Causes of the Internal Dissensions in the Ahmadiyya Movement (Part 12)
English Translation of ‘Ikhtilafat-e Silsilah-e Ahmadiyya ke Asbab’
by Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din (Translated by Dr. Zahid Aziz)
The Light (UK), April 2010 Issue (pp. 6–7)
I say on oath that this was the only difference between ourselves and the Nawab sahib and Mian Mahmud Ahmad sahib [whether the khalifa has absolute power or the Anjuman is the supreme body]. There was no personal grudge or friction. The Hakim [Maulana Nur-ud-Din] sahib knew this. If there was any other difference, let the Nawab sahib name it. We have the letter written by the Mian sahib to Hazrat Hakim sahib asking him to settle the issue of the position of the khilafat [caliphate]. Then why did he not settle it? If it is said that during the time of Hazrat Hakim sahib this was a settled matter, why was this uproar raised in 1909, and why did the Mian sahib write to him to settle it? And why were ever newer ways being tried for this purpose? Can the honourable Nawab sahib testify that after 1909 there was no controversy about the issue of the powers of the khalifa [caliph]? If there was, then why is it said that the Hakim sahib’s view was against us? Why did he not give a decision? The fact that he did not give a decision, and did not go against our view, is sufficient evidence that we were right.
It is said that Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din made me take the baiat [pledge] again. This is perfectly true. But what was the baiat about? It was the baiat of obedience (baiat-i irshad) to him. Can you honestly say that he made me retake the baiat of repentance? Now go and read the histories of the Sufis and see from which disciple they take the baiat of obedience. When they admit a disciple into the movement, they take from him the baiat of repentance (baiat-i tauba). Then when they find in him the capacity of obedience, they take from him the baiat of obedience. And when they have full confidence in him, they take from him the baiat-i dam. Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din was very happy with me and I fulfilled my baiat. In God’s name, give the testimony yourself, tell us for God’s sake what did he say about me in his sermons and lectures?
It is the height of injustice and fabrication that it has been spread about that we were opposed to him and he made us renew our baiat. Alas, today obstinate opposition misrepresents an accolade as a failure. It was this very baiat of obedience that Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din took from Hazrat Mian sahib and the Nawab sahib verbally in my presence at that time. This was in February 1909.
In 1908, the Promised Messiah [Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian] left this world. Immediately after the close of 1908, some questions are raised about the Anjuman and the khalifa, with the aim of giving absolute power to the khalifa. These are sent to certain people. I write my reply to them and send it to Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din. I state plainly that I give preference to your decision over my opinion and the opinion of the Anjuman only because, due to your personal qualities, I believe that I should follow your instructions, otherwise I do not consider the khalifa to be a ruler over the Anjuman. I said this to him verbally as well. At that time there were two groups which differed over the issues raised in these questions. On the one side was Hazrat Mian sahib and the Nawab sahib, and on the other side was Hazrat Maulvi Muhammad Ali and other friends. As both sides regarded the instructions of Hazrat Hakim sahib as above all, and I too said to him that I accept his orders, so he took from me the baiat of obedience in the manner of the righteous ones of the past. Before doing this, he asked the Mian sahib if he would obey him. The Mian sahib replied that he would, and that he would also obey khalifas after him. As far as I remember, he took the same promise from the Nawab sahib. This is the baiat which has been unjustly called as the renewal of my baiat.
This was in 1909. Can you name any instance before February 1909 when I opposed Hazrat Hakim sahib and he compelled me to retake the baiat? What reply will these people give to God, for having knowingly distorted the facts so much? Let Hazrat Mian sahib himself tell us: Did not Hazrat Hakim sahib take from him the pledge that he would obey him? Does it mean his obedience was in doubt? Do not indulge in such useless talk. However, it is true that when someone has no sound arguments and evidence, he descends to the level of such mediocre talk. Anyhow, this was the question faced in 1909 and Hazrat Hakim sahib was well aware that we did not believe in a khalifa having autocratic power. Then he took from us the baiat of obedience. So why did he not then enter this into the rules of the Anjuman when that was what the Nawab sahib and his friends were trying to have done, which the Hakim sahib well knew? Was he, God forbid, a coward? If not, why did he not support a viewpoint while knowing it to be right, and put an end to the controversy during his life? But in fact, he did put an end to it in his speech of 1909.
Translator’s Note: The reference here would be to the Eid khutbah [sermon] by Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din on 16th October 1909, published in Badr, 21 October 1909, in which he said:
“In the writing of Hazrat sahib [i.e., the Promised Messiah] there is a point of deep knowledge which I will explain to you fully. He left it up to God as to who was going to be the khalifa. On the other hand, he said to fourteen men: You are collectively the Khalifat-ul-Masih, your decisions are final and binding, and the government authorities too consider them as absolute. Then all those fourteen men became united in taking the baiat at the hand of one man, accepting him as their khalifa, and thus you were united. And then not only fourteen, but the whole community agreed upon my khilafat.
“… I have read Al-Wasiyya very thoroughly. It is indeed true that he has made fourteen men the Khalifat-ul-Masih, and written that their decision arrived at by majority opinion is final and binding. Now observe that these God-fearing men, whom Hazrat sahib chose for his khilafat, have by their righteous opinion, by their unanimous opinion, appointed one man as their Khalifa and Ameer [leader]. And then not only themselves, but they made thousands upon thousands of people to embark in the same boat in which they had themselves embarked.”
From that day till 1911, the Nawab sahib and his friends kept on raising the same point indirectly, and it kept on being rejected. When I informed Hazrat Hakim sahib as to what was the real issue behind this, he perhaps mentioned his views to the Nawab sahib and the Nawab sahib resigned. Thus, this question came to an end till his death.
Anyhow, the disagreements within the Movement up to this time are on principle, but people want to settle these by appeal to emotion. I have discussed the real points at issue from various aspects. I consider the most important question to be that of the position of the Anjuman.
Secondly, there is the question of the powers of the khalifa. Even if we did not have the Promised Messiah’s Will before us, we still could not possibly give absolute power to one individual unless we held the doctrine of the infallibility of the khalifa. My knowledge is that a man appointed by God is not allowed by God to remain adhering to an error till the end, because of the dignity of his position. There is no such promise for any other khalifa not appointed by God. How then can we let the opinion of one individual, which could be in error and remain in error, override the joint opinion of several people? There is no need to be involved in an intellectual discussion here. A khalifa has passed away before our eyes. Several events of his life and many of his beliefs are in complete conflict with the views of Hazrat Mian [Mahmud Ahmad] sahib. So which khalifa must we take as being right and which one as wrong? In particular, if Hazrat Hakim sahib was wrong, then as he stuck to his error to the end of his life, it disproves the notion that a khalifa is not kept adhering to an error by God. For example, he considered it wrong to regard non-Ahmadis as kafir [non-Muslims]. In the last days of his life, he remarked that the Mian sahib had not understood the issue of kufr [disbelief]. As opposed to this, the Main sahib believes in regarding non-Ahmadis as kafir. Secondly, the principles for the propagation of Islam which Hazrat Hakim sahib taught me, he himself remained firm on those principles till his last breath. The Mian sahib considers those principles to be wrong and damaging. The recent announcement by the Nawab sahib, which I just mentioned, is a testimony that he does not consider our propagation of Islam to be propagation of Islam.
Then the Hakim sahib used to give permission to say prayers behind non-Ahmadi imams outside India. He told me in person, and then conveyed his permission by letter and telegram, that in England I can pray behind non-Ahmadis. The Mian sahib does not allow this. These are both khalifas. Which one is right and which one is wrong? However, if the concept put forward is valid, that a khalifa does not persist in error till the end of his life, then because the Hakim sahib has died holding these views till the end, it means he was right in that non-Ahmadis are not kafir and that my method of propagation is correct and that, outside India, prayers behind non-Ahmadis are allowed; and therefore, the Mian sahib is wrong in these matters. After all, the principle which has been coined, on which rests the doctrine of autocratic rule by the khalifa, means that if Hazrat Hakim sahib had been wrong he would not have persisted in his error till the end of his life. Thus, according to this, the practice of Hazrat Hakim sahib has set the seal of truth on our beliefs and actions.
I have now discussed almost all the points of controversy. I will now add something about myself. I entered into the baiat on 22nd November 1893 and pledged at the hand of the holy Hazrat [Mirza Ghulam Ahmad] to hold religion above the world. I made the utmost efforts to fulfil this promise. The holy Hazrat bestowed special favours upon me. He was affectionate to me as one is to a dear child. He prayed for me, and said quite unique prayers. Purely through the grace of God and the kindness of Hazrat Mirza sahib towards me, I was able to be of service to him in difficult times, as few in the Movement had the chance to do. Accursed is the man who makes a show of his services. I was his adviser in the most delicate matters, which no one knows about but me. He sought my advice regarding the future of the members of his family and what would happen after him, and he acted on my recommendations. On my insistence, he prayed to God in certain matters, and informed me of God’s decision. I conclude this by asking you: Leaving aside those few persons whose ambitions have been thwarted by me, what was the opinion of thousands of you about me? Say honestly, in what regard did you hold me, and how you saw with your own eyes the special favours bestowed upon me by the holy Hazrat, that Imam accepted by God?