Three in One

Page 1

THREE. IN ONE. AN ENEMY - ADISBELIEVER-A LIAR

Page 2

OTHER TITLES BY THE AUTHOR. THE ANTI ISLAMIC ORDINANCE. POCKET BOOK OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES. AHMADIYYAT OR QADIANISM! ISLAM OR APOSTASY?. SOME PROPHECIES OF HADHRAT AHMAD. THE STORY OF ADAM. FUTURE TITLES. THE EARLY MUSLIMS - PEACE BE UPON THEM!. WOMEN! BEASTS OF BURDEN OR PARTNERS IN LIFE?. THE POSTERITY OF ABRAHAM!. THE PROPHECY HOAX - BIBLICAL PROPHECIES SERIES. STORIES FOR CHILDREN - THE PROPHETS SERIES. JESUS! THE MAN APPROVED OF GOD

Page 3

THREE. IN ONE. AN ENEMY-A DISBELIEVER - A LIAR. NAEEM OSMAN MEMON 1994. ISLAM INTERNATIONAL PUBLICATIONS

Page 4

FIRST EDITION: July, 1994. ISBN 1 85372 552 8 © Naeem Osman Memon. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the written permission of the author.. Published by Islam International Publications Limited,. Islamabad, Sheephatch Lane, Tilford, Surrey, GU10 2AQ, U.K.. Printed in Great Britain at Raqeem Press, Tilford, Surrey.

Page 5

Introduction. CONTENTS 1 1.. The Mubahala Challenge 3 2.. Claims of Hadhrat Ahmad 59 3.. Hadhrat Ibne Mariam & Hadhrat Ibne Mariam 104 4.. Personal Attacks and Character Assassination 121 5.. Alteration of the Holy Quran 198 • 6. Alteration of Kalimah 212 7.. Abrogation of Jihad 220 8. Allegations of British Sponsorship 246 9.. Kafirs 252 10.. Revelations 271 11. Jewish Links & Christian Aid 273 12. Fulfilment of Prophecies 276 13.. Blatant Subreption of Ahmadiyya Literature 308 14. Conclusion 337

Page 6

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad. Khalifatul Masih IV. Mr. Hadi Ali Chaudhry, Rabwah, Pakistan. Mr. Eshaq Osman Memon, London, England. Mr. Azzeddine Ahmad Mustun, Curepipe, Mauritius. Mrs. Amatul Rahman Osman, London, England. Mr. Najm Shabih Naseer, London, England. Mr. Bockarie Tommy Kallon, Freetown, Sierra Leone. Mr. Ashan Ahmad Khan, Toronto, Canada. Mr. Adil Mahmood Osman, London, England. Mr. Jahangir Shahbaz Osman, London, England. Mr. Abdul Waheed Khan, London, England. Mr. Safdar Hussain Abbasi, Tilford, England. Mr. Akhlaq Ahmad Anjum, Moscow, Russia. Mr. Muzaffar Ahmad Malik, Khar, Pakistan. Mr. Musa Shaibu, Lagos, Nigeria. Mr. Abada Burbuche, Sousse, Tunisia. Mr. Muneeb Ahmad Khan, London, England

Page 7

THREE. IN ONE. AN ENEMY - ADISBELIEVER - A LIAR

Page 8

OTHER TITLES BY THE AUTHOR. THE ANTI ISLAMIC ORDINANCE. POCKET BOOK OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES. AHMADIYYAT OR QADIANISM! ISLAM OR APOSTASY?. SOME PROPHECIES OF HADHRAT AHMAD. THE STORY OF ADAM. FUTURE TITLES. THE EARLY MUSLIMS - PEACE BE UPON THEM!. WOMEN! BEASTS OF BURDEN OR PARTNERS IN LIFE?. THE POSTERITY OF ABRAHAM!. THE PROPHECY HOAX - BIBLICAL PROPHECIES SERIES. STORIES FOR CHILDREN - THE PROPHETS SERIES. JESUS! THE MAN APPROVED OF GOD

Page 9

THREE. IN ONE. AN ENEMY-A DISBELIEVER-A LIAR. NAEEM OSMAN MEMON 1994. ISLAM INTERNATIONAL PUBLICATIONS

Page 10

FIRST EDITION: July, 1994. ISBN 1 85372 552 8 © Naeem Osman Memon. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the written permission of the author.. Published by Islam International Publications Limited,. Islamabad, Sheephatch Lane, Tilford, Surrey, GU10 2AQ, U.K.. Printed in Great Britain at Raqeem Press, Tilford, Surrey.

Page 11

Introduction. CONTENTS 1 1.. The Mubahala Challenge 3 2.. Claims of Hadhrat Ahmad 59 3.. Hadhrat Ibne Mariam & Hadhrat Ibne Mariam 104 4.. Personal Attacks and Character Assassination 121 5.. Alteration of the Holy Quran 198 6.. Alteration of Kalimah 212 7.. Abrogation of Jihad 220 8. Allegations of British Sponsorship 246 9.. Kafirs 252 10. Revelations 271 11.. Jewish Links & Christian Aid 273 12. Fulfilment of Prophecies 276 13. Blatant Subreption of Ahmadiyya Literature 308 14. Conclusion 337

Page 12

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad. Khalifatul Masih IV. Mr. Hadi Ali Chaudhry, Rabwah, Pakistan. Mr. Eshaq Osman Memon, London, England. Mr. Azzeddine Ahmad Mustun, Curepipe, Mauritius. Mrs. Amatul Rahman Osman, London, England. Mr. Najm Shabih Naseer, London, England. Mr. Bockarie Tommy Kallon, Freetown, Sierra Leone. Mr. Ashan Ahmad Khan, Toronto, Canada. Mr. Adil Mahmood Osman, London, England. Mr. Jahangir Shahbaz Osman, London, England. Mr. Abdul Waheed Khan, London, England. Mr. Safdar Hussain Abbasi, Tilford, England. Mr. Akhlaq Ahmad Anjum, Moscow, Russia. Mr. Muzaffar Ahmad Malik, Khar, Pakistan. Mr. Musa Shaibu, Lagos, Nigeria. Mr. Abada Burbuche, Sousse, Tunisia. Mr. Muneeb Ahmad Khan, London, England

Page 13

INTRODUCTION. It is an established fact of history that whenever God Almighty directs a chosen apostle to call mankind to righteousness and piety, His commissioned messenger and those who identify themselves with him are subjected to excessive persecution. The. Quran is full of examples where the righteous have become victims of physical violence, emotional humiliation and verbal abuse at the hands of their adversaries who shield their iniquity under the guise of zealous religious piety. For instance, Hadhrat. Noah as was denounced a liar¹; pronounced mad² and threatened with death³ while Hadhrat Hudas was called a liar and accused of being smitten by idols. Hadhrat Salihas was accused of being deluded and threatened with banishment' as well as assassination and Hadhrat Abrahamas was nearly burnt alive.. Hadhrat Lotas 10 and Hadhrat Suhaibas 11 were both threatened with expulsion from the city of their domicile while Hadhrat. Moses as was accused of being possessed 12 and denounced a sorcerer. ¹³ Hadhrat Jesus as was nearly crucified on the accursed stake 14 and Hadhrat Muhammad sa endured severe physical torture, emotional humiliation and verbal abuse at the hands of the kuffar who accused him of being a liar¹5; a forgerer¹; a sorcerer¹ as well as insane.18 He and his companions were finally forced to migrate from Mecca.19 13 1. Al Quran 7.60/65 5. Ibid., 11.55 10. Ibid., 26.168 15. Ibid., 42.25 2. Ibid., 23/26 26.154 6. Ibid., 11. Ibid., 7.89 16. Ibid., 25.5 7. Ibid., 26.168 3. Ibid., 26.106/117 8. Ibid., 27.49/51 12. Ibid., 26.28 17.. Ibid., 69.39/43 13. Ibid., 7.110 18. Ibid., 34.47 1 4. Ibid., 7.67 9. Ibid., 21.69/70 14. Ibid., 4.158 19. Ibid., 9.40

Page 14

Although times have changed and such brute physical force has as a norm, become a matter of the past, yet, verbal abuse of the virtuous remains the wont of their enemies. Hence, in our own age, the founder of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community,. Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as has been subjected to extensive. vilification by his foes who are unable to reconcile the fact that. God Almighty has, once again, sent a commissioned apostle to guide mankind to the truth and lead it to the most perfect and complete religion of Islam. Since he claimed to be the prophesied Messiah and Mahdi, his adversaries have produced a colossal amount of hostile literature in which they misrepresent the beliefs of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community and also subject its Founders and his successors to severe character assassination.. In recent times, this tirade has been joined by a certain Syed. Abdul Hafeez Shah with his publication titled Two in One in the preface of which he pretends to mitigate his impropriety with excuses of high regard for human dignity and respect for the beliefs of other people. Yet, on reading this publication, one is convinced that its author has no regard for either. He speaks of human dignity and yet has no scruples to caricature some grotesque cartoons which, far from creating any satirical effect, seem repellent to refined taste. He pretends to wish not to get involved in polemics and yet has no qualms about lying through his teeth to misrepresent the beliefs and ideals of other people. He also claims to try his best not to cause any sectarian discontent and yet has no compunction about reviling others to the extent that one reaches a state of mind where perseverance and forbearance ceases to be a virtue.. The following pages propose to expose the gross misrepresentation and inveracity of the author of Two in One and illustrate to the masses, the extent of deception to which the opponents of Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas and the. Ahmadiyya Muslim Community have sunk. 2

Page 15

CHAPTER ONE. THE MUBAHALA CHALLENGE. The author of the extremely grotesque publication, Two in One, states in the opening pages of his book that while he would have preferred to remain aloof from this controversy, he was prompted to take action by the Mubahala challenge issued by the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community 'on the cover of which he came across such startling titles for Muslims like enemies, disbelievers and liars." In the first instance, if his conscience had been as clear as that of the majority of people who happened to read the Mubahala, he would have neither had any cause to consider these titles as being directed towards Muslims nor be offended since the cover of the publication on which these words appear does not specify Muslims but states that it is the: 'Ahmadiyya Community International's open challenge to enemies, disbelievers and liars of the entire world.'². Furthermore, had Abdul Hafeez been as honest in his views and opinions in relation to the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, as he pretends to be before reading the Mubahala³, he would have realised that these titles are not directed to any particular community but to two categories of people only: 'Firstly: Those who direct every kind of vile attack against the person of the Founder of the Ahmadiyya Community and falsify all his claims; accuse him of disbelief and lies against 1. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 5 2. Ahmadiyya Muslim Association. Mubahala, Urdu Edition, t/p 3. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 5 3

Page 16

God; denounce him as a Dadjaal and an imposter and attribute such false beliefs to him as are not a part of his faith.. Secondly: Those who accuse his Community of totally false charges; engage themselves in active propaganda against it; persistently attribute such beliefs to the Community as are not a part of its faith; accuse the present Imam of the Ahmadiyya. Community of serious criminal charges and give currency to this character assassination in Pakistan as well as overseas.**. What, if one may ask Abdul Hafeez, would he expect the. Ahmadiyya Muslim Community to call people who indulge in such active enmity of the Community; who not only disbelieve in the truth of Hadhrat Ahmadas but also fabricate lies against him and accuse him and his Community of serious moral and criminal charges? If he can suggest a more appropriate title for these people, then maybe one would take his suggestion into consideration. In the meantime, his objections leave a distinct impression that a mere profession of being a Muslim safeguards a person from having these appellations applied to one. In that event, the question that needs to be considered is whether it is proper or not to call a person who professes to be a Muslim an enemy, a disbeliever and a liar when such description is appropriate and truthfully applicable.. Linguistically, an enemy is a person who shows malice or hostility to another or who opposes the purposes or interests of the other person. A disbeliever is a person who refuses to believe and a liar is a person who deliberately presents a false statement or piece of information as being true with intent to deceive. In view of these definitions of the words to which exception is being taken, one would recall Abdul Hafeez's attention to the age of Hadhrat Muhammadsa and ask him as to how would he define 'Abd Allah ibn Ubayy ibn Salul who embraced Islam after the battle of Badr but continued to nurture sentiments of hostility towards it for the rest of his mortal life - to become a centre of dissatisfaction in Medina; assume the 4. Ahmadiyya Muslim Association. Mubahala, Urdu Edition, p. 3 4

Page 17

position of the leader of the disaffected and thereafter utilise every available opportunity to suffer harm to the faith he verbally professed. Would he not accept that although Ibn. Ubayy professed to be a Muslim, yet he conspired against Islam from within? Would he not agree that although Ibn Ubayy swore allegiance to Islam, yet he was not convinced of the truth of Prophet Muhammad's sa claims? Would he not acknowledge that although Ibn Ubayy uttered unfavourable remarks in relation to Prophet Muhammadsa, yet when questioned, he swore that neither he nor any of his associates ever made any such statement?" Was Ibn Ubayy, therefore, not a hypocrite, an enemy of Islam and a liar?. The Holy Quran has often used these descriptions to which offence is being taken for people who outwardly professed faith in Islam but inwardly never reconciled to it.³ Although they identified themselves with the Ummah and claimed to be. Muslims, yet God Almighty denounced them as transgressors who enjoined evil and forbade good; hypocrites who found fault with believers 10 and mocked them¹¹; seditious people who devised plots against Islam¹²; enemies of Islam who cherished enmity against believers even after they had embraced the faith; disbelievers who disbelieved in Allah and His. Messenger¹; people upon whose heart a seal had been set¹5; liars whose conduct was evil 16 and enemies against whom Muslims. should beware and upon whom God has placed a curse." What would Abdul Hafeez say to such descriptions being applied to nominal Muslims who professed faith in Islam and yet, were denounced as hypocrites, enemies of Islam, disbelievers and liars by God Almighty in the Holy Quran?. Hadeeth literature also indicates that such descriptions were employed by Hadhrat Muhammad sa against Muslims not on one 18 but several occasions. 19 In view of these precedents in the. Quran and Hadeeth, scholars of Islam have expressed an 5. Al Quran 59.12 6. Ibid., 63.9 7. Ibid., 9.74 8. Ibid., 9.63/68 9. Ibid., 9.67 10. Ibid., 9.79 11. Ibid., 2.16 12. Ibid., 9.43/48 13. Ibid., 9.74 14. Ibid., 9.80 15. Ibid., 63.4 16. Ibid., 63.2/3 18. Sahih Bukhari 66.33 19. Sahih Muslim 29.1030 17. Ibid., 63.5 5

Page 18

ra 24 , ra 22 opinion that to say something about a person which is appropriate is perfectly permissible and in order. 20 Hence, amongst the many companions of Prophet Muhammadsa,. Hadhrat Umar ibn Khattabra 21, Hadhrat Sa'd ibn 'Ubadara. Hadhrat 'Abd Allah ibn Abbasta 23, Hadhrat 'Abd Allah ibn. Salamra as well as Hadhrat 'Ubada ibn Samitra 25 used these appellations against Muslims whenever considered appropriate.. What judgement would Abdul Hafeez now like to pronounce upon God Almighty, His apostle Prophet Muhammad sa and his blessed companions for having described some people, albeit. Muslims, as enemies, disbelievers and liars? Would he take exception to God Almighty and His Prophets as well as early. Muslims for having used these descriptions for people to whom these aptly applied? And if not, then is his entire premise for getting involved in this century old controversy not rather misjudged and without reasonable cause?. The author of Two in One may deceive the masses by pretending to have taken exception to these words contained in the Mubahala challenge issued by the Caliph of the Ahmadiyya. Muslim Community but it is an established fact of Islamic history that Muslim saints and scholars have employed such descriptions for other Muslims whenever considered appropriate. In fact, Islamic literature is full of instances where, in the interest of truth, Muslim divines have branded their coreligionists as enemies of the faith, disbelievers in Islam and personified liars. Had Abdul Hafeez been conversant with. Islamic literature, he may have yet abstained from being engaged in this controversy which according to his own claim, he would have rather avoided. 20. Hibban, [Hadhrat] Abu Hatim Muhammad ibn. Kitab al Majruhin 21. Sahih Bukhari. 60.145 22. Ibid., 60.219 23. Adi, [Hadhrat] Abu Ahmad 'Abdullah al Jurjani ibn, Muqaddima al Kamil, p. 84 24. Ahbar, [Hadhrat] Ka'b ibn Mati al. vide. Suhaib Hasan, Criticism of Hadith Among Muslims. With Reference To Sunan Ibn Maja, p. 75 6 25. Sunan Abu Daud

Page 19

THE OPEN MUBAHALA CHALLENGE. The Mubahala challenge to which Abdul Hafeez has taken exception may not have been necessary had the Ahmadiyya. Muslim Community not been forced into a situation to finally take recourse to the Court of Allah against the persistent abuse being directed towards it and also its active persecution by its adversaries. This is clearly indicated by the announcement of. Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmaday prior to the challenge wherein he stated that since: 'This dispute has assumed grave proportions and the one sided persecution does not seem to relent. The Ahmadiyya. Community having given evidence of its perseverance and forbearance and having employed every peaceful mean to counsel the leaders of this campaign against the consequences of their actions, it is now expedient that an open challenge to a Mubahala be given to these adversaries and this matter be referred to the Court of God Almighty as it is now not possible for the Ahmadiyya Community to persevere this oppression any longer.' 126. This statement indicates that the adversaries of the Ahmadiyya. Muslim Community had, with their century old persecution and vulgar abuse as well as fabrications, pushed Ahmadi Muslims to resort to Divine judgement in this controversy since this dispute has assumed such proportions that it is now not within human powers to bring it to conclusion. Where is the harm in this when there is a precedent for it in the history of Islam2 and the permissibility of such a challenge is itself acknowledged by. Abdul Hafeez with his own four point Mubahala?28. Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad'say challenge to Mubahala is an 26. Ahmadiyya Muslim Association. Mubahala, Urdu Edition, p. 3 27. Al Quran 3.62 28. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 19 7

Page 20

exceptionally bold and courageous step worthy of only such people who have absolute faith in the truth of their convictions and also ample proof of it. It has been divided into two parts, the first dealing with the rejection of Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam. Ahmad's as claims by his adversaries who impute charges of falsehood against him and the second concerns the false allegations made against his Community, which has been further categorised into seven groups dealing which every fabrication concocted against Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas, his righteous successors and also the beliefs and conduct of the. Ahmadiyya Muslim Community.29 But, such a bold step proved to be extremely unsettling to the leadership of the inimical organisations. Therefore, rather than accept this extremely comprehensive, yet a simple and straight-forward challenge and leave the judgement in the hands of Allah, these hostile elements made numerous attempts to wriggle out of their predicament.. Hence, Abdul Hafeez himself, rather than come in the open and accept the invitation to Mubahala, issues a restricted four point counter challenge 30 in which he dare not address the issues which prompted the Mubahala challenge in the first place. The question which one need ask him is that if he is so thoroughly convinced of the truth of his position, then why does he not just accept the challenge already issued by Hadhrat Mirza Tahir. Ahmaday, which within its content embraces all the false allegations made against the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community by the author of Two in One in his book? Is it possible that he does not possess the moral courage to stand up to his false statements and allegations under oath - an oath invoking the curse of Allah upon the liar?. Nonetheless, since he has raised four points in his counter. Mubahala, one considers it essential that these be analysed and responded to so that in his conceit, he may not claim victory by default. 29. Ahmadiyya Muslim Association, Mubahala, Urdu Edition & An Open Invitation to Mubahala 30. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez, Two in One, p. 19 8

Page 21

THE FOUR POINT CHALLENGE. In the first of his four point Mubahala challenge issued by. Abdul Hafeez, he demands that: 'if the first 40 years of the life of Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam. Ahmadas resembles any Prophet then Ahmadi Muslims ought to prove this in writing. 131. In making such a demand, the author of this grotesque publication has demonstrated that he does not understand the. Holy Quran at all or else he would have known that a. Mubahala is engaged into only after all avenues to reconcile differences between two parties have been exhausted and there is absolutely no prospect of the dispute being brought to an amicable conclusion through human efforts. Hence, to make such a demand at this late stage after an invitation to Mubahala has been issued or one engaged into is rather naive.. Secondly, a Mubahala challenge is issued on the command of. Allah on behalf of the claimant to those who reject his claims and not to him and the ultimate judgement is left to Him to demonstrate the truthfulness of either party. If, at this stage, either of the party is required to provide evidence of its truthfulness, then the entire exercise of entering into a Mubahala contest would become superficial and there would be absolutely no point whatsoever in referring the dispute to the Court of. Allah.. Alas! if this petty pir of Gujjo had a better understanding of the. Holy Quran and the philosophy behind the need to engage in a Mubahala contest, he would not have made such naive demands. However, since he has demanded proof of the righteous life of Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas, one shall oblige him and leave it to his honesty and Islamic sense of justice, if he has any, to judge how far it fell within the expectations of the life of any prophet. 31. Ibid., p. 19 9

Page 22

A GLIMPSE INTO HADHRAT AHMAD'Sª LIFE. In the absence of a criterion upon which the lives of the previous prophets have been judged being provided, one would have to rely upon the general criterion upon which the truth of a claimant to prophethood is evaluated. However, since an evaluation of a person's life by his own followers could be as prejudicial in one's favour as the evaluation of one's enemies prejudiced against him, one would therefore, refer to the opinions expressed by Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's as contemporaries who did not accept his claim to be the Promised. Messiah and the Imam Madhi but have had an opportunity to observe his life from close quarters. These should establish beyond any doubt that Hadhrat Ahmad's as life did not fall short of the expectations of the life of any prophet in history.. The first maxim through which the truth of a prophet is generally evaluated concerns the claimant's personal purity and piety. The Holy Quran itself has established this criterion and. Hadhrat Muhammad sa was directed by God to refer the disbelievers to the period of his life which had already passed as evidence of his truthfulness. 32 The question that arises now is whether there is any evidence in history to suggest that Hadhrat. Ahmad's as life was of singular purity and piety. If there is, then he passed this very essential test of the truthfulness of his claim.. For the information of Abdul Hafeez, Maulana Siraj ud Din, the editor of the leading Urdu newspaper Zamindar of Lahore who had an opportunity to know Hadhrat Ahmadas from very early in his age stated in relation to him: 'He would be 22 or 23 years of age at that time. We can say from personal observation that even in his youth Mirza Sahib was a very virtuous, God fearing and venerable person. After work, all his time was spent in religious studies. He did not 32. Al Quran 10.17 10

Page 23

meet people much. In 1877, we had the honour of his hospitality at his home in Qadian for one night. In those days too, he was so engrossed in worship and devotion that he conversed little.'33. The age of early twenties is a period when young men normally begin to enjoy manhood and indulge in pursuits of fun and enjoyment. Yet at this stage of his life, Hadhrat Ahmadas impressed his contemporaries with his high sense of virtue and devotion to worship which draws one's attention to the life of. Hadhrat Muhammad sa who, around the same age showed signs of singular purity and virtue and who also withdrew himself from worldly pursuits to dedicate his time in prayer and worship at the cave in Hira.. Hadhrat Ahmad's as piety was also vouched for by the teacher of Allama Sir Muhammad Iqbal, Maulana Sayyid Mir Hasan when Hadhrat Ahmadas was a young man of around 29 years of age. He stated: 'Hadhrat Mirza Sahib came to Sialkot in 1864 during his service and he lived there. As he was a pious man, he was averse to trivial and nonsensical talk. He lived in aloofness.134. Maulana Abdullah al Imadi, another reputed intellectual and scholar of the Indian subcontinent was also the editor of the famous newspaper Vakeel of Amritsar which often engaged itself in the anti Ahmadiyya Muslim controversy. Yet he stated in relation to Hadhrat Ahmadas. 'By virtue of his study and upright nature, he had attained mastery over religious literature. In 1877, when he was 35 or 36 years of age, we find him charged with unusual religious fervour. He is leading the life of a true and pious Muslim. His heart is unimpressed by worldly attractions. He is happy in 33. Din, Maulana Siraj ud. Zamindar, June 8, 1908 34. Hasan, Maulana Sayyid Mir. vide Sheikh Abdul Qadir, Hayat i Tayyebah, p. 29 11

Page 24

solitude as if he were in congenial company and when in company he is enjoying the bliss of solitude. We find him restless and it appears as if he is in search of a lost thing no trace of which can be found in the mortal world. Islam has so overwhelmed him that he holds debates with the Arya and writes voluminous books in support of Islam.'35. This statement in relation to Hadhrat Ahmad's as early life once again draws one's attention to the life of Hadhrat Muhammadsa who, from the beginning, showed signs of being charged with religious fervour; spent most of his time in solitude at Hira; remained restless as if he has lost something and finally when the time was ripe he confronted the Kuffar of Mecca and the. Jews of Medina as well as the Christians of Najran to overwhelm them with the superior argument of the Islamic faith? Although not a follower of Hadhrat Ahmadas, the. Maulana added: 'As to his character, there is not the slightest trace of a blot on it. He lived a virtuous life, the life of a righteous, God-fearing person. To conclude, the first fifty years of his life, in terms of moral integrity, commendable habits, and sterling services to religion, raised him to an enviable position of great distinction and honour among Indian Muslims." 136. Maulvi Muhammad Hussain Batalvi, the then leader of the. Jamait Ahle Hadeeth in India and editor of the popular Muslim periodical Isha'atas Sunnah knew Hadhrat Ahmad as since childhood. He stated on behalf of Hadhrat Ahmad's as friends and foes alike: 'According to the experience and observation of friends and foes alike, the author of Braheen e Ahmadiyya regulates his life according to the Shariah of Islam and is a pious and truthful person by habit. '37 35. Imadi, Maulana Abdullah al. Vakeel, Amritsar, May 30, 1908 37. Batalvi, Maulvi Muhammad Hasan, Isha'atas Sunnah, vol. 7, no. 9, p. 284 12 36. Ibid.

Page 25

He became one of Hadhrat Ahmad's as arch enemies at some later date but this change of heart was not occasioned by any fault in the latter's character. It was a question of him not being able to reconcile to Hadhrat Ahmad's as claim to be the Promised. Messiah since he subscribed to the dogma of Hadhrat Isa ibne. Mariam's as physical descent from heaven. Although he subsequently issued edicts of apostasy against Hadhrat. Ahmadas, yet he did not ever raise any objection against his character and continued to hold his personal piety and purity in high esteem.. Hadhrat Khawaja Ghulam Faridth, the patron saint of Chachran. Shareef was a contemporary of Hadhrat Ahmadªs and is today revered in Pakistan and India as a great saint of his time. He too held Hadhrat Ahmadas in high regard and vouched for his excellent character. He declared that: 'Mirza Sahib is a good and virtuous person. He has sent me a book containing the revelations received by him. That book alone shows his spiritual excellence. He is a true person in his claim. He is not a forger nor a liar.138. The aforementioned testimonial admits that Hadhrat Ahmadas was a person of spiritual excellence and also acknowledges that he was a recipient of Divine revelation - a phenomenon every apostle of God must essentially experience in his life to be true in his claim since according to the Holy Quran, God does not reveal His secrets to anyone except whom He chooses to be a. Messenger. 39 Another great sufi of the subcontinent, Hadhrat. Sufi Ahmad Janth of Ludhiana spoke of these revelations vouchsafed unto Hadhrat Ahmadas and declared that he: 'is not one of the common run of divines and spiritual preceptors, but has been specially commissioned by God and is a recipient of revelation. Hundreds of revelations and 38. Farid, [Hadhrat] Khawaja Ghulam. vide. Isharat e Faridi, vol, 3, p. 42 39. Al Quran 72.27/28 13

Page 26

messages and prophecies and true dreams and Divine directions and glad tidings relating to this book and comprising intimations of triumph and Divine help and Divine guidance couched in various languages, such as Arabic, Persian, Urdu, and even English, though the author is not at all versed in. English, have been set out in this book, supported by the testimony of hundreds of opponents of Islam, which establishes their truth and proves that the author is doubtlessly writing this book under Divine instruction. It is also clear that according to the hadeeth of the Holy Prophetsa,. Allah, the Lord of Glory and Honour, would raise among. Muslims at the beginning of every century one who would revive faith. The author of this book is the Reformer of the 14th century and is a profound scholar and one of the most perfect individuals of the Muslim community. This is also supported by another hadeeth of the Holy Prophetsa wherein he is reported to have said: The true divines among my followers will be like the prophets of Israel.'40. This testimony alone should answer the question as to what extent Hadhrat Ahmad's as life resembled that of other prophets for his contemporaries to consider him to be, not a common run of divines and spiritual preceptors, but specially commissioned by God. If they had not found his life to resemble that of other prophets, they would have never considered Hadhrat. Muhammad'ssa hadeeth in relation to the divines of his ummah being like the prophets of Israel applicable to Hadhrat Ahmadas.. Hadhrat Sufi Jan's opinion was shared by Maulana. Muhammad Shareef of Banglore, the editor of Manshoor. Muhammadi who wrote an extended review on the publication of Braheen e Ahmadiyya. He stated that Hadhrat Ahmadas was: 'the greatest of Ulema, the illustrious general, pride of the followers of Islam in India, the accepted one of God.'41 40. Jan, [Hadhrat] Sufi Ahmad. Tassurate Qadian 41. Shareef, Maulana Muhammad, Manshoor Muhammadi, Banglore, Rajab 25, 1300, p. 214 14

Page 27

The Maulana had absolutely no doubt that Hadhrat Ahmadªs was a recipient of revelation also and these revelations vouchsafed unto him were from God Almighty. Hence, he invited all those who doubted the Divine nature of these to stay in the company of Hadhrat Ahmadas and acquire certainty for themselves. He stated: 'The author has also disclosed his visions and revelations to the opponents of Islam and if anyone has any doubts, he can attain certainty of observation with regard to these Divine revelations which are a gift of God by staying in the company of the author. 142. Maulvi Muhammad Hussain Batalvi was also convinced of the. Divine nature of these revelations. He alluded to Hadhrat. Ahmad's as challenge to the deniers of revelation and stated that those who denied the possibility of it should come to Qadian and satisfy themselves that the challenger is a recipient of this bounty.43 He declared that Hadhrat Ahmadas: 'has announced to the whole world that anyone who doubts the truth of Islam should come to him and should witness the intellectual and spiritual proofs based upon the Quran, and the miraculous manifestation of the prophethood of Muhammadsa in support of the truth of Islam by which he means the revelations and signs granted to the author of Braheen e. Ahmadiyya. 144. He asserted that these revelations were positively of Divine nature since: 'It is well known that Satanic suggestions are mostly false but not one of the revelations received by the author of Braheen ẹ Ahmadiyya have been proved false up to this day. These 42. Ibid., Jamadi al Awwal 5, 1301. AH 43. Batalvi, Maulvi Muhammad Hussain. Isha'atas Sunnah, vol. vii, no. 6, June/August 1884 pp. 169/170 44. Ibid., p. 348 15

Page 28

cannot therefore be considered Satanic suggestions. Can any. Muslim follower of the Quran believe that Satan can be given knowledge, like the Prophets and the angels, of that which is hidden so that none of his disclosures should lack truth?'45. The aforementioned statement by the then leader of the Jamait. Ahle Hadeeth has raised a very appropriate question in relation to the nature of revelation and one is certain that no Muslim follower of the Quran could even remotely contemplate the feasibility of Satan being given knowledge of the hidden like the prophets and angels of God. But people like Abdul Hafeez who profess faith in Islam and claim to be scholars of the Holy. Quran believe Satan's knowledge to be superior to that of the. Messengers of God Almighty. This is evident from his naive statement that, God forbid, Satan was the teacher of God. Almighty's blessed Angels. 146 How could any sane Muslim believe that an accursed being could ever be blessed with the honour of being a teacher of Allah's Messengers?. According to the wisdom contained in the Holy Quran, apostles of God Almighty are also recipients of Divine help. Hence, one observes that Hadhrat Ahmad'sas contemporaries bore testimony of being witness to him being assisted by God. For instance, at the time of the Conference of Religions held at Lahore in. December 1896, a Muslim editor of an independent Indian periodical observed: 'If the paper of Mirza Sahib had not been there, Muslims would have faced degradation and shame at the hands of other religions. But the powerful hand of God saved holy. Islam from defeat, and through that paper granted Islam such a triumph that let alone its adherents, even the opponents cried out spontaneously: This paper is the best of all! This paper is the best of all!'48 45. Ibid., 46. Shah, Sayid Abdul Hafeez, Two in One, p. 40° 48 Guhar Asafi, Calcutta, January 24, 1897 47. Al Quran 40.52 16

Page 29

Pir Mehr Ali Shah of Golra Sharif in Punjab who later became engaged in a controversy with Hadhrat Ahmad as also believed him to be a recipient of Divine help. In a statement made to. Babu Feeroz Ali, he stated: 'Imam Jalal ud Din Sayutit says that there are certain stages of spiritual progress where many servants of Allah become the Messiah and Mahdi. I cannot say whether he is only at that stage or whether he is the same Mahdi promised for this ummah by the Holy Prophetsa but he is proving to be a cutting sword against false religions and is certainly Divinely aided. '49. This statement was published in 1904, more than six years after. Pir Mehr Ali had turned against Hadhrat Ahmadas. He also lived another thirty three years after its publication and died in. May, 1937. Yet, in all those years, he never contested the aforementioned statement attributed to him although it was published in Al Hakam after he became engaged in a dispute with Hadhrat Ahmadas and even proceeded to write a book against him. This is an indication of the fact that despite his later hostility, he continued to believe that his opponent was. Divinely aided.. The Holy Quran defines various functions expected of the prophets of God during their mortal lives one of which being the dedication of their lives to establishing the Unity of God on earth 50. How far did Hadhrat Ahmadas strive to establish this may be gauged by the comments of his contemporaries. Hadhrat. Khawaja Ghulam Faridth referred to his endeavours in relation to this and stated: 'Mirza Sahib spends all his time in the service of Allah, prayer and recitation of the Quran and similar other preoccupations.. He is so resolved to champion Islam that he has invited. Queen Victoria of England to accept Islam. Similarly, he has 49. Golarvi, Pir Mehr Ali Shah. Al Hakam, June 24, 1904, p. 5 17 50. Al Quran 16.37

Page 30

invited the kings of France, Russia and other countries to accept Islam. All his efforts are for the purpose that the creed of Trinity and the Cross, or of total disbelief and godlessness should be eradicated and in its place the Unity of God should be established on earth.' 151. Does this not recall one's attention to the life of Hadhrat. Muhammad sa who sent such invitations to some of the mightiest kings and emperors of that period? Incidentally, while Abdul. Hafeez demands proof of how Hadhrat Ahmad's as life resembles that of any prophet in history, Hadhrat Ahmad as appears to be the only prophet in history who followed the sunnah of the greatest prophet known to the history of mankind, the Khatamal. Anbiyya, Hadhrat Muhammad Mustaphasa. History does not speak of any other prophet having sent letters of invitations to the mighty kings of their time to accept the faith of Allah, except the Prophet of Islam, Hadhrat Muhammadsa and his prophesied Messiah, Hadhrat Ahmadas. All praise belongs to. Allah!. The Holy Quran also indicates that Messengers of God are required to strive in the cause of Allah with their wealth and person 52 which Hadhrat Ahmadas did with the greatest of dedication. Hadhrat Khawaja Ghulam Faridth declared: 'Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Sahib Qadiani is on the truth. He is truthful in his affair. Day and night he is engrossed in the service of God Almighty. He has given his life for the progress of Islam and raising aloof the cause of the faith. I see nothing wrong or undesirable in him at all. If he has claimed to be the. Mahdi and Isa, that too is among the things which are permissible.153. He was so impressed by the manner in which Hadhrat 51. Farid, [Hadhrat] Khawaja Ghulam. vide. Isharat e Faridi, vol. 3, p. 66 52. Al Quran 9.88 53. Farid, [Hadhrat] Khawaja Ghulam. vide. Isharat e Faridi, vol. 3, p. 79 18

Page 31

Ahmadas strived to serve the cause of Allah that he gave vent to his feelings of disgust with the ulema of his age who opposed him. He censured them and stated: 'Look at the ulema of that time that, leaving alone all false creeds, they attacked this decent man who is a complete follower of the Prophet of Allahsa and who is on the right path and shows guidance to others. Such a venerable man who is perfect in all respects has been condemned as a kafir although if you see his writings they show that they are beyond the capacity of a human being. And all that he says is totally full of inner knowledge and truths and it is wholly the path of true guidance. And he is not a disbeliever in the faith of the Ahle Sunnat wal Jamaat and the requirements of the religion of Muhammadsa¸154. Incidentally, such ulema exist in this day and age too, Abdul. Hafeez being a classical example. If he had any respect for Islam and the truth which he so numerously claims in his book, then rather than attack such a perfect, decent and venerable man as. Hadhrat Ahmad as who was a complete follower of Prophet. Muhammads and whose writings are full of inner knowledge and truths and guidance, he would have rather engaged himself in fighting the influence of the false creeds of Trinity which appears to have heavily burdened his own homeland. If he were to visit the Christian centres at Shikarpur and Hyderabad, he would gauge the extent to which ordinary Muslims are being lured to Christianity and deluded into believing in the plurality of God.55 But while he is able to do nothing to save Muslims at. Shikarpur or Hyderabad 5 in Sindh from falling into apostasy and being baptised into a faith which believes Christ to be either. God, His partner of His son, Hadhrat Ahmad's as high sense of dedication to the cause of Allah and establishing the Unity of. God was applauded by many. Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad, 54. Ibid. 55. Inter Varsity Press, Leicester. Jesus, More than a Prophet 56. Khan, Jahangir. vide. Intervarsity Press, Jesus, More than a Prophet, pp. 23/25 57. Parwez, John. vide. Intervarsity Press, Jesus, More than a Prophet, pp. 30/32 19

Page 32

the renowned scholar of the subcontinent and pride of Indian. Muslims observed: 'Mirza Sahib appeared in the front line of devotees who for the cause of Islam accepted the dedication to sacrifice their time from the cradle, through the springs and autumns to their grave in fulfilling the pledge of loyalty to their beautiful beloved. Islam. 158. Maulvi Muhammad Hussain Batalvi also commented upon. Hadhrat Ahmad's as dedication to strive in the cause of Allah and stated that he: 'has been so steadfast in the service of Islam through his money, life, pen and tongue, etc., that few such instances are to be found amongst Muslims. If anyone should be disposed to consider our language an instance of Asiatic exaggeration, he should point out at least one book which refutes the opponents of Islam, particularly the Arya Samaj and the. Brahmo Samaj, so emphatically and forcefully and should name three or four such helpers of Islam who are determined to serve Islam not only with their money, pen and tongue but also with their person. $59. Yet, when this challenge was issued, none was able to offer the name of even a single Muslim so determined to serve Islam with his money, pen, tongue and person - not even of Abdul. Hafeez's patron saint, Maulvi Sanaullah Amritsari who was alive at that time. In fact, his own family is probably long established as gaddhi nashin pirs. Why did his father or grandfather not take up this challenge or for that matter, their mureeds offer the names of their pir? How does Abdul Hafeez explain the failure of his spiritual predecessors to respond to this challange? 58. Azad, Maulana Abul Kalam. Vakeel, Amritsar, May 1908 59. Batalvi, Maulvi Muhammad Hussain. Isha'atas Sunnah, vol. 7, no. 6, June to August 1884, pp. 169/70] 20

Page 33

Prophets of God are specifically commissioned by Him to confront disbelief and strive against disbelievers and in this relation too, Hadhrat Ahmad as surpassed all expectation as evident from the testimony of the Muslim intelligentsia which witnessed his challenge to disbelievers of their age. Maulana. Bashir ud Din of Rewari stated: 'Mirza Sahib, with his forceful speeches and magnificent writings, shattered the foul criticism of the opponents of Islam, silencing them for ever and proving that truth is, after all, the truth. He left no stone unturned in the service of Islam by championing its cause to the full and therefore justice requires that one should condole the sudden and untimely death of such a resolute defender of Islam, helper of Muslims and an eminent and irreplaceable scholar.161. Mirza Hairat Delhvi also, referred to Hadhrat Ahmad'sªs jihad against disbelief and disbelievers and declared: 'We admit, not because of our being Muslims but being seekers of truth, that the top most Arya Samaj leader or. Christian missionary did not dare open his mouth to confront him. The incomparable books which he wrote in refutation of these creeds as well as the shattering replies which he gave to the opponents of Islam could not be refuted by them.162. He commented upon Hadhrat Ahmad's as endeavours against two of Islam's most potent enemies, passionately committed to spreading disbelief amongst Muslims and declared: 'The services of the deceased which he rendered to Islam in confrontation with the Christians and the Arya Samajists deserve the highest praise.' 163. It was in appreciation of these remarkable services and an 60. Al Quran 9.73 61. Din, Maulana Bashir ud. Sadiqul Akhbar, Rewari, May 1908 62. Dehivi, Mirza Hairat. Curzon Gazette, Delhi, 1 June 1908 21 63. Ibid.

Page 34

unrelenting fight against disbelief and disbelievers that the editor of the Aligarh Institute Gazette, Maulvi Waheed ud Din of Aligarh declared: 'Undoubtedly the deceased was a great fighter for Islam.164. In fact, the impact of Hadhrat Ahmad's as defence against disbelief and disbelievers was so intense that Muslim scholars referred to it whenever challenged by scholars of other religions.. For instance, when Maulvi Irshad Ali of Nagpur, who had at one stage apostatised to Christianity but repented and embraced. Islam again, was challenged to a debate to determine the truth of Islam and Christianity by the Christian missionary Safdur Ali, he responded with the statement: 'If he is so confident about the arguments and truth of. Christianity, then where was he when Maulvi Ghulam Ahmad. Qadiani stood in the field of debate like a brave lion and challenged him? This challenge had such an effect on you people that no Christian missionary dared confront him.'65. Muslim scholars of integrity have continued to applaud. Hadhrat Ahmad's as successful jihad against disbelievers and disbelief. Allama Niaz Fatehpuri, a reputed scholar of India declared that: 'Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Sahib defended Islam well and he did so at the time when the greatest of the ulema did not dare face the enemies of Islam.166. This statement by Maulana Fatehpuri some 52 years after. Hadhrat Ahmad's as demise is evidence of the fact that the memory of how he confronted disbelief and quietened disbelievers is still fresh in the minds of true and faithful 64. Din, Maulana Sayyid Waheed ud. Aligarh Institute Gazette, June 1908 65. Ali, Maulvi Irshad. Dastkari, Amritsar, 18 June 1899 66. Fatehpuri, Allama Niaz. Nigar, Lucknow, October, 1960 22

Page 35

Muslims. And why should it not be when, according to Maulvi. Noor Muhammad Sahib Qadri Naqshbandi Chishti, Hadhrat. Ahmadas routed the agents of disbelief. He stated when the fate of Muslims stood at the crossroads: 'Maulvi Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani stood up and challenged the churchmen and their community and said, "Christ, by whose name you swear, died like a human being and 'I am the Jesus whose advent is predicted." In this manner, he made things so hot for the Nazarenes that they were hard put to make good their escape. By this very method he put to rout the padres both in India and England. 167. Abdul Hafeez has a very superficial knowledge of history or else out of rancour and jealousy he perverts the facts to delude the masses. Had that not been the case, he would have acknowledged that Hadhrat Ahmad as was instrumental in saving true belief and believers from disbelief and disbelievers personified. Hence, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, an eyewitness to the state of affairs during that era observed that: 'just about when the religious passion of Christians was about to cure their hereditary rancour of some twelve to thirteen centuries by achieving its objective, i.e., blowing the light of. Islam which alone enlightened true reality but was found to be an obstruction in the way of Christendom, the defence of. Islam began in which Mirza Sahib played a part and it routed the Christians.168. Christian disbeliefs were not the only ones against which he strived nor Christians the only disbelievers whom he confronted and routed. According to the Maulana, Hadhart Ahmadas: 'performed a very special service to Islam by crushing the 67. Chishti, Maulvi Noor Muhammad Qadri Naqshbandi. vide. Maulvi Ashraf Ali Thanvi,. Preface to the Commentary of the Holy Quran, p. 30, edition, 1934 68. Azad, Abul Kalam. Vakeel, Amritsar, May, 1908 23

Page 36

poisonous fangs of Arya Samaj.169. Maulvi Zafar Ali Khan who, at some stage, flirted with the. Majlis Ahrar e Hind, a politically motivated pseudo religious organisation and the leading organisation in the anti Ahmadi. Muslim civil disturbances of 1934 and 1953 was normally not favourably disposed towards the Ahmadiyya Muslim. Community. Yet, he complimented Hadhrat Ahmadas for the manner in which he confronted the Hindu and Christian clergy and routed the disbelievers.70. Prophets of God are also instrumental in the defence of believers from the mechanism of disbelievers" as was Hadhrat. Ahmadas. Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, who witnessed the pitiable state of Muslims during the later part of the previous century CE, acknowledged the debt of Muslims to Hadhrat. Ahmadas for producing a colossal amount of literature to counter the persistent attacks of disbelievers which was instrumental in saving the believers. He stated: 'We have to acknowledge the value and greatness of this literature from the bottom of our hearts, now that he has completed his task. That is because the time when Islam was surrounded and was besieged by attacks from all sides cannot be forgotten nor effaced from our minds and Muslims, who had been entrusted with the defence of Islam by the Real. Saviour, in this world of material causes and means were lying flat sobbing in the aftermath of their shortcomings either doing nothing for Islam or perhaps not being able to do anything. 172. At that time, according to the Maulana, the literature produced by Hadhrat Ahmadas : 'not only shattered to bits the influence of Christianity which 69. Ibid. 70. Ali, Maulvi Zafar. Zamindar, September 12, 1923 71. Al Quran 22.39 72. Azad, Maulana Abul Kalam. Vakeel, Amritsar, May 1908 24

Page 37

it really had due to support from the government but it saved thousands, nay millions of Muslims from this dangerous attack which could have succeeded but the talisman of Christianity itself was blown away like smoke.' 173. He then proceeded to acknowledge the debt of the future generation of Muslims owed to Hadhrat Ahmadas of Qadian and declared: 'This service rendered by Mirza Sahib will place the coming generations under the debt of gratitude in that he fulfilled his duty of the defence of Islam by joining the front rank of those engaged in Jihad by the pen and he left behind him as a memorial such literature as will last so long as Muslims have blood flowing in their veins and the urge to support Islam remains their prominent national characteristic.". Alas! that blood which the revered Maulana believed must flow in the veins of Muslims for them to feel indebted with gratitude to Hadhrat Ahmadas for having fulfilled his duty to. Islam and Muslims does not appear to flow in the veins of. Abdul Hafeez. Nor does the urge to support Islam appear to be his most prominent national characteristic or else he would not have shown such ingratitude to Hadhrat Ahmadas as is evident from his publication under review.. It has been customary for mankind to allow floss to gather over true religion to the extent that it becomes obscured by the innovation introduced in it. Subsequently true faith becomes corrupted with the passage of time 75 and prophets of God are raised to revive religion for the benefit of mankind. Hadhrat. Ahmadas revived the religion of Islam for Muslims who had become victims of innovation in their faith and hence saved them from the error from which numerous Hebrew prophets had previously saved the Israelites during the Mosaic 73. Ibid. 74. Ibid. 25 75. Al Quran 7.170

Page 38

dispensation. This fact is once again borne by the statements of. Muslim scholars who witnessed the state of Muslims before and after Hadhrat Ahmadas appeared on the scene. Hence Maulana. Abdullah al Imadi declared that: 'He presented to the world a captivating picture of the religion, cleansed off the blots of dust that had collected upon it as a result of superstition and natural weaknesses of the ignorant. 176. Allama Niaz Fatehpuri, the editor of Nigar studied the life and works of Hadhrat Ahmadas and despite general opposition fuelled against the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community by the mullah, he risked subscription revenue to his periodical and stated that he found Hadhrat Ahmadas. 'a man of action, courage and determination. He discerned the true significance of religion and presented Islam in a manner which is reminiscent of the times of the Holy Messengers and the pious Caliphs. 177. Is it not rather sad that while the manner in which Hadhrat. Ahmadas discerned the true significance of religion and presented Islam is, to Muslim scholars of repute and credibility, reminiscent of the times of the greatest of the prophets, the Holy. Prophet of Islamsa, a petty pir of Gujjo should enquire as to how does the life of Hadhrat Ahmad as resemble that of any prophet?. Prophets of God are blessed with special powers to revive the spiritually dead78, awaken them from slumber and raise them to the need of the hour. Even according to the testimony of. Hadhrat Ahmad's as adversaries, he deployed these powers successfully to awaken those lost in slumber to life and instilled in them the zeal to propagate the truth of Islam. Chaudhry 76. Imadi, Maulana Abdullah al. Vakeel, Amristsar, 30 May 1908 77. Fatehpuri, Allama Niaz. Nigar, Lucknow, November, 1961 26 78. Al Quran 8.25

Page 39

Afzal Haq, the President of Majlis e Ahrar, an organisation committed to the opposition of the Ahmadiyya Muslim. Community observed the miraculous change which Hadhrat. Ahmadas brought to Muslims who were spiritually in deep slumber. He stated: 'Before Arya Samaj came into being, Islam had almost been a dead body. Muslims lost their sense of mission. Dayanand's endeavours to create suspicion against Islam alerted Muslims for a while. But they soon fell into deep slumber. Among the. Muslims no organisation came into existence for the propagation of Islam. But there was one soul which was restless at the indifference of Muslims. He got round him a small Community and went ahead to preach Islam. Mirza. Ghulam Ahmad instilled in his Community an unrelenting zeal for the propagation of Islam. This was a noble example not only for Muslims of various sects but also an inspiration for the missionary organisations and communities in the entire. Muslim world.'79. Maulana Abul Kalam Azad witnessed the change wrought in. Muslims of the Indian sub continent by Hadhrat Ahmadas. He lamented the sad demise of this exceptional personality who for such a long period of his life served the cause of Islam with great dedication. He stated: 'That man, that very great man whose pen was a magic wand and whose tongue spell binding; that man whose brain was a complex of wonders, whose eyes could revive the dying and whose call aroused those in the graves, whose fingers held the wires of revolution and whose fists were powerful; that man who for thirty years was for the religious world an earth shaking quake, who, like the trumpet of doomsday awakened those lost in slumber of life, has left the world." 79. Haq, Chaudhry Afzal. Fitna i Irtdad aur Siyasi Qalabazian, p. 46 80. Azad, Maulana Abul Kalam. Vakeel, Amritsar, May 1908 27

Page 40

Such comments could not have been fortcoming had Hadhrat. Ahmad as not been blessed with a unique power of persuasion with which to revive and reform the spiritually dead - powers bestowed upon prophets and messengers by the Almighty God and powers which Muslim divines acknowledged Hadhrat. Ahmadas was endowed with. Maulana Sayyid Mumtaz Ali observed in the columns of his magazine: 'The late Mirza Sahib was a very saintly and exalted personage. He had such spiritual power born of virtue that it could enslave the most hardened of hearts. He was a very knowledgeable scholar, a reformer of high resolve and an exemplar of the most virtuous life. Although we did not believe him to be the Promised Messiah, his guidance and teaching was indeed messianic for the spiritually dead." 181. There is however a particular class of the spiritually dead whom God Almighty in His wisdom determines to leave beyond the power of any human being to revive. These are the ones to whom the Holy Quran has alluded in the words: 'They say, our hearts are secure under coverings against that which thou callest us, and in our ears is a heaviness, and between us and thee there is a veil. So carry on thy works, we, too, are working.' 182. They are the ones on whose heart, according to the Holy. Quran, a veil has been placed and in their ears deafness.83 The early history of Islam witnessed one such spiritually dead in 'Abd al Uzza alias Abu Lahab and the other in Abu Hikam alias. Abu Jahl and the current history of Islam is witnessing one in. Abdul Hafeez. How then could the author of Two in One be expected to appreciate the life of Hadhrat Ahmad as a life within which, like all prophets in history, he produced such a spiritual revolution that on his sad demise, Maulana Abul 81. Ali, Maulana Mumtaz. Tehzib e Niswan, Lahore 82. Al Quran 41.6 83. Ibid. 18.58 28

Page 41

Kalam Azad Sahib observed: 'The demise of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Sahib is not such an event that a lesson should not be learnt from it nor should it be consigned to the passage of time to efface. Such people who produce a religious or intellectual revolution are not born often. These sons of history, in whom it rightly takes pride, appear but rarely on the world scene, and when they do they bring about a revolution for all to see."8 184. But, it is an established fact of history that this kind of a revolution is never observed by the spiritually blinded or else the thirteen companions of Abu Jahl who died at Badr would not have wasted their lives. Therefore, one does not expect. Abdul Hafeez to be in a position to be able to observe the spiritual revolution which Hadhrat Ahmad as brought unless God. Almighty, in His Infinite grace bestows a better understanding upon him. Nonetheless, Hadhrat Ahmadas left an indelible mark on the history of mankind as all prophets of God do irrespective of how their adversaries attempt to minimise their contribution. Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, himself a religious scholar of great repute and leader of Muslims in India stated in relation to him: 'It is not likely that a man of this grandeur will be born again in the religious world of the Indian subcontinent who would devote his highest desires in this way to the study of religion. 185. The impact of Hadhrat Ahmad's as success did not die with him and this is evident from the statement of Maulana Sayyid Mir. Hasan who stated more than a quarter of a century later: 'Sadly we did not appreciate him. I just cannot describe his spiritual accomplishments. His life was not that of ordinary 84. Azad, Maulana Abul Kalam. Vakeel, Amritsar, May, 1908 29 85. Ibid.

Page 42

men, nay, he was one of those who are chosen servants of. God and who appear but rarely.' 186. And why should every sincere Muslim not feel the sadness on the death of such a great man when, according to one dedicated. Muslim, Hadhrat Ahmad'sas. 'separation for ever has convinced every enlightened Muslim that one of their great personages has left them. With him the mighty defence of Islam against its opponents, which was linked with his person, has come to an end. His special characteristic, that he acted against the enemies of Islam as a victorious general compels us to express our feelings that the grand movement which for so long defeated and trod over our opponents should be continued in future. 187. Had the author of Two in One been an enlightened Muslim, he would have certainly been convinced that the demise of. Hadhrat Ahmad as is a loss of a great personage, a mighty defender of faith and a victorious general of Islam - a loss which left behind a huge gap which cannot be filled. Hence Maulana. Abul Kalam Azad observed in relation to the death of Hadhrat. Ahmadas of Qadian: . 'this bitter cup, this cup of poison which entrusted the deceased to dust will remain on thousands, nay millions of tongues, as words of bitter disappointment and regret. The stroke of death which slaughtered, along with one who was very much alive, the hopes and longings of many, and the wails it raises of lament will remain in memories for a long time to come. 188. Alas! had Abdul Hafeez been educated and enlightened to the level of this great leader of Muslims, who was, within his own right, one of the greatest Muslims scholars of his era, he may 86. Hasan, Maulana Sayyid Mir. Al Hakam, 7 April, 1934. 87. Azad, Maulana Abul Kalam. Vakeel, Amritsar, May 1908 30 88. Ibid.

Page 43

have yet appreciated the life of Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas in a thoroughly different light. But the Holy Quran indicates that prophets of God are, as a rule, opposed by enemies from among the sinners89 and the leaders of the wicked ones, who plot against God's messengers and dispute with them by means of false arguments that they may thereby rebut the truth." They are also mocked and rejected ⁹ and what Abdul. Hafeez has done with the publication of Two in One or what his mureed Dr. Syed Rashid Ali is currently doing with the publication of Al Fatwa International being regularly posted to addresses of Ahmadi Muslims further enhances the truth of. Hadhrat Ahmad's as claim to be a prophet and messenger of God. Almighty.. These, in the opinion of any rational person are the qualities which apostles of God Almighty are expected to possess and an analysis of Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's as life gives sufficient evidence that he possessed all these characteristics expected of a prophet of God - a conclusion based upon opinions expressed by Muslim scholars who either witnessed his life personally or else conducted an extensive survey of history with a sincerity of purpose. One therefore rests one's case with the submission that if Abdul Hafeez is as honest in his motivation as he pretends to be, then what does he now think of Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's as life in the light of these comments made by Muslim scholars of his age who were more qualified to analyse his life and achievements, being eyewitness to things that transpired. However, if he is still not convinced, and must insist that Hadhrat Ahmad as should have possessed other qualities besides these to resemble any other prophet in history, then one would suggest that he bring these to light.. When he does, one is certain that the life of the founder of the. Ahmadiyya Muslim Community would not fail to stand true to his righteous expectations, if the expression righteous can ever be applied to Abdul Hafeez's expectations. 89. Al Quran 25.32 90. Ibid., 6.124 91. Ibid., 40.6 92. Ibid., 21.42 93. Ibid., 36.15 31

Page 44

BODIES OF PROPHETS AND MARTYRS. In his second point of the counter challenge, the author of Two in One attempts to wriggle out of the Mubahala challenge issued by Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmaday by stating that it is his 'belief that bodies of prophets and shaheeds [those who die in the way of God] are safe in their graves and are preserved' and then suggests that Ahmadi Muslims open the grave of Hadhrat. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as to see if his body has been preserved."9. Abdul Hafeez is entitled to whatever personal beliefs he wishes to entertain but in view of the fact that Islamic beliefs are based upon the knowledge contained in the Holy Quran and Hadeeth, one challenges him to substantiate the correctness of this naive claim from the wisdom contained in the Holy Quran or authentic Hadeeth. While it is not denied that in rare instances, due to some unique soil conditions, a human body buried under the soil may be preserved for thousands of years, yet there is absolutely no Islamic basis upon which it could ever be argued that the bodies of a certain class of people, whether prophets or shaheeds, are positively preserved as a rule. On the contrary, the. Holy Quran, rather than promise to preserve the bodies of prophets and shaheeds issues such a promise to the worst of. God Almighty's creation so that they may be a Sign unto the world. Hence, one finds it stated to Pharaoh: 'This day shall We save thee in thy body, that thou mayest be a Sign to those who come after thee! But verily, many among mankind are heedless of Our Signs!'95. As against this, there was no such promise made by Allah to. Hadhrat Moses as. However, if it is still insisted that this belief in relation to the preservation of the bodies of prophets and shaheeds is correct then before one demands that Ahmadi 94. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 19. 95. Al Quran 10.92. Text Translation and Commentary by Abdullah Yusuf Ali, p. 507 32

Page 45

eyes. Muslims desecrate the grave of Hadhrat Ahmadas, one submits that the challenger, first open the grave of any one of the people considered shaheeds by him to establish the validity of his claim. The definition of a shaheed which he offers in his book is 'those who die in the way of God'% and since his ancestors were hereditary pirs of Gujjo, one would assume that according to him, they must have died in the way of Allah. Why does. Abdul Hafeez then not open the grave of any one of his ancestors whom he considers died in the way of Allah and let the world see if his body 'is fresh and appears alive and if his eyes are open and rays of light coming out of his eyes blind the of the watchers' - a state in which he believes the bodies of the shaheed's are preserved." He has spent a colossal amount of time and effort as well as money in writing this obnoxious book. Two in One to prove to the world that Ahmadi Muslims are disbelievers and his mureed Dr. Syed Rashid Ali is draining his finances to post his grotesque publication Al Fatwa as well as nasty audios to hundreds of Ahmadi Muslims to hammer his beliefs and opinions? Why should Abdul Hafeez go through all this effort and cause his mureeds so much expense if he can prove the truth of his claim by just doing what he proposes. Ahmadi Muslims do to prove the truthfulness of their stand?. After all, it is his belief that such preservation of the bodies of those who die in the way of God is essentially true.. If on the other hand, he does not consider any of his ancestors to have spent a life worthy of being considered to be amongst those whose bodies are preserved, then one suggests that he exhume the body of the latest shaheed of his ummah - Zia ul. Haq buried at what has now come to be popularly known as. Gabra Chawk in Islamabad, Pakistan and demonstrate to the world that his body is preserved with all its limbs. If he can substantiate this naive belief of the preservation of bodies through any such actual proof then he might just have cause to demand similar proof of others.. Abdul Hafeez's attempts to prove his belief in relation to this 96. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 19 33 97. Ibid.

