Intro
In 1935, Mirza Basheer ud Din Mahmud Ahmad told Ahmadi’s that the Arab Muslims were taking money from the British. He told Ahmadi’s that 20 years ago (in 1915), he exposed all of this in a letter to Lord Chelmsford Viceroy of India from 1916 to 1921 (Al Fazl Qadian, 3 September 1935).
“Many years ago, when Lord Chelmsford was Viceroy of India, the Muslims expressed their concerns that the British government was bringing Arab leaders under their control by providing them financial aid. As the uproar increased, the British-Indian government denied such claims, saying they were not providing any aid to the Arab rulers.
“Muslims felt reassured, but when I investigated, I found that although the Indian government was not providing such aid, but the British government in London was definitely doing so. Ibn Saud was paid 60,000 pounds while Sharif Husein was also paid a certain amount. I wrote to Lord Chelmsford saying that although he was seemingly right, but the facts were otherwise because the British government pays such and such amounts to ibn Saud and Sharif Husein. Muslims will undoubtedly never tolerate the suzerainty of the British government on Arab lands.
“As Lord Chelmsford was a noble person, he replied saying that ‘although what you say is true, but what good can we get out of making this public and rousing their sentiments. However, I can reassure you that the government has no such intentions’.” (Al Fazl Qadian, 3 September 1935)
Also during WW-2 (1917), Mirza Basheer ud Din Mahmud Ahmad met with the Secretary of State for India, Edwin Samuel Montagu, who had travelled all the way from London to India. Mirza Basheer ud Din Mahmud Ahmad drafted a plan and sent it to him through a delegation. Led by Chaudhry Zafrulla Khan, the delegation presented Mirza Basheer ud Din Mahmud Ahmad’s address to Montagu while he was at Lahore.
After receiving this proposal, he had an audience with Mirza Basheer ud Din Mahmud Ahmad. His memoirs of this tour to India were published posthumously by his daughter, titled “An Indian Diary”. Under 15 November 1917, he wrote about Mirza Basheer ud Din Mahmud Ahmad’s proposals:
“They read us a very long document drawn up by the man they call ‘His Holiness’ … which was by far the ablest document we have yet seen.”
He also mentioned his impressions about Mirza Mahmud Ahmad’s personality, stating that “he had a good mind” and that he “had carefully thought out his constitutional scheme”. (ES Montagu, An Indian Diary, published by William Heinemann Ltd, London [1930])
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Huzoor’s guidance for youth to learn more about Musleh-e-Maud
Huzoor’s guidance for youth to learn more about Musleh-e-Maud
Asif M Basit, Ahmadiyya Archive & Research Centre
I had the good fortune to be granted time by Hazrat Khalifatul Masih Vaa on the morning of 13 February 2021.
I mentioned how the youth had become acquainted with Chaudhry Hameedullah Sahib through Huzoor’s Friday Sermon the previous day – and what a beautiful source of introduction it had been! I also mentioned to Huzooraa something that I had been thinking about for sometime.
“Huzoor, those who saw Hazrat Musleh-e-Maudra closely are now falling in number very rapidly.”
Huzooraa replied, “Only very few are left. We have Mir Mahmud Ahmad Nasir Sahib. And Jamil-ur-Rahman Rafiq Sahib …”
I then expressed another point that had been on my mind for quite some time.
“Huzoor, you mention Hazrat Musleh-e-Maudra very often and the love you do so with, makes it sound like a point-of-action. But English-speaking youth have very little material that they can read and get to know Hazrat Musleh-e-Maudra more.”
On this, Huzooraa said:
“Some of his addresses and books have been translated. Many more are underway. What you can do is ask Al Hakam to publish an introduction to Hazrat Musleh-e-Maud’sra books that have been translated and also guide readers on how this material can be accessed.
“What is even more important is to explain that the prophecy about Musleh-e-Maud was actually an oracle of the Holy Prophet Muhammadsa fulfilled through the Promised Messiahas in the form of Hazrat Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmadra. This prophecy by the Holy Prophetsa was with reference to the Promised Messiahas of the Latter Days; this means that this son was to play an instrumental role in rejuvenating Islam. It is not a negligible prophecy, but rather holds a great station in the promised prosperity of Islam.
“There are many aspects of this prophecy and the youth should be introduced to all of them; however, the aspect that can be more appealing for the modern mind is that ‘he shall be full of knowledge, spiritual and secular’.
be filled with secular and spiritual knowledge” | First edition of Peshgoi Musleh-e-Maud (the prophecy pertaining to the Musleh-e-Maud)
“So, if the youth, and others as well, are told that the son of the Promised Messiahas, as foretold by the Holy Prophetsa, was granted knowledge of all sorts and that too in abundance, they will be intrigued and will strive to know more about Hazrat Musleh-e-Maudra.
“What must be mentioned is that Hazrat Musleh-e-Maud’sra formal education was next to none. He hardly made it to matriculation when, owing to ill health, he had to discontinue. His were not the days where the Internet could provide information from all around the world easily and readily, nor were libraries and bookshops of secular knowledge easily accessible in cities, not to speak of a small town like Qadian.
“But yet, to have knowledge of world affairs and their in-depth understanding, then analysing these affairs and presenting his analyses with great confidence to the world through publications – not only to the general public but to heads of states and dignitaries – is not something ordinary.
“He kept a close eye on the political, economic and social affairs of the world. He would know where such state of affairs was leading the world to; what could happen if matters continued in the same direction and if the approach was to be changed in such and such manner, it could bring about so and so results. And affairs would unfold in the manner as he had foreseen.
“So, if you only start writing about ‘he shall be full of knowledge, spiritual and secular, you may not be able to cover only this aspect in many episodes.
Huzooraa then said:
“I have also thought about introducing the personality and character of Hazrat Musleh-e-Maudra as well as his writings.”
Dear readers, you will have, like myself, already started to wait for the day when we will get to hear about the great persona of Hazrat Musleh-e-Maudra directly from Hazrat Amirul Momineenaa!
For now, in compliance with Huzoor’s instruction, we will take a quick glance at the extraordinary knowledge of Hazrat Musleh-e-Maudra (an introduction to books of Hazrat Musleh-e-Maudra translated to English is being given seperately in this issue).
While writing about only a selection of such matters that show us Hazrat Musleh-e-Maud’sra insight and knowledge, I could hear the echo of Huzoor’saa words about not being able to do justice to only this aspect alone. As you read the write-up below, you will have to share with me the thirst of knowing more.
One with immense knowledge, spiritual and secular – the Musleh-e-Maud
Twin birth
Before writing anything on this topic, we need to remember that the birth of Hazrat Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmadra was twinned with the birth of Jamaat-e-Ahmadiyya.
When the Promised Messiahas published the announcement that he would now accept bai‘at from people to form a jamaat, he also included in it the announcement of the birth of the promised son. This announcement was made on 12 January 1889.
