian impact”, www.ohchr.org)

The report stated:

“According to international assessments, Afghanistan has now the highest number of people in emergency food insecurity in the world, with more than 23 million in need of food assistance, and with approximately 95 per cent of the population having insufficient food consumption. Of particular concern is the vulnerability of more than 4 million internally displaced, including people belonging to minorities and more than 3.5 million seeking refuge in neighbouring countries.” (Ibid)

On 7 May 2022, the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) issued a statement of deep concern, in response to an announcement made by the Taliban de facto authorities saying that women should only leave their homes in cases of necessity and then, with their faces covered in public.

The statement said:

“This decision contradicts numerous assurances regarding respect for and protection of all Afghans’ human rights, including those of women and girls, that had been provided to the international community by Taliban representatives during discussions and negotiations over the past decade”. (“Afghanistan: Taliban orders women to stay home; cover up in public”, https://news.un.org/)

On 14 May 2022, Deputy Prime Minister Abdul Salam Hanafi announced the first annual national budget since the Taliban took over. He said that the government foresaw spending of 231.4 billion Afghanis and domestic revenue of 186.7 billion. The authorities said that Afghanistan had to face a budget deficit of 44 billion Afghanis ($501 million). (“Taliban’s first annual Afghan budget foresees $501 million deficit”, www.reuters.com)

In an exclusive interview, senior Taliban leader Anas Haqqani told Al Jazeera how he saw the Taliban’s achievements and failures since 15 August 2021. He said:

“Over the past one year, we have brought huge and numerous … developments, chiefly among them is the freedom and independence as we rid our country of foreign occupation, injustice and oppression. This is what any people or country under occupation aspires to. It is a source of pride for us, it is also a blessing.” (“Q&A: Anas Haqqani on one year of Taliban rule”, www.aljazeera.com)

He further said that the Taliban had honoured the Doha Agreement, however, he said that numerous violations were committed by the US forces and the former Kabul government. He added that the sudden vacuum in Kabul was the reason for us to step in. (Ibid)

On the issue of women’s rights, he said:

“Now, you can see girls joining universities and schools up to grade 12. […] There are many measures still to be taken in all our ministries and other state institutions. Don’t expect us to achieve what others failed to achieve over the past 20 years amid the challenges we are faced with.”

In regards to the natural resources and economy of the country, Haqqani said:

“Now you see minerals and natural resources are being extracted using local and foreign companies”, and through these projects, “we are now able to generate revenues for the functioning of our ministries and other institutions”. Another source of revenue comes through customs duties. All these revenues used to fall in the wrong hands in the past. All the state revenues are now channelled into the central government’s treasury, central bank and Ministry of Finance. These were the most prominent examples of the progress we have made, Haqqani added. (Ibid)

In regards to world relations, he said:

“We aspire to enjoy good and friendly relations with all the countries”, and “it is also our duty to provide a dignified and comfortable way of life for our people. We are here to serve our people.” (Ibid)

On 15 August 2022, Amnesty International issued a report and stated that reports of various human rights violations from Afghanistan kept coming in and it was impossible to cover the full scope of those violations. However, the briefing aimed to document some of those serious violations. (“Afghanistan: The Rule of Taliban: A year of violence, impunity and false promises”, www.amnesty.org)

The report stated that despite the announcement of a “general amnesty” by the Taliban on 17 August 2021 for those who had worked with the US-led coalition and the previous government, hundreds of former security force personnel and government officials have been subjected to extrajudicial killings, over 80 journalists have been arrested, and there were ceaseless violations of women’s and girls’ rights. (Ibid)

On 24 August 2021 – just 10 days after their seizure of Kabul, the Taliban issued instructions to women and girls to stay at home. Then on 17 September 2021, the sign outside the “Ministry for Women Affairs” was taken down and replaced with that of the Taliban’s “Ministry for the Preaching and Guidance and the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice”. (Ibid)

According to the survey of “Save the Children”, around 80% of secondary school girls are currently denied the right to education in Afghanistan; the organisation estimates that approximately 850,000 out of 1.1 million girls in this age group are currently forced to stay at home. (Ibid)

In regards to freedom of speech, the report states that the Taliban takeover has crushed progressive media, and Afghanistan has moved to stifle freedom of expression and dissent through harassment, intimidation, and detentions. A survey by Reporters Without Borders found that 43% of media outlets had disappeared within three months of the Taliban’s rule; 84% of female journalists and 52% of male media workers lost their jobs during this period.

In regards to the ethnic persecution, the report mentioned that “non-Pashtun Afghans being forcibly evicted from their homes and farms, so that the victorious Taliban could reward their followers with land taken from other groups, particularly Hazaras, Turkmen and Uzbeks. Evictions were reported across the country, including in Balkh, Helmand, Daikundi, Kandahar and Uruzgan provinces. Some Pashtuns were also targeted with land confiscation.” (Ibid)

There has been a sharp increase in IS attacks against Hazara people, a minority. IS attacks on minorities ensued, including one on a Sikh place of worship in Kabul in July 2022. (“Taliban rule in Afghanistan, one year on: ‘Women don’t want to stay here’ – photo essay”, www.theguardian.com)

While refuting the allegations that the Taliban were persecuting various ethnic groups, Taliban leader Anas Haqqani said in an interview:

“There is no truth to the allegations of the oppression of the Hazaras by the current government.” (“DER SPIEGEL Interview with Taliban Leader Anas Haqqani”, www.spiegel.de)

Who is to blame for Afghanistan’s current situation?

A major cause for the post-withdrawal economic crisis in Afghanistan is the freezing of billions of Afghan assets abroad, and the termination of foreign aid, on which the country was dependent during the past two decades.