Page 46

by stating that during shifting of the shrines of two companions of Hadhrat Muhammad sa at Baghdad in 1933, the bodies of. Hadhrat Huzaifa al Yamana and Hadhrat Jaber ibn 'Abd Allahra 'were fresh; they appeared alive; their eyes were open and rays of light were coming out and blinding the eyes of watchers' and also that 'their shrouds were fresh 98 may sound convincing to religious sensitivities. But, one would leave it to the masses to determine for themselves the truth of this claim in the light of the recorded historical fact that at least one of these two blessed companions, that is, Hadhrat Jabir ibn 'Abd Allahra whose body is claimed by the author of Two in One to have been exhumed at Baghdad in 1933 died at Medina in the year 693CE at the age of 94 and was buried there." How could his corpse have then reached the north eastern city of Baghdad, miles from Medina is something which needs explanation. 99. Hadeeth literature indicates that bodies of shaheeds are subject to mutilation as much as bodies of ordinary human beings. It is recorded in relation to the Uhud martyr, Hadhrat Anas ibn. Nadhra. 'we found more than eighty wounds caused by swords and arrows in his body. We found him dead and his body was mutilated so badly that none except his sister could recognise him by his fingers.' 1100 ra. Similarly, Hadhrat Jabir ibn 'Abd Allah's a father Hadhrat 'Abd. Allah ibn 'Amr³ also suffered martyrdom at Uhud and his body was so extensively mutilated that Hadhrat Jabira was restrained from uncovering his face. 101 Hadhrat Jabira who later exhumed his father's body from the common grave to bury him separately some six months later found a change in the condition of the corpse. 102 Now, if Abdul Hafeez's belief in relation to the state of the bodies of shaheeds is to be given any credibility and his story in relation to the state of the bodies of two companions 98. Ibid. 100. Sahih Bukhari 52.12 99. Siddiqui, Dr. Muhammad Zubayr. Hadith Literature, p. 34 101. Ibid., 52.20 102. Ibid., 23.76 34

Page 47

of the Holy Prophets buried at Baghdad is to be believed and given any consideration, then the question which one would ask him is as to why was the body of the son Hadhrat Jabira, allegedly buried at Baghdad preserved while that of his father. Hadhrat 'Abd Allahra who incidentally died in battle and was a shaheed of the first order, not preserved? Why was it that when. Hadhrat Jabir's grave at Baghdad was opened, 'his body was, allegedly, fresh and appeared alive and his eyes were open and the rays of light coming out of the eyes blinded the eyes of thousands of watchers 103 while when he opened the grave of his father at Uhud, he neither found the body of his father fresh and appear alive nor were there any rays of light coming out of his father's eyes to blind the son? Could the author of Two in. One explain as to how, according to his unsubstantiated report for which he provides no evidence whatsoever, the body of a son is preserved as fresh and alive while according to the substantiated report of the second most reliable book of Islamic literature, the Sahih of Hadhrat Imam Bukharith, the body of the father is not preserved in the same manner?. The basis of Abdul Hafeez's belief in relation to the state of the bodies of shaheeds is neither substantiated by the Holy Quran or Hadeeth nor by facts recorded in Islamic history. In fact, one has to but search the recorded history of the ummah to find that many a shaheed were buried with dismembered bodies and one just hopes that this pir of Gujjo is not so naive as to state that after burial of the shaheeds, their mutilated bodies are restored to their former state when Hadeeth itself declares that those who die in the cause of God shall be restored on the Day of. Resurrection with their wounds intact. For instance, Hadhrat. Muhammadsa declared: 'By Him in Whose hands my soul is! Whoever is wounded in. Allah's cause, and Allah knows well who gets wounded in His cause, will come on the Day of Resurrection with his wounds. having the colour of blood but the scent of musk.'104 103. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 19 35 104. Sahih Bukhari 53.10

Page 48

MEDITATE IN SEPARATE ROOMS. In his third point, Abdul Hafeez suggests to Hadhrat Mirza. Tahir Ahmaday that the Caliph of the Ahmadiyya Muslim. Community and he: 'meditate for 3 days in separate closed rooms and supplicate. God that a sign be revealed upon the truthful of the two and when they come out after three days, people, on looking at them will observe the signs of truth and falsehood.'105. Subsequent to the invitation to Mubahala issued by Hadhrat. Mirza Tahir Ahmaday, the entire leadership of these hostile organisations have displayed lack of courage to accept the challenge. Consequently, they have hidden behind false pretences and proposed different and novel methods of how they would like to engage in a Mubahala challenge. However, such action by these antagonists was anticipated well in advance and hence Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmaday stated that: 'It may happen that some of the opponents will attempt to confuse the issue by behaving in such a dishonest manner so that their running away from this challenge may somehow be concealed from the watchful eyes of the common people. Yet, in order to escape the Wrath of God, they do not, in reality accept the challenge.. Abdul Hafeez's novel suggestion is therefore, a ploy to confuse the issue and conceal his flight from common people. If it isn't, then one fails to see why he is reluctant to simply accept the challenge already issued by Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmaday on his own and on behalf of the entire Ahmadiyya Muslim. Community rather than issue a restricted counter challenge with 105. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 19 106. Ahmadiyya Muslim Association. An Open Invitation to Mubahala, p. 18 36

Page 49

naive conditions 107 and restricted prayers only. 108 Is it because he is aware that all his other colleagues in the anti Ahmadiyya fraternity have offered their own novel suggestions in relation to the manner in which they would like to engage in a. Mubahala challenge and since it would not be practically possible for a single person to oblige them all individually, they and the author of Two in One will have an excuse to not engage in a Mubahala at all?. The Mubahala challenge issued by Hadhrat Mirza Tahir. Ahmaday is a simple and straightforward duel of prayer which can be engaged into by any number of persons at the same time irrespective of which corner of the world they reside in. All that one needs to do is to repeat the alleged charges contained in the Mubahala invitation and invoke the curse of Allah on the liar. As regards the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, its Caliphay has already noted the alleged charges and invoked the curse of. Allah upon himself and the entire Ahmadiyya Muslim. Community eight times if he and they be liars 109 even before any of its adversaries consented to respond to the challenge and assented to it. Why does Abdul Hafeez then not display similar courage and signal his acceptance of the challenge? Or does he believe that God listens to a supplicant's prayer from behind closed doors only?. It is rather interesting to note that to save face, this pseudo pir pretends not to assent to the Mubahala invitation issued by. Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmaday on the pretext that the proposed method disobeys Quranic orders and disregards the Sunnah. 110. The question as to whether it does or doesn't shall be presently discussed. For the moment, one would ask him if his stipulation of meditating for three days in separate closed rooms is in accordance of the injunctions of the Quran and the requirements of the Sunnah? If it is, then would he substantiate this with evidence from the Quran and the Sunnah? 107. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 19 109. Ahmadiyya Muslim Association. Mubahala, Urdu ed., pp. 5/7 110. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 52 37 108. Ibid., p.26

Page 50

ENTER FIRE. In the fourth of his counter Mubahala points, Abdul Hafeez suggests that 'a fire be lighted and he and Hadhrat Mirza Tahir. Ahmaday enter this fire.'111 Apparently, the purpose behind such an exercise would be that the liar would be consumed by the fire and the truthful would survive. 112 In this instance also, the author of Two in One has made a novel suggestion being fully aware of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community's resolve not to be drawn into any kind of behaviour which is not in strict conformity with the requirements of Islamic regulations. Neither the Quran nor the Sunnah of Prophet Muhammadsa countenance any such action by a Muslim whereby one subjects one's self to the perils of nature and puts the faithfulness of God to test.. In fact, in Islamic terms, such suggestions are forthcoming from. Satan rather than God. For instance, one observes that Hadhrat. Jesusas was challenged by the Devil to throw himself down from the pinnacle of the temple to prove his righteousness. 113 On this occasion the Accursed Being argued with the Apostles of God on the basis that: 'it is written that God will give His angels charge concerning you and on their hands they will bear you up lest you strike your foot against a stone. 1114. To this Hadhrat Jesusas responded as one would expect a righteous servant of God to respond. He stated: 'On the other hand, it is written, You shall not put the Lord your God to test.'115. However, if Abdul Hafeez believes that it is proper for man to tempt the faithfulness of God and put it to test, then he is welcome to come to London and enter a burning fire and let the 111. Ibid., p. 19 112. Ibid. 113. Matthew 4.5/6 114. Ibid., 4.6 115. Ibid., 4.7 38

Page 51

world see for itself if he survives or is burnt to ashes and consequently if he is truthful in his stance or else a personified liar. This would be an excellent opportunity for him to exhibit the veracity of his own position through a criterion of proving the truthfulness of a person established by Abdul Hafeez himself. Nay! It would be a perfect contingency for him to prove his charges against Ahmadi Muslims and put them to shame. If he is ever able to muster enough courage to undergo this test of his own truthfulness, then one can assure him wide publicity even to the icy shores of Antarctica with the Muslim Television. Ahmadiyya's international satellite transmission network. One awaits his response to this suggestion and assent to undertake this test of the truthfulness of his position - a test suggested by himself. But one is certain that he has not the courage to so, since, when it was suggested to him previously that he prove the truthfulness of his position through the criterion established by himself 116, he conveniently agreed with the Ahmadiyya. Muslim Community that his four point Mubahala is ridiculous and non Islamic. 117. While one awaits his decision, one asks him once again that in view of his reluctance not to accept Hadhrat Mirza Tahir. Ahmad'say straightforward invitation to a Mubahala on the alleged grounds that it does not conform to Islamic principles and the pretext that it disobeys Quranic orders and disregards the Sunnah 118, would Abdul Hafeez, for the benefit of the masses prove that his invitation to a Mubahala and the demand that the contestants enter a burning fire conforms to Quranic orders and the Sunnah of the Prophet of Islam, Hadhrat. Muhammadsa? Could he prove from the history of prophethood if any prophet of God ever challenged his opponent to assent to such an action to prove the truthfulness of either of the parties?. If not, then under what religious authority does he make such a demand of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community and on what grounds does he expect it to assent to this demand for which there is absolutely no precedent in the history of prophethood? 116. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 46 39 117. Ibid., p. 65 118. Ibid., 52

Page 52

GOD'S RESPONSE TO RESPECTIVE PRAYERS. It is rather interesting to note that Abdul Hafeez appends a prayer to his four point challenge invoking humiliating death to the members of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community 119 but while his prayer remains unanswered, the true liars and slanderers have been more than exposed as a consequence of. Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad's ay prayer in the wake of the. Mubahala challenge. For instance, one of the grave charges which the opponents of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community persistently levied against it was that 'Ahmadi Muslims had kidnapped Maulvi Aslam Qureshi and were holding him against his will. 120 Maulvi Manzoor Chinioti, the principal perpetrator of this lie was so insistent in his allegation that he announced his readiness to face a firing squad if Aslam Qureshi was not recovered from the custody of Ahmadi Muslim. 121 In another statement, Maulvi Chinioti is said to have declared that if Aslam Qureshi is ever found, suggesting that he had been murdered, he would hang himself to death. 122. The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community had repeatedly denied charges of involvement in the disappearance of Aslam Qureshi and this allegation was made an integral part of the Mubahala challenge. 123 All praise belongs to Allah! Within a month of the challenge, God gave the first sign of His judgement against the opponents of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community when a person who had been missing for five years and whose disappearance had occasioned repeated allegations of his kidnapping and subsequent murder by Hadhrat Mirza Tahir. Ahmaday suddenly appeared in Pakistan. He presented himself to the Inspector General of Police and also appeared on Pakistan. Television to deny any Ahmadiyya Muslim involvement in his disappearance 124 and in his statement to the Pakistani media, 119. Ibid., p. 19 120. Chinioti, Maulvi Manzoor. vide. Nawa e Waqt, Lahore, 18 February, 1985 121. Ibid. 122. Daily Jang, 1 March, 1989 123. Ahmadiyya Muslim Association, Mubahala, Urdu ed., pp. 6/7 & English ed., pp. 10/11 124. Pakistan Times, 13 July, 1988 40

Page 53

1125. Aslam Qureshi stated that 'he had not been kidnapped by anyone. This was a humiliating blow to the hostile mullahs of Pakistan, particularly to Manzoor Chinioti who was challenged in the Pakistan Assembly by a member who stated: 'Maulana Chinioti had previously stated that Maulana Qureshi had been kidnapped by the Qadianis and if Aslam Qureshi is found then I will hang myself. Aslam Qureshi has been found but Maulana Chinioti has not hanged himself.1126. Manzoor Chinioti was subsequently discredited as an honest person by his own colleagues. A Pakistani newspaper reported a speech by Maulvi Allah Yar Arshad, one of Chinioti's close associates in which he stated that: 'The money which Manzoor Chinioti had acquired from the masses and the motions which he had tabled in the National. Assembly were a cause of insult to the entire Muslim ummah.. He stated that this deception of the nation would not be permitted. Maulana Allah Yar Arshad declared that lies is his [i.e., Chinioti's] mission and deception his profession.' 127. The second proof of the victory of the Ahmadiyya Muslim. Community was delivered by God with the humiliating death of Zia ul Haq. In his sermons subsequent to the Mubahala challenge, Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmaday warned Zia that since he was the principal instigator of the hostile campaign, 'whether or not he formally accepted the Mubahala, he was a party to it. 1128 He was also warned that his fate was sealed 129 and assured that: 'God will manifest such signs from the sky that Zia would be blown to pieces." 1130 125. Mashriq, Lahore, 13 July, 1988 126. Daily Jang, 1 March, 1989 127. Daily Haider, Rawalpindi. 1 November, 1988, p. 2 128. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Tahir. Friday Sermon, 30th July, 1988 & 5 August, 1988 129. Ibid., Friday Sermon, 12 August, 1988 130. Ibid. 41

Page 54

All praise belong to Allah! Within less than a week of this pronouncement by Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmaday which sealed the fate of this principal perpetrator of hostile propaganda against the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, international media carried the headlines:. Zia blown out of the Sky.' +131. This may sound a coincidence to Abdul Hafeez 132 but the truth is that the death of Zia ul Haq in the light of Hadhrat Mirza. Tahir Ahmad'say Mubahala challenge and his warning to the. Pakistani tyrant at the time of the height of his power has unsettled many an adversary of the Ahmadiyya Muslim. Community. It is therefore not surprising that people like Abdul. Hafeez, who have witnessed the fate of their colleagues whose persistent allegations and constant abuse forced the Ahmadiyya. Muslim Community to issue this challenge, refuse to be drawn into this straightforward Mubahala invitation issued by the. Ahmadiyya Muslim Community out of fear that they might call the wrath of God upon themselves if they ever dared accept the challenge.. Abdul Hafeez may also continue to deny this as a Sign of God. Almighty 133 but history is full of instances where disbelievers have refused to recognise the Divine Signs wrought by God in favour of His apostles and righteous servants. The Holy Quran states that the Signs which God wrought in favour of Hadhrat. Moses as were contended to be skilful sorcery by the Egyptians.134. The decimation of Zia and his entire cabinet which blew up with him on that fateful day may not seem a Sign of God to. Abdul Hafeez but then neither did the decimation of Abu Jahl and his host at Badr seem a Sign of God to the kuffar of Mecca who continued to pursue their hostile policies against Islam and its Prophet, Hadhrat Muhammad sa as well as his blessed companions. 131. The Sun, London 133. Ibid. 132. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 28 134. Al Quran 7.107/110 42

Page 55

ABDUL HAFEEZ EXPOSED AS A LIAR. While still on the question of prayers invoking humiliation upon the liar and the slanderer, in his counter challenge Abdul. Hafeez offers a supplication that 'which ever party is a liar and a slanderer, God bring down His anger upon him within one week of his prayer. 1135 Incidentally, it may interest him to know that his prayer has been instantaneously heard by God. Almighty and he has been caused to be exposed as a liar and a slanderer in his own words. For instance, no sooner did he record this prayer, he proceeded to claim on the next page: 'On page 5, challenge No. 1 of the challenge of Mubahilla dated 10.6.88 of Mirza Tahir Ahmad s/o Mirza Bashiruddin. Mahmood Ahmad, Imam of Jama'at Ahmadiyya International, a statement is made that Mirza Ghulam A. Qadiani never claimed to be a promised maseeh and promised mehdi.'136. This statement is a blatant lie since nowhere in the entire. Mubahala challenge nor in any of its subsequent publications was any such statement ever made by Hadhart Mirza Tahir. Ahmadª which could remotely be construed to be a denial of a claim to be the Promised Messiah and the Imam Mahdi by. Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas. On the contrary, he stated in his Challenge No. 1, subsequently published on page 4 of the. Mubahala publication: چیلنج نمبر مبعوث ہونے والے مسیح موعود اور مہدی معہود ہونے کا دعوی کیا ، ہمیں مباھلے کا کوئی نیا چیلنج پیش کرنے کی ضرورت نہیں۔ خود جہاں تک بانی سلسلہ احمدیہ حضرت مرزا غلام احمقاربانی بانی لسد احمدیہ حضرت مرزا غلام احمد قادیانی کے اپنے الفاظ . کے بچے یا جھوٹے ہونے کا تعلق ہے، جنہوں نے امت محمدیہ میں میں ہمیشہ کیلئے ایک کھلا چیلنج موجود ہے ۔ 135. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One. p. 19 43 136. Ibid., p. 20

Page 56

This photocopy of the introductory statement to Challenge No. 1 of the initial Mubahala invitation, published on page 4 of the original Urdu edition establishes that rather than make a statement that Hadhrat Ahmadas 'never claimed to be the. Promised Messiah and the Promised Mahdi,' Hadhrat Mirza. Tahir Ahmaday acknowledged that he claimed to be the. Promised Messiah and the Imam Mahdi anticipated in the. Muslim ummah. The above statement when translated in. English would read: 'As far as the question of the truthfulness or falsehood of the founder of the Ahmadiyya Community, Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam. Ahmad Qadiani who claimed to be the anticipated Promised. Messiah and the Imam Mahdi of the Muhammadean ummah is concerned, we need not present a new challenge to a. Mubahala. There exists for ever an open challenge to this effect in the founder of the Ahmadiyya Community, Hadhrat. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani's own words.'. There is further evidence within this publication, Two in One, to establish that its author has been caused by God Almighty to be proved a personified liar and slanderer instantaneously after his prayer to the effect that the wrath of God fall upon the liar.. For instance, to prove his concoction that in Challenge No. 1 of the Mubahala, 'a statement is made that Hadhrat Ahmadas 'never claimed to be the Promised Messiah and the Promised. Mahdi, Abdul Hafeez states: 'We don't have to submit fresh evidence to refute these statements. Mirza Ghulam A. Qadiani, in his own words made the following challenges which is there for everyone to read.. We invite all disbelievers and liars to study this closely and decide, knowing full well the consequences, whether they are willing to accept this challenge or not. The challenge of Mirza. Qadiani's words is as follows:-'137 137. Ibid. 44

Page 57

He then pretends to quote in evidence, Hadhrat Ahmadas from his book Haqeeqatul Wahi wherein a claim to be the Promised. Messiah and the Imam Mahdi by him is contained and a challenge to Mubahala issued to those who call him a liar. 138. Nonetheless, the aforementioned passage in Abdul Hafeez's book, which has been presented to create an impression that he is the author of it, is in itself a rather crude translation of. Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad's ay statement in the Mubahala publication. And, it precedes the citation of Hadhrat Ahmad's as claim and challenge in Haqeeqatul Wahi. Except, whereas Abdul. Hafeez's first sentence reads: 'We don't have to submit fresh evidence to refute these statements,' Hadhrat Mirza Tahir. Ahmad'say statement reads: 'We do not have to submit a new challenge to a Mubahala.' We reproduce below, a photocopy of. Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad'say words published on page 4 of the Mubahala challenge: ہمیں مباھلے کا کوئی نیا چیلنج پیش کرنے کی ضرورت نہیں۔ خود وہ اس چیلنج کو غور سے پڑھ کر یہ فیصلہ کریں کہ کیا وہ اس کے عواقب بانی سلسل احمد به حضرت مرزا غلام احمد قادیانی کے اپنے الفاظ سے باخبر ہو کر اس کو قبول کرنے کے لئے جرات کے ساتھ تیار ہیں ۔ آپ کے الفاظ میں وہ چیلنج حسب ذیل ہے ۔ میں ہمیشہ کیلئے ایک گھلا چیلنج موجود ہے ۔ ہم سب مکذبین و مکفرین کو دعوت دیتے ہیں کہ. These words contained within the introduction to Challenge. No. 1 of the Mubahala published in Urdu, when translated in. English would read: 'we need not present a new challenge to a Mubahala. There exists for ever an open challenge to this effect in the founder of the Ahmadiyya Community, Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. Qadiani's as own words. We invite all liars and disbelievers to read this challenge with due attention and decide whether, after being fully aware of its consequences, they are prepared to accept it with courage. The challenge is being herewith 138. Ibid. 45

Page 58

cited in his own words.'. It is therefore evident that while, to prove his false allegation,. Abdul Hafeez pretends to have made the aforementioned statements himself before citing Hadhrat Ahmadas from. Haqeeqatul Wahi, he has in fact pilfered the entire passage including, Hadhrat Ahmad's as citation from the Mubahala challenge. The fact that this passage has been pilfered from. Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad'say Mubahala challenge is also evident from the following few lines which follow Abdul. Hafeez's citation of Haqeeqatul Wahi: 'Since the founder of Jama'at Ahmadiyya is no longer alive and to accept this challenge of Mubahilla somebody should represent the other party, I and Jama'at Ahmadiyya announce the acceptance with full knowledge, satisfaction and conviction. $139. This statement, although crudely translated, is an integral part of the Mubahala challenge issued by Hadhrat Mirza Tahir. Ahmaday and subsequently published on page 4 of the Urdu edition - immediately after the statement of Hadhrat Ahmad as cited from Haqeeqatul Wahi. He stated: 'Since the founder of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community is no longer present in this world, and it is essential that there be someone present to represent him against the other party accepting the challenge, therefore, I and the Ahmadiyyal. Community accept this responsibility with full consciousness. and declare our acceptance of it.'140. One need not have even cited Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad'say statements from the Mubahala publication to prove that this entire quotation which Abdul Hafeez pretends to quote from 139. Ibid., pp. 20/21 140. Ahmadiyya Muslim Association. Mubahala, Urdu ed., Challenge No. 1, p. 4 46

Page 59

Haqeeqatul Wahi has not been cited from Hadhrat Ahmad's as original work but from the Mubahala challenge. The words I and the Jamaat Ahmadiyya announce the acceptance highlighted in italics in the aforementioned passage cited from Abdul Hafeez's book give him away and establish that he has translated this from the. Mubahala publication. Yet, he has the audacity to cite this passage from Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad'say Mubahala challenge in which the claims of Hadhrat Ahmadas to be the. Promised Messiah and the Imam Mahdi are clearly stated, in evidence to allege that the 'Imam of the Ahmadiyya Muslim. Community denied any such claims and is trying to convince the outer world that Hadhrat Ahmadas never claimed to be the. Messiah and the Mahdi. 1141. In fact, while hiding the truth that these passages in his book are an integral part of Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad'say challenge,. Abdul Hafeez alludes to this Mubahala invitation to state that. Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmaday 'himself accepted Hadhrat. Ahmadas as the Messiah and the Mahdi as recently as in 1988. 1142. What he doesn't state is that this incident in 1988 to which he has referred was the initial announcement of the Mubahala challenge issued at London on the 10th of June, 1988 - the announcement subsequently published as the Mubahala.. However, the most interesting exposure of Abdul Hafeez as a liar and a slanderer is contained in his conclusion of this false charge. For instance, in the beginning of this allegation, he claims that 'on page 5, challenge No. 1 of the Mubahala,. Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmaday made a statement that Hadhrat. Ahmadas never claimed to be the Promised Messiah and the. Promised Mahdi. 143 Yet, in his concluding remarks he alludes to the same section of the Mubahala and states: 'Dear Reader, after reading the challenge No. 1 you should decide yourself that there is no room for doubting that Mirza. Ghulam A. Qadiani openly claimed to be promised maseeh & mehdi sent by God.1144 141. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 21 142. Ibid, 143. Ibid, p. 20 144. Ibid.,. P. 21 47

Page 60

To quote Abdul Hafeez's own words, what kind of a white lie is either of his statements? In one instance he claims that. Challenge No. 1 of the Mubahala contains a denial of the claim of Hadhrat Ahmadas as the Promised Messiah and the Imam. Mahdi and in another he claims that after the same challenge of the Mubahala, there is no room for doubt that a claim to be the. Promised Messiah and the Imam Mahdi has been made. Is it possible that while this charsi pir from Gujjo was writing this passage of his book, he was under the influence of his favourite reefer? If not, then one would be justified in assuming that his prayer on the previous page in relation to the wrath of God befalling the liar and the slanderer has been heard.. Of course! After reading Challenge No. 1 of the Mubahala, there is absolutely no room to doubt that Hadhrat Ahmadas claimed to be the Promised Messiah and the Imam Mahdi because his Caliph, Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmaday stated quite clearly in Challenge No. 1 of the Mubahala: 'As far as the question of the truthfulness or falsehood of the founder of the Ahmadiyya Community, Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam. Ahmad Qadiani who claimed to be the anticipated Promised. Messiah and the Imam Mahdi of the Muhammadean ummah is concerned, we need not present a new challenge to a. Mubahala. There exists for ever an open challenge to this effect in the founder of the Ahmadiyya Community, Hadhrat. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani's own words. '145. No Ahmadi Muslim or for that matter any honest reader of the. Mubahala would deny that the claim of Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam. Ahmadas as the Promised Messiah and the Imam Mahdi is contained within Challenge No. 1 of the Mubahala publication and has been acknowledged by Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmaday.. Only a liar like Abdul Hafeez is capable of denying the fact that within Challenge No. 1 of the Mubahala, a denial is contained of these claims. It is therefore a blessing of God that He has 145. Ahmadiyya Muslim Association. Mubahala, Urdu ed., Challenge No. 1, p. 4 48

Page 61

trapped the author of Two in One in his own snare and proved him a liar and a slanderer of the first degree. He has answered. Abdul Hafeez's prayer: 'O God! Which ever party is a liar and slanderer, bring down your [sic] anger upon him within one week 146 in so much that he had not even finished his 91 page tirade against Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas of Qadian and the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community that his prayer on page 19 was answered instantaneously when he was exposed a liar on pages 20 and 21 of his book. Hence God responded to his supplication on the previous page and fulfilled Abdul Hafeez's desire in his own words. He 'subdued the existent liar with His vanquishing power and crushed him in the wheel of His anger for the world to recognise this evil and accursed author of Two in One. 1147. At some later stage in his book, the author of Two in One has recorded another prayer supplicating that 'if these people are truthful and on the right path and I am wrongly accusing them or writing this for any worldly gain, O Allah trap every liar and accuser with Your Curse and reveal such a sign which will decide between true and false. 1148 The preceding illustration of how he has been trapped in his own snare should establish that his prayer has been responded to by God Almighty. However, since he has begged a question of Ahmadi Muslims as to whether they consider Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas of. Qadian to be the Promised Messiah and the Imam Mahdi or not 149 - in response to this question, one can assure him that they have, throughout their history since Hadhrat Ahmadas claimed to be such, considered him to be the Promised Messiah and the Imam Mahdi; they do consider him to be the Promised. Messiah and the Imam Mahdi unto this day and Inshallah they shall continue to consider him the Promised Messiah and the. Imam Mahdi for the rest of their lives. For this they are neither embarrassed nor apologetic because their faith in Hadhrat. Ahmadas being the Promised Messiah and the Imam Mahdi is as certain as their faith in the truthfulness of all the previous 146. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 19 147. Ibid. 148. Ibid., p. 52 149. Ibid., p. 36 49

Page 62

prophets of God Almighty. Hence, they have neither, ever, denied in the past nor are ever likely to deny in the future, their faith that Hadhrat Ahmadas of Qadian was the Promised. Messiah and the Imam Mahdi prophesied by their beloved lord,. Hadhrat Muhammad Mustapha who commanded his ummah that when this prophesied Messiah arrives: 'If any of you meets him, he should say al Salaam to him from me. '150. With the grace of Allah, Ahmadi Muslims have been blessed with this opportunity to first meet and then obey the command of their beloved Prophets. They have therefore conveyed his greeting of Assalamo Alaikum to him. Hadhrat Muhammadsa also commanded: 'So when you see him, take 'bai'at even if you have to go on your knees in snow. 1151. As commanded, Ahmadi Muslims have taken 'bai'at at the hands of his prophesied Messiah and Mahdi and identified themselves with him. They have therefore only obeyed their beloved Prophets for which they are neither ashamed nor apologetic. But Abdul Hafeez has not been blessed with this bounty by God Almighty to obey the command of the Holy. Prophet of Islams just as Abu Jahl and his hosts were not granted the bounty to take 'bai'at at the hands of the Khatamal. Anbiyya, Hadhrat Muhammad Mustapha³ª. 150. Kanz al 'Ummal, vol. vii, p. 203 151. Ibid., p. 186 50

Page 63

THE QURANIC CRITERION OF MUBAHALA t.1152. Finally, Abdul Hafeez invites Ahmadi Muslims that if they are 'right then they should come forward and lay down their lives for the honour of Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas whom they consider a prophet. 1152 One is rather amazed that he should have missed the fact that Ahmadi Muslims have already laid their lives down with the Mubahala and invoked the curse of Allah upon themselves if they be liars on eight occasions in the context of the challenge issued by their Caliph, Hadhrat Mirza. Tahir Ahmaday at London on 10th of June 1988.153 What remains now is that adversaries like Abdul Hafeez accept this challenge in the spirit in which it has been issued and come in the field by assenting to it and not making excuses. But, people like him whose only purpose in being involved in this controversy is to gain fame for themselves will never have the courage to accept the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community's invitation to a Mubahala.. Hence, he makes an excuse: 'The method you have adopted for Mubahilla is wrong because by not fixing the time and the place and adopting a method of cursing while sitting at home, you have openly disregarded the Quranic law.'154. If this lame excuse is not a ploy to avoid being a party to the. Mubahala, then is Abdul Hafeez's insistence to his own four point challenge within the realm of the Quranic law? 155 Did. Hadhrat Muhammad sa call upon the Christians of Najran to 'prove that the first 40 years of the life of their prophet resembled any prophet' as demanded by the author of Two in. One? 1156 Did he ask his adversaries to 'dig open the graves of their prophets and shaheeds to prove to the world that these are still fresh and appear alive and that their eyes are still open 152. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 6 153. Ahmadiyya Muslim Association. Mubahala, Urdu ed., pp. 5/7 154. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 35 51 155. Ibid., p. 19 156. Ibid.

Page 64

with rays of light being emitted from them, having a blinding effect upon the onlookers' as demanded by this four point challenge? 1157 Did Hadhrat Muhammad sa demand that 'Abd al. Masih al 'Aqib, the leader of the Christians 'meditate with him for three days behind separate closed rooms so that when they come out from their rooms, upon looking at them, people would observe the signs of truth and false from God,' as demanded by this challenger? 158 Did he invite 'Aqib to jump into a fire with him' as demanded by this counter challenge? 1159 Which Quran may one ask this pseudo scholar of Islam establishes this criterion for a Mubahala?. Abdul Hafeez's argument that the challenge to Mubahala issued by Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad'say 'is wrong and openly disregards Quranic law in as much that it does not fix a time and a place 160 is thoroughly false and so is his other statement that: 'by not specifying the time and place, you have openly disobeyed Quranic orders. Just as in the verse of Mubahilla [Verse No, 61, Surah 3] Prophet of Allah has specified the time & place for Mubahilla with Christians of Najran, and this is the only way according to Quran.'161. This statement is a blatant lie against the Holy Quran since the aforementioned Quranic verse cited in evidence does not, in any manner whatsoever, even remotely, specify the time and the place for a Mubahala as asserted by the pir of Gujjo. The only thing it states is: 'And whoso disputeth with thee concerning him, after the knowledge which hath come unto thee, say [unto him]: Come!. We will summon our sons and your sons, and our women and your women, and ourselves and yourselves, then we will pray humbly [to our Lord] and [solemnly] invoke the curse of Allah upon those who lie.' 157. Ibid. 158. Ibid. 159. Ibid. 160. lbid., p 35 161. Ibid., 52. P. 52

Page 65

Where does this Quranic verse specify the time and the place for a Mubahala contest? In case Abdul Hafeez wishes to argue that Ahmadi Muslims have expunged mention of time and the place from within the text of this passage, one would advise him that the above translation of the Quranic verse has been quoted from Marmaduke Pickthall's translation of the Quran published by a non Ahmadiyya Muslim publishing house, the. Taj Company of Karachi. A translation to the same effect is also to be found in the Quran published by Idara Isha'at e Dinyat of. New Delhi, India and yet nowhere does this verse stipulate that a specific time and place ought to be fixed for a Mubahala. Has this pir from Gujjo sunk to such deception and falsehood that in his desperation to wriggle out of the challenge of Mubahala issued by the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, he has even begun to fabricate lies against the Holy Quran or is it that God has once again instantly heard his prayers 162 and exposed him as a liar yet once again?. Incidentally, Abdul Hafeez's own counter Mubahala does not specify the time and place as apparent from his 4 point challenge. 163 Would he then censure himself for having openly disregarded the Quranic law and disobeyed the Quranic orders.. Furthermore, his third condition stipulates that this Mubahala be conducted in separate closed rooms¹64 in which event one would ask him if the Mubahala challenge issued by Hadhrat. Muhammadsa, which the author of Two in One insists. 'is the only way according to the Holy Quran and Sunnah 165 was required to be engaged into in separate closed rooms.. Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad'say invitation to Mubahala is in strict conformity with the above passage of the Quran since on the conclusion of every one of the specified groups of false allegations he has declared: 'In my capacity as the Imam of the Ahmadiyya Muslim. Community, I do hereby declare all these allegations to be utterly false and a bundle of fabrications. So, in the words of 162. Ibid., pgs. 19 & 52 163. Ibid., p. 19 164. Ibid. .165. Ibid., p. 52 53

Page 66

the Holy Quran, we invoke Allah's curse be on those who lie. '166. While one does not deny that some Muslim scholars have expressed the opinion that the two parties should meet face to face in any challenge of Mubahala, there is absolutely no hard and fast rule laid down by the Holy Quran or Hadeeth which demands that such a meeting be a prerequisite to a Mubahala.. In fact, Abdul Hafeez's own 4 point counter Mubahala establishes that such a face to face confrontation of the parties engaged in this duel of prayer is not essential. This is indicated by his demand that Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmaday and he 'meditate for three days in separate closed rooms. 167 Now, if they were to meditate in separate rooms as demanded, then such a Mubahala could not be construed to be a face to face meeting between the contestants. Or could it?. The only purpose of such a meeting in the days in which the. Mubahala was instituted was to give it the widest possible publicity and bring to the knowledge of the masses that such a challenge had been assented to and therefore engaged into so that neither could, at a later stage, deny being a party to it. In this day and age of modern technology, Islam not being restricted to a localised region as in the days of yore - this system of assent to the Mubahala through the media as suggested by Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmaday is the best possible under the present circumstances. But Abdul Hafeez and his colleagues would rather avoid such wide publicity lest they be exposed as liars and disbelievers as well as enemies of the truth throughout the world. These mullahs do after all travel the length and breadth of the world to deceive masses into parting with their hard earned pounds and dollars as well as marks and francs. Why then would they want to jeopardise revenue in foreign currency?. As regards the question of fixing of the time limit, the 166. Ahmadiyya Muslim Association. Mubahala, Urdu ed. pp. 4/7 167. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 19. 54

Page 67

aforementioned Quranic passage in relation to the Mubahala does not require that any such time limit be specified. Hadeeth on the other hand suggests that Prophet Muhammad sa stated in relation to his challenge of Mubahala to the Christians of. Najran: 'If the Christians had accepted the Mubahala and agreed to pray to God to send His punishment on the lying party, God would have surely destroyed the liars before the year had passed.'168. In view of this statement by Hadhrat Muhammadsa, the Caliph of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community concluded his challenge of Mubahala with the prayer: 'O, our Lord! Whichever of us in Thy sight are liars and fabricators, let Thy wrath descend upon them within one year.. May thou inflict such disgraceful and tormenting punishment upon them that people should witness their debasement and utter destruction. Let Thy wrath descend upon them in diverse ways and let the criminals be punished and exposed in an exemplary manner so that the world should bear witness that they are recipients of Thine wrath." 1170. Nonetheless, people like Abdul Hafeez cannot be expected to understand the true purpose of Mubahala nor give the respect due to it. Hence, they treat this Quranic concept with such ridicule that they consider it, God forbid, a 'notorious weapon' despite the knowledge that it has been initiated on God. Almighty's command as clearly indicated by the Quranic verse in which our Prophet, Hadhrat Muhammadsa was directed by. Allah to challenge his opponents who denied the truth to a. Mubahala. 171 One is, however, not surprised that people like the author of Two in One should consider the Mubahala a notorious 168. Sahih Bukhari 169. Ahmadiyya Muslim Association. Mubahala, Urdu ed., pp. 8/9 170. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 44 171. Al Quran 3.62 55

Page 68

weapon since notorious also means something which is known widely but is regarded unfavourably. None would deny that in. Islamic teachings and history, Mubahala is a widely known concept and it was engaged into by our own Prophet, Hadhrat. Muhammads when commanded by God Almighty to take recourse to. Hence, sincere Muslims not only know of it but also take pride in the fact that Hadhrat Muhammadsa routed the. Christian opponents of Islam and the truth with it. But, this offer was not regarded favourably by the Christians who consequently did not engage into it. One can therefore see a parallel between them and people like Abdul Hafeez who know of the Mubahala but dare not engage into it and thus look upon it unfavourably.. Historical evidences also establish that our Prophets took recourse to a Mubahala contest with the Christians of Najran after being commanded by God to do so which, like the author of Two in One, the Christians being unsure of their grounds declined to accept. 172 By making such a statement that a. Mubahala is a 'notorious weapon,' is this self proclaimed scholar of Islam not implicating that God is, God forbid, capable of demanding that His righteous servants take recourse to 'notorious weapons' and that God forbid, on His command, His righteous servants, as righteous as the Khatamal Anbiyya,. Hadhrat Muhammad Mustaphasa took recourse to a 'notorious weapon'? May God perish the author of Two in One for implicating such obscenity! Or else, how does he explain his definition of a Mubahala as a 'notorious weapon'? 173 172. Zurqani, [Hadhrat] Imam Muhammad ibn 'Abd al Baqi al. Sharha Zurqani 173. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 44 56

Page 69

ABDUL HAFEEZ'S RETREAT FROM. OWN FOUR POINT MUBAHALA. Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad's ay challenge to a duel of prayers to all those who falsify the claims of Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam. Ahmadas; accuse him of disbelief and lies against God; denounce him as a Dadjaal and an imposter; attribute false beliefs to him; accuse his Community of totally false charges; engage themselves in active propaganda against it; persistently attribute such beliefs to it as are not a part of its faith; accuse the present. Imam of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community of serious criminal charges and give currency to this character assassination in. Pakistan and overseas conforms thoroughly to the principle laid down by the Holy Quran. But, Abdul Hafeez, who has been guilty of all the aforementioned enormities cannot muster enough courage to accept this challenge to, what could very appropriately be termed as the enemies of Hadhrat Ahmadas and the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community; disbelievers in the claims of Hadhrat Ahmadas as the prophesied Messiah and the. Mahdi and also liars who give currency to these fabrications against Hadhrat Ahmadas, his successors and the Ahmadiyya. Muslim Community. Therefore, he issues a counter four point challenge to a Mubahala 174 with such naive stipulations for which there is neither basis in the Holy Quran nor precedent in the Sunnah of Hadhrat Muhammadsa or the entire history of religion.. Nonetheless, Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmaday has had the courage to fulfil the demand which he makes of those whom he challenges to a Mubahala in so much that while he challenges them to invoke the curse of Allah upon themselves if they not be the liars, he invokes this curse upon himself and the members of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community if they be liars on eight separate occasions. 175 But, Abdul Hafeez does not have the courage to do what he demands of others. On the contrary, 174. Ibid., p. 19 175. Ahmadiyya Muslim Association. Mubahala, Urdu ed., pp. 5/7 57

Page 70

when asked by the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community to prove his own truthfulness 176 with the criterion set by the pir of Gujjo himself in his four point counter challenge, i.e., enter a lighted fire and emerge from it unscathed 177, the author of Two in One immediately withdrew this stipulation and asked Ahmadi. Muslims to comment upon his amended three point Mubahala challenge. 178. This indicates that he is not certain of his conviction or else he would have gladly jumped in a lighted fire as he demanded of others and left the decision to God to save him if he is truthful or burn him to ashes if he is a liar just as Hadhrat Mirza Tahir. Ahmaday gladly invoked the curse of Allah, to which he invited others, upon himself and the entire Ahmadiyya Muslim. Community and left the decision to God to preserve them if they are truthful or destroy them if they be liars.. And then, probably apprehensive that his counter challenge to. Mubahala might drag him into further embarrassment, Abdul. Hafeez, unashamedly, writes in relation to his four point. Mubahala: 'Now regarding the four conditions of Mubahala, I am glad that you have stated them to be ridiculous and non Islamic. 1179 180. ,. Can one ever imagine that a person who declares himself to be the most humble servant of our beloved Prophet Muhammadsa, claims to be eager to sacrifice his life, money and honour from him and prove himself a true Muslim¹80; repeatedly asserts that all his efforts are dedicated to the cause of Allah 181; states that his being engaged in this tirade against Ahmadi Muslims is in consideration of his religious duty which he feels obliged to fulfil 182 - would, after all these tall claims and pretences invite others, as Abdul Hafeez does on numerous occasions 183, to be engaged in something which he himself admits is non Islamic? 184 176. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 46 178. Ibid., 53 179.. Ibid., 182. Ibid., p. 45 p. 65 180. Ibid., p. 6 183. Ibid., pgs. 5,18/19 & 53 58 177. Ibid., No. 4, p. 19 181., Ibid., p. 38 & 52 184. Ibid., p. 65

Page 71

CHAPTER TWO. CLAIMS OF HADHRAT AHMAD*s. In his crude ridicule of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community,. Abdul Hafeez first states that Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad'sas 'visions and hallucinations assure him that God in heaven glorifies him and invests him with the highest decorations" and then appends a grotesque cartoon in which he cites numerous claims allegedly made by Hadhrat Ahmadas. 2 He also includes a caption to this tasteless cartoon to the effect: 'I may be unstable, but believe me, I am versatile enough to fit any frame all in one. However, despite his own statement that 'for every claim there has to be some proof," the author of Two in One follows the wont of his lying colleagues to accuse Hadhrat. Ahmadas of proposing to establish a claim to be God or the son of God and even the father of God etc., etc., without actually furnishing any conclusive proof to support his foul accusations.. In absence of any supporting evidence to substantiate the foul charges made against Hadhrat Ahmadas, one would have been inclined to ignore these allegations but since such false assertions have been made often by many authors hostile to. Hadhrat Ahmadas, one would refer to these and illustrate the extent of falsehood and deception to which the adversaries of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community have resorted in their hostile propaganda. One is certain that at the end of this exercise, those who possess a noble and a pious disposition would acknowledge that any person accusing Hadhrat Ahmadas of these obnoxious charges could only be an advocate of the accursed Satan. ' 1. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 2 59 2. Ibid., p. 3 3. Ibid. 4. Ibid., p. 6

Page 72

CLAIM OF DIVINITY. In evidence of their false allegation that Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam. Ahmadas of Qadian claimed to be God Almighty, some of his adversaries quote him from his book Kitabul Barriyah to state that he declared: 'I saw in one of my contemplative visions [Kashf] that I am. God myself and believed that I am the same. His Godhead penetrated and infused in me. My personal edifice collapsed and that of God appeared distinctly and divinity subdued me completely.' He further writes 'and in this state, I submitted that we need a new system and a new sky. So, first of all, 1 vaguely created the earth and the sky but there was no order and no system therein. Then according to the will of God, I put them in proper order and appropriate arrangements and. I saw that I was capable of creating things. Then I originated the sky of the earth and said [sic]. Then I asserted that now. We should beget man with the essence of clay. Then the state of contemplative vision converted into inspiration and I started muttering "These are the inspirations I am enlightened with by God Almighty." Kitab al Baria p.p. 85 to 87; A'ina. Kamalat i Islam p. 564.15. While one does not accept that this is a perfectly accurate translation of Hadhrat Ahmad's as original statement, one still calls upon every honest and sincere person to read this passage, albeit not a faithful reproduction of the original and truly determine if there is any claim of Divinity contained herein. In the first instance, one draws one's attention to the following passages of this citation: 1. I saw in one of my contemplative visions [kashf] that I am. God myself and believed that I am the same. 5. Irfani, Abu al Bashir. The Cunning Chameleon, p. 15 60

Page 73

3. In this state I submitted that we need a new system and a new sky. 6. Then the state of contemplative vision converted into inspiration and I started muttering: 'These are inspirations. I am enlightened with by God Almighty'.. These passages in the hostile publications are an admission that this entire scenario was being observed by Hadhrat Ahmadas in a state of vision. Now, every rational human being, whether a believer or not, would accept that a person who sees something in a dream or a vision cannot be held responsible for it since at that precise moment when a dream or vision is being observed, one's faculties are not in one's possession at all. If Abdul Hafeez refuses to accept this explanation then one would ask him as to how would he reconcile Hadhrat Muhammad's sa dream or vision in which he saw himself wearing two gold bangles on his wrist when Muslim men have been forbidden to wear gold.. Would he care to state that God forbid, the Prophet of Islam contravened the laws of Islam contrary to the explicit command of God? sa. There is other evidence contained within this citation which establishes that Hadhrat Ahmadas did not claim any Divinity with this vision. As for instance, he stated that 'he saw in his vision that he was God himself which admits the fact there is a God Who is not Hadhrat Ahmadas. The sentences in relation to the penetration of the Almighty's Godhead; the collapse of. Hadhrat Ahmad's as edifice and it being subdued with God's divinity; his submitting to God that a new system and sky was needed; his putting things in proper order with the will of God and his being enlightened with such inspirations by God. Almighty are all admissions of the fact that there is no claim of. Divinity but that there is a God Who is not Hadhrat Ahmadas.. It is however ironic that in order to prove their false allegations against Hadhrat Ahmadas, his adversaries cite incomplete quotations from his books since such an exercise assists them in 6. Sahih Bukhari, 59.69 61

Page 74

hiding true facts and creating some doubt in the minds of simple minded people whose intellectual capacity often limits them from reading between the lines. For instance, when one refers to Hadhrat Ahmad's as original work, one finds that this passage quoted by his adversaries reads: 'In a vision I saw that I myself was God and believed myself to be such. I felt that I had no will or thought or action of my own left, and that I had become like something which was being completely overpowered by something else that had absorbed me wholly so that my own being had completely disappeared. I saw the divine spirit envelop my soul and covering my body hide me completely in itself so that not a particle of me remained. I beheld myself as if all my limbs had become His, my eyes had become His eyes, my ears had become His ears and my tongue had become His tongue. My. Lord seized me with such great force that I disappeared in. Him and I felt that His power was surging in me and that His divinity was coursing through me. The Lord of honour then set. His camp around my heart and the Lord of power ground down my soul so that there was no more of me nor any desire of mine left. My whole structure was demolished and only the structure of the Lord of the universe remained visible.. The Divine overcame me with such force that I was drawn to. Him from the hair of my head to the nails of my toes. Then I became all spirit which had no body and became an oil which had no dregs. I was separated completely from my ego and. I became like something which was not visible or like a drop which had become merged in the ocean so that the ocean comprehended it in its vastness. I no longer knew what I had been before nor what my being was. Divinity coursed through my veins and muscles. I was completely lost to myself and. God Almighty employed my limbs for His purpose and took possession of me with such force that nothing exceeded it. By this seizure I became non existent. I believed that my limbs had become God's limbs and I imagined that I had discarded my own being and had departed from my existence, and that 62

Page 75

no associate or claimant had remained as an obstruction. God. Almighty entered wholly into my being and my anger and my gentleness, and my bitterness and my sweetness and my movement and my inertness all became His. In this condition. I said: I desire a new universe, a new heaven and a new earth.". One would observe from this complete statement that the hostile citation of Hadhrat Ahmad's as statement has expunged a large section of the original vision recorded by him only because it proves that he did not claim Divinity but that in a state of vision, the Glory of God descended upon him and none can object to such a phenomenon a phenomenon totally acceptable to Islamic thought as for instance acknowledged by. Hadhrat Abu Yazid Bustamith who stated: 'If a man be totally lost in God, since God is everything he will see in himself everything."8. This statement by the revered Persian saint is in strict conformity with Islamic teachings since Hadhrat Muhammadsa is stated that God Almighty declared: 'My servant who offers optional prayers constantly increases in grade of nearness to me so much so that I also begin to love him. Then I become his ears with which he hears and his eyes with which he sees and his hands with which he holds. things and his feet with which he walks.19. To a person of Abdul Hafeez's calibre, this statement by. Hadhrat Muhammad sa may suggest that God literally becomes the ears and eyes and hands and feet of a person who offers optional prayers constantly. But, this does not alter the fact that in truth, it proposes to establish that those people who engage 7. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Kitabul Bariyyah, p. 85/87; Ruhani Khazain, vol. xiii, pp. 103/105 8. Bustami, [Hadhrat] Abu Yazid, vide. Tadhkirath al Aulia, ch. xiv, p. 146 9. Sahih Bukhari 63

Page 76

in such spiritual exercises are drawn closer to Him so much that they become a part of Him as He becomes a part of them and since they are totally lost in Him, they begin to see Him in themselves. This phenomenon has often been experienced by the saints of Islam. Hence, Hadhrat Ali ibn Talibra declared: 'I am the dot under the letter b of Bismillah. I am that aspect of God about which you have been indifferent. I am the Qalm.. I am the Luh, I am the 'Arsh, I am the Kursi, I am the Seven. Heavens and the Earths. 110. Such expressions as Luh and Qalm to which Hadhrat Alira laid claim are attributes of God Almighty. Similarly, Hadhrat Imam. Ja'far Sadiqh, a descendent of Hadhrat Muhammad sa and the sixth Imam of the Shi'ah Muslims declared: 'we are the face of God.'11. Hadhrat Abu Yazid Bustamith was much more explicit with his claim when he declared: 'There is no one like me in heaven, nor anyone of my attributes on earth. My attributes are hidden in the Unseen.. How can such a one be man? Nay, he is the tongue of Truth, and the speaker of the Truth Himself. For Me he speaks, for. Me he hears, from Me he sees. Therefore, it is God Who speaks through the tongue of Abu Yazid.'12 13. The revered Persian saint claimed to be a 'God of great glory¹¹³ and he also declared: 'There is none worthy of worship besides me, so worship me.' 114 10. Talib, [Hadhrat Ali ibn. vide. Sharh Fusoos al Hukm, Preface, Sc. viii, p. 32 11. Sadiq, [Hadhrat] Imam Ja'far. vide. Kitab Mazhar al 'Ajai'b fin. Nikat e Wal Ghara'ib 12. Bustami, [Hadhrat] Abu Yazid. Tadhkirat al Aulia, ch. xiv, p. 151 13. Ibid. vide. Fawa'id Faridiyya, p 73 14. Ibid., Tadhkirat al Aulia, ed. 1917,. P. 134 64

Page 77

Hadhrat Jalal ud Din Rumith, who was a disciple of Hadhrat. Abu Yazid Bustamith wrote an ode in the honour of his spiritual preceptor and stated that: 'That glorious sage Abu Yazid came to the disciples and said:. I am God. This perfect spiritual leader, in the state of spiritual intoxication declared: There is no God but me, serve me; In other words, in my robe there is none but God, so how long will you search Him in heaven and earth.'15. Hadhrat Sheikh Muhiy ud Din Ibne Arabith also declared in relation to himself: 'I am the spirit of spirits, not the spirit of vessels.'16. Hadhrat Sultan Bahuth, a revered sufi of the Punjab claimed to be God in his poetic verses: 'I know only the Truth, I see only the Truth, I cry only the. Truth. Truth is in me and I am the Truth, this is the Truth.117. Hadhrat Abu al Hasan Kharqanih another venerable sage of his time announced: 'I am the God of my age.. Hadhrat Sheikh Farid ud Din Attarth was also extremely explicit in his claim and declared: 'I am free from spite, arrogance and greed; I am God, I am. God, I am God." .19. Hadhrat Hussain ibn Mansur al Hallajth was asked if he 15. Rumi, [Hadhrat] Jalal ud Din. Miftah al Ulum, sec. iv, pt. ii, pp. 25 & 36 16. Arabi, [Hadhrat] Sheikh Muhiy ud Din ibne. Fatuhat Makkiyya, pt. 1, p. 1 17. Bahu, [Hadhrat] Sultan. vide. Kaleed at Tauheed, p. 194 18. Kharqani, [Hadhrat] Abu al Hasan. Tadhkirat al Aulia, ed. 1917, p. 585 19. Attar, Hadhrat Sheikh Farid ud Din. Fawa'id Faridiyya, p. 85 65

Page 78

claimed to be a prophet of God to which the revered sage replied: 'I am sorry for you that you have reduced my worth. I claim. Divinity for myself and you ask me of a claim to prophethood.'20. In the height of his intensity of love for his Creator, he declared in a state of ecstasy: 'I am the Lord.'21. Hadhrat Abu Bakr Shibli was also extremely explicit in his pronouncement and stated in relation to himself: 'It is I who speaks, it is I who listens. In the two worlds, there is none but I myself. 122. Muslim saints have also been referred to as God in Person by their followers as for instance Sheikh Sabir Kalyari stated in relation to Sufi Sayyid Abid Mia Uthman Naqshbandi: 'I call him Ka'aba or Quran or Prophet or God. 123. Allama Muhammad Iqbal who in recent times has become the patron saint of most anti Ahmadiyya Muslim elements stated in relation to Hadhrat Nizam id Din Aulia™. 'What the angels read, that is your name. Great is your status, widespread is your Grace. 124. These are but a few sample illustrations of the pronouncements of some of the greatest sufis known to the history of Islam, generally revered for their piety by the larger majority of the 20. Hallaj, [Hadhrat] Mansur al. vide. Fawa'id Faridiyya, p. 76 21. Ibid., vide. Anwar e Aulia, pp. 180/1 22. Shibli, [Hadhrat] Abu Bakr. Fawa'id e Faridiyya 23. Kalyari, Sheikh Sabir. Miraj ul Mu'mineen, pp. 144/45 24. Iqbal, Muhammad. Bang e Dara 66

Page 79

Muslim ummah or else of Muslim scholars in relation to their spiritual mentors. One has to but read through the colossal. Islamic literature to gauge the extent of such pronouncements made by Muslim saints and scholars. Yet, one observes that whereas Hadhrat Ahmadas did not at any point in time claim to be God, numerous venerable saints and scholars of the ummah of Islam made a claim to be Him in Person or else were called. God by their followers and admirers.. One would now ask Abdul Hafeez as to what is his opinion in relation to all these aforementioned saints and scholars of Islam who claimed Divinity for themselves or attributed it to their spiritual predecessors? Does he consider them unstable and versatile enough to fit in any frame and would he similarly accuse them of suffering from hallucinations which assured them that they were God in heaven? Would he also condemn them as mad as he does Hadhrat Ahmadas although he made no such claim to Divinity as the aforementioned saints of the. Ummah did?25 Would he call these pronouncements of all the saints and scholars as their doldrums as he does in case of. Hadhrat Ahmad as who incidentally, unlike them, never made any such specific claim? 26 Would he caricature cartoons of all these sufis of the ummah, Hadhrat Ali ibn Talibra, Hadhrat Ja'far. Sadiq, Abu Yazid Bustamith, Hadhrat Sheikh Muhiy ud Din ibne Arabith, Hadhrat Sultan Bahuth, Hadhrat Abu al Hasan. Kharqani, Hadhrat Sheikh Farid ud Din Attarth, Hadhrat. Hussain ibn Mansur al Hallajth and Hadhrat Abu Bakr Shiblith who claimed to be God Almighty in some form or the other and include this in the future editions of his book Two in One. If not, then would he not prove himself to be a hypocrite? A liar. Abdul Hafeez has been already proved since it has been shown that Hadhrat Ahmadas did not, ever, claim divinity for himself and an enemy also he has proved himself to be by accusing. Hadhrat Ahmadas of a false charge. Why then should a hypocrite, a liar and an enemy of the righteous take exception to being branded a disbeliever? 25. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, pp. 2/3 67 26. Ibid.

Page 80

SON OF GOD. The second false charge often alleged against Hadhrat Mirza. Ghulam Ahmadas is that he claimed to be a son of God in the literal sense of the word" which once again is argued on gross misrepresentation of some of his revelations. In this instance, his adversaries quote three alleged revelations in evidence while the third of these 'Listen my son'28 or 'Listen! O my son 129 stated to have been quoted from Al Bushra is not a revelation vouchsafed unto him. Apparently, an Arabic journal Al Bushra quoted a revelation vouchsafed unto Hadhrat Ahmadas - the original recorded by him in his own works being: 'The host will be scattered and they will turn their backs. Fear not My servant, I hear and see. See you not that We are reducing the earth from its borders? See you not that Allah has power to do all that He wills. Call down blessings on. Muhammad and the people of Muhammad, Chief of mankind and Seal of Prophets.130. However, due to some negligence on the part of Al Bushra's copyist, the expression Asm'aa wa Araa meaning I hear and see was incorrectly printed in the journal as Asm'aa Wa'lade meaning Listen My Son. Anyone minutely conversant with. Arabic language would know that such an error is easily made considering the characters of the language. In this instance,. Asm'aa wa Araa is written as a while Asm'aa Wa'lade is written as Smal However, due to the negligence of the copyist, the alphabet | which stands for 'alif or its equivalent a in English and ♪ ra or ra or r happened to be mistakenly joined together as a result of which these assumed the shapes of J la'm and dal and hence what should have been 'Ar became. N. la'd. Consequently, si Araa assumed the shape of GN 27. Ibid., p. 3. E 28. Irfani, Abu al Bashir. The Cunning Chameleon, p. 13 29. Zaheer, Ehsan Elahi, Qadiyaniat, ed. May 73, p. 116 30. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Anjam Atham, p. 54, Ruhani Khazain, vol. 11, p. 54 68

Page 81

'lade whereby what should have been Asm'aa wa Araa became (SN) Asm'aa Wa'lade.. This unfortunate error in the columns of Al Bushra was immediately detected and the editor of the journal took necessary steps to publish a correction in its following issue. He also sent a notice to the official journal of the Ahmadiyya. Muslim Community at Qadian to the effect: 'In line 10 of page 49 of Al Bushra. vol. 1, the revelation of the. Promised Messiah Asm'aa wa Araa has been incorrectly written as Asm'aa Wa'lade. It is regretted that so far none of our friends was able to point out this error and I am indeed grateful to a kind friend for drawing my attention to it. When compared with the original copy, it was found that the correct revelation was Asm'aa wa Araa. All those friends who possess a copy of this issue of Al Bushra may kindly make the necessary correction.' 1 31. It may not be unreasonable to state that during the course of any publication either the author or the copyist is extremely likely to commit some genuine errors which despite proof reading and revision may sometimes not be detected until after the material has been printed. Such mistakes have appeared in the best of publications and neither the Ahmadiyya Muslim. Community nor its adversaries can claim immunity to such misprints. One, for instance, observes that Abdul Hafeez's spiritual preceptor Ehsan Elahi Zaheer claims Hadhrat Ali ibn. Talib to be God Almighty in one such printing error.32 Would it then be fair to assert that in the opinion of Abdul Hafeez's spiritual preceptors, Hadhrat Alira is God forbid, God Almighty?. As regards the other two citations, 'You are, of Me, like My son' and 'You are, of Me, like My offspring', had these antagonists exercised similar honesty which some of their colleagues have inadvertently done in the translation of these revelations, they 31. Al Fazl, vol. 9, p. 96 32. Zaheer, Ehsan Elahi. Qadiyaniat, ed. 1984, p. 21 69

Page 82

would not have discovered anything objectionable. For instance, one hostile author translates this particular revelation as 'you are unto me as my son. 133 This indicates that whereas the original revelations contain the preposition to it has been substituted with of by some critics which gives the revelations a totally different meaning from what was originally revealed unto. Hadhrat Ahmadas by God Almighty and also what was intended by Him since it is one thing to state that 'you are of me like my son' or 'you are of me like my offspring' and another to state that you are to me like my son ¹³4 or 'you are to me like my offspring 135 But, God Almighty does not have a son and this fact had been acknowledged by Hadhrat Ahmadas who stated that one: 134 'of the attributes of God to which the Holy Quran calls us is that Allah is Single and He begets not, nor is He begotten.136. In another such expression of his beliefs, he stated that 'God is not anyone's son, nor is anyone His son. 137 Therefore, the only conclusion one can draw from these revelations is that these. Divine words have been spoken in a figurative sense and should not be an occasion to either take exception or else accuse. Hadhrat Ahmadas of making a claim to Divine sonship in the literal sense. In fact, Hadhrat Ahmadas appended a footnote to this revelation in relation to him being called like a son to God and stated: 'Holy is God Almighty from having sons and this expression has been used as a metaphor.138. The use of the expression Son of God abounds in religious 33. Dhorat, Muhammad Saleem, Qadianism, p. 6 34. Ahmad, Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam. Haqeeqatul Wahi, p. 86; Ruhani Khazain vol. 22, p. 89 35. Ibid., Arba'een No. iv, p. 32; Ruhani Khazain, vol. 17, p. 385 36. Ibid., Islami Usul ki Philosophy, p. 58, Ruhani Khazain, vol. 10, p. 372 37. Ibid., Lecture Lahore, p. 9, Ruhani Khazain, vol. 20, p. 155 38. Ibid., Haqeeqatul Wahi, p. 86; Ruhani Khazain vol. 22, p. 89 70

Page 83

vocabulary and such terminology has also been found perfectly acceptable and permissible in Islam. Hadeeth reports that. Hadhrat Muhammad sa stated: 'The creatures of God Almighty are His children and whosoever shows kindness unto His family is indeed His most beloved servant.139. This statement does not propose to suggest that the creatures of God are His children in the literal sense. It merely demonstrates the regard in which Allah holds His creation and no one dare suggest that with this statement, Hadhrat. Muhammad sa committed blasphemy of attributing children to. God Almighty. Hence, the question which one needs to consider in the light of this statement is that if God holds His ordinary creatures in such high regard that Hadhrat Muhammadsa considered them to be the children of Allah, then how high a regard does He have for His commissioned apostles. This question has often been answered by some of Islam's most venerable personages. The renowned mystic sage, Hadhrat. Maulana Jalal ud Din Rumith declared: 140 'The apostles of God are symbolically His sons.14. The revered Muhaddith of Delhi, Hadhrat Shah Wali Ullah. Dehlvi discussed the use of this appellation in religious vocabulary and stated: 'if God employs the word son for His beloved then one should not be surprised since it is not meant in the literal sense." 141. Hadhrat Maulana Muhammad Qasim Nanautvith, the founder of the Nidawatul Ulama, the famous seminary at Deoband defended the permissibility of such vocabulary and explained: 39. 'Abd Allah, Hadhrat Sheikh Wali al Din Muhammad. Miskat al Masabih 40. Rumi, Hadhrat Jalal al Din, Mathnavi, vol iii, p. 13 41. Shah, Hadhrat Wali Ullah, vide. Al Fauz al Kabeer, p. 8 71

Page 84

'If God calls a pious man His son, it only means that He is graciously inclined to him and is kind to him. It would be totally wrong to interpret such a statement literally.142. Therefore, there is absolutely no cause to take exception to. Hadhrat Ahmad as being given the appellation of being 'the like of the son of God' in these revelations which are often manipulated to allege that he claimed to be the son of God in a literal sense. Hadhrat Ahmadas explained this appellation used in relation to him and stated that: 'God Almighty is far above having any sons and neither has. He an associate and therefore no one has a right to claim that he is the son of God. But this sentence has been stated as a reflection and metaphorically. 143. He also made it quite clear that his 'being called a son of God was a mere statement of spiritual grade that had been bestowed upon him and that a son of God in a literal sense was not meant by this revelation, 144 He discussed the figurative use of this expression at great length and stated: 'Those people who efface their identity in the love of God are called the sons of God. But this does not mean that they are. His sons in the literal sense since such an assertion would be positively blasphemous as Holy is He, far above having any sons. They are figuratively called the sons of God because like children, they remain in constant remembrance of God with complete devotion. God refers to this kind of supplication in the Quran when He states: Remember Allah with such love as children love their father. This is why God has been called the father in the Arya scriptures and has also been figuratively compared to a mother in so much that as a mother nourishes a child from her womb, God nourishes His creatures in the lap 42. Nanauta, Muhammad Qasim. vide. Hujjatul Islam, p. 14 43. Ahmad, Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam, Dafa e Balaa, p. 7, f/n; Ruhani Khazain, vol. 18, p. 227 44. Ahmad, Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam, Tauzeeh e Maram, p. 28; Ruhani Khazain, vol. 3, pp. 65/6 72

Page 85

of His love and hence they are able to discard an evil nature and achieve a pious one. Therefore, when the saints are called sons of God by the pious, it is meant in a figurative sense only otherwise God is far above having any sons and. He begets not, nor is He begotten.'45. These statements should therefore dispel any such contention that Hadhrat Ahmad as ever claimed to be the son of God. In fact, he stated quite clearly that he was a human being and had been commanded by: 'God Almighty: Say, I am only a human being like you all.'46. He explained the reason as to why this expression 'you are to. Me like My son' had been used in relation to him and stated: 'God is far above having any sons and this expression has been used metaphorically because in this age, ignorant. Christians have deified Jesus on account of such expressions and Divine wisdom demanded the use of an even stronger expression with regard to this humble one so that Christians should realise that stronger expressions than those on the basis of which they deified Jesus as have been used with regard to the followers of the Holy Prophets of Islam."4 147. The aforementioned statement should conclusively establish that God Almighty had no occasion to bestow this appellation upon Hadhrat Ahmadas except to honour Hadhrat Muhammad sa far above Hadhrat Jesusas whom Christians had literally deified as a physical son of God. Why then should such a Divine act which proposes to establish the superiority of Hadhrat. Muhammadsa be a matter of annoyance to Abdul Hafeez? 45. Ibid., Tatimmah Haqeeqatul Wahi, p. 144; Ruhani Khazain vol. xxii, p. 582 46. Ibid., Dafa e Balaa, pp.6/7; Ruhani Khazain, vol. 18, pp. 226/28 47. Ibid., Haqeeqatul Wahi, p. 86; Ruhani Khazain, vol. xxii, p. 89 73

Page 86

FATHER OF GOD. The third unsubstantiated allegation made against Hadhrat. Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas is that he claimed to be the father of. God. In this instance, his critics misquote another of his revelations: 'We reveal to you the glad tidings of a son who would be the manifestation of Elevation and the Truth [Haq] as if God would himself descend from heaven.'48. While one does not necessarily accept that the above citation is a perfectly faithful and linguistically correct translation of the passage in Hadhrat Ahmad's as original work, one still fails to see on what basis even a novice of languages and science of logical deduction could come to such a conclusion that on the basis of this revelation, albeit incorrectly cited, the son of Hadhrat. Ahmadas is claimed to be God and therefore Hadhrat Ahmadas has to be the father of God." If the author of this extremely naive deduction would have referred to the text of his own misquoted citation, he may have yet discovered that, in the first instance, the son spoken of in this revelation was not to be God in Person but 'the manifestation of Elevation and the Truth' i.e., someone who, in his own person, exhibits the attributes of. God. Hence, the son in question is not being called God but merely a manifestation of Him. This is also indicated by the use of the words as if in the antagonist's own citation which, once again, establishes that the Promised Son was not called God. On the contrary, it was stated that his advent would be as if God. Himself had descended from heaven.. A claim of such manifestation of God Almighty in the person of His righteous servants has not been unknown to religious vocabulary. The figurative descent of God in the person of His chosen servants is a part of the Biblical vocabulary. Hence, the 48. Irfani, Abu Bashir al. The Cunning Chameleon, p. 13 74 49. Ibid.