Both these events were a fulfilment of two prophecies of Holy Prophetsa of Islam: that the Promised Messiah and Mahdias would found a jamaat and that he would marry and be blessed with progeny.
It is interesting to note that both these prophecies were fulfilled at the same time and both made the world amazed in great awe; both continued to rise to heights of success in extremely unfavourable conditions.
A literary magazine at a very young age
The Tash-heezul-Azhan magazine was started under his own editorship by Hazrat Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmadra in 1906, when he was only 17 years old. The articles that he wrote for this journal spoke volumes in favour of him being blessed with vast knowledge.
The very first issue (March 1906) carried an “Introduction” that spanned many pages. This editorial was a trove of knowledge in its own right; starting from the creation of Adam, making its way through the winding roads of human history, flying over the hills of religious evolution, floating through the expansive seas of the age of the advent of Islam, it landed on the plains of the age of the Promised reformer and Mahdi of the Latter Days and what it called for.
This magazine continued to be published for many years, providing ample proof in every issue that the very young editor was one with extraordinary intellectual capabilities.
The First Missionary Conference, organised by the likes of Rev Zwemmer and Rev Wherry, was held in Cairo in April 1906. A missionary of great renown, Rev Weitbrecht, read a paper titled The New Islam of India, which looked at reform movements with special reference to the Aligarh and the Ahmadiyya movements. He tried to prove that in their attempts to keep at par with the modern world, these reform movements were having to tweak basic teachings of Islam. (The Mohammedan World of Today, Edited by Zwemmer and Wherry, Flemming H Revell Co, London [1906])
Hazrat Sahibzada Mirza Mahmud Ahmadra, who was only 19, wrote a firmly argued article and refuted Weitbrecht’s false pretences; the article was published in Tash-heezul-Azhan in April 1906. Without going into details of the article, it should suffice here to only look at the outcome of this article written by a very young champion of Islam.
The same missionary, Herbert Weitbrecht, was to later write in the January 1925 issue of The Muslim World an article titled “The Ahmadiyya Movement”.
He opened the article by saying that readers must be wondering why so much has been said about the Ahmadiyya in recent issues of The Muslim World. He then went on to state the reason:
“It is worthy of attention because it represents one aspect of a larger movement, the reaction of Asia against the prevalence of European culture and influence. On the religious side of this reaction, the Ahmadiya represents Indian Islam, the largest body of Moslems in Asia and the world, which has come into the most effective contact with Christian evangelism, has taken its imprint most largely, and reacted against it most strongly.”
He went on to declare the Ahmadiyya Movement as being the greatest challenge for Christian evangelism.
A young defender of Islam
It was around the same age that Hazrat Mahmudra was in Lahore when he had the chance to have a meeting with the principal of the Missionary College (later to be known as Forman Christian College). Huzoorra discussed with the principal, who happened to be a seasoned evangelical missionary, the Christian belief of salvation through the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.
The book – included in Anwar-ul-Ulum with the title Pahari Wa‘z (Sermon of the Mount) – is actually an account of the discussion Huzoorra had at a very young age with a missionary, John Youngson, while he was visiting Dalhousie.
Acknowledgment and recognition
Hazrat Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmadra was only 23 when a book on great journalists of India was published. Titled, Akhbar Nawison ke Halaat (Biographical accounts of journalists), by Muhammadudin Fauq mentioned, among other renowned journalists, an introduction to Hazrat Mahmudra with reference to Tash-heezul-Azhan.
Huzoor’s articles were so rich in intellectual wealth that even opponents of Ahmadiyyat would take pride in publishing his works. For instance, the Nizam-ul-Mashaekh, Delhi, published Huzoor’s article titled “Khatamun-Nabiyyin” (the Seal of Prophets) in their March 1911 issue.
The article depicted the grandeur of this status of the Holy Prophetsa of Islam in a way that, despite doctrinal disagreements, the magazine felt honoured to having it in their publication.
Spokesman of Muslim rights
For such a young journalist – who ran his journal from a small town with next-to-none resources – is of great significance. The excellence of Hazrat Mahmud’sra editorial, journalistic and intellectual skills would remain incomplete without the mention of the newspaper Al Fazl.
Launched in June 1913, when he was only 24, the Al Fazl, Qadian took off at an astonishing pace and with a steep outreach trajectory. It was soon to become one of the major newspapers in India that the general public, as well as political circles and dignitaries, looked forward to reading in order to become aware of the Ahmadiyya viewpoint on current affairs. Why this was such, we will come to that later.
Shining even brighter
Having been elevated to the station of Khalifatul Masih, Hazrat Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmad’sra knowledge and intellectual prowess shone with an even brighter light. Now, the whole world was to benefit from the “knowledge, spiritual and secular” of this al-Musleh al-Maud – the promised reformer.
Alongside this, many other aspects of the prophecy started to become manifest as “nations benefitted from him” and prisoners were “set free from bondage” and that he would become famous “to the corners of the earth”. The prophecy that Islam will gain supremacy through this promised reformer became manifest in many ways but more so through his analyses and advice on global political issues always remained superior above others.
The Holy Quran to the West
In 1915, at the very onset of his Khilafat, he published the English translation and brief commentary of the first part of the Holy Quran. He arranged for this publication to be sent to universities and libraries in the Western world. It was the first attempt of its kind as it came from the pen of a Muslim himself and thus, attracted the attention of orientalists. Worth mentioning are reviews by RF McNeile in The Muslim World (April, 1916) and Charles C Torey in the Harvard Theological Review (October, 1917).
What must not be forgotten here is that this work of English translation and commentary went to the credit of a Khalifa with very limited resources and based in a tiny town in the Punjab. On the other hand, running parallel, was the Ottoman Caliphate – heading an extremely resourceful empire with all facilities at their disposal – who failed to publish a single translation in the six centuries of their reign; not even in their own Turkish language. (M Bret Wilson, “The First Translations of the Quran in Modern Turkey”, International Journal of Middle East Studies [2009])
With this polarity in terms of resources, wealth, facilities and manpower, does it not go to prove the divinely guided knowledge of the one born as a manifestation of a divine prophecy?
Orientalists head to Qadian
It was the magnetism of this extraordinary person – Hazrat Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmadra – that the intellectual world turned towards Qadian to find out more. Orientalists, historians, social scientists and politicians would travel thousands of miles to meet with Hazrat Musleh-e-Maudra.
Without going into details, we mention here only HA Walter who, as part of his research on the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, travelled to Qadian to personally speak with Hazrat Mahmudra.