In this regard, Human Rights Watch stated:

“The abrupt cuts of World Bank programs caused a massive drop in purchasing power across the country and had major impacts on both household and macroeconomic levels. Even if humanitarian groups are able in the future to increase food and cash distributions, they cannot make up for the impact of these cuts. At the World Bank, the US government used its dominant position on the board to revoke the Central Bank’s credentials, blocking the bank from receiving any World Bank assets, grants, or assistance.” (“Economic Causes of Afghanistan’s Humanitarian Crisis”, www.hrw.org)

According to the latest statements, the Biden administration does not plan to release billions of dollars of Afghan government assets held by the country’s central bank anytime soon. (“Biden administration does not plan to release frozen Afghan assets soon over concerns they may be diverted to terror groups”, https://edition.cnn.com/)

The question is, if the US could fund the so-called mujahideen – later to be known as al-Qaeda and Taliban – against the Soviets, then why can’t they grant aid or unfreeze the Afghan assets for the well-being of the people of Afghanistan who are waiting for the world to help them in this crisis.

The West had a huge responsibility, considering the fact that they themselves had played a big role in bringing Afghanistan to this point.

The ground reality is that the Afghan budget is in deficit, assets are frozen abroad, the world is unwilling to recognize the new Taliban government, and foreign aid has also been terminated since the change of power. Whereas, the West is expecting the Taliban government to run the country in a satisfactory manner. But how?

“The Biden administration did not end the war, but continued it by other means, which are turning out to be more violent and destabilising. The economic sanctions imposed by the United States and its allies are causing widespread, severe hunger in this desperately poor country.

“Unless those sanctions are soon reversed, it is estimated that more people will die from the economic impact of sanctions over the next year than the number who died in 20 years of war.” (“Biden’s sanctions on Afghanistan threaten to kill more civilians than two decades of war”, https://eu.usatoday.com)

Shah Mehrabi, member of the Supreme Council of the Central Bank of Afghanistan expressed:

The Taliban government “will blame the US for the country’s economic woes – and so long as they can point to the assets held frozen under US control, the people will believe them. The choice for the US government is simple: continue down the path that would lead to total economic devastation for millions of people or do what is needed to help the Afghan people. […]

“Afghans deserve to be safe and prosper in their land. But right now, US policy is holding them back. The US must allow the Afghan people access to their own reserves in a monitored, common-sense way, or the country will collapse. We have the power to lift the Afghan people out of this crisis.” (“Afghanistan’s economy is collapsing, the US can help stop it”, www.aljazeera.com)

No doubt, the Taliban must abstain from any inhumane policy, however, it is a fact that without a proper budget or a smooth economy, a country cannot run properly. Rather than solely blame the Taliban for the current situation, the Western powers will have to reckon how much responsibility lies with all of them for their involvement in Afghanistan’s decades-old conflict.

A continuous call for peace

On 6 October 2015, during his address at a special session of the Standing Committee for Foreign Affairs at the Netherlands National Parliament, Hazrat Khalifatul Masih V^aa said:

“Even in a state of war, justice and fairness are of paramount importance and when a war concludes, the victor must continue to be just and never resort to undue cruelty. However, in today’s world we do not find such high moral standards and levels of integrity; rather, after a war is finished, countries impose sanctions and restrictions that limit the progress of the defeated parties and prevent their nations from attaining true freedom or independence. Such policies are harming international relations and can only ever increase frustrations and have a negative impact.” (World Crisis and the Pathway to Peace, p. 179)

On 2 May 2022, during his Eid-ul-Fitr Sermon, Huzoor^aa said:

“The world is gradually heading towards destruction, and this is all because man is not paying heed to the rights of others and the requirements of justice. Had this been the case, then we would not have seen the destruction of Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and now Ukraine. To inform the world of all this is our responsibility.” (Al Hakam, 6 May 2022, Issue 216, p. 2)

During a virtual meeting, while answering a question in regards to Afghanistan’s situation, Hazrat Khalifatul Masih V^aa said that for every nation, where there was progress, there was also a point of decline. When it reached a certain stage of decline, then Allah the Almighty could change its condition. It was possible, Huzoor^aa said, that when Afghanistan reached a further point of decline and fell close to destruction, then perhaps there might be someone among them who takes over again and establishes religious freedom, enabling Ahmadiyyat to be well established and with a prosperous future. Until then, there was no viable future. As the questioner was of Afghani origin, therefore, Huzoor^aa instructed him to keep praying as he was a native of that country and possessed true sympathy for his homeland. (Al Hakam, 17 June 2022, Issue 222, p. 2)

On 21 August 2022, during his concluding address at the Jalsa Salana Germany, Huzoor^aa said that the reason as to why there is global disharmony and unrest is because the intentions and aspirations of man are not pure.

Huzoor^aa added that today, undoubtedly, the world says that warfare is bad, and this is what every world leader says, but what they actually mean is, “If someone fights with us, then it is bad”, and, “If we start warfare, then it is not bad.” This is all because they have no fear of their Creator, Who has the power to provide peace to the world.

Huzoor^aa elaborated that if a nation’s enemy is helped and provided arms, then it is considered unacceptable, however, if that nation provides arms to another country, even if they are the perpetrators, then it is considered acceptable.

Huzoor^aa raised a pertinent question if this is the mentality of today, then how can global peace be achieved? (Al Hakam, 26 August 2022, Issue 232, p. 2)

May Allah enable all world leaders and rulers to act with justice, and may He enable those who call themselves Muslims to act upon the true teachings of Islam. Amin.