Page 87

descent of Hadhrat Muhammad sa has been described as the advent of God Almighty in the Torah: 'And he said, The Lord came from Sinai and rose from Seir unto them; he shined forth from Mount Paran, and he came with ten thousand of saints; from his right hand went a fiery law for them. 150. In a similar prophecy in relation to the advent of Hadhrat. Muhammadsa, Biblical scriptures once again figuratively proclaim his advent as that of God Almighty: 'God came from Teman, and the Holy One from Mount Paran.. Saleh. His glory covered the heavens and the earth was full of praise.151. Yet while Muslims believe that these prophecies refer to. Hadhrat Muhammadsa, no sane person has ever dared argue that he is God Almighty in Person. Such metaphoric language has also been employed in revelations vouchsafed to Hadhrat. Jesus as and while the parable of the vineyard proclaims the advent of Hadhrat Muhammad sa as that of God Almighty, 52 no sane Muslim believes that he was God.. Islamic literature has also found the use of such terminology permissible. Therefore, throughout the history of the Ummah, men of exceptional piety have either claimed to be the manifestation of God Almighty themselves or have honoured other saints and called them as such. Hadhrat Abu Yazid. Bustamith claimed: 'There is no one like me in heaven, nor anyone of my attributes on earth. My attributes are hidden in the Unseen.. How can such a one be a man? Nay, he is the tongue of the. Truth and the speaker is the Truth Himself. From Me he speaks, from Me he hears, from Me he sees. Therefore, it is 50. Deuteronomy 33.2 51. Habakkuk 3.3 75 52. Matthew 21.33/44

Page 88

God who speaks through the tongue of Abu Yazid." 153. The renowned sage and mystic poet of the Punjab, Hadhrat. Sultan Bahut also claimed to be the manifestation of God. Almighty, nay, God Almighty in person: 'I know only the Truth [Haq], I see only the Truth [Haq], I cry only the Truth [Haq], Truth [Haq] is in me and I am the Truth [Haq], this is the Truth [Haq].154. Hadhrat Imam Ja'far Sadiqh claimed to be the face of God 55 and. Hadhrat Jalal ud Din Rumith stated in relation to Hadhrat Abu. Yazid Bustamith that: 'in his robe there was none other but God.156. Hadhrat Farid ud Din Attart claimed to be God not once but three times in the space of one sentence 5 and so did Hadhrat. Hussain ibn Mansur al Hallaj™ claim to be God 58 while Hadhrat. Abu Bakr Shiblith declared that there is none but himself in the two worlds.59 Yet, in every one of these instances, the authors of these words merely proposed to suggest that they were manifestations of God Almighty and not Him - a concept perfectly permissible in Islam since according to Islamic beliefs: 'sainthood is the reflection of prophethood and prophethood is the reflection of Divinity.' 160. Why, then, should a revelation vouchsafed to Hadhrat 53. Bustami, [Hadhrat] Abu Yazid. vide. Tadhkirat al Aulia, ch. xiv, p. 151 54. Bahu, [Hadhrat] Sultan. vide. Khalid e Tauheed, p. 194 55. Sadiq, [Hadhrat] Imam Ja'far. vide. Kitab Mazhar al 'Ajaib fin Nakt wal Ghara'ib 56. Rumi, [Hadhrat] Jalal ud Din. Miftah al Ulum, sec. iv, pt. ii, p. 36 57. Attar, [Hadhrat] Farid ud Din. Fawa'id Faridiyya, p. 85 58. Hallaj, [Hadhrat] Hussain Mansur al. vide. Anwar e Aulia. pp. 180/181 59. Shibli, [Hadhrat] Abu Bakr. vide. Fawa'id e Faridiyya 60. Jilani. [Hadhrat] Sayid 'Abd al Qadir Jilani, Bihjat al Israr, p. 83 76

Page 89

Ahmadas, proposing the same concept be construed to suggest that the son to be born of him was claimed to be God in Person and therefore, he had to be the father of God?. Although Hadhrat Ahmad's as critics falsely accuse him for such alleged blasphemy and sacrilege of the Divine, this does not alter the fact that a direct reference to the actual passage of his book from whence this revelation has been misquoted indicates that he did not at any point in time state that the son to be born would be the manifestation of Elevation and Truth - Elevation and Truth being suggested as meaning God Almighty on account of the use of capital letters by his adversary.” On the contrary, the actual passage in his original work reads: 'We give thee glad tidings of a humble boy who will be characterised with truth and grandeur as if God Himself has descended from heaven." 162. The fact that the aforementioned translation of the revelation under discussion is positively the correct one is verified by its citation in another hostile publication which quotes it to read: 'He gives you tidings of a boy, the exponent of truth and spiritual altitude, as if God descended from Heaven.163. How could these words be construed to imply that according to this revelation, the son to be born is God in Person and therefore, Hadhrat Ahmad as would certainly be the father of. God particularly when the adversaries themselves admit that all that is being stated by this Divine revelation is that the child shall be 'the exponent of truth and spiritual altitude as if God had descended from heaven.'. This revelation which has been subjected to such cruel subreption did not at any point in time propose to attribute. Divinity to Hadhrat Ahmad'sas son nor did Hadhrat Ahmadas 61. Irfani, Abu al Bashir. The Cunning Chameleon, p. 13 62. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Anjam Atham, p. 62; Ruhani Khazain, vol. xii, p. 62 63. Zaheer, Ehsan Elahi. Qadiyaniat, ed. May 1973, p. 116 77

Page 90

himself make any such statement which could even remotely be construed as attributing Divinity to his son. On the contrary, he declared quite categorically that: 'the coming of this son would be a great blessing from God. Almighty." 164. Hence, in Hadhrat Ahmad's as own mind, this son in relation to whom the revelation under discussion was vouchsafed was to descend from God and was therefore not God Almighty. Himself. Hadhrat Ahmadas also stated that this son: 'would be like a light anointed by God with His perfume and pleasure.165. This is also a clear indication that the child was to be extraordinarily blessed by God and was not to be Him in. Person. Nevertheless, if these antagonists still insist that their criterion of logical deduction is positively correct, despite an intentional mistranslation of the revelation vouchsafed unto. Hadhrat Ahmadas, then one would ask them as to what they make of the following verse of the Quran: 'It is not ye who slew them; it was God: When thou threwest [a handful of dust]. it was not thy act, but God's: in order that. He might test the believers by a gracious trial from Himself." 166. This Quranic passage refers to the incident at the battle of Badr when Hadhrat Muhammadsa threw a handful of pebbles and sand at the Meccan army which started a sand storm as a result of which the forces of the infidels were routed and the enemy decimated.67 Now, if someone not too favourably disposed to. Islam was to adopt the criterion of logical deduction adopted by these antagonists, he could argue that: 64. Ahmad [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Announcement, 20 February, 1886; Tabligh Risalat, vol. i, p. 60 65. Ibid. 66. Al Quran 8.17 67. Ali, Abdullah Yusuf. The Holy Quran, Test, Translation & Commentary, f/n. 1191, p. 419 78

Page 91

'although the handful of dust at Badr was thrown by the. Prophet of Islam sa and the enemy slain by Muslims yet because the Quran says that the dust was not thrown by the Prophet Muhammadsa but that it was an act of God and also that the Muslims did not slay the enemy but God did, then the Prophet of Islam sa would certainly be God Himself and so would the Muslims.'. How would the proponents of this naive system of logical deduction answer such a vile charge against the Quran? A similar inference could be made from the Quranic passage: 'Lo! those who swear allegiance unto thee [Muhammad], swear allegiance only unto Allah. The hand of Allah is above their hands. 168. A person hostile to Islam could find inspiration in the criterion of logical deduction established by these adversaries and manipulate this Quranic passage to assert that: 'when those who swear allegiance unto the Prophet. Muhammadsa swear allegiance only unto Allah and His hand is above their hands, then the Prophet of Islam sa would certainly be Allah Himself.'. How would these antagonists explain such an assertion? Such vile inferences could be made on several other Quranic passages but since Ahmadi Muslims abhor any such vile deductions as propose to grant Divinity to human beings and insult the dignity of God and His blessed servants, one would refrain from indulging into this topic at length and also advise these naive critics to get their own act right and appreciate that God. Almighty does not take kindly to such frivolous academic pursuits as tend to hold His dignity in contempt.. Nonetheless, one thing which is certain from the study of the 68. Al Quran 48.10 79

Page 92

Ahmadiyya Muslim Community's literature is that Hadhrat. Ahmadas did not at any time during his life make any such statement or claim to have received any such revelation on the basis of which a sane person could ever justifiably deduce that a status of Divinity was being bestowed upon his son, the glad tidings of which were vouchsafed unto him in this revelation.. On the contrary, he stated that 'God Almighty had given him the glad tidings that he shall soon be blessed with a son who would one day become His beloved and through whom God would remove darkness in this world." 169. While Hadhrat Ahmad's as critics indulge in such frivolous deductions to prove their naive hypothesis, he abhorred any such belief which even remotely proposed to subject God to the indignity of human birth. He censured the followers of Vedantic philosophy for their belief that 'their Paramesvara, at one time or the other, by way of transmigration, was born in the shape of a human being and therefore became involved in all the ills and vices of mortal life - to be subjected to, like other mortal beings, hunger and thirst, pain and hurt, fear and sorrow, disease and death, humiliation and disgrace and helplessness and weakness.170 He stated that such belief: 'negates the high qualities of God Almighty and reduce His eternal and lasting glory and majesty.' 171. The abstruse Christian dogma of the human birth of God. Almighty in the person of Christ was also held in extreme contempt by Hadhrat Ahmadas. He considered this essential belief of the Christian faith abominable blasphemy and stated: 'To imagine that God was a word in the beginning and that the same word that was God descended into the womb of. Mary and acquired a body from her blood and was born in the usual manner to suffer all the ailments of childhood and 69. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. vide. Durre Thamin 70. Ibid. Braheen e Ahmadiyya, vol. i, p. 365; Ruhani Khazain vol. 1, p. 537 80 71. Ibid.

Page 93

when he grew up, he was seized and put to the cross is abominable blasphemy whereby man has been deified. God is above descending into a womb and acquiring a body and being seized by His enemies. Human nature rejects that God should undergo such suffering and that He Who is the Master of all Greatness and the Fountainhead of all honour should permit such humiliation for Himself. 172. He also insisted that 'God has never been known to have been established in the womb of a woman like the sperm nor has He ever been born of a woman like a human child. 173 He censured the Christian dogma of Christ's alleged divinity and stated: 'That to which they call us is a low and shameful doctrine.. Can reason accept that a humble creature who possesses all the qualities of a man should be called God? Can any heart draw comfort from the idea that God should spend nine months in a womb and be nourished on blood and should be born wailing through the usual channel? Can any reasonable person accept that after an eternity of time God should assume a body?174. It is therefore thoroughly wicked of Hadhrat Ahmad's as adversaries to mistranslate, misrepresent and manipulate his statements in a manner in which these critics are seen to have done. Nonetheless, irrespective of the allegations contained in these hostile publications, he held an absolute faith that: 'God Almighty is neither anyone's son nor is anyone His son." but 'He is Self-Sufficient and needs neither father nor son. 175. How does Abdul Hafeez propose to respond to these recorded facts against his unsubstantiated allegations? 72. Ibid., Anjam e Atham, p. 34; Ruhani Khazain vol. xi, p. 34 74. Ibid., Kitabul Bariyyah, Ruhani Khazain, vol. xiii, pp. 86/87 75. Ibid., Lecture Lahore, p. 9; Ruhani Khazain, vol. xx, p. 155 73. Ibid. 81

Page 94

THE APPELLATION OF MARY AND JESUS. Abdul Hafeez's attempt to ridicule Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam. Ahmad's as statement that God Almighty has bestowed upon him the appellations of Mary and Jesus is, once again, evidence of his thorough ignorance of Islamic thought. It is somewhat ironic that rather than try and understand this beautiful and spiritually charged phenomenon, he has ridiculed the entire concept and questioned if it is not evidence that Hadhrat Ahmadas was an imbecile." However, before one proceeds to expose his ignorance of such spiritually charged concepts, it may be pertinent to refer to Hadhrat Ahmad'sas original statement which has been distorted to direct this vulgar abuse. He states in one of his books: 'In the Braheen e Ahmadiyya, God first named me Mary and then stated that I have breathed the spirit of Truth in this Mary and named it Jesus. Hence, in this state of possessing the qualities of Mary, Jesus came into being and in the Word of. God, I came to be called the son of Mary. There is an indication of this in the Quran also which to me is a prophecy, that is, the Quran has given some people from amongst this ummah a similitude of Mary.' 178. It should be evident from this original statement that Hadhrat. Ahmadas did not claim that he was Mary but that he was named her. Therefore, it is perfectly dishonest of the author of Two in. One to allege that on the basis of this statement, he was Mary.79. Secondly, Abdul Hafeez may, in his extremely confined intellectual capacity to understand matters of such spiritual elegance, consider this statement to be an evidence of imbecility.. But, this does not alter the fact that the system of naming people according to their characteristics, qualities and accomplishments 76. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One. pp. 2/3. TI.. Ibid. p. 2. P. 78. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Haqeeqatul Wahi, p. 337; Ruhani Khazain, vol. xxii, 79. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, Front Cover Page 350 82

Page 95

is acknowledged as a perfectly normal and valid practice in. Islam.80 The Holy Quran itself speaks of two kinds of believers - the first among these being those that are pursued by the devil who tries to mislead them but they engage in prayer and supplicate the Lord for protection. These are likened to Assiya, wife of Pharaoh who remained steadfast in her faith. Hence, the. Holy Quran states: 'And God sets forth, as an example to those who believe, the wife of Pharaoh: Behold she said: "O my Lord! build for me, in nearness to Thee, a mansion in the Garden, and save me from Pharaoh and his doings, and save me from those that do wrong.' , 81. The second type of believers to which the Holy Quran alludes are those who are pure from the beginning and protected against any attack from Satan. These are likened to Hadhrat. Maryas. 'And Mary, daughter of Imran, who guarded her chastity; and. We breathed into [her body] of Our spirit; and she testified to the truth of the words of her Lord and of His Revelations, and was one of the devout [servants]." 182. Since there is not a third category of believers to be found in the Holy Quran, every believer is, according to the wisdom of. God, either identifiable with Hadhrat Maryas or else the wife of. Pharaoh. Therefore, Hadhrat Ahmadas, being a believer of the highest order, was named after Hadhrat Maryas by God. Almighty. Why should anyone consider this to be an evidence of imbecility when Islamic literature indicates that Hadhrat. Muhammadsa declared: 'There is none born among the offsprings of Adam but Satan 80. Razi, [Hadhrat] Imam Fakhr ud Din. Tafseer e Kabir, p. 689 81. Al Quran 66.11. Translation, The Holy Qur'an, Abdullah Yusuf Ali, pp. 1573/4 82. Al Quran 66.12. Translation, The Holy Qur'an, Abdullah Yusuf Ali, 83 p. 1574

Page 96

touches him when he is born. A child therefore cries loudly at the time of birth because of the touch of Satan, except Mary and her son. 183. Apparently, this statement is stated by Hadeeth literature to have been made by Hadhrat Muhammadsa in his explanation of the Quranic verse 3.36 and scholars of Islam have maintained that it refers, not to the historical Hadhrat Maryas or her son. Hadhrat Jesusas but to believers who possess their qualities.. Hence, Hadhrat Imam Mahmud ibn Umar al Zamakshari™ stated that: 'its meaning is that the devil attempts to mislead every child except Mary and her son because they were both pure. The same applies to every one who has their qualities.'84. Now, if Abdul Hafeez considers this Divine act of a righteous servant of God being given the name Mary and identified with the first category of believers a sign of imbecility, then one would assume that the author of Two in One would not like to be given her name or identified with her in any way whatsoever. In that event, may one suggest that he, at least, not take exception to being identified with the wife of Pharaoh and be given her name - that being the only other category of believers known to the Holy Quran. Failing this, one would be correct in assuming that he considers himself outside the realm of either of these two identifications of believers which God has set forth as examples in the Holy Quran. This would consequently lead one to the conclusion that Abdul Hafeez must fall within the realm of either of the other two categories of human beings mentioned in the Holy Quran which are: 'the wife of Noah and the wife of Lot. They were [respectively] under two of our righteous servants, but they were false to 83. Sahih Bukhari, 55.39 84. Zamakshari, [Hadhrat] Imam Mahmud ibn Umar. Kashshaf, vol. 1, p. 302 84

Page 97

their [husbands], and they profited nothing before God on their account, but were told: Enter ye the Fire along with [Others] that enter. 185. One leaves Abdul Hafeez to decide on this question as to which of the categories of human beings known to the Holy. Quran he wishes to be identified with. One also hopes that in his next edition of Two in One, he would declare his intent so that the world may know of his decision. In the event that he decides to decline being identified with either of the four categories of human beings known to the Holy Quran, then one would be interested in knowing whether he considers himself to be at all a human being or not since there is not a fifth category of the species known to the Holy Quran.. As regards the question of Hadhrat Ahmadas being called Jesus,. Abdul Hafeez appears to be ignorant of the fact that according to Islamic thought, every perfect believer is a Jesus of his time.. This is indicated by Hadhrat Khawaja Mir Dard's statement: 'Every perfect man is the Jesus of his time due to the all encompassing power of God. And every moment he faces for his own self the affairs of the soul of Jesus.186. It is in view of such universal acceptance of this concept that. Hadhrat Khawaja Mu'in ud Din Chishtith stated: 'If the Holy Spirit continues bringing its help, every day in the world the Mary of the time would give birth to a Jesus. 187. Hence, he claimed to be Jesus and declared in relation to himself: 'Every moment, the Holy Spirit breathes into Mu'in. So it is not 85. Al Quran 66.10. Translation, The Holy Qur'an, Abdullah Yusuf Ali, p. 1573 86. Dard, [Hadhrat] Khawaja Mir. Risala Dard, p. 211 87. Chishti, [Hadhrat] Khawaja Mu'in ud Din. vide. Diwan Khawaja Ajmeri, o/n. 70, p. 102 85

Page 98

I who says this, but in fact I am the second Jesus.'. Hadhrat Shams Tabrizth whom the spiritual predecessors of. Abdul Hafeez accused of heresy and skinned alive and whose body they threw into a well because he believed that singing of hymns was quite lawful in Islam³, declared in relation to himself: 'I am the spirit that was breathed into Mary, I am the soul that was the life of Jesus. 190. Hadhrat Jalal ud Din Rumith, whom the spiritual predecessors of Abdul Hafeez had previously denounced as an apostate", stated that 'if the veil be lifted from the souls, every one of them would say, I am the Messiah. 192 He also proceeded to claim that this veil had been lifted from him and he was Jesus 93 while. Hadhrat Abu Yazid Bustamith, whose claims to Divinity have previously been stated, claimed to be Jesus beside declaring that he was Abraham and Moses.⁹4. Islamic literature also indicates that other venerable saints of the Ummah had been given the appellation of Jesus by God. Almighty. Hence, Hadhrat Sheikh Muhiy ud Din Arabith, whom the spiritual predecessors of Abdul Hafeez denounced as an infidel and dubbed as an apostate 95 declared that his spiritual mentor was named Jesus, son of Mary. He recorded the statement: 'It happened with our spiritual guide, when it was said to him:. You are Jesus, son of Mary, so heal him. 196. The bestowal of such appellation upon their spiritual mentors 88. Ibid. 89. Khan, Imtiaz Muhammad, Maulana Rum, pp. 44/5 90. Tabriz, [Hadhrat] Shams. vide. Kuliyyat Shams Tabriz, p. 292 91. Weekly Khursheed, Sandela. 25 February, 1938, p. 6 92. Rumi, [Hadhrat] Jalal ud Din. Miftah al Ulum, vol. vii, p. 45 94. Bustami, [Hadhrat] Abu Yazid. vide. Tadhkirat al Aulia 95. Niazi, Abu Javed. Ibni Arabi, p. 73 96. Arabi, [Hadhrat] Muhiy ud Din ibne. Fatuhat Makkiyya, p. 1, p. 1 86 93. Ibid.

Page 99

by their followers has also been an established practice amongst. Muslims. Hadhrat Shah Ismail Shaheed th stated in relation to. Hadhrat Sayyid Ahmad Shah Barelvi™: 'Joseph has now come to Egypt from Canaan, and the whole world has come for his purchase. To give life to the dead, the breath of Jesus has come into this world. 197. Similarly, Faqir Muhammad Chishti stated in relation to the patron saint of Ajmeer, Hadhrat Mu'in ud Din Chishtir 'Your soul is the soul of Jesus, O Khawaja!'98. Such claim of being Jesus was also put forward by a saint of. Delhi, Shah Niyaz Ahmad" while Abdul Hafeez's own spiritual mentors, the leaders of the Nidawatul ul Ulema were named after the son of Mary by the scholars of Deoband. For instance, the Deoband leadership stated in relation to Maulvi Rashid. Ahmad Gangohi: 'One like the founder of Islam has departed from the world.. The Messiah of the age has gone to the sky.' 1100. Maulvi Mahmud al Hasan also stated in relation to Maulvi. Gangohi: 'He raised the dead to life, and let not the living die. Just look at his Messianic work, O son of Mary.'. What opinion would Abdul Hafeez express in relation to the mental state of Hadhrat Khawaja Mu'in ud Din Chishtish who claimed to being Jesus; Hadhrat Shams Tabrizth who stated that he was the spirit breathed into Mary and the soul that was the 97. Shaheed, [Hadhrat] Muhammad Ismail. Najm al Saqib, vol. 2 98. Chishti, Faqir Muhammad. Tadhkirah Pak, p. 143 99. Ahmad, Shah Niyaz. Diwan e Niaz, p. 44 100. Hasan, Sheikh Mahmud al. Marsiyya 87

Page 100

life of Jesus; Hadhrat Jalal ud Din Rumith for declaring that the veil had been lifted from his soul and he was Jesus; Hadhrat. Abu Yazid Bustamith who believed that he was Jesus as well as. Moses and Abraham; Hadhrat Ibne Arabith who proclaimed that this spiritual mentor was named Jesus, son of Mary and. Hadhrat Sayyid Muhammad Ismail Shaheed th who stated that in Hadhrat Sayyid Ahmad Shah Barelvi™, Joseph had come from. Egypt to Canaan and the breath of Jesus had come to this world;. Faqir Muhammad Chishti for calling the soul of Hadhrat. Khawaja Mu'in ud Din Chishtit as that of Jesus; Shah Niyaz. Ahmad of Delhi for putting forward such a claim and the. Deobandi leadership for believing that Maulvi Rashid Ahmad. Gongohi of Nidawatul Ulema was the like of Hadhrat. Muhammadsa and the son of Mary? Would he state that these claims by some of the most respected saint known to Ummah of Islam or scholars of his own school of thought, were signs of madness? If so, would he pronounce a verdict of imbecility upon them for their statements as he had the audacity to pronounce this upon Hadhrat Ahmadas for claiming that he was named Mary and called Jesus?. One would also ask Abdul Hafeez if, in view of the aforementioned statements by numerous saints and scholars of. Islam, he considers them all to be suffering from hallucinations and unstable as well as versatile enough to fit any frame all in one? Does he then propose to include their caricatures in the future publications of Two in One considering that they claimed to be Jesus or the son of Mary? If not, then would he not be leaving himself open to being branded a hypocrite and an enemy of Hadhrat Ahmadas - and rightly so? Why should he then object to the appellation of an enemy being stated on the cover of the Mubahala? 88

Page 101

KRSNA AND KING OF ARYANS. The advent of a Messianic prophet in the latter age of strife and irreligiousness has been recorded by nearly all religions of the world. The Judaeo Christian scriptures contain several prophecies in relation to the coming of the Messiah as in the. Book of Daniel 101 and the Gospel according to St. Matthew.1. Buddhist literature alludes to the advent of the Maitreya or. Shakyamuni Buddha 103 while Vedic scriptures contains a prophecy in relation to the advent of an avatara in the age of. Kaliyuga: 'Whenever and wherever there is a decline in religious practice. O descendants of Bharata, and a predominant rise of irreligion, at that time I descend myself. To deliver the pious and to annihilate the miscreants, as well as to re-establish the principles of religion, I myself appear, millennium after millennium.'104 108. Islam also records a prophecy in relation to the Messiah in its books of Hadeeth 105 in which it is clearly indicated that he would be the judge who would abolish Jizya 106 and an impartial leader who would judge with justice. 107 It is also stated in. Hadeeth literature that he would be a leader amongst men' who would lead them according to the Book of Allah and His. Apostle's Sunnah 109 and the one who would rid the world of spite, hatred and jealousy. 110 In view of this prophecy contained in Hadeeth literature, Muslim scholars have generally expressed the view that this is an indication of the fact that the Shari'ah of all earlier prophets before the advent of Islam would stand sa 101. Daniel 12.1/9 103. Laggawati Sutatta. vide. Buddha, Dr. Herman Oldenberg, p. 142 104. Bhagavad Gita, 4.7/8 102. Matthew 24.3/31 105. Sahih Bukhari, vol. 4, bk. 55, ch. 44; Sahih Muslim, vol. 1, bk. 1, ch. 72 106. Sahih Muslim 72.287 107. Ibid., 72.288 108. Ibid., 72.290 109. Ibid., 72.292 89. 110. Ibid., 72. 289

Page 102

abrogated 111 since no other religion will remain acceptable to. Allah 112 and the entire human race would eventually come to accept Islam.¹¹³ It has also been argued that mankind would be judged by him according to the Shariah of Islam 114 and apparently, none would object to it since it would bring faith in. Hadhrat Muhammad sa as an apostle of God¹15 whereby their hearts would be purified of such evil which breeds spite, hatred and jealousy." 116. The question which arises now is that if people of every religion expect the advent of a prophet in the latter age who would arrive to deliver them from irreligiousness and rid the world of spite, hatred and jealousy and also save it from the mischief of the Dadjaal of whom Hadhrat Muhammad sa declared every prophet had warned his followers¹17, what would come of this world if all these various prophets, prophesied in the literature of various religions arrived amongst different nations considering the marked divisions that exist between the beliefs and philosophies of these numerous religions?. It needs wisdom and sagacity which people like Abdul Hafeez are denied to appreciate that all these various prophecies in relation to the advent of the prophesied prophet of the latter age refer to one single person who would arrive in the spirit of all the earlier prophets, to unite mankind under one banner of the ultimate religion, Islam. Hence Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas stated that: 'God Almighty has disclosed to me repeatedly in my visions that a person of the name of Krsna, who appeared among the. Aryas, was a chosen one of God and was a Prophet. The expression avatara which is current among the Hindus is, in its essence synonymous with Prophet. There is a prophecy in. Hindu scriptures that in the latter days an avatara will appear 111. Siddiqui, Abdul Hamid. vide. Explanatory Note 288, Sahih Muslim, vol. i, p. 92 112. Ibid., vide. Explanatory Note 289, p. 92 113. Ibid., vide. Explanatory Note 291, p. 92 114. Asqalani, [Hadhrat] Abu'l Fadl Shihab al Din Ahmad ibn Ali. Fath al Bari, vol. vii, p. 304/5 115. Ibid., p. 303 116. Usmani, Shabbir Ahmad. Fath al Mulhim, vol. 1, p. 303 117. Sahih Bukhari 88.27 90

Page 103

who will possess the qualities of Krsna and will be his reflection. It has been conveyed to me that I am that person. 1118. He stated this on the authority of a Divine revelation vouchsafed unto him and even predicted that ignorant Muslims would object to his claim to be Krsna. 119 Nonetheless, without fear of censure by people of Abdul Hafeez's ilk, he declared: 'I am the Krsna whose advent the Aryans are waiting for in these days. I do not make this claim on my own, but God. Almighty has conveyed to me repeatedly that I am Krsna, king of Aryas, who will appear in the latter days.' +120. Alas! were the author of Two in One aware that such claims by. Hadhrat Ahmadas, rather than being proof of imbecility are an evidence of his truthfulness as the prophesied Messiah and. Mahdi of whom it was stated: 'The Imam Mahdi will say: O people, if any of you wishes to behold Abraham and Ishmael, let him note that I am Abraham and Ishmael; if any of you wishes to behold Moses and. Joshua, let him note that I am Moses and Joshua; if any of you desire to behold Jesus and Simon, let him note that I am. Jesus and Simon; if any of you wishes to behold Hadhrat. Muhammad Mustaphasa or the Ameerul Momineena, let him note that I am Muhammad and Ali, may Allah be pleased with them all.'121 118. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. vide. Tadhkirah, English ed., pp. 220/21 119. Ibid., Lecture Lahore, p. 33; Ruhani Khazain, vol. 20, p. 228 120. Ibid., Tatimma Haqeeqatul Wahi, pp 85. Ruhani Khazain, vol. 22, pp. 521/22 121. Baqr, [Hadhrat] Imam Baqr. Bahar ul Anwar 91

Page 104

JAI SINGH BAHADUR. One is not certain whether this Sindhi pir, Abdul Hafeez's next objection in relation to the revelation vouchsafed unto to. Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's as in which the expression Jai. Singh Bahadur was employed is yet another instance of his sly manipulation of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community's literature or his sheer ignorance of the Punjabi language since he has translated this expression to read 'a sikh name meaning victorious. Lion' 122 whereas Jai in Punjabi is an expression of applause Singh means a lion and Bahadur means courageous. Hence, when translated in its proper context, the revelation should read: 'Hurrah! for the courageous Lion!'. Incidentally, if the author of Two in One had been fully conversant with Hadhrat Ahmad's as writings, he may have yet discovered that these words which sound an evidence of imbecility to Abdul Hafeez are a part of a revelation to the effect: 'People came and made all sorts of claims but the Lion of. God seized them and the Lion of God became victorious.. Hurray! for the courageous Lion!'123. In the preceding pages of this book, we have already illustrated how, in the opinion of Hadhrat Ahmad's as contemporaries and sincere Muslim scholars, he came to the defence of Islam at the time when Muslims faced degradation and shame at the hands of other religions 124 and were lying flat on their faces, sobbing in the aftermath of their shortcoming, either doing nothing or able to do nothing 125 because the greatest of their ulema did not dare face the enemies of Islam. 126 According to them, at this 122. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, P. 2 123. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Al Hakam, vol. x, No. 32, September, 1906, p. 1 124. Asafi, Calcutta. 24 January, 1897 125. Azad, Maulana Abul Kalam. Vakeel, Amritsar, May, 1908 126. Fatehpuri, Allama Niaz. Nigar, Lucknow, October, 1960 92

Page 105

precarious time when Islam stood at the crossroads with the foundation of Islamic life and society shaken and when Muslims were generally in the grip of frustration and despair and their minds seriously in grip of confusion and perplexity because they had fallen prey to defeatism, Hadhrat Ahmadas arrived on the scene with his unique message and movement. 127 It has also been proven that according to these Muslim scholars, Hadhrat. Ahmadas appeared in the front line of the devotees of Islam 128 and stood in the field like a brave lion 129 to champion the cause of Islam. 130 He proved to be a cutting sword against false religions 131 and shattered the foul criticism of the opponents of. Islam and silenced them for ever. 132 He also smashed to bits the influence of Christianity and put its clergy to flight 133 and routed the Christians. He blew the talisman of Christianity to smoke while at the same time, crushed the poisonous fangs of. Hinduism.134 Hence, he was acclaimed as a resolute defender of. Islam 135; a great fighter for Islam 136; a victorious general 137; a brave lion 138; an illustrious general and pride of Muslims as well as an accepted one of God. 139 These tributes to Hadhrat Ahmadas by the non Ahmadiyya Muslim intelligentsia are a fulfilment of the revelation vouchsafed unto him which Abdul Hafeez considers an evidence of imbecility. Hence, it is a proof of. Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's as truthfulness since what was revealed unto him by God was also fulfilled by His grace. 127. Nadwi, S. Abul Hasan Ali. Qadianism, pp. 4/5 128. Azad, Maulana Abul Kalam. Vakeel, Amritsar, May, 1908 129. Ali, Maulvi Irshad. Dastkari, 18 June, 1899 130. Din, Maulana Bashir ud. Sadiq ul Akhbar, May, 1908 131. Golarvi, Pir Mehr Ali Shah. Al Hakam, 24 June, 1904, p. 5 132. Din, Maulana Bashir ud. Sadiqul Akhbar, Rewari, May, 1908 133. Chishti, Maulvi Noor Muhammad Naqshabandi, vide. Maulvi Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Preface to. Commentary of the Holy Quran, edition 1934, p. 30 134. Azad, Maulana Abul Kalam. Vakeel, Amritsar, May 1908 135. Din, Maulana Bashir ud. Sadiq ul Akhbar, May, 1908 136. Din, Maulana Sayyid Waheed ud. Aligarh Institute Gazette, June 1908 137. Azad, Maulana Abul Kalam. Vakeel, Amritsar, May 1908 138. Ali, Maulvi Irshad. Dastkari, Amritsar, 18 June 1899 139. Shareef, Maulana Muhammad. Manshoor Muhammadi, Banglore, 25 Rajab, 1300, p. 214 93

Page 106

EVEREADY BATTERY. In the opening pages of his book Two in One, Abdul Hafeez excuses his decision to become involved in this controversy which he would have rather avoided on account of what he calls 'startling titles for Muslims like enemies, disbelievers and liars on the cover page of the Mubahala publication issued by the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. (140 He therefore addresses the Preface of his book to Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmaday and the. Ahmadiyya Muslim Community and states that the purpose of his writing his grotesque book is to: 'with full honesty, prove to you and your Jamaat as to who is a disbeliever and a liar.'141. This full honesty with which Abdul Hafeez proposes to prove to Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmaday and the Ahmadiyya Muslim. Community as to who is a liar, includes an assertion by him that among the various titles which Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam. Ahmadas claimed to have been invested with by God Almighty, one was that of an 'Eveready Battery.1142 Nonetheless, although he insists within the context of his book that 'for every claim, there has to be some proof, 1143 he not only fails to substantiate the allegations discussed in the preceding pages of this book, namely that he claimed to be God or the son of God and also the father of God as well as Mary which have already been proved false, but he fails to furnish proof of this allegation also.. The reason as to why he has not been able to furnish any proof is because Hadhrat Ahmadas neither made any such claim in his entire mortal life of three score and ten years nor has any such claim been recorded by him in any of his written work, whether published or not. One challenges Abdul Hafeez to prove this statement false if he dare and provide evidence that Hadhrat. Ahmad as ever made any such claim as alleged by him. Failing 140. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 5 141. Ibid 142. Ibid., pp. 2/3 143. llbid., p. 6 94

Page 107

this, one would be justified, yet once again, in asserting that the author of Two in One has not only given sufficient evidence of his being a personified liar but his prayer: 'O God! Which ever party is a liar and slanderer, bring down your [sic] anger upon him in one week '144 has been heard and he has been proved a liar and a slanderer by God Almighty. And so has his other prayer been heard where he stated that if he is: 'wrongly accusing them [i.e., Ahmadis] or writing for worldly gain, O Allah trap every liar and accuser with Your curse and reveal such signs which will decide between true and false." +145. All praise belong to Allah! He has revealed such a sign of. Abdul Hafeez's falsehood that He has caused this personified liar and accuser to attribute yet another claim to Hadhrat. Ahmadas in his book Two in One 146 of which if Abdul Hafeez was to spend his entire mortal life, he would not find substantiative evidence. This incidentally is the standard of the full honesty of this pir of Gujjjo with which he proposes to illustrate to Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmaday and the Ahmadiyya. Muslim Community as to who is a liar. 147 Yet he takes exception to the title of a liar on the cover page of the Mubahala challenge 148 when it aptly applies to him. Need one say more or is it now not evident that Abdul Hafeez is a personified liar? If he wishes to claim that he is not and this conclusion is unjustified, then let him provide proof that Hadhrat Ahmadas ever claimed to have been invested with this appellation. If he can, then the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community will stand corrected and if not then the author of Two in One stands condemned as a liar. 144. Ibid., 19 145. Ibid., p. 52 146. Ibid., p. 3 147. Ibid., p. 5 148. Ibid. 95

Page 108

CLAIMS BY MUSLIM SAINTS AND SCHOLARS. On account of Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's as claim that. God Almighty has given him various appellations, Abdul. Hafeez accuses him of suffering from hallucinations and being an imbecile and appends an extremely tasteless and vile caricature with the caption: 'I may be unstable. But, believe me,. I am versatile enough to fit any frame. All in one." 149 Without going into a lengthy discussion to expose his thorough ignorance of Islamic philosophy, one would merely present, for his information, some of the claims made by several revered and venerable personalities in the history of Islam and put a question to him as to how versatile does he think these sages and saints of Islam are, and what in his opinion was the mental state of mind of these revered personalities.. It has already been shown that Hadhrat Ali ibn Abi Talibra, the fourth Caliph claimed to be 'the dot under the letter Bismillah, the Qalm, the Luh, the 'Arsh, the Kursi, the Seven Heavens and the Earths 150 while Hadhrat Imam Ja'far Sadiqh claimed: 'We are the prayer mentioned in the Book of God. We are the. Charity, we are the Fasting, we are the Pilgrimage, we are the. Sacred Months, we are the Holy Land, we are the Ka'aba, we are the Qibla, we are the face of God, we are the Signs and we are the clear Signs.'151. The famous Persian saint Hadhrat Abu Yazid Bustamith has also been shown to have stated that his 'attributes are hidden in the Unseen and he was not a man but the tongue of Truth and the speaker of the Truth Himself, i,e., God in Person. 1152 He also claimed to be the 'God of great glory 153 and stated that 'there was none worthy of worship beside him.'154 According to 149. Ibid., p. 2/3 150. Talib, [Hadhrat] Ali ibn. vide. Sharh Fusoos al Hukm, Sc. viii, p. 32 151. Sadiq, [Hadhrat] Jaf'ar. vide. Kitab Mazhar al' Ajai'b fin Nikat e Wal Ghara'ib 152. Bustami, [Hadhrat] Abu Yazid, vide. Tadhkirat al Aulia, ch. 151 153. Ibid., vide. Fawa'id Faridiyya, p. 73 154. Ibid., vide. Tadhkirat al Aulia, p. 134 96

Page 109

Hadhrat Jalal ud Din Rumith, the Persian saint claimed that he was God and there is no God but him 155 while Hadhrat Farid ud Din Attarth states in his famous memoirs of Muslim saints that Hadhrat Abu Yazid Bustamith was asked by someone: 'What is 'arsh. He said, I am that. He asked, what is Kursi. He replied, I am that. People said that there have been many righteous servants of God such as Abraham, Moses and the. Holy Prophet. He said, I am all of them. They, then, asked about the angels Gabriel, Michael, Israfeel and Izraeel. He said, I am all of them as well.'156. Hadhrat Sheikh Muhiy ud Din Ibn Arabith stated in relation to himself that he is 'the Quran and the Fatihah and the spirit of spirits, not the spirit of vessels (157 while Hadhrat Shams ud Din. Tabriz claimed that he was 'the spirit that was breathed into. Mary; the soul that was the life of Jesus and his breath; one before whom the saints prostrated; who was with Noah in the ark and Joseph in the well as well as the one who was with. Moses when Pharaoh was drowned and who existed before. Adam or the world was created. 1158 He also declared: 'I am Nuh, I am Adam, I am Isa, son of Mary '159. Hadhrat Sultan Bahut claimed to be the Haq 160 and Hadhrat. Abu al Hasan Kharqanith the God of his age. 161 So did Farid ud. Din Attarth declare that he was God 162 and Hadhrat Hussain. Mansur al Hallajth claimed that he was the Lord. 163 Hadhrat Abu. Bakr Shibli also claimed to be the only God in the two 155. Rumi, [Hadhrat] Jalal ud Din. Miftah al Ulum, sec. iv, pt. ii, pp. 25 & 36 156. Bustami, [Hadhrat] Abu Yazid. vide. Tadhkirat al Aulia, ch. 14, p. 146 157. Arabi [Hadhrat] Muhiy ud Din ibne. Fatuhat Makiyya pt. i, p. 1 158. Tabriz, [Hadhrat] Shams ud Din. vide. Kuliyyat Shams Tabrizi, pp. 292 & 508 159. Ibid., vide. Diwan Hadhrat Shams Tabriz, p. 6 160. Bahu, [Hadhrat] Sultan. vide. Kaleed e Tauheed, p. 194 161. Kharqani, [Hadhrat] Abu al Hasan. Tadhkirat al Aulia, p. 585 162. Attar, [Hadhrat] Farid ud Din. Fawa'id Faridiyya, p. 85 163. Hallaj, [Hadhrat] Hussain Mansur al. vide. Anwar e Aulia, pp. 180/81 97

Page 110

sa worlds 164 as well as Muhammad, the Messenger of God. 165. Hadhrat Sayyid Abdul Qadir Jilanith claimed to be Prophet. Muhammad and declared that had Hadhrat Moses as been alive, he would have obeyed him.166 He also stated that he was the door of the Kaa'ba and if one wished to perform the pilgrimage, one ought to go to him. 167. Hadhrat Jalal ud Din Rumith claimed to be the Ark of Noah 168 as well as Jesus. 169 He declared: 'I am Isa, but he who is raised to life by my breath will live forever. The dead raised by Isa died again, fortunate is he who gives himself up to this Isa. 1170. Hadhrat Khawaja Mu'in ud Din Chishtit claimed to be Jesus 171 as well as the Messenger of Allah 172 as did Hadhrat Sheikh. Ahmadth of Sirhind who stated: 'I am the disciple of God and also His intention. My devotion to God is linked directly to Him without any intermediary. My hand is the representative of God's hand. Glory be to Him!1173. The revered Mujjadid Alf Thanith is also stated to have written that: 'during spiritual progress, I reached the station of Uthman and, passing beyond it, reached the station of Farooq. Passing beyond that, I reached the station of Siddiq and, passing beyond that I reached the station of being the beloved of God, and saw in himself the reflection of all the light and blessings 164. Shibli, [Hadhrat] Abu Bakr. vide. Fawa'id e Faridiyya 165. Ibid., vide. Saif ar Rabbani, p. 100 166. Jilani, [Hadhrat] Sayyid Abdul Qadir. vide. Saif ar Rabbani, p. 100 167. Ibid., Fath ar Rabbani wal faiz ar Rahmani. 168. Rumi, [Hadhrat] Jalal ud Din. Miftah al Ulum, vol. xii, p. 268 169. Ibid., vol. vii, p. 45 171. Chishti, [Hadhrat] Khawaja Mu'in ud Din. vide. Diwan Khawaja Ajmeri, p. 102 172. Ibid. vide. Fawa'id as Salikeen, p. 18 173. Sirhind, [Hadhrat] Ahmad. Maktubat, Daftar III, p. 209 98 170. Ibid.

Page 111

of this station.'174. Similarly, Hadhrat Farid ud Din Shakar Ganjh of Pak Patan claimed: 'I am Wali, I am Ali, I am a Nabi. *175. Hadhrat Khawaja Habibullah Attart of Kashmir claimed to be a Messenger of Allah¹76 while Hadhrat Sayyid Wali Ullah Shah™. Delhvi stated in relation to himself: 'The teaching which was given to Adam was me, the Divine help which Nuh received during the flood was me, the fire that cooled for Abraham was me, the Torah revealed to Moses was me, the miracle of the rising of the dead granted to Jesus was me, the Quran given to Muhammad the Holy Prophet was me.'17. It is also stated in relation to Hadhrat Said Ameerth of Koth that he received a revelation: 'O Prophet, Keep your duty to God and obey not the disbelievers and hypocrites; surely, God is ever knowing and wise. '178. Hadhrat Shah Niaz Ahmadth of Delhi also declared in relation to himself: 'Sometimes I am Enoch, sometimes Seth, sometimes Noah, sometimes Jonah, sometimes Joseph, sometimes Jacob and sometimes Hud. Sometimes I am Salih, sometimes Abraham, sometimes Isaac, sometimes John the Baptist, sometimes 174. Ibid., vide. Tauzak e Jehangir, p. 272 175. Ganj, [Hadhrat] Farid ud Din Shakar, vide. Haqiqat Gulzar Sabiri 176. Attar, [Hadhrat] Khawaja Habibullah. vide. Masnawi Bahr al Irfan, vol. 1, p. .179 177. Shah, Sayyid Wali Ullah. Tafhimat, pt. 1 178, Ameer, [Hadhrat] Said. vide. Nazm al Durrar fi Silk al Siyar, p. 125 99

Page 112

Moses, sometimes Jesus and sometimes David. I am Ahmad. Hashmi and Isa of Mary.' 179. Beside such personal claims by the saints of the ummah,. Islamic literature indicates that the followers and admirers of numerous Muslim saints and scholars bestowed such appellations unto their spiritual mentors. For instance, Hadhrat. Sayyid Muhammad Ismail Shaheed th stated in relation to. Hadhrat Sayyid Ahmad Shahth Barelvi: 'Joseph has now come to Egypt from Canaan, and the whole world has come for his purchase. To give life to the dead, the breath of Jesus has come into the world. From Medina my. Ahmad has come, from the cave of Saur, to teach the Ansar.. Sayyid Ahmad came one day with his companions. You should say that the Last of the Prophets came again with his. Companions.'180. Sheikh Sabir Kalyari is stated to have called Sayyid Abid Mian. Usman Naqshbandi 'the Kaa'ba, the Quran, the Prophet or. God 181 while it was stated in relation to Hadhrat Maulana. Muhammad Qasimth of Nanauta and Maulvi Rashid Ahmad. Gangohi of Deoband: 'Qasim the good and Rashid Ahmad, both possessed of glory, the two of them were the Messiah of the age and Joseph of. Canaan. They saved the faith from the corrupters of religion of this age. I say that the two of them were like Moses and. Amran. To be in their company and to serve them was for the dead hearts nothing than being commanded by Isa to arise.' 1182. Maulvi Rashid Ahmad Gangohi was also declared to be one like the Founder of Islam and the Messiah of his age as well as 179. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Shah Niaz, Diwan e Niaz pp. 42/44 180. Shaheed, [Hadhrat] Sayyid Muhammad Ismail. Najm al Saqib, vol. ii 181. Kalyari, Sheikh Sabir. Miraj ul Mumineen, pp. 144/45 182. Hasan, Maulvi Mahmud ul Hasan. Kuliyat Shaikh al Hind, pp. 14/17 100

Page 113

the son of Mary by the Deoband scholars. 183 '. The question which one need ask the author of Two in One is that if, in view of Hadhrat Ahmad's as claim that he had been named Mary and called Jesus he considers Hadhrat Ahmadas to be suffering from hallucinations and an imbecile 184, then what does he think of the mental state of all these saints and scholars of the ummah whose pronouncements in relation to themselves or their spiritual predecessors hardly differ from those of. Hadhrat Ahmadas? If, in view of Hadhrat Ahmad's as statement that he was given the title of Krsna and the king of the Aryas whose advent the Hindus awaited, Abdul Hafeez considers him to be suffering from hallucinations and alleges that he was mad 185 then what does he think of all these other saints and scholars of the ummah who claimed such a large number of appellations for themselves or else attributed these to their spiritual mentors? Would he allege that they all suffered from hallucinations and would he denounce them as mad men? One would also enquire of him as to what extent do these saints and scholars of the ummah who claimed such a large number of appellations for themselves or their spiritual mentors fit within. Abdul Hafeez's realm of instability and versatility 186? Would he then caricature cartoons of these revered personalities in the next edition of his book Two in One as he has done in this edition 187? If not, then would his singular prejudice against. Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas not prove his enmity towards him? Why then should he take exception to the title of an enemy being applied to him? 188 184. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 2 188. Ibid., p. 5 187. Ibid. 183. Ibid. Marisiyya 185. Ibid., p. 2 186. Ibid., p. 3 101

Page 114

APPELLATIONS BESTOWED UPON. HADHRAT MUHAMMAD. Alas! had Abdul Hafeez been conversant with the Quran and known of the number of appellations with which our beloved. Prophet, Hadhrat Muhammad Mustaphasa was honoured by. God Almighty, he may have yet refrained from being engaged in such obnoxious exercise to revile another one of God. Almighty's apostle, Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas for being honoured with a comparatively insignificant number of appellations. The Holy Quran establishes that Hadhrat. Muhammada has been honoured with the names and appellations of Muhammad 189 and Ahmad 100; Rasulallah and. Khataman Nabiyeen 19, Shaahid, Mubashshir and Naziir¹92; Hadi and Mundhir 193; Da'i 'ilallah and Siraj e Munir 194; Muzakki and. Muhumul Kitaba wal Hikmah 195; Nur 1% and Ummi 197; Shahiid 198 and Muhyii 199; Ta Ha 200 and Ya Sin 201; Muzzammil 202 and. Muddaththir 203. 'Abd Allah 204 and 'Awwal ul Muslimiin 205.. Rahmatal ul 'aalamiin 206 and Burhan 207. Hudaanwwa and. Rahmatul ul Mu'miniin 208; Khuluq e 'Aziim 209 and al Kauthar210; 'Asraa bi-'Abdihii211 and Qaaba-qawsay-ni212 and also Hariisun,. R'auff and Rahim for his people. sa 213 196. How does Abdul Hafeez look at these multiple appellations bestowed upon our beloved Prophet, Hadhrat Muhammad. Mustapha by God Almighty in the light of his assertions against Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas? 214 What does the author of Two in One think of this God in heaven Who bestowed such glory upon Hadhrat Muhammad sa and adorned him with such multiple decorations? 189. Al Quran 48.30 190. Ibid., 61.7 191. Ibid., 33.41 193. Ibid., 13.8 194. Ibid., 33.47 195. Ibid., 62.3 192. Ibid., 33.36 196. Ibid., 5.16 197. Ibid., 7.158 198. Ibid., 22.79 199. Ibid., 8.25 200. Ibid., 20.2 201. Ibid., 205. Ibid., 6.164 209. Ibid., 68.5 36.2 202., Ibid., 73.2 203. Ibid., 74.2 204. Ibid., 72.20 206., Ibid., 21.108 207. Ibid., 4.170 208. Ibid., 27.78 210. Ibid., 108.2 211. Ibid., 17.2 212. Ibid., 53.10 213. Ibid., 9.128 214. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, pp. 2/3 102

Page 115

NAMES OF HADHRAT MUHAMMAD sa. IN HADEETH LITERATURE. It may also interest the author of Two in One to know that beside the names and appellations bestowed upon Hadhrat. Muhammad by God Almighty in the Holy Quran, our beloved. Prophets also mentioned several other such honours which he had been invested with by God. According to Hadhrat Jubair ibn Muteimth, the Apostle of Allahsa stated that he had been given the names al Mahi, al Hashir and al Akib. 215 Hadhrat Abu. Musa al Asharith has stated that Hadhrat Muhammad sa also declared that he had been called al Mukaffa, Nabi ur Rahma,. Nabi ut Tauba and Nabi ul Malhama.216 According to a report by Hadhrat Abi Saidh, Allah's Messengers stated that he had been given the appellations of Sayid e wald e Adam and. Shafi. 217 Hadeeth literature also indicates that he claimed to have been called the Wasilah and also Hamila e Lawaal Hamd as well as Akramul Awalen wal Akhiraeen. 218 Another report states that. Hadhrat Muhammad sa declared that he had been honoured with the title of Akhirul Anbiyya 219 as well as Muhill and. Muharrim.220. One rests one's case on the question of the names and appellations bestowed upon God Almighty's apostles by Him.. But before one proceeds any further to discuss the next issue in. Abdul Hafeez's grotesque publication, one must stress that in the opinion of Ahmadi Muslims, every one of these names which were bestowed upon Hadhrat Muhammad and the appellations with which he was honoured further enhance the glory of our beloved Prophet's status. However, it is ironic that such Divine acts which propose to honour God Almighty's chosen apostles are, in the opinion of Abdul Hafeez an evidence of imbecility. 215. Sahih Bukhari, 56.16 216. Masnad Ahmad, vol. v, p. 395 217. Ibid., vol. 1, p. 1 218. Tirmidhi, Bab ul Munaqib 219. Sunan Nasai, Bab Fazl o Masid al Nabiyya 220. Sahih Muslim, Kitan us Said wa'l Dhaba'ih wa ma Y'ukalu min al Hayawan 103

Page 116

CHAPTER THREE. HADHRAT MARIAMas. AND HADHRAT IBNE MARIAMªs. Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's as adversaries have often manipulated his statement in relation to him being first named. Hadhrat Marys after which the spirit of Hadhrat Jesusas was infused in him as a result of which he became pregnant by way of metaphor and eventually took birth as Hadhrat Ibne. Mariamas. Hence, the author of Two in One also joins the bandwagon to ridicule this spiritually charged concept and denounce Hadhrat Ahmadas as an imbecile." Nonetheless, before one proceeds to discuss this concept in detail, one would quote. Abdul Hafeez's own citation of Hadhrat Ahmad's as experience and expose the fallacy of his analysis. He quotes Hadhrat. Ahmadas as having stated: 'He [God] in the third part of Braheen e Ahmadiyya, named me MARY; then, as evident from Braheen e Ahmadiyya, I was developed for two years with the quality of Mary then _ as with MARY [peace be upon her], the soul of JESUS was breathed into me and metaphorically speaking, I became pregnant and finally after many months - which was not more than 10 months through the inspiration which is mentioned in the end of Braheen e Ahmadiyya Part 4, I was converted from MARY to JESUS. This is how I became Ibne-e-Mariam [or Son of Mary].12. He then proceeds to analyse this statement and summarise as: 'Meaning first he was made Mary. Then he became pregnant, 1. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, pp. T/C, 2 & 7 104 2. Ibid., p. 7

Page 117

then after 10 months he was delivered from his own uterus as. Jesus, son of Mary. What a logic! The whole building of. Qadianism is founded on this ridiculous idea. Everybody can well imagine what sort of religion it is.'³. In the first instance it should be observed that according to this hostile citation itself, Hadhrat Ahmadas did not claim that he was made Mary as allegedly stated by the author of Two in One but that he was named Mary. What could be so objectionable about a person being named Mary by God and why should this be considered ridiculous when the Holy Quran categorises believers into two categories, those like Assiya, the wife of. Pharaoh and those like Hadhrat Maryas. It states: 'And God sets forth as an example to those who believe, the wife of Pharaoh: Behold she said: O my Lord! build for me in nearness to Thee, a mansion in the garden and save me from. Pharaoh and his doings, and save me from those that do wrong. And Mary daughter of Imran, who guarded her chastity; and We breathed into [her body] of Our spirit; and she testified to the truth of the words of her Lord and of his. Revelations, and was one of the devout [servants]."4. What then is so ridiculous about being named Mary when all believers are, without exception likened to either of these two women and Hadhrat Ahmadas being of the higher order of believers was named by God as Mary - Hadhrat Maryas being the higher order of the believers known to the language of the. Holy Quran?. Now, if Abdul Hafeez should consider it ridiculous that he, personally, be named Mary as he considers Hadhrat Ahmadas being named after her a ridiculous idea, then maybe he would not object to being called Assiya, the second category of believers known to the Quran. However, if he considers being named Assiya a ridiculous idea also, then his only option would 3. Ibid. 4. Al Quran 66.11.12. English Translation, Abdullah Yusuf Ali, pp. 1573/74 105

Page 118

be to be identified with either of the only other two categories of human beings known to the Holy Quran and be named after either of them. The Holy Quran states: 'God sets forth for an example to the unbelievers the wife of. Noah and the wife of Lut: They were [respectively] under two of our righteous Servants, but they were false to their [husbands], and they profited nothing before God on their account but were told: Enter ye the Fire along with [others] that enter.". Once again, one leaves the choice to the author of Two in One to decide which of the four categories of human beings known to the Quran he would prefer to be identified with and named after. If he considers being named after any four of these women as a ridiculous idea, then he would be suggesting that he is not a human being at all since the Holy Quran does not know of a fifth category of the human species. In that event, may one enquire of Abdul Hafeez as to what is he, if he is not a human being?. The second point which one should note in the citation of. Hadhrat Ahmad's as statement contained in Two in One is that he never claimed to have been made Mary as alleged by Abdul. Hafeez but that he was developed for two years with the qualities of. Mary. Although a proper translation of Hadhrat Ahmad's as original statement would have been that 'he was nurtured in the qualities of Mary for two years,' yet, even if one was to accept this linguistically poor translation in the hostile publication, one cannot see what could be so objectionable and ridiculous in being developed as a person for two years with the qualities of. Hadhrat Maryas.. This statement by Hadhrat Ahmad as indicates that for a period of as much as two years, he spent his life being invested with the qualities possessed by Hadhrat Maryas, the most prominent of these being her sense of dependence upon the Gracious God, 5. Ibid., p. 1573 106

Page 119

Allah and of duty and obligation to Him²; her being purified and chosen above others of her time³; honoured by God. Almighty and granted nearness to Him and her purity10 and 11 truthfulness. One fails to see what is so ridiculous for one to be nurtured in those excellent qualities previously possessed by a righteous and pious person who had been declared by the. Holy Quran to be an example for all the righteous and pious people in the world. 13. Thirdly, the aforementioned citation of Hadhrat Ahmad's sa statement contained in the hostile publication also indicates that the pregnancy being spoken of here was in the metaphoric sense.. Hence Abdul Hafeez's vile caricature of a couple with a common pregnant stomach¹² and of a pregnant man¹³ and also his sordid assertion of 'remaining big with Jesus for not more than ten months 14 and of being 'delivered from one's own uterus 15 is thoroughly unjustified there being absolutely no grounds whatsoever in assuming a symbolic representation to be evidence of the happening of a factual event.. Nonetheless, since the author of Two in One has subjected. Hadhrat Ahmad's as aforementioned spiritual experience of being spiritually born from within himself to such sordid ridicule, what needs to be investigated is whether Islamic thought accepts any such concept wherein a person becomes pregnant metaphorically and gives birth to himself from within himself.. Islamic literature indicates that according to Hadhrat. Muhammadsa. 'No one shall enter the kingdom of heaven who has not been born twice.'16. What, if one may ask Abdul Hafeez did Hadhrat Muhammadsa mean when he stated that no person shall enter the kingdom of heaven unless born twice? Did he suggest that a person will have to return to one's embryonic state and once again be 6. Al Quran 19.19 11. Ibid., 5.76 14. Ibid., p. 2 7. Ibid., 19.27/30 8. Ibid., 3.43 9. Ibid., 3.46 10. Ibid., 21.92 12. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, pp. T/C 13. Ibid., p. v 15. Ibid., p. 7 16. Sirhind, [Hadhrat] Ahmad. Maktubat 107