His book, The Ahmadiyya Movement, which can justifiably be called the first scholarly work on the Jamaat by a Westerner, started off with these words of this able writer:
“My visit to Qadian, in January, 1916, although it took place more than eight years after the death of Ahmad, showed me a community where there existed abundant enthusiasm and zeal for religion …”
Knowledge of what is best for the Jamaat
Not hidden from the world is the schism that left the Ahmadiyya Jamaat in two sections: one that believed in Khilafat to be the way forward and the other that thought it was not. The former, led by Hazrat Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmadra, came to be commonly known as the Qadian branch among the historians and the latter, as the Lahore branch.
As the split was underway, Hazrat Mahmudra had expressly stated that Khilafat was the only way to keep the Jamaat on the track that the Promised Messiahas had desired for it and that he, despite general consensus in his favour, was ready to accept anyone else as Khalifa.
He had, through his farsighted vision and enlightened knowledge, seen that the Jamaat would perish if the leadership was to be of any form other than Khilafat.
Let us see how Walter observed this prediction come true:
“It now appears certain that the Lahore party will be absorbed in the All India Moslem League section of Indian Islam … whereas the Qadian party will continue as a permanent, and possibly a gradually widening, segment of the great circle of Islam.” (The Ahmadiyya Movement, Oxford University Press [1918])
Indian-Muslim politics
Coming to the political theatre around the Muslims of British-India, let us travel back in time to 1917. For now, let’s leave aside the spiritual status of Hazrat Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmadra as Khalifa of the Ahmadiyya Jamaat and only keep in mind that the one under discussion here is a 28-year-old young man.
The polity of British-India faced multifaceted conflicts – on the one hand was the Hindu-Muslim communal conflict and on the other, the British Government seemed set to grant autonomy to the people of India.
To gain a first-hand understanding of ground realities, the Secretary of State for India, Edwin Samuel Montagu, travelled all the way from London to India. While political circles approached him with their proposals on India’s independence, Hazrat Mahmudra drafted a plan and sent it to him through a delegation. Led by Hazrat Chaudhry Zafrulla Khanra, the delegation presented Huzoor’s address to Montagu while he was at Lahore.
After receiving this proposal, he had an audience with Hazrat Musleh-e-Maudra. His memoirs of this tour to India were published posthumously by his daughter, titled “An Indian Diary”. Under 15 November 1917, he wrote about Huzoor’s proposals:
“They read us a very long document drawn up by the man they call ‘His Holiness’ … which was by far the ablest document we have yet seen.”
He also mentioned his impressions about Hazrat Mirza Mahmud Ahmad’s personality, stating that “he had a good mind” and that he “had carefully thought out his constitutional scheme”. (ES Montagu, An Indian Diary, published by William Heinemann Ltd, London [1930])
Concern for the Arab World
It is now a conspicuous fact that countries that were once colonies of Western powers have still not gained independence in the true sense. They may have been given autonomous geographical identities, but they continue to be politically or economically subservient to Western powers.
When the play of granting “autonomy” to colonies was being staged, Hazrat Musleh-e-Maud’sra vision could foresee and predict some ulterior motives, which other Muslim leaders failed to even imagine.
Abdul Aziz ibn Saud, the ruler of Nejd in the Arabian Peninsula, signed a pact with the British government, namely the Treaty of Darin, on 26 December 1915. The treaty meant that ibn Saud would support the British expeditions in the Middle East and would not hinder in any military operations against the Muslim states of the region. Nejd was declared a British protectorate leaving no room for ibn Saud to communicate with any other government directly but only through the British government.
In return, he was granted 300 guns captured from the Ottoman armies along with a stipend of ten thousand pounds. The following year brought them an aid of 1,000 guns and a grant of 20,000 pounds along with a monthly allowance of 5,000 pounds.
Sharif Hussein ibn Ali of Hijaz was also given financial aid by the British on the condition that they would assist the British against the Ottomans.
(Details: John C Wilkinson, Arabia’s Frontiers: The story of Britain’s boundary drawing in the Desert, published by IB Tauris, London [1991])
This financial aid sabotaged the autonomy of these Arab states.
As this happened, Hazrat Musleh-e-Maudra wrote to Lord Chelmsford, the Viceroy of India, that such grants to the Hijaz and Nejd would lead to an uprising from other Muslim states. Huzoorra later recalled this episode in the following words:
“Many years ago, when Lord Chelmsford was Viceroy of India, the Muslims expressed their concerns that the British government was bringing Arab leaders under their control by providing them financial aid. As the uproar increased, the British-Indian government denied such claims, saying they were not providing any aid to the Arab rulers.
“Muslims felt reassured, but when I investigated, I found that although the Indian government was not providing such aid, but the British government in London was definitely doing so. Ibn Saud was paid 60,000 pounds while Sharif Husein was also paid a certain amount. I wrote to Lord Chelmsford saying that although he was seemingly right, but the facts were otherwise because the British government pays such and such amounts to ibn Saud and Sharif Husein. Muslims will undoubtedly never tolerate the suzerainty of the British government on Arab lands.
“As Lord Chelmsford was a noble person, he replied saying that ‘although what you say is true, but what good can we get out of making this public and rousing their sentiments. However, I can reassure you that the government has no such intentions’.” (Al Fazl Qadian, 3 September 1935)
Hazrat Musleh-e-Maudra had an intuition that whether the intentions were such or not, the Arabs would consequently become economic slaves of the West.
When Lord Reading succeeded Chelmsford, Hazrat Musleh-e-Maudra drew a detailed proposal for Indian reforms but also touched upon the issue of Arabia.
After the Ahmadiyya delegation had presented this address to the Viceroy, the Viceroy responded in so much detail that the press covered his speech with headlines saying: “Viceroy’s reply to the Ahmadiyya Community”. (The Leader, 26 June 1921)
Today, so many people claim to be loyal to the Muslim Ummah and its cause, but history has it set in stone that the one Muslim leader foresaw the potential pitfalls of the course taken by Muslims and was none else but Hazrat Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmadra.
What the Muslim nations have ended up with is ample proof of Hazrat Musleh-e-Maud’s far-ranging vision, so we leave it here with no comments.
Advice on contracts of oil fields
The post-World War I time brought with it many challenges and twists for world politics. Owing primarily to the economic depression, Western powers struggled to keep their vast empires intact while their own survival remained shrouded in uncertainty.
With the surge of industrialisation, coal – the main fuel for machines and engines – seemed to be running out. In pursuit of substitute forms of fuel, the West had their gazes set on the oil fields of the Middle East.
Therefore, Iraq Petroleum Company and Anglo-Persian Company invested huge funds and petroleum engineering skills on these vast lands that seemed barren on the surface but were richer deep down than any other part of the world. With the expansive reserves lying under the Middle East, the British engineers were certain of finding even more in the soils of Arabia.
To dig down to this treasure trove, the first contract was signed in 1922, between Abdul Aziz ibn Saud and Frank Holmes, who represented the London based company, Eastern and General Syndicate. The oil extracted through this grand drilling operation was bought by the company and exported back home and sold to other countries, while agreeing a certain amount to be paid in return to ibn Saud, the owner of the land.
