Causes of the Internal Dissensions in the Ahmadiyya Movement (Part 4)
English Translation of ‘Ikhtilafat-e Silsilah-e Ahmadiyya ke Asbab’
by Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din (Translated by Dr. Zahid Aziz)
The Light (UK), July 2009 Issue (pp. 1–3)
Note by the Translator: The first part of this translation was published in our April [2009] issue. The original book was published in December 1914, the year in which the split took place and the Ahmadiyya Anjuman Ishaat Islam Lahore came into being.
Likewise, other Muslims cannot be called kafir [non-Muslims] according to any clear argument of the Quran unless in the verse
اسۡمُہٗۤ اَحۡمَدُ
“his name being Ahmad” (The Holy Quran, 61:6)
Hazrat Mirza sahib is considered to be the Ahmad meant. These are the consequent difficulties created by wrong beliefs. Hazrat Mirza sahib has called the Holy Prophet Muhammad as Ahmad more than five hundred times in his writings. He has explained the verse
“his name being Ahmad”
no less than thirty times, writing repeatedly that it refers to the Holy Prophet Muhammad. Of course, he claims to be a perfect manifestation of the quality symbolised by the name Ahmad of the Holy Prophet. This is the true belief that we hold. The Holy Prophet was named Ahmad by his own mother. His uncle Abu Talib, I seem to recall, called him Ahmad in his poetry. Yet today, merely in order to apply the khilafat [caliphate] verse of the Quran to Mirza Mahmud Ahmad, it is declared that no one named the Holy Prophet as Ahmad.
My belief is that my master, Hazrat Mirza sahib, manifested and displayed the name Ahmad of the Holy Prophet. I believe that the verse
“his name being Ahmad”
contains an implicit reference to Hazrat Mirza sahib. But I do not believe, certainly not, that this verse was not fulfilled by the Holy Prophet Muhammad. I say that if we apply this verse to Hazrat Mirza sahib, it is only indirectly, and not because of his own person but due to his being a perfect follower of the Holy Prophet Muhammad. Mirza Mahmud Ahmad should publish a brief statement of his belief on this question as well.
Alas, these two doctrines, whether Mirza Mahmud Ahmad himself holds them or not, have caused grave damage to the Ahmadiyya Movement. All those false accusations and fabricated allegations which were made against Ahmadis are thereby today proved true. Why should not non-Ahmadis say about us that we have a different kalima [pronouncement of faith] from the kalima of Muhammad or that we do not believe in the Quran but that Mirza sahib has made a new sharia [religious law] for us? Why should they not say about us that we do not consider hajj [pilgrimage] as an obligation? Some of my acquaintances have said to me that I performed the hajj against the teachings of my mentor1 because it is alleged that we consider visiting Qadian to be the equal of performing the hajj?
‘We seek refuge in Allah from such false beliefs.’
Dear friends, are you going to spread the Ahmadiyya Movement? Listen, and listen attentively, if the news is true which I learnt last week from reliable sources, then the progress which Ahmadiyyat had been making quite speedily in Khorasan2 and Afghanistan has come to an end and many Ahmadis have separated themselves from the Movement. The same two issues are the cause of this, as my information says: declaring non-Ahmadis as kafir and believing in the independent prophethood of Hazrat Mirza sahib. No one living in Afghanistan can hold the belief that all non-Ahmadis are kafir, except by concealing it hypocritically. Moreover, to believe someone to be equal to the Holy Prophet or to be an independent prophet takes such a believer to the stage of unbelief and apostasy very easily.
Search all the books of Mirza sahib and you will find that all his writings can be summarised in the following words from his book Ainah Kamalat Islam which I quoted at the beginning when explaining my beliefs:
“God the Most High knows well that I am a lover of Islam, a ghulam (servant) of Ahmad, and a devotee of the Holy Prophet.”
Then consider what he declared in 1891:
“After the Holy Prophet Muhammad, I consider anyone who claims prophethood and messengership to be a liar and unbeliever.”
Then in his last major book Haqiqat-ul-Wahy he has, in bold letters, called his prophethood as “metaphorical”:
“I have been named by Allah as nabi [prophet] by way of metaphor, not by way of reality.”
I have addressed Mirza Mahmud Ahmad regarding these matters because sometimes such writings appear from Qadian that should not come from there. It is true that they do not bear the name and signature of Mirza Mahmud Ahmad, but they are in the public considered as emanating from him, and when no refutation appears afterwards from him this proves that they are from him.
Take the article published in Al-Fazl, December 1914, entitled:
With whom should we have social relationship?
Should we consider it as emanating from Mirza Mahmud Ahmad? It is indicated in this writing that his followers must not meet those Ahmadis who have not taken his baiat [pledge], nor have social relations with them, nor accept their hospitality. It is due to this article that I rejected the idea, which was originally my intention, that his followers and those who do not accept him should gather together in Qadian. What must be considered is the effect this article will have on the ordinary person, not the meaning the writer will give to it by way of expediency. Can such articles, published just at the time of the annual gathering when it was possible that some agreement may be reached, lead to any good result, or will they estrange his followers so much that they will not meet or greet or sit and eat with people of the other side?
The purpose of that article is to widen the gulf of disagreement that exists between us. When his followers are not allowed to converse with or have any kind of relations with those Ahmadis who do not accept him as leader, and are told to seek refuge with God when they see such a person, then non-Ahmadis are better than they. If this is the treatment you teach towards Ahmadis who have not accepted Mirza Mahmud Ahmad, then do tell us what kind of treatment you will extend to non-Ahmadi Muslims. Also, the writer of that article should inform the world at large of the treatment he believes in extending towards non-Muslims, so that the general population gets to know of his civilised beliefs.
It is a pity that the writer has cared not for the very basic principle of Islam. The Holy Prophet has described the real aim of Islam to be kindness towards all people, not even limiting it to kindness towards Muslims, and yet you, leaving aside Muslims, are preventing kind treatment even of Ahmadis. This article is what is responsible for my not going to Qadian, whereas my intention was to go to Qadian at once.3 Because of this article, I ceased to favour the idea that the two groups should gather in one place. I felt this article would incite those passions which would not be conducive to gathering together people of opposing views in one place, leading to the disturbance of peace.
If Mirza Mahmud Ahmad holds the same views as expressed in this article, he should declare this in Al-Fazl under his own name. If these are not his views he should refute them and take some action against those irresponsible persons who bring out such writings. I know full well, and have realised it not only today but have known for the past five years or so, the way of operation of these people. They are aware that the writings that come out of Qadian are generally considered to have the authority of the head of the movement. They also know that sometimes such writings do not come to the notice of the responsible persons in Qadian, or if they do they are generally not refuted. Therefore these irresponsible people achieve their aims by producing such writings. I want Mirza Mahmud Ahmad to take action against this and to write about these issues with his own pen.
I have just stated that there is a disagreement within our Jamaat [Movement] on some matters of belief and principle. The purpose of accepting a person as Khalifat-ul-Masih is that under his leadership we should work for the aims and objectives for which this movement was created. Those aims are the spreading of the belief in the oneness of God (tauhid) in the world, which was the mission of all the prophets. That mission was finally completed at the hands of the Holy Prophet Muhammad. Therefore, after him servants of his religion refuted all kinds of shirk [idolatry] in different ways. But there remained the last and very dangerous obstacle in the way of the propagation of tauhid. That is the doctrine of the divinity of Jesus which is based on the twin beliefs that Jesus is still alive and that he will return again. It was required in order to defeat the doctrine of the divinity of Jesus that the issue of the death of Jesus should be resolved, thereby falsifying the idea of the return of Jesus. This was not possible unless a servant of the Messenger Ahmad came in the likeness of Jesus to declare these facts. This is what our master, the Promised Messiah, has explained in the following verses of poetry:
چوں کافر از ستم بہ پرستند مسیح را
غیوری خدا بہ سرش کرد ہمسرم
“As unbelievers are, for no benefit, worshipping the Messiah,
“So God’s sense of His honour has made me his like.”
and:
من نیستم رسول و نیا وردہ ام کتاب
ہاں ملہم استم وز خداوند منذرم
“I am not a rasul [messenger] nor have I brought a book,
“But I receive revelation and am a warner from God.”
Therefore, I consider this to be the mission of the Promised Messiah. He is Mahdi only for the purpose of bringing about internal reform. He is Messiah only so that by his coming the belief in Jesus being alive and in his return be refuted, and thus he should spread the doctrine of tauhid in the world. This is what I understand to be the gist of the Ahmadiyya Movement. If this is the aim of this Divine Movement, then to achieve it we need a leader, whether you call him khalifa or ameer. Under his leadership, all of us together resolve these problems through consultation, either by unanimous agreement or by majority opinion. Under these principles a khalifa can be chosen, upon whom the entire community can today agree easily. It was in this sense that we elected Hazrat Hakim [Maulana Nur-ud-Din] sahib as khalifa of the Promised Messiah, as I will later show.
Of course, if by khalifa is meant that he should be considered as one commissioned by God (mamur), who is free from committing error and mistake, whose commands are like the commands of one holding a commission from God, whose orders in all matters are absolute, as was the case with the Promised Messiah, or will be the case with a Divine appointee when he comes, then to accept such a khalifa is contrary to the beliefs of many of us. God well knows that it was not in these terms that we accepted Hazrat Hakim sahib as khalifa. To accept someone as khalifa in these terms, or to compel everyone to take baiat at his hand, leads to disagreement and division in the Movement. If I honestly and sincerely believe that what the Promised Messiah meant was that the decisions of no person other than one commissioned by Allah are final and binding over the community, how can I enter into the baiat of a man who holds that the decision of the khalifa is supreme over all consultations? I do not at all consider a baiat to be right if I and my mentor differ in beliefs.