Page 120

physically born through the loins of a woman? If the author of. Two in One contends that he did, then has Abdul Hafeez taken necessary steps to revert to his prenatal state and be born again through the uterus of whosoever he took his first birth to ensure his safe passage to the kingdom of heaven which, according to the above Hadeeth, none shall enter unless born again? If he has not, then is it possible that he is averse to being reborn and, therefore, content to be excluded from the kingdom of heaven?. To every sane person, the aforementioned pronouncement of. Hadhrat Muhammad sa does not suggest a second physical birth but as sufic literature indicates, it relates to one's spiritual birth.. Hadhrat Shahab ud Din Suharwardith explained that for one to experience this phenomenon: 'The disciple becomes a part of the master, just as a child is a part of its father in its physical birth. Thus, is the disciple born from its master in its spiritual birth."17. In view of the aforementioned statement, most sufis of Islam have, before reaching a stage of high spiritual excellence within their own right subjected themselves to the rigorous discipline of discipleship to their masters - to become a part of them and be born of them in their second birth. In that event, one would assume that Khawaja Mu'in ud Din Chishtit must have become a part of Hadhrat Khawaja Usman Harunith; Hadhrat Nizam ud. Din Aulia of Hadhrat Baba Farid ud Din Shakar Ganj™,. Hadhrat Jalal ud Din Rumith of Hadhrat Shams Tabriz™h;. Hadhrat Ma'soom Ali Shah Mirth of Sayid Ali Raza of Delhi;. Hadhrat Shah Ismail Shaheedth of Hadhrat Sayid Ahmad Shah. Barelvi, Hadhrat Maulana Muhammad Qasim of Nanautath of. Shah Abdul Ghani and Maulvi Abdullah Ghaznavi of Hadhrat. Said Ameer of Koth - and having initially become a part of their masters they must have been born from within them.. Would Abdul Hafeez then consider a crude caricature of two men with a common pregnant abdomen similar to the one of a 17. Suharwardy, [Hadhrat] Shahab ud Din. 'Awarif al Mu'arif, vol. i, p. 45 108

Page 121

man and a woman with a common pregnant abdomen found on the cover of his book appropriate for these saints and their disciples since in every one of these instances, the disciples become a part of their respective masters to be born from them as Hadhrat Shahab ud Din Suharwardith explained they must in their spiritual birth?. Abdul Hafeez's intellectual capacity and spiritual insight are far below the requisite level for him to understand this concept of the second birth of a person aspiring to enter the kingdom of heaven. Nonetheless, the preceding discussion on this question should conclusively establish the validity of the concept of spiritual rebirth being an integral part of Islamic thought.. Hence, the only issues which need to be addressed now is whether there is any such concept in Islam where a person, rather than being born in one's spiritual rebirth through a spiritual master can take birth from within one's self and whether Islamic thought subscribes to any such phenomenon where God blows His spirit into an individual whereby one becomes metaphorically pregnant to be born from within one's self in the manner in which Hadhrat Ahmadas stated he did with his statement in Kashti Nuh to the effect that: 'In the third part of Braheen e Ahmadiyya, God had named me Mary and as apparent from it, I was nurtured in the qualities of Mary for two years. When a period of two years lapsed then, as stated on page 496 of the 4th volume of. Braheen e Ahmadiyya, the soul of Jesus was infused in me as it was infused in Mary and, in an allegoric sense, I was stated to be pregnant. Thereafter, after many months not exceeding a period of ten months after this revelation, I was, through a revelation recorded at the end of Braheen e. Ahmadiyya on page 556, named Jesus and hence I came to be the son of Mary.". If there is any such concept in Islamic thought which accepts 18. Ahmad. [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Kashti Nuh, pp. 46/47; Ruhani Khazain, vol. xix, p. 50 109

Page 122

that such a phenomenon could occur, then the entire premise of this foul criticism levelled against Hadhrat Ahmadas becomes evidence of Abdul Hafeez's ignorance of Islamic religious knowledge.. Hadhrat Jalal ud Din Rumith, a noble sage of his time was also the founder of the Jalaali school of sufism. He discussed this concept of spiritual pregnancy at length and stated: 'God confines free spirits into bodies and makes each body pregnant by the spirit. Each of us is a Messiah for the world.'19. The free spirit confined into bodies spoken of here by the venerable saint does not refer to the infusion of that which makes a woman physically pregnant. This should be evident from the above quotation itself. However, if the author of Two in One refuses to accept this assertion that the pregnancy spoken of here is in fact a spiritual pregnancy, then one offers a further explanation of this concept in the words of the aforementioned sage himself who stated: 'The Whole forms a relation with the part and from this, just as a woman receives a sperm from man, the sense of man receives a pearl. The soul of the man then becomes pregnant as did Mary and from this pregnancy is born a Messiah. This. Messiah is not the Messiah who lived in the past, but is a. Messiah whose glory is not easy to comprehend. When the spirit of God makes pregnant the spirit of man, that spirit then makes the world pregnant. This produces a spiritual revolution and resurrection in the world which is so grand as to defy description.' 120. Now, when one refers to Hadhrat Ahmad's as statement in. Kashti Nuh which has been subjected to such ridicule by Abdul. Hafeez in his publication, Two in One, one finds that this is 19. Rumi, [Hadhrat] Jalal ud Din Rumi. Miftah al Ulum, Daftar No. i, Pt. i, p. 55 20. Ibid., Miftah al Ulum vol. 1, p. 11 110

Page 123

exactly the phenomenon which he declared to have experienced.. He stated: 'The soul of Jesus was infused in me as it was infused in. Mary and, in an allegoric sense, I was stated to be pregnant.. Thereafter, after many months, not exceeding a period of ten months after this revelation, I was, through a revelation recorded at the end of Braheen e Ahmadiyya on page 556, named Jesus and hence I came to be the son of Mary. 121. What judgement would the author of Two in one now pronounce against Hadhrat Jalal ud Din Rumith for having acknowledged the feasibility of a man receiving a pearl from the. Whole, i.e., God Almighty, just as a woman receives a sperm from a man and thereafter the man becoming pregnant with the spirit of God as did Hadhrat Maryas and the Messiah being born of this pregnancy? Would he state that Hadhrat Jalal ud Din. Rumi's idea is ridiculous as he states in relation to Hadhrat. Ahmad's as statement suggesting the same idea? 22 Would this petty pir from Gujjo, who has absolutely no appreciation of the beauty of this spiritual concept, state that the whole building of the Jalaali school of thought in sufism is founded on a ridiculous idea as he does in relation to Ahmadiyya Muslim thought on account of a similar statement? 23 Would he therefore denounce Hadhrat Jalal ud Din Rumith as a mad man for having previously subscribed to the same beliefs as Hadhrat Ahmad'sas, as he has had the impertinence to denounce Hadhrat Ahmadas? 24. Would the author of Two in One also consider it proper of him to draw a caricature of Hadhrat Jalal ud Din Rumith depicting him as a pregnant man looking at himself in a mirror questioning why he has been missed from the Guinness Book of. Records, similar to the one sketched in his book 25 since the founder of the Jalaali school of Sufism subscribed to this concept of a man being made spiritually pregnant by the spirit of God 21. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Kashti Nuh; p. 47; Ruhani Khazain, vol. 19, p. 50 22. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 7 23. Ibid. 24. Ibid., p. 2 111 25. p. v

Page 124

and thereafter being reborn from within himself? Also, he justifies his rude sketch of a man and a woman with a common pregnant stomach on the cover of his publication with the statement: 'To make this belief more simple and understandable at a glance, this title cover has been prepared, which is nothing. but an artist's impression of the above quotation, so that these sick people can visualize the basis of their religion.126. Apparently, the quotation which Abdul Hafeez alludes to above is Hadhrat Ahmad's as statement in Kashti Nuh in relation to being infused with the spirit of Jesus and, in the allegoric sense, he became pregnant. But, it has already been shown that according to Hadhrat Jalal ud Din Rumith, God confines such spirits into individuals to make each body pregnant by the spirit. This spirit of Whole, i.e., God Almighty forms a relation with the part, i.e., the man and from it, just as a woman receives a sperm from man, so does the man receive a pearl from Him.. Consequently, these two fuse together to produce a pregnancy and give birth to a Messiah as Hadhrat Maryas became pregnant and gave birth to the Messiahas? Therefore, there is absolutely no difference in the beliefs of the respective founder of the. Ahmadiyya Muslim Community and the Jalaali School of. Sufism in relation to this issue. Would the author of Two in. One, in the interest of making Hadhrat Jalal ud Din Rumi's™ beliefs more simple and understandable at a glance, consider it proper for him to caricature a similar artist's impression of. Hadhrat Jalal ud Din Rumith as he has done on the cover page of his publication to allegedly make Hadhrat Ahmad's as beliefs more simple and understandable at a glance?. In the event that he wishes to argue that Hadhrat Jalal ud Din. Rumit never claimed to have experienced this phenomenon, may one caution him that according to the revered saint 'whether the word of God is from behind the curtain or not, He 26. Ibid.,. P. 7 112

Page 125

bestows the very thing which He gave to Mary. 127 He also stated that if this veil be lifted from the soul, every one of them would say, I am the Messiah. 128 Apparently, this veil was lifted for. Hadhrat Jalal ud Din Rumith since he not only stated that 'God confines free spirits into bodies and makes each body pregnant by the spirit, 129 but he also declared in relation to himself and the sufis of the Ummah that 'each one of them is a Messiah for the world. 130 He stated: 'I am Jesus, but whoever receives life from my breath lives forever. Those who were brought to life by Jesus dies, but fortunate are they who entrusted their lives to this Jesus. 131. Abdul Hafeez has published this filthy artist's impression on the cover page of his book with the view that those who subscribe to this concept of the spiritual birth of a person from within one's self through the bounty of God should realise how sick they are and also visualise the basis of their religion.32. Would he now draw a similar caricature of Hadhrat Jalal ud. Rumith who held the same view as Hadhrat Ahmadas and who also claimed to have been born as Jesus in a similar manner as. Hadhrat Ahmad as so that the author of Two in One may illustrate to those who subscribe to Jalaali sufic thought the state of their mind and the basis of their religion?. This ignorant pir from Gujjo may, to his heart's wont, consider this idea of a person being made spiritually pregnant by the spirit of God and of being born in their second birth from within themselves a ridiculous idea and evidence of imbecility and therefore a subject of obnoxious satire. But this does not alter the fact that most sufis of the ummah subscribed to this concept and many claimed to have been spiritually born an Ibne. Mariamas in this manner which is considered ridiculous or sign of imbecility by people of meagre intellectual understanding of 27. Rumi, [Hadhrat] Jalal ud Din. Miftah al Ulum, vol. 1, p. 11 28. Ibid., vol. ii, p. 247 29. Ibid., Daftar No. 1, Pt. 1, p. 55 30. Ibid 31. Ibid., Miftah al Ulum, vol. vii, p. 45 32. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 7 113

Page 126

matters pertaining to spiritual life. For instance, Hadhrat. Khawaja Mu'in ud Din Chishti™ was of the opinion: 'If the Holy Spirit continues to give succour, everyday in the world the Mary of the time would give birth to Jesus. 133. In the opinion of men of understanding, the Mary referred to in this statement does not relate to women in particular nor does the giving of birth to Jesus every day pertain to women bearing children in this world every day who would be named. Jesus. It is addressed to believers of the higher order likened unto Hadhrat Maryas by the Quran³4 - people who, with the succour of God achieve an inner perfection of the soul like the blessed virgin Mary's as son whom God gave manifest signs and strengthened with the spirit of holiness. 35 Hence, the patron saint of Ajmeer Sharif stated in relation to himself: 'Every moment, the Holy Spirit breathes into Mu'in. So it is not. I who says this, but in fact I am the second Jesus.136. This Holy Spirit he claimed to being breathed into him every moment has been spoken of in the Quran as being breathed into. Hadhrat Maryas also as either His Spirit³ or else His Word 38 as a result of which she became pregnant and delivered a son named Hadhrat Isa ibne Mariamas.39 And, this Spirit or Word of. God which was breathed into Hadhrat Maryas has been further explained by Hadhrat Jalal ud Din Rumith who stated that: 'Whether the word of God is from behind the curtain or not,. He bestows the very thing He gave to Mary.' 140. Now, when the testimony of the Quran and Hadhrat Jalal ud 33. Chishti, [Hadhrat] Muin ud Din. Diwan Khawaja Ajmeri, Ode No. 70, p. 102 34. Al Quran 66.13 35. Ibid., 2.88 38. Ibid., 21.92 39. Ibid., 19.23/28 36. Chishti, [Hadhrat] Muin ud Din. Diwan Khawaja Ajmeri, Ode No. 70, p. 102 37. Al Quran 66.13 40. Rumi, [Hadhrat] Jalal ud Din. Miftah al Ulum, vol. 1, p. 11 114

Page 127

Din Rumi's explanation are read in conjunction with Hadhrat. Khawaja Mu'in ud Din Chishti's declarations, one is obliged to assume that the Holy Spirit which he maintained could enable the 'Mary of her time to give birth' and which he stated was being 'breathed into him every moment' must be the very thing which God gave unto Mary and this is how Hadhrat Khawaja. Mu'in ud Din Chishtit came to be the second Jesus.. What judgement would Abdul Hafeez pronounce against. Hadhrat Khawaja Mu'in ud Din Chishtir for being born a second Jesusªs through the Holy Spirit being breathed into him?. Would he state that the revered patron saint of Ajmeer Sharif was delivered from his own uterus as the author of Two in One has had the impertinence to state Hadhrat Ahmad as was? 41. Would he assert that the whole building of Hadhrat Khawaja. Mu'in ud Din Chishti's beliefs are founded on a ridiculous idea as he asserts Hadhrat Ahmad's as beliefs are founded on for expressing the same idea? 42 Would he denounce Hadhrat. Khawaja Mu'in ud Din Chishtit as a mad man for having previously subscribed to the same beliefs as Hadhrat Ahmadas, as he is seen to have denounced Hadhrat Ahmadas in his publication?43. One would also draw the attention of the author of Two in One to the vile caricature of a pregnant man looking into a mirror asking why he has been missed by the Guinness Book of. Records and ask him that since Hadhrat Khawaja Mu'in ud. Din Chishtit was also born a second Jesus as from within himself after the Holy Spirit was breathed into him. Would this pir of. Gujjo now consider such a sordid caricature of Hadhrat. Khawaja Mu'in ud Din Chishti™ to be in order in his future publications of Two in One? Furthermore, since Hadhrat. Khawaja Mu'in ud Din Chishtit declared that the Holy Spirit which could enable the Mary of her time to give birth to a Jesus every day was being breathed into him every moment and consequently, this is how he became Jesus, would Abdul Hafeez now consider it proper for him to sketch a similar artist's 41. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 7 42. Ibid. 43. Ibid., p. 2 44. Ibid., p. v 115

Page 128

impression of Hadhrat Khawaja Mu'in ud Din Chishtir depicting him as a man and a woman with a common pregnant stomach on the cover page of his future editions of Two in One?. Would that not, in his opinion make the beliefs of Hadhrat. Khawaja Mu'in ud Din Chishtir more simple and understandable at a glance and also illustrate to the millions of people who hold the patron saint of Ajmeer Sharif in high esteem, to visualise the mental state of their mind and the basis of their beliefs?. Among other Muslim sufis, Hadhrat Shams ud Din Tabriz™ claimed to be the spirit which was breathed into Mary and the soul which was the life of Jesus and the breath of Jesus. 45 Hence,. Hadhrat Jalal ud Din Rumith referred to him as Hadhrat Maryas and Hadhrat Jesus as 46 Hadhrat Abu Yazid Bustamith also claimed to be Hadhrat Jesusas 47 and so was Hadhrat Sayyid. Ahmad Shah Barelvi declared him by Hadhrat Muhammad. Ismail Shaheedth 48 Hadhrat Muhiy ud Din Ibne Arabith called his spiritual mentor Isa ibne Mariam" and in recent times. Maulvi Rashid Ahmad Gangohi was given the appellation of. Jesus by the scholars of Deoband.50 This is a tip of the iceberg and in the interest of brevity one is not able to cite numerous other examples where a large number of saints and scholars of the ummah have either claimed the appellation of Hadhrat. Jesus as for themselves or else have had this bestowed upon them. Yet, none of them were born the son of Hadhrat Maryas.. Hence, the only manner in which they could have become Jesus is through undergoing this phenomenon of God infusing the spirit of Jesus in them as a result of which they came to be pregnant in an allegoric sense to eventually be born as Ibne. Mariam. It is on account of a universal acknowledgement of this concept that Hadhrat Khawaja Mir Dardth is reported to have 45. Tabriz, [Hadhrat] Shams ud Din. Kulliyat of Shams e Tabriz, pgs. 292 & 508 46. Rumi, [Hadhrat] Jalal ud Din. vide. The Life and Works of Jalal ud Din Rumi 47. Bustami, [Hadhrat] Abu Yazid. vide. Tadhkirath al Aulia 48. Shaheed, Muhammad Ismail. Najm al Saqib, vol. ii 49. Arabi. Hadhrat Muhiy ud Din ibne. Fatuhat Makiyya, vol. i, p. 199 50. Hasan, Sheikh Mahmud al Hasan. 116

Page 129

stated that 'every perfect man, by the all encompassing power of God, is the Jesus of his time. 151. One would now leave it to Abdul Hafeez to determine for himself whether he considers all these sufis of the ummah who claimed to be Jesus to be suffering from hallucinations and mad men as he considers Hadhrat Ahmadas to be. 52 One would also let him consider if he thinks it proper for him to depict them as pregnant men looking into the mirror begging a question as to why has the Guinness Book of Records missed them.53 The author of Two in One is seen to have justified his sordid caricature of a man and a woman with a common pregnant abdomen as being merely an artist's impression of Hadhrat. Ahmad's as statement in relation to him being first named Mary after which the soul of Jesus was infused into him and he was eventually born as Ibne Mariam.54 He has then invited Ahmadi. Muslims to suggest a more appropriate picture for the cover of his book if this sordid one is found offensive while promising to destroy all the existing copies of his book and publish a new edition, inclusive of an apology, with the suggested picture.55 In that event, rather than suggest anything to him, one would let him tax his integrity and determine whether drawing rude caricatures of all these sufis depicting them as half men and half women, sharing a common pregnant abdomen is proper for the future editions of his book. If not, then would the pir of Gujjo explain his refusal? Would such a caricature of all the aforementioned sufis not, in his opinion, illustrate to their respective followers, how sick they are as he alleges Ahmadi. Muslims are? Would it not allow them to visualise the basis of their religion as he states this rude cartoon has been drawn to allow Ahmadi Muslims to visualise the state of their religion?57. And finally, would he also consider it proper to refer to them as the Don Quixote of their respective cities as he has the impertinence to refer to Hadhrat Ahmadas as such 58 for believing 56 51. Dard. [Hadhrat] Khawaja Mir. Risala Dard, p. 211 52. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 2 55. Ibid., p. 53 56. Ibid., Title Cover 53. Ibid., p. v 57. Ibid., p. 7 54. Ibid., p. 7 58. Ibid., p. v 117

Page 130

that a man can become spiritually pregnant by the spirit of God and thereafter be born from within one's self? If not, then would. Abdul Hafeez not be giving evidence of his singular bias against. Hadhrat Ahmadas and therefore his enmity towards him? Why then does he take exception to the appellation of an enemy on the cover page of the Mubahala?. While the author of Two in One is considering these questions, one would bring to his notice that this entire concept of being named Mary and the soul of Jesus being infused in one and one being born as Ibne Mariam, initially recorded and explained in. Braheen e Ahmadiyya by Hadhrat Ahmadas was regarded as being within the accepted conventions of Islamic thought by none other than Abdul Hafeez's patron saint - Maulvi Sanaullah. Amritsari who having studied Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam. Ahmad's as explanation of this concept, stated: 'According to the approved conventions the meanings of the explanations given by Mirza Sahib should be accepted as correct. 159. Since Maulvi Sanaullah Amritsari never claimed to have experienced a phenomenon of such spiritual excellence, it would be unfair to ask Abdul Hafeez if he would consider it proper to depict him in his caricatures. Yet, he is seen by his aforementioned statement to subscribe to the feasibility of this phenomenon taking place and hence one would only ask him if he would now care to denounce his own spiritual mentor for subscribing to a ridiculous idea and also accuse him of madness? Furthermore, since Maulvi Sanaullah Amritsari accepted the Islamic basis of this concept and Abdul Hafeez does not, does that not make the author of Two in One a disbeliever in Islamic concepts. Why then does he take exception to the appellation of a disbeliever on the cover page of the. Mubahala? A liar he has sufficiently been proved in the preceding chapters. Why then should he take exception to these three appellations being applied to him. 59. Amritsari, Maulvi Sanaullah. Illhaamaat e Mirza, p. 5 118

Page 131

Finally, one might recall Abdul Hafeez's attention to the fact that his charges of insanity against a commissioned apostle of. God Almighty is not something unknown to the history of religion. It is customary for disbelievers to accuse God. Almighty's righteous servants of suffering from hallucinations and of madness and the Quran gives sufficient evidence of such charges being levied against God's Messengers by disbelievers from the beginning of the history of mankind. Hence, the Holy. Quran states that the disbelievers said to Hadhrat Noahas: 'He is only a man possessed. Wait [and have patience] with him for a time.159. As regards Hadhrat Hudas, the Holy Quran states that the disbelievers said to him: 'We say nothing but that [perhaps] some of our gods may have seized thee with imbecility." 160. Hadhrat Salihas was also accused of the same by the disbelievers and according to the Holy Quran, they said to him: 'Thou art only one of those bewitched!'61. The same fate was suffered by Hadhrat Mosesas. The Holy. Quran states that the arch believer of that age, Pharaoh stated to the Israelites: 'Truly, your apostle who has been sent to you is a veritable madman!'62. The Holy Prophet of Islam, Hadhrat Muhammadsa was also accused as such by the disbelievers. Hence, the Holy Quran 59. Al Quran 23.26. English Translation, Abdullah Yusuf Ali, The Holy Qur'an, 23.25, p. 878 60. Ibid., 11.55. English Translation, Abdullah Yusuf Ali, The Holy Qur'an, 11.54, p. 528 61. Ibid., 26.154. English Translation, Abdullah Yusuf Ali, The Holy Qur'an, 26.153, p. 964 62. Ibid., 26.28. English Translation, Abdullah Yusuf Ali, The Holy Qur'an, 26.27, p. 950 119

Page 132

commanded him to declare: 'I admonish you on one point: that ye stand up before God, [it may be] in pairs, or [it may be] singly, and reflect [with yourselves]: Your companion is not possessed: he is no less than a Warner to you, in face of terrible penalty.163. Such allegation of being possessed and seized with imbecility; of being bewitched and madness continue to be levied against. God's commissioned apostles to this day and age. Hence, one observes that Hadhrat Jesus as is accused of, God forbid, experiencing delusions 64 and Hadhrat Muhammad sa of, God forbid, experiencing strange visions65 by the kuffar. In accusing. Hadhrat Ahmadas of suffering from hallucinations and of madness, this ignorant pir of Gujjo is only giving evidence of his affiliation with the disbelievers since he is following the sunnah of the disbelievers who have traditionally accused God's apostles of suffering from hallucinations and of madness.. Furthermore, these charges against Hadhrat Ahmadªs being void of any truth, Abdul Hafeez is proving himself to be a personified liar also and an enemy of Hadhrat Ahmadas for falsely accusing him of something he was not. And yet, the author of Two in One has the audacity to take offence to the appellation of a liar, a disbeliever and an enemy being stated on the Mubahala challenge. If he is not a liar who lies through his teeth against the beliefs of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community; a disbeliever who disbelieves in the validity of Islamic concepts and an enemy who attempts to manipulate some perfectly. Islamic statements of Hadhrat Ahmadas to his detriment, then what is he? 63. Ibid., 34.47. English Translation, Abdullah Yusuf Ali, The Holy Qur'an, 34.46, p. 1148 64. Smith, Morton. The Secret Gospel, p. 11 65. Wells, H.G. A Short History of the World, p. 165 120

Page 133

CHAPTER FOUR. PERSONAL ATTACKS AND. CHARACTER ASSASSINATION. In his introduction to his book, the author of Two in One has justified his involvement in this controversy with the. Ahmadiyya Muslim Community on the pretext that he did not take too kindly to the title of liars being employed on the title page of the Mubahala challenge.¹ Yet, one observes that he lies through his teeth throughout his book. For instance, he states that: 'Time and again I have asked his [i.e., Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam. Ahmad'sas] followers to bring his biography, which is not something secret, but for some reason they have always ignored this request.”. In the first instance, in his entire correspondence with the. Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, there appears to be no such request made by him. The only evidence of him suggesting that they write anything in relation to the life of Hadhrat Ahmadas appears in his four point Mubahala challenge in which he demanded that 'if the first forty years of the life of Hadhrat. Ahmadas resembled that of any prophet, then Ahmadi Muslims ought to prove that in writing." And this demand, not request, was made by him as he suggests himself: 'I wanted that you should have written yourself the life history of Ghulam Qadiani so that at least the answer of [sic] my challenge had been completed."4 1. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 5 2. Ibid., p. 7 3. Ibid., 19 4. Ibid., 53 121

Page 134

Now, this could hardly be termed as a time and again request to the followers of Hadhrat Ahmad as to bring out his biography - or could it? Anyhow, there was absolutely no reason for. Ahmadi Muslims to take this particular request seriously in the context of a Mubahala challenge, especially when Abdul Hafeez himself acknowledges in relation to this request - one of the four in his counter Mubahala challenge: 'Now regarding the four conditions of the Mubahilla, I am glad that you have stated them to be ridiculous and non Islamic.15. Why then should Ahmadi Muslims have become engaged in an exercise at that stage when the person demanding it himself acknowledges that his demand is ridiculous as well as un. Islamic? People like Abdul Hafeez may call upon others to become engaged in un Islamic conduct but Ahmadi Muslims are fully committed to the preservations of Islamic values and therefore, could not be expected to be incited into such acts which contravene Islamic principles. And before the author of. Two in One delight in his conceit to allege that in discussing this point in the context of this book, Ahmadi Muslims have,. God forbid, contravened the principles of Islam, he stands advised that this has not been done in the context of his ridiculous and un Islamic Mubahala challenge.. Hence, Abdul Hafeez has once again been proved to be a liar in so much that he claims to have made repeated request to. Ahmadi Muslims that they come out with a biography of. Hadhrat Ahmadas but, allegedly, for some reason they have ignored this request. The fact of the matter is that had he ever made such a direct request, he may have yet been advised that there is absolutely no shortage of biographical material on the life of Hadhrat Ahmadas. In English alone, there exists since 1948, a comprehensive biography of Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam. Ahmadas published under the title of Life of Ahmad by Hadhrat. Maulana A.R. Darda, himself a companion of Hadhrat 5. Ibid., p. 65 122

Page 135

Ahmadas. Another such chronological biography with extensive quotations from the writings of Hadhrat Ahmadas has been written under the title Ahmadiyyat - The Renaissance of Islam by. Hadhrat Muhammad Zafrullah Khana and this has been on the international market since 1978.7 There also exists a shorter biography of the founder of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community under the title Hazrat Ahmad, The Promised Messiah by Hadhrat. Mirza Bashir ud Din Mahmud Ahmadra, first published in. English from London in 1967.³ Its second impression was issued from London in September 1985%, more than four and a half years before Abdul Hafeez made his false statement in his. English edition of Two in One. 10 An independent biography of. Hadhrat Ahmadas under the title Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian by the English historian Iain Adamson was also first issued in 1989.11. Beside these specific works of biography, several other publications give a biographical insight to the life of Hadhrat. Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas of Qadian. As for instance, Hadhrat. Maulana Abdul Karim's™ A Character Sketch of The Promised. Messiah"; Hadhrat Mirza Bashir Ahmad's Seerat i Tayyiba¹³ and. Durr i Manthur - Scattered Pearls 14 as well as Durr i Maknun. Some Hidden Pearls 15 and Mirror of Charm and Beauty - A'inah. Jamal Mirza Mubarak Ahmad's The Promised Messiah". Maulana Nur ud Din Muneer's Ahmadi Muslims 18. Hadhrat. Chaudhry Ali Muhammad's In the Company of The Promised. Messiah 19 and Waheed Ahmad's A Book of Religious Knowledge. 20. In Urdu however, there is too large a collection of biographical material available on the life of Hadhrat Ahmadas and had. Abdul Hafeez ever made any such request as alleged by him, he would have surely been advised of it. Hadhrat Ahmad's as own 6. Tabshir Publication, Lahore, 1948 8. London Mosque, London. 1967 га 7. Tabshir Publication, London 9. London Mosque, London. 1985 vi 11. Elite International Publications, London, 13. Lion Press, Lahore, 1960 10. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 12. Talif o Isha'at Publications, Qadian, 1924 14. Ahmadiyya Muslim Foreign Missions Office, 1961 17. Kent Publications, London, 1968 19. The Lion Press, Lahore, 1977 15. Ibid., 1962 16. Ibid., 1963 18. Lajna Publications, Rabwah, 1975 20. Fazli Umar Press, Ohio, 1988 123

Page 136

work Arba'een contains a colossal amount of biographical data on the life of the author and so does the publication Silsala. Ahmadiyya. In fact, it is most likely that had Abdul Hafeez ever requested these publications, these may have even been sent to him as did the Press and Publication Desk at London send him. Durre Thamin2, the receipt of which he acknowledged in the course of his grotesque publication.²². Abdul Hafeez's sly insinuation that Ahmadi Muslims have, for some reason or the other, failed to produce biographical material on the life of Hadhrat Ahmadas is proved false by his own contorted citation of passages from Hadhrat Mirza Bashir. Ahmad's Seerat al Mahdi 23 which is a comprehensive biographical record of Hadhrat Ahmad's as life. The fact is that this blatant lie is yet another ploy by the author of Two in One to hide his true motivation. This is indicated by, on one hand, his pretentious request for a biography of the life of Hadhrat. Ahmadas so that he is able to determine as to who Hadhrat. Ahmadas was 24 while on the other, when he is advised to read the history of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Movement, he considers such advice unnecessary. 25 Yet, he has the audacity to allegedly, 'reiterate his point of view and tell Ahmadi Muslims that all his correspondence is solely for the sake of Allah. 126. The only reason why the author of Two in One should utter such a blatant lie becomes quite evident when one reads the pages which follow this sly insinuation. In these pages, he proceeds to direct some personal attacks against Hadhrat Mirza. Ghulam Ahmadas with edited citations under the pretext that in the absence of any biographical work, the writings of Hadhrat. Ahmadas speak of his life." Incidentally, while he subtitles this section of his book as 'Mirza's writings speak of his Life, 128 suggesting that these citations are from Hadhrat Ahmad's as works, he also quotes from such publications which are not the works of Hadhrat Ahmadas 29 This should in itself indicate the extent of the inveracity of Abdul Hafeez. 27 21. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 37 22. Ibid., 38 26. Ibid., p. 52 23. Ibid., pgs. 9 &11 24. Ibid., p. 7 27. Ibid., pp. 8/11 28. Ibid., 8 124 25. Ibid., p. 68 29. Ibid., pp. 9/11

Page 137

EARLY LIFE OF HADHRAT AHMAD*8. The first quotation which the author of Two in One claims to cite from page 156 of Hadhrat Ahmad'sas Taryaq ul Quloob gives evidence of the mendacious nature of Abdul Hafeez. For instance, he claims that in this passage, Hadhrat Ahmadas stated: "My birth took place in 1839 or 1840 A.D. I was one of the twins.. The other one with me was a girl whose name was Jannat (Paradise). In my revelation which يا آدم اسكن أنت وزوجك الجنة was mentioned in Braheen-e-Ahmadiyya (by Ghulam. Ahmad Qadiani) on p. 496 some 20 years ago, the word Jannat carried this special reference that the girl who was born with me her name was Jannat and this girl died after living for 7 months". (TARYAQ-UL-QULOOB p. 156). By Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani.. CAMERA COPY OF ALLEGED CITATION OF HADHRAT AHMAD'S STATEMENT. IN TIRYAQUL QULUB, p. 156 - VIDE. SHAH, ABDUL HAFEEZ, TWO IN ONE, p. 8. But, when a direct reference to this passage of Hadhrat. Ahmad'sas original work is made, one finds that he stated: موت کے بعد کوئی کامل انسان کسی عورت کے پیٹ سے نہ نکلے ۔ اب یاد رہے کہ اس بندہ حضرت احدیت کی پیدائیش جسمانی اس پیشگوئی کے مطابق بھی ہوئی۔ یعنے میں توام پیدا ہوا تھا اور میرے ساتھ ایک لڑکی تھی جس کا نام جنت تھا۔ اور یہ الہام کہ یا آدم اسكن انت وزوجك الجنّة بو آج سے بیس برس پہلے براہین احمدیہ کے صفحہ ۴۹۶ میں درج ہے۔ اس میں جو جنت کا لفظ ہے اس میں یہ ایک لطیف اشارہ ہے کہ وہ لڑکی جو میرے ساتھ پیدا ہوئی اس کا نامہ مبینت تھا۔ اور یہ لڑکی صرف سات ماہ تک زندہ رہ کر فوت ہو گئی تھی ۔ غرض چونکہ خدا تعالیٰ نے اپنے کلام اور الہام میں مجھے آدم. PHOTOCOPY OF ORIGINAL STATEMENT ON PAGE 156 OF HADHRAT AHMAD'S TIRYAQUL QULUB 125

Page 138

30. Where, in this original statement on page 156 of Tiryaqul. Qulub³0 does Hadhrat Ahmad as state that his 'birth took place in 1839 or 1840 A.D.'? If it does not, then what does Abdul. Hafeez's inclusion of this sentence in the context of a citation of. Hadhrat Ahmad's as statement indicate? Does it not indicate that he has attributed a statement to Hadhrat Ahmadas which the latter did not make in his original work? What, then, does such a false attribution of a statement to Hadhrat Ahmadas make. Abdul Hafeez, if not a liar? Yet, he has the audacity to take exception to the appellation of a liar being stated on the cover of the Mubahala challenge³ when it is an appropriate description of the author of Two in One.. At some later stage in his book, the author of Two in One states that 'it is true that a fruit identifies the tree. 132 Why does he then not apply this maxim to himself in the light of his above false citation of Hadhrat Ahmad's as statement? One is certain that if he did, he will come to realise, as he has stated himself, that he is 'keeping alive the traditions of his forefathers. 133 If that tree of the hereditary pirs of Gujjo had been any better, then this fruit of that tree would not have lied with his citation of Hadhrat. Ahmad'sas statement - or would he?. However, despite Abdul Hafeez's dishonest citation of this passage from Hadhrat Ahmad's as work, Tiryaqul Qulub, one fails to understand as to how this passage reflects adversely on the character of Hadhrat Ahmadas? Even if this passage as quoted in Two in One were correct, including the interpolation by Abdul Hafeez, one cannot see how anyone in his right mind might manipulate it to the detriment of Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam. Ahmadas and the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community since all that appears to have been said here is that Hadhrat Ahmadas was born in a certain year and that he was born a twin along with his sister Jannat who died after seven months. What could be so objectionable about being born in a certain year or being born a twin? 30. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Tiryaqul Qulub, p. 156; Ruhani Khazain, vol. 15, p. 479. 31. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 28 32. Ibid., p. 5 33. Ibid. 34. Ibid., p. 9 126

Page 139

The second quotation on this question is claimed by Abdul. Hafeez to be a 'summary of commentary on margins in Kitab ul. Bariah 33 and if the purpose in quoting this summary is to illustrate what kind of a person Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam. Ahmadas was, then one fails to understand why the author of. Two in One should have expunged from within the text of this commentary so many of the original sentences contained in. Hadhrat Ahmad's as original work which give thorough insight to his nature. For instance, where he speaks of his 'thorough dislike to being involved in worldly matters at the cost of his spiritual pursuits.' Or where he alludes to his 'father's insistence that he become involved in the latter's attempt to regain their landed property confiscated by the British.' Why has Abdul. Hafeez, after citing Hadhrat Ahmad's as statement in relation to him being made by his father to represent him in this litigation against the British 35, expunged the following sentences: 'I have always regretted that so much of my precious time was wasted in this useless pursuit. My father also committed the superintendence and management of our landed property to me. I had little interest in these matters and in consequence my father was often upset with me. He was most kind and affectionate, but he desired that I should pursue worldly affairs like my contemporaries and I was much averse to it. 136. Why has the author of Two in One also expunged the passage where Hadhrat Ahmadas explained that although he became occupied in these worldly pursuit much against his disposition, he did so, not for any material gain but to earn spiritual merits: 'My father was desirous that I should be completely occupied with worldly affairs, which was contrary to my disposition.. Nevertheless, out of goodwill and in order to earn spiritual 35. Ibid., p. 8. 36. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Kitabul Bariyyah, pp. 164/5;. Ruhani Khazain, vol. 13, pp. 182/83 127

Page 140

merit, but not for the sake of worldly gain, I devoted myself to serving my father. 137. Hadhrat Ahmad as also stated within this commentary that while he engaged himself in worldly affairs only to earn spiritual merit, he continued to pursue his religious duties. He wrote that although he: 'became occupied with the management of our lands, the greater part of my time was devoted to the study of the Holy. Quran and the commentaries on it and of the Traditions of the. Holy Prophetsa. sa 138. Would Abdul Hafeez explain why has he expunged these passages from Hadhrat Ahmad's as original work if he sincerely wished to illustrate the way in which the 'writings of Hadhrat. Ahmadas speak of his life.' Is it because within the context of this passage, Hadhrat Ahmadas also stated: 'I feel within me that by nature, there is inherent in my heart a sincere loyalty towards God Almighty which cannot be restrained by anything. This is a blessing bestowed by Him.. I had never subjected myself to the rigorous discipline of contemplation nor as customary with some sufis engaged in meditation or else isolated myself. Nor did I commit any such action contrary to sunnah or which could be found objectionable by the Word of God. On the contrary, I have always been irritated with such ascetics and innovators who are engaged in varied kinds of innovations in religion.139. Is it possible that these passages have been expunged because within these, there is an indication that Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam. Ahmad's as life was thoroughly devoted to Islam in theory and practice? 37. Ibid., Kitabul Bariyyah, pp. 165/66; Ruhani Khazain, vol. 13, pp. 183/84 38. Ibid., Kitabul Bariyyah, p. 169; Ruhani Khazain, vol. 13, p. 187 39. Ibid., Kitabul Bariyyah, p. 189; Ruhani Khazain, vol. 13, p. 197 128

Page 141

40. Whatever be Abdul Hafeez's reasons for expunging these passages, as evident from even this slyly edited version of the statement cited from Kitabul Bariyyah, one cannot find any such sentence within it which should give anyone occasion to take exception to Hadhrat Ahmad'sas way of life. If Abdul Hafeez's wont is to illustrate that he took employment in his youth, then one would ask him as to how this reflects adversely to. Hadhrat Ahmad's as life and character. History indicates that some of the best men underwent this discipline, as for instance,. Hadhrat Jacobs was employed for seven years as a shepherd by. Laban 41 and Hadhrat Mosesas by Jetro 2 for as much as between eight to ten years.43 Hadhrat Jesusas worked as a carpenter" while historical documents indicate that our beloved Prophet,. Hadhrat Muhammad sa tended sheep and goats for his employers upon the neighbouring hills and valleys of Mecca and he even took employment with his future wife, Hadhrat Khadija". If. Abdul Hafeez's purpose is to illustrate that Hadhrat Ahmadas worked for a foreign government, then so did Hadhrat Josephas who, according to the Bible was a personal servant of an. Egyptian officer Potiphar and according to the Holy Quran, the keeper of the Egyptian king's treasures.45. In fact, according to Abdul Hafeez's spiritual predecessors, the service performed by an apostle of God for an infidel government serves as an example for Muslims to follow. Hence, his parton saint, Maulvi Sanaullah Amritsari stated: 'We have it in the Holy Quran that Prophet Joseph did run the administration of the state under an infidel monarch and such an act performed by any prophet would serve as a beauteous example, for us to follow. 146. If, on the other hand, Abdul Hafeez's purpose is to show that. Hadhrat Ahmadas received education from another person which, in his estimation, is unacceptable for a prophet of God, 40. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, 43. Al Quran 28.27/30 46. Amritsari, Maulvi Sanaullah. Ahle Hadeeth, 16 November, 1945 p. 8 41. Genesis 29.20 42. Exodus 3.1 44. Mark 6.3 45. Al Quran 12.56/57 129

Page 142

then one would ask him to explain the Quranic passage in relation to Hadhrat Moses'sas encounter with someone whom he sought to follow only on the condition: 'that thou teach me something of the [Higher] Truth which thou hast been taught?'47. Is this passage of the Holy Quran not, to a larger majority of. Muslim scholars, evidence of Hadhrat Moses as receiving education from another person? What then could be so objectionable about Hadhrat Ahmad as being a recipient of education from another person?. The author of Two in One may have had his own reasons for quoting a summary only of this passage from Kitabul Bariyyah and expunging a large number of sentences found in Hadhrat. Ahmad's original statement. But, to the author of the present publication, it appears to be an act of God which caused this pir from Gujjo to dishonestly summarise this statement of Hadhrat. Ahmadas and thereby expose Abdul Hafeez as a liar. This is indicated by the fact that within the text of this summary, he states that Hadhrat Ahmad as wrote: 'I was employed for a few years by the British Government in. Sialkot court as a clerk for Rs. 15/- per month" 148. The fact is that whereas in this original statement from whence this statement is claimed to have been cited, Hadhrat Ahmadas did allude to his employment with the British Government, he did not specify, either the department he worked in nor the position he held or even the salary which he received during his employment." Hence, this pir from Gujjo has been exposed as a liar yet once again. All praise belongs to Allah! 47. Al Quran 18.67 48. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 8 49. Ahmad. [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Kitabul Bariyyah, pp. 166/167; Ruhani Khazain, vol. 13, pp. 184/85 130

Page 143

FAMILY DECLINE. Abdul Hafeez holds Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as in contempt for the decline in his family's fortunes at some stage in its life. He quotes a statement from Tohfa e Qaisariyya in which Hadhrat Ahmadas is supposed to have stated: 'The glory of our estate was declining day by day until in our days our family position was that of a small grade land lord.'50. Although one does not accept this to be a perfectly correct translation of Hadhrat Ahmad's statement in Tohfa e Qaisariyya, yet, one fails to see how this change in the family's fortunes is supposed to reflect adversely upon Hadhrat Ahmad'sas character and mission when there is sufficient evidence in history which indicates that the families of the best of men have suffered reverses in their material fortunes. For instance, it is an established fact of Islamic history that Hadhrat Muhammadsa belonged to one of the most powerful and affluent families of. Mecca. Yet, on the death of his grandfather 'Abd al Muttalib whose prosperity and fame had, at one stage excited the envy of their rivals, the family slipped into decline to the extent that it had to pass almost all its obligations of providing for the pilgrims except the supply of water to other branches of the. Quraish in Mecca. At the time when Hadhrat Muhammadsa was growing up, the prestige of the Banu Hashim had begun to wane and their rivals, the Banu Umayya who, at one stage, had been declared inferior in a challenge of respective merits during 'Abd al Muttalib's life rose to such importance that the Banu. Hashim's fame was pushed into oblivion.. History also indicates that Prophet Muhammadsa spent his life after his grandfather's death in extreme deprivation of material comforts and no sooner did he achieve puberty, he had to seek employment to assist his guardian and uncle Abu Talib in the 50. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 9 131

Page 144

maintenance of his household.. There is also sufficient evidence in Islamic literature which shows that Hadhrat Muhammad's sa family experienced such deprivation of material comforts that on some occasions they did not even have enough food to eat. Hadhrat Um 'Atiyya bint. Harith al Ansariyyara reports that: 'The Prophets went to 'Aisha and asked her whether there is something [to eat]. She replied that she had nothing except the mutton [piece] which Nusaiba [Um 'Atiyya] had sent to us [Buraira] in charity.' 151. A similar Hadeeth is reported on the authority of Hadhrat. Juwairiya bint Haritha, the blessed wife of Hadhrat. Muhammadsa in which she is stated to have said: 'The Messenger of Allahsa came to her and said: Is there anything to eat? She said: Messenger of Allah, I swear by. God, there is no food with us except a bone of goat which my freed maid-servant was given as sadaqa.' 152. It is also stated in Hadeeth literature that Hadhrat. Muhammad sa mortgaged his iron armour to a Jew to purchase food grains because there was: 'not even a single Sa of wheat or food grain for the evening [meals] while he had nine wives to look after.153. Another Hadeeth reported on the authority of Hadhrat Ayesha bint Abu Bakr³ states that: 'Allah's Apostles died while his armour was mortgaged to a. Jew for thirty Sa of barley.' 154. Hadeeth literature also indicates that our beloved Prophet, 51. Sahih Bukhari 24.61 53. Sahih Bukhari 34.15 52. Sahih Muslim 401.2349 54. Ibid., 52.89 132

Page 145

Hadhrat Muhammadsa did not leave any material wealth at the time of his demise. Hadhrat 'Abd al 'Aziz ibn Rufai Shaddad ibn. Ma'qil states that he once asked Hadhrat Ibn Abbas™ª: 'Did the Prophetsa leave anything? He replied, He did not leave anything except what is between the two bindings [of the Quran]. Then we visited Muhammad ibn Al Hanafiyya and asked him. He replied, The Prophets did not leave except that which is between the two bindings.' $55. Such straitened circumstances which Hadhrat Muhammad sa and his family experienced are often mentioned by Hadhrat. Ahmad's as adversaries with pride in their propaganda publications against him. For instance, Ehsan Elahi Zaheer, an extremely hostile opponent of the Ahmadiyya Muslim. Community alludes to the aforementioned Traditions and states that: 'When Mustafa departed from this world, his coat-of-mail was mortgaged to a Jew while his wives used to live on water and dates. '56. He also quotes a Hadeeth from the famous works of Hadhrat. Tirmidhih in which it is stated that: 'Ayesha Siddiqa, the wife of the Apostle of Allah relates: The family of the Apostle of God, (peace be on him), did not eat barley-bread to their fill even for two consecutive days till his demise.157. This Hadeeth is followed by another from the same collection of Traditions in which it is reported: 'Samak bin Harb related from Numan ibn Bashir: Hav'nt [sic] you all that wish to eat and drink? I have seen your Prophet. 55. Ibid., 61.16 56. Zaheer, Ehsan Elahi. Qadiyaniat, p. 93 133 57. Ibid., p. 90

Page 146

He did not have even an inferior quality date nor did he have his fill. 158. The straitened circumstances of the first and the second. Caliphs, Hadhrat Abu Bakra and Hadhrat Umara are also alluded to with pride by these adversaries who state of Hadhrat. Abu Bakra. 'The Caliph of this Great Prophet dies and is buried in old worn out clothes! Yes! His first Caliph Abu Bakr, the true. Friend!159. As regards to the personal material wealth of Hadhrat Umarra, the second Caliph, Ehsan Elahi Zaheer states: 'His second Caliph did not have untorn [sic] clothes to wear notwithstanding that his rule extended over as vast as an area as the combined empires of the Roman Emperor Caesar and. Chosroe [sic] of Persia. Once when he put on two new untorn sheets, one of his subjects stood up asking: Where did you get this from.160. Yet, historical records indicate that Hadhrat Abu Bakra was an extremely successful businessman and a man of some fortune.. He is stated to have owned as much as 40,000 pieces of silver at the time of his conversion to Islam. Hadhrat Umarra was also a man of some means. Hence, if such decline in family fortune could be suffered by the greatest man ever born in the history of mankind, Hadhrat Muhammadsa and also two of his most beloved and cherished friends, then how does Hadhrat. Ahmad's as family decline reflects adversely upon his life and mission as a prophet of God - particularly when, in the first instance, this decline in the family's fortune was to be a matter of pride rather than humiliation. This is clearly evident from the passage in Hadhrat Ahmad'sªs Tohfa e Qaisariyya, a part of 58. Ibid., Zaheer, p. 90 " 59. Ibid., p. 93 134 60. Ibid.

Page 147

which Abdul Hafeez has quoted in his book. Had the intentions of the author of Two in One been as pious as he pretends to be, then he would have also disclosed to his readers that after mentioning the state to which Hadhrat Ahmadas stated his family was reduced, he declared: 'On the surface, it is a sad state of affairs to think of what we once were and what came of us. But when I think about it, then this state of affairs appears to be something for which we should be extremely grateful to God that He has preserved us against all those trials which are a natural consequence of wealth.'61. Secondly, this was to be a decree of God that the name of. Hadhrat Ahmad's as ancestors be blotted out and a foundation of a new family be laid, just as He had previously decreed in favour of Hadhrat Abrahamas. This promise was made to. Hadhrat Ahmadas by God Almighty on several occasions as for instance recorded by him in Tiryaqul Qulub from whence Abdul. Hafeez has cited the first quotation in relation to Hadhrat. Ahmad's as early life.62 He stated in this book that God promised him: 'For now, the mention of your famous father and grandfather would cease and God will lay the foundation of your family with you as it was done with Abraham.163. He also alluded to this promise by God within the text of the passage in Kitabul Bariyya of which Abdul Hafeez has cited an edited version.64 It is recorded here that God made a promise to. Hadhrat Ahmadas to the effect that: 'God, Who is the Possessor of many blessings and Who is 61. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Tohfa e Qaisariyya, p. 19; Ruhani Khazain, vol. 12, p. 271 62. Shah, Syed Abdul Hfeez. Two in One. p. 8 63. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Tiryaqul Qulub, p. 69; Ruhani Kkazain, vol. 15, p. 185 64. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, pp. 8/9 135

Page 148

Lofty and Pious has increased your piety over and above your family. From now on, the mention of your family would cease and God will lay the foundation of a beginning with you.'65. In Haqeeqatul Wahi also, from whence Abdul Hafeez has extensively quoted Hadhrat Ahmadas, he recorded a revelation to the effect: 'He will cut off thy ancestors and will begin thine family with thee. 166. Hence, the material decline which Hadhrat Ahmad'sas ancestral family witnessed was a decree of God to blot out the name of his ancestors and lay the foundation of a new family beginning with Hadhrat Ahmad as himself. And, this family with the grace of Allah has now enlarged and prospered to the extent that the jealousy of people like Abdul Hafeez incites them to write such grotesque publications as Two in One against it.. Abdul Hafeez furnishes his next evidence of the material decline of Hadhrat Ahmad's as family from his son, Hadhrat. Mirza Bashir Ahmad's book, Seerat al Mahdi in which its author is stated to have declared that: 'The British confiscated our family lands and fixed honorary [sic] pension of Rs. 700/- only per year in the form of cash which was reduced to 180/- only at the death of my grandfather and stopped completely after my uncle's [Father's elder brother] death.167. In the first instance, this citation by the author of Two in One from Hadhrat Mirza Bashir Ahmad's Seerat al Mahdi proves. Abdul Hafeez to be a liar in so much that he complains that. Ahmadi Muslims have, despite repeated requests refused to 65. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Kitabul Bariyyah, p, 161; Ruhani Khazain, vol. 13, p. 179 66. Ibid. Haqeeqatul Wahi, p. 76, Ruhani Khazain, vol. 22, p. 79 67. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 9 136

Page 149

publish a biography of Hadhrat Ahmadas - suggesting that for some reason or the other they are hiding something.68 Yet, while he pretends that he is unaware of any such biographical work on the life of Hadhrat Ahmadas, he quotes the above statement from a comprehensive and exhaustive biographical work on his life written by an Ahmadi and published by Ahmadi Muslims.. Secondly, this citation from Seerat al Mahdi, rather than reflecting adversely upon Hadhrat Ahmadas, gives evidence of his truthfulness in view of his claim that God had promised him that He would cause the name of his famous grandfather and father to be ceased and He will lay the foundation of his family with Hadhrat Ahmadas as He did with Hadhrat Abrahamas 69 In 'stopping completely' the pension which Hadhrat Ahmad's as ancestors had received in lieu of their confiscated land, precisely at the point at which he would have been legally entitled to receive it, God fulfilled His promise to him in so much that he cut off his ancestors.70 Hence, today, neither the physical descendants of Hadhrat Ahmad as nor his spiritual posterity identify themselves with any ancestor of the pre Hadhrat. Ahmadas era. If this is not an evidence of the true nature of revelations vouchsafed unto Hadhrat Ahmadas, then what is? All praise belongs to Allah! 68. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez, Two in One, p. 7 69. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Tiryaqul Qulub, p. 69; Ruhani Khazain, vol. 15, p. 185 70. Ibid., Haqeeqatul wahi, p. 76; Ruhani Khazain, vol. 22, p. 79 137

Page 150

PHYSICAL HEALTH AND ILLNESS. Abdul Hafeez then proceeds to revile Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam. Ahmad's physical health and finds it objectionable that 'one of his molar teeth which pained him occasionally had to be filed away. 72 The impression which he creates with this objection is that it is not proper that anything should happen to a prophet's teeth in which event one would ask him as to what opinion would he express in relation to our beloved Prophet, Hadhrat. Muhammad sa who lost one of his front teeth in the battle of. Uhud. Hadhrat Sahla narrated that during the battle of Uhud: 'The face of the Prophetsa was wounded and one of his front teeth got broken and the helmet over his head was smashed.. Fatima washed off the blood while Ali held the water. When she saw the bleeding was increasing continuously, she burnt a mat till it turned into ashes which she put over the wound and thus the bleeding ceased.' 173. The author of Two in One also finds it objectionable that an accident should happen to a prophet's limbs as a result of an accidental fall 74 not knowing that according to Hadeeth literature, our beloved master, Hadhrat Muhammad sa sustained such an injury to his limbs when he fell from a horse. Hadhrat. Ans ibn Malikra reports that: 'Once, Allah's Apostles rode a horse and fell down and the right side of his body was injured.' $75. It is rather sad that Abdul Hafeez has attempted to exploit a human being's illness to his detriment, not appreciating that. Hadhrat Ahmadas was a mortal and all mortals are subject to suffer illness in their lives as did the greatest man known to the 71. Shah, Seed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 9/10 73. Sahih Bukhari, 52.85 75. Sahih Bukhari 11.51 72. Ibid., p. 9 74. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 9 76. Shah, Seed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 41 138

Page 151

history of mankind. Hadeeth literature reports that Hadhrat. Muhammadsa sometimes suffered from illness and that he not only offered his prayers while sitting 7 but due to it, he did not get up for Tahajjud prayer78 and even instructed his friend and companion, Hadhrat Abu Bakr to lead Muslims in prayer.” It has also been stated that the pain which he sometimes suffered in his illness was so acute that he felt his aorta being cut from him.80 His condition is believed to have often distressed the members of his family." He is also stated to have suffered severe headaches for which he had a cupping operation performed.82 In fact, according to Hadhrat Ayeshara, the pain which Hadhrat Muhammad sa suffered in his illness was so acute that she declared: 'I never saw anybody suffering so much from sickness as. Allah's Apostle.' 183. She found the agony which he suffered so distressing that she added: 'I never dislike the death agony of anyone after the. Prophetsa 184. Yet, as a Muslim, one believes that such illness and pain is perfectly normal for human beings to suffer and therefore, there is absolutely nothing objectionable in Hadhrat Muhammadsa suffering from it. In fact, Hadeeth literature indicates that the blessed apostles of God Almighty suffer more than do ordinary people because they are doubly rewarded for their suffering.. Hence, Hadhrat 'Abd Allah ibn Masudra, reports that: 'I visited Allah's Apostle sa while he was suffering from high fever. I said: O Allah's Apostle! You have high fever. He said:. Yes, I have as much fever as two men of you. I said: Is it because you will have double reward? He said: Yes, it is so.185 77. Sahih Bukhari, 11. 51 81. Ibid. 82. Ibid., 71.14 78. Ibid., 21.3 83. Ibid., 70.2 79. Ibid., 11.51 84. Ibid., 59.81 80. Ibid., 59.81 85. Ibid., 70.2 139

Page 152

But, like Abdul Hafeez who denies Hadhrat Ahmadas and not only believes that it is not proper for a prophet of God to suffer from illness but also ridicules him, the deniers of Hadhrat. Muhammad also do not consider his suffering from disease and illness to be proper. Hence, they deny and ridicule the. Prophet of Islams on account of it. If the author of Two in One were to ever read what these enemies of Islam have written against Hadhrat Muhammadsa, one is certain that he would positively see himself in their reflection. This may even give. Abdul Hafeez cause to add a sketch of himself in the future editions of Two in One, looking in a mirror and seeing himself in the reflection of people like John of Damascus or Theophanes;. C.G. Phander or Abdullah Athim; Pundit Lekh Ram or Swami. Daya Nand and many others like them who have previously made obnoxious references in relation to the state of Hadhrat. Muhammad'ssa health. Otherwise, Abdul Hafeez would have known that according to Hadhrat Muhammadsa, illness and suffering is a blessing bestowed upon human beings by God. Almighty. Hence he stated: 'No Muslim is afflicted with any harm, even if it were a prick of thorn, but that Allah expiates his sins because of that, as a tree sheds its leaves." 186. In another Hadeeth reported on the authority of Hadhrat Ibn. Abbas, it is stated that when Hadhrat Muhammad visited an ailing person, he stated to the person: 'Don't worry, it will be expiation for your sins. 187. But people of such limited understanding as the author of Two in One, Abdul Hafeez cannot be expected to appreciate the wisdom of these statements made by the wisest of the wise men known to the history of mankind - Hadhrat Muhammad. Mustaphasa. 86. Sahih Bukhari 70.3 87. Ibid., 70.10 140

Page 153

It is rather interesting to to note that in his absolute ignorance of the literature produced by his spiritual predecessors, Abdul Hafeez makes an error of asking if one has ever heard of a prophet or a saint who suffered from such physical diseases.88 Since he asks, one cites for his benefit what non Ahmadi Muslim scholars have stated in relation to the ailment which afflicted Hadhrat Jobas: 'Satan breathed into Ayub's nostrils which inflamed his body causing large boils the size of ewes tails which gave rise to a severe itch. He first used his nails to scratch his body but when all his nails fell off, he began to use coarse sack cloths until these were torn to pieces. He then resorted to slates and hard stones but the itch did not subside and his body was frayed hence emitting foul smell because of which people banished him from the town. They threw him on a refuse dump and built a shed over it and none except his wife was allowed to see him. 189. What comment would this petty pir of Gujjo now make in relation to Hadhrat Job's as prophethood in view of the severe ailment which he is stated by Abdul Hafeez's spiritual predecessors to have suffered for as many as seven years? One would also refer him to the references made to the ailments suffered by Hadhrat Idrisas and Hadhrat Suhaibas by the non. Ahmadiyya Muslim publications and determine for himself the extent of physical disabilities these prophets of God are alleged to have suffered by none other than his own spiritual mentors.³. As regards his question in relation to saints, one would advise. Abdul Hafeez to read what Shi'ite scholars have written in relation to Umar ibn Khattabra and these obnoxious references have been quoted by Sunni scholars in their publications.⁹0 87 88. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 18 89. Al Jalalain vol. 3, p. 73 87. Al Itban, pt.2, pp. 138/9 90. Khateeb, Muhibbudeen al. Al Khutoot al Areedah, p. 14 141

Page 154

CHARGES OF IMPOTENCY. Abdul Hafeez then proceeds to cite several quotations, supposedly from the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community's literature, to prove his charge that Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam. Ahmadas suffered from impotency." In the first instance, if one was to even suppose that these quotations in the hostile publication are a genuine representation of the original statements made by Hadhrat Ahmadas, then rather then reflect adversely against his person, these stand to his credit and enhance his personality since it takes a high degree of honesty and courage for a person to admit weakness in this particular aspect of one's life and it is only hypocrites and liars who lie and boast about it. Secondly, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever in religious thought which even remotely suggests that a lack of physical virility reflect seriously upon the stature of God Almighty's apostles. And finally, it is an established fact of life that weakness in this particular sphere is not abnormal for human beings to suffer, particularly at a certain advanced age. All these quotations which Abdul Hafeez provides in evidence to establish the said charge against Hadhrat Ahmadas refer to an advanced period of his life when he was around the age of fifty. What is so abnormal about the feeling that one is not at the height of his physical strength at around this period of his age?. In fact, had Abdul Hafeez been honest in his purpose, he would not have used these quotations to establish his false charge of impotency. The first citations furnished as evidence by the author of Two in One, which incidentally is cited from a hostile publication Navista e Ghaib by a certain Khalid. Wazirabadi does not, as Abdul Hafeez insinuates, admit a permanent condition of impotency. It merely states that the author 'used to think that he is impotent 93 whose apprehension, if ever expressed by Hadhrat Ahmadas was, in the first instance, 91. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 10 142 92. Ibid. 93. Ibid.