Then followed oil drillings in the Al Hassa province of Arabia against a fixed amount of money. Taking this amount to have become a regular source of income, the stipend paid to ibn Saud by the British government was terminated. This in effect meant that ibn Saud was now relieved of the treaty signed with the British government and was, apparently, autonomous in his political decisions. (Robert Lacey, The Kingdom, Harcourt Brace Joanovich, London [1982])
Hazrat Musleh-e-Maudra read between the lines of these contracts signed between ibn Saud and the oil excavation companies. He saw the land of the holy shrines being given away by way of eternal economic slavery. Huzoorra, commenting on this situation, said:
“A contract has been signed by Abdul Aziz ibn Saud and a Western company. Although Sultan Abdul Aziz is a wise king, but for unfamiliarity with European history, he is not well-versed with European terminology …
“I sent him a message through a common acquaintance that he ought to observe extreme care when signing the contract because Europeans use very soft terms that have very strong meanings … I have read the contract and I feel that some mistakes have been made. The clauses make the Arab land prone to encroachment by outside governments.
“Only God knows how much I am hurt to read the contract. Although we cooperate with the British and we are quite open about this … but whether it is the British or any other government, we cannot show tolerance when it comes to the Arab world.
“Such precautionary measures could have been taken in signing this contract that could guard the Arab world against the potential dangers. But since the Sultan is not familiar with European terminology and international affairs, he has not been careful enough in the choice of words …
“Contracts should never be signed on the basis of trust; rather, they should be worded with great care and thought”. (Al Fazl Qadian, 3 September 1935)
A sign of the breadth and depth of divinely blessed knowledge
Hazrat Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmadra may not have been seen as Khalifatul Masih or Musleh-e-Maudra by the world outside Ahmadiyyat, but their intellectual circles left no opportunity to benefit from his knowledge and divinely enlightened intellect.
To mention just a couple of such incidents, Huzoorra was invited by the intellectuals of Lahore to address them on the topic of Islam and International Relations. Huzoorra addressed them on 23 February in Bradlaugh Hall, Lahore and brought to their attention the tender state that Islam was going through in terms of International affairs. Newspapers covered the event and published the summary. (See Civil and Military Gazette, Lahore, 2 March 1919)
Martin Historical Society, taking advantage of Huzoor’s presence in Lahore, invited him to address them in Islamia College, Civil Lines, Lahore and enlighten them with the history of Islam. Thus, on 24 February 1919, Huzoorra addressed them in the Habibia Hall of the college and delivered the lecture that later got published as Islam Mein Ikhtelafat ka Aghaz (translated as The Outset of Dissension in Islam).
Lest we forget, it must be kept in mind that all this rich material was pouring out of the blessed mind of a “young man” whose bosom had been divinely blessed with a huge expanse of knowledge.
Advice to Khilafat Movement
When, in the 1920s, the Ottoman caliphate issue was used as a tool to instil nationalistic sentiments in Indian Muslims, Hazrat Musleh-e-Maudra guided the leaders of the Khilafat Movement in detail. That they refused to pay heed is one issue, but that they saw the fulfilment of Hazrat Musleh-e-Maud’s predictions is another, both worthy of notice.
Huzoorra had categorically told them that taking up the issue of Ottoman caliphate as one of spiritual nature would damage the cause of Turkey, while taking it up with the British government as an issue of political value for Muslims could potentially bring about desired results.
The Khilafatists thought they knew better than the “young boy” and fought their case as they had planned: presenting to Lloyd George, the British prime minster, the Ottoman case as one of spiritual value.
The transcript of the conversation that took place between the Khilafat delegation and the prime minister is preserved at the British Parliamentary archives and is ample proof that every word of warning by Hazrat Musleh-e-Maudra proved to be most realistic. As soon as Muhammad Ali Jauhar – the head of the delegation – spoke of the Ottomans being the spiritual figurehead of the Muslim world, the prime ministers cross questioning rendered the delegation stumbled, so much so that they were never able to rise back.
Where inklings became realities
It is well known that King Edward VIII of England abdicated to be able to marry an American twice-divorcee. The government and the Church of England painted the whole episode as if the King had given precedence to his personal lustful desire over his national and spiritual duty; spiritual for being the supreme head of the Church of England. The propaganda was so strong and spiteful that it was rolled out by the world press with similar implications.
Now we had the global press, political analysts, historians and experts on royal affairs on one side and the man with divinely gifted knowledge of the spiritual and secular world. Hazrat Musleh-e-Maudra immediately penned a detailed analysis and had it published, stating that the fact is that the king was weary of Christianity and that this episode was actually a proof of the truthfulness of Islam; both in doctrine and in family law.
Huzoorra expressly wrote that the government and the Church had only taken leverage of his love affair, when the fact was that they never wanted a person weary of Christianity to make it to the throne. (The detailed article can be read here: www.alhakam.org/the-abdication-of-edward-viii-an-islamic-take-on-the-crisis-that-shook-the-crown-part-i/)
Many great writers have written great articles and books on Hazrat Musleh-e-Maudra. I do not feel worthy even to comment on the magnificent persona of Hazrat Musleh-e-Maudra. But as a beginner-level student of history, I do want to admit here an experience that I went through as I researched on King Edward VIII’s abdication and Hazrat Musleh-e-Maud’s analysis of the whole episode.
It was not easy, even today, to access the records of the government and the Church of England. Every document that could unearth the goings-on from 85 years ago was hard to get hold of. Then to obtain these documents, put them together and draw a conclusion was even more demanding.
I call on God as my Witness that every fact, every document and every piece of paper that came before my eyes left me astounded to imagine how a man living in a small township in Colonial Punjab could have seen all this so clearly. Even those at the helm of affairs were not able to pick up the reality behind the propaganda when Hazrat Musleh-e-Maud’sra enlightened cognisance had picked up the underlying impetus behind the whole story and brought it to light.
Strange it is to note that even inklings of his heart outweighed heavily researched thoughts of not only his times, but times to come.
I also must confess that what has been mentioned above is only but a tiny droplet in the mighty oceans of the intellect of a divinely promised reformer. We will, insha-Allah, continue to cover more in future. We do believe, however, that it might be a project of many lifetimes.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Hazrat Musleh-e-Maud’s services to the Muslim cause: Guiding Muslims of the Indian subcontinent amid religious and political conflicts
Hazrat Musleh-e-Maud’s services to the Muslim cause: Guiding Muslims of the Indian subcontinent amid religious and political conflicts
Ata-ul-Haye Nasir, Ahmadiyya Archive & Research Centre
History bears witness that Hazrat Musleh-e-Maudra rendered great services to the Muslim Ummah. He granted valuable guidance to the Muslims of Indian subcontinent amid various political and religious conflicts, and advocated for their rights.
Address to Edwin Samuel Montagu
On 20 August 1917, Edwin Samuel Montagu, Secretary of State for India, stated in the House of Commons:
“The policy of His Majesty’s Government […] is that of […] gradual development of self-governing institutions with a view to the progressive realization of responsible government in India as an integral part of the British Empire.” (House of Commons Debates, Vol. 97, cc. 1695-97 [20 August 1917])
After this announcement – while the political activities of the Congress were in full swing – the Muslims got anxious in regard to the future danger. The thought that was causing them huge distress was that if India was granted the right of limited self-government, the Muslims could face severe dangers from the majority, who were Hindus.
It was late 1917 when Edwin Montagu toured India to discuss the introduction of the limited self-government. Hazrat Musleh-e-Maudra sent a delegation to present an address to him on 15 November 1917. Huzoorra advised an appropriate road map towards India’s self-dominion and stated that the elections should not be held in such a way that could consequently harm the minority communities. (The Review of Religions [Urdu], December 1917)
Shuddhi Movement
In 1923, there was a great anxiety among the Muslims of the subcontinent due to the Shuddhi movement, which stood to convert Muslims to Hinduism.
On 7 March 1923, Huzoorra instructed Ahmadis to get ready to offer every possible sacrifice to defeat the Shuddhi movement. (Al Fazl, 12 March 1923, pp. 13-14)
Then, during his Friday Sermon of 9 March 1923, Huzoorra stated a detailed scheme to tackle this issue and instructed the Jamaat to donate 50,000 rupees for this. (Al Fazl, 15 March 1923, pp. 3-6)
A newspaper, Hamdam, on 18 March 1923, wrote that by witnessing Jamaat-e-Ahmadiyya’s passion and spirit of sacrifice, it was almost certain that they would raise 50,000 rupees or even more, but expressed hopelessness for such a sacrifice from the non-Ahmadi Muslims.
More details about the Jamaat’s services in response to the Shuddhi movement can be read in our article, titled “Hazrat Musleh-e-Maud’s response to the Shuddhi movement and the Jamaat’s relentless services for Islam”.
Hindu-Muslim unrest and Anti-Islamic rhetoric
On 23 December 1926, a prominent leader of the Shuddhi movement, Swami Shraddhanand, was assassinated, erupting a nationwide Hindu-Muslim unrest.
On 2 March 1927, Huzoorra delivered a lecture in Lahore, titled, “Hindu-Muslim Fasadat, Inka Ilaaj, Aur Musalmanon ka Ainda Tariq-e-Amal”, i.e. Hindu-Muslim Relations and the Future Line of Muslim Conduct (Al Fazl, 15, 18 & 22 March 1927), about which a newspaper, Tanzim, stated:
“Amir Jamaat-e-Ahmadiyya Qadian delivered an important speech on the causes and remedy of the Hindu-Muslim unrest and Muslims’ future plan […] [He] emphasised that Muslims should unite, otherwise it will be difficult for them to retain their stature.” (Tanzim, 14 March 1927, p. 12)
Lahore’s Hindu newspapers also published summaries of this lecture, including Milap, Partap, Banday Matram and Sau Rajiya.
The Civil and Military Gazette reported:
“Hindu-Muslim Relations
“Powerful Appeal for Mutual Toleration
“Hazrat Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad, Head of the Ahmadiyya community, gave a very significant speech on ‘Hindu-Muslim Relations and the Future Line of Muslim Conduct,’ on Wednesday, March 2. The Hon Sir Muhammad Shafi, K.C.S.I., was in the chair. The hall was packed to its fullest capacity and both communities were amply represented by leading members.
“The lecturer traced the origin of the Hindu-Muslim disturbances to two causes, viz., the absence of religious toleration and political injustice. Both these traits in the Indian character, he remarked, were the inheritance of past Indian history, for which the present generation was not responsible. Therefore, instead of quarrelling amongst themselves and making matters worse, both communities should try to bury the past and make mutual efforts to forget and forgive. He appealed strongly to both communities, in the name of their respective religions and in the name of their country, to cultivate the virtues of broad-mindedness and fair-play which were greatly needed to develop national life in India. The lecturer was listened to with deep attention by an appreciative audience.” (The Civil and Military Gazette, 5 March 1927, p. 5)
During his Friday Sermon of 22 April 1927, Huzoorra advised Muslims to unite and stated that those who claimed love for the Holy Prophetsa, should rise in support of Islam. He added that though only those arguments would be beneficial as had been presented by the Promised Messiahas, but the important thing was to set aside internal disputes and tackle the enemy of Islam united. (Al Fazl, 6 May 1927, pp. 6-9)
During the first week of May 1927, anti-Muslim riots erupted in Lahore and Muslims had to face severe oppression. During his Friday Sermon of 6 May 1927, Huzoorra guided the Muslims in this regard and advised them on how to tackle this issue.
Huzoorra published many articles, posters and announcements. In his first article, titled Imam Jamaat-e-Ahmadiyya’s Comment on the Lahore Riots, he advised Muslims to take heed from the riots and pay attention towards spreading Islam. (Al Fazl, 13 May 1927, p. 2)
The Civil and Military Gazette reported under the title “APPEAL BY RELIGIOUS HEAD”:
“Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad, the Head of the Ahmadiyya Community, Qadian, has circulated a poster reviewing the Lahore riots. […] Sympathising with the wounded and the murdered of both parties, he has subscribed Rs. 200 to be distributed among the afflicted and the survivors of the victims without any distinction of race or religion, and has advised his followers in other towns to raise necessary funds for the purpose. ‘No Muslim must think of taking revenge,’ is his advice to the Mussalmans. ‘A Muslim is to be who keeps his feelings under his control.’” (The Civil and Military Gazette, 13 May 1927, p. 7)
Huzoorra decided to initiate a countrywide movement for not only aiding the oppressed Muslims of Lahore, but also for the Indian Muslims’ economic, political and religious progress. He published a tract as well, titled “Aap Islam aur Musalmanon ke liay kiaa kar saktay hain?”, i.e., What can you do for Islam and Muslims? (Al Fazl, 17 and 24 May 1927), in which he outlined 31 points of the scheme for Islam’s unity.
An Arya Samajist, namely Rajpal, who had published a disrespectful book, titled Rangila Rasul, was initially sentenced to six months’ imprisonment and a fine of 1,000 rupees or six months’ more imprisonment. But on his appeal, the Punjab High Court’s judge, Kanwar Dalip Singh acquitted him, which caused huge distress amongst the Muslims.
Then, Risala-i-Vartman published a disrespectful article, titled Sair-i-Dozakh, in its May 1927 issue.
At that juncture, Huzoorra published a poster, titled “Rusool-e-Karimsa ki Mahabbat ka Da‘wa karnay wale kiaa ab bhi bedaar na honge?”, i.e., Will the Claimants of the Holy Prophet’ssa Love Still Not Wake Up? and stated:
“Could there be any other day of tribulation for Islam? Could our helplessness take any other severe state? Don’t our neighbours [Hindus] know that we love the Holy Prophetsa from depth of our hearts and hold him more dear to us than our lives, for whom every fibre of myself and my family are entirely devoted and each particle of our body is sacrificed upon the dust of the shoes of the Leadersa of the righteous people? […] Our lives are here [to sacrifice], the lives of our children are here [to sacrifice]; harm us as much as you wish, but for God’s sake, do not destroy your[selves in this] world and the Hereafter.”
He continued by advising the Muslims:
“For Islam’s progress, make a pledge of three things: firstly, you will instil within yourself the fear of Allah and will not show carelessness towards the religion; secondly, you will show full interest in preaching Islam and for this task, you will not hesitate from sacrificing your life and wealth; thirdly, you will strive the utmost to save Muslims from cultural and economic slavery.” (Al Fazl, 10 June 1927, pp. 6-8)
The outcome of this poster was recorded by All India Reporter (Lahore, 1927) in the following words:
“Towards the end of May or very early in June a poster made its appearance in Amritsar. It is said to have been sent by the Mirza of Qadian and, to have drawn attention to certain portions of this article and still further excited the Muslims.” It was acknowledged that “had it not been for the part played by the Mirza of Qadian in sending a poster to Amritsar”, the article of Risala-i-Vartman may not have been seen as “highly inflammatory” by the law-enforcement agencies.
GR Thursby mentions the huge impact of this poster in his book Hindu-Muslim Relations in British India:
“Several days after its appearance an Urdu poster was distributed in Amritsar which called the attention of Muslims to what were apparently the particularly objectionable portions of the article. The Mirza or leader of the Ahmadiyya Muslim sect at Qadian was the attributed source of the poster, which provoked protest meetings against the article and led to noticeable unrest among many of the Muslims of the city. Therefore, early in June a Muslim Deputy Superintendent of Police brought the article to the attention of the local government. This resulted in proscription of the May issue of the journal [Vartman] under section 99A of the Criminal Procedure Code. Then, on June 6th, prosecution under 153A of the Indian Penal Code was undertaken by the government. Both Gian Chand Pathak, who was the acknowledged editor, printer, and publisher of Vartman journal, and Devi Sharan Sharma, who was the alleged author of Sair-i-Dauzakh were arrested, and the Amritsar District Magistrate began to hear testimony within days of their arrest.” (Hindu-Muslim Relations in British India, by GR Thursby, 1975, p. 56)
In regard to the acquittal of Rajpal, an Ahmadi editor of the newspaper, Muslim Outlook, Syed Dilawar Shah Sahib Bukhari commented in his editorial of 14 June 1927, upon which he and the owner of the newspaper, Maulvi Nurul Haq Sahib, received a notice of contempt of the court.
Syed Dilawar Shah Sahib requested Huzoorra for his advice, upon which Huzoorra advised him:
“It should be our duty to show appropriate respect to the provincial court, but when you have written an article with honesty and just represented the thoughts which are being emerged in the hearts of every Muslim, so now what else could be your duty other than to just remain firm on this truth. This is a matter of love for the Holy Prophetsa. […]
“My advice to you is that you should respond by stating that if, in the eyes of the High Court’s judges, there is an article in the English law for protecting the honour of Kanwar Dalip Sahib, but no article for protecting the honour of the Holy Prophetsa, then I would be ready to go to the prison.” (Al Fazl, 1 July 1927, p. 3)
After the case proceedings, the court gave a judgement against them.
Huzoorra issued an important message for Muslims, in which he announced that his Jamaat would be ready to do everything, in accordance with Islamic teachings, for protecting the honour of the Holy Prophetsa and thereafter, he advised Muslims to unite. (Al Fazl, 28 June 1927, pp. 1-2)
On 23 June 1927, Huzoorra wrote an article, titled “Rusool-e-Karimsa ki Izzat ka Tahaffuz aur Hamaara Farz”, i.e., Protection of the Holy Prophet’ssa honour and our duty. (Al Fazl, 1 July 1927, p. 3)
Huzoorra suggested the Muslims to organise jalsas on 22 July 1927 in all places, in which Muslims should discuss about their economic and cultural freedom and to take an oath from everyone that they will preach the teachings of Islam in their respective areas. Thus, Muslims of the Indian subcontinent held jalsas in many places.
Dr Saifuddin Sahib, Editor Akhbar Tanzim of Amritsar, suggested to organise a Muslim Parties Conference and asked prominent leaders, including Huzoorra, for their views on it. In response, Huzoorra stated:
“I already had this thought. Is there any doubt that the [internal] disagreement is damaging the Muslims? But the biggest problem is that Muslims are unable to comprehend the damage due to this disagreement. The third problem is that they are leaving aside the real ways of unity and wish to supress every voice other than them.” (Tarikh-e-Ahmadiyyat, Vol. 4, pp. 624-625)
Then came the time for the court’s judgement on Vartman’s case and the author of the article was punished for one year in jail with a 500-rupee fine and the editor, for six months in jail and a 250-rupee fine.
Upon this, Huzoorra stated:
“My heart is distressed because I do not declare a mere one-year jail sentence to be the price for disrespecting my master and leader Hazrat Muhammadsa. Unlike those who say that the punishment for the one who abuses Rasulullahsa is to kill him, I do not even declare a person’s death to be its compensation; I do not even declare its price to be a nation’s destruction; I do not even declare its price to be the whole world’s death; in fact, I do not even declare its price to be the killing of all disbelievers of the past and the future, because my Master’ssa honour is far superior than declaring its price to be the killing of an individual or a community. […]
“The ongoing opposition against Islam is actually the result of Muslims’ laziness in preaching. […] Get ready with courage and perseverance for the preaching of God’s religion and the nation’s progress, then God Himself will descend from the Heavens to help you and His nur [divine light] will guide you.” (Al Fazl, 19 August 1927, pp. 3-6)
In relation to this issue, Hazrat Musleh-e-Maudra issued a press release which was published in The Civil and Military Gazette, on 26 August 1927, in which he granted valuable guidance to the government and advised them to take necessary steps to safeguard the honour and respect of the holy founders of all religions.
The Mashriq newspaper, on 23 September 1927, wrote:
“All the Muslims are obliged to respected Imam Jamaat-e-Ahmadiyya for his favours. It was because of his movement that Vartman [magazine] was prosecuted. It was his Jamaat which pursued the issue of Rangila Rasul [book]. They were fearless and did not hesitate to go to jail. It was his pamphlet which made Governor Sahib deliver justice.”
Shia-Sunni Riots in Tirah
Huzoor’sra struggle for the unity of Muslims was once again damaged by the Shia-Sunni riots in the area of Tirah, upon which Huzoorra published an appeal to the Shia and Sunni Muslims and stated:
“The information about the Shia-Sunni riots in the Frontier Independent Areas have brought great grief to the hearts of those who feel pain for Islam. […] It should be our foremost duty to not let this evil spread more. […] I promise those who have suffered from this fight every kind of financial and moral help that I can offer.” (Tanzim, 14 August 1927, p. 2)
Visit to Simla
Hazrat Musleh-e-Maudra visited Simla [now Shimla] from 13 August to 2 October 1927. Throughout this tour, Huzoor’sra activities were focused on religious, national, and community matters. Various leaders and dignitaries had the opportunity to meet him, including the then Viceroy of India and the then Governor of Punjab.
Huzoorra advised the government to make specific ammendments to the laws for safeguarding the respect and honour of all religions and their leaders.
During his Friday Sermon of 9 September 1927, Huzoorra advised the Muslims by stating:
“The principle which is needed for the Muslims’ progress is their religious progress. The more their power of faith and conviction grows, the more they will move towards progress.” (Al Fazl, 20 September 1927, p. 5)
On 11 September 1927, Huzoorra delivered a lecture in Simla, in which he made the Muslims aware of their individual and national responsibilities. (Al Fazl, 23 September 1927, pp. 3-6)
Applauding Huzoor’sra services, a prominent leader, Muhammad Ali Jauhar, stated:
“It will be ungrateful if we do not mention respected Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmad and his well-disciplined Jamaat, who have devoted all their efforts – irrespective of doctrinal differences – towards the welfare of the Muslims.” (Hamdard, 26 September 1927)
Simon Commission
Under the Montagu-Chelmsford Reform Scheme, the British government had decided that after 10 years, a commission be sent to India to examine the effects and operations of the constitutional reforms and to suggest more reforms for India.
Towards the end of 1927, a commission was announced to be sent whose president was Sir John Allsebrook Simon. This is known as “The Indian Statutory Commission” or “Simon Commission”.
As the commission had no Indian member, Congress and other political parties boycotted it. Even some prominent Muslim leaders like MA Jinnah and Muhammad Ali Jauhar also had the same opinion.
But Hazrat Musleh-e-Maudra wrote a booklet on 8 December 1927, titled Musalmanan-e-Hind ke Imtehan ka Waqt (A Time of Trial for the Indian Muslims), wherein he advised Muslims that the boycott would be detrimental for the Muslims, compared to the Hindus.
Huzoorra stated that since the Reform Scheme had been approved, Hindu leaders knew that India’s future was linked to the English nation; thus, they often visited England to meet with prominent Englishmen and speak about Hindus’ benefits. Huzoorra said that they had made them their likeminded. But the Muslims had not paid any attention towards this matter.
Huzoorra added that if the commission was boycotted, then its report would be based on their previous information provided to them by the Hindus. (Musalmanan-e-Hind ke Imtehan ka Waqt, Anwar-ul-Ulum, Vol. 10, pp. 37-55)
Seerat-un-Nabi Jalsas
As the year 1927 had seen huge anti-Islam rhetoric, Huzoorra initiated a great scheme of holding seerat-un-Nabi jalsas.
Huzoorra stated:
“The reason why people dare to attack [the blessed character of the Holy Prophetsa] is that they are unaware of the true circumstances of his life. […] This has only one remedy, which is to deliver as many lectures as possible with such emphasis that every person of India should become aware of his purity and life’s circumstances. […] So it is our obligation to make all the Muslims and non-Muslims of India aware of the pure life of the Holy Prophetsa. On the same day each year, this matter needs to be highlighted with special arrangement.” (Al Fazl, 10 January 1928, pp. 1-2)
At first, the date for the jalsa was announced to be 20 June 1928, but it was later changed to 17 June.
Upon Huzoor’sra instruction, Al Fazl published a Khatamun-Nabiyyin number on 12 June 1928, which consisted of articles by Huzoorra, Ahmadi scholars, non-Ahmadi scholars, leaders and non-Muslims as well. It also included a few na‘ts (poems in praise of the Prophetsa) as well. 7,000 copies were published at first, but due to high demand, more copies were published.
Many newspapers appreciated the initiative of jalsas and after the proving successful throughout India, the press published applauding headlines.
The Mashriq newspaper of Gorakhpur, on 21 June 1928, stated:
“This date [of seerat-un-Nabi jalsas] will be remembered in India forever because on this date, every Muslim sect commemorated His Highness, the chief of both worlds, Muhammad Rasulullahsa in one aspect or another […] Anyway, we congratulate Imam Jamaat-e-Ahmadiyya, respected Mirza Mahmud Ahmad, on the success of the jalsa held on 17 June. If Shias, Sunnis and Ahmadis gathered at one place two to four times each year, then no power in this country could compete with Islam.”
Few years later, reporting on the seerat-un-Nabi jalsas which were held all over India on 6 November 1932, The Civil and Military Gazette wrote:
“The need for the inculcation of such knowledge in India occurred to Hazrat Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad, Head of the Community of the Ahmadyyas of Qadian, some years ago, when popular feeling had been wrought up to a height by the Rangila Rasul pamphlet.
“Realising that this kind of trouble arose largely from misunderstanding, His Holiness conceived the idea of organising a campaign, on one particular day of the year, and when prominent men of all religions could explain to the people what the teachings of the Prophet really mean.” (The Civil and Military Gazette, 14 November 1932, p. 3)
Nehru Report
On 7 July 1925, the Secretary of State for India, the Earl of Birkenhead stated in the British Parliament:
“We do not claim in Great Britain that we alone in the world are able to frame Constitutions, though we are not altogether discontented with the humble constructive efforts which we have made in this field of human ingenuity. But if our critics in India are of opinion that their greater knowledge of Indian conditions qualifies them to succeed, where they tell us that we have failed, let them produce a Constitution which carries behind it a fair measure of general agreement among the great peoples of India. Such a contribution to our problems would nowhere be resented. It would, on the contrary, be most carefully examined by the Government of India, by myself, and I am sure, by the Commission, whenever that body may be assembled. I gladly recognise that the so-called Liberal Party in India, neither inconsiderable in numbers nor lacking in the leadership of enlightened men, has refused to associate itself with the ill-starred course of non-cooperation. It is still possible that this Party, perhaps to be gradually reinforced by fresh moderate elements, may play a great part in the Constitution fashioning of the future.” (Hansard, HL Debates, 7 July 1925, Vol. 61, cc. 1062-1094, https://hansard.parliament.uk)
He repeated this challenge in 1928.
Upon this, Congress called a session of the All Parties Conference on 19 May 1928 in Mumbai, where a ten-members’ sub-committee was established, chaired by Motilal Nehru, which had only two Muslim representatives. This committee passed a constitution which was pro-Hindus. It is commonly known as the Nehru Report.
Hazrat Musleh-e-Maudra commented on the Nehru Report in detail. Al Fazl published those comments from 2 October to 2 November 1928, which was later published in book form titled, Nehru Report aur Musalmanon ke Masaleh. Its English translation was later published in March 1930, titled The Nehru-Report and Muslim Rights.
Huzoorra stated that this committee could not be deemed representative of India and then shed light on the demands of the Muslims.
Huzoorra stated:
“I do not mean to say that you must not make efforts for the freedom of India. Now when Great Britain herself has decided that India is entitled to representative Government, I fully associate myself with my countrymen in every legitimate effort made for its attainment. But what weighs heavy upon my mind and saddens my heart is the thought, that the Muslims should agree to constitutional reforms without safeguarding their own interests. The consequences of such action are bound to be most bitter and disasterous. The Muslim ought not to agree to any settlement until the proposals of both the sections of the League have been accepted, otherwise it will result in so serious a situation that the very thought of it makes one shudder. This also should be borne in mind that if the above-mentioned proposals of the opponents of the Nehru-Report,–whether Leaguers, Khilafatists or others, are made a basis of any agreement, then the Mussalmans will have little to fear regarding future alteration of the present decisions. In that case their rights will be adequately protected. Thereafter if the safeguards are found superfluous, it will not be difficult to amend the laws, because it will be the Hindus, and not the Muslims, who will benefit by such amendment, and the Hindus will not therefore oppose such change.” (The Nehru-Report and Muslim Rights [Nehru Report aur Musalmanon ke Masaleh], p. 52)
Simon Commission’s Punjab Committee
The Muslim members of the Simon Commission’s Punjab Committee had agreed upon the suggestion that the Punjab Council should have 83 Muslim members out of the total 165, though Muslims deserved 55 percent share. Huzoorra wrote an article, in which he expressed his concerns over this agreement. This article was published in Al Fazl of 30 August 1929.
When this article got published in the newspapers Siasat and Daur-e-Jadid, a non-Ahmadi, Muhammad Hayat Khan Sahib, Superintendent Police Pensioner appreciated the article in his letter to Huzoorra dated 8 September 1929. (Tarikh-e-Ahmadiyyat, Vol. 5, p. 149)
Civil disobedience by Congress
When the Congress initiated civil disobedience on 6 April 1930, some Muslim organisations such as Majlis-e-Ahrar and Jamiat-ul-Ulema favoured this initiation. But with Huzoor’sra efforts, the Muslims as a whole avoided it.
In his Friday Sermon of 2 May 1930, Huzoorra expressed his views about the matter and outlined an appropriate course of action.
On 4 and 5 July 1930, a conference of All Muslim Parties was held, in which Huzoorra also participated upon the invitation of some prominent leaders.
A weekly newspaper, Khawar, wrote in its editorial:
“At the outset of this month [July 1930], an All India Muslim Conference was held in Simla. […] Though Hazrat Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Sahib is considered to be a religious leader, I [the editor] have found him to be fully aware of the current politics, truthful and an honest, noble gentleman.” (The Weekly Khawar, 21 July 1930, p. 3)
Nehru Report’s supplement
When the supplement of the Nehru Report was published and some of its previous points were reformed, Huzoorra expressed his views on the reforms, which related to the Muslims, and defended the rights of Muslims. He added that whenever England agrees upon the independence of India, it would be the Muslims’ right to demand for either the supervision of their rights or to make a system themselves, under which they could establish and retain their freedom. (Al Fazl, 11 May 1930, pp. 3-4)
Round Table Conference 1930
A Round Table Conference was announced to be held from 12 November 1930 to 19 January 1931, and the Viceroy of India had stated that the solution for India’s political problems would heavily rely upon the Simon Commission’s report.
Huzoorra wrote his views on this matter, titled Hindustan Ke Maujuda Siyasi Masla Ka Hal (Some Suggestions for the Solution of the Indian Problem) and sent it to England, in which the validity of the Muslims’ demands and rights were addressed in detail.
In February 1932, a sub-committee of the Round Table Conference started working under the presidency of the viceroy of India, in which sectarian disputes, basic rights and many other issues of India were to be discussed. The Muslims were divided in two groups – one wanted to boycott the committee, while the other one passionately supported the committee.
Huzoorra wrote a detailed article, titled Round Table Conference and Muslims, in which he gave valuable guidance to the Muslims. He stated that he considered both groups to be well-wishers of the Muslims, but on this issue, both groups were wrong. (Al Fazl, 6 March 1932, pp. 3-4)
Anarchy in the country
The civil disobedience, which was initiated by the Congress in 1930, increased in severity in 1932 and the country indulged in anarchism. At that juncture, Huzoorra delivered many sermons on this issue and instructed the Jamaat to offer every possible sacrifice for protecting rights of the Muslims.
During his Friday Sermon of 5 February 1932, he stated:
“At this time, various fitnas [disorders] are prevalent here. On the one hand, the supressing of Muslims’ rights is in question, while on the other, the chaos against the government. […] The Muslims ought to tackle both of these fitnas with full care. […] The establishment of peace in a country is God Almighty’s command. Hence, even if the British [Government] itself does not make efforts to establish peace, we are required to establish it, even by risking our lives.” (Al Fazl, 14 February 1932, pp. 8-11)
Controversy of Turkish Delegation
In 1943, a delegation of Turk journalists visited Lahore and their leader stated that they were Turk first, then Muslims and there was no need to offer daily prayers during a journey.
This statement erupted great unrest among the Indian Muslims. The Hindu press started to fuel the fire of this fury among the Muslims. At that time, Huzoorra stated:
“The meaning of this [statement of the Turkish delegation’s leader] was only that though, undoubtedly [Turks] have sympathy for other Muslim nations, if, at some instance, they saw that their nation could be harmed, then they would save their lives first and care about others later. It did not mean that they would give priority to the Turk lineage, instead of Islam. This is because there is no disagreement [of Muslims and non-Muslims] there; they are all Muslims. This disagreement is found in India in fact because here reside people of different religions.” (Al Fazl, 28 February 1943, p. 2)
While addressing the second part of their statement, as regards prayers during journeys, Huzoorra stated:
“If that is true, then it is really regrettable. […] This answer tells us – if it is true – that the Islamic teaching has not yet instilled completely in the hearts of the [members of the] delegation which is visiting India. We cannot conclude from this that the whole Turk nation is like this because this is a statement of a few people and they are responsible for their act themselves.” (Ibid, pp. 2-3)
The fact is that Hazrat Musleh-e-Maudra desired for Muslim unity and strived for their progress and guided them in a great manner.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Links and Related Essay’s
Huzoor’s guidance for youth to learn more about Musleh-e-Maud
Huzoor’s guidance for youth to learn more about Musleh-e-Maud
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Tags
#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog #messiahhascome #ahmadiyyat #trueislam #mirzaghulamahmad
Leave a Reply