The third difference between the two parties arises out of the scope of the doctrine of jihad, the texts relating to which are to be found in Sura XXII verses 39 and 40, Sura II, verses 190 to 194, Sura LX, verse 8, Sura IV verses 74 and 75, Sura IX, verse 5, and Sura XXV, verse 52, which are as follows:—
Sura XXII, verses 39 and 40:
39. “To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight) because they are wronged;—and verily, God is most Powerful for their aid;—
40. (They are) those who have been expelled from their homes in defiance of right,—(for no cause) except that they say, ‘Our Lord is God.’ Did not God check one set of people by means of another, there would surely have been pulled down monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques, in which the name of God is commemorated in abundant measure. God will certainly aid those who aid His (cause);—for verily God is Full of Strength, exalted in Might, (able to enforce His Will).”
Sura II, verses 190 to 194:
190. “Fight in the Cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loveth not transgressors. 191. And slay them wherever ye catch them and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there: but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.
192. But if they cease, God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
193. And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God; but if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression.
194. The prohibited month for the prohibited month,—and so for all things prohibited,—there is the law of equality. If then any one transgresses the prohibition against you, transgress ye likewise against him. But fear God, and know that God is with those who restrain themselves.”
Sura LX, verse 8:
“God forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and Justly with them: For God loveth those who are just.”
Sura IV, verses 74 and 75
74. “Let those fight in the cause of God who sell the life of this world for the Hereafter, to him who fighteth in the cause of God,— whether he is slain or gets victory—soon shall We give him a reward of great (value).
75. And why should ye not fight in the cause of God and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)? Men, women and children, whose cry is: ‘Our Lord ! rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from Thee one who will protect; and raise for us from Thee one who will help’ ”
Sura IX, verse 5:
“But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.”
Sura XXV, verse 52:
“Therefore listen not to the Unbelievers, but strive against them with the utmost strenuousness, with the (Qur’an).” As to the doctrine of jihad, the Ahmadi view is that what is called ‘jihad-bis-saif’ is permissible only in self-defence and that in stating his own view on this question Mirza Ghulam Ahmad merely expounded a doctrine which is based on, and directly follows from, the several texts in the Qur’an and that he did not profess to repeal or abrogate any rule or injunction of the Qur’an. The contention of the other parties, however, is that the words in which Mirza Sahib expressed himself on this point clearly show that he was not merely expounding a Quranic doctrine but was repealing an existing law of the Qur’an. In this connection reliance is placed on such expressions as—
“Main ek hukam le-kar ap logon ke pas aya hun woh yeh hai keh ab se talwar ke jihad ka khatima hai” (I have brought a commandment for you people; it is that henceforth jihad by
sword is forbidden).
“Ab jihad din ke liye haram hai”
(Now jihad for the sake of religion is prohibited.)
“Din ke tamam jangon ka ab ikhtitam hai”
(All wars for religion have now been forbidden.)
“Masih ke ane-ka yeh nishan hai keh woh din ki lara’iyan khatam kar-dega”
(The sign for the advent of Messiah is that he will stop wars for religion.)
“Main ne jihad ki mumana’at ke bare men nihayat mu’assir taqriren kin”
(I made effective speeches in support of prohibition of jihad.)
“Main ne jihad ke khilaf sad-ha kitaben tehrir kar-ke Arab aur Misr aur Bilad-i-
Sham aur Afghanistan men Government ki ta’id men sha’e ki hain”
(I have written hundreds of books against jihad and published them in Arabia, Egypt, Syria and Afghanistan in support of the Government.)
“Masih mau’ud ke waqt qat’-an jihad ka hukam mansukh kar-diya gaya”
(The injunctions relating to jihad were abrogated in toto during the time of the promised Messiah.)
“Ab zamin ke fasad band kiye gaye”
(Tumult on earth has, henceforth, been stopped.)
“Ab jo din ke liye, talwar uthata hai aur ghazi nam rakh-kar kafiron ko qatl karta hai woh Khudawand-ta’ala aur ua-ke rasul ka na-farman hai”
(He who draws his sword and, claiming to be a ghazi, kills infidels, disobeys God and His Prophet.)
“Mere firqe men jis-ka Khuda ne mujhe imam aur rah-bar muqarrar farmaya hai talwar ka jihad bilkul nahin—Yeh firqa is bat ko qat’-an haram janta hai keh din ke liye lara’iyan ki jain”
(Jihad with sword is totally prohibited for my community, for whom God has appointed me imam and guide. This community considers it totally prohibited (haram) to fight wars in the name of religion.)
“Islam men jo jihad ka masala hai meri nigah men us se badtar Islkam ko badnam karne wala aur koi masala nahin”
(In my opinion, no doctrine defames Islam more than the doctrine of jihad.)
“Mujhe Masih aur Mahdi man lena hi msala-i-jihad ka inkar kiarna hai”
(Merely to acknowledge me as Messiah and Mahdi is to deny belief in the doctrine of jihad.) to be found in the writings of Mirza Sahib or his successors or followers. Relying on these and the assertion “Meri wahi men amr bhi hai aur nahi bhi” (there are commands as well as prohibitions in my revelations) in ‘Arba’ee’n No, 4, page 7’, it has been vigorously urged that the declarations contained therein amount to a repeal or modification of an. existing law to be found in the Qur’an. The reply to this from the aide of the Ahmadis is that the words and expressions used do not contain any repeal but are merely expositive of a Quranic doctrine which had for centuries been misunderstood and, that, in any case, whatever interpretation on these expressions may be put by others, the Ahmadis have always understood them to mean that no new doctrine was being expounded therein but only a reaffirmation of the original doctrine to be found in the Qur’an and that what Mirza Ghulam Ahmad did was merely to remove the dross from the purity of the original doctrine. Reference in this connection was also made by the Ahmadiya party to the tradition of ‘yuzi`ul-harb’ يضع الحرب and it was argued that what Mirza Sahib, as would appear from some of his writings, did was merely to suspend war (حرب) in accordance with this tradition and not to repeal any law. The point is of considerable importance because if it be held that these views of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad were intended to lay down, and are being understood by his followers as laying down, a new doctrine in supersession or even partial modification of the original doctrine in the Qur’an, Mirza Sahib’s claim to nubuwwat would amount to that of a tashri’i nabi and in that case it would be opposed to Ahmadis’ own interpretation of aya-i-khatam-unnabiyin.
And more particularly would this be the result if the exposition of the doctrine is based on a wahi or an Ilham. The argument is carried a step further by non-Ahmadi parties by urging that even if the view contained in these writing is merely declaratory or re-affirmatory of the original doctrine, the position of Mirza Sahib would still be that of a tashri’i nabi on the principle that declaratory legislation is itself legislation of the original if the declarant claims in himself the right to declare as distinguished from the right to interpret. The Ahmadis seek to explain the true import of these writings by referring to the relevant texts of the Qur’an which we have quoted above and by questioning the correctness of the generally held view that ayat-us-saif, the fifth verse in the ninth sura, which was revealed in Medina, repealed the earlier verses revealed in Mecca which related to the waging of war against the kuffar in self-defence or in order to rescue from oppression the believers who were living in that part of Arabia which was still tinder the
influence of the kuffar. One of the cardinal beliefs of the Ahmadis, it is pointed out, is that no text of the Qur’an has been repealed by a subsequent text and that ayat-us-saif presents no repugnancy to, or inconsistency with, the verses revealed in Mecca. The whole theory of nasikh and mansukh is repudiated and the following two verses which have a bearing on the point:—
Sura II, verse 106:
“None of Our revelations
Do We abrogate
Or cause to be forgotten
But We substitute
Something better or similar;
Knowest thou not that God
Hath power over all things?”
Sura XVI, verse 101:
“If we put one aya in
The place of another—
And Allah surely knows
Best what he sends down,
They say ‘Thou art indeed a forger.” are sought to be explained on other grounds. Having explained the precise-point in the controversy, we leave this subject here but will revert to it later when we shall endeavour to illustrate how plain texts of the Qur’an have often been misunderstood and made an occasion for some of the most startling generalization wholly unjustified by any established rule of exegetics or construction.
The seeds of the controversy delineated above lie scattered over more than half a century. Difference on such doctrines as khatm-i-nubuwwat, reappearance near the Day of Resurrection of Isa lbn-i-Maryam in his earthly form, and the jihad could not fail to evoke from the ulama protests and declarations of heresy for Mirza Sahib. Fatwas of kufr therefore began to be pronounced against him immediately after he announced his commission from God in 1882. While the new movement appealed to and attracted to itself some men of intellect and influence, such as Maulana Muhammad Ali, Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din, Dr. Mirza Yaqub Beg and Dr. Muhammad Husain, it also roused the ire of others who considered it to be political in origin and a danger to Muslim communities and countries. Doctor Muhammad Iqbal denounced it very strongly and Professor Ilyas Burney just ridiculed it. Many others wrote and, have been writing ceaselessly against it.
The Ahmadis know the value of publicity and their propaganda machinery has remained active throughout. Thus a vast mass of literature from both sides has come into existence.
OTHER COMPLAINTS AND ACCUSATIONS
The words mulhid, murtadd, kafir, zindiq, mushrik, munafiq, fasiq, fajir, muftari, mal’un, kazzab, shaitan, iblis, mardud, shaqi are stock words in all religious controversies in Islam, and all these appellations began to be used in the literature relating to this controversy. These were followed on both sides by less technical terms, such as waladuzzina, waladul-haram (bastard), khanzir (swine), harlots, whores, bitches, drunkard, fornicator, adulterer, cheat, goonda, bloody, shameless, and many others too vulgar to mention. Since the Partition the controversy has been nothing more than a sustained campaign of abuse, often degenerating into vile and vulgar attacks on personal character, in which the Ahrar have far excelled their opponents.
Such dissensions had admirably suited the British who wanted the people over whom they were ruling to be engrossed in religious differences, so long as such controversies did not amount to a threat to law and order. If people merely disputed about one another’s right to go to Heaven or their liability to be eternally condemned to Hell, and they neither broke skulls nor demanded for themselves things of the world, the British looked upon such disputatious with complete equanimity, perhaps with satisfaction. But the moment it came to the breaking of heads, he was firm and uncompromising. Mirza Sahib had fully appreciated this blessing of the British raj which not only allowed but encouraged such controversies, and one of the chief complaints of the non-Ahmadis against the founder and leaders of the Ahmadiya movement is their utter sycophancy of the British. Mirza Sahib’s publication on jehad tends to show that the work was written with reference to the events that were happening on the Frontier where repeated incidents of murder of British officers had occurred. Every British officer who came to India was directed to beware the ghazi—the fanatic tribesman or Afghan who considered it a religious merit and financially beneficial to kill a kafir and to get a reward for it in Heaven. Such attacks, if they were prompted by religious prejudice, were of course opposed to the Islamic doctrine of jehad, and Mirza Sahib did well in contradicting this belief. But he made his exposition of the doctrine look suspect on account of the sycophantic and flattering references that were made in it to the benign British Government and its policy of religious toleration. The anger of Musalmans was further aroused when disparaging comparisons were made by Mirza Sahib between the religious intolerance prevailing in Muslim countries and the liberal religious policy followed by the British. He seems to have been conscious that his doctrines would be taken in other Muslim countries as dissemination of irtidad, and this impression of his must have been confirmed when Abdul Latif was stoned to death in Afghanistan. The celebrations at Qadian of the victory when Baghdad fell to the British in 1918 during the First World War in which Turkey was defeated, caused bitter resentment among Musalmans and Ahmadiyyat began to be considered as a handmaid of the British. When the possibility of a separate homeland for Muslims by the Partition of the country began faintly to appear on the horizon, Ahmadis began to concern themselves with the shadow of coming events. Some of their writings from 1945 to early 1947 disclose that they expected to succeed to the British but when the faint vision of Pakistan began to assume the form of a coming reality, they felt it to be somewhat difficult permanently to reconcile themselves with the idea of a new State. They must have found themselves on the horns of a dilemma because they could neither elect for India, a Hindu secular State, nor for Pakistan where schism was not expected to be encouraged. Some of their writings show that they were opposed to the Partition, and that if Partition came, they would strive for re-union. This was obviously due to the fact that uncertainty began to be felt about the fate of Qadian, the home of Ahmadiyyat, about which several prophesies had been made by Mirza Sahib. Provisional Partition had placed Qadian in Pakistan, but Muslims in the district of Gurdaspur in which Qadian was situated were only in a majority of one per cent, and the Muslim population in that district was mostly concentrated in three towns including Qadian. Apprehensions about the final location of Qadian, therefore, began to be felt, and since they could obviously not ask for its inclusion in India, the only course left for them now was to fight for its inclusion in Pakistan. Vile and unfounded charges have been levelled against the Ahmadis that the district of Gurdaspur was assigned to India by the Award of the Boundary Commission because of the attitude adopted by the Ahmadis and the arguments addressed by Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan who had been selected by the Quaid-i-Azam to present the case of the Muslim League before that Commission. But the President of this Court, who was a Member of that Commission, considers it his duty to record his gratitude to Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan for the valiant fight he put up for Gurdaspur. This is apparent from the record of the Boundary Commission which anyone who is interested may see. For the selfless services rendered by him to the Muslim community, it is shameless ingratitude for anyone to refer to Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan in the manner in which he has been referred to by certain parties before the Court of Inquiry.
The next complaint which has been detailed before us against the Ahmadis consists in Mirza Sahib’s exaggerated reference to himself in comparison with the other prophets including our holy prophet and the use by Ahmadis for some of their own people of names, such as, Amir-ul-Momineen, Ummul Momineen, Sayyadatun Nisa, Razi Allah Anho, Sahaba-e-Karam, which have acquired special sanctity by reason of their having been exclusively used for certain persons for their being members of the prophet’s family or circle of friends. The reply to it by Mr. Abdur Rahman Khadim, who has taken great pains in unearthing ancient literature, is that most of these names have also been used in the families of certain saints including the family of the Ahrar leader Sahibzada Faiz-ul-Hasan, and by the leaders or pirs of other sects including another Ahrar leader Chaudhri Afzal Haq. It is no function of ours to decide whether the names were rightly used or not, but we are in no doubt about the effect on Muslim feelings of the use of these terms which have by their special and restricted use become sacrosanct and are exclusively associated with the memory of certain high personages in the history of Islam. The same is our view about some references to be found in the Ahmadiya literature to some ladies in the prophet’s family, though this complaint also has a precedent, perhaps more vulgar, in Qalaid-ul-Jawahir. Of course any comparison between the holy prophet and any other person, alive or dead, must cause offence to every believer. Some conversions by Ahmadi officers or officials are also proved to have been reported to the headquarters. These activities were finally stopped by a direction issued by the head of the community after the Central Government’s communique of 14th August 1952.
Reference here is necessary to the article ‘Khuni mulla ke akhiri din’ (last days of the bloody mulla), published in the ‘Alfazl’ of 15th July 1952, on which special stress has been laid by the Jama’at-i-Islami, the Majlis-i-Amal and the Ahrar in proof of the provocative character of the Ahmadiya literature. The object of this article was to show that the new State of Pakistan had been brought into existence by the Providence to finish the mulla. The document is a strongly worded invective against the mulla and seeks to show that in the past mullas have been responsible for the downfall of many a Muslim State. The instances of three Ahmadis who were executed in Afghanistan, namely, one Abdur Rahman Khan in the time of Amir Abdur Rahman, Sahibzada Abdul Latif who was stoned to death in the time of Amir Habib Ullah, and Ne’matullah Khan who was put to death in the time of Amir Aman Ullah Khan, are cited together with what befell to each of these Amirs, and it is stated that the more tolerant State of Pakistan had come into being in opposition to the mulla-ridden Afghanistan, The policy declared by the Quaid-i-Azam that all Muslims should unite and present one front is cited to foretell the fate of mullas like Ata Ullah Shah Bukhari, Mulla Badayuni, Mulla Ehtisham-ul-Haq, Mulla Muhammad Shafi and Mulla Maudoodi. The article is definitely provocative and the derisive references in it to ulama like Maulana Ehtisham-ul-Haq and Maulana Muhammad Shafi, who were both members of the Board of Ta’limat-i-Islami attached to the Constituent Assembly, and Maulana Abul Ala Maudoodi whose vast learning in theology no one can question, must have offended not only the ulama specifically mentioned in the article but the entire body of ulama. There is, however, one thing about this article and that is that it was written after the All Pakistan Muslim Parties Convention in Karachi and the All Muslim Parties Convention in Lahore had constituted their Majlisi-Amals in which the five named learned ulama had been included and the campaign for the declaration of the Ahmadis as a non-Muslim minority had been started. The article was, therefore, written in retaliation. Nevertheless it serves to show how attack by one party led to retaliation by the other and the situation went on deteriorating.
The Ahmadis are a well-knit community. Their headquarters are in an exclusively Ahmadiya town where is located a central organisation which has different departments, such as department of foreign affairs, department of internal affairs, department of public affairs and department of publication and propaganda which are to be found in the organisation of a regular secretariat. They have also a batch of volunteers, called khuddam-i-din, composed of the Furqan Battalion, which was an exclusively Ahmadiya Battalion serving in Kashmir. They do not say their prayers with or behind the other Muslims and do not give their daughters in marriage to them. All these facts, which are proved by the evidence, have been emphasised by non-Ahmadi parties to justify their demand for the declaration of the Ahmadis as a separate community. The Ahmadis seek to justify this organisational pattern on the ground that every community, if it has a definite object, policy or programme of action, is entitled to organise its affairs in its own way so that maximum results may be obtained, and as regards the allegation of their not permitting their daughters to marry non-Ahmadis, the position taken is that the marriage of an Ahmadi girl with a non-Ahmadi is not void though in the interests of the girl concerned the parents are advised to seek for her a husband from her own community, and in this connection instances of other sects and jama’ats who follow a similar practice are cited. The same is the reply to the charge of their not saying their prayers behind other Muslims, because such discrimination is observed by the other sects also. The instance of Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan’s not joining the funeral prayers for the Quaid-i-Azam has been prominently mentioned, but Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan’s reply is that since Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Usmani, who led the funeral prayers, had publicly declared the Ahmadis to be kafirs and murtadds and liable to death penalty, he could not make up his mind to join the prayers which were led by the Maulana. The position finally adopted by the Ahmadis before us on the question of funeral prayers is that an opinion of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad has now been discovered which permits the Ahmadis to join the funeral prayers of the other Muslims who are not mukazzibs and mukaffirs of Mirza Sahib. This does not at all improve the position, because the necessary implication of this opinion is that prayers are not to be said for a deceased person who did not believe in Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, and as such it virtually confirms the existing practice.
On the question whether the Ahmadis consider the other Musalmans to be kafirs in the sense of their being outside the pale of Islam, the position taken before us is that such persons are not kafirs and that the word kufr, when used in the literature of the Ahmadis in respect of such persons, is used in the sense of minor heresy and that it was never intended to convey that such persons were outside the pale of Islam. We have seen the previous pronouncements of Ahmadis on this subject, which are numerous, and to us they do not seem to be capable of any other interpretation than this that people who do not believe in Mirza Ghulam Ahmad are outside the pale of Islam. It is now stated that Musalmans, who do not accept the claim of a mamoor-min-Allah after the Holy Prophet, are not deniers of Allah and the prophet and are, therefore, still within the ummat. This is in no way inconsistent with the previous announcements that the other Musalmans are kafirs. In fact, these words indirectly reaffirm the previous conviction that such persons are Musalmans only in the sense that they belong to the prophet’s ummat and as such are
entitled to be treated as members of Muslim society (muashira). This is very different from saying that they are Musalmans and not kafirs. The last complaint against the Ahmadis is that of aggressive propaganda for the propagation of Ahmadiya tenets. In this respect, the instance of Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan’s speech on 18th May 1952 in the Jehangir Park, Karachi, and the practice of Ahmadi officers’ openly presiding over and speaking in favour of the movement at public meetings, and their efforts to convert those who come in official contact with them have been referred to. The conduct of Government officers and officials in becoming officebearers of local Anjumans has been severely criticised. Reliance has also been placed in this connection on Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad’s speech, in Quetta, published in the ‘Alfazl’ of 13th August 1948, in which he appealed to his community to intensify their propaganda in Baluchistan, so that that Province may become a base for future operations and on his address at the annual meeting of Sadr Anjuman Ahmadiya., Rabwah, during the Christmas of 1951, which was published in the ‘Alfazl’ of 16th January 1952, in the course of which he made an impassioned appeal to his followers to accelerate and intensify their proselytising activities, so that persons who had hitherto been unbelievers may fall into the lap of Ahmadiyyat by the end of 1952. The address published in the ‘Alfazl’ of 11th January 1952, in which Ahmadis were persuaded not to concentrate in one department, namely, the army, but to disperse in all other departments, has also been referred to as well as several reports submitted by Ahmadi Government officers or officials to the headquarters of the result of their tabligh.
The Ahmadi propaganda was not confined to Pakistan and it appears there were reports published in the ‘Alfazl’ that tabligh in other countries by the Ahmadis stationed at those places occasionally led to assaults and disorders. A similar incident occurred in Okara where during the time of a Deputy Commissioner, who was an Ahmadi, some Ahmadi preachers went to non-Ahmadi villages where they were maltreated, with the result that subsequently an Ahmadi schoolmaster was murdered by a youth who had listened to some speeches at a meeting which had been held in order to protest against the arrests made in connection with the maltreatment of the Ahmadi preachers.
This intensive and aggressive propaganda is alleged to have offended the religious susceptibilities of Musalmans and provided a reason for the demand that the Ahmadis be declared to be a non-Muslim minority. In the course of arguments some other writings by the leaders of the Ahmadis were also mentioned in which Musalmans were either described as enemy (dushman) or as Musalmans to distinguish them from Ahmadis.