Page 155

thoroughly justified considering that Hadhrat Ahmad as had, at the time of his second marriage in 1884 spent the previous 28 years of his life in a state of chastity, his first marriage having broken down when he was only 21 years of age.. Secondly, this statement, if ever made, is acknowledged by. Abdul Hafeez to be of a period around February, 188794 when. Hadhrat Ahmadas was over 52 years of age by which time, he had already fathered two sons, Mirza Sultan Ahmad and Mirza. Fazl Ahmad of his first marriage and one daughter, Ismat of his second marriage while his first son of this marriage, Bashir was due in August 1887, some six months later. Hence, if there were any fears of impotency being entertained, then these were not on account of it being a natural condition with which Hadhrat. Ahmad as was born. Furthermore, these were also proved unfounded with the birth of his children of his second marriage.. The second quotation from Tiryaqul Qulub cited in the hostile publication is of a post 20th August, 1899 period when. Hadhrat Ahmadas was over 64 years of age by which time God had blessed him with several children of his second wife. This is an evidence of the fact that whatever weakness he suffered in this relation, it was a temporary phase since his second marriage took place in 1884 at the age of nearly fifty and yet he was blessed with ten children of this marriage, six sons and four daughters, the youngest Hadhrat Amatul Hafeez Begum being born in November 1904 when Hadhrat Ahmadas was over 69 years of age. ra. The fact that he was blessed with ten children at such an advanced age, despite the fears of his contemporaries in relation to his health in this particular sphere, is a sign of Divine assistance being showered upon him. Maulvi Muhammad. Hussain Batalvi, for instance, on hearing of Hadhrat Ahmad's as marriage wrote to him: 'If this marriage has been undertaken in consideration of any 94. Ibid. 95. Ibid. 96. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Tiryaqul Qulub, p. 31, Ruhani Khazain, vol. 15,. P. 192 143

Page 156

spiritual powers then I have no objections because I am not a denier of the appetites and powers of God Almighty's saints otherwise it is a matter of grave concern lest some hardship be occasioned. 197. But, since he engaged into matrimony in consideration to the explicit command of God, the grave concerns of his then well wishers that some hardship may be occasioned were irrelevant.. Hadhrat Ahmad as supplicated God Almighty at the time of this severe trial and received His succour through a state of vision9 which alleviated all the fears being entertained on his behalf.. The ten children subsequently born to Hadhrat Ahmadas of this marriage are an evidence of this Divine succour and therefore, as Maulvi Muhammad Hussain Batalvi had stated: 'of the powers of God Almighty's saints.'. These children are also proof of the false insinuations and allegations made by Hadhrat Ahmad's as adversaries, particularly the likes of Abdul Hafeez who is once again proved a personified liar. Yet, this personified liar, the author of Two in. One, objects to a thoroughly appropriate description of him on the cover page of the Mubahala." What, if one may ask him again, would he want Ahmadi Muslims to call him when at every stage of his book, he gives evidence of his inveracity? 97. Ibid., Tiryaqul Qulub, p. 35, Ruhani Khazain, vol. 15, p. 203. 98. Ibid., Tiryaqul Qulub, pp. 35/36; Ruhani Khazain, vol. 15, p. 204 99. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 5 144

Page 157

MELANCHOLIA. Abdul Hafeez joins the bandwagon of Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam. Ahmad's as adversaries to prove that he suffered from melancholic depression and to establish this false charge, he quotes ancient and medieval as well as antiquated medical opinions 100 despite the fact that the world has advanced in this field of knowledge to such an extent that modern authorities on human psychology and psychiatry have not only rejected these outdated opinions relied upon by the author of Two in One but have even questioned the more recent classifications in this field and admitted that 'it has become clear that many older classifications of concepts of illness need to be extensively modified. 1101 Yet, the pseudo experts of human psychology and psychiatry such as Abdul Hafeez rely upon these primitive opinions and also argue that these defunct classifications of ancient writers are as valid today as these were more than 2,000 years ago. 102 It is, therefore, not surprising that the more recent experts of human psycho-psychiatry have asserted that the entire realm of concepts pertaining to these fields are poorly formulated, particularly in the Middle Eastern and Asian cultures. Therefore, there are no equivalent words for modern terms in this field in these cultures 103, - only because specialists and practitioners in these regions of the world have failed to advance with the great strides being taken in this particular branch of medical science. Hence, what modern experts in the field of psycho-psychiatry define as normal anxiety appropriate to circumstances experienced as a natural concomitant of the arousal needed to deal with a particular situation 104, self proclaimed Asiatic experts of human behaviour such as Abdul. Hafeez still live in antiquated times and define such normal conditions as melancholic depression although they admit that 100. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 11/15 101. Stuart A. Montgomery, Anxiety and Depression, p. vii 102. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 11/15 103. Stuart A. Montgomery, Anxiety and Depression, p. 9 104. p. 23 145

Page 158

in this day and age: 'we have entered an era in which the description of diseases are contributed by research orientated clinics and scientists.'105. At this stage, one would ask the author of Two in One if these ancient writers who he argues recognised these problems some 2,000 to 4,000 years 106 based their conclusions on research orientated clinical findings? Did the Greek physician. Hippocrates who apparently recognised these psychiatric problems some 2,300 years ago or his countryman Galen, who during the Roman era wrote about depression 107, do so as a result of clinical orientated research? Did Robert Burton who in 1630 CE 'summarised what was known at that time as depression and categorised melancholia¹108 do so on the basis of any research orientated clinical findings?. The fact of the matter is that the concept of clinical research in the field of psychology was not known until 1879 CE when. Wilhelm Wundt, who was trained as a physiologist and not a psychologist, opened the first psychology laboratory at the. University of Leipzig in Germany. But, even he and his colleagues restricted their clinical research to themselves and the validity of their findings were seriously questioned in the second decade of the twentieth century by qualified psychologists. 109 Prior to this, philosophers as well as doctors of medicine merely speculated about the mental process 110 and although significant as a foundation upon which the science of psycho-psychiatry developed, to argue that these speculations are valid even today would be extremely naive.. In fact, even Sigmund Freud, whose hypothesis are undeniably the foundation of modern psychology has had many of his theories classified as vague or imprecise and even complex¹11 and therefore, not only challenged 112 and revised 113 but also 105. Shah, Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 13 108. Ibid. 111. p. 27 106. Ibid., p. 12 109. Gross, Richard D. Psychology. p. 2 112. Ibid. p. 224 107. Ibid. 113. Ibid., 110. Ibid. p. 342 146

Page 159

proven wrong by modern research. 114 It is an established fact that with modern technology opening far greater avenues of research in the field of human behaviour, many of Freud's theories of the early century are disagreed upon and also not accepted by most modern psychologists. 115 In fact, his best known dream theory116 in which he contradicted the essence of. Islamic teachings on the concept of dreams which he defined as wish fulfilment of a forbidden urge and an expression of repressed sexual desires in disguised form and also essentially a hallucinatory experience has been challenged.117 One would be rather interested in knowing how this admirer of Freud, Abdul Hafeez reconciles the Austrian born Jewish psychiatrist's theory of dreams to the. Quranic verse: 'And it is not for man that Allah should speak to him except by revelation, or from behind a veil or by sending a messenger to reveal by His command what He pleases 118 - the expression from behind the veil also suggesting the medium of dreams and Hadhrat Muhammad's statement that 'the dreams sa of a righteous person are one forty six parts of prophethood'¹19 as well as the recorded fact of Hadeeth that 'the commencement of the Divine Inspiration to Allah's Apostles was in the form of good righteous dreams in his sleep.' 1120. If this ignorant pir from Gujjo had ever read Freud's theories which he pretends to have but which one is certain he has not since he cannot even spell his name correctly, 121 he would have realised that these sufficiently contradict the essence of Islamic teachings and, not surprisingly so, since Freud was largely influenced by Charles Darwin's theory of evolution which argued that humans and animals differ only quantitatively and not qualitatively. 122 In view of this background of Freud's beliefs on which he mostly based his study of human mental processes, one's attention is drawn to Abdul Hafeez's comment while discussing Freud's theory to the effect as to one can imagine what would have happened if Freud had an opportunity to 115. Ibid., p. 398 114. Ibid., p. 346 116. Freud, S. The Interpretation of Dreams 117. Gross, Richard D. Psychology, p. 408 118. Al Quran 42.52 119. Sahih Bukhari 87.2 121. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, pgs. 12 & 13 120. Ibid. 87.1 122. Gross, Richard D. Psychology, p. 417/18 147

Page 160

study Hadhrat Ahmadas 123 One is certain that if he had ever had an opportunity to meet Hadhrat Ahmadas, Freud would have seen the idiocy of any of his theories which proposed to deny the concept of Divine revelation being vouchsafed unto mankind through the medium of dreams. But, if he had ever had an opportunity to study the author of Two in One, he may have been further convinced of his belief that at least his subject. Abdul Hafeez did not qualitatively differ from animals.. However, to return to Freud as an all time authority on human psychology, while one does not deny his great contribution to this field of learning, the author of Two in One is probably not aware that some of his theories are so ridiculous, as for instance those on the Odeipus/Electra complex, that only abnormal people like Abdul Hafeez would believe them. In fact, Freud's theories were not only criticised by his own daughter 124 but even he, himself, constantly revised and modified much of these until his death 125 and in recent times, according to experts in the field, 'literally thousands of empirical studies of Freud's theories have been conducted in which many aspects of these have been rejected and reshaped. 126 Consequently, the western world has made great strides in its understanding in the field of psychopsychiatry while people like Abdul Hafeez still subscribe to outdated ancient views. One is, therefore, not surprised that while the western world has today advanced in every sphere of life and has even soared the sky to reach other galaxies and even land human beings on some, people in Abdul Hafeez's native Sindh still ride horse driven tanga and yaka or donkey driven gadha gadee. This mode of a relatively primitive life is possibly explained by Abdul Hafeez's insistence to rely upon ancient knowledge and consequently his refusal to grow with the world and look forward.. The other authorities which the author of Two in One has cited to establish his allegations against Hadhrat Ahmadas are proven unreliable from the evidence contained within his quoted 123. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 13 124. Freud, Anna. The Ego and the Mechanism of Defence 125. Gross, Richard D. Psychology, p. 657 126. Ibid., p. 670 148

Page 161

statements. For instance, his citation of Hakeem Ghulam Jeelani identifies one of the symptoms of melancholia as 'lack of appetite 127 while his quotation of Hakeem Mohammad Azam. Khan suggests 'increased appetite or at least a false feeling of appetite' as a symptom of melancholia. 128 It would be interesting to know how Abdul Hafeez proposes to reconcile these contradictory statements by two of his chosen authorities on the question of the symptoms of one ailment.. The ignorance of these hakims used as an authority is further illustrated by the fact that they consider the liver and stomach to be the reservoir of sexual powers and drive. 129 One therefore need not comment further on the credibility of such eastern experts of human psychology. However, had the author of Two in One studied the life of Hadhrat Ahmadas with such honesty which not only behove a true Muslim but any well bred human being, he would have found that Hadhrat Ahmad's as emotional condition was a 'natural concomitant of the arousal of the need to deal with the prevailing situation with which Islam was confronted.' Since he was a commissioned apostle of God. Almighty, as such his heart bled at the transgression he witnessed around him in this world. He was also extremely grieved at the state of the Muslim ummah which was under severe attack from all corners and it pained him to witness the foul abuse directed against his beloved master, Hadhrat. Muhammadsa by the enemies of Islam. At one stage in his life, he stated: 'So many books full of vile abuse and defamation of the Holy. Prophets have been printed and published, the perusal of which makes one's body tremble. Our heart is so much in tribulation that if these people were to slaughter our children before our eyes and were to cut to pieces our sincere and beloved friends and were to kill us with great humiliation and 127. Makhzan e Hikmat. vide. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 13 128. Askeer e Azam. vide. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, P. 13 129. Jeelani, Hakeem Dr. Ghulam. Makhzan e Hikmat, vide. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 13 149

Page 162

were to take possession of our belongings, we call to witness. that even in such a case we would not suffer so much grief and our heart would not be so severely wounded as we have suffered and endured under this abuse and defamation which has been directed against the Holy Prophetsa 1130. He undertook the defence of Islam and the honour of its. Prophet single handed only to become a target of the abuse from within the ummah. He had to, therefore, confront the challenge not only from Christian and Hindu clergy but also from the Muslim ulema who on some occasions even sided with the enemies of Islam to the detriment of their own faith.. Which human being possessed of mortal powers would not suffer anxiety under such unfavourable conditions? And if, as a result of this anxiety, Hadhrat Ahmadas did suffer normal anxiety appropriate to circumstances experienced or even depression at the state of the Muslim attitude, then what is so objectionable about it? Modern science has proven that anxious moods, fears, tension, cardiovascular conditions, insomnia, depressed moods, somatic anxiety, gastrointestinal disturbance, genitourinary disorders are all possible in a state of anxiety. 131. But this does not lead one to the conclusion that the person suffering such anxiety is a psychiatric case since according to experts in the field of human psychology, anxiety is a perfectly normal emotion: 'in everyday life and may often serve the useful function of spurring us on to necessary action. The emotion of anxiety would be experienced as normal if it was appropriate to the circumstances, and accepted as a natural concomitant of the arousal needed to deal with a particular situation.'132. Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas nowhere stated that he suffered from hypochondria or hysteria or else melancholia or epilepsy. Honesty demands that one admits to a statement 130. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Ayenae Kamalat e Islam; Ruhani Khazain, vol. 5, pp. 51/2 131. Stuart, A. Montgomery. Anxiety and Depression, p. 4 132. Ibid., p. 23 150

Page 163

ra by Hadhrat Mirza Bashir Ahmad to the effect that Hadhrat. Ummul Momineena did once mention that he suffered from hysteria but this was a case of sheer misunderstanding of medical terms by her. She was not a physician nor an expert in medical science and hence she mistakenly described migraine to which Hadhrat Ahmad as was liable as hysteria. It is, therefore, extremely dishonest of his adversaries to manipulate such statements in evidence which do not express an expert medical opinion.. One suggests that Abdul Hafeez first educate himself on melancholia with reference to modern research on this illness before he proceeds to pass any verdicts on Hadhrat Ahmadas.. He may yet find that it is a mental disorder characterised by a feeling of dejection usually followed by withdrawal symptoms.. But, it is an established fact of history that Hadhrat Ahmadas did not, at any stage in his life, suffer from any such dejection nor did he ever withdraw from active life. In fact, to his last day, he remained engrossed in his Divine mission and his incomplete book, Paigham Sulh is evidence of this fact.. Abdul Hafeez argues on the authority of Abu Ali ibn Sena that sufferers of melancholia claim prophethood. Therefore, he considers Hadhrat Ahmad's as claim a result of this illness. 133 In the first instance, one would suggest that he first decide as which of his naive suggestions he would like the masses to believe before he proceeds to make a bigger fool of himself than he already has. For instance, while he attributes Hadhrat. Ahmad's as claim to prophethood to alleged mental disorders on page 18 of his book, on page 41 of the same book, he reverses his stand to attribute these alleged mental disorders to his claim of prophethood. Such contradictions by the author of Two in. One draw one's attention to his own anecdote of a bald person successfully selling oil to remedy baldness until his wife pulls off his cap and exposes his falsehood to the world. 134 It seems that in making such contradictory statements, Abdul Hafeez does not need the assistance of his wife to pull off his cap to 133. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 18 151 134. Ibid., p. 39

Page 164

expose his inveracity to the world since he does that himself quite successfully.. The author of Two in One also fails to appreciate that this is not the first time that an apostle of God has been accused of having made a claim to prophethood on account of such mental abnormality. Unless Abdul Hafeez has forgotten, one would remind him once again that the Holy Quran declares that the leaders amongst Hadhrat Noah's as people attempted to influence the masses against him by arguing that his claim to be an apostle of God Almighty was a result of some mental disorder.. They stated: 'He is only a mortal like yourselves; he seeks to gain superiority over you. If God so willed, He could have sent down angels. We have never heard of such a thing among our ancestors. He is but stricken with madness; so wait, therefore, concerning him for a while. '135. It also states that these disbelievers rejected the truth and called the blessed Messenger as a liar and declared that 'he is a madman.136 Hadhrat Noah's as successor Hadhrat Hudas suffered similarly at the hands of his people who despite being aware of the fate of their predecessors argued against his prophethood because they believed that he had been smitten with madness by their idols and hence they said to him: 'O Hud, thou hast not brought us any clear proof, and we are not going to forsake our gods merely because of thy saying, nor are we going to believe in thee; We can only say that some of our gods may have seized thee with imbecility.' +137. The people of Hadhrat Salihas were also convinced that his claim to prophethood was a result of him suffering mental disorders and hence they stated to him: 'Thou art only one of those bewitched.'138 135. Al Quran 23.25/26 136. Ibid., 54.10 137. Ibid., 11.55 138. Ibid., 26.154 152

Page 165

Hadhrat Mosesas, the great Israelite prophet who was brought up as a prince in the palaces of the Egyptian pharaohs and who grew up to be an extremely intelligent person under the eyes of the royal household was still denounced as an imbecile by the. Pharaoh himself who told the Israelite nation: 'Most surely, this Messenger of yours who has been sent to you is a madman.'139. Hadhrat Jesusas was similarly accused of being possessed by the powers of the devil and hence the Pharisees argued against his prophethood on the grounds: 'This fellow doth not cast out devils but by Beelzebub, the prince of devils.'140. The Holy Quran also states that during the age of Prophet. Muhammadsa, the Kuffar of that age considered him to be suffering from madness. 141 Hence, God Almighty asked him to declare: 'Say, I only exhort you to one thing: that you stand up before. Allah in twos and singly and reflect. There is no madness in your companion; he is only a Warner to you of an impending punishment.1142. A study of Abdul Hafeez's book gives evidence of the fact that he argues against Hadhrat Ahmad's as prophethood on the same grounds on which these disbelievers in the age of earlier prophets argued against the prophethood of God's apostles in their respective times. He accuses Hadhrat Ahmadas of suffering from madness 143 just as the kuffar during the periods of the aforementioned prophets accused them of suffering from madness. He calls upon Ahmadi Muslims to disassociate themselves from their prophet on the alleged ground that 139. Ibid., 26.28 140. Matthew 12.24 143. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 2 141. Al Quran 23.71 142. Ibid., 34.47 153

Page 166

Hadhrat Ahmadas was insane 144 and so did the chief amongst. Hadhrat Noah's as age discouraged people from joining him by stating that he was a mere mortal stricken with madness. He alleges that Hadhrat Ahmad's as claim to prophethood was a result of him being stricken with mental disorder 145 as did the kuffar allege that Hadhrat Hud's as prophethood was a result of mental disorder. He claims that Hadhrat Ahmadas suffered hallucinations 146 and so did the disbelievers during Hadhrat. Salih's as age claim that he suffered from delusions. He endeavours to impress upon Ahmadi Muslims that no sound mind can accept that God could send an imbecile as a messenger 147 and so did Pharaoh try to impress upon the. Israelites that Hadhrat Moses as was an imbecile. He attributes. Hadhrat Ahmad's as prophethood to the influence of Satan 148 whom he considers to be the teacher of angels 149 and so did the. Pharisee of Hadhrat Jesus's as age accuse him of being under the influence of the prince of devils. He considers the claims and revelations of Hadhrat Ahmadas as rumblings of a deranged person 150 and so did the kuffar of Mecca consider Hadhrat. Muhammad's sa claims and revelations as such. But, God. Almighty revealed to Hadhrat Muhammadsa: 'In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful. By the Pen and by the [Record] which [men] write. Thou are not, by the grace of thy Lord, mad or possessed. Nay, verily for him is a. Reward unfailing: And thou [standest] on an exalted standard of character. Soon will thou see and they will see. Which of you is afflicted with madness. Verily, it is thy Lord that knoweth best, which [among men] hath strayed from His path:. And He knoweth best those who receive true Guidance. So hearken not to those who deny [the Truth]. Their desire is that thou shouldst be plaint: so would they be plaint: Heed not the type of despicable man, ready with oaths, A slanderer, going about with calumnies, [Habitually] hindering [all] good, 144. Ibid., p. 18 148. Ibid., p. 41 145. ibid., p. 41 146. Ibid., p. 2 149. Ibid., p. 40 147. Ibid., p. 18 150. Ibid., P. 14 154

Page 167

Transgressing beyond bounds, Deep in sin. Violent [and cruel], with all that, base born -.1151. Abdul Hafeez has also had the audacity to attribute Hadhrat. Ahmad's as prophethood to confused dreams, not realising that it is a long established practice of the deniers of God's messengers to argue against their apostleship on such an assertion. The Holy Quran states that whenever a prophet is sent to those who heed not to the message, the disbelievers allege the same thing. It declares: 'Nay, they say, these are Medleys of dreams! forged it! - Nay, He is but a poet!"152. Nay, He. Need one say more on Abdul Hafeez's obnoxious allegations?. The Holy Quran, the author of Two in One dare not disagree, is an admonition for mankind for all times. It contains essential lessons for it and one of the lesson which Ahmadi Muslims have learnt from the noble Book is that it is a wont of disbelievers to reject 153 as well as mock 154 the messengers of God. Almighty. Therefore, if apostles of God have been previously rejected and scoffed at, what does it matter if people like Abdul. Hafeez reject and scoff Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas since every Ahmadi Muslim appreciates that God Almighty has, in. His wisdom made: 'for every prophet an enemy from among the sinners.'155. The aforementioned discussion should answer Abdul Hafeez's question in relation to the illnesses attributed to Hadhrat. Ahmadas of Qadian 156 and so should it indicate to him sufficiently that he is no less a disbeliever and an enemy of an apostle of God than his predecessors were disbelievers and enemies of God's apostles in the days bygone. 151. Al Quran 68.1/4 153. Al Quran 6.35 152. Ibid., 21.5. English Translation, Abdullah Yusuf Ali 154. Ibid., 6.11 155. Ibid., 25.32 156. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 36 155

Page 168

FORGETFULNESS. Despite a claim to proficiency in several fields of religious as well as secular knowledge, Abdul Hafeez considers forgetfulness contrary to the characteristics of a prophet ¹57 knowing the least that the best of men have for some reason or the other been subject to forgetfulness in their lives. Hadhrat 'Abd Allah ibn. Bujaina™ for instance reports in relation to Hadhrat Khatamal. Anbiyyasa: 'Allah's Apostles once led us in prayer and offered two Rak'at and got up [for the third Rak'at] without sitting [after the second Rak'a].'158. Hadhrat Abu Huraira", also reports in relation to Hadhrat. Muhammadsa. 'Once Allah's Apostles offered two Rak'at and finished his prayer. Dhul Yadain asked him, "Has the prayer been reduced or have you forgotten?" Allah's Apostle said, "Has Dhul. Yadain spoken the truth?" The people replied in the affirmative. Then Allah's Apostle sa stood up and offered the remaining two Rak'at and performed the Taslim.'159. In another Hadeeth, reported on the authority of Hadhrat 'Abd. Allah ibn Masudra, it is stated that: 'Once Allah's Apostle sa offered five Rak'at in the Zuhr prayer, and somebody asked him whether there was some increase in the prayer. Allah's Apostle sa said "What is that?" He said, "You have offered five Rak'at." So Allah's Apostle sa performed two prostrations of Sahu after Taslim.'160. Hadhrat 'Ayesha Siddiqara, stated that at one stage in his life, 157. Ibid., p. 18 158. Sahih Bukhari 22.19 159. Ibid., 22.20 160. Ibid. 156

Page 169

Hadhrat Muhammadsa. 'started imagining that he had done a thing that he had not really done.' +161. She further stated in another Hadeeth. Hadeeth that Hadhrat. Muhammadsa: 'would think that he had some liaison with his blessed spouses while he actually had not. 1162. Such instances when our beloved Prophets was forgetful are also recorded by other sources of Hadeeth literature. For instance, the Sahih of Muslim records a Hadeeth in which it is stated: 'A'isha reported that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) during his last illness inquired: Where would I be tomorrow, where would I be tomorrow (thinking that the turn of A'isha was not very near) and when it was my turn, Allah called him to His Heavenly Home and his head was between my neck and chest.". One would now ask Abdul Hafeez that if a person of the calibre of the Khatamal Anbiyyasa could be given to forgetfulness, then how does he expect any other person to be immune to it? Should he not know that forgetfulness is a perfectly human attribute from which no human being has been known to be immune. Alas! were the author of Two in One aware of what Hadhrat Muhammad sa had stated in relation to forgetfulness, he would have possibly known better than object to such matters which are a fact of human life. Hadhrat 'Abd. Allah ibn Masuda stated that on one occasion, Hadhrat. Muhammad sa admonished his Companions: 'I am a human being and I forget as you forget, so when I 161. Ibid., 71.47 162. Ibid., 71.49 157 163. Sahih Muslim 1005.5985

Page 170

forget, remind me.' 1164. In another version of the same Hadeeth, Hadhrat Muhammadsa is stated by Hadhrat 'Abd Allah ibn Masuda to have declared: 'Verily, I am a human being like you. I remember as you remember and I forget as you forget.' $165. There are several other Traditions in Hadeeth literature in which Hadhrat Muhammad sa has been stated to have been forgetful during the course of his life and no where in the history of Muslims has any Muslim ever been known to either object to him being forgetful nor even enquired of him if it is proper of the apostles of God being subject to this very human attribute. What then, is so offensive about Hadhrat Mirza. Ghulam Ahmad as being subject to this perfectly human attribute from which not even the greatest of men known to history,. Hadhrat Muhammad Mustaphasa was not immune? One need not comment any further on this issue except state that in attempting to ridicule Hadhrat Ahmadas on the question of forgetfulness, the author of Two in One has once again expressed his enmity towards him and yet he takes exception to the likes of him being challenged as enemies of Hadhrat. Ahmadas and the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community in the. Mubahala invitation. What else, if not an enemy would Abdul. Hafeez want the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community to call him? 164. Ibid., 213.1168 165. Ibid., 213.1178 158

Page 171

ALCOHOLISM. As customary with the enemies of the righteous, the author of. Two in One endeavours to cast suspicion on the character of. Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas by accusing him of alcoholism.. In support of this allegation, he quotes a letter allegedly written by Hadhrat Ahmadas to an Ahmadi Muslim in Lahore asking him to purchase for him a bottle of Tonic Wine, the nature of which Abdul Hafeez declares, when inquired from the shopkeeper was stated to be a 'type of strong and intoxicating wine which is imported from England in sealed bottles.'. In the first instance, it should be observed that in this letter itself which Abdul Hafeez quotes in his book as Hadhrat. Ahmad's as, the recipient of the letter was asked to 'purchase one bottle of Tonic wine. 1167 Now, if this product was, as falsely alleged, supposed to be a strong intoxicating wine, then would. Abdul Hafeez clarify as to how strong was it that the person whom he accuses of alcoholism ordered one solitary bottle of it only and not a full case?. Secondly, this letter was, according to Abdul Hafeez's own admission, written to: 'Hakeem Mohammad Hussain Qadiani, owner of Dispensary. Rafiq us Sehat Lahore.'168. If the product ordered was a strong intoxicating wine, then why should the request be sent to a qualified hakeem and an owner of a medical pharmacy, to purchase it from another pharmacy?. The mere fact that a request to purchase a bottle of Tonic Wine was sent to a qualified medical practitioner and an owner of pharmacy is in itself an indication that, as the word tonic suggests, it was a medical product. And, irrespective of Abdul. Hafeez's blatant lie that when the nature of this product was inquired from the shopkeeper from where this tonic was 166. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 16 167. Ibid. 168. Ibid. 159

Page 172

purchased, incidentally a pharmacist, it was stated to be a strong intoxicating wine - the fact remains that the Tonic Wine requested in this letter was a medical product. This is proven by the description of the product in a medical listing which, under the heading of Tonic Wines, states that it is: 'Restorative after child birth; prophylactic against malarial fevers, anaemia and anorexia.". How then, could a qualified pharmacist who imported Tonic. Wine from England to sell it in his shop as a medical product inform Abdul Hafeez's source that it was a strong intoxicating wine when a medical publication classifies it as a restorative tonic effective after child birth and prophylactic against malaria and fevers or anaemia and anorexia? Is it possible that the owner of the shop was misinformed of the product he was selling or that the source of the author of Two in One is lying and Abdul Hafeez is repeating this lie on purpose?. Abdul Hafeez has, as it has already been shown, taken great exception to the appellation of a liar being stated on the cover of the Mubahala challenge. 170 He also justified his decision to being engaged in this controversy on account of it. 171 But, in making this decision to reply to the Mubahala challenge with his book Two in One, he seems to have made a great mistake since in doing so, he has sufficiently proven himself to be a personified liar. For instance, he has attempted to pull the wool over the eyes of the masses by pretending that he has reached the conclusions in his book 'after honestly studying the life of the founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement. (172 Yet, the truth is that he has not conducted any independent research of the. Ahmadiyya Muslim Movement but rather borrowed from the hostile literature previously produced by his predecessors who copied from their predecessors. This is proven, amongst others, by the fact that the letter which Abdul Hafeez allegedly quotes 169. Materia Medica of Pharmaceutical Combinations and Specialities, p. 197 170. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 5 160 171. Ibid. 172. Ibid. p. 67

Page 173

as Hadhrat Ahmad'sas in his book is stated to be quoted by him from: 'letters of Imam to P.S. Collection of letters by Mirza Ghulam. Ahmad Qadiani to Hakeem Mohammad Hussain Qadiani.'173. Now, if one was to ask him as to what is meant by 'letters of. Imam to P.S.' in this reference note, the author of Two in One would not have a clue. The reason being that he concocted this letter and borrowed the reference note, with slight alterations, from his predecessor Ehsan Elahi Zaheer whom God Almighty blew up to pieces while making a speech in Lahore. However, the mistake which he has made is that whereas Zaheer claims this letter to be cited from p. 5, meaning, page 5 of Hadhrat. Ahmad's as letter to Hakeem Muhammad Hussain 174, Abdul. Hafeez has assumed its existence in a collection of Hadhrat. Ahmad's as letters to the P.S., i.e., the Private Secretary.. Secondly, if, as stated by Ehsan Elahi Zaheer, Hadhrat Ahmad as made this request for the bottle of tonic wine on page 5 of his letter to Hakeem Muhammad Hussain, then how is the same letter cited in Abdul Hafeez's book is written in 8 lines only? Is there not an indication here that either of these two hostile authors is lying? The truth, however, is that both are lying and one would illustrate how.. It is an established fact of history that Hadhrat Ahmad's as family had been traditionally engaged in practising medicine and the author of Two in One himself records Hadhrat. Ahmad's as statement that he learnt medicine from his father. 175. At the time of writing this letter, Hadhrat Ahmad as was an expert physician. It was therefore quite normal that he order medicines which were not necessarily for his own use. However, this letter to Hakeem Muhammad Hussain first informed him of the birth of Hadhrat Ahmad's as youngest son, Hadhrat Mirza. Mubarak Ahmadra and then listed a number of medicines 173. Ibid., p. 16 175. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 8 161 174. Zaheer, Ehsan Elahi, Qadiyaniat, p. 60

Page 174

he required Hakeem Muhammad Hussain to purchase from the. British pharmacist in Lahore, including Tonic Wine which, according to medical listings, is a restorative tonic after childbirth 176 and which according to the circumstances surrounding Hadhrat Ahmad's as domestic life was required to assist his wife regain her strength after the birth of their son.. It is a recorded fact that Hadhrat Amajan™ª had suffered severe weakness during this pregnancy and Hadhrat Ahmadas had alluded to this in one of his letter addressed to Hadhrat Seth. Abdur Rahmana in which he informed him of the birth of. Hadhrat Mirza Mubarak Ahmadra and also stated: 'The time of delivery was very near and on June 14, with the first pains, my wife's condition became serious. Her whole body became cold and she suffered from extreme weakness.. It seemed as if she would faint, and I imagined that she was about to leave the world. The children were all deeply overcome and the women and her mother were almost out of their senses for the crisis had arisen suddenly. Believing that she was at her last breath and yet being certain of God's power to perform wonders, I supplicated for her health and her condition changed. '177. Where is the harm in a husband whose wife has recently given birth to a child purchasing a bottle of restorative tonic for her to aid her in her recovery particularly when she had suffered from severe weakness during pregnancy and in childbirth?. The author of Two in One may to his hearts wont accuse. Hadhrat Ahmadas of alcoholism but the fact remains that he considered any kind of intoxicant drink one of the greatest vices known to mankind. Hence he stated in relation to it: 'The two great vices in which grow passion are drinking and prostitution.'178 176. Materia Medica of Pharmaceutical Combinations and Specialities, p. 197 177. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Maktoobat Ahmadiyya, vol. v, pt. 1, p. 26 178. Ibid., How to get rid of the Bondage Sin, Review of Religions, January 1902 162

Page 175

This article in which Hadhrat Ahmadas defined alcoholic drinks as one of the two great vices was written with the view to present to the world the remedy for devouring the evil of the times. 179 He added: 'Drunkenness is the root of all evil and the intoxicated man is likely to commit the most horrible crimes on the slightest provocation. Other evils are inseparable from it. Piety and drunkenness are like light and darkness respectively and can never exist together in the same place. The man who is not aware of its evil consequences is not far sighted.'180. He also stated that every person who drinks alcohol has the sin of those who drink it under his influence on his shoulders and he called upon the wise to desist from it and shun this evil because it is an addiction which destroys man in so much that it damages the mind and kills thousands of people every year while it also earns one severe punishment in the Hereafter. 181 He declared that it breeds lack of piety and removes the fear of God from one's heart 182 because its consumption and the fear of God do not go together. 183. Hadhrat Ahmadas attributed the deplorable state of the. European and American societies to the consumption of alcohol and stated that its use was the cause of lack of piety amongst these nations 184 and the root of their destruction. 185 He appealed to the emotions of Muslims by reminding them that the Holy. Quran had not permitted its use and the noble Prophet of. Islams had always abstained from every kind of intoxicant. He therefore asked them that if they indulged themselves with any kind of intoxicant, then whose way did they, despite their claim to be Muslims, profess to follow. 186 179. Ibid. 180. Ibid. 181. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Kashti Nuh, p. 65; Ruhani Khazain, vol. 19, pp. 70/71 182. Ibid., Naseem e Dawat, No. 2, pp. 68; Ruhani Khazain, vol. 19, p. 433 183. Ibid., p. 69; Ruhani Khazain, vol. 19, p. 434 184. Ibid., pp. 67/8; Ruhani Khazain, vol. 19, p. 432/33 185. Ibid., Kashti Nuh, f/n. p. 66; Ruhani Khazain, vol. 19, p. 71 163 186. Ibid.

Page 176

Hence, he asked Muslims to fear God and shun this evil so that their lives be extended and they become the recipients of. God Almighty's blessings. 187 He laid down the condition of abstention from every kind of intoxicant a pre requisite to being a member of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community and in his admonition to his Jamaat, Hadhrat Ahmad as stated: 'Whosoever does not wholly and completely keep away from every sin and every evil action like wine, gambling, looking lustfully at women, dishonesty, bribes and from every kind of illegal gratification is not of my community.' 1188. Had Abdul Hafeez been honest with his perusal of Hadhrat. Ahmad's as writings, he may have come across all the aforementioned statement and also his declaration that he would dread to use impure things, including all kinds of intoxicants, even at times of severe illness. 189 However, such apprehensions in relation to the use of intoxicant drinks does not appear to be shared by the Hanifi school of Jurisprudence to which Abdul Hafeez apparently also claims to belong. 190. Hence, whereas Muslim scholars have generally expressed an opinion that with his statement in relation to the preparation of. Nabidh 191, Hadhrat Muhammad sa prohibited the preparation of it as a precautionary measure as its fermentation begins very soon and the majority of scholars deem it to be an act of disapproval: 'but according to Imam Abu Hanifa and Qadi Abu Yusuf, there is not even disapproval in it and its prohibition was valid only in the early period.'192. How does the author of Two in One propose to explain this? 187. Ibid., p. 65; Ruhani Khazain, vol. 19, p. 71 188. Ibid., p. 17; Ruhani Khazain, vol. 19, pp. 18/19 189. Ibid. Naseem e Dawat, p. 69; Ruhani Khazain, vol. 19, 190. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 49 p. 434 191. Sahih Muslim 836.4987 192. Siddiqui, Abdul Hamid. vide. English Translation of Sahih Muslim, Note No. 2409, p. 1101 164

Page 177

DRUG ADDICTION. Beside this false charge of alcoholism, Abdul Hafeez also accuses Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas of drug addiction and to prove this allegation, he claims to cite a statement made by. Hadhrat Mirza Bashirud Din Mahmud Ahmadra in which he allegedly stated that Hadhrat Ahmadas prepared a medicine the main constituent of which was opium and he used this on and off during attacks of disease. 193 The interesting thing is that while the author of Two in One claims that this statement was reported in the Al Fazl of Qadian, dated 19th July, 1929 194, the same statement is claimed by his spiritual predecessors, Ehsan. Elahi Zaheer in his book Qadiyaniat, An Analytical Survey, to have been made in the Al Fazl of Qadian, dated 19th October, 1929,195 What do such contradictions in relation to one statement attributed to one person in these hostile publications suggest to a perceptive person?. Hadhrat Ahmad's as views in relation to consumption of any kind of intoxicant have already been stated in the preceding pages and within his numerous calls to people to shun the use of these evil things, he described opium also, as something which is addictive and which destroys man. Therefore, Abdul. Hafeez may, to his heart's wont concoct this false charge against. Hadhrat Ahmadas but it is a recorded fact of the Ahmadiyya. Muslim literature that Hadhrat Ahmadas stated: 196 'Once a friend advised me that opium is good for diabetes and there is no hitch if it is taken for medicine. I replied that it is very kind of you that you have shown sympathy. But, if I form the habit of taking opium as a cure for diabetes, I am afraid people might make fun by saying that the first messiah was a drunkard and the second an opium addict. 1197 193. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 15/16 195. Zaheer, Ehsan Elahi,. Qadiyaniat, r/n. 4, p. 58. 194. Ibid, p. 16 196. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Kashti Nuh, p. 65; Ruhani Khazain, vol. 19, p. 70/71 197. Ibid., Naseem e Dawat p. 69; Ruhani Khazain, vol. 19, p. 434/35 165

Page 178

EDUCATION. Abdul Hafeez then continues his tirade against Hadhrat Mirza. Ghulam Ahmadas of Qadian to forcefully assert that he neither 'had the qualifications to be called an A'lim, nor he completed the course of Mufti, to issue Fatwa, and likewise did not give his hand into the hand of a spiritual guide.' He then proceeds to also object that Hadhrat Ahmadas did not complete his education.199 How much of an a'lim Abdul Hafeez himself is, is evident from his statement that in the Quranic: . 198 'verse of Mubahilla [Verse No., 61, Surah 3] Prophet of Allah [PBHU] has specified the time & place for Mubahilla with. Christians of Najran.' 1200. This verse of Surah Al Imran, according to non Ahmadiyya. Muslim publications of the Holy Quran reads: فَمَنْ حَاجَكَ فِيهِ مِنْ بَعْدِ مَا جَاءَ لَكَ مِنَ العِلمِ فَقُلْ تَعَالَوْا نَدْعُ أَبْنَاءَنَا وَأَبْنَاءَ كُمْ وَ نِسَاءَنَا وَنِسَاءَ كُم وَانْفُسَنَا وَ اَنْفُسَكُمْ تد ثمَّ نَبْتَهِلْ فَنَجْعَلْ لَعْنَتَ اللهِ عَلَى الْكَذِبِينَ .. ARABIC TEXT OF VERSE NO. 61 OF SURAH 3. VIDE. THE HOLY QUR'AAN,. PUBLISHED BY IDARA ISHA'AT E DINIYAT [P] LTD., NEW DELHI, PP. 62/63 '61. Faman haaajjaka fiihi min-ba'-di maa jaaa-'aka minal-'ilmi faqul ta-'aalaw nad-'u 'ab-naaa-'anaa wa 'ab-naaa-'akum wa nisaaa-'anaa wa nisaaa-'akum wa 'anfusanaa wa 'anfusakum summa nabta-hil fanaj-'al-la'-natallaahi ‘alal-kaazibiin.'. TRANSLITERATION OF VERSE NO. 61 OF SURAH 3 IN ROMAN SCRIPT. BY MUHAMMAD ABDUL HALEEM ELIASI. VIDE. THE HOLY QUR'AAN. PUBLISHED BY IDARA ISHA'AT E DINIYAT (P) LTD., NEW DELHI, PP. 62/63 198. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 41 199. Ibid. 200. Ibid., p. 52 166

Page 179

It is translated by non Ahmadiyya Muslim scholars of repute as: '61. And whoso disputeth with thee concerning him, after the knowledge which hath come unto thee, say [unto him]: Come!. We will summon our sons and your sons, and our women and your women, and ourselves and yourselves, then we will pray humbly [to our Lord] and [solemnly] invoke the curse of Allah upon those who lie.'. ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF VERSE NO. 61 OF SURAH 3. BY MUHAMMED MARMADUKE PICKTHALL. VIDE. THE HOLY QUR'AAN. PUBLISHED BY IDARA ISHA'AT E DINIYAT [P] LTD., NEW DELHI, PP. 62/63. Now, the question which one need ask this pseudo a'lim of. Gujjo is, where in this verse of Mubahala did the Prophet of. Allah sa specify the time and place for the Mubahala? Is this then not a case of either intentional misrepresentation of the Quran by the author of Two in One or else his sheer ignorance of the. Quranic text?. There are several other such instances in Abdul Hafeez's book which expose his ignorance of Islamic teachings, as for instance, his statement that 'Satan is a teacher of angels. 1201 Only a man like him could make such a statement since he appears to have been taught by the accursed Satan and in holding such obnoxious views in relation to God Almighty's Divinely guided and taught messengers, the angels, he probably believes that he too can thereby identify himself with them. However, while his meagre knowledge of Islamic theology has been sufficiently exposed in the preceding pages, the following pages should also expose his ignorance of history.. The essence of the objection which Abdul Hafeez has raised against Hadhrat Ahmadas in this instance is that he 'neither completed his education nor a course of mufti or even give his hand into the hands of a spiritual guide to be called an a'lim or be qualified as a mufti.' However, if he finds this objectionable, 201. Ibid., p. 40 167

Page 180

then the question which one would ask him here is whether our beloved master, the Prophet of Islam, Hadhrat Muhammad. Mustaphas received and completed his education to be called an a'lim or completed a course of mufti to be qualified to issue fatwa or even gave his hand in the hand of a spiritual guide? If so, then how would the author of Two in One explain the following passage of the Holy Quran in relation to Hadhrat. Muhammadsa: 'Those who follow the Apostle, the unlettered Prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own (Scriptures).' $202. A verse to the similar effect can also be found elsewhere in the. Holy Quran 203 on the basis of which the entire Muslim ummah claims that Hadhrat Muhammad sa did not know how to read or write. One would now ask Abdul Hafeez that, if the greatest of messengers sent unto this world by God Almighty, Hadhrat. Muhammads did not go through the discipline of education nor complete a course of mufti or subject himself to a spiritual guide and one does not find this objectionable, then why should he find it objectionable that Hadhrat Ahmadas did not go through a similar discipline?. Hadhrat Ahmad's as adversaries may, to their heart's wont, minimise his superb qualification as an a'lim of excessively high scholastic ability. But, this does not deny the fact that he was considered to be a scholar of incredible genius by his contemporaries. Maulana Abdullah al Imadi, the editor of. Vakeel of Amritsar stated in relation to him: 'Although Mirza Sahib had not received systematic education in current knowledge and theology, yet an assessment of his life shows that he had acquired a unique nature not granted to anyone. By the aid of his own study and his upright nature, he had attained sufficient mastery over religious literature. '204 202. Al Quran. 7.157. English Translation, Abdullah Yusuf Ali, p, 388 204. Imadi, Maulana Abdullah al. Vakeel, Amritsar, 30 May, 1908 168 203. Al Quran 62.2

Page 181

It was a result of this superb understanding of religious literature that Hadhrat Ahmadas was able to produce what the. Maulana defined as 'voluminous books in support of Islam. 1205. He then proceeded to state that: 'The state of ecstasy created by reading his invaluable books which were written to counter other religions and to uphold. Islam, still has not faded. His Braheen e Ahmadiyya overawed the non Muslims and raised the spirits of Islam. He presented to the world the captivating picture of religion, cleansed the blots and dust that had collected upon it as a result of superstitions and the natural weakness of the ignorant, In short, this book raised a loud echo in the world, at least within. India, which is still reverberating in our ears. 1206. Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, one of the greatest scholars the sub continent of India has ever produced was so impressed by. Hadhrat Ahmad's as scholarship that he considered him a: 'very great man, whose pen was a magic wand and whose tongue spell binding; whose brain was a complex of wonders; whose eyes could revive the dying and whose call aroused those in the graves; whose fingers held the wires of revolution and whose fists were electric batteries; who for thirty years was an earthquake and typhoon for the religious world and who, like the trumpet of Doomsday, awakened those lost in the slumber of life. 1207. The Maulana found himself obliged to hold Hadhrat Ahmadass in such high regard despite 'strong differences in respect of some of his claims 208 because he realised that: 'The literature produced by Mirza Sahib in his confrontation with the Christians and the Aryas had received the seal of general approval. 1209 205. Ibid. 208. Ibid. 206. Ibid. 207. Azad, Maulana Abul Kalam. Vakeel, Amritsar, 1908 209. Ibid. 169

Page 182

This great scholar of the Indian sub continent who later became the President of India and the pride of Indian Muslims acknowledged the debt in which Hadhrat Ahmadas had placed. Muslims. He stated: 'We have to acknowledge the value and greatness of this literature from the bottom of our hearts, now that it has done its work. This is because that time cannot be forgotten nor effaced from the mind when Islam was besieged by attacks from all sides, and the Muslims, who had been entrusted the defence of Islam by the Real Defender, as the means of defence in this world of causes and means, were lying flat sobbing in the aftermath of their shortcomings, doing nothing for Islam or not being able to do anything for it.'210. Maulana Abul Kalam Azad was not the only Muslim intellectual of his age who witnessed this pitiable state of the ummah on account of the failure of its ulema to rise to the need of the time and accomplish the task of the defence of Islam entrusted to them by God Almighty. He was also not the only person who witnessed the turn in the fortunes of Muslims with the appearance of Hadhrat Ahmadas on the scene. Maulana. Muhammad Sharif of Banglore referred to the attack against. Islam by Hindu and Christian clergy. He stated that while 'the followers of all religions were eager to put out the light of. Islam, Muslims had been most anxious over a long period that of the body of Muslim divines, someone, who may be inspired by God to stand up in support and defence of the faith, should write a book which should be in accord with the needs of the time, and which should set out on the basis of reason and scriptural arguments to prove that the Holy Quran is the Word of God and that the Holy Prophets, was a righteous Prophet of. God. 211 He proceeded to state: 'We are deeply grateful to God that this desire of ours has at 210. Ibid. 211. Sharif, Maulana Muhammad. Manshoor Muhammedi, Banglore, 25 Rajab, 1300 AH, p. 214 170

Page 183

last been fulfilled. Here is the book, the writing of which we had been awaiting for a long time. Its title is Braheen e. Ahmadiyya, and the author has set out in it three hundred conclusive arguments in proof of the truth of the Holy Quran and the prophethood of Muhammadsa 1212. Who, may one ask Abdul Hafeez was the author of this book for which Muslim divines had anxiously awaited and which the said scholar considered so 'wonderful, matchless and peerless" that he declared: 1213 'It is impossible to praise the book too highly. The fact is that the deep research with which this book has proven the argument for Islam upon the opponent faiths need no praise or eulogy. But we cannot refrain from saying that the book is without parallel'.214. Who was the author of this book which impressed the said. Muslim intellectual so much that he was even prepared to add to the award of 'ten thousand rupees already offered by Hadhrat. Ahmadas, another thousand rupees if anyone was able to write a reply to it'? 215 Who was the author of this book which the. Maulana considered 'a mirror of faith; full of the Quran; a torch that lights up the true way; a treasury of truth and a mine of guidance which acts as lightening on the stores of the enemy and one that burns their arguments' and which 'for the Muslims was a strong support for the Holy Book and a bright proof of the Mother of Books - one that unsettled and disturbed every enemy of religion'? 216 Was it not Hadhrat Ahmadas in regards to whom the Maulana Muhammad Sharif stated: 'the author of this book is the best of the divines, an accomplished scholar, pride of the Muslims of India, the accepted one of God Almighty, Maulvi Mirza Ghulam Ahmad 212. Ibid. 213. Ibid. 215. Ibid., 25 Rajab, 1300 AH, p. 214 214. Ibid., 5 Jamadi al Awwal, 1301 AH 216. Ibid. 171

Page 184

Sahib, chief of Qadian, district Gurdaspur, Punjab. Allah be praised!'217. The scholastic ability of this book, Hadhrat Ahmad's as first, had impressed Muslim ulema of the Indian sub continent so much that in the opinion of the editor of Isaaa'tus Sunnah, Maulvi. Muhammad Hussain Batalvi: 'this book, at this time and in view of the present circumstances, is such that the like of it has not appeared in. Islam up to now. 1218. The then leader of Ahle Hadeeth in India and editor of the popular Ahle Hadeeth journal was so impressed with this book that he proceeded to state: 'The excellence of this book, and the benefits accruing to. Islam from it, will not remain hidden to those who read it with a fair mind or to the readers of this review. Therefore, in accordance with the Divine command: 'Is not the reward for good but good' all the followers of Islam, be they Ahle. Hadeeth, Hanafi, Shia or Sunni, are obliged to support this book and its printing. The author of Braheen e Ahmadiyya has saved the honour of the Muslims. 1219. He also declared that his excellent review of Hadhrat Ahmad's as book was 'not an act of exaggeration and if anyone considered it to be so, then he stood challenged to show at least one such book which compared with Hadhrat Ahmad's as literary masterpiece.1220. The Braheen e Ahmadiyya was not the only literary work of. Hadhrat Ahmadas which won such universal acclaim as the saviour of the Muslim ummah. His paper read at the Conference of Religions held at Lahore in December 1896 was held in such regard by the Muslim intelligentsia that the editor of another 217. Ibid. 218. Batalvi, Maulvi Muhammad Hussain. Ishaatas Sunnah, vol. vii, no. 6,. June/August 1884, p. 169 219. ibid., p. 348 220. Ibid. 172

Page 185

Muslim periodical stated: 'If the paper by Mirza Sahib had not been there, the Muslims would have faced degradation and shame at the hands of other religions, But the powerful hand of God saved Islam from defeat and through that paper granted it such triumph that let alone the adherents, even the opponents cried out spontaneously: This paper is the best of all. This paper is the best of all!'221. This proficiency which Hadhrat Ahmadas had acquired in all fields of religious education was not restricted to written work only. According to Maulana Abul Kalam Azad: 'Natural intelligence, application and dexterity and continuous debates had lent Mirza Sahib a special splendour. He had vast knowledge not only of his own religion but also of other religions. And he was able to use his vast knowledge with great finesse. In the art of preaching and teaching, he had acquired the accomplishment that the person whom he addressed, of whatever understanding or religion, was thrown into deep thought by his spontaneous reply.' 1222. He then proceeded to define the state of affairs in the sub continent of India to declare that India, in that age, was an exhibition house of religions and a number of great and small faiths found here, along with their mutual struggles which announced their existence, could not be matched anywhere else in the world223 but: 'Mirza Sahib's claim was that he was the arbiter and judge for them all, but there is no doubt that he possessed a special talent to make Islam pre-eminent among all these religions.. This was due to his natural ability, taste for study, and hard work. It is not likely that a man of this grandeur will be born 221. Guhar Asafi, Calcutta, 24 January 1897 222. Azad, Maulana Abul Kalam. Vakeel, Amritsar, May, 1908 173 223. Ibid.

Page 186

again in the religious world of the Indian sub continent. '224. The author of Two in One finds it objectionable that Hadhrat. Ahmadas did not complete his education or a course of mufti nor did he give his hands into the hands of a spiritual guide, but Hadhrat Ahmad'sas contemporaries - unlike Abdul Hafeez, intellectuals within their own right, were impressed by what he had achieved in his life despite the fact that he had not received systematic education. For instance, Mirza Hairat Delhvi of the. Curzon Gazette stated: 'He did not receive any regular education in Arabic language, literature or grammar, yet he gained such proficiency in Arabic by his God given intellect and nature that he could write it quite naturally.' $225. The author of the above statement then proceeded to state that with this proficiency which Hadhrat Ahmadas had gained through his God given intellect and nature, he was able to write books of such high calibre that they could not be responded to.. He stated: 'The incomparable books which he wrote in refutation of the. Arya Samaj and Christian creeds, and the shattering replies he gave to the opponents of Islam, we have not seen any refutation of these. 1226. In fact, not only did Hadhrat Ahmad's as opponents fail to refute his incomparable books but according to Maulana Bashir ud Din of Riwari: 'Mirza Sahib, with his forceful speeches and magnificent writings shattered the foul criticism of the opponents of Islam. and silenced then for ever. 1227 224. Ibid. 225. Delhvi, Mirza Hairat. Curzon Gazette, Delhi, 1 June 1908 227. Din, Maulana Bashir ud. Sadiq ul Akhbar, Riwari; May, 1908 226. Ibid. 174

Page 187

Incidentally, he was able to achieve this fete because, as stated by an intellectual of the Indian sub continent: 'Although the deceased was a Punjabi, yet his pen was so powerful that today in the whole of Punjab, even in the whole of India, there is no author of such power. 1229 $228. He also acknowledged that Hadhrat Ahmadas 'completely changed the flow of the debate and laid the foundation for new literature in India' and 'on reading some of his writings, one goes into a state of ecstasy." It was for this reason that intellectuals of such integrity as Maulana Sayyid Waheed ud. Din, the editor of the Aligarh Institute Gazette stated Hadhrat. Ahmadas was an acknowledged author 230 who: 'left eighty books, twenty of them in Arabic. Undoubtedly, the deceased was a great fighter for Islam. 1231. This opinion was shared by Maulana Bashir ud Din of Riwari, who, on the death of Hadhrat Ahmadas declared: 'Justice requires that we condole the sudden and untimely death of such a resolute defender of Islam, helper of the. Muslims, and an eminent and irreparable scholar. '232. The editor of another journal also agreed with the aforementioned ulema and hence he stated that: 'The Mirza Sahib was specially renowned for his knowledge and scholarship. 1233. He then proceeded to applaud Hadhrat Ahmad's as literary contributions to the world of religion which he considered 228. Delhvi, Mirza Hairat. Curzon Gazette, Delhi, 1 June 1908 229. Ibid. 230. Din, Maulana Sayyid Waheed ud. Aligarh Institute Gazette, June 1908 232. Din, Maulana Bashir ud. Sadiq ul Akhbar, Riwari; May, 1908 233. Municipal Gazette, Lahore 231. Ibid. 175

Page 188

eloquent and added: 'In any case, we are grieved by his death for the reason that he was a Muslim. We believe that a scholar has been taken from the world.'234. Sir Muhammad Iqbal, the poet and philosopher believed to be one of the greatest thinkers produced by this century has often been quoted against the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community by its opponents. Yet, he considered Hadhrat Ahmad as to be: 'probably the profoundest theologian among modern Indian. Muhammadans.1235. This opinion was universally shared by the intellectuals of the. Indo Pak sub continent. Hence, a leading periodical of that time declared: 'The excellent merits and high spiritual accomplishments of. Mirza Sahib are too great for our humble observations in our journal. The cogent reasons and the brilliant arguments that he has brought forth in support of Islam and the Truth in so beautiful a manner shows beyond doubt that he has excelled in writings of the old and the new ulema in eloquence and presentation.1236. Such opinions in relation to Hadhrat Ahmad's as scholastic ability continue to be expressed in modern times also. Khawaja. Hasan Nizami stated that: 'Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Sahib was a very great venerable scholar of his time. We have to acknowledge his scholarship and accomplishments.'237 234. Ibid. 235. Iqbal, Muhammad. The Doctrine of Absolute Unity as expounded by Abdul. Karim Jilani, vide. The Indian Antiquary, vol. xxix, September 1900, p. 239 236. Riyaz Hind, 1st March, 1886 237. Nizami, Khawaja Hasan. Munadi, Delhi; 27 February/4 March 1930 176

Page 189

But, it is rather sad that Abdul Hafeez is so blinded by his prejudice that he fails to see what opinions scholars of such high repute as mentioned above expressed in relation to Hadhrat. Ahmad's as vast knowledge and scholarship, deep understanding of and mastery over religious literature, intellectual dexterity to use this with great finesse, natural ability and proficiency in languages and great authorship.. But then, it is traditionally true of the disbelievers to deny credit where it is due and this has been done numerously in history. Hadhrat Ahmadas was a mortal being and what does it matter if people like Abdul Hafeez deny his scholastic abilities and his great exposition of Islam and its teachings? The author of Two in One has to only look into history and he may yet find that the disbelievers in the prophethood of Hadhrat. Muhammadsa and the enemies of Islam have not spared, even,. God Almighty. Hence, people like H.G. Wells have stated in relation to the pure Word of Allah - the Holy Quran that, God forbid, 'regarded as literature or philosophy the Koran is certainly unworthy of its alleged Divine authorship. 1238. Abdul Hafeez may continue to minimise Hadhrat Ahmad's as achievements in the scholastic field but history records that he was a unique scholar, such in whom history itself takes pride and who cannot be replaced. And, to finally bring our discussion on this issue to a close, one leaves the author of Two in One to ponder over the words of Maulana Abul Kalam Azad in relation to Hadhrat Ahmad's as achievements in life. The. Maulana declared: 'Such people who produce a religious or intellectual revolution are not born often. These sons of history in whom it rightly takes pride appear but rarely on the world scene and when they do, they bring about a revolution for all to see.' 1239. But how can the likes of Abdul Hafeez, who are already blinded, see this revolution which Hadhrat Ahmadas brought? 238. Wells, H.G. A Short History of the World, p. 165 239. Azad, Maulana Abul Kalam. Vakeel, Amritsar, 1908 177

Page 190

FASTING DURING RAMADHAN. AND BREAKING OF FAST. The author of this extremely obnoxious publication makes a vile suggestion that Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas refrained habitually, from observing the fast during the month of. Ramadhan and to prove his false allegation, he quotes Hadhrat. Mirza Bashir Ahmadra from Seeratul Mahdi in which he is stated to have said that Hadhrat Ahmadas. 'used to keep very few fasts during Ramadhan whose redemption was paid; and because of the suffering of an attack he broke one fast exactly at Maghrib [sunset] time.". This alleged citation by Abdul Hafeez is yet another ploy to misrepresent the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community's literature and report its content out of context. Otherwise, had he been honest in his motivation, he would have translated the actual passage in Seeratul Mahdi with honesty and also not expunged a large section of it - particularly, the sections which establish that Hadhrat Ahmad as did not fast throughout the period of. Ramadhan for a number of years only and that too while he was not enjoying the best of health on account of the attacks of headache and cold feet syndrome which he developed in the later part of his life.. To illustrate the extent of deception to which the author of Two in One has resorted in this instance once again, one quotes. Hadhrat Mirza Bashir Ahmad's as statement from within which. Abdul Hafeez has extracted a few lines at random and joined together to create a totally false and different impression from what was originally stated. It reads: ra 'Hadhrat Amajan narrated to me that when Hadhrat Masih e. Mawoods began to have attacks, [these attacks have been 240. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 10 178

Page 191

further qualified in the context of the statement as of headache and cold feet syndrome] in that year, he did not fast throughout the Ramadhan and paid the fidya. On the commencement of the Ramadhan during the second year, he started to observe the fast but after eight or nine days, the attacks began again and therefore he stopped and paid the fidya. The following year, he had fasted for ten or eleven days but on account of these attacks, he had to stop fasting again and he paid the fidya. The year after, it was his thirteenth fast when he had an attack around the time of Maghrib and he had to break it. He did not fast during the rest of the. Ramadhan that year but he paid the fidya. After this, he observed all the fasts during Ramadhans, except during the last two or three years before his death. '241. Why may one ask Abdul Hafeez has he, rather than extract a few sentences only from this passage recorded in Hadhrat Mirza. Bashir Ahmad's Seeratul Mahdi, not cited the complete passage? Is it because the masses would have found out that. Hadhrat Ahmadas had a perfectly valid reason for not observing the fast on account of his ill health - a concession given to him by the Holy Quran when it states: 'O ye who believe! Fasting is prescribed for you as it was prescribed to those before you, that ye may [learn] self restraint, - [Fasting] for a fixed number of days; but if any of you is ill, or on a journey, the prescribed number [should be made up] from days later. For those who can do it [with hardship], is a ransom, the feeding of one that is indigent." 1242. What does Abdul Hafeez find so objectionable about Hadhrat. Ahmadas not fasting during a period of illness when God. Almighty, in His wisdom, has permitted such concession. Did the author of Two in One not, when he allegedly read this 241. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Bashir. Seeratul Mahdi, vol. 1, pp. 51/2 242. Al Quran 2.183/84. English Translation, Abdullah Yusuf Ali, p. 72 179

Page 192

passage in Seeratul Mahdi, a few lines of which he has extracted and cited out of context, also read Hadhrat Mirza Bashir. Ahmad's as statement to the effect: 'I also state that when in the beginning, Hadhrat Masih e. Mawoods began to get attacks of headache and cold syndrome, then in those days he become very weak and his health used to be generally poor. That is why when he used to stop fasting, it would appear that he may not be able to recover his strength sufficiently to complete these fasts before the next Ramadhan. But when the next Ramadhan would commence, he would gladly become engaged in this form of worship and begin to observe the fast. '243. One is aware of the naive argument by the proponents of the abrogation theory that the Quranic verse which affords this concession to people suffering ill health has been subsequently abrogated. However, although Ahmadi Muslims do not subscribe to this naive theory of the abrogation of Quranic verses, yet, if for the purposes of an academic discussion it was accepted to hold any water, even then there would be sufficient evidence in Hadeeth literature to establish that this concession remains a part of Islamic injunctions. For instance, the famous. Tabi'un 'Ata reports that he heard Hadhrat Ibn 'Abbas state that this concession has not been abrogated 244 and he declared: 'One may stop fasting if one is suffering from any kind of illness. 1245. Hadeeth literature indicates that there are several reasons for which the earliest Muslims considered it permissible not to fast during Ramadhan and none objected to it. For instance, it states: 'Ibn Abbas used to say. "Allah's Apostles [sometimes] fasted and [sometimes] did not fast during journeys, so whoever 243. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Bashir. Seeratul Mahdi, vol. 1, 244. Sahih Bukhari 60.25 245. Ibid. 180. P. 52

Page 193

wished to fast could fast and whoever wished not to fast, could do so. $246. Traditions also report that Hadhrat Muhammadsa permitted his companions not to fast while on journeys even though he himself observed the fast during the same journey. 247 Would this ignorant pir of Gujjo now, God forbid, have the audacity to censure Hadhrat Muhammad sa for sometimes not fasting during journeys or allowing his companions not to fast while he fasted?. There is also sufficient evidence in Hadeeth literature to establish that ageing people who lack the strength to go through the strict discipline of fasting may absolve themselves of this duty by feeding a poor person daily and Hadhrat Anas ibn. Malika who had the blessed fortune to learn Hadeeth from. Hadhrat Muhammadsa exercised this discretion.248. These pseudo scholars like the author of Two in One ought to familiarise themselves with Islamic teachings and history before they begin to make such objections against Hadhrat Ahmadas which could give the enemies of Islam ammunition to object to many a consecrated personalities of the ummah. For instance,. Hadhrat Ayesha Siddiqara is reported to have stated that she had to complete some of the fasts of Ramadhan but she could not do it during the month of Sha'ban due to some of her other duties. 249 How would Abdul Hafeez explain this in the light of his objections to Hadhart Ahmad as not fasting for a period of few years on account of his health?. As regards the question of breaking the fast at Maghrib, the citation contained in Abdul Hafeez's book itself establishes that it was done as a result of an attack of illness. Where is the harm in that when Hadeeth literature indicates that the breaking of a fast by a person during the course of the day under expedient circumstances is perfectly permissible. Hadhrat Ibn 'Abbasta reports that: 'The Messenger of Allahsa journeyed during the month of 246. Ibid., 31.38 247. Ibid., 31.35 248. Ibid., 60.25 249. Sahih Muslim 429.2549 181

