Two Further Testimonies

Truth About the Split

Dwelling on the subject of this analogy, I wish here to quote two further testimonies. One is a testimony from the author of The Split himself and the other is a testimony from the Christian Gospels. Both prove the similarity between Maulawi Muhammad Ali’s party and the mistaken followers of Jesus (as). As for the first, it may be remembered that in December, 1909, there was held at Lahore, a public meeting at the instance of Ahmadis at Lahore, with a view to refuting some of the charges brought against Islam by a certain Christian preacher. At that meeting the present writer as well as Maulawi Muhammad Ali and Khwaja Kamaluddin had each to deliver a lecture. Maulawi Muhammad Ali was to speak on "The

Sublimity of Jesus as Depicted in the Holy Qur’an", which was to refute the position taken by the Christian missionary that the Holy Qur’an itself testified to the superiority of Jesus (as) over the Holy Prophet (sa) . I was to speak on "Salvation" and to show which of the two religions—Christianity or Islam—furnished the true teaching relating to salvation. Khwaja Kamaluddin’s topic was "A comparison of the Holy Qur’an and other Scriptures". Khwaja Kamaluddin and myself had spoken on our respective subjects before it was the turn of Maulawi Muhammad Ali, who had occasion to make some reference to the speeches of both of us. In refuting the Christian contention that the words in the Holy Qur’an:

went to prove the superiority of Jesus (as), Maulawi Muhammad Ali cited my personal case as an example pointing out how marvellously deep and true were the observations made by me in my lecture although I was then only 20 years of age. My age, the lecturer said, was the age of play; my address was therefore a veritable instance of the same, the lecturer continued, was the case with Jesus (as). By the way, the readers may note that at that time, Maulawi Muhammad Ali saw in me a certain resemblance to Jesus (as), although now he seems more disposed to compare me with Jesus (as) misguided followers. On the other hand, when making a reference to Khwaja Kamaluddin, the words which escaped the speaker were, "as has just now been said by Khwaja Kamaluddin, the St. Paul of our Movement". Hardly had the words been uttered when a hush fell upon the assembly, and the face of the speaker himself, as he turned towards the Khwaja betrayed a considerable amount of confusion. Maulawi Muhammad Ali will not, I believe, deny this incident to which I myself and many other people, present in the assembly, are prepared to bear sworn testimony. It was not a private discourse. It was public lecture and Providence put the words into the speaker’s mouth. Nor could it be that Khwaja Sahib was compared to St. Paul without any reason. The similarity could hardly have occurred to the speaker without a certain basis in fact. The truth was that Maulawi Muhammad Ali had at that time perceived the direction towards which Khwaja Sahib was then drifting, and the thought in his mind found unconscious expression through his lips. But unfortunately later on he himself chose to follow the same course and became ultimately the leader of the party which shared the views of Khwaja Sahib!

Mark how far thou hast drifted;

From where to where thy path has led!

To speak next of the testimony of the Christian Scriptures, it may be noticed that according to those writings the first mistake which the disciples of Jesus (as) committed after the disappearance of their Master, was not on the question of 'Godhood' or 'sonship' of Jesus (as). As a matter of fact, the Scriptures are quite innocent of that controversy. The idea of the 'God-hood' of Jesus (as) arose about three centuries later as a result of the conversion of the Roman Empire to Christianity. History bears out that the doctrines of the 'Godhood' of Jesus (as) and of the triunal personality of the Deity were gradually introduced into Christianity through the influence of the religions then prevalent in Europe. The first departure which the followers of Jesus (as) made from his teachings was in the matter of softening the strictness of the Law and adapting it to the views of other communities with a view to inducing them to accept the new religion. As may be seen from the New Testament. Paul and Branabas had in Antioch granted certain relaxations of the Mosaic Law to the gentile converts. But certain men who came down from Judea taught the brethren and said, you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men that have hazarded their lives for the name of God, Lord Jesus Christ. We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same thing by mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from meats offered to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication, from which if you keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well. (The Acts 15).

Maulawi Muhammad Ali and his party may now consider whether the line of action adopted by them is not the same as that followed by the early Christians. While on the one hand in order to win the goodwill of non-Ahmadis and to secure their cooperation they professed it as highly injurious to the interest of Islam even to mention the name of the Promised Messiah (as) in their speeches and writings, on the other, in order to placate non-Muslims they do not hesitate even to detract from the dignity of the Holy Prophet (sa) himself. For instance, it has been confessed by Khwaja Kamaluddin that once a person wrote to him saying that he approved of everything spoken by the Khwaja except that the latter attributed to the Holy Prophet (sa) a rank superior to that of Jesus (as). Such an attitude, the writer said, did not commend itself to him, and was an obstacle in his path. Khwaja Kamaluddin wrote in reply that the Muslims were commanded:

i.e. not to make any distinction between the Prophets (as), and that accordingly Muslims did not attribute to any of the Prophets a rank superior to that of others. But all the while Khwaja Sahib must have been aware that the verse referred to by him did not signify what he had sought to make out of it for the benefit of his correspondent. His object in detracting from the dignity of the Holy Prophet (sa) was nothing else than to make his correspondent form a favourable opinion regarding Islam and to increase the number of his own converts. Further, it lies to his account that he sought to overstep the bounds of the Islamic Shariah (Law) by eating meat improperly slaughtered. He also contrived by devious means to secure from Khalifatul Masih I (ra) permission to pray in England behind a non- Ahmadi Imam. These and many other facts go to show that his general attitude was to relax as much as possible the provisions of the Islamic Law in order to win the good opinion of non-Ahmadis. They also show how close is the resemblance between the party of Maulawi Muhammad Ali and that of early Christians. 'Then look well and ponder, O ye gifted with sight.'