Causes of the Internal Dissensions in the Ahmadiyya Movement (Part 8)

English Translation of ‘Ikhtilafat-e Silsilah-e Ahmadiyya ke Asbab’

by Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din (Translated by Dr. Zahid Aziz)

The Light (UK), December 2009 Issue (pp. 5–8)

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 Isha‘at Islam Lahore came into being.

In short, when it became impossible for those people to continue residence in their ‘Makkah’, they sought refuge in ‘Madinah’ according to the example of the Holy Prophet [Muhammad (pbuh)]. They started their work there, selecting for it the place where the house of the Promised Messiah’s [Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian] servant, Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din, is located, about which house the great Hazrat had this revelation:

اِنِّیْ اُحَافِظُ کُلَّ مَنْ فِی الدَّارِ

“I will protect all those who are in this house”.

I hope Hazrat Mian [Mahmud Ahmad] sahib will not deny this revelation which the Promised Messiah received on the 2^nd or 3^rd day of his stay in Lahore [in April 1908] in my presence in the courtyard of my house. Mir Nasir Nawab had created an anxiety and the Hazrat was in a mood of uncertainty. It was after the Asr prayers. He was lying on the bed and I was sitting near him. He became drowsy, and after a while he opened his eyes and said:

“I have just received this revelation, and it is good news for you because it is about your house; now I will not follow the doubt created by Mir sahib.”

Also, it is not necessary that the move [to Lahore] is forever. It is possible, and may God let it be so, that moving out of Qadian may be a temporary change in location. The point under discussion was, which of the two parties is in error? The argument that the group which remains in Qadian is on the right path is in itself ridiculous and baseless. Likewise, two or three other points are presented which appeal to emotion, but are considered as solid arguments in support of one’s claim. These are not arguments, but they are used to excite bigotry and hatred in order to obscure rational thinking and sincere motives. They render man unable to think and reflect correctly.

For example, the objection is strongly raised that Maulvi Muhammad Ali sahib wrote a tract [on the subject of khilafat (caliphate)] while Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din was alive but published it just as he died. You should ponder over what is written in the tract. You may object to him, but I have not published any tract: I am your servant, so hear from me what is in the tract. Was it a wrong Muhammad Ali committed that, when the time came for you to decide whether to act according to the intention of the Promised Messiah or to go against it, he informed you of the facts of the situation as he saw them? We seem to have become bereft of rational thinking. No one considers what is written in the tract; all they do is to question forcefully why the tract was published. Read it and think about it. If it is right then accept it, otherwise reject it. Hazrat Mian [Mahmud Ahmad] sahib himself did something similar during the life of Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din. So if Maulvi Muhammad Ali sahib is blameable, the Mian sahib also cannot escape the same blame himself.

The fact is that at the death of Hazrat Hakim [Nur-ud-Din] sahib there were two parties in the Jamaat [Movement] differing greatly on two basic principles. Now the points of difference are doubling and re-doubling. One party regarded those non-Ahmadi Muslims as being Muslims who refrain from declaring Ahmadis as kafir [non-Muslims], while the other party regarded all non-Ahmadis as kafir. The first party regarded working with non-Ahmadis in the joint propagation of Islam as a duty according to the Quran, while the second party regarded it as against the honour of the Ahmadiyya Movement. The first group considers that, under some circumstances, my approach to the propagation of Islam is the right one and believes that the propagation of Ahmadiyyat should be done separately. The second group wants both works to be done together in all circumstances, even though in practice its leaders have adopted the same approach as myself.

Anyhow, these were the differences in principle and belief at the death of Hazrat Hakim sahib. One group held the same view as Hazrat Hakim sahib and followed him, while the other group followed Hazrat Mian sahib. Now after his death, the election of a khalifa posed a difficulty. This is why Maulvi Muhammad Ali sahib wrote the tract, and after mentioning these differences he advised the community that the head should be chosen on such a basis that the differences of belief do not cause difficulty while the Jamaat stays together too. He found a way by which the Mian sahib could become head and yet the problem of differences of belief be resolved. The Mian sahib was not unaware of the problems arising due to difference in beliefs. To deal with these, he wanted to employ another way. Hence, he also, keeping this in view, announced in the last week of the life of Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din that the members can be allowed to differ in belief with the head. You who possess sense, think about this: Did not both of them do the same kind of thing? Both Maulvi Muhammad Ali sahib and the Mian sahib realised that due to the differences in the Jamaat on certain points no person can become head with whom everyone agrees. So the Maulvi sahib thought of one solution and the Mian sahib thought of another. The Mian sahib published this before the death of Hazrat Maulana and this was the precursor of the standpoint he adopted later.

Both felt that the Movement needed a leader. The Maulvi sahib, for this reason, declares that entering into the baiat of the leader is not essential, and he gives arguments on it in the tract, because in his view it is hypocrisy for a person to hold different beliefs from the man whom he accepts as his spiritual guide. The Mian sahib resolves this difficulty by saying that the spiritual guide and his disciple can hold different beliefs from one another. If the Maulvi sahib wrote the tract during the life of Hazrat Hakim sahib and published it after his death, the Mian sahib published his belief at such a late stage in the life of Hazrat Hakim sahib that the latter could neither see it nor contradict it. If the Maulvi sahib did not inform Hazrat Hakim sahib about his tract, the Mian sahib also did not inform his leader. Ponder over this, you wise ones! If the writer of the tract was in error, then the man who announced a new principle in Al-Fazl and then took others into his baiat on that principle is also not free from error.

Nawab Muhammad Ali Khan has issued a new announcement which I have read today. It is stated in it again, sarcastically, that Maulvi Muhammad Ali was waiting for the death of Hazrat Hakim sahib. But does not this foul allegation apply also to the Mian sahib? If the Maulvi sahib waited till his death, the Mian sahib declared his intentions when he found that the Hakim sahib was near death. Both allegations are wrong and discourteous. Each had in mind the good of the Movement, and each did sincerely what he believed was right. It is, thus, baseless to present the publication of this tract as an argument in one’s favour.

Another argument has been presented which is regarded as irrefutable, and upon which the khilafat of Hazrat Mian sahib entirely depends. It is asked that as we entered into the baiat of Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din, accepted him as the sole khalifa, and became subject to his authority, why do we now have hesitation and objection as regards the similar election of Hazrat Mian sahib? Firstly, it is wrong, absolutely wrong, and entirely wrong, to claim that we accepted Hazrat Hakim sahib as our head and khalifa in the same sense which Hazrat Mian sahib has applied to his own headship. It is equally wrong to suggest that we accepted Hazrat Hakim sahib as one holding an appointment from God or that we regarded him as having the absolute authority over the affairs of the Anjuman which the Promised Messiah possessed. We did only that which was allowed by the Will of Hazrat Mirza sahib. In his election we acted according to the Will. I will discuss these points in detail later and show from events that what is asserted against us is wrong. Whatever we did in the case of Hazrat Hakim sahib was exactly in accordance with the Will, but the status which the Mian sahib is today giving himself is plainly contrary to the Will of the Promised Messiah.

Suppose, however, for the sake of argument that we had accepted the Hakim sahib as khalifa in the manner in which the Mian sahib wants to be khalifa. If our action was contrary to the Will of the Promised Messiah then I ask you this in the name of God, you who are the people who accept the Promised Messiah, who are utterly devoted to his every word, and who regard going against his instructions as being an act which is contrary to the injunctions of Islam, the Quran, and God and His Messenger. Suppose that we made an error in case of Hazrat Hakim sahib and realise today that what occurred was contrary to the instructions of the Promised Messiah and his Will. Suppose also, for the sake of argument, that we bear malice towards the khilafat and we accepted Hazrat Hakim sahib because we were cowardly and afraid of him, but now we have no fear of the Mian sahib. Supposing all this is true, nonetheless if you see that the entire action of the Mian sahib is absolutely opposed to the Will of the holy Hazrat and reduces to naught the intentions of the great Hazrat, will it not be your first duty not to repeat the earlier mistake? Will you be righteous and faithful Muslims and Ahmadis in the sight of God if, having found that what happened in the case of the Hakim sahib was contrary to the Will of the Promised Messiah, you still ignore the Will and stay firm on a wrong path?

O you members of this holy Movement, do not let go of fear of God. I say to you that what was done in the case of Hazrat Hakim sahib was not outside the Will. However, if it was contrary to the Will, then it is unjust to repeat the same mistake. If the words of the Will had been ambiguous, requiring clarification, and for its elucidation previous actions had to be looked at, then it would be a different question. Although it would not be a legally acceptable argument, but the earlier mistake would be considered as a legal precedent. However, if the words of the Will are absolutely plain and clear, and what the Mian sahib wishes to do is contrary to it, then you must act according to the Will. Look at how much the Quran emphasises adherence to wills. Would you, due to the obstinacy and bigotry of partisanship, sacrifice the Will?

Fear God and correct the grave error you have made by removing the name of the Promised Messiah and replacing it by the name of Mian sahib.

I say again, we did not contravene the Will in the case of the Hakim sahib. If we did, it was an error, but neither according to Islam nor common practice nor legally does that error justify the committing of the same error again. Fear God and remember that a day will come when you will show your face to the writer of that Will.

Come, let us read the Will calmly and see if it says anywhere in it that a man who is not holding an office from God can run the affairs of the Anjuman by his own order only. Read the Will very thoroughly and see if it mentions an individual as the successor of Hazrat Mirza sahib or the whole Anjuman. Read the Will and ponder and see if it accords to one man the position of taking others into the baiat. Listen to what the Will says with open hearts, and see if it gives control of the finances of the Anjuman and the administration of the Movement to one man or to more than one man.

Dear ones, if you cannot comprehend this by yourselves, then send the Will and its Appendix to some non-Ahmadi or Hindu or English lawyer without telling us and seek his advice. If you like, tell him that for six years in the time of Hazrat Hakim sahib the Will was acted upon in the way that you say. I do repeat, again and again, that at least as for myself I never acted contrary to the Will to my knowledge. But you, if you like, can tell the legal advisor that the affairs of the Anjuman were transacted under the total control of one individual. He will advise you that the present way of operating is contrary to the intent of the Will, and the Anjuman which has now been constituted has no legal standing, nor does it legally possess the powers that are bestowed upon the Anjuman in the Will, nor can it claim in court the rights given to the Anjuman in the Will. Fear God and reform yourselves. To act upon a will is the command of the Quran.

I fear the day, which I pray God may not show us, when you appear in some court, as is being threatened from Qadian. Remember that if the Anjuman appears in court as a claimant, the party against which you have instituted the case will object first of all that this is not that Sadr Anjuman, nor its successor, which was created in the Will. If the court accepted this, your entire system would be ruined. I pray that God does not let it happen that, overwhelmed with anger, you go to court against one another. The members of the Lahore group showed decency when they left all the property of the Anjuman in those hands which did not have legal right to it, and started their work without fuss on a different basis. They did not seek redress from a court, so as not to bring the Movement into even more disrepute. But I say to you finally that soon you will find yourselves in court. After the passing away of those people who have bequeathed valuable assets in their wills [in the name of the Anjuman], their heirs may not abide by their wills if they are not Ahmadis or if they have changed their intention. You will lose huge amounts of money, or if you go to court the heirs will raise the objection that you have no claim to the assets because you are not the true successor to the Sadr Anjuman created by the Will of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. The foolish ones among you, whose only arguments are to incite people’s emotions, will immediately object here to say that I have called for some non-Ahmadi or Hindu or British person to be judge over Ahmadis about the Will of the Promised Messiah. O ignorant ones, to read and interpret a will does not require Islamic knowledge, nor would a court try to determine whether the Will of Hazrat Mirza sahib is or is not in conformity with the teachings of Islam. The court will only consider the Will or what the deceased did during his life. They will not consider what others did after the deceased passed away.

You will have occasions to go to court again and again. This is why we had the Anjuman registered. In the matter of Hakim Fazl Ilahi of Lahore we went to court, even though some of his sons were Ahmadis. His heirs opposed his bequest [made to the Anjuman] in court. If that case were taking place today, their first objection would be that this Anjuman is not the successor of the Anjuman in whose favour the will was made. And when you go to court, remember that the judge who will interpret the Promised Messiah’s Will which created the Anjuman will most likely not be an Ahmadi but he will almost certainly be a non-Ahmadi Muslim or a non-Muslim. To interpret a document is a legal matter, which will in the end reach the Chief Court or the High Court.

Go to a legal expert and put before him all the writings of Hazrat Mirza sahib about the Will, tell him how the Anjuman operated till his death, and mention also the written note he gave, at my instance, following the breaking of rules by Mir Nasir Nawab. This is the note the publication of whose photo you ridiculed in your newspapers. …

Remember it well, that in interpreting the Promised Messiah’s Will, a court will only consider the points I have mentioned above. It will not care at all for how the Anjuman, according to you, is supposed to have been run during the time of Hazrat Hakim sahib. It will not consider what anyone else, including Hazrat Hakim sahib, said about the Anjuman. … The fact that the leaders of the Qadian section are avoiding the Will shows the weakness of their position. It is interesting to see that the Lahore group says,

“let us look at what Mirza sahib said”,

and the Qadian group says:

“Ignore that, but look at what Nur-ud-Din and Kamal-ud-Din did”.

‹MENU›

Top