Page 194

Ramadhan in a state of fasting until he reached Usfan. He then ordered a cup containing drinking water and he drank that openly so that people might see it, and broke the fast [and did not resume it] till he reached Mecca. Ibn Abbas said. Allah's Messenger sa fasted and broke the fast so he who wished, fasted, and he who wished to break it, broke it. 1250. Hadhrat Muhammadsa did this because unlike Abdul Hafeez, he had a full understanding of the injunctions in relation to fasting in the month of Ramadhan and God Almighty's statement to the effect: 'Allah desires ease for you, and He desires not hardship for you. 1251. Hence, when during the course of a journey, his companions found themselves unable to bear the hardship of the fast they were observing and: 'It was said to him: There are people to whom fasting has become unbearable and they are waiting how you do. He then called for a cup of water when it was afternoon. which he raised till the people saw it, and then he drank it. 1252. Hence, the breaking of the fast is perfectly permissible under certain conditions even when one starts the day by fasting.. Hadhrat Muhammadsa is known to have done this himself as evident from the aforementioned Hadeeth and he is also known to have ordered others to do so, as for instance, he ordered his wife Hadhrat Juwairiya bint Haritha to break her fast. 253 Had. Abdul Hafeez been a learned man, he would have certainly come across these recorded facts of Islamic history and consequently not attempted to exploit this issue to the detriment of Hadhrat Ahmadas. 250. Ibid., 419.2470 252. Sahih Muslim 419.2472/73 251. Al Quran 2.186 253. Sahih Bukhari 31.64 182

Page 195

EXCESSIVE URINATION. Abdul Hafeez has failed to learn the essential lessons in relation to the question of permissibility and non permissibility in Islam because rather than read the Quran and the Hadeeth and learn essential lessons or even try and understand the unique exposition of Islam contained in Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam. Ahmad's as writings, he has been too involved in his mission to find objectionable material in the Ahmadiyya Muslim. Community's literature. Hence, he makes Hadhrat Ahmad's as statement that on some occasions he suffered the problem of excessive urination a subject of ridicule. 254. It is rather sad that the son of the author of this tasteless publication and his principle mureed, Syed Rashid Ali, who happens to have translated his book into English and who also claims to be a medical man has not been able to advise his father that excessive urination is a perfectly normal condition under stress and overwork, particularly for a person suffering from diabetes. Hadhrat Ahmadas, it has already been shown, undertook the responsibility of the defence of Islam at the time when according to the scholars of that age, Islam was being attacked from all sides by the atheists, the irreligious, the. Hindus and the Christians who spent all their energies on uprooting it and who cherished the desire to burn out the lamp of the faith. 255 Apparently, as recorded by them, Muslims were, at that time lying flat on their faces sobbing in the aftermath of their shortcomings, either doing nothing for Islam or not being able to do anything for it. 256 At that juncture, even according to the adversaries of Hadhrat Ahmadas, true Islamic education had been almost non existent for a long time and the foundations of. Islamic life and society had been shaken while Muslims were generally in the grip of frustration and had fallen a prey to 254. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One. pgs. 30 & 42/3 255. Sharif, Maulana Muhammad. Manshoor Muhammadi, 25 Rajab, 1300 AH, p. 214 256. Azad, Maulana Abul Kalam. Vakeel, Amritsar, 1908 183

Page 196

defeatism. The prestige of their ulama and Islam had been considerably damaged while the minds of Muslims were seriously in the grip of confusion and perplexity when Hadhrat. Ahmadas appeared on the scene with his unique message and movement. 257 He wrote more than 80 books 258 which the scholars of that time applauded as marvellous and without parallel because they proved the truth of the Holy Quran, the prophethood of Hadhrat Muhammadsa and Islam. 259 They also considered these books incomparable because these refuted the. Ayra Samaj and the Christian creeds and gave shattering replies to the opponents of Islam. 260. Hadhrat Ahmadas also stood like a lion in the field of debate to challenge the opponents of Islam 261 and with his forceful speeches shattered their foul criticism, silencing them for ever and proving that truth is after all the truth. 262 Can one imagine the pressure under which this single man undertook the defence of Islam when even the greatest scholars of Islam dare not confront the opponents of the faith? 263 What then is so ridiculous about him suffering from excessive urination during these periods of such stress and anxiety for his faith for which he worked such long hours, despite his poor health and age - hours which would have killed the healthiest of men in their prime?. However, if Abdul Hafeez still thinks that it is not proper for righteous men to respond to the call of nature so often, then one would suggest that he study the life of Hadhrat Sayid Abdul. Qadir Jilanith and gauge for himself the number of times he responded to the call of nature in the course of just one night.264. This might knock some sense into the author of Two in One. 257. Nadwi, S. Abdul Hasan. Qadianism, A Critical Study, pp. 4/6 258. Din, Maulana Sayyid Waheed ud. Aligarh Institute Gazette, June, 1908 259. Sharif, Maulana Muhammad. Manshoor Muhammadi, Banglore, 25 Rajab 1300 AH, 5 Jammadi al Awwal, 1301 AH 260. Delhvi, Mirza Hairat. Curzon Gazette, Delhi, 1 June, 1908 261. Ali, Maulvi Irshad. Dastkari, Amritsar, 18 June, 1899 262. Din, Maulana Bashir ud. Sadiq ul Akhbar, Rewari, May, 1908 263. Fatehpuri, Allama Niaz. Nigar, Lucknow, October, 1960 264. Guldasta e Karamat, p.162 184

Page 197

RIDICULE OF REVELATIONS. In discussing the question of him being the Muhammadean. Messiah in the likeness of the Mosaic Messiah, Hadhrat Mirza. Ghulam Ahmad as stressed that the 'similarity of the two orders needed to be established' so that 'an accord may be proven between the two Messiah of their respective dispensations. 1265 It is therefore not surprising that while the Pharisees of the first age accused Hadhrat Jesus as of being assisted by the ruler of. Satans 266, those of Hadhrat Ahmad's as age also insinuate the same in relation to him and allege that the source of his revelation was, God forbid, satanic. 267 Therefore, while one need not state more in relation to this obnoxious charge against. Hadhrat Ahmadas, for the benefit of those who sincerely wish to know the truth, one cites the opinion expressed by the then leader of the Ahle Hadeeth who witnessed the life and works of. Hadhrat Ahmadas and consequently stated in relation to the revelations received by him: 'It is well known that Satanic suggestions are mostly false but not one of the revelations received by the author of Braheen e Ahmadiyya has been proved false up to this day. These cannot therefore be considered Satanic suggestions. Can any. Muslim follower of the Quran believe that Satan can be given knowledge, like the Prophets and angels, of that which is hidden so that not one of his disclosures of the hidden should lack truth?'268. Maulvi Muhammad Hussain Batalvi did not have the occasion to meet this pseudo pir of Gujjo or else he would not have had the occasion to ask the question if any Muslim could believe that Satan can be given the knowledge like the prophets and the 265. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Tadhkiratush Shahadatain, English Ed. pgs.,8 & 28 266. Matthew 12.25/26 267. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez, Two in One, pgs. 11 & 41 268. Batalvi, Maulvi Muhammad Hussain. Ishaatas Sunnah, vol. vii. No., 6,1884, p. 170 185

Page 198

angels. One does not, however, state that the Maulana's confidence in Muslim followers of the Quran was misplaced in asking this question. One need observe that the then leader of the Ahle Hadeeth in India did not believe that any Muslim follower of the Quran could believe that Satan can be given the knowledge of the hidden like prophets and angels. Abdul. Hafeez may profess to be a Muslim but he cannot, under any criterion, profess to be a follower of the Quran. Otherwise he would not believe that, God forbid, the knowledge granted to. Satan is far superior than that granted to the messengers of God and that, consequently, God forbid, the accused Satan was the teacher of God Almighty's blessed messengers, the angels. This is exactly what Abdul Hafeez has stated in his book Two in. One 269 because he subscribes to the opinion which assumes that the accursed Iblis was an angel before his fall from grace. This he does despite the fact that the Holy Quran states quite clearly that the angels are a humble creation of God Almighty who submit humbly to Him and are not proud but fear Allah and obey His command 270 whereas even Abdul Hafeez admits that the Satan whom he believes to be once an angel before its fall from grace and the teacher of angels was a proud being who refused to obey the command of Allah. 271 How can such an accursed being be an angel of God, nay a teacher of God. Almighty's angels, when the Holy Quran states that the angels of God are submissive to His will272 and incapable of disobedience. 273 Only an ignorant person like Abdul Hafeez or a disbeliever in the Holy Quran could hold such obnoxious opinions. And yet, the author of Two in One takes exception to the appellation of a disbeliever on the cover of the Mubahala challenge, despite his beliefs which do not subscribe to Quranic beliefs. 270. Al Quran 16.50/51 269. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 40. 271. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 40 272. Al Quran 2.35 186 273. Ibid., 66.7

Page 199

DEATH. The adversaries of Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas have often alleged, albeit falsely, that he died of cholera 274 and Abdul. Hafeez too has not only joined the band wagon but also stated that there exists written and sworn affidavits from scores of eye witnesses who were allegedly present at Hadhrat Ahmad's as death. 275 In the first instance, if he had felt the compelling need to mention these alleged written and sworn affidavits from scores of eye witnesses, then one would have thought that he would have published at least some in his book to substantiate this false allegations. But, since none has been forthcoming, this is in itself a proof that none exist and therefore none have been furnished in evidence. as. Secondly, any person with a minute knowledge of diseases would know that cholera is a highly contagious disease and as such, the corpse of a person who dies with it being permitted to be transported from one city to another for burial is not only highly unlikely but impossible since it can cause an epidemic more so the remains of a nationally renowned figure whose funeral is expected to draw large crowds of mourners and sympathizers from all over the country. Hence, if there had been the slightest suspicion that Hadhrat Ahmad had died of a contagious disease, the authorities would have never permitted his remains to be transported by public transport from Lahore to Batala by train and thereafter to Qadian by private transport.. But, Hadhrat Ahmad's as body was taken to Qadian with the full knowledge of the health and municipal authorities only because the death certificate issued by the attending physician, Dr. Col.. Sutherland, the Chief Civil Surgeon of Lahore and Principal of the King Edward Medical College certified the cause of death as intestinal irritation. 276. Incidentally, this certificate was required because the adversaries of Hadhrat Ahmadas had already engaged in 274. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, P. 18 276. Qadir, Sheik Abdul. Hayat e Tayyaba 187 275. Ibid., p. 2

Page 200

mischief and conveyed false information to the Railway authorities that he had died of a contagious disease and his followers intended to transport his body to Qadian by train.. Hence, they initially refused permission to transport Hadhrat. Ahmad's as remains to Batala by train but on production of a certificate from the Chief Civil Surgeon of Lahore, certifying that his death had not been occasioned by a contagious disease, they were adequately satisfied that the rumours were false.. It appears to have been a Divine design of God Almighty that. He, in His infinite wisdom, caused Hadhrat Ahmad as to breathe his last away from his home where he was bound to be buried.. In doing so, He provided conclusive evidence to demolish the credibility of any future allegations in relation to his death whereas, if his death had been occasioned at Qadian, his adversaries may yet have had cause to argue suspicious circumstances. Moreover, in His wisdom, God Almighty has also proved people like Abdul Hafeez to be liars of the first category. And yet, they take exception to the appellation of a liar on the cover of the Mubahala.. Incidentally, the author of Two in One has also alleged that the death of Hadhrat Ahmad's as companions, Hadhrat Hakeem. Maulana Nur ud Din³ and Hadhrat Maulana Abdul Karima are not without lessons. 277 What may one ask is a lesson to be learnt in death caused by falling from a horse or from succumbing to diabetes? If Abdul Hafeez cannot answer this question, then maybe he would at least attempt to explain his assertion that the deaths of these two companions are not without lesson with reference to his statement that 'life and death, honour and disgrace are in the hands of God. He has His own system.. Whenever He wants, He recalls someone and gives honour to whoever & whenever He wants. 1278 Has this pir of Gujjo then become the judge to pass judgement as to in whose death there is a lesson to be learnt? 277. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 19 188 278. Ibid.,. P. 44

Page 201

CHARGES OF IMPROPRIETY. Despite his assertion that 'every claim has to be substantiated with proof 279, Abdul Hafeez has accused the leadership of the. Ahmadiyya Muslim Community of serious moral corruption but once again failed to give any proof of his false allegations. He claims that serious charges were levelled against Hadhrat Mirza. Bashir ud Din Mahmud Ahmadra in the Lahore High Court by. Sheikh Abdur Rahman Misri 280 but, in the first instance, he fails to provide any evidence that any such action was ever brought in the Lahore High Court by this person who was expelled from the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. Secondly, if any such charges were ever brought against Hadhrat Mirza Bashir ud Din. Mahmud Ahmadra by Abdur Rahman Misri, then why is it that he was not found guilty of the same by the Lahore High Court and subsequently convicted? Does Abdul Hafeez's failure to furnish any proof of the alleged charges in the Lahore High. Court or the judgement of the Court against Hadhrat Mirza. Bashir ud Din Mahmud Ahmad not suggest that either no such alleged charges were brought against him before the Lahore. High Court or else if they ever were, they were not proven?. The author of Two in One also alludes to the Haqeeqat Pasand. Party and alleges that it levelled serious charges of corruption against Hadhrat Mirza Bashir ud Din Mahmud Ahmadra and also challenged him to a Mubahala. 281 However, what he fails to acknowledge is that to accuse someone of an offence is one thing and to prove the allegation another. But, to merely accuse a person of some serious charges of moral corruption does not establish these charges against that person. However, if the author of Two in One believes that the mere charge against a person establishes one's guilt, then one would ask him as to what would he think of the grave allegations brought against the entire realm of the consecrated personalities in Islam by. Salman Rushdie who has had the audacity not to spare the 279. Ibid., p. 6 280. Ibid., 27 189 281. Ibid.

Page 202

honour of God Almighty's blessed angels and apostles as well as the consorts and companions of God's messengers? Would he state that these Satanic allegations of the devil's advocate establish the guilt of those so accused? If not, then why does he maintain double standards in relation to the allegations made by perverts of a similar disposition against Hadhrat Mirza Bashir ud Din Mahmud Ahmada. Is this the Islam to which Abdul. Hafeez so numerously invites the Ahmadiyya Muslim. Community?. As regards the question of the Mubahala, a certain Mistri. Abdul Karim who had become involved with a group which broke away from the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community to challenge the Institution of Khilafat within the Ahmadiyya. Muslim Movement engaged in a dialogue with Hadhrat Mirza. Bashir ud Din Mahmud Ahmada in response to which the latter put himself under solemn oath and concluded: 'Now that I have taken the solemn path, let whoever believes he is justified in his opposition to me in this behalf, come forward to take a similar oath, on his part, and then leave the matter to be decided by Allah.1282. But Mistri Abdul Karim did not have the courage to accept this straightforward Mubahala invitation by the second Caliph,. Hadhrat Mirza Bashir ud Din Mahmud Ahmadra, just as this pir from Gujjo, despite his numerous allegations against the. Ahmadiyya Muslim Community has not the courage to accept the fourth Caliph, Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad's ra straightforward Mubahala invitation.. Since Abdul Hafeez has not been able to provide any conclusive evidence to indict the leadership of the Ahmadiyya. Muslim Community with his false charges of serious moral corruption, he has given wide publicity to the allegations made by Abdur Rahman Misri's son Bashir Misri 283 who was, along 282. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Bashir ud Din Mahmud. Iawab Mubahala, p. 10 283. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, pp. 83/5 190

Page 203

with his father excommunicated from the mainstream. Ahmadiyya Muslim Community in 1937. He flirted with the. Lahore section for a while until he became ambitious and tried to make in leadership stakes amongst the Ahle Sunnat but his father, unlike Abdul Hafeez's statement 284, remained a member of the Lahore section to his death. However, not too long after accepting a restricted challenge of Mubahala, Misri departed from this world to answer for his transgression in the Highest. Court. In his challenge to Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmaday reproduced in Two in One, he had stated that he was 'prepared to unhesitatingly stake not only his credibility but his life as well that the allegations he made against the leadership of the. Ahmadiyya Muslim Community were true.1285 What credibility he enjoyed as a person is known to all those who knew him.. One would therefore not dwell on this subject except to state that his own father disowned him and required that Bashir not even touch Abdur Rahman's coffin on the latter's death.. However, as regards the question of him staking his life, he had made a plea that an attempt not be made on his life to have him killed 286 not realising that having called the 'eternal curse of. Allah upon himself if he was lying, 1287 Misri had already sealed his fate and so did Allah decide to humiliate him in this world in so much that while Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmaday continues to be honoured by millions of Ahmadi Muslims as well as respected by others, only a handful of people paid their last respects to Misri. It shall not be long before his memory is buried too and he is forgotten or else remembered in contempt just as the memory of those who spearheaded the allegedly. Haqeeqat Pasand Party has been buried in history or else remembered in contempt only.. The author of Two in one then proceeds to revile the deaths of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community's leadership. He considers the death of Hadhrat Ahmadas a subject of ridicule 288 although as already shown, he died of intestinal irritation 289 which in 284. Ibid., p. 27 285. Ibid., p. 84 286. Ibid., p. 85 287. Ibid., p. 289. Sutherland, Dr. Col. vide. Hayat e Tayyaba, Sheikh Abdul Qadir 84 288. Ibid, p. 27 191

Page 204

common language may be classified as dysentry. In case Abdul. Hafeez is unaware, according to Hadhrat Muhammadsa: 'He who dies of an abdominal disease is a martyr, and he who dies of plague is a martyr. 1290. The death of Hadhrat Mirza Bashir ud Din Mahmud Ahmadra is also found a subject of ridicule 291 although he died as a result of a wound sustained on being attacked by an assailant while engaged in fulfilling his duty of leading Muslims in Fajr prayers. Alas! if this ignorant scholar of Gujjo had known that according to Hadeeth: 'Allah's Apostlesa said: By Him in Whose hands my soul is!. Whoever is wounded in Allah's cause and Allah knows well who gets wounded in His cause will come on the day of. Resurrection with his wound having the colour of blood but the scent of musk.1292. What greater duty could one perform to be classified as being in Allah's cause than waking up early in the morning to observe the prescribed prayers and lead others in bowing down to God. Almighty? This Hadeeth has also been reported by Hadhrat Abu. Dardara who stated that Hadhrat Muhammad sa declared: 'Whoever suffers a wound in the way of Allah, a seal of. Shahada is put on it. For him, on the day of Qiyyama, is a heavenly light with torch of saffron, and a fragrance like that of musk. Everybody before and after him will exclaim the wonder that on so and so was a seal of martyrdom from the approval and appreciation of God." 1293. Abdul Hafeez also alleges that the death of Hadhrat Mirza. Nasir Ahmad was occasioned as a result of shock suffered by him after a letter by one of his sister's was read in public. In 290. Sahih Bukhari 71.30 292. Sahih Bukhari 52.10 291. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 27 293. Ibid. 192

Page 205

that event, one would assume that the alleged letter would either be in the possession of these hostile organisations or otherwise, not too difficult for them to acquire. Why then has this letter not been presented in evidence by Abdul Hafeez? Is it not because no such letter was ever written or read?. Yet, after such blatant falsehood and deception, Abdul Hafeez has the audacity to plead Ahmadi Muslims to 'repent so that they can be forgiven. 1294 Repent of what may one ask him? From not being a party to such inveracity and deception? What kind of an Islam is this supposed to be to which he invites Ahmadi. Muslims? While one does appreciate that according to Abdul. Hafeez's spiritual mentors, it is permissible for them to utter falsehood whenever expedient 295, Ahmadi Muslims would rather subscribe to the Islam they have learnt through the Quran which abhors falsehood and considers it to be one of the three cardinal sins which eat at the vitals of society. The author of. Two in One may, to his heart's desire, accuse the Ahmadiyya. Muslim Community of whatever charges he desires but this does not alter the fact that the high standard of morality to which its leaders have been accustomed throughout their lives has created an infra structure of such a morally refined society that visitors to its headquarters have felt obliged to applaud the. Community for its sense of Islamic values. For instance, a famous Indian journalist, Muhammad Aslam Khan Balouch, the editor of Mu'in ul Muslimeen of Amritsar stated that 'the great catastrophes befalling the world of Islam compelled him to visit. Qadian to see whether the Ahmadiyya Community which, for so long, had been claiming that it shall conquer the world for. Islam was actually capable of doing so. 1296 On having observed the necessary, he felt obliged to declare: 'What I saw in Ahmadi Qadian was pure and sincere service of One God and wherever one's sight turned there was the. Quran. I found the Ahmadi Jamaat of Qadian in a practical 294. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One. p. 29 295. Ismail, Maulvi Yar Muhammad. Yak Rozi, p. 45 296. Khan, Muhammad Aslam. Mu'in ul Muslimeen, March, 1913 193

Page 206

sense to be true to a very great extent in its claim that it can spread Islam in the world in a peaceful way by means of preaching and propagation, and that it is a Jamaat which in today's world is a true follower of the Quran, purely for the sake of God and a lover of Islam. 1297. Allama Muhammad Iqbal stated in relation to the society created by the leadership of the Community that he saw in the followers of Hadhrat Ahmadas, 'a pure and unmixed type of. Islamic culture. 1298 Hence, in a speech delivered at Aligarh. University, he declared in relation to them: 'In the Punjab, a pure example of Islamic life has appeared in the form of the community which is called the Qadiani sect. 1299. Although he later made some politically adverse statements against the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community because of his differing opinion in relation to the question of Islamic unity and solidarity, he never attacked the moral character of its leaders or membership.. Abdul Hafeez is welcome to continue his vile attacks against the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community but his predecessors have been wise to the fact that they shall never be able to match the high standard of Islamic culture portrayed in the lives of. Ahmadi Muslims. Hence, at one stage of this century old opposition, one passionate opponent of the Ahmadiyya Muslim. Community warned its adversaries: 'Open your eyes and listen, you and your associates! You will not be able to measure up to Mirza Mahmud even unto doomsday. Mirza Mahmud possesses the Quran and the knowledge of the Quran. You have never read the Quran in your dreams. 1300 297. Ibid. 298. Iqbal, Muhammad. Islami Sirat ka Taith Namuna, vide. Millat e Baidza per ayk Imrani Nazar, p. 18 299. Ibid., p. 84 300. Azhar, Maulvi Zafar Ali. A Grave Conspiracy, p. 196 194

Page 207

DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER. It is rather ironic that while the author if Two in One claims to respect human dignity 301 and declares that his only purpose in getting involved in this controversy is to serve Allah 302, his publication leave a distinct impression that his real intent is to revile and insult the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. Yet, while one's sentiments are hurt, one takes consolation in the fact that characters of God Almighty's apostles and righteous people have been assailed before in the history of mankind. For instance, Hadhrat Adamas has been accused of being beguiled by the devil into committing the first mortal sin 303 which he allegedly attempted to justify by blaming it unto God 304,. Hadhrat Noahs of drunkenness as a result of which he is alleged to have lost his senses even to the extent that he could not maintain decorum in dress 305 and consequently, became involved in some kind of an immoral physical act with his own son 30 or grandson.307; Hadhrat Abrahamas of uttering falsehood not once 308 but on two separate occasions 309; Hadhrat Isaacs of uttering lies310; Hadhrat Lots of drunkenness as a result of which he allegedly committed incest with his own daughters311;. Hadhrat Jacobs of deceiving his blind father to rob his elder brother of his birthright 312 and also cheat his father in law³13;. Hadhrat Mosesas of wilful murder and hiding the corpse of his victim as well as running away as a coward 314; Hadhrat Aaronas of being party to making a calf for idol worship³15; Hadhrat. Davidas of infatuation with another man's wife whom he allegedly first kidnapped and then raped after which he proceeded to murder the defiled woman's husband 316; Hadhrat. Solomonas of being possessed of physical lust for strange 301. Shah, Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 5 302. Ibid., p. 38 303. Genesis 3.4/7 304. Aid to Bible Understanding, Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society, p. 33 305. Genesis 9.21 306. Ibid., 9.22 307. Aid to Bible Understanding, Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society, p. 1230 308. Genesis 12.12/13 311. Ibid., 19.32/38 314. Exodus 2.12 309. Ibid., 20.2 312. Ibid., 27.19/29 315. Ibid., 32.2/21 195 310. Ibid., 24.7 313. Ibid., 30.41/42 316. 2 Samuel 11.2/26

Page 208

women³17 and indulgence in idolatry on account of his love for them 318; Hadhrat Jobas of being smitten by the devil 319 and divers sins 320; Hadhrat Jonahas of disobedience to Divine command and cowardice 321 and Hadhrat Jesusas of being tempted by Satan 322 as well as being possessed of the power of the prince of devils.323. However, the saddest aspect of such allegations is that while. Muslims censure the Jews and Christians for insulting the apostles of God in such a crude manner, they have themselves not spared the honour of the righteous. They have accused. Hadhrat Adamas of polytheism 324 and of being deceived by Satan into committing a deliberate sin of disobedience to the explicit command of God³25; Hadhrat Idrisas of falsehood ³26 and Hadhrat. Lots of adultery. 327 It is alleged in relation to Hadhrat Yusufas that a woman craved illicit relationship with him and he too intended the same. 328 Hadhrat Davidas is alleged to have become infatuated with a woman whom he saw naked in her garden and so he sent her husband to battle to get killed and thus married her. 1329 Hadhrat Solomonas is accused of building a palace of glass to dispel the fears about the calves and feet of the Queen of Sheba which the Jinn had mis-informed him were thick and hairy and like those of an ass. 330 He has also been accused of cohabiting with women during their monthly courses as a consequence of which he lost his kingdom.³ 331. Muslims have not spared the honour of even our own beloved. Prophet, Hadhrat Muhammad Mustapha sa and his noble consorts Hadhrat Mariara of Copt. Maulvi Abdul Ala Maududi has had the audacity to state that, God forbid: 'With Hazrat Maria the Prophet had sexual intercourse on the basis of her being of those whom his right hand possessed. 317. 1 Kings 11.1 318. Ibid 11.5/8 319. Job 2.7 321. Jonah 1.1/3 322 Matthew 4.1/10 324. Sayuti, [Hadhrat] Jalal ud Din. Tafsir Jalalain, 325. Hasan, The Study of Al Quran, Lesson 1, p. 4 320. Ibid., 22.5 323. Ibid., 12.24 326. Tafsir Ma'aalim al Tanzeel 327. Zamakhshari, [Hadhrat] Imam Mahmud ibn Umar. Al Kashshaaf 328. Tabri, [Hadhrat] Imam Abi Jafar Muhammad ibn Jarir al Jami Bayan 330. Ibid., 331. Baghdadi, [Hadhrat] Abu'l Fadl Shihab al Din Mahmud. Ruh al Ma'ani 329. Ibid. 196

Page 209

It is not proven about her that the Prophet freed Her and married her. 1332. The likes of Abdul Hafeez have also assailed the honour of. Hadhrat Ummul Momineen" against whom they spread a grave calumny³33 which occasioned considerable distress and pain to our noble Prophets as well as Hadhrat Ayeshara and her parents, Hadhrat Abu Bakra and his wife Hadhrat Umm e. Rumana. These incidentally are allegations made against the prophets and messengers of God Almighty by people who profess to be believers in the Divine missions of these apostles of God and one shudders at the thought of what has been written against them by the disbelievers in the claims of these prophets and messengers - the classical example of this being. Rushdie who wrote a sordid book of insults in which he exceeded all bounds to insult a considerable number of the sacred personalities of Islam. What does it then matter if Abdul. Hafeez, a disbeliever in the claim of Hadhrat Ahmadas, chooses to follows the example of Rushdie who, incidentally, comes from a family which subscribes to his school of thought.. As regards his invitation that if these charges against the. Ahmadiyya Muslim Community's leadership are false then he be sued in court, one is certain that there is not a court of law in this world which can punish Abdul Hafeez enough for his transgression since it is not within human power to devise any such punishment which would be appropriate to his lies and transgression. One would therefore leave it to God Almighty to determine his fate just as the Caliph of the Ahmadiyya Muslim. Community, Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmaday has, in inviting the liars, the disbelievers and the enemies of Islam to the Mubahala left their fate to God Almighty. 332. Maududi, Abul Ala. Tafhim al Quran, vol. 4, p. 114 197 333. Al Quran 24.12

Page 210

CHAPTER FIVE. ALTERATION OF THE HOLY QURAN. Abdul Hafeez claims that in his hostile publication, Two in. One, one would find proof of the alteration of the Quran by. Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas of Qadian¹ and at some later stage in his book, he gives evidence of his inveracity yet once again when he manipulates human error to establish this false charge of an intentional distortion of the Quranic text. Hence, rather than furnish any citations from the copies of the Quran published by the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, he takes advantage of the first cover of other publications where such human errors have occurred - errors which on detection were subsequently corrected in further editions.. The first example which he furnishes in evidence of this false charge relates to the Quranic verses in Surah Al Rahman. He states that whereas the correct passage should read: (كل من عليها فان ويبقى وجه ربك ذو الجلال والاكرام ). COPY OF ORIGINAL QURANIC PASSAGE CITED BY ABDUL HAFEEZ, P. 24 i.e., Kullu man 'alay-haa faan: Wa yabqaa Wajhu Rabbika Zul-Jalaali wal-'Ikraam, Hadhrat Ahmad as has intentionally 'added in his work Izalat e Auham and expunged and thereby mis-constructed the verses to read: is 12 ( كل شيء فان ويبقى وجه ربك ذو الجلال والاكرام ). COPY FROM ABDUL HAFEEZ'S BOOK TWO IN ONE, P. 24 1. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez, Two in One, p. 5. 198 2. Ibid., p. 24

Page 211

In the first instance, this citation has not been quoted from. Hadhrat Ahmad's as original handwritten manuscript but from the first cover of the publication of Izalah Auham. Therefore, the error was not committed by Hadhrat Ahmadas but by the printer's copyist who prepared the script for publication.. Secondly, had there been an intentional alteration of the Quranic text by either Hadhrat Ahmadas or even the copyist, then this passage would not have been recorded elsewhere in the first cover of the same book as: پچیسویں آیت یہ ہے كل من علیها فان ويبقى وجه ربك ذو الجلال والاکرام (الجزء نمیر ۲۷ صورة الرحمن). PHOTOCOPY OF THE QURANIC PASSAGE IN IZALA AUHAM, P. 419, RUHANI. KHAZAIN, VOL. 3, P. 434 i.e., Kullu man 'alay-haa faan: Wa yabqaa Wajhu Rabbika Zul-Jalaali wal-'Ikraam, which is a perfect citation of the Quranic passage in. Surah al Rahman. Incidentally, this Quranic passage has also been correctly cited on another occasion in Izalah Auham³ as well as in Sat Bachan; Islami Usul ki Philosophy³ and Chashma. Marifat. Hence, had there been any intent by Hadhrat Ahmadas to alter the text of the sacred Scriptures, then he would have altered these verses in question in every one of the other instances cited above. The mere fact these have been correctly recorded elsewhere on several occasions bears evidence that in this particular instance cited by Abdul Hafeez, a copyist error had been made in the recording of this passage which was eventually detected and subsequently corrected in future editions. Hence, one observes that in one of these subsequent editions of Izalah Auham, this particular recording of the passage cited by Abdul Hafeez as evidence of the alteration of 3. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Izalah Auham, p. 764; Ruhani Khazain, vol. 3 p.513 4. Ibid., Sat Bachan, Ruhani Khazain, vol. 10, p. 230 5. Ibid., Islami Usul ki Philosophy, p. 56; Ruhani Khazain vol. 10, p. 370 6. Ibid., Chashma Marifat, p. 89; Ruhani Khazain vol. 23, p.87 199

Page 212

the noble Quran has been recorded as: كل من عليها فان ويبقى وجع ربك والجلال والاكرام. PHOTOCOPY OF THE PASSAGE IN HADHRAT AHMAD'S IZALAH AUHAM, P. 136;. RUHANI KHAZAIN, VOL. 3, P. 149 i.e., Kullu man 'alay-haa faan: Wa yabqaa Wajhu Rabbika Zul-Jalaali wal-'Ikraam. It is therefore thoroughly dishonest to manipulate a perfectly normal human error as evidence of intentional distortion. However, if it is still insisted that such human errors are unacceptable and therefore, a perfectly justifiable evidence of intentional distortion, then Abdul Hafeez himself stands guilty of the offence of subjecting the noble Quran to alteration since the passage of Surah al Rahman which he cites in his book reads: (كل من عليها فان ويبقى وجه ربك ذو الجلال والاكرام ). COPY OF PASSAGE FROM SURAH AL RAHMAN CITED BY ABDUL HAFEEZ. IN HIS BOOK TWO IN ONE, P. 24 i.e., Kullu man 'alay-haa faan. Wa yabqaa Wajhu Rabbika Nul-Jalaali wal-'Ikraam. Hence, while the original passage in the noble. Quran contains the word u Zul-Jalaali between. Rabbika and Syl, wal-Ikraam, Abdul Hafeez has substituted the Arabic alphabet za with nun and therefore recorded 3 j. J Nul-Jalaali instead of 9 Zul-Jalaali. Therefore, while he accuses Hadhrat Ahmadas of subjecting the Quran to alteration by adding or removing some words he is seen to be himself guilty of removing the word Zul-Jalaali and adding NulJalaali. How does he then propose to justify himself in the presence of God in view of his own statement that 'alteration in the Holy Quran is an abominable sin and the one who is responsible for it will be given severe punishment on the Day 7. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 2 200

Page 213

of Judgement. Such Jewish minded people are committing frank blasphemy. In view of what Abdul Hafeez has been illustrated to have done with the Quranic verse from Surah Rahman, what is he committing, if not blasphemy?. The second objection which he has raised in relation to this citation of the Quranic passage by Hadhrat Ahmadas argues that two separate verses have been merged into one which in his estimation is improper and therefore, unacceptable. In that event one would ask him as to what opinion would he express in relation to our noble Prophet, Hadhrat Muhammad sa who, according to Hadhrat Alira is reported to have stated: وجهت وجهي للذي فطر السموات والأرض حنيفا وما أنا من العلمين رب المشركين. إن صلاتي ونسكي ومحياي ومماتي لله لا شريك له و بذلك أمرت وأنا من المسلمين.» 'Waj-jahtu waj-hiya lil-lazii fataras-samaawaati wal-'arza haniifanw-wa maaa 'ana minal-mush-rikiin. 'Inna Salaatii wa nusukii wa mah-yaaya wa mamaatii lil'laahi Rabbil-'aalamiin. Laa shariika lah: wa bizaa-lika ‘umirtu wa ‘ana man Muslimiin.'. This hadeeth, stated to have been reported by the fourth Caliph of Islam, Hadhrat Ali ibn Talibra is contained in one of the six most authentic books of Hadeeth literature. 10 Yet, a direct reference to the Holy Quran establishes that this statement attributed to Hadhrat Muhammads contains three separate. Quranic verses, the first being: إلى وَجَهْتُ وَجْهِيَ لِلَّذِي فَطَرَ السَّمَوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضَ حَنِيفًا وَمَا أَنَا مِنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ 'Innii waj-jahtu waj-hiya lil-lazii fataras-samaawaati wal-'arza hanii-fanw-wa maaa 'ana minal-mush-rikiin.” #11 8. Ibid., p. 24 9. Ibid., 27 10. Tirmidhi, [Hadhrat] Abu 'Isa Muhammad ibn 'Isa. Jami Tirmidhi 11. Al Quran 6.80 201

Page 214

The other two Quranic verses merged with verse 6.80 in this statement attributed to the Prophet of Islam, Hadhrat. Muhammad sa by the fourth Caliph, Hadhrat Ali ibn Talibra are, according to the Holy Quran: قُلْ إِنَّ صَلاتِي وَنُسُكِي وَمَحْيَايَ وَمَمَاتِي لِلَّهِ رَبِّ الْعَلَمِينَ 'Qul 'inna Salaatii wa nusukii wa mah-yaaya wa mamaatii lil'laahi Rabbil-'aalamiin.'12 لا شَرِيكَ لَهُ وَبِذَلِكَ أُمِرْتُ وَأَنَا أَوَّلُ الْمُسْلِمِينَ 'Laa shariika lah: wa bizaa-lika 'umirtu wa 'ana 'awwa-lulMuslimiin." 113 га. However, as one would observe in this statement attributed to. Hadhrat Muhammadsa by Hadeeth literature, 'Innii in the beginning of verse 6.80 before waj-jahtu is missing and so is Qui before 'inna Salaatii in verse 6.163 as well as 'awwa-lul before. Muslimiin in verse 6.164 while man has been added before. Muslimiin. What opinion would Abdul Hafeez now care to express in relation to our beloved Prophets for having made the aforementioned statement; in relation to Hadhrat Alira for having reported the same and also Hadhrat Imam Tirmidhith for having recorded it in his collection of Ahadeeth? Would it not be more sensible for him to accept that it is a perfectly acceptable practice amongst Muslims to join the verses of the. Holy Quran together to convey an essential message and hence. Hadhrat Ahmadas did not commit any error in writing verses 26 and 27 of Surah Rahman together? Or would he rather take exception to some of the greatest men known to the history of. Islam for having established this Sunnah which Hadhrat. Ahmadas merely followed? 12. Ibid., 6.163 13. Ibid., 6.164 202

Page 215

The second Quranic passage which Abdul Hafeez falsely alleges Hadhrat Ahmadas intentionally distorted is stated to be found in 'Dafe al Waswas, Muqadimah Haqeeqatul Islam114 and it relates to the verse: ومَا اَرْسَلْنَا مِن قَبْلِكَ مِنْ رَسُولٍ وَلَا نَنِي إِلَّا إِذَا تَمَتَّى الْقَ الشَّيْطَنُ في أَمْنِنَتِهِ 'Wa maaa 'arsalnaa minqablika mir-rasuulinwwa laa nabiyyin 'illaaa 'izaa tamannaaa 'alqash - Shaytaanu fiii 'umniyyatih'.' 15. However, the evidence which he presents in support of his allegation is not from Dafe al Waswas but from page 629 of. Izalah Auham.16 Nonetheless, this copyist error, probably by the same copyist who made the previous mistake in Izalah Auham, discussed in the preceding pages, was also detected and corrected in subsequent editions of the publication: مقعد ہے۔ یہ دخل کبھی انبیاء اور رسولوں کی وحی میں بھی ہو جاتا ہے مگر وہ بلا توقف نکالا جاتا ہے۔ اسی کی طرف اللہ جل شانہ قرآن کریم میں اشارہ فرماتا ہے وما ارسلنا من قبلك من رسول ولا نبي الاذاتمنى القى الشيطان فی امنیتہ الخ ایسا ہی انجیل میں بھی لکھا ہی کہ شیطان اپنی شکل نوری فرشتوں کے ساتھ بدل کر بعض لوگوں کے پاس آجاتا ہے دیکھو خط دوم قرنتیاں باب آیت ۱۴- اور جب موعہ توریت میں سے سلاطین اول باب بائیں. PHOTOCOPY OF CORRECTED QURANIC VERSE, IZALAH AUHAM, P. 629; RUHANI. KHAZAIN, VOL. 3, p. 439 i.e., Wa maaa 'arsalnaa minqablika mir-rasuulinwwa laa nabiyyin 'illaaa 'izaa tamannaaa 'alqash - Shaytaanu fiii 'umniyyatih.. As far as the citation of this Quranic verse in Dafe al Waswas, 14. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 25 16. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 71 15. Al Quran 22.53 203

Page 216

Muqadimah Haqeeqatul Islam is concerned, the complete verse has been noted therein as: قدرت کے برخلاف ہے کہ وہ شیاطین کو انکے مواضع مناسبہ سے معطل کردیے۔ اللہ ملکشان، قرآن کریم میں فرماتا ہے وما ارسلنا من قبلك من رسول ولا نبي الا اذا تمنى القى الشيطان في امنيته نينسخ الله ما يلقى الشيطان ثم يحكم الله آیا تہ واللہ علیہ حکیم ہے یعے ہم نے کوئی ایسا رسول. PHOTOCOPY OF QURANIC VERSE 22.52, DAFE WASWAS, MUQADIMAH. HAQEEQATUL ISLAM, AYANAE KAMALAT E ISLAM, RUHANI KHAZAIN, VOL. 5, P. 352 i.e., 'Wa maaa 'arsalnaa minqablika mir-rasuulinwwa laa nabiyyin 'illaaa 'izaa tamannaaa 'alqash - Shaytaanu fiii 'umniyyatih: fayansakhullaahu maa yulqish - Shaytaanu summa yuh-kimullaahu 'Aayaatih: wallaahu 'Aliimun Hakiim' which is exactly how it has been recorded in the Quran.. Incidentally, it is argued that in this verse, the word minqablika before Wa maaa 'arsalnaa has been expunged because if this word had remained there, it would have made it impossible for. Hadhrat Ahmad as to establish his own claim to prophethood.". However, if as alleged, Hadhrat Ahmadas had expunged the word minqablika to assist him in establishing his claim to prophethood, then may one ask Abdul Hafeez as to why did he not expunge it in every citation of the Quranic verse recorded by him in his books, as for instance, it is to be found in the very first edition of Braheen e Ahmadiyya.18 Moreover, one is rather at a loss to understand how the word minqablika, meaning, before thee not being cited in this verse effects Hadhrat Ahmad's ªs claim to prophethood. It is an established fact of history that apostles of God have, as a rule, been opposed by Satan and hence God. Almighty stated in the Quran: as 'Never did We send a Messenger or a Prophet before thee but when he recited [the Message] Satan proposed [opposition] in respect of that which he recited thereof. But 17. Ibid. 18. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Braheen Ahmadiyya, f/n. p. 549 204

Page 217

Allah abolisheth that which Satan proposeth. Then Allah establisheth His revelations. Allah is Knower, Wise. *19. Would Abdul Hafeez care to explain as to how, if the words before thee were not a part of this verse, would this Quranic passage mean any different?. In his third alleged 'proof of alteration in the Quran' Abdul. Hafeez merely cites 'Roohani Khazain, p. 439 by Mirza Ghulam. A Qadiani20 which indicates that he is thoroughly ignorant of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community's literature since Hadhrat. Ahmadas did not, at any point in time write any such book which was titled as such. Had he been aware of the fact that. Ruhani Khazain is a title given to the entire collection of. Hadhrat Ahmad's as written work by the publishers who bound it together, he would not have made such a mistake as to just cite page 439 of Ruhani Khazain and not the volume on page 439 of which one would find this Quranic passage allegedly altered by Hadhrat Ahmadas. Could the author of Two in One state in his next edition of his book as which page 439 of the 33 volumes of Ruhani Khazain is he referring to?. The fourth Quranic passage alleged to be intentionally distorted is stated by the author of Two in One to be found in Hadhrat. Ahmad'sas Debate between Muslims & Christians & Holy War, page 194.121 This is once again an indication that he is not familiar with the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community's literature or else he would have known that the book he refers to is not named as 'Debate between Muslims & Christians & Holy War' but as Jang e Muqaddas, i.e., Holy War. Had he ever laid sight on the actual book itself and not copied this allegation of another hostile publication, as evident from his inclusion of the photocopies of pages contained in another publication 22, he would have realised that the words 'Debate between Muslims & Christians' are a part of a brief explanation of the title of 19. Al Quran 22.53 21. Ibid., p. 25 20, Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 25 22. Ibid., pp. 70/71 205

Page 218

Hadhrat Ahmad'sas book.. However, in this instance, it is argued that in this Quranic verse, Hadhrat Ahmad as has added wa jaa - haduu bi-'amwaalihim wa 'anfusihim and expunged wa jaa-hiduu bi-'amwaa-likum wa 'anfusikum and also placed fii Sabii-lillaahi in the middle whereas it should have been at the end of the verse.. Nonetheless, this particular passage of the Quranic verse cited by Hadhrat Ahmadas is a perfectly correct citation of the verse contained in Part 323 and not Part 6 of Surah Tauba as mistakenly stated in the 1970 edition of the book, a page of which Abdul Hafeez has presented as evidence. 24 This verse reads: الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَهَاجَرُوا وَجَهَدُوا فِي سَبِيلِ اللهِ بِأَمْوَالِهِمْ وَالفُسِهِمْ أَعظمُ دَرَجَةً عِنْدَ اللهِ وَ أُولَيكَ هُمُ الْفَابِرُونَ 'Alla - ziina ‘aamanuu wa haa - jaruu wa jaa - haduu fii Sabiilillaahi bi-'amwaa-lihim wa 'anfusihim 'a'-zamu darajatan 'indallaah: wa 'ulaaa-'ika humul-faaa-'izuun.'25. As evident from the above citation of the Quranic verse contained in Surah Tauba, Part 3, the words wa jaa - haduu and also bi-'amwaa-lihim wa 'anfusihim are very much a part of the original Quranic text and the words fii Sabii-lillaahi are not at the end of the verse but in the middle. The above quotation also bears evidence that the words alleged to have been expunged, i.e., wa jaa-hiduu bi-'amwaa-likum wa 'anfusikum are not a part of this Quranic verse in Surah Tauba.. The fifth Quranic passage which Hadhrat Ahmadas is falsely alleged to have intentionally altered is stated to be found on page 558 of Braheen Ahmadiyya.26 Yet, while Abdul Hafeez does not illustrate as to what intentional alteration has Hadhrat 23. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Jang e Muqaddas, Ruhani Khazain, vol. 6, p. 276 24. Ibid., vide. p. 70 25. Al Quran 9. 20 26. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 25 206

Page 219

Ahmadas been guilty of in this instance, the Alami Tahuffuze. Khatme Nubuwwat scholars from whose publication the author of Two in One has borrowed all these allegations have, on one hand attempted to manipulate this citation in Braheen. Ahmadiyya to allege that Hadhrat Ahmad as intentionally changed the text of the Holy Quran while on the other they have admitted that: 'It is amazing that this verse has been correctly cited in the. Index on page 37 of the Braheen e Ahmadiyya. 127. This admission by the hostile elements should conclusively establish that this was once again a case of human error and not intentional alteration or else the reference to the verse in question would not have been correctly cited in the Index of the same publication. Nonetheless, the objection that has been raised against this citation is that whereas in the Quran, the diacritical mark has been placed above the alphabet ☺ nun in the word. Hadhrat Ahmadas العظيم and also a mim in the word القرآن has placed this beneath both nun and mim.. In the first instance, it has already been shown that there was absolutely no intention in Hadhrat Ahmad's as mind to subject the text of this verse to alteration or else he would have similarly altered the passage in the Index of his book also which his adversaries admit is a perfectly correct citation of the. Quranic passage. Secondly, if the purpose of the Ahmadiyya. Muslim Community was to alter the text of the noble Quran, then it would not have corrected this passage in subsequent publications of the same book, as for instance, it has been done in the edition of which a photocopy is reproduced below: ولقد اتيْنَاكَ سَبْعًا مِنَ الْمَثَانِي وَالْقُرْآنَ الْعَظِيم. PHOTOCOPY OF QURANIC VERSE UNDER DISCUSSION IN HADHRAT AHMAD'S**. BRAHEEN AHMADIYYA, RUHANI KHAZAIN VOL. 1, PAGE 580 27. Alami Tahuffuze Khatme Nubuwwat. Quran Shaiff mey Rado Badal 207

Page 220

Finally, if Abdul Hafeez considers a copyist error of placing the diacritical mark beneath rather than above a word an evidence of intentional tempering with the Quran, then one would ask him as to what would he consider his own action to be since he has expunged all such diacritical marks in his citations of. Quranic passages, as for instance, in the quotation below: كل من عليها فان ويبقى وجه ربك ذو الجلال والاكرام .. PHOTOCOPY OF QURANIC VERSE CITED BY ABDUL HAFEEZ. IN HIS PUBLICATION TWO IN ONE, P. 24. For his benefit, one reproduces below the actual text of the aforementioned Quranic passage and suggests that he compare the two to find the extent of diacritical marks which he has expunged in his citation, and therefore, according to his own standards, the distortion of the Holy Quran's text:. Lez كُلِّ مَنْ عَلَيْهَا فَانٍ وَيَبْقَى وَجْهُ رَبِّكَ ذُو الْجَالِ وَالْإِكْرَامِن. Would he now care to accuse himself for subjecting the sacred text of the Holy Quran to alteration?. And finally, the last Quranic verse alleged to have been intentionally altered is stated to be recorded in 'Aina e Kamalat e Islam. 128 In this instance also, Abdul Hafeez neither quotes the page on which the evidence of such alteration is to be found nor does he cite the Quranic verse alleged to have been altered despite his claim that one would 'find proof of alteration in the. Quran.29 However, since some of his other colleagues have previously singled out Hadhrat Ahmad's as citation of the. Quranic passages Surah Al Anfal 8.30 and Surah Al Hadid 57.29 on page 177 of Ayanae Kamalat e Islam, one would discuss these in the light of the objection raised by them.. Apparently, on this page of his famous work Ayanae Kamalat 28. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 25 208 29., Ibid. p. 5

Page 221

e Islam, Hadhrat Ahmad as has cited the following Quranic passages: يا أيها المذين أضوا ان تتقوا الله يجعل لكم فرقانًا ويكفّر عنكم سياتكم . ويقي at نورا تمشون به. PHOTOCOPY OF QURANIC PASSAGES CITED IN. AYANAE KAMALAT E ISLAM, P. 177; RUHANI KHAZAIN, VOL. 5, P. 177 i.e., Yaaa-'ayyu-hallaziina 'aamanuuu 'in-tatta-qullaaha yaj 'al-lakum. Fur-qaananw-wa yu-kaffir 'ankum sayyi - 'aatikum. Wa yaj-'al-lakum. Nuuran-tamshuuna bihii. Hadhrat Ahmad's as adversaries allege that in this instance, wa yaj-'al-lakum Nuuran-tamshuuna bihii has been added and wa yagfir lakum. Wallaahu Zul-Fazlil-'aziim expunged by him. In the first instance, it should be observed that the above passage contains segments of not one, but two separate Quranic verses, Yaaa-'ayyu-hallaziina 'aamanuuu 'in-tattaqullaaha yaj-'al-lakum Fur-qaananw-wa yu-kaffir 'ankum sayyi 'aatikum being part of 8.30 while wa yaj -'al-lakum Nuurantamshuuna bihii part of 57.29. Therefore, the allegation that the words wa yaj-'al-lakum Nuuran-tamshuuna bihii has been added is thoroughly false, these being a part of the Quranic verse in. Surah Al Hadid.30 Secondly, since both these verses have not been cited in full, nor were they meant to be, the question of any subtraction does not arise.. The only objection anyone could, albeit not justifiably, raise against this particular citation of the Holy Quran would be that. Hadhrat Ahmad as has linked together two separate sections of two Quranic verses. In that event one would submit that in doing so, he has merely followed the Sunnah of Prophet. Muhammads who often linked together separate sections of different Quranic verses to convey an essential message. This fact has already been illustrated in the preceding pages with the citation of a Hadeeth in Jami Tirmidhi where Hadhrat 30. Al Quran 57.29 209

Page 222

Muhammads linked three separate Quranic verses to state: وجهت وجهي للذي فطر السموات والأرض حنيفا وما أنا المشركين إن صلاتي ونسكي ومحياي ومماتي لله لا شريك له وبذلك أمرت وأنا من المسلمين.» رب من العلمين. Such a Hadeeth where our beloved Prophets linked sections of separate Quranic verses is also found in the Masnad of Ahmad, as for instance Hadhrat 'Abd Allah ibn Abbasa narrates that the. Apostles of Allah stated: رب العرش العظيم «لا إله إلا الله العليم العظيم لا إله إلا الله رب السموات السبع و رب العرش الكريم لا إله إلا الله. In this statement Hadhrat Muhammad sa linked together certain sections of Surah Tauba 9.129 as well as Surah al Mu'minun 23.87 and 23.117. Hadeeth literature also indicates that our beloved Prophet often extracted parts of several Quranic verses and linked them together to explain certain aspects of Islamic teachings, as for instance, it is reported in Jami Tirmidhi that the. Apostle of Allah stated: من دخل السوق فقال لا إله إلا الله وحده لا شريك له، له يموت بيده الخير لا الملك وله الحمد يحيي ويميت وهو حي وهو على كل شيء قدير.». In yet another such report in the aforementioned collection of. Hadeeth, it is narrated that Hadhrat Muhammad sa stated: • «هو الله الذي لا إله إلا هو الرحمن الرحيم الملك القدوس السلام المؤمن المهيمن العزيز الجبار المتكبر الخالق الباري المصور.». What opinion does Abdul Hafeez now propose to express in relation to Hadhrat Muhammads for having left a precedent in his life for his truthful followers to copy? 210

Page 223

The aforementioned submission should, therefore, conclusively establish that Abdul Hafeez has either, out of sheer mischief, manipulated genuine human error to construe it as evidence of intentional alteration of the text of Quranic verses or else, out of ignorance, censured the Sunnah of our beloved Prophet, Hadhrat. Muhammadsa. If he considers either of these two actions justifiable, then one leaves him to his transgression. Nonetheless, in 1973, the General Secretary of the Jamaitul Ulema Islam in. Pakistan, Maulvi Mufti Mahmud started such a false propaganda against the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community which was responded to by the then Governor of Baluchistan, Nawab. Muhammad Akbar Bagti who instituted an inquiry into this matter and finally reported that no such alteration of the Quran had been made. 31 The fact remains, however, that these evidences furnished by the author of Two in One as proof of alteration of the Quranic text are either genuine errors in different editions or false allegations. That is why he does not furnish his evidences from one single but several editions.³2. As regards the question of alteration of meaning and application, Abdul Hafeez has not furnished any evidence despite his own statement that 'every claim has to have some proof. 133 One is, therefore, unable to dwell upon this question at length but submit that since every translator of the Quran has conducted his translation according to one's own understanding of the Sacred Text, one can well expect to find variations in translation of the Holy Quran. Such variations are to be found between translations conducted by the renowned scholars of. Islam, as for instance, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and Maulana. Abdul Haq, Muhaddith Dehlvi who subscribed to the same schools of thought. Why then should Ahmadi Muslims be singled out in this relation is something which Abdul Hafeez needs to explain. 31. Mashriq, Quetta. July 29, 1973 32. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 25 33. Ibid., p. 6 211

Page 224

CHAPTER SIX. ALTERATION OF KALIMAH. Abdul Hafeez also accuses the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community of altering Islamic fundamentals and the first allegation he makes is in relation to the Islamic credo, the Kalimah: Laa 'ilaaha 'il-lal-laah Muhammadur-Rasuu-lullaah', i.e., There is none worthy of worship but God, and Muhammad is His Messenger. He asserts that Ahmadi Muslims have changed the Kalimah' by substituting the name of the Holy Prophet of Islam, Hadhrat. Muhammads with that of Hadhrat Ahmadas, the Founder of the. Ahmadiyya Muslim Community.² Hence he alleges that, God forbid:. There is لا اله الا الله احمد رسول الله The Kalimah of Qadianis is' no God but Allah and Ahmad is His messenger. Note: Ahmad has been substituted for Muhammad. The illustrated booklet. AFRIKA SPEAKS issued on the occasion of the tour of Africa by Mirza Nasir Ahmad Qadiani contains a photograph of. Ahmadiyya central mosque, Nigeria, which has this Kalima written on it. 13. The author of Two in. One also includes an alleged photo of the mosque at Ijebuode in. Nigeria on which this altered Kalimah is stated by him to have been written.. MADIYYA CENTRAL MOSQUE اله الا الله الحمد النعل هم 1. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 5 212 2. Ibid., p. 22 3. lbid. 4. Ibid., 23

Page 225

Now, any intelligent man who studies this photograph with honesty would agree that the disputed word in the context of this Kalimah is Muhammad sa and not Ahmadas. It is an established fact that Arabic calligraphy has adopted numerous forms throughout the length and breadth of the Islamic world and the Islamic credo at the entrance of the Ahmadiyya Central. Mosque at Ijebuode, Nigeria has been written in a traditional style of calligraphy adopted by the people of the local area which requires the first alphabet (* mim, the equivalent of the alphabet m to be lengthened. This system of lengthening alphabets is a perfectly normal practice in the system of Arabic calligraphy adopted by Muslims of this region, as for instance, one also observes the taller than normal lines to teeth of the alphabet sn in the letter Rasul.. In this particular instance, the first alphabet mim or m has thus been first lengthened upwards and then brought down to join the second alphabet Tha or h to make > and when these two are joined to the third and fourth alphabets and dal, it reads i.e., Muhammadsa. mim. A honest person with even a meagre knowledge of Arabic writing would never express an opinion that the disputed word in the above credo does not represent Muhammadsa on account of the fact that in Ahmad, the first two alphabets | Alif or A and. Cha or h are not joined together but stand separately and hence, the name Ahmad is written thus . This is evident from Abdul Hafeez's own book where he states that the. Kalimah of the Ahmadi Muslims is, God forbid: لا اله الا الله احمد رسول الله. PHOTOCOPY OF ALLEGED KALIMAH OF AHMADI MUSLIMS. WRITTEN IN ARABIC BY ABDUL HAFEEZ. VIDE. TWO IN ONE, P. 22. One would observe that in this Arabic version of the alleged. Kalimah of Ahmadi Muslims, the first alphabet of the name. Ahmad, i.e., Alif is separated from the second alphabet, Tha.. Now, if the first two alphabets, i.e., mim and C ha in the 213

Page 226

picture of the Kalimah written on the Ahmadiyya Central. Mosque at Ijebuode, Nigeria were to be separated and, for the sake of an argument, it was accepted that the first alphabet in the picture is not mim for Muhammad but \ Alif for Ahmad, i.e., Al Hamd and not Ahmad. then the word would read. This credo would then, God forbid, read:. M. SLIGHTLY ENLARGED COPY OF THE PICTURE IN ABDUL HAFEEZ'S. PUBLICATION TWO IN ONE, P. 23 WITH THE FIRST TWO ALPHABETS OF. THE DISPUTED WORDS SEPARATED. In English Transliteration, this would read as, God forbid: Laa 'ilaaha 'il-lal-laah al Hamd-Rasuu-lullaah. A Kalimah of this nature would not make any sense at all since the Arabic word al Hamd means all praise and Hamd, praise of God.. Other evidence contained within this photograph establishes that the name here is Muhammad and not Ahmad, as for instance, the placing of the diacritical marks and also the existence of w above min of Muhammad. If the name in the above photograph was Ahmad, then this particular diacritical mark would have been absent because it is not used 19119 in writing 3 Ahmad. It is, therefore, thoroughly dishonest of Abdul Hafeez to attempt to manipulate this perfectly Islamic written on the entrance of the. Ahmadiyya Muslim mosque in question to allege that it reads لا اله الا الله محمد رسول الله credo. If Ahmadi Muslims had changed their. لا اله الا الله احمد رسول الله 214

Page 227

Kalimah and substituted Ahmad for Muhammad, then they would not have the Kalimah with Muhammad written on their mosques throughout the world. Nor would the Pakistan. Government have to employ its police to erase the Kalimah with. Muhammad an integral part of it from the fascia of numerous. Ahmadiyya Muslim mosques in Pakistan in the wake of. Ordinance XX of 1984 after Ahmadi Muslims had refused to erase it with their own hands. An evidence of one such desecration of the Islamic Kalimah by the Pakistan Police under instructions of Zia ul Haq's junta is presented below.. TEALIN ال الأن المعرة النير. A PAKISTANI POLICE CONSTABLE ERASING THE NAME OF HADHRAT MUHAMMAD**. FROM THE KALIMAH ON THE FASCIA OF THE AHMADIYYA MOSQUE AT. SIR SHAMSHEER ROAD, FAISALABAD IN PAKISTAN. The fact that Ahmadi Muslims have never ever recited any other Kalimah except 'Laa ilaaha 'il-lal-laah Muhammadur-Rasuulullaah' is also evident from the number of cases registered 215

Page 228

against them in Pakistan, the charge sheet of every one of which specifies the alleged offence as recitation of or wearing the badge of the Kalimah 'Laa 'ilaaha 'il-lal-laah Muhammadur-Rasuulullaah.' If the Kalimah of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community had, God forbid, substituted Muhammad with Ahmad then there would be absolutely no reason for these Ahmadi Muslims to be charged under Ordinance XX of 1984 enacted by the military regime of the Zia ul Haq. Nor any reason for them to be punished under Amendment of the Pakistan Penal Code [Act. XLV of 1860], Additions of New Section 298C. One states that because the Ordinance requires that any member of the. Ahmadiyya Muslim Community 'who, directly or indirectly, poses himself as a Muslim, or calls, or refers to his faith as Islam' and who 'by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation, or any manner whatsoever outrages the religious feelings of Muslims, shall be punished.' There would, however, be absolutely no reason for these Muslims to feel outraged if Ahmadi Muslims so charged in Pakistan did not recite the Kalimah of which 'MuhammadurRasuu-lullaah' is an integral part since in reciting any other. Kalimah except that of 'Muhammadur-Rasuu-lullaah,' they cannot be deemed to pose as Muslims.. In view of these facts which are a part of Pakistani history, one would ask Abdul Hafeez as to why should Ahmadi Muslims substitute their Kalimah and demonstrate it outside their mosque in Nigeria where the government does not penalise it for its beliefs and yet, in a country like Pakistan where they are threatened with severe penalisation, they insist on proclaiming the Islamic Kalimah to which the government takes exception?. The Kalimah written at the Ahmadiyya Central Mosque,. Ijebuode in Nigeria is positively 'Laa ilaaha 'il-lal-laah. Muhammadur-Rasuu-lullaah' and irrespective of how Abdul. Hafeez proposes to beguile his readers into believing otherwise, the fact will remain that Ahmadi Muslims know and recite the only Kalimah taught to them by Hadhrat Muhammad sa which is: 'Laa ilaaha 'il-lal-laah Muhammadur-Rasuu-lullaah.' Any reasonable man who considers this false charge against them to the effect that they have substituted the name of Hadhrat 216

Page 229

Muhammadsa with that of Hadhrat Ahmadas, would - in the light of the persecution being suffered by them in Pakistan for reciting and wearing the Islamic Kalimah badges - seriously think about the wisdom of them publicising such a substituted. Kalimah in a country where they command extraordinary respect as Muslims of the first order. In fact, people like Abdul. Hafeez have often demanded that 'Ahmadis stop calling themselves Muslims and others would begin to be tolerant towards them.15 In view of such offers of tolerance in Pakistan, if Ahmadi Muslims can, as falsely alleged, publicise any other. Kalimah other than 'Laa ilaaha 'il-lal-laah Muhammadur-Rasuulullaah' in a country where they are not persecuted for reciting their credo of faith, then what possible reluctance could they have in not declaring the same in Pakistan and rid themselves of the severe hardship to which they are being subjected?. The irony of this entire controversy is that while Ahmadi. Muslims have, do and will continue to recite the Kalimah: 'Laa 'ilaaha 'il-lal-laah Muhammadur-Rasuu-lullaah, there exists ample evidence within Islamic literature to suggest that many a Muslim saints have substituted the name of Hadhrat. Muhammadsa with that of other saints of Islam in the Kalimah.. For instance, it is reported that such a Kalimah was pronounced with the name of Hadhrat Abu Bakr Shiblith which read: 'Laa ilaaha 'il-lal-laah Shibli-Rasuu-lullaah,' i.e., 'There is no god but Allah, and Shibli is His Messenger."6. A Kalimah with the name of Hadhrat Muhammadsa substituted with that of Hadhrat Mu'in ud Din Chishtir has also been pronounced to read as: 'Laa ilaaha 'il-lal-laah Chishti-Rasuu-lullaah,' i.e., 'There is no god but Allah, and Chishti is His Messenger."7 5. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 89 6. Hasan, Maulana Shah Gul, Tadhkira Ghausiyya, p. 315 7. Attar, [Hadhrat] Farid ud Din, Fawa'id e Faridiyya, p. 83 217

Page 230

This Kalimah has been recorded in a different manner in another instance where it has been substituted to read: 'Laa 'ilaaha 'il-lal-laah Mu'in ud Din-Rasuu-lullaah,' i.e., 'There is no god but Allah, and Mu'in ud Din is His Messenger.'. It is also recorded that once a man came to enter into the discipleship of Hadhrat Khawaja Mu'in ud Din Chishtira and. Hadhrat Khawaja Ajmerira asked him to recite the Kalimah but when the man recited the Islamic Kalimah: 'The Khawaja said to him: Say it like this, There is no god but. Allah and Chishti is the Messenger of Allah. The man did so, and the Khawaja accepted the pledge from him and invested him with the robe of honour.' 19. Such substitution has also been made in relation to Hadhrat. Khawaja Habib Ullah Attar who instructed a disciple: 'Lengthen your saying of la ilaha, and efface the thought of all others, other than God from the heart. After that, ill-Allah should be stressed, and you should consider me the messenger of Allah.'10. Abdul Hafeez's own spiritual predecessor Maulvi Ashraf Ali. Thanvi of the Deoband fame had a Kalimah concocted in his name by one of his disciples which read: 'Laa ilaaha 'il-lal-laah Ashraf Al-Rasuu-lullaah,' i.e., There is no go but Allah, and Ashraf Ali is His Messenger.' #11. Similarly, an Indian saint Sheikh Sadiq Gangohi told a disciple to pronounce his name in the Kalimah as a messenger of Allah. 8. Haft Aktalab, p. 167. vide. Kitab e Mahfooz, p. 22 9. vide. Fawa'id as Salikeen, p. 18 10. Attar, [Hadhrat] Khawaja Habib Ullah. vide. Masnavi Bahr al Irfan, vol. 1, p. 179 11. Al Imdad, Safar, 1336 AH, circa. 1918, p. 35 218

Page 231

He commanded his disciple to say: 'There is no go but Allah and Sadiq is the messenger of. Allah.112. One would now leave it to Abdul Hafeez to either deny that any such Kalimah with the names of Hadhrat Abu Bakr Shiblith.. Hadhrat Mu'in ud Din Chishtit and Hadhrat Khawaja Habib. Ullah Attarra as well as the Indian saint Sheikh Sadiq Gangohi and the Deoband leader Maulvi Ashraf Ali Thanvi exist in literature published by the non Ahmadiyya Muslim publication houses or else pass his judgement on the people who substituted the name of Hadhrat Muhammadsa in these versions of their Kalimah.. Finally, the author of Two in One begs a question of the. Ahmadi Muslims as to whether they recite Ahmad instead of. Muhammad in the Kalimah.13 If, as it behove a Muslim, he is prepared to accept the sworn statement of every Ahmadi. Muslim, then one can assure him that the official Kalimah of the. Ahmadiyya Muslim Community is: 'Laa 'ilaaha 'il-lal-laah Muhammadur-Rasuu-lullaah.'. Therefore, there is absolutely no reason for Ahmadi Muslims to recite Ahmad instead of Muhammad in their Kalimah. They have never, in their entire history, recited Ahmad instead of. Muhammad in the Kalimah nor do they now recite Ahmad instead of Muhammad and Inshallah, they shall never recite. Ahmad instead of Muhammad in the Kalimah. It is now up to. Abdul Hafeez to believe what he chooses to believe. But, if he rather not accept this assurance as a statement of truth, then one suggest that he stop taking exception to the appellation of the title of a disbeliever and an enemy being applied to him. 12. Gangohi, Shaikh Sadiq. vide. Al Takashaf an Mahmat al Tasawwuf, p. 594 13. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 36 219

Page 232

CHAPTER SEVEN. ABROGATION OF JIHAD. In his endeavours to prove that Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam. Ahmadas opposed the concept of Jihad' in Islam, Abdul Hafeez cites² a passage from Hadhrat Ahmad's as book titled Ayyamus. Sulh in which he, according to his original work stated: 'We believe that there is none worthy of worship except Allah and Seyyidna Hadhrat Muhammad Mustapha sa is His. Messenger and is the Seal of Prophets. We believe that the angels, the resurrection of the body, the day of judgement, heaven and hell are a reality. We also believe that whatever. God, the Lord of the Hosts has stated in the noble Quran and whatever our Prophetsa has said in relation to these is true.. We believe that whosoever subtracts the smallest particle in from the law of Islam, or adds to it, or lays the foundation of neglecting obligations and indifference towards them, is without faith and is turned away from Islam. I admonish the members of my community that they should, in true sincerity, have faith in the Kalimah; Laa ilaaha 'il-lal-laah MuhammadurRasuu-lullaah and they should die in this faith. They should believe in all prophets and books, the truth of which is affirmed by the noble Quran. They should observe the fast and perform the salat and pay the zakat and perform Hajj and carry out all that God Almighty and His Messenger have prescribed and also abstain from all that has been forbidden and thus conform in every respect to Islamic commandments.. They should accept all that is supported by the consensus of the righteous ones who have passed away and all that is 1. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 5 220 | ! | 2. Ibid., pgs., 21 & 49 |

Page 233

considered as part of Islam by the consensus of the Ahle. Sunnat. We call to witness the heavens and the earth that this is our religion.' 13. The author of Two in One then attempts to find a flaw in this statement of the Ahmadiyya Muslim faith. He states that while the followers of Hadhrat Imam Abu Hanifah agree with the above declaration, Hadhrat Ahmadas has failed to mention Jihad in this summary of his beliefs, thereby suggesting by implication that Ahmadi Muslims are disbelievers.* Alas! were this petty pir of Gujjo conversant with the articles of the Islamic faith and the pillars of Islam which Hadhrat Gabrielas had expounded to. Hadhrat Muhammadsa on the command of God Almighty, he would have known better since the aforementioned statement of. Hadhrat Ahmadas conforms to the requirements of the Islamic faith and its practice as taught to Muslims by the Messenger of. Godas. For instance, the famous collection of Hadeeth, the Sahih of Bukhari reports: 'Narrated Abu Huraira: One day while the Prophetsa was sitting in the company of some people, [The angel] Gabrielas came and asked, "What is faith?" Allah's Apostle sa replied, "Faith is to believe in Allah, His angels, [the] meeting with. Him, His Apostles, and to believe in Resurrection." Then he further asked, "What is Islam?" Allah's Apostles replied, "To worship Allah Alone and none else, to offer prayers perfectly, to pay the compulsory charity [Zakat] and to observe fasts during the month of Ramadhan." 15. This Hadeeth has also been recorded on the authority of. Hadhrat Yahya ibn Y'amurth that Hadhrat 'Abd Allah ibn Umar™a who narrated: 'My father Umar ibn Khattab told me: One day, we were sitting 3. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Ayyamus Sulh, p. 87; Ruhani Khazain, vol. 14, p. 323 4. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 49 5. Sahih Bukhari 2.38 221

Page 234

in the company of the Messenger of Allahsa when there appeared before us a man dressed in extremely white clothes, his hair extraordinarily black. There was no sign of [fatigue] of journey on him. None amongst us recognised him. At last, he sat along with the Apostlesa. He leaned his knees before his knees and placed his palms on his tights and said:. Muhammad, inform me about al Islam. The Messenger of. Allahsa said: Al Islam implies that you testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, and you establish prayer, pay Zakat, observe fast of. Ramadhan, and perform pilgrimage to the [House] if you are solvent enough [to bear the expense of the] journey. He [the inquirer] said: You have told the truth. He [Umar ibn Khattab] said: It amazed us that he would put the question and then he would himself verify the truth. He [the inquirer] said: Inform me about Iman [faith]. He [the Holy Prophet] replied: That you affirm your faith in Allah, in His angels, in His Books, in His. Apostles, in the day of Judgement, and you affirm your faith in Divine Decree to good and evil.' He [the inquirer] said: You have told the truth."6. The Sahih of Muslim reports this Hadeeth on the authority of. Hadhrat Abu Hurairara also in which Iman has been stated to 'affirm faith in Allah, His angels, His Books, mankind's eventual meeting with Him, His Messengers and in Resurrection' and. Islam has been stated to 'signify that you worship Allah and do not associate anything with Him and you establish obligatory prayer and pay the zakat and observe the fast." Hadhrat Imam. Muslim also states that this Hadeeth was narrated to him by. Hadhrat Muhammad ibn 'Abd Allahth on the authority of. Hadhrat Muhammad ibn Bishrth who narrated it on the authority of Hadhrat Abu Hayyan al Taymira with the same definition of Iman and Islam.8 га. In yet another instance, Hadeeth literature reports on the authority of Hadhrat Abu Huraira™ that Prophet Muhammadsa 6. Sahih Muslim 1.1 7. Ibid., 1.2 8. Ibid., 2.1 222

Page 235

told his companions to 'ask him about matters pertaining to religion but they [were too much overawed out of profound respect for him to ask him anything.] In the meantime, a man came and sat next to him and asked him to explain Islam and. Iman to him to which the Messenger of Allahsa gave the above definition of Iman and Islam. This description of Islam has also been reported in Sahih Bukhari which states: 'Narrated Ibn Umar: Allah's Apostles said: Islam is based on [the following] five [principles]: 1. To testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and Muhammad is Allah's apostle. 2. To offer the [compulsory congregational] prayers dutifully and perfectly. 3. To pay the Zakat [i.e. obligatory charity] 4. To perform Hajj [i.e.' Pilgrimage to Mecca] 5. To observe the fast during the month of Ramadhan.'10 sa. Hence, these statements of Prophet Muhammad's a belief in relation to Iman and Islam as reported by these works of. Hadeeth do not, in any manner whatsoever, differ from Hadhrat. Ahmad's as aforementioned statement of belief quoted by Abdul. Hafeez from his works Ayyamus Solh." Nor do numerous such other statements attributed to Hadhrat Muhammad sa by the authentic books of Hadeeth.. Since this self proclaimed Ahnaf scholar of Islam has not stated the grounds on which he has taken exception to Jihad not being mentioned in this particular passage of Hadhrat Ahmad's as writings, one is not certain of the aspect from which one ought to discuss his objection. However, if he must insist that Jihad should necessarily have been a part of this definition in. Ayyamus Sulh or else Ahmadi Muslims cannot be classified as. Muslims, then one would ask him if he professes to know more of the faith of Islam than Hadhrat Gabriel as who, on the command of God, informed Hadhrat Muhammad sa of the. Islamic faith and Hadhrat Muhammadsa who, thereafter, taught. Islam to Muslims for all times? 9. Ibid. 10. Sahih Bukhari 2.2 11. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafez. Two in One, p. 49 223

Page 236

Abdul Hafeez might want to make a capital issue of the aforementioned statement and if he did, one would not be surprised considering that despite such clear definition of Iman and Islam by the Prophet of Islams, people like this ignorant pir of Gujjo have chosen to ignore the verdict of Hadhrat. Muhammadsa in favour of what scholars of Ahnafs in the sub continent of India have believed Iman and Islam to be. In case the author of Two in One is not aware, Hadhrat Nizam ud Din. Auliah was brought to the Court of the Moghul Emperor on charges of acting contrary to the Shari'ah of Islam by none other than his predecessors the 7th century Hijri scholars of the. Hanifi school of Jurisprudence.. Apparently, Hadhrat Sultan ul Auliath was accused by the. Ahnaf scholars of India for listening to music, allegedly contrary to the injunctions of Islam. When asked if he had anything to say, he presented his defence from the works of Hadeeth¹² at which the Chief Hanifite Mufti in India stated: 'What have you to do with the Hadeeth and Sunnah of the. Holy Prophet? You are a follower of Imam Abu Hanifa, so let us have evidence from Abu Hanifa in your defence.113. Somewhat taken aback at this statement by the Mufti, the revered saint responded: 'Holy is God. I bring evidence from our Masters and you want me to bring evidence from his servant, a follower. Who is Abu. Hanifa to supersede the Holy Prophetsa? Those who prefer the sayings of a follower over his master must fear from the curse of banishment. They could be punished by famine and are in danger of their cities laid waste and coming to ruins'14. Historical documents state that Chief Ahnaf Mufti and his equally bigoted and ignorant companions from the clergy became excited at Hadhrat Nizam ud Din Aulia's™ surprise that 12. Anwar i Aulia, p. 297 13. Ibid. 224 14. Ibid. p. 278

Page 237

they were prepared to give preference to the servant, Hadhrat. Imam Abu Hanifa's Th opinion over the master, Hadhrat. Muhammadsa. Hence, they exclaimed: 'We take refuge in God. This man has the audacity to belittle the Upholder of the Shariah and insult the supporters of Abu. Hanifa's jurisprudence. He says, "Who is Abu Hanifa?" and only a few moments he claimed to be a follower of Abu. Hanifa' 15. The Chief Ahnaf Mufti and his Ahnaf colleagues finally managed to excite the public at large and they all began to shout: 'Oh! He is insulting Imam Abu Hanifa. This man is a backslider. He is most insolent.'16. Maybe, this episode of history might give Abdul Hafeez an indication of whose footsteps he seems to be following and one also hopes that he is not proud of his spiritual Ahnaf predecessors who caused such distress to one of Islam's most respected and venerable personalities, the Sultan ul Aulia,. Hadhrat Nizam ud Din Auliah.. The crux of the matter is that Jihad is not mentioned in this statement of Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas in Ayyamus Solh because it has not been mentioned in the definition of either. Iman or Islam by the aforementioned statements of the Prophet of Islam, Hadhrat Muhammadsa. But this does not mean that. Hadhrat Ahmadas did not consider Jihad to be an integral and also an essential part of the Islamic faith. The only difference between his concept of Jihad and that of Abdul Hafeez's is that of interpretation. While the latter believes that it only means the yielding of the sword to shed the blood of innocent people and coerce them into believing in Islam, Hadhrat Ahmad as believed that 'God has set forth clearly that there shall be no compulsion 15. Ibid. 16. Ibid 225

Page 238

117 in religion and that 'Islam does not permit the use of force or coercion for the purpose of the propagation of Faith. 18 He discussed this often in his writings and stated that striving in the cause of Allah which is designated Jihad is a doctrine, the philosophy of which needs to be clearly understood. 19 He then proceeded to state that 'the root of the Arabic word Jihad means striving and has been metaphorically applied to fighting in the cause of religion '20 but this did not mean that the Holy Quran gives an arbitrary command to fight. On the contrary, Hadhrat. Ahmadas stated that the Holy Quran: 'gives the command to fight only against those people who prevent others from believing in God, and stop them from obeying His commandments and worshipping Him. It gives the command to fight against those who attack Muslims without cause, expel them from their homes and countries and prevent others from becoming Muslims. These are they with whom God is wroth, and Muslims must fight them if they do not desist. '21. He was of the opinion there is a time for Jihad with the sword and Jihad through other means. He not only believed in Jihad through physical means if conditions which justify it with the sword are found existent but also supported it. He stated that: 'As to the means and arrangements to be used, whether for physical warfare or spiritual warfare, whether the battle is by sword or by the pen, the following verse is sufficient for our guidance: 'Make ready for them whatever force you can.' In this verse God empowers us to employ against the enemy all suitable means and to use the method which we consider to be most effective." +22 17. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Paigham e Sulh, p. 46; Ruhani Khazain, vol. 23, p. 468 18. Ibid., Masih Hindustan Mein; Ruhani Khazain, vol. 15, p. 4 19. Ibid., Government Angrezi aur Jihad; Ruhani Khazain, vol. 17, p. 3 21. Ibid., Nurul Haq, pt. p. 45; Ruhani Khazain, vol. 8, p 62 22. Ibid., Majmu'a Ishtiharat, vol. 1, p. 360 20. Ibid. 226

Page 239

However, he insisted that Islam 'commanded us that we should make the same kind of preparation to face the unbelievers as they do to confront us or, that we treat them as they treat us, and as long as they do not raise the sword against us, we do not raise it against them till then. 123 He argued that in the present 'age, the pen had been raised against Islam and it was through it that Muslims had been caused so much pain and suffering.. Therefore, the pen should be the weapon of the Muslims. 124 He also 'believed it the duty of every Muslim to join this battle" but he did not disregard the injunction of undertaking Jihad by the sword nor abrogate it. On the contrary, he was of the opinion that Islam does permit 'the taking of the sword in opposition to people who take it up against Islam first and who embark upon slaughter first. 126 In his long exposition of the. Islamic Jihad, he was quite insistent that under the prevailing conditions: 'The Jihad of this age is to propagate Islam and refute the allegation of the critics; to spread the beauty of the true religion, Islam, in the world, and to manifest the truth of the. Holy Prophetsa to the world." 127 +25. But this did not mean that Jihad by the sword now stood abrogated. On the contrary, Hadhrat Ahmad as stated quite clearly that under the present conditions: 'This is Jihad, until God produces different circumstances in the world.. These statements should therefore establish that Hadhrat. Ahmadas did not discount the prospects of Muslims resorting to the use of the sword to conduct Jihad if conditions demanded.. However, until then, he considered it against the essence of 23. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Haqeeqatul Mahdi, p. 28; Ruhani Khazain, vol. 14, p. 454 24. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Malfoozat, vol. 1, p. 44 25. Ibid., 219 26. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Anjam Atham; Ruhani Khazain, vol. 11, p. 37 27. Ibid., Letter to Mir Nasir Nawab quoted in Ruhani Khazain 227 28. Ibid.

Page 240

Islamic teachings to unnecessarily shed the blood of innocent people. He stated: 'The Holy Quran clearly forbids the use of force for the spread of the faith and directs its propagation through its inherent qualities and good example of Muslims. Do not be misled by the notion that in the beginning the Muslims were commanded to take up the sword. The sword was not taken up for the spread of the faith, but in self defence against the enemies of. Islam and for the purpose of establishing peace and security.. It was no part of the purpose of taking it up to have recourse to coercion in the matter of faith. '29. It is, however, sad that Hadhrat Ahmad's as opponents cite his statements out of context to allege that he abrogated Jihad and. Abdul Hafeez merely follows the wont of his predecessors who have, in the past, often accused Hadhrat Ahmad as of the same.. Hence, he claims to cite the founder of the Ahmadiyya Muslim community on the question of Jihad in his book Two in One 30 without actually providing any reference of the statement he is alleged to have made because this sly pir of Gujjo knows that if one was to consult the original works of Hadhrat Ahmadas, one would find that what he actually said was: 'I have brought you a commandment which is that Jihad with the sword has been ended but the Jihad of the purification of your spirit must continue to be waged. I say this not on my own part but in order to proclaim the design of God. Reflect on the hadeeth of Bukhari wherein it is stated that the. Promised Messiah would put an end to fighting for the faith.. Accordingly, I command those who have joined my ranks that they should discard all such notions. They should spread peace on the earth, for this would cause their faith to spread. 131 29. Ibid., Sitara Qaisariyyah, p. 10; Ruhani Khazain, vol. 15, pp. 120/21 30. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 22 31. Ahmad [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam.. Government Angrezi aur Jihad; Ruhani Khazain, vol. 17, p. 15 228

Page 241

Now, when Hadhrat Ahmad's as aforementioned statement is studied in the context of his claim to be the Promised Messiah and the Hadeeth of Hadhrat Muhammadsa in which it is stated that the Promised Messiah will terminate all wars 32, the authenticity of which Hadeeth has been numerously accepted by non Ahmadi Muslims³³, one cannot see what feasible objection could Abdul Hafeez have to Hadhrat Ahmadas expressing such opinions which he clearly stated were within the framework of. Islamic teachings and prophecies of Hadhrat Muhammad. Mustaphasa. 33. Incidentally, Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's as opinions in relation to Islamic Jihad have been shared by Muslims throughout the history of Islam. For instance, Hadhrat Imam. Fakhr ud Din Razith stated: 'As for the verse, Strive against them a great Jihad, some say that it refers to efforts in preaching while others say it refers to fighting. Some others say it includes both. The first meaning is most accurate because this verse was revealed at. Mecca and the command to fight came after the emigration. 134. The famous Indian intellectual, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad was also of the opinion that: 'There is a serious misconception regarding what Jihad is.. Many people think that Jihad means only to fight. The critics of Islam too labour under this misunderstanding whereas to think thus is to utterly narrow the practical scope of this sacred commandment. Jihad means to strive to the utmost. In the Quran and the Sunnah terminology, this utmost exertion, which is undertaken for the sake of truth rather than personal ends, is indicated by the word jihad.135 32. Sahih Bukhari: 55.44 33. Maududi, Abul Ala. Finality of Prophethood 34. Razi, Hadhrat Imam Fakhr ud Din. Tafsir Kabir, vol. iv, p. 330 35. Azad, Maulana Abul Kalam. Mas'ala Khilafat, p. 47 229

Page 242

This view was shared by Sayyid Sulaiman Nadwi of Deoband who stated that 'Jihad is generally taken to mean qital and fighting, but this limitation of significance is entirely wrong.'. He then proceeded to state: 'It means striving and effort. Its technical meaning is also close to this, that is, to undertake all kinds of struggle and exertion for the supremacy, propagation and defence of the truth and to make sacrifices and employ in the way of God all physical, material and mental resources which He has given to His servants, so much so as to sacrifice one's own life and that of one's family and nation. To oppose the efforts of the opponents of the truth and foil their plans; counter their attacks and be ready to fight them in the field of battle is also. Jihad. Regrettably, our opponents have reduced the scope of this important and broad significance without which no movement in the world has or can succeed to merely war with the enemies of the faith.'37 136. Maulana Muhammad Hasan Rampuri also, was of the opinion that war is not Jihad, but qital and only arises now and then while Jihad is to strive to proclaim the word of God.38 Maulvi. Abu Ala Maududi shared this opinion and hence he declared that 'in the terminology of the Shar'iah, qital and jihad are two different things139 while an organ of the Jami'at Ahle Sunnat explained that: 'Jihad is derived from Jahd, meaning literally effort and striving. In the technical sense, it is used for proclaiming the word of God and the supremacy of the success of Islam.140. Hence, in view of such opinions, Muslim scholars of numerous persuasions have maintained that Jihad does not mean to be 36. Nadwi, Sayyid Sulaiman. vide. Sirat an Nabi, vol. v. p. 199 38. Hasan, Maulana Muhammad. Sawanih Ahmadi p. 108 39. Maududi, Sayyid Abu Ala. Mashriq, Lahore, 12 October, 1965 40. Da'wat 13 November, 1964 37. Ibid., pp. 200/01 230

Page 243

engaged in constant strife and blood shedding and killing of innocent people but it means to strive in several other ways in the cause of the truth - an opinion which Hadhrat Ahmadas had expressed and one on account of which people like Abdul. Hafeez falsely allege that he abrogated Jihad. Maulvi Zafar Ali. Khan maintained that 'Jihad is not simply that one should pick up a sword and dash out to a battlefield but it also includes struggle by speech and writing 141 and so did the late king of. Saudi Arabia, Faisal ibn Saud declare: "You have been called to raise the banner of Jihad in the way of God. Jihad is not taking up the guns or raising the sword.. Jihad is to invite to the Book of God and the example of the. Prophet; to hold fast to them and to stick to them despite all kinds of difficulties, distress and affliction. 142. It is also a recorded fact of the history of Muslims that despite differing views on many aspects of Islamic teachings, scholars and leaders of numerous sects have universally agreed that. Jihad of every age is different and has to be conducted through means which are appropriate to the times. Hence, Maulvi Saeed. Ahmad of the Jami'at al Ulama Hind censured the blood thirst mullahs who insisted that Jihad must be essentially conducted with the sword only and stated that 'the Jihad of every age is different. At Mecca, there was one type of defence and at. Medina another. 143 In our present age, however, the famous. Muhaddith of Delhi, Allama Abul Haq Haqqani explained that 'to debate and argue with the heretics is also Jihad '44 since, as maintained by the one time leader of the Ahle Hadeeth in India,. Maulvi Muhammad Hussain Batalvi: 'The age of the sword is no more. Now instead of the sword, it is necessary to wield the pen. +45 41. Khan, Maulvi Zafar Ali. Zamindar, Lahore, 12 June, 1936 42. Saud, Faisal ibn. Umm al Qura, 24 April, 1965 43. Al Jami'at, 28 January, 1931, p. 2 44. Haqqani, Abdul Haqq. Tafsir Haqqani, vol. iv, p. 112 45. Batalvi, Maulvi Muhammad Hussain. Isha'atus Sunnah, vol. vi, no. 12, Dec., 1883, p. 364 231

Page 244

Since Abdul Hafeez finds Maulvi Muhammad Hussain Batalvi's views unacceptable because he finds him to be a controversial figure, one can assure him that his views to the effect that the age of the sword was no more and this was the age of the pen was shared by the majority of the Muslim ulama of that time.. This is evident from Abdul Hafeez's spiritual mentor, Maulvi. Sanaullah Amritsari's statement in which he referred to that period of history and stated: 'As at that time our ulama had declared Jihad with the sword to be rebellion and insurrection, and to be haram, and the opponents of Islam were waging war by the pen, the need then was for Jihad with the pen.' 147. This opinion was, amongst others, shared by Allama. Muhammad Iqbal, held in high regard by Abdul Hafeez for his unfavourable statements against the Ahmadiyya Muslim. Community. He stated that: 'The powers of Islam are not limited. There was an age of the sword. Today is the age of the pen. It attacks from within and without, and compels you from every angle to accept it.48. Incidentally, such views continue to be held by Muslims of several persuasions. Maulvi Zahid al Husaini, for instance, stated not too long ago: 'This is the age of Jihad by the pen. Today, the pen has spread much trouble. The person who does Jihad by the pen is the greatest Mujahid.´ 49. So did the Director General of the Islamic Foundation at. Leicester declare that 'Jihad represents to Muslims all efforts to 46. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 68 47. Amritsari, Maulvi Sanaullah. Iman, 1948 48. Iqbal, Muhammad. Paigham e Sulh, 4 January, 1928 49. Husaini, Maulvi Zahid al. Khuddum ud Din, Lahore, 1 October, 1965 232

Page 245

strive seriously and ceaselessly to fulfil the divine will in human life but: 'The war of aggression, Islam rules out, because Islam has come to bring an end to aggression and establish peace.' 150. This is exactly the kind of Jihad against which Hadhrat. Ahmadas argued. He censured the mullah who persisted in giving currency to a belief that 'the employment of the sword for the purpose of the propagation of the faith is a prescribed obligation' and stated that such 'false doctrines are utterly contrary to the Holy Quran and the teachings of the Holy. Prophets of Islam.151 Yet, although he insisted that the 'failure of the appreciation of the philosophy of Jihad has caused people to entertain serious misconceptions concerning it and has rendered the teachings of Islam open to criticism whereas Islam is a holy religion which is a mirror of the law of nature and manifests the glory of God 52, he did not consider the use of necessary physical force contrary to Divine will. He believed that 'it is a great error on the part of Islam's opponents that they should imagine a revealed guidance to, under no circumstances, inculcate resistance to the enemy and that it should demonstrate its love and mercy only by way of meekness and gentleness since contemplation of the Divine law of nature clearly shows that such resistance is certainly pure mercy also because mercy does not manifest itself by way of gentleness and tenderness in all circumstances.' Nonetheless, he insisted that: 'No true Muslim has ever believed that Islam should be spread by the sword. Islam has always been propagated through its inherent qualities. Those who, calling themselves. Muslims, seek to spread Islam by means of the sword are not aware of its inherent qualities and their conduct resembles the conduct of wild beasts.' 153 50. Ahmad, Prof. Khurshid. International Review of Missions, Oct, 1976, vol lxv, p. 252 51. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Government Angrezi aur Jihad; Ruhani Khazain, vol. 17 pp. 7/8 52. Ibid., p. 3 53. Ibid., Tiryaqul Qulub, p. 21; Ruhani Khazain, vol. 16, p. 167 233

Page 246

JIHAD AGAINST THE BRITISH. This second argument on the basis of which people like Abdul. Hafeez concoct a charge of the abrogation of Jihad against. Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas refers to his declaration that one of the 'principles on which he has been established is the clarification of the doctrine of Jihad which has been misinterpreted by some ignorant Muslims' and that he 'has been given to understand by God Almighty that those practices that are currently regarded as Jihad are entirely opposed to the teaching of the Holy Quran. 154 Hence, he admonished Muslims that, under the prevailing conditions in the sub continent of. India at that point, it was not permissible for them to wage war against a 'benign government or entertain rebellious designs and ill will against it when it afforded them freedom and complete security to discharge their religious obligations to the full.155. Alas! were this ignorant pir from Gujjo to know that Muslim divines and scholars were universally agreed that Jihad against the British rule at that point of the Indian history was contrary to the principles of Islam. It is, for instance, recorded in relation to Hadhrat Ahmad Shah Barelvish that when he was going forth to conduct Jihad against the Sikhs, a person asked him why should he go so far to fight against the Sikhs when the British were ruling the country and they were the deniers of Islam, he replied: 'The British government may be deniers of Islam, but they do not oppress Muslims nor prevent them from their religious obligations and worship. For what reason then should we fight jihad against them and needlessly shed the blood on both sides, contrary to the principles of Islam.156. This opinion was shared by Hadhrat Sayyid Ahmad Shah 54. Ibid., Tohfa Qaisariyya, p. 10; Ruhani Khazain, vol. 12, p. 262 56. Barelvi, [Hadhrat] Sayyid Ahmad Shah. vide. Musalmanon ka Roshan Mustaqbil 234 55. Ibid.

Page 247

Barelvi's th disciple, Hadhrat Sayyid Muhammad Ismail. Shaheed th, who was, incidentally, martyred at Balikot while conducting Jihad against the Sikhs. When he was asked as to why did he not give a pronouncement of Jihad against the. British, he replied: 'In no way is it obligatory to fight Jihad against them. Firstly, we are their subjects. Secondly, they do not interfere in the performance of our religious duties. We have every kind of freedom under their rule. In fact, if someone attacks them,. Muslims must fight the attacker and not let their government be harmed a whit.'57. Sayyid Nazir Husain, the then Muhaddith of Delhi and the most prominent leader of the Jama'it e Ahle Hadeeth in India was a contemporary of Hadhrat Ahmadas. Although opposed to the entire realm of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community's philosophy, he expressed an opinion that: 'The authority of the British in India is lawful and in accordance with the Quranic injunction: "O ye who believe, obey Allah and His Messenger and those in authority amongst you," it is unlawful to wage war against the British Raj.158. The Muhaddith of Delhi declared British India Darus Salam, i.e., the land of peace, and stated: 'Since the criterion of Jihad is absent from this land, to conduct Jihad here would be a means of destruction and sin. '59. Another prominent leader of India, Nawab Siddiq Hasan Khan of Bhopal of the Wahabbi section of the Ahle Hadeeth censured those people who wished to create disorder in British India 57. Shaheed, [Hadhrat] Sayyid Muhammad Ismail. vide. Hayyat Tayabba 58. Husain, Maulvi Nazir. vide. Ata Ullah Shah Bukhari, p. 135 59. Ibid., Fatwa Naziriyya, vol. iv, p. 472 235

Page 248

under the pretext of Jihad. He warned: 'Be concerned about those people who are ignorant of their religious teachings, in that they wish to efface the British. Government, and to end the current peace and tranquillity by disorder under the name of Jihad. This is sheer stupidity and foolishness.160. He referred to the period of the Indian mutiny of 1857 which fanned the flames of battle and stated that: 'If anyone lets loose such mischief today, he would also be the same kind of trouble maker and from the beginning to the end, he would stain the name of Islam.'61. The Nawab of Bhopal also declared that whosoever acted against the British Raj in India, he: 'is not only a mischief maker in the eyes of the rulers but he shall be the farthest from what Islam requires and from the way of the believers, and he shall be regarded as a violator of the covenant, unfaithful to his religion, and a perpetrator of the greatest sin. What his condition will be on the Day of. Judgement will become evident there.162. Such pronouncements by Muslim divines, scholars and leaders were neither few nor far in between. The author of Two in One may reject the opinions of Maulvi Muhammad Hussain Batalvi on the grounds that he had always been a controversial figure63 but that does not deny the fact that in 1875, he declared that: 'all religious wars against the British Government of India and against the authority which has granted religious freedom, is forbidden by and contrary to the law of Islam and those people who take up weapons against the British Government 60. Khan, Nawab Siddiq Hasan. Tarjuman e Wahabiyya, p. 7 61. Ibid., p. 15 62. Ibid., p. 17 63. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, P. 68 236

Page 249

of India or against any sovereign who has granted religious freedom, and wish to conduct Jihad against them are all rebels and deserve punishment.164. Apparently, Maulvi Muhammad Hussain Batalvi sent his said ruling in relation to Jihad against the British: 'to all the ulama of Punjab and other parts of India and well publicised it. He obtained the seal and signatures of approval of all the ulama of Punjab and India in support of the ruling that the taking up of arms by Indian Muslims and Jihad by them against the British Government of India was opposed to the Sunnah and the faith of monotheists.165. In case Abdul Hafeez wishes to contest this claim, he ought to be advised that in an edict of 17th July, 1870, the ulama of northern India ruled that: 'The Musalmans here are protected by Christians, and there is no Jihad in a country where protection is afforded, as the absence of protection and liberty between Musalmans and infidels is essential in a religious war, and that condition does not exist here.166. Similarly, such a Fatwa was also procured from the ulama of east India who declared India to be Darul Islam67 and stated: 'Jihad can by no means be lawfully made in Darul Islam. This is so evident that it requires no argument or authority in its support. Now, if any misguided wretch, owing to his perverse fortune, were to wage war against the ruling power of this country, British India, such war would be rightly pronounced rebellion, and rebellion is strictly forbidden by the Islamic law.. Therefore such war will likewise be unlawful and in case anyone does wage such a war, Muslim subjects would be 64. Khan, Nawab Siddiq Hasan. Tarjuman e Wahabiyya, p. 61 66. Hunter, W.W. The Indian Musalmans, p. 218 65. Ibid. 67. Ibid., p. 122 237

Page 250

bound to assist their Rulers, and in conjunction with them, fight such rebels.168. Such pronouncements which declared India Darul Islam were also forthcoming from the Muftis of Mecca and Medina and other Arab divines including Sheikh Jamaluddin ibn 'Abd Allah,. Sheikh Umar Hanif, Sheikh Ahmad ibn Zihni Shafi and Sheikh. Hussain ibn Ibrahim." They issued such edicts because. as stated by the leader of the Jamaat e Islami, Maulvi Abul Ala. Maududi: 69 'when the British supremacy was established and Muslims had accepted to live in India under their own personal law, this territory was no more Darul Harb.170. What opinion would Abdul Hafeez now express in relation to all the aforementioned Muslim divines and leaders who agreed with Hadhrat Ahmad as that Jihad against the British rule was not permissible? Would he state that they too had abrogated this essential injunction of the Islamic faith?. Incidentally, while Hadhrat Ahmad as agreed with the ulama of the time that Jihad with the sword was not permissible against the legitimate government of India, he still considered India to be Dar ul Harb, i.e., a place of war where Muslims were under a religious obligation to conduct a different kind of Jihad. Hence he declared: 'This country is Dar ul Harb as against Christian missionaries.. We should therefore not sit idle. But remember that our war is of the same kind as theirs. We should go forth with the kind of weapons with which they have come forth. That weapon is the pen.171 68. Ibid., p. 219 69. Kashmiri, Shurush. Ata, Ullah Shah Bukhari, p. 131 70. Maududi, Sayid Abul Ala. Book on Interests, pt 1, pp. 77/78 71. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Al Hakam, vol. v, June 17, 1901, p. 2 238

Page 251

INDIAN MUTINY OF 1857. Finally, Abdul Hafeez attempts to make a capital issue of the assistance afforded to the British Raj by the feudal lords of. Qadian during the Indian sepoy mutiny of 1857.72 In the first instance, he ought to realise that this assistance was given to the. British not by Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as or the. Ahmadiyya Muslim Community but by Mirza Ghulam Murtaza who belonged to the Jamait e Ahle Sunnat wal Ahle Hadeeth of. India and not Jamaat e Ahmadiyya. Hence, neither Hadhrat. Ahmadas nor the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community can, under any criterion, be held responsible for the actions of Hadhrat. Ahmad's ancestors who subscribed to a school of thought whose leadership committed itself to his opposition after he established the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. More so when it has already been shown that it was a decree of God Almighty that the name of Hadhrat Ahmad's as ancestors be blotted out and a foundation of a new family be laid with him. Hence, he stated that God Almighty had revealed to him that: as 'He will cut off thy ancestors and will begin thine family with thee. 173. Such a Divine promise of the beginning of a new dispensation with Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as was also recorded by the. Founder of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community on another occasion when he stated that God Almighty had informed him: 'God, Who is the Possessor of many blessings and Who is. Lofty and Pious has increased your piety over and above your family. From now on, the mention of your family would cease and God will lay the foundation of a beginning with you.' 72. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, P. 54 174 73. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Haqeeqatul Wahi, p. 76; Ruhani Khazain, vol. 22, p. 79 74. Ibid., Kitabul Bariyyah, p. 161; Ruhani Khazain, vol. 13, p. 179 239

Page 252

Incidentally, this promise of blotting out the mention of his ancestors included the name of Hadhrat Ahmad's as father also who had given this assistance to the British Raj. Hence, the. Founder of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community stated that God promised him: 'From now, the mention of your famous father and grandfather would cease and God will lay the foundation of your family with your family as it was done with Abraham175. And this promise, the recorded facts of the history of Hadhrat. Ahmad's as family prove, was fulfilled to the letter. Apparently, his ancestors had been granted a pension in consideration of their services to the British Raj7 but as suggested by Abdul. Hafeez's own citation of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community's literature, it was suspended when Hadhrat Ahmadªs assumed the position of the head of this family. Hence, he quotes. Hadhrat Sahibzada Mirza Bashir Ahmadra, the son of Hadhrat. Ahmadas as having stated: 'The British confiscated our family lands and fixed an honorary [sic] pension of Rs. 700/- only per year in the form of cash which was reduced to Rs. 180/- only at the death of my. Grandfather and stopped completely after my uncle's [Father's elder brother] death.' 177. Although this happened as a consequence of the Divine decree that the name of Hadhrat Ahmad's as ancestors be blotted out, the British Raj did not feel obliged to continue this pension any longer after the death of Hadhrat Ahmad's as elder brother because Hadhrat Ahmadas had not rendered any service to the. British Raj and was therefore not entitled to any pension. Hence, one cannot see under what criterion Abdul Hafeez can blame. Hadhrat Ahmadas for the action of his ancestors. 75. Ibid., Tiryaqul Qulub, p. 69; Ruhani Khazain, vol. 15, p. 185. 76. Dard, A.R. Life of Ahmad, pp. 13/14 77. vide. Shah, Sayid Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, P. 9 240

Page 253

Secondly, one cannot see any reason why the conduct of. Hadhrat Ahmad's as ancestors should be found censurable by. Abdul Hafeez considering that the sepoy mutiny of 1857 was acknowledged to be a rebellion by Muslim divines as well as scholars of the Indian sub continent. For instance, Maulvi. Muhammad Hussain Batalvi declared that: 'All those Muslims who took part in the mutiny of 1857 were, according to the injunctions of the Holy Quran and the Holy. Prophet'ssa Traditions, grave sinners, mischief makers and wicked. Most of the ordinary people among them were like beasts and those considered prominent ulama were either not acquainted with true faith or lacked proper understanding. 178. The famous Indian educationalist, Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, on the other hand, was much more harsh in his estimation of the conduct of the mutineers. He stated: 'This was a mere act of bastardliness and no more. They have the least connection with Islam. 179. The author of Two in One may, conveniently, discard the edicts issued by Maulvi Muhammad Hussain Batalvi and Sir Sayyid. Ahmad Khan in relation to the mutiny of 1857 on the grounds that 'these two persons have always been controversial in this matter and their opinion carries no weight¹80 but this does not alter the fact that the views of these controversial persons was universally shared by the religious as well as secular leadership of the Muslim ummah. The then Sultan of Turkey who was considered to be the Khalifatul Muslimeen issued an edict in favour of the British when pockets of Muslim insurgents joined forces with the Hindus in 1857. It is stated that: 'in 1857, when independent minded Muslims and Hindus in 78. Batalvi, Maluvi Muhammad Hussain. Al Iqtisad fi Masail al Jihad, p. 49 79. Khan, Sir Syed Ahmad. Baghawat e Hind 80. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 68 241

Page 254

India joined forces to launch a war of independence against the British rule, the Khalifa gave a fatwa to the effect that the. Muslims of India ought not fight the British.181. The Sultan of Turkey may have had his own reasons for not being in favour of Muslims being engaged in the mutiny of 1857, but according to the Muslim ulama of the Indian sub continent, the action of the mutineers was positively defined as sinful. Hence, it was recorded in relation to the then Muhaddith of Delhi: 'In terms of true meaning of Jihad, Sayyid Nazir Husain of. Delhi did not consider the 1857 rebellion to be a legal Islamic jihad. He thought it faithlessness, a breach of covenant, and mischief and declared it to be a sin to take part or help in it. 182. In fact, this universally acknowledged leader of the Jami'at e. Ahle Sunnat wal Ahle Hadeeth in India issued an edict that: 'This mutiny was not jihad but an act of banditry and a punishable offence.183. Another prominent leader of the Ahle Hadeeth, Nawab Siddiq. Hasan Khan of Bhopal alluded to the mutiny of 1857 and stated that 'during the mutiny, some rajas and so called nawabs and men of means interfered with the peace and calm of India under the name of Jihad. They fanned the flames of battle until disorder and hostility reached such a level that women and children, who cannot be killed under the law, were thoughtlessly slaughtered. 184 He, then, proceeded to declare: 'If anyone lets loose such mischief today, he would also be the same kind of trouble maker, and from the beginning to the end, he would stain the name of Islam. 185 81. Khan, Murtaza Ahmad. Tarikh Aqwam 'Alam, p. 540 82. Isha'atas Sunnah, vol. vi, no. 10, October 1883, P. 288 83. Khan, Nawab Siddiq Hasan. Tarjuman e Wahabiyya, p. 5 83. Ibid. 85. Ibid. 242

Page 255

This however, was not the extent of the opposition to the. Indian mutiny of 1857 by non Ahmadi Muslim divines and scholars of India. The spiritual predecessors of the Ahmadiyya. Muslim Community's most committed opponents, the ulama of. Deoband warned Muslims against involvement in this dispute and cautioned them that it could be counter productive to the interests of Islam. It is, for instance, stated in Arwah e Salasah, published with notes and commentary by the Deobandi leader. Maulvi Ashraf Ali Thanvi: 'Many a divine of India were against the Mutiny. They did not accept the rebellion as Jihad and Meer Mehboob Ali Sahib was one of those divines who was opposed to the revolt. He dissuaded the Muslims from participating in the disturbances.186. If Abdul Hafeez's opinion on the question of this conflict is correct then the leaders of Deoband, on the evidence of their own history, stand guilty of treason against the ummah of Islam because Maulvi Ashiq Ali of Deoband states in relation to. Maulvi Rashid Ahmad Gongohi of the Nidawatul Ulama: 'During these days, he had to fight the gangs of miscreants who roamed the country. He used to carry a sword with him to protect himself and he would attack like a lion amidst a barrage of bullets. Once, while in the company of Maulana. Qasim al Uloom, Hadhrat Haji Sahib [Haji Imadullah Makki] and Hafiz Zaamin, the Maulana and his companions were confronted by a gang of Hindu rebels. However, this small group of patriots were not prepared to either run or surrender to the mutinying traitors of their Government.187. This struggle which Abdul Hafeez and his colleagues are today so anxious to define as Jihad was fought against by the leaders 86. pp. 445/446. Marginal Note. Revised by Maulvi Ashra Ali Thanvi 87. Ali, Maulvi Ashiq. Tadhkirah al Rasheed, pp. 74/75 243

Page 256

of non Ahmadia Muslim persuasion who were even wounded, nay, killed fighting against the mutineers. Hence, Maulvi Ashiq. Ali proceeded to state: 'They stood before the rebels like a rock and prepared themselves to sacrifice their lives for their Government. The courage shown by these people under such heavy odds was incredible. The situation could have easily caused fright in the hearts of the bravest of men. But, this small band of ascetics stood their ground and fought against the rebels. They were fired upon by the enemy and Hadhrat Hafiz Sahib was hit by a bullet. He died as a result of the wound sustained by him. 188. Incidentally, many of these non Ahmadi Muslim divines were generously rewarded by the British also. It is recorded by. Muslim sources that: 'After the suppression of the Indian mutiny, the Sultan ul. Ulama, Syed Muhammad Ahmad, a leading divine of Lucknow was also among those generously rewarded by the British. He was granted a pension of Rs. 800 per month and this pension was subject to inheritance by his succeeding generations. 189. Not even Abdul Hafeez dare deny that these people who were a part of the Indian history at the time of the sepoy mutiny of 1857 were better qualified to determine as to whether this conflict was an Islamic Jihad or an act of wanton savagery. Yet, this ignorant scholar of Islamic history in the subcontinent of. India has the nerve to challenge the opinion of people more qualified than him to give this thoroughly un Islamic act of a small section of Muslim fanatics a colour of religious legitimacy.. The extent of Abdul Hafeez's ignorance in these matters is evident from his assumption that the British had some cause to fear the movement of Hadhrat Syed Ahmed Shahrh 90 while it 88. Ibid. 90. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 88 89. Qaisar al Tawreekh, vol. 2, p. 351 244

Page 257

91 has already been shown that the revered saint declared that even though the British were deniers of Islam, they did not oppress Muslims nor prevent them from their religious duties and therefore, not only was there no reason for Muslims to undertake Jihad against them and needlessly shed blood on both sides but such an action would be contrary to the principles of. Islam. His deputy, Hadhrat Sayyid Muhammad Ismail™ also declared that it was in no way obligatory for Muslims to fight the British and if someone attacked them, then Muslims must fight the aggressors and not let their government, i.e., the British. Government, be harmed a whit.92 Incidentally, it may be relevant to state here that both these saints fell in battle at. Balakot in 1831 fighting against the Sikhs. 93 Why then should the author of Two in One want to distort the facts of history? Is it possible that he is ignorant of true facts or is he lying intentionally?. Finally, while still on this question of Jihad, Abdul Hafeez begs a question of Ahmadi Muslims as to whether they are against. Jihad.94 If he must know, he is assured that they are not against true Islamic Jihad. What they are against is the kind of wanton savagery witnessed during the 1857 mutiny which his own aforementioned spiritual predecessors called un Islamic and sinful; an act of great mischief and wickedness and a breach of covenant as well as an act of banditry. They are against this kind of brutality against which his mentors, Meer Mehboob Ali,. Haji Imadullah Makki, Hafiz Zamaan, Maulvi Rashid Ahmad. Gangohi, Syed Muhammad Ahmad Lucknowi and also Hadhrat. Muhammad Qasim Nanotovith fought, not only verbally but against which they also raised the sword. 91. Barelvi, [Hadhrat] Sayyid Ahmad Shah, vide. Musalmaon ka Roshan Mustaqbil 92. Shaheed, [Hadhrat] Sayyid Ismail. vide. Hayyat e Tayyaba 93. Hasan, Prof. Masud ul. History of Islam, vol. 2, p. 674 94. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 36 245

Page 258

CHAPTER EIGHT. ALLEGATIONS OF BRITISH SPONSORSHIP. Since Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas did not consider it proper for Muslims to engage in violent dispute with the British,. Abdul Hafeez concocts a charge of British sponsorship against him and and alleges: 'If qadiani movement is looked at in historical perspective, it will become obvious why this seedling, namely Mirza, was implanted amongst muslims of India.'². He then proceeds to state that in the wake of the 1857 mutiny and the movement of Hadhrat Sayyid Ahmed Shahth, the British were facing great difficulties and therefore: 'To deal with this problem, in 1869, a delegation of British journalists and Christian leaders came to India to find a solution. A renowned historian and scholar Agha Shorish. Kashmiri mentioned in "Ajami Israel" p. 19, their report was published under the title of "The Arrival of British Empire in. India." In this report amongst other recommendations one was made, stated that the majority of Indian Muslims had a blind faith in their spiritual leaders and as such if the Government acquired the services of a person who claimed to be an "apostolic prophet", many people would gather around him.. Agha Shorish Kashmiri also mentions in his "Khatm e. Nubuwwat" that three persons were short listed from all over. India for this purpose and after interviewing them, Mirza of. Qadian was found to be most suitable.'³ 1. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 87 2. Ibid., p. 88 3. Ibid. pp. 88/89 246

Page 259

In the course of this publication against the Ahmadiyya Muslim. Community, its author has been shown to have often repeated a prayer that the wrath of God descend upon the liar and slanderer and this allegation by Abdul Hafeez is yet another fulfilment of his prayer which should indicate to the world that he has been exposed as one for the world to recognise. For instance, at this juncture of his book Two in One, he asks as to 'who was Hadhrat Ahmad as and what were his objectives' and then proceeds to state that 'once again Hadhrat Ahmad's as writings provide an insight to this."4 The conclusion which he then derives from the literature of the Ahmadiyya Muslim. Community which apparently provides an insight to this question is that he was a seedling of the British.5. However, what this lying and manipulating pir of Gujjo seems to have forgotten is that when he attempted to manipulate the. Ahmadiyya Muslim literature to answer his own question as to 'who was Hadhrat Ahmadas, he cited the following passage from Hadhrat Sahibzada Mirza Bashir Ahmad's biography of. Hadhrat Ahmadas, titled Seerat ul Mahdi: 'The British confiscated our family lands and fixed honorary pension of Rs. 700/- only per year in the form of cash which was reduced to Rs. 180/- only at the death of my Grandfather and stopped completely after my uncle's [Father's elder brother] death."6. Now, if all these allegations made by the author of Two in One are correct then would he explain as to why should the British. Government fix an honorary pension of seven hundred rupees to. Hadhrat Ahmad's as father which it subsequently reduces to a mere one hundred and eighty rupees when his elder brother becomes the lord of the manor and yet when a person whom it allegedly 'short lists and finds most suitable' takes control of the affairs of the family on the death of his elder brother, it completely stops this pension and pays no consideration thereafter? 4. ibid., p. 87 5. Ibid., pp. 87/89 6. Ibid., p. 9 247

Page 260

Secondly, this historical perspective which allegedly makes it obvious to Abdul Hafeez that Hadhrat Ahmadas was a seedling of the British suggests that this delegation of journalists and. Christian leaders, if it ever did come to India to find a solution to its Governments problems, came in the year 1869. First of all, one is at a loss to understand as to why should the British. Government have used journalists and church leaders to advise it on a question which required the finesse and secrecy of the diplomatic and intelligence services. One is also lost as to why, if such a delegation was ever sent to India, then, it has only been recorded in publications hostile to the Ahmadiyya Muslim. Community and not any other independent historical work, whether British or Indian. And then, why is it so that there is no trace whatsoever of any such alleged report of this delegation, titled 'The Arrival of British Empire in India.' If ever there was such an alleged report published, then why is it not available anywhere in the world?. The other question which needs to be addressed here is that this entire scenario is stated to have allegedly taken place in 1869 and it was at this point in time that the said delegation which came to India recommended that the 'Government acquire the services of a person who claimed to be an apostolic prophet.' But, in 1869, Hadhrat Ahmadas was occupied with the management of his family's land under the supervision of his father and led a life of an unknown person in Qadian. He had not stated himself to be a spiritual leader of any congregation at that point in time nor had he claimed to be an apostolic prophet. Nor did he have any people gathering around him. Hence, there was absolutely no reason whatsoever for the British to either short list him or interview him nor find him suitable for this alleged task. It was not until March 1889, some twenty years later that he first announced the initiation of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Movement and 1891, twenty two years after this alleged recommendation by the said delegation in 1869, that Hadhrat Ahmadas set forth his claim of being the Imam Mahdi and the Promised Messiah.. How does Abdul Hafeez explain all this in the light of his historical perspective? 248

Page 261

As regards the question of Hadhrat Ahmad as being complimentary to the British Government, if Abdul Hafeez was to see this in the historical perspective of what the Muslims of the Indian subcontinent had to suffer under the Sikh rule before the annexation of the Punjab by the British Government, he may yet understand Hadhrat Ahmad's as motivation in being favourably inclined to them. Nonetheless, if his favourable opinion makes him a seedling of the British, then what does the opinion of the then most revered leader of the Jami'at Ahle. Hadeeth wal Ahle Sunnat, Maulvi Nazir Husain Delhvi make him since he is on record for his statements that 'God Almighty has decreed that the British rule India' and that the 'British rule in India is an act of God Almighty's mercy?18 The Muhaddith of. Delhi also 'gave preference to the British over and above his own parents since he found them more affectionate than one's parents and stated: 'Having examined all the monarchies surrounding India, including those of Burma, Nepal, Afghanistan and also Persia,. Egypt and Arabia, and having searched from one end of the world to another, I could not find one emperor who was worth of being the monarch of India. There is not one amongst these prospective candidates who deserves to be the emperor of this country. It is my conclusion that the British alone deserve, nay, have the right to rule India and may they continue to rule the domain.'10. According to Shurush Kashmiri, whose hostile statements against the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community are cited in this hostile publication Two in One, the Muhaddith of Delhi, Maulvi. Nazir Husain was 'amongst those people who expressed an opinion that the authority of the British in India is lawful and in accordance with the Quranic injunction: O ye who believe, obey Allah and His Messenger and those in authority among 7. Delhvi, Maulvi Nazir Hussain. Majmu'a Lectures, 1890, p. 54 8. Ibid., p. 19 9. Ibid. 249 10. Ibid., p. 62

Page 262

you.' Hence he is stated to have declared it 'unlawful to wage war against the British." The Ahle Hadeeth leader Nawab. Siddiq Hasan Khan of Bhopal is also stated to have written the book, Tarjuman e Wahabiyyat to assure the British Government that the Ahle Hadeeth in India were loyal to the British. Government¹² and within this book he stated: 'No Muslim subject of India and the Indian states bears malice towards this great power.' 113. The leader of the Wahabbia Movement in India, Maulvi. Muhammad Jaffar was also grateful to the British Government and considered it better than the regime of the then Khalifatul. Muslameen of the non Ahmadiyya Muslims, the Sultan of. Turkey, He stated: 'Before all, I thank the British government under which we can publicly, and with the beat of drums, teach the religious doctrines of our pure faith without interference whatsoever, and we can pay back our opponents whether they be. Christians or others in their own coin. Such liberty we could not have seen under the Sultan of Turkey.' 114. The Jamait e Ahle Sunnat considered the British rule of India lawful also and according to its leadership, India, under the. British, was considered to be a country of Islam¹ while the leadership of the Nidawatul Ulama of Deoband in India claimed that its: 'main objective was to produce enlightened ulama whose bounded duty it is to be fully aware of the beneficence of the. British rule and also to inculcate the spirit of loyalty towards 11. Kashmiri, Shurush. Ata Ullah Shah Bukhari, p. 135 12. Metcalf, Dr. Barbara Daly, Islamic Revival in British India, p. 279 13. Khan, Nawab Siddiq Hasan. Tarjuman e Wahabiyyat, p. 4 14. Jaffar, Maulvi Muhammad. Barakat ul Islam. p. 2 15. Hunter, W.W. Indian Musalmans, p. 122 250

Page 263

the Government of the country.' 116. It is also stated in relation to the Nidawatul Ulama and Maulvi. Rashid Ahmad Gangohi of Deoband: 'The Deobandis made sure that they conformed in every way to a posture of loyalty. Rashid Ahmad, for this reason, refused to accept a grant of 5000 rupees a year from the Shah of. Afghanistan.' +17. They are on record for having 'celebrated all ceremonial occasions like coronations with appropriate pomp, and observed times of crisis, like Queen Victoria's last illness, with fitting prayers and messages (18 while Alama Muhammad Iqbal composed an eulogy in honour of Queen Victoria and held her death in similar reverence to the martyrdom of Hadhrat. Hussain. He also bestowed upon her the epitaph of shadow of. God Almighty and lamented that India had been deprived of the Divine shadow with her death. 19 The Ahrar leader, Maulvi. Zafar Ali Khan stated that 'Muslims cannot for a minute contemplate being cynical of the British and if any bad natured. Muslim did dare show cynicism towards it, then he would affirm that that Muslim was not a Muslim. 120 He also stated: 'For every drop of our Emperor's sweat, we are prepared to shed our blood and these sentiments are shared by the entire. Muslim populace.' +21. One does not know of any protest recorded by the hereditary pirs of Gujjo to the above declaration by Maulvi Zafar Ali. Was it because they also shared these sentiments of the entire. Muslim populace as the editor of Zamindar had stated or was it because they were not Muslims? 16. Al Nadwa, Deoband, vol, 5, 1908 17. Metcalf, Dr. Barbara Daly. Islamic Revival in British India, p. 155 19. Iqbal, Muhammad. Bakayyat e Iqbal 18. Ibid. 20. Khan, Zafar Ali. Zamindar, Lahore, 23 November 1911 21. Ibid., 11 November 1911 251

Page 264

CHAPTER NINE. THE KAFIR CONTROVERSY. Abdul Hafeez plays upon the sentiments of ordinary Muslims in so much that he manipulates the Ahmadiyya Muslim. Community's decision not to pray behind non Ahmadi Muslim. Imams nor marry amongst non Ahmadi Muslims. 2 He also makes a capital issue of the Pakistan National Assembly's decision to declare Ahmadi Muslims as a non Muslim minority not realising that the Amendment which he so proudly boasts has declared the entire ummah non Muslim. Nonetheless, one does not expect him to know this since he is even ignorant of the fact that it is not Article No. 2903 of the Constitution but. Article 260 which relates to the question of who is a Muslim for the purpose of the Constitution or Law of Pakistan. Had he been aware of that, he would have realised that Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, of whom the mullah in Pakistan demanded that he declare. Ahmadi Muslims a non Muslim minority not only appeased them but also made a fool of the entire collection of the conceited Pakistan clergy since he declared them all non. Muslims also. This is evident from the fact that the said. Amendment placed on Constitution of Pakistan declares: 'A person who does not believe in the absolute and unqualified finality of the Prophethood of Muhammad [peace be upon him] as the last of the Prophets; or claims to be a prophet in any sense of the word; or of any description; after. Muhammad [peace be upon him]; or recognises such a claimant as a prophet or a religious reformer; is not a Muslim for the purposes of the Constitution or law.' 1. Shad Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 22 2. Ibid., p. 29 3. Ibid. 252

Page 265

But, it is an established fact that a large majority of Muslims traditionally await the second advent of the Messiah, Hadhrat. Jesusas prophesied in the Traditions of Hadhrat Muhammadsa.. However, since he was a prophet when he appeared in this world some 2000 years ago, according to the opinion of all non. Ahmadiyya Muslim scholars, he shall continue to be honoured as one on his second advent. It is also argued by them that a denial of the Prophethood of Hadhrat Jesusas on his second advent, after the Prophet of Islamsa, is tantamount to apostasy.. However, the Constitutional Amendment so boasted by Abdul. Hafeez demands that any person who claims to be a prophet in any sense of the word or of any description after Prophet Muhammad³ is not a Muslim for the purposes of the Constitution or Law of. Pakistan. Now, since this second advent of Hadhrat Jesusas is anticipated after Hadhrat Muhammadsa, Hadhrat Jesus as would either have to deny his station as a prophet or else be considered a non Muslim for the purposes of the Constitution and Law of Pakistan. On the other hand, if he repudiated his prophethood on his second advent to be classified as a Muslim in Pakistan, he would, in the opinion of the Pakistani mullah become an apostate.". It also needs to be considered that the general run of Muslims would find themselves in a Catch 22 situation. If they accepted. Hadhrat Jesus'as prophethood on his second advent after. Hadhrat Muhammad, they would begin to be considered non. Muslims since the said Amendment demands that any person who recognises a prophet in any sense of the word or of any description after Prophet Muhammad is not a Muslim for the purposes of the Constitution and Law of Pakistan. On the other hand, if they deny his prophethood on his second advent, they will be considered apostate in view of the edicts by the. Pakistani mullah.". It is not denied that some shrewd maulvis have often argued that since Hadhrat Jesus as would not be a new prophet when he arrives again, him being recognised as one on his second advent 4. Maududi, S. Abul Ala. Finality of Prophethood, pp. 64/65 5. Ibid., p. 65 6. Ibid. 7. Ibid. 253

Page 266

would not be in breach of the Constitution of Pakistan. But, a direct reference to Amendment 260 suggests that such a naive excuse does not hold water since it demands belief in an absolute and unqualified finality of Hadhrat Muhammad as the last prophet in every sense of the word and of every description. This, in essence, implies that the Pakistani Constitution demands that no exceptions whatsoever be made and hence, it does not leave any room for any kind of a prophet in any sense of the word or of whatever description, whether old or new to arrive after Hadhrat. Muhammadsa.. Incidentally, the second advent of Hadhrat Jesusas would not be the only dilemma suffered by Muslims in Pakistan. It is an established fact that Muslims of non Ahmadiyya Muslim persuasion believe that the advent of Hadhrat Jesus as would be followed by that of the Imam Mahdias, who, on all accounts would be a reformer of his age. Now, if when he arrives, he claims to be the reformer of his age, which he rightly should in view of the pronouncements of Hadhrat Muhammadsa, then he too and those who accept him as a reformer of that age would find themselves in a Catch 22 situation similar to the one illustrated above in relation to the advent of Hadhrat Jesusas.. One states this because the Constitutional Amendment so boasted by Abdul Hafeez demands that any person who claims to be a reformer of Muslims after Prophet Muhammad³ or else any person who recognises him as such is not a Muslim for the purposes of the Constitution or Law of Pakistan.. This, however, is stretching the argument too far in the future and one is not even certain as to what is in store for mankind even unto the next breath. This Constitutional Amendment has already pronounced the entire Muslim ummah as non Muslim in view of the fact that many a venerable Muslim saints have, since after the advent of Prophet Muhammadsa either declared themselves to be the mujaddids of their respective age or else honoured some other sage with this appellation and Muslims have, by consensus revered, them as such. For instance, it is 8. Ibid., p. 63 254

Page 267

reported by Hadhrat Hafiz Jalal al Din Suyutish that Hadhrat. Umar ibn 'Abd al Azizh claimed to have been the reformer of his age. Hadhrat Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbalth is stated to have declared that Hadhrat Umar ibn 'Abd al Aziz™ was the mujaddid of the first century Hijra while Hadhrat Imam Shafi'ith of the second.10 Hadhrat Shah Wali Ullah Dehlvit also claimed to have been honoured with the robe of a reformer¹¹ and so did Hadhrat. Sayyid Ahmad Shah Barelvit claim the leadership of the. Muslim ummah in the capacity of a mujaddid.12 Hadhrat Sheikh. Ahmadth of Sirhind is popularly known as Mujaddid Al Thani because of his claim that he was the mujaddid of the second millennium¹³ and Hadhrat Imam Ghazalit also alluded to how he came to be a mujjadid of his age.14 Hadhrat Imam Taimiyya™ referred to himself as the mujaddid of his age 15 while Hadhrat. Imam Jalal ud Din Suyutih stated that he hoped he was a mujaddid. It is now rests with Abdul Hafeez to not only decide as to what his conduct would be if Hadhrat Jesusas and the Imam Mahdias should appear tomorrow but also determine as to whether all the Mujaddids of the previous centuries were rightfully honoured so or not as the reformers of their respective age. One would then suggest that he analyses his answer in the light of the demand made by the said Amendment 260 of the. Constitution of Pakistan which he boasts has finally declared. Ahmadi Muslims as a non Muslim minority." One can assure him that whichever option he chose, he would find that in view of this Amendment, he too is declared a non Muslim. 16 9. Aziz, [Hadhrat] Umar ibn. vide. Tarikh al Khulafa vol. 4, p. 148 10. Hanbal, [Hadhrat] Imam Abu 'Abd Allah Ahmad ibn. vide. 'Aun al Ma'bud, Sharh Abu Daud, 11. Shah, [Hadhrat] Sayyid Wali Ullah. Tafhimat Ilahiyya 12. Barelvi, [Hadhrat] Ahmad Shah. vide. Swanih Ahmadi, p. 245 13. Sirhind, [Hadhrat] Sheikh Ahmad. Maktubat, vol. 2, Letter 4 14. Ghazali, [Hadhrat] Imam. Al Munqidh min al Dalal 15. Taimiyya, [Hadhrat] Imam. vide., Imam Ibn Taimiyya 16. Suyuti, [Hadhrat Imam Jalal ud Din. vide. Hujaj al Kirmah, p. 138 17. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 29 255

Page 268

FATWA OF KUFR. One only need to read the edicts of kufr so numerously issued by the leadership of one Muslim sect against the other to realise that Abdul Hafeez, irrespective of which sect he subscribes to, has been pronounced non Muslim by non Ahmadi Muslim scholars. If he is a Wahabbi or a Deobandi, then the Barelvi leader Ahmad Raza Khan stated that both these groups are 'murtadd and kafir according to the unanimous view of. Muslims and whoever doubts their being such is himself a kafir.18 The Barelvi leader had some grounds to state this since such a fatwa was issued against the Deoband and the Wahabbi groups by some three hundred Sunni ulama of the entire. Muslim world. They are stated to: 'have given this fatwa unanimously that the Wahabbia/. Deobandi sects are among extreme apostates and infidels.. Indeed they are infidels of such hue that any one who does not regard them as infidels is also counted among the infidels and his wife will become automatically divorced in such a situation. Any progeny from such a marriage will be illegitimate and can claim no inheritance under Muslim law.*19. In a similar fatwa issued by the Mufti and Imam of the Ka'aba and the Muftis of Medina, the Wahabbis have been declared disbelievers and apostates. The edict issued by them declares: 'The Wahabbis, in the unanimous opinion of the divines of. Mecca and Medina are disbelievers and apostates from Islam such that anyone who comes to know of their cursed writings and speeches and still doubts in their being disbelievers himself becomes a disbeliever. 120 18. Khan, Ahmad Raza. vide. Hisam al Haramain, pgs. 100 & 113 19. Ibrahim, Muhammad. Unanimous Fatwa of Three Hundred Ulama 20. Fatwa Saniyyah, 11.409 256

Page 269

The Wahabbis and Deobandis have jointly been censured in yet another edict of apostasy and idolatry issued by Muslim divines.. It has been stated: 'They stand condemned as the worst and most dangerous, far more dangerous than idolaters and maggians.'21. If Abdul Hafeez subscribes to the Jamait e Islami persuasion, then he ought to know that its leader, Maulvi Abul Ala. Maududi has been condemned as a heretic and one of the thirty dadjaals prophesied by Hadhrat Muhammadsa. Hence, an edict issued against him declared: 'There is no doubt that he is amongst those who have been led astray. I strongly urge Muslims to keep themselves aloof from his beliefs and ideology. They should not regard him a servant of Islam and should not be under any illusions. The. Holy Prophetsa declared that before the appearance of the. Dadjaal, thirty other Dadjaals would be born to pave the way for him. As I understand it, Maududi is one of these thirty dadjaals. 122. However, if he is neither of these but belongs to the other camp, then the Deobandi and Wahabbi ulama have issued similar fatwas against the Barelvis. For instance, Maulvi Sayyid. Muhammad Murtaza of Deoband denounced Ahmad Raza. Khan, the leader of Barelvi's as 'a murtadd, a dadjaal of the century and a great kafir and excluded him from the pale of. Islam. 123 Such fatwas of apostasy and heresy as well as kufr within the Muslim ummah are neither few nor far in between.. In fact, non Ahmadi Muslim ulama have demanded social and religious segregation from other sects, namely, the Ahle Hadeeth merely on account of the others saying Amen aloud; raising their hands during prayers or folding arms on the chest and reciting 21. Akhram a Shariat Mukamal, Abhoh al Muzanb, pt. 1,. P. 14 22. Siddiq, Maulvi Muhammad. Haq Parast Ulema ko Maududiat say Narazghi ke Asbab 23. Murtaza, Maulvi Sayyid Muhammad. vide. Radd at Takfir ala I fahash al Tanzir 257

Page 270

Al Hamd behind the Imam while being led in congregational prayers because they are considered to be misguided sects and their practices alleged to be opposed to the Sunnis. 24 On the other side of the coin, the Hanafis or as Abdul Hafeez would like to be called, the Ahnafs have had a fatwa issued against them by the Ahle Hadeeth because their beliefs and practices are stated by the Ahle Hadeeth leadership to be against those of the Sunnis and therefore such as to lead to polytheism. 25 In fact, the Ahle Hadeeth leader, Nawab Siddiq Hasan Khan of Bhopal was of the opinion that 'the word polytheists can be aptly applied to the Ahnafs as could the word polytheism be applied to their practice.126 Hence, he stated that since most people are muqallid or conformists, more commonly known as the Hanafis or Ahnaf, the Quranic verse, Most people believe not, they are but polytheists, applies quite aptly to them, i.e., to the Ahnafs. 127. Incidentally, the Ahnafs have also been included in another edict of kufr which also involves the followers of all four schools of Islamic Jurisprudence the Hanafi, the Shafi'i, the. Maliki and the Hanbali as well as the followers of the four Sufi orders the Chishtiyya, the Naqshbandiyya, the Qadiriyya and the Mujaddiyya.28 How does this pir of Gujjo who professes to belong to the Ahnaf persuasion explain his statement that the 'religious scholars of Ahnafs have labelled the Ahmadi Muslims as Kafirs29 in the light of the aforementioned pronouncement against the followers of the Hanafi school of Jurisprudence also known as the Ahnaf?If he considers this fatwa against the Ahnaf of no relevance, which one is certain he would want to, then why should the fatwa of the religious scholars of the Ahnaf against the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community be of any relevance? Could the author of Two in One explain this in the next edition of his grotesque book. 24. Arguments with regard to the expulsion of Wahabbis from Mosques 25. Collection of Fatwas, pp. 54/55 26. Khan, Nawab Siddiq Hasan. Iqtaraab as Sa'a, p. 16 27. Ibid. 28. Jami al Shuhood, p. 2 29. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 50 258

Page 271

PRAYER AND MARRIAGE. The author of Two in One also alleges that in the beginning of this century, Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as 'labelled all non. Ahmadis to be kafirs and asked his followers not to pray behind them nor marry them '30 although Hadhrat Ahmad as is on record for having declared: 'From the beginning, I have been of the view that no one becomes a kafir or a dadjaal by rejecting my claim. Such a one would certainly be in error and astray from the right path.. I do not call him faithless but he who rejects the truth which. God Almighty has disclosed to me would be in error and astray from the straight path. I do not designate anyone who believes in the Kalimah as a kafir, unless by rejecting me and calling me a kafir, he himself becomes a kafir. In this matter, my opponents have always taken a lead. they called me kafir and prepared fatwas against me. I did not take the lead in preparing fatwas against them. They would be prepared to confess that if I am a Muslim in the estimation of God. Almighty, then by calling me a kafir, they themselves become one according to the fatwa of the Holy Prophetsa. Thus I do not call them kafir but they themselves fall within the purview of the fatwa of the Holy Prophetsa 131. This statement should establish that Hadhrat Ahmadªs did not consider average Muslims to be kafirs, except if they, through calling him a kafir first fell within the purview of the fatwa of. Hadhrat Muhammadsa in which he is reported to have stated that: 'If a Muslim calls another a Kafir, then if he is a kafir, let it be so otherwise he is himself a kafir.*32 30. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, pgs. 22 & 29 31. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Tiryaqul Qulub, pp. 130/31; Ruhani Khazain, vol. 15, pp. 32. Sunan Abu Dawood, vol. 3, p. 484 432/33 259

Page 272

Why then should Abdul Hafeez shift the blame of the doings of his spiritual predecessors in the subcontinent of India onto the shoulders of Hadhrat Ahmadas against whom nearly 200 maulvis of the Indian subcontinent prepared a fatwa of kufr whereby they fell within the purview of the aforementioned. Hadeeth. Hadhrat Ahmadas alluded to this fatwa of the Indian mullah and stated: 'These people first prepared a fatwa of kufr against me and nearly 200 maulvis put their seal upon it, calling me a kafir. In these fatwas, such hostility was shown that some Ulama even wrote that these people are worse in disbelief than the Jews and the Christians. They broadcast these fatwas saying that these people must not be buried in Muslim cemeteries nor saluted with salaam and greetings, and that it is not proper to say prayers behind them because they are kafirs nor must they be allowed to enter mosques because they would pollute them but if they did enter the mosques, then these must be washed. They stated that it is allowable to steal their property and they may also be killed because they reject the impending advent of the bloody Mahdi and deny Jihad.'33. Now, if in view of such fatwas against Ahmadiyya Muslim. Community, it decided to respond in a manner which was conducive to the welfare and security of its membership, then where is the harm? Is Abdul Hafeez not aware that within one year of the initiation of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community in 1889 CE, the ulama of Punjab and other parts of India issued a joint fatwa against Hadhrat Ahmadas in which he was addressed in every derogatory word known to religious vocabulary. 34 A similar edict was issued by the ulama of Ludhiana in the same year which was no less crude in its language and which also stated in relation to Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas of Qadian 33. Ibid., Haqeeqatul wahi, pp. 119/120; Ruhani Khazain, vol. 22, pp. 122/23 34. Fatwa Ulama e Punjab wa Hindustan, circa. 1890, pp. 41/155. vide. Life of Ahmad, pt. 1, p. 426 260

Page 273

and his followers: 'Their marriage contracts are void and anybody is free to enter into matrimonial relationship with any woman in the wedlock of any of them.". A year later, Maulvi Abdul Haq Ghaznavi issued a leaflet against Hadhrat Ahmadas in which he stated that on the basis of. Ghaznavi's revelations, Hadhrat Ahmadas was, God forbid, 'an infidel and would be thrown into hell.136 A certain Muhammad. Baksh also issued a handbill in the same year in which a campaign of slander and vilification was let loose against. Hadhrat Ahmadas by the mullah of Lahore.37 He also used the columns of the Ahle Hadeeth journal Ishaatas Sunnah to abuse the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community and was stated to represent the official view of the Ahle Hadeeth leadership. 38 In 1893, the. Muhaddith of Delhi, Maulvi Nazir Hussain began to call upon. Muslim: 'not to salute the members of the Ahmadiyya Muslim. Community with an Islamic salutation.. This demand by the leadership of the Ahle Hadeeth in India also required that Muslims abstain from any social contact with. Ahmadi Muslims. It stated that: 'It is unlawful for Muslims to invite an Ahmadi to a meal or to accept an invitation from an Ahmadi.'40. Maulvi Muhammad Hussain Batalvi, who at one stage praised. Hadhrat Ahmad's as services to Islam but later became hostile to him issued repeated fatwas of Takfir against Hadhrat Ahmadas 35. Fatwa Ulama e Ludhiana, circa. 1890, vide. Life of Ahmad, p. 426 36. Ghaznavi, Maulvi Abdul Haq. circa. February 1891, vide. Life of Ahmad, p. 178 37. Baksh, Muhammad. Jafar Zatalli, 11 June, 1897 38. Ibid., Ishaatas Sunnah, vol. xviii, no. 5, pgs. 150 & 154/55 39. Delhvi, Maulvi Nazir Hussain. Ishaatas Sunnah, vol. xiii, p. 85 261 40. lbid

Page 274

in which he falsely accused him of being 'thirsty of the blood of. Muslims, disloyal to Islam and traitorous and rebellious towards it. 141 The said Maulvi abused him as 'a kafir, a heretic, an apostate and a dadjaal 142 and instigated Muslims to murder. Hadhrat Ahmadas in the interest of their faith.43 He also declared that to 'be a follower of the Ahmadiyya Movement and to lead. Muslims in prayer is a contradiction which cannot be reconciled.144 Maulvi Rashid Ahmad Gangohi who issued similar fatwa against Hadhrat Ahmadas and the Ahmadiyya Muslim. Community declared that it is forbidden to join in a prayer service led by Hadhrat Ahmadas or any of his followers and. Maulvi Muhammad Abdullah Tonki46 as well as Maulvi. Sanaullah Amritsari 47 issued edicts which which denied the permissibility of prayers with Ahmadi Muslims. Maulvi Abdur. Rahman Bihari stated that the Hadhrat Ahmadas was, God forbid: 'a disbeliever and an apostate from Islam and joining prayer services led by him or any of his followers is a useless and a condemnable practice. The obligation of participation in a prayer service is not thereby discharged and such a worshipper incurs a great sin. It amounts to the same thing as joining a prayer service led by a Jew." 148. Maulvi Khalil Ahmad Saharanpuri was yet another Muslim leader who issued a fatwa of Kufr against Hadhrat Ahmadas and the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. He stated that: 'To have any love for him or to join in a prayer service led by him or any of his followers is improper and strictly forbidden.'49 44. Ibid., Sharai Faisala, p. 31 41. Batalvi, Maulvi Muhammad Hussain. Ishaatas Sunnah, vol. xviii, pp. 85/180 42. Ibid., vol. xvi, p. 116 43. Ibid., vol. xviii, p. 95 45. Gangohi, Maulvi Rashid Ahmad. Sharai Faisala, p. 31 46. Tonki, Maulvi Muhammad Abdullah. Sharai Faislah, p. 25 47. Amritsari, Maulvi Sanaullah. Fatwa Shraiat Gharra, p. 9 48. Bihari, Maulvi Abdur Rahman. Fatwa Shariat Gharra, p. 4 49. Sharanpuri, Maulvi Khalil Ahmad. Fatwa Shariat Gharra, p. 7 262

Page 275

Yet, despite such pronouncements and hostility against the. Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, Hadhrat Ahmad as did all he could to end this controversy and bring it to an amicable solution. He assured Muslims that the gist of their religion was that there is none worthy of worship but Allah and Hadhrat. Muhammadsa was a Messenger of God 50 and stated that: 'however much our adversary ulama create hatred against us among the people and declare us kafir and devoid of faith and try to make Muslims believe that I, along with my entire following, have deviated from Islamic beliefs and foundations of faith, these are all fabrications of those jealous maulvis. No one with even a grain of the fear of God in his heart dare be guilty of these things. All the five fundamentals of Islam are our faith.'51. He then proceeded to define his faith, which statement, Abdul. Hafeez has also quoted in his book Two in One.52 He stated again and again that 'he believed in Allah, the Islamic Kalimah, the angels of God, the apostle of Allah, all the revealed books, the existence of paradise and hell and also the Day of. Resurrection.15 Yet, his opponents did not refrain from pronouncing edicts of kufr against him to which he stated: 'Brothers! You know that the pronouncements of disbelief against me are not based on proper investigation and do not contain an inkling of truth. Rather, all these declaration are sheer fabrication based upon deceit, injustice and falsehood, out of personal jealousy. These people know very well that I am a believer and they have seen with their own eyes that I am a Muslim and that I believe in One God with Whom there is no associate; that I profess the Kalimah: There is none worthy of worship except Allah; that I accept the Book of 50. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Izalah Auham, p. 37; Ruhani Khazain, vol. 3, p. 169 51. Ibid., Ayyamus Sulh, p. 86/7; Ruhani Khazain, vol. 14, pp. 322/33 52. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, pgs. 49 & 56/7 53. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Anwar al Islam, p. 34; Ruhani Khazain, vol. 9, p. 35 263

Page 276

•. Allah, the Quran and His Messenger Muhammadsa as. Khatamal Anbiyya; that I believe in angels, the Day of. Resurrection, heaven and hell; that I offer prayers and keep the fast; that I belong to the Ahle Qibla; that I consider unlawful all that the Holy Prophetsa had declared unlawful and lawful all that he had declared lawful; that I have neither added, nor taken away anything from the Shari'ah, not even to the extent of an atom and that I accept all that has reached us from the Messenger of Allah sa whether I understand its secrets or not and that by Allah's grace, I am a believer and a unitarian.154. In fact, not only did they not refrain from issuing such fatwas of kufr against him and the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community but they even succeeded in sowing a seed of hatred in the hearts of ordinary Muslims who began to act upon the fatwas of the. Indian mullah and turn Ahmadi Muslims out of mosques as well as deny them burial space in Muslim graveyards. Yet,. Hadhrat Ahmadas tried to diffuse the situation and wrote a booklet Sulh e Khair addressed to the Muslim clergy in which he appealed to the maulvis for peace between Muslims. But, the response which he received from the mullah in India is indicated by the following statement of Maulvi Abdul Wahid. Janpuri who stated: 'Let it not be concealed that the reason for this conciliatory note is that after the Mirzai group in Amritsar was subjected to disgrace; expelled from Friday and congregational prayers; humiliatingly thrown out of the mosques in which they used to pray and barred from the parks where they held their Friday prayers, they asked Mirza Qadiani to build a new mosque.. Mirza told them that they should wait while he tried to make peace with the people, for in that case there would be no need to build a mosque. They had to bear much humiliation.. Their social relations with the Muslims were stopped, their 54. Ibid., Nur ul Haq, vol. 1, p. 5; Ruhani Khazain, vol. 8, p. 7 264

Page 277

wives were taken away from them, their dead were thrown into pits without burial garments or funeral rites etc. It was then that the Qadiani liar issued this conciliatory note.155. What should Hadhrat Ahmad as have done under these conditions if not made arrangements to ensure that his followers are able to perform their religious obligations in peace and security and are able to bury their dead with dignity? Hence, nearly eleven years after the initiation of the Ahmadiyya. Muslim Community, Hadhrat Ahmadas gave permission to his followers to organise themselves and make provisions of their own although he admonished his Jamaat as late as March 1908 that: 'As the maulvis of this country, due to their bigotry, have generally declared us kafirs and have issued fatwas against us and the rest of the people are their followers, so if there are any persons who, to clear their own position, make an announcement that they do not follow these maulvis who make others kafirs, then it would be allowable to say prayers with them. Otherwise, the man who calls a Muslim a kafir becomes a kafir himself. So how can we pray behind him?. The Shari'ah does not permit it.'56. Yet, the persecution of Ahmadi Muslims continued. In August 1915, a child of Ahmadi parents died at Cannanore in Malabar but his body was not allowed to be interned in a Muslim cemetery 57 while in December, 1918, the remains of an Ahmadi woman of Cuttack in Orissa was disinterred and thrown at her husband's door by the Muslims.58 This incident was reported with pride by an Ahle Hadeeth journalwhich stated: 'The proverb, A hundred stripes for the corpse, is being put into practice here. The situation with reference to an Ahmadi 55. Wahid. Maulvi Abdul. Ishtihar Mukadat Musailimah Qaadiani, p. 2 56. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. vide. Badr, 24/31 December 1908 57. Al Fazl. 19 October, 1915 58. Ibid., 14 December, 1918 265

Page 278

corpse is indescribable. When it is known in the town that an. Ahmadi has died, all the graveyards are put under guard with people armed with sticks and the corpse is subjected to all sorts of indignities. A search is made for a coffin but it cannot be procured. Grave diggers refuse to dig graves. Wood and bamboo become scarce. Being disappointed in every direction, when the relatives of the dead decide to bury the corpse inside the house, someone informs the Municipal. Authorities and the officials of the authorities appear at the door to frustrate the design. 159. Should Ahmadi Muslims have to justify their decision to segregate their own mosques and graveyards and create a distinct identity for themselves after such treatment by their opponents treatment which continued into the 20's and 30's and thereafter and with greater intensity? In fact, the opponents of Hadhrat Ahmad as would not let Ahmadi Muslims in peace after this decision also. In 1928, Ahmadi Muslims obtained a plot for the purpose of establishing an independent cemetery at. Cuttack in Orissa where the remains of an Ahmadi woman had previously been disinterred by the adversaries of the. Ahmadiyya Muslim Community and thrown on the door of her husband's house. 60 But, these opponents would not permit the burial of a small child even in this graveyard.61 Such incidents were repeated at Calicut in Malabar 62 and Bhadrak in Orissa 63 as well as countries across the ocean in Africa. At Meru in Kenya, infant twin cousins of the author of the present publication were denied burial space in the Muslim cemetery by relatives of their own parents and had to be buried on the other side of the cemetery wall in a patch of land offered by an African farmer in his small field. In 1942 also, an infant Ahmadi child had to be buried in the grounds of a flour mill belonging to an Ismaili for the same reason. 59. Ahle Hadeeth. vide. Al Fazl, 9 February, 1918 60. Al Fazl, 14 December, 1918 62. Ibid., 25 February, 1934 61. Ibid., 13 April, 1928 63. Ibid., 27 April, 1938 266

Page 279

STRICTER DEMANDS BY OTHER SECTS. One is at a loss to understand why the publishers of Two in. One should take exception to the Ahmadiyya Muslim. Community's policy not to pray behind non Ahmadi Muslims or marry their daughters to them when this decision had been taken as a necessary step to ensure the safety and security as well as the well-being of its members after the general run of the mullah in countries wherever Ahmadi Muslims had spread had shown such hostility towards it and also refused to accept the conciliatory offer of Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas. This situation is further aggravated by the fact that much stricter policies have been adopted by all other Muslim sects. Ahmadi. Muslims aside, are Dr. Rashid Ali and Abdul Hafeez not aware that according to one fatwa of 300 Sunni ulama, it is not permissible for Sunnis to have any kind of a social contact with people of Deobandi persuasion since the edict declared: * 'The Deobandis, because of their contempt and insult in their acts of worship towards the saints, prophets and even the. Holy Prophet Muhammad and the very Person of God Himself are definitely murtadd and kafir. Their apostasy and heresy is of the worst kind so that if anyone who doubts their apostasy and heresy even slightly is a murtadd and a kafir. Muslims should be very cautious of them and stay away from them.. Let alone praying behind them, one should not let them pray behind one, or allow them into mosques, or eat the animal slaughtered by them, or join them on happy or sad occasions, or let them come near one, or visit them in illness, or attend their funerals, or give them space in Muslim grace yards. To sum up, one must stay away from them completely.' 164. What opinion would the authors of Two in One express in relation to these three hundred ulama of the Sunni tendency? 64. Ibhraim, Muhammad. Unanimous Fatwa of Three Hundred Ulama 267

Page 280

In another fatwa issued against the Wahabbis, it has been stated by Muslim religious scholars that they: 'are excluded from the Sunnis and are like misguided sects because many of their beliefs and practices are opposed to the Sunnis. It is not permissible to pray behind them; mix with them socially and sit with them and to let them enter mosques at their pleasure is prohibited in Islamic Shari'ah.165. Incidentally, this fatwa has been issued by the muqallid Muslims which also includes Hanafi scholars against what is called the ghair muqallid Muslims. Since the publishers of Two in One profess to belong to the Ahnaf persuasion, what judgement would they pronounce against their own spiritual predecessors for the aforementioned edict? Also, would Dr. Rashid Ali who appears to be the actual financier and author of the grotesque book Two in One have the courage to inform the rulers of the. United Arab Emirates and its neighbour, Saudi Arabia that he subscribes to a tendency which considers the Wahabbis as excluded from the Sunnis and a misguided sect and which believes that it is not permissible for the people of his persuasion, i.e., the Ahnafs to either mix with the Wahabbis or socially sit with them and even let them enter Ahnaf mosques at their pleasure since it is prohibited in the Shari'ah of Islam?. The Pervezi movement of the Ahle Quran tendency has had a similar fatwa issued against them which states: 'Ghulam Ahmad Pervez is a kafir according to Islamic Shari'ah and excluded from the pale of Islam. No Muslim woman can remain married to him, nor can a Muslim woman enter into marriage with him. His funeral prayer cannot be said, nor is it permissible to bury him in a Muslim graveyard. This applies. not only to Parvez but to every kafir. It also applies to any person who is a follower of his in these heretic beliefs. As he 65. Arguments with regard to the expulsion of Wahabbis from Mosques, p. 8. vide. Tulu' e. Islam, August 1969 66. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 49 268

Page 281

has become an apostate, it is not permitted by the Shari'ah to have any kind of Islamic relations with him." 167. Abdul Hafeez's own sect, the subscribers to the Ahnaf tendency have had a similar fatwa issued against them in which it has been stated: 'prayers are not permissible behind the muqallid because their beliefs and practices are oppossed to those of the Sunnis. In fact, some of their beliefs and practices lead to polytheism while other spoil prayers. It is not correct in Islamic Shari'ah to allow such muqallids into mosques.' 168. How does Abdul Hafeez explain this fatwa against his own sect? Would he state that it is of no significance? If he does, then why should the fatwa of the Ahnaf religious scholars whose beliefs and practices have been condemned by the ghair muqallid scholars as being opposed to Islam and whose beliefs are stated by them to lead to polytheism, be considered of any value?. Finally, one must set the record straight that despite allegations against Hadhrat Ahmadas, he did not, at any point in time brand any person professing the Kalimah as a kafir if that person did not, through his own conduct fall within the purview of the fatwa by Hadhrat Muhammad sa to the effect that if a Muslim calls another a kafir and if that person not be one, then the words would revert back to him.69 This has been clearly recorded by Hadhrat Ahmadas in several of his statements, some of which have been quoted in the preceding pages. As regards the allegation that Hadhrat Ahmadas 'labelled the entire Muslim nation as kafirs thereby reducing the strength of the total. Muslim population from 2000 million to a mere few [sic] 100 thousand,170 while one is not certain as to where from this equally ignorant joint author of Two in One, Abdul Hafeez's 67. Wali Hasan Tonki & Muhammad Yusuf Banori, Madrasa Arabiyya Islamia, Karachi 68. Collection of Fatwas, pp. 54/5. vide. Tulu' e Islam, August, 1969 69. Sunan Abu Daud, vol. 3, p. 484 70. Ali, Dr. S. Rashid. vide. Two in One, p. 89 269

Page 282

mureed, Dr. S. Rashid Ali got this figure of a 2000 million strong Muslim population, the following statement of Hadhrat. Ahmad as should sufficiently answer this false charge. He stated: 'Now look at their falsehood. They accuse me of having declared 200 million Muslims and Kalimah professing people to be kafirs. We did not take the initiative from branding people as kafirs. Their own religious leaders issued fatwas of kufr against us and raised a commotion throughout the Punjab and India that we were kafirs. These proclamations so alienated the ignorant people against us that they considered it a sin to even talk to us in a civil manner. Can any maulvi, or any other opponent prove that we had declared them kafir first? If there is any paper, notice or booklet issued by us prior to their fatwas in which we declared our Muslim opponents to be kafirs, then they should bring that forward. If not, they should realise how dishonest it is that, while they are the ones who call us kafirs, they accuse us of having declared all. Muslims as Kafirs." 171. Let Abdul Hafeez or Rashid Ali take up this challenge of. Hadhrat Ahmadas and prove that he ever called anyone a kufr before the mullah in India began to pronounce fatwas of Takfir against him. If they cannot, then let them explain as to why should they take exception to Hadhrat Ahmadas merely responding to the fatwas of his opponents and branding them as those who fall within the purview of Hadhrat Muhammad's 'sa fatwa? If one must know, Hadhrat Ahmadas considered those people who were favourable in their opinion towards Ahmadi. Muslim and also those who were not influenced by the mulla nor joined the maulvis in abusing them as them who fell in the same category as his own, i.e., Muslims.” Apparently, this 72 would exclude Abdul Hafeez and Dr. Rashid Ali. 71. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Haqeeqatul Wahi, p. 120; Ruhani Khazain, vol. 22, p. 123 72. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Al Hakam, 17 February, 1904 270

Page 283

CHAPTER TEN. REVELATIONS. This unending tirade against Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas by the author of Two in One continues relentlessly and for some reason or the other, Abdul Hafeez quotes some revelations vouchsafed unto Hadhrat Ahmadas without actually stating what he finds objectionable about them. In the absence of him stating his objections, one can only assume that he probably objects to these being vouchsafed unto Hadhrat Ahmadas in a language other than Arabic. In that event, one would ask him as to what would he make of the following revelation vouchsafed unto Hadhrat Muhammadsa in Persian²: گر این مشت خاک را نه بخشم چه کنم. If, on the other hand, this pir from Gujjo wishes to argue that. Hadhrat Ahmadas received revelations to the effect that he had been favoured with blessings from God and that his reward is near or that God is pleased with him and has chosen him some revelations to which effect the author of Two in One is seen to cite³, then one would ask him again as to what is so objectionable about this when it is an admitted fact that the pleasure of God inspires His servants with such revelations. For instance, Hadhrat Sayyid Abdul Qadir Jilanith stated: 'When you attain perfection in fana, your rank near God will be raised and you will be addressed with the words: This day 1. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One. p. 66/7 3. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. two in One, pp. 66/7 2. Kausar al Nabi. Kitabul Fai' 271

Page 284

you are with Us, a dignified, trusted one."4. Hence, the revered saint who suffered the wrath of Abdul. Hafeez's spiritual predecessors stated: 'The words wa-stana'tu-ka li-nafsi [i.e., I have chosen thee especially for Myself] which are in the Quranic verse 20.41 were revealed to Abdul Qadir Jilani several times." 16. Hadhrat Sayyid Wali Ullah Shahth also stated that he received a revelation to the effect: 'I will give thee a course of teaching for spiritual progress which shall take man nearer to God than any of the existing courses of teaching for spiritual progress and it shall be more powerful than any of them.17. Maulvi Abdullah Ghaznavi is also stated to have been inspired with several such revelations which were verses from the Holy. Quran, as for instance: 'He is only thy servant upon whom We bestowed favours. 18. The above verse is recorded in Surah Zukhruf. He is also stated to have been inspired with the revelation: 'Thou art from Me and I am from thee. So fear not grieve.'10. What then is so objectional about Hadhrat Ahmad as being inspired with similar kinds of revelations and why should. Abdul Hafeez take exception to it? 4. Jilani, [Hadhrat] Sayyid Abdul Qadir. Futuh al Ghaib, p. 171. 5. Ibne Waseem. Halat e Janab e Gauth e Azam, p. 1 6. Jilani, [Hadhrat] Sayyid Abdul Qadir. Fatuh al Ghaib, p. 171. 7. Shah, [Hadhrat] Sayyid Wali Ullah. Tafhimat, vol. 1, p. 45 8. Ghaznavi, Abdullah. Biography of Maulvi Abdullah Ghaznavi by Abdul Jabbar Ghaznavi 9. Al Quran 43.60 10. Ghaznavi, Abdullah. vide Biography of Maulvi Abdullah Ghaznavi 272

Page 285

CHAPTER ELEVEN. JEWISH LINKS AND CHRISTIAN AID. Every nation has natural dislike to something and for what the. Zionist Jews have done to the Palestinians, the Muslim nation's hatred for the Jews surpasses its hatred for everything else.. Hence, Abdul Hafeez cites several news items from journals of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community's opponents, the Majlis. Khatme Nubuwwat, to allege that it has links with the Zionist state of Israel. He also alleges that the Ahmadiyya Muslim centre at Islamabad in Tilford is playing host to 85 Jewish intellectuals and that with the patronage of the Zionist state,. Ahmadi Muslims are publishing literature in Arabic with the view to distribution in the Arabic speaking world. Incidentally, this literature, according to the joint author of Two in One, Dr.. Rashid Ali, is being printed with the latest printing press supposedly donated in 1985 by the Jewish chairman of New. York's Fifth Avenue business community on Hadhrat Mirza. Tahir Ahmad'say birthday.". One must admit that while one's temper has often flared at reading the obnoxious and vulgar allegations made against the. Ahmadiyya Muslim Community by the author of Two in One,. Abdul Hafeez, his co author, Dr. S. Rashid Ali's aforementioned charges in the concluding pages of the book have afforded one with a touch of humour. One must also admit that while nominal Ahmadi Muslims have somewhat been distressed at the filth the author of Two in One has included in his publication, these concluding comments by his co author has convinced them that the publishers of this grotesque book are personified liars. One would therefore not dwell upon this question at 1. Ali, Dr. S. Rashid. vide. Two in One, pp. 88/9 273

Page 286

length but to caution Abdul Hafeez and Dr. S. Rashid Ali that the Holy Quran requires of Muslims: 'Follow not that of which thou hast no knowledge. Verily, the ear and the eye and the heart - all these shall be called to account.'². If, by any chance, Dr. S. Rashid Ali has been led to believe in these charges of a Jewish link by the false reports contained in the Khatme Nubuwwat Magazine, and provided he is a Muslim who does not treat the admonitions contained in the Holy. Quran with indifference, one would suggest that he take heed of the above verse in the Holy Quran and investigate the matter first since the Holy Quran also admonishes that one 'shun all words of falsehood¹³ and warns: 'He utters not a word, but there is by him an alert watcher who takes care to preserve it." 14. At this stage, it may be appropriate to quote a Hadeeth attributed to Hadhrat Muhammadsa in which he stated: 'It is enough to make a man a liar that he should go on repeating all that he might hear." 15. One ought to also warn the publishers of Two in One that according to Hadhrat Muhammadsa, one who carries tales will not enter paradise and these allegations of the Jewish link are certainly false tales, no less than others already discussed, which. Dr. S. Rashid Ali and Abdul Hafeez are carrying through their publication, Two in One.. However, one is rather amazed at Dr. S. Rashid Ali's audacity in accusing the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community of these false charges of a Jewish link after the conduct of the leadership of 2. Al Quran 17.37 3. Ibid., 22.31 וי 3. Sahih Muslim. vide. Riyadh as Salihini of Imam Nawawi 4. Ibid., 50.19 6. Ibid. 274

Page 287

the entire Muslim world, with the exception of one or two countries, during the Gulf War. One is certain that further comment on this issue would not be necessary but one cannot refrain from stating that while the leadership of nearly the entire. Muslim world was collaborating with the Zionists in breaking the back of Iraq, the leader of the Ahmadiyya Muslim. Community, Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmaday was delivering. Sermons from the pulpit of the London Mosque condemning the actions of this unholy alliance. These Sermons, delivered between 3rd August, 1990 and 15th March, 1991 have been compiled in book form titled The Gulf Crisis' and a study of it should conclusively settle the issue as to who has been collaborating with the Zionists.. As regards Dr. S. Rashid Ali's allegation that according to the. Al Khaleej, an Arabic newspaper, the Christian missionaries have fixed a sum of $35 million to spread the Ahmadiyya. Muslim faith and this money has been spent by them in spreading the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community's literature in. Ethiopia³, would the editor of Al Khaleej or Dr. S. Rashid Ali explain as to why should Christian missionaries spend all this money to spread a faith which claims to be Islamic in a predominantly Christian country where the reigns of power are held by the Amarah people who are all Christians?. As regards the allegation that Christian missionaries have printed new versions of Hadhrat Ahmad's as books and have started distributing these in Ghana and that these books have now invaded bookshops in Accra³, one is rather amazed that these Christians should come to the aid of the Ahmadiyya. Muslim Community at this late stage while the mission in. Ghana was established as far back as 1921 and the name. Ahmadiyya is currently synonymous to Islam in this country. 7. Islam International Publications, Maple, Ontario 8. Ali, S. Rashid, vide. Two in One, pp. 88/9 275 9. Ibid

Page 288

CHAPTER TWELVE. FULFILMENT OF PROPHECIES. While Abdul Hafeez alleges that every one of Hadhrat Mirza. Ghulam Ahmad's as prophecies proved to be wrong, he alludes to only three which, in his opinion, were not fulfilled and allegedly proved to be wrong. However, before one proceeds to discuss these specific prophecies, it may be pertinent to discuss the essential rules which govern the fulfilment of Divine revelations vouchsafed to God Almighty's apostles.. It is a recorded fact of the history of religion that Divine messages have, at times, deluded persons of even the highest stature and calibre. According to the testimony of the Holy. Quran, even Messengers of God Almighty are known to have often understood differently, the true purport of His divine will which had been revealed unto them. If Abdul Hafeez wishes to contest this statement, then one would ask him if he is not aware of the prophecy regarding Hadhrat Muhammad's sa intention to perform Hajj on the basis of a vision which ended with the signing of the Treaty of Hudaibiyya. What, may one ask him, happened there?. Hadeeth literature indicates that on the authority of a Divine vision, Hadhrat Muhammad prepared his Companions for the journey to perform the circuit of the Ka'aba at Mecca. But, they were denied access to the consecrated precinct by the Meccan infidels and a treaty was eventually signed at Hudaibiyya under the terms of which Muslims agreed to return to Medina without performing the sanctified rites which Hadhrat Muhammad sa had understood to have been indicated in his vision. 1. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 42 276

Page 289

Islamic literature bears witness that despite holding him in high esteem, the Companions of Hadhrat Muhammad sa were extremely reluctant to return to Medina without fulfilling the prophecy as understood by them. Many years later, Hadhrat. Umar referred to this incident and stated that 'since he had become a Muslim, it was only on that day at Hudaibiyya that he was given to doubt. 2 What comments would this pedantic and arrogant scholar, Abdul Hafeez, who argues against the fulfilment of Hadhrat Ahmad'sas prophecies have made, had he been present at the signing of this treaty at Hudaibiyya and the return of the Muslims to Medina without performing the sacred rites indicated in Hadhrat Muhammad's as vision?. Another instance of how Divine revelations have deluded men of high stature may be demonstrated in God Almighty's promise vouchsafed unto Hadhrat Noahas. The Holy Quran indicates that. God had promised to save the entire family of Hadhrat Noahas from the calamity which was destined to overtake his people.³. Yet, when he saw his own son on the verge of drowning, he cried out to God in utter desperation and painful wonder, reminding Him of His earlier promise. But, instead of saving. Canaan, God Almighty informed the agitated father that although the son in question was the apostle's own flesh and blood, yet, being an unrighteous person, he was not included, in the sight of God, among the members of Hadhrat Noah's as family. This indicated that Hadhrat Noahas had misunderstood. God's promise which related to the apostle's spiritual progeny only.* What comments would this pir from Gujjo have made in relation to God's promise to Hadhrat Noahas had he been present at the scene, watching from a hill top, Canaan being swept away to his eternal doom by a gigantic wave?. These revealed and recorded facts of history suggest that before one ventures to deny the fulfilment of God Almighty's apostles, one ought to be fully aware of the diverse ways in which He fulfils His word. The overriding golden principle of God 2. Damishqi, [Hadhrat] Imam Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr ibn Ayyub: Zad al Ma'ad fi Hadiyi. Khair al 'Ibad 3. Al Quran 11.46 4. Ibid., 11.47 277

Page 290

Almighty's treatment of mankind has been mentioned in the. Holy Quran where the Lord and Master of destiny states: 'I will inflict My punishment on whom I will but My mercy encompasses all things; so I will ordain it for those who act righteously.'. In view of this ever prevailing principle, it would be rather naive of Abdul Hafeez to argue that all prophecies must be literally fulfilled as understood by the limited intellect of the human mind since such a view is totally misleading and fails to take into consideration, firstly, Allah's incomprehensible attributes of mercy and compassion and secondly, such other relevant factors as the subsequent behaviour of people concerning whom Divine prophecies have been made or issued.. Nevertheless, since God's attribute of mercy preponderates His wrath, no Muslim worth his salt, except possibly Abdul Hafeez, would ever dare argue against Allah's right to exercise His discretion and show mercy whenever He so chooses. This right, according to the Holy Quran and Hadeeth literature, God has ordained for Himself and this right, He exercises even unto those against whom Divine wrath had previously been decreed.'. No doubt, whatever is stated by God is the ultimate Truth because He speaks nothing but the Truth. But then, God. Almighty is, Himself, the Master of His will and the Lord of destiny. He may predict destruction of a people and yet, He may, if these people change their conduct in life and show remorse as well as seek repentance and begin to act righteously, pardon them and allow His overriding principle stated above to come to effect since Allah does not punish people while they seek forgiveness.Ⓡ. According to Hadhrat Muhammadsa, it is an established fact of. Islamic teachings that 'in relation to His warnings of Divine punishment, God Almighty is at complete liberty to forgive,' 6. Ibid., 6.13 7. Sahih Muslim. Kitab al Tauba 5. Ibid., 7.157 8. Al Quran 8.34 9. Alusi, [Hadhrat] Abu'l Fadl; Sahih al Mahmood Baghdadi, Tafsir Ruh al Ma'ami, vol. 2, p. 55 278

Page 291

and 'sacrifice can revoke a punishment decreed from Heaven.'10. Hence, irrespective of what the author of Two in One states in relation to Hadhrat Ahmad's as prophecies, the fact remains that fulfilment of prophecies, more particularly those which augur chastisement, are entirely conditional upon the behaviour of those against whom these decrees have been issued and also. God Almighty's ultimate will, a fact admitted by Muslim scholars of much greater religious understanding than this ignorant pir of Gujjo." These men of understanding have also stated that 'if He, in His wisdom, resolves not to forgive, then every word of the prophecy is fulfilled.'12 But, as stated by them, if on account of the subsequent conduct of mankind, He decides to forgive and 'a prophecy which warns of punishment is not fulfilled, then its apparent non fulfilment cannot be construed an evidence of the falsification of God's word 13 since He embraces all Knowledge and He alone understands, not only the condition of a person's heart, but also, the ultimate purport of. His divine word. Hence, He fulfils His word as destined and desired by Him and not as anticipated by man and when we read that God's words 'never change,' it should be understood as an established way of God and the known fulfilment of His decrees in the past since the declaration that God's words do not change is based on such verses of the Holy Quran as state: 'Do they look for anything but [God's] way of [dealing with] the people of old? But thou wilt never find any change in the way of God: nor wilt thou find any alteration in the way of God.'14. However, if God Almighty, in accordance with His own established practice, suspends or cancels His decree of punishment of a people because of certain factors which claim. His mercy, as happened in the case of the people of Nineveh 15, then this apparent 'change' cannot be taken to mean a change in 10. Muttaqui, [Hadhrat] Sheikh 'Ala al Din 'Ali: Kanz al 'Ummal: al Jami al Sagheer: Vol 1 12. 11. Baidawi, [Hadhrat] Imam Qadi Nasir al Din Abu Sa'id 'Abd Allah ibn 'Umar al: Anwar al. Tanzil wa Asrar al Ta'wil 12. Razi, [Hadhrat] Imam Fakhr al Din: Al Tafsir al Kabir 14. Al Quran 35.44 15. Ibid., 10.99 13. Ibid. 279

Page 292

His word. The Holy Quran contains strong evidence of the practical demonstration of God allowing His mercy to excel His wrath by withdrawing His decree of punishment. An example of this may be found in His treatment of the people of Nineveh.. It is clearly stated in the Holy Quran that Hadhrat Jonahªs was sent as a Messenger unto the people of Nineveh who initially rejected the message of God on account of which He decreed a specific time and date for the destruction of these people.. Hadhrat Jonahas himself, was so convinced that this Divine prophecy in relation to the destruction of 'one hundred thousand or more people' would be fulfilled to the letter that he migrated 16 and waited at some distance for the news of. Nineveh's destruction. But, according to the Holy Quran, when the people of this city turned to God with genuine remorse, extreme repentance and supplication for mercy, God revoked. His decree and looked upon them with mercy. The Holy Quran states in relation to their eventual fate: 'When they believed, We removed from them the punishment of disgrace in the present life.'17. Would Abdul Hafeez now care to argue against the prophethood of Hadhrat Jonahas since his Divinely inspired prophecy was not fulfilled as anticipated by man, because God decreed otherwise and spared the people of Nineveh the punishment of disgrace because they believed? Incidentally,. Hadhrat Jonahas was a man of great piety and intense faith. He realised his error and sought forgiveness from further distress. 118. However, had Abdul Hafeez been in Hadhrat Jonah's as shoes, he would have tarried in the belly of the fish until Doomsday since it is unlikely that he would have realised his mistake and sought forgiveness for his misunderstanding of God way.. In the light of these facts of religious history, one would proceed to study the prophecies of Hadhrat Ahmad as which. Abdul Hafeez, in his ignorance, argues were proved wrong. 16. ibid., 21.88 17. Ibid., 10.99 280 18. Ibid., 21.89

Page 293

PROPHECY RELATING TO. MUHAMMEDI BEGUM AND HER FAMILY. Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's as prophecy concerning the family of Muhammedi Begum happens to be one which Abdul. Hafeez argues against and asserts that it was not fulfilled.19 She was the daughter of one of Hadhrat Ahmad's as distant paternal relative, Mirza Ahmad Beg, who had not only renounced his faith in Islam but along with some of his other relatives, he 'reviled Hadhrat Muhammadsa, doubted the truth of the. Glorious Quran and also denied the very existence of God. Almighty. 120 Hence, Hadhrat Ahmadas was naturally perturbed at the defiance of these relatives whom he often counselled to desist from denying the existence of God Almighty, insulting. His noble Prophetsa and also reviling His Divine Word. But, his counsel always fell on deaf ears. In fact, the only response by these people was to increase further in their transgression and treat Hadhrat Ahmad's as advice with contempt. He later observed that these people became bolder in their denunciation of everything sacred to Islam and: 'They advanced daily in their error and arrogance till they decided to propagate their evil thoughts and mislead the ignorant ones with their delusions. They published a document in which they abused the Holy Prophetsa, reviled the. Word of God and denied the existence of Allah - hallowed be. His name.' 121. This document to which Hadhrat Ahmadas alluded was published by the dissident family and given wide publicity in the Christian press. 22 It demanded that those who believed in the truth of Islam, show some Sign to verify the truth of their belief and when it reached Hadhrat Ahmadas, he was extremely 19. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 42 20. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Ayenae Kamalat e Islam; Ruhani Khazain, vol. 5, p 566 21. Ibid: p. 567 22. Chashm e Noor, Amritsar, 13 August, 1885 281

Page 294

distressed. He stated that when he read this statement by the dissident family, he: 'found it full of such abusive language which could rend the bosom of heaven asunder. Thereupon, I bolted my doors and supplicated my Lord, the Bountiful, prostrating myself before. Him and saying: My Lord, help Thy servant and humiliate Thy enemies. Respond to me, O Lord, respond to me! How long will they mock Thee and Thy Messenger sa? How long will they call Thy Book false and abuse Thy Messengersª? I beseech. Thee of Thine Mercy, O Ever Living, Self Subsisting Helper!123. Consequently, God responded to Hadhrat Ahmad's as earnest supplications with the declaration: 'I have observed their misconduct and wickedness and I shall soon destroy them through different kinds of calamities and you will see how I deal with them,. It should now be evident that Hadhrat Ahmad's as supplicated. God not because of any personal motivation but because these enemies of the Faith denied the existence of God, reviled His. Messenger and abused His sacred Word. It should also be evident that God responded to Hadhrat Ahmad's as supplications not in response to his request that He save Hadhrat Ahmad's as personal honour but the honour of his Lord, God Almighty, His. Messenger, Hadhrat Muhammadsa and His Word, The Glorious. Quran. Hence, for Abdul Hafeez to argue against the fulfilment of this prophecy is tantamount to suggesting that, God forbid,. Allah did not care much of His honour and that of His. Messenger, Hadhrat Muhammadsa and His Book, the Glorious. Quran or that God forbid, if He did, then this dissident family succeeded in frustrating the will of God. This conclusion is deduced from the fact that the document which some of 23. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Ayenae Kamalat e Islam; Ruhani Khazain, vol. 5, P. 569 24. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Ayenae Kamalat e Islam; Ruhani Khazain, vol. 5, p. 569 282

Page 295

Muhammedi Begum's elders had published and the one in response to which Hadhrat Ahmad as supplicated God, essentially argued against the 'existence of God, the piety of. Hadhrat Muhammadsa and the truth of the Holy Quran.125. Nevertheless, it is an established practice of God Almighty that. He does not suffer His creatures without first sending a warning unto them 26 so as to afford the transgressors an opportunity to repent and make amends. If they take heed to these warnings, to repent and reform, the Most Forgiving and Merciful Lord looks upon them with mercy in accordance with His promise: 'whoso repents after his transgression and reforms, God will surely turn to him in mercy; verily, God is Most Forgiving and. Merciful.'27. The dissident members of Muhammedi Begum's family were not an exception to this established rule. Hence, although God. Almighty forewarned them of their impending chastisement on account of their misdeeds, He would not punish them without first giving them ample opportunity to repent and make amends. This is indicated by many a Divine revelation vouchsafed to Hadhrat Ahmadas. For instance, Hadhrat Ahmadas warned this branch of the family that God Almighty had informed him: 'I shall not destroy them at one stroke but gradually so that they might turn back. My curse will descend upon the walls of their homes; on their elders and their young ones; on their men and their women and on their guests. All of them will be accursed except those who believe and keep away from their company. They would be under Divine Mercy. 128. In another announcement, he warned that God had decreed: 'Every branch of thy cousins will be cut off and it will soon 27. Ibid., 5.40 25. Chashme Noor, Amritsar, 13 August, 1885 26. Al Quran 6.132/134 28. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Ayenae Kamalat e Islam; Ruhani Khazain, vol. 5, p 569 283

Page 296

come to an end remaining childless. If they will not repent,. God will send calamity after calamity until they are destroyed.. Their houses will be filled with widows and His anger will descend upon their walls. But if they turn to God, God will turn with mercy.129. On yet another occasion, Hadhrat Ahmad as warned an uncle of. Muhammedi Begum, Mirza Imamud Din, that God Almighty had decreed punishment upon him if he did not repent.. However, he stated that God had also disclosed to him that should Mirza Imamud Din: 'repent, his end will be good. After a warning, he would win back comfort. *30. As regards Muhammedi Begum's parents, Mirza Ahmad Beg and Omrun Nisa, Hadhrat Ahmadas prophesied: 'It was conveyed to me by the Most Glorious One by revelation that if they did not repent, they will be chastised.. My Lord said to me: If they do not turn back from their misconduct, I shall fill their homes with widows but if they repent and reform, We shall turn to them with mercy and shall give up the design of their punishment. Thus will they experience whatever they choose.131. These revelations should establish that the impending misfortunes decreed upon this branch of the dissident family were entirely conditional and subject to the future attitude of the individuals against whom these prophecies had been issued.. If they desired, they could save themselves the chastisement through repentance. On the other hand, if they persisted and continued in their transgression, they would remain subject to the wrath decreed against them. 29. Ibid., vide. Announcement, 20 February, 1886. Riyaz Hind, Amritsar, March 1886 30. Ibid., Surma Chashm Arya, pp. 190/91; Ruhani Khazain, vol. 2, pp. 238/39 31. Ibid., Anjam e Athim; Ruhani Khazain, vol. 11, p. 211/13 284

Page 297

In fact, when one studies this entire controversy with a detached mind and a sense of honesty, one finds that during this entire period when Muhammedi Begum's family lived under the shadow of God Almighty's wrath, Hadhrat Ahmadas besought them repeatedly to repent and save themselves from the decree against them. He counselled them to 'seek forgiveness from God of forgivers.132. Hadhrat Ahmadas also stated that in one of his visions, he saw a weeping woman from amongst the family of Mirza Ahmad. Beg. He counselled the maternal grandmother of Muhammedi. Begum: 'Woman! Repent and turn back for misfortune is pursuing thee. 133 However, this branch of an otherwise noble family was too arrogant to take counsel. It flirted with. Christianity for a while 34 and some of its prominent members apostatised and joined the Arya Samaj³5 - a Hindu organisation dedicated to the destruction of Islamic values in the subcontinent of India. Some years later, a considerable number of its members became atheists and openly declared: 'We have no need of Allah or His Book or His Messengersa, the Seal of Prophets. They said: We shall not accept any Sign unless we are shown a Sign in our own lives. We do not believe in the Quran and we do not know what prophethood is and what faith is and we deny that all.". I. Nevertheless, since God Almighty had decreed that He would 'not destroy them at one stroke but gradually so that they might turn back, He began to fulfil His word and Muhammedi. Begum's family was subjected to a series of misfortunes. In the first of a series of calamities, her uncle, Mirza Nizamud Din suffered a colossal tragedy when precisely in the 31st month of the first prophecy against the family, his daughter, aged twenty five, died, leaving behind an infant child.37 32. Ibid., pp. 213 33. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Tabligh e Risalat, p. 162 34. Chashma e Noor. Amritsar: August, 1885 & Noor Afshan: 10th May, 1888 35. Riyaz Hind: Vol. I: No. 16. Ruhani Khazain, vol. 7 36. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Karamat us Sadiqeen 37. Tabligh e Risalat: vol 1, p. 102 285

Page 298

This sorrow which visited the family should have weighed heavy upon their heart and soul. But, regrettably, Hadhrat. Ahmadas found that these people 'increased in rebellion and went on mocking Islam, like the enemies of the faith.'. Consequently, Mirza Nizamud Din died, leaving behind two survivors, a son, Mirza Gul Muhammad and a daughter, both of whom had the wisdom and piety to accept Islam at the hands of Hadhrat Ahmadas. Mirza Nizamud Din's brother, Mirza. Imamud Din was also survived by one child only, Khurshid. Begum, who, like her cousins, swore allegiance to Hadhrat. Ahmadas. Another brother of these two, Mirza Kamalud Din left. Qadian to become a recluse and spent the rest of his life living in graveyards. He had himself castrated and later repented his action for the rest of his life. He suffered a miserable end and died without an issue while Muhammedi Begum's own parents, as fate would have, required the assistance of Hadhrat Ahmadas and her father, Mirza Ahmad Beg turned to him with humility and meekness. Though inclined to bestow the favour sought of him, Hadhrat Ahmadas, as was customary with him to supplicate God by way of Istikhara on all important matters, informed Ahmad Beg that he would do the same on this occasion and return to him later. And this, he stated 'became an occasion for God to display a Sign'38 He informed Mirza Ahmad. Beg that he had been directed by God to advise him to establish a relationship with Hadhrat Ahmadas by giving his daughter. Muhammadi Begum in marriage to him and thus obtain light from his light.39. Those people who are familiar with Indian customs will bear out that to publicly demand the hand of a daughter of an enemy is probably the most potent way to chagrin and humiliate an adversary. Hence, God Almighty, in His Infinite wisdom, decided to hit this branch of the family in a manner as would hit the hardest where it hurts. Otherwise, it is inconceivable to imagine that Hadhrat Ahmadªs would, on his own accord, 38. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam, Announcement, 10 July. 1888 39. Ibid., Ayenae Kamalat e Islam, Ruhani Khazain, vol. 5, p. 572 286

Page 299

think of seeking a matrimonial union into a family so far removed from Islam. At that point in time, Hadhrat Ahmadas was 53 years of age and happily married to a pious lady of noble stock, Hadhrat Nusrat Jahan Beguma, descendant of. Nawab Mir Dard. However, his life, previous to his second marriage in 1884, establishes beyond a shadow of doubt the fact that he was a man not given to worldly pleasures. This is indicated by the fact that although his first marriage to Hurmat. Bibi had broken down when he was only 21, yet, for the next 28 years of his life, he did not remarry. On the contrary, he led a life of celibacy and devoted these youthful years of his life to the service of Islam and remained content with his religious and literary pursuits. He had no desire to seek this marriage with. Muhammedi Begum and he declared quite categorically that he 'stood in no need of seeking this match since God had provided for all his needs. 140 In a private letter addressed to one of his sincere friends and confidants, Hadhrat Maulana Hakim. Nuruddin, Hadhrat Ahmadas declared that 'since the time he had received this divine revelation to marry, he had been reluctant by nature and wished that this Divine decree might remain inoperative.' He added: 'I have made up my mind that however serious an occasion arises, I will eschew it unless and until I am forced to it by an express command from God because the burden and the disagreeable responsibilities of polygamy are too many. There are also lots of evils in it and only those can guard against these who are commissioned to bear the heavy burden by. God with His special decree and for a special purpose of His and also through His special communication and revelation.141. But, since God Almighty instructed Hadhrat Ahmadas to advise. Muhammedi Begum's father to 'establish a relationship with him and thus obtain enlightenment from it,' he was obliged to obey 40. Ibid., Announcement: 15 July, 1888 41. Ibid., letter dt. 20 June 1886 287

Page 300

the command of his Lord and admonished the father of. Muhammedi Begum which he did in conveying the Divine message to the effect that if Mirza Ahmad Beg: 'does not accept it and his daughter is married to someone else, that marriage would not prove a blessing either for his daughter or for himself. Tell him that if he persists in carrying out a different design, he will become subject to a series of misfortunes, the last of which would be his death within three years of the marriage of his daughter to someone else. Warn him that his death is near and will occur at a time when he does not expect it. The husband of the daughter will die within two years and a half. This is a Divine decree. 142. But, the father of Muhammedi Begum remained defiant and treated Hadhrat Ahmad's as counsel with contempt. Hence, in this atmosphere, Mirza Ahmad Beg's family finally invoked the wrath of God upon itself and the wheels of Divine wrath began to grind. In the first of a series of tragedies, he lost his son,. Mirza Mahmud Beg in July 1890 at which time Hadhrat. Ahmadas offered his condolences and assured the aggrieved father of his sincerity and sympathy by stating: 'You might be feeling ruffled at heart on account of me, but the Omniscient knows that the heart of this humble one is absolutely pure and I wish you well in every way. 143. During this fatal period, Muhammedi Begum's grandmother and one of her sisters also, became victims of the prophecy.. However, Mirza Ahmad Beg chose to persist in his arrogance.. In April 1892, he married his daughter to Mirza Sultan. Muhammad and within six months of her marriage in. September 1892, to be precise, Mirza Ahmad Beg died of typhoid thus fulfilling the prophecy issued on the 10th of July to the effect that he would die within a period of three years of 42. Ibid., Ayenae Kamalat e Islam; Ruhani Khazain, vol. 5, p. p. 572 43. Ibid., vide. Life of Ahmad: p. 245 44. Tarikh e Ahmadiyyat, vol. 2 288

Page 301

the marriage of his daughter to anyone else. 45. The death of Mirza Ahmad Beg, so close to the marriage of. Muhammedi Begum devastated the entire family. It had a severe impact upon its morale and its members publicly admitted that Hadhrat Ahmad's as prediction was true. They ceased to be abusive towards God, His noble Prophets and also. His sacred Book. They began to turn to Islam for solace and sought forgiveness for their misdeeds. They even supplicated. Hadhrat Ahmadas to intercede on their behalf so that God. Almighty may, in His Infinite Mercy, save them further torment and remove the curse decreed upon them. This fact was admitted by no less an enemy of Hadhrat Ahmadas, Maulvi. Sanaullah Amritsari.4 46. Would the author of Two in One then claim that he is more qualified to assess the outcome of this prophecy than his own spiritual predecessor who was an eye witness to the turn of events as they took place? If he should insist that Hadhrat. Ahmad'sas prophecy was not fulfilled, then would he explain as to why a large majority of the members of this dissident family, including Muhammadi Begum's mother, Omrun Nisa, the widow of the deceased, Mirza Ahmad Beg, pledge allegiance to. Islam at the hands of Hadhrat Ahmadas?47. Irrespective of what Abdul Hafeez claims in relation to this prophecy, the fact is that a generation which at one time 'denied the existence of God, reviled His noble Messengers and insulted. His glorious Book,' returned to accept Islam at the hands of. Hadhrat Ahmadas because of a conviction that his prophecy against their family had been clearly fulfilled and the only recourse open to them was to repent and seek forgiveness. And, in view of the established practice of God Almighty, as discussed in the opening pages of this chapter, one would expect that at this point in time when Muhammedi Begum's dissident family began to repent and seek God's forgiveness, He, in His Infinite Mercy, would recall the decree of punishment 45. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Ayenae Kamalat e Islam; Ruhani Khazain, vol. 5, p. 572 46. Amritsari, Maulvi Sanaullah. Illhamat e Mirza, p. 69 47. Tarikh e Ahmadiyyat, vol. 2 289

Page 302

issued against them since He had no further cause to chastise them. This, as subsequent events proved, is exactly what God. Almighty did, in accordance with His Divine promise: 'If they repent and reform, We shall turn to them with mercy and shall give up our design of their punishment. Thus will they experience whatever they choose.". It would, therefore, be a height of dishonesty for Abdul Hafeez to argue any more that Muhammedi Begum's family should have been chastised further, if Hadhrat Ahmad's as prophecy was to be considered to have been fulfilled. It has been shown that after receiving such punishment, the dissident family ceased to transgress and sought forgiveness. It had also proven its good intent by pledging fidelity at the hands of God Almighty's elect,. His vicegerent, the Promised Messiah and the Imam Mahdi,. Hadhrat Ahmadas of Qