Argument from my ArticleKufr-o-Islam
Truth About the Split
The fifth point raised in Maulawi Muhammad Ali’s account of the dissensions, is that while M. Zahiruddin was broadcasting his beliefs, I took up the question of Kufr (unbelief) of those who did not formally accept the Bai‘at (oath of allegiance) of the Promised Messiah (as); and that although it is stated by me that the article which I wrote on this subject, was shown to Khalifatul Masih I (ra) the way in which the Khalifa understood the article was clear from a latter announcement, issued by Khwaja Kamaluddin and signed by the Khalifa. In this announcement it was explained that my article could be accepted only if it was interpreted as meaning "that those who did not accept the Promised Messiah (as) were only deniers of, or unbelievers in the Promised Messiah (as) and not actually outside the pale of Islam."
Before I proceed to criticise this statement of Maulawi Muhammad Ali in the light of what actually happened I wish to draw the attention of the readers to the statement itself. The gist of Khwaja Kamaluddin’s article, reproduced by Maulawi Muhammad Ali, is so devoid of sense that it can hardly fail to surprise the intelligent reader. What sense can there be in the statement that those who did not accept the Promised Messiah (as) were deniers of the Promised Messiah (as)? Can anybody in his senses think it possible that one might not accept the Promised Messiah (as) and yet be a believer in the Promised Messiah (as)? If this and nothing more, was to be understood by my article, was not my article a piece of sheer inanity, and, in that case, was not the action of the Khalifatul Masih (ra) in correcting it and sanctioning its publication something still less complimentary? To say therefore that the Khalifatul Masih (ra) permitted the publication of my article because he understood it in the sense quoted by Khwaja Kamaluddin, is something altogether without foundation, and constitutes in itself a refutation of Maulawi Muhammad Ali’s contention.
But I do not stop here. I am prepared to cite the writings of Maulawi Muhammad Ali himself in refutation of his own statement. In his book, Maulawi Muhammad Ali writes:" M. Mahmud had taken up another point viz. the question of Kufr of those who did not formally accept the Bai‘at of the Promised Messiah (as)." Now if, as stated by Maulawi Muhammad Ali my article did not deal with the Kufr of non- Ahmadis, but, in the words of Khwaja Kamaluddin, merely laid down that those who did not accept the Promised Messiah (as) were deniers of the Promised Messiah (as), how could Maulawi Muhammad Ali trace my belief on the point, to the leaflet issued by Zahiruddin (of course, actually subsequent to my article)? To prove the point that those who did not accept the Promised Messiah (as) were deniers of the Promised Messiah (as), it was certainly immaterial whether the Promised Messiah (as) was a Nabi or a not- Nabi. A claim like that could be made about every claimant and every truth. I do not claim to be a Nabi, but a proposition like the one put forward by Maulawi Muhammad Ali, can, without breach of propriety, be made even about me. It can be said that those who do not accept me are my deniers. It is only the doctrine of Kufr, which could have been derived from the doctrine of Nubuwwat of the Promised Messiah (as). Thus, it is evident from the writings of Maulawi Muhammad Ali himself that the subject I had stressed in my article was the Kufr of those who did not accept the Promised Messiah (as).
This article of mine was read by Khalifatul Masih I (ra) , from beginning to end and was approved by him for publication. The following events prove the point.
The reason why in March 1911, I wrote an article on the subject of the Kufr of those who did not accept the Promised Messiah (as), was that at that time some Ahmadis, under the influence of non-Ahmadis, had begun to write in some non-Ahmadi papers that there was no material difference between Ahmadis and non-Ahmadis, both being Muslims. I was afraid lest this erroneous view should find currency in the Ahmadiyya Community.
So I wrote the article and submitted it to Khalifatul Masih I (ra) , for his approval. This was in March 1911. At that time he was seriously indisposed. The article therefore remained with him for a considerable time. During this time some organs of the Ahmadiyya Movement made references to the article. But as the article remained in the custody of Khalifatul Masih I (ra) , it began to be rumoured by some advocates of Khwaja Kamaluddin’s views that the article had been strongly disapproved of by the Khalifa. The Khalifa’s indisposition continued, and I thought it improper under the circumstances to trouble him with a reminder. At length, after a month, Hadrat Khalifatul Masih I (ra) , partially regained his health. He then looked through the article and, at several places, corrected it in his own hand. When he had finished I was sitting beside him. He returned the article to me saying "Miyań, I do not like being hard. You are young, but I am old." (These, or to this effect, were the words he used). Among those also present at the time was Maulawi Sadaruddin. He, forthwith, reported it to his friends at Lahore, with what additions of his own, I do not know. But within a few days the report had gone round that Khalifatul Masih I (ra) had disapproved of my article, while the fact only was that the article contained references to persons, who were at the time members of the Community, and Hadrat Khalifatul Masih (ra) had disapproved only of these references, fearing they might prove a source of discord. He had, therefore, crossed out the objectionable passages. What remained of the article, fully accorded with his own views and conformed to his own beliefs. But as it had been rumoured that Hadrat Khalifatul Masih (ra) had disapproved of my article, I thought it improper to publish it without obtaining his permission again. I had in fact resolved not to publish the article at all in case Hadrat Khalifatul Masih (ra) disapproved of it in the slightest detail. Accordingly I wrote the following letter to Hadrat Khalifatul Masih (ra) .
"My Master and Leader! Peace be on you! You have not been pleased to put any marks on my article to show which words you think are too severe; also if I myself were to go through the article again, it would be of little or no use, because the words which failed to strike me as too severe when I first wrote the article, are not likely now to strike me as such. I, therefore, doubt whether it is at all proper for me needlessly to give you cause for displeasure. God is more jealous than I; He will Himself look after His own affairs, and He being Allpowerful, it is but vain on my part to be so solicitous about His work. If anything is going to happen contrary to His pleasure, He will Himself cause its prevention. It happens, however, that without my previous knowledge references to the article have been published in Al-Hakam and the Badr. If, under the circumstances, the article does not appear it may afford those already given to calling me names, occasion to think that all talk about the article was a hoax, intended to thwart and terrify them. If, therefore, there is nothing wrong in such a course, I would solicit permission to publish an announcement in the papers to the following effect: The editors of Al-Hakam and the Badr have, in their respective papers, made references to a certain article of mine. This was done without my knowledge or approval. But as it was impossible for me to publish the article without the permission of Hadrat Khalifatul Masih (ra)—fearing it should cause discord in the Community—I submitted the article to Hadrat Khalifatul Masih (ra) who has been pleased to disapprove of it. I am, therefore, not in a position to publish the article, and take this opportunity to request other friends also to write no more on the question, which may, henceforth, be considered as finally decided. In case, however, you consider it improper that such an announcement should be made, I shall refrain from doing so. It will but add one more reproach to where there already are so many.
In reply to the above, Hadrat KhalifatuI Masih I (ra) , wrote the following words on the margin of the letter. (The original letter together with Hadrat Khalifatul Masih’s (ra) reply are still with me),
"My dear, I have now marked the proper places. I have no disagreement regarding the main purport of the article—none whatever. But you see, even one commissioned by God, who would be justified by virtue of his commission to speak with some degree of severity, has been commanded:
Your youth and physical weakness impel you to severity. To me, a milder course seems preferable. Let the article go to the press."
It is evident from this reply that the Khalifatul Masih marked the passages which appeared to him to have been strongly worded. It is also clear that what displeased him in the article were merely some words which I had used about some weak Ahmadis. This is evident from the fact that the verse in the Holy Qur’an quoted by Hadrat Khalifatul Masih (ra) bore reference not to the disbelievers but to the followers of the Holy Prophet (sa) . As it was, the objectionable words had now been crossed out by Hadrat Khalifatul Masih (ra) , who was also pleased for a second time to allow its publication. It was then that I made over the article to the printers. Hadrat Khalifatul Masih (ra) had also directed that the proofs should be shown to him. The manager of the Tashhidhul Adhhan was accordingly directed not to print the magazine without first showing the proofs to Hadrat Khalifatul Masih (ra) . At this stage, I had to go to Amritsar for a few days on a certain business. During my absence, it was rumoured that the Khalifatul Masih (ra) had been shown a passage from the Tiryaqul Qulub, from which it followed that the Promised Messiah (as) had not called his deniers kuffar,
Thereupon, I submitted to the Khalifatul Masih (ra) reference to the explanation which the Promised Messiah (as) had himself given of this passage, and once more, I put it to the Khalifatul Masih (ra) that if he did not approve of the publication of the article, I would gladly withhold it. In reply, the Khalifatul Masih (ra) said "I am no hypocrite. You had better publish the article." What he meant was that in granting me permission to print the article, he had not acted with duplicity. My purpose in putting the question again and again was to prevent all possible objections. Later on, the proofs of the article were also submitted to the Khalifatul Masih (ra) . But again there was delay in his looking through the proofs. This gave occasion to our friends to spread, for a second time, the report that the Khalifatul Masih (ra) had the copy washed from the printing stone and prohibited the publication of the article. But ultimately the proofs also were looked through by Hadrat Khalifatul Masih (ra) and so the article at last was published.
It is clear from all this that the article in question was not published in haste. It was read through twice, from beginning to end, by the Khalifatul Masih (ra) himself, and was corrected at various places in his own hand. (The original article, corrected by Hadrat Khalifatul Masih is still with me and is evidence of my statement.) The question of its publication was repeatedly submitted to Hadrat Khalifatul Masih (ra) . Under such circumstances, the article, although written by me could justly be regarded as that of the Khalifatul Masih (ra) himself. For he looked through it more than once and corrected it with his own hand.
I shall now proceed to give here a summary of the article in question and to quote fully a few passages, in order to enable every reader to judge for himself whether it was possible to read into my article any meaning other than the one it really conveyed. The article was elaborately entitled—'A Muslim is one who believes in all the Messengers of God.' The title itself is sufficient to show that the article was not meant to prove merely that those who did not accept the Promised Messiah (as) were deniers of the Promised Messiah (as)'. Its object rather was to demonstrate that those who did not believe in the Promised Messiah (as) were not Muslims. The article commences with an introduction, in which it is stated that a certain similarity pervades the histories of all the Prophets and their Movements, and that likewise opponents of the Prophets also bear among themselves a certain resemblance. But as the Promised Messiah (as) bore a special likeness to Jesus, it followed that the history of the life of the Promised Messiah (as) and of that of his
Movement would resemble, more than others, the history of Jesus (as) and his followers. Nevertheless, as the Promised Messiah (as) was also the spiritual counterpart of the Holy Prophet (sa) , it was certain that the followers of the Promised Messiah (as) would be saved from the serious disasters which overtook the followers of Jesus (as). The article then proceeded to state that after the death of Jesus, non-Christian communities encompassed the ruin of the faith preached by Jesus (as) by adopting a policy of amity towards the Christians. Something similar was going on at the present time. Non-Ahmadis were trying to induce us to join their fold. The reason for this was that Satan had discovered that he could make no impression upon Ahmadis by a frontal attack; he had, therefore, set up after them irreligious folks of the day in the hope that they would succeed in injuring the Ahmadiyya Movement under the guise of friendship. Accordingly, the cry had been raised that the difference between Ahmadis and non-Ahmadis was not serious enough to justify their maintaining such a distance. It had also been urged that it is of no benefit to either of the two parties to call others kuffar, Those they say, who called the Mirza Sahib (the Promised Messiah (as)) kafir were obviously wrong, but it was now for Ahmadis to forgive and forget. Such were the specious arguments advanced by the advocates of rapprochement. But praise be to God—I proceeded to say—Who endowed some of us with insight, and they realised the true dignity of His Messenger. They were not prepared to regard as ordinary the denial of him for whom heaven and earth had borne testimony, who was the Promised One of all the earlier Prophets, for whose sake the great God humiliated and brought to naught so many of the learned savants and saints from amongst the so-called Muslims, and who had the promise that till the last day, God would let his followers have the upper hand over his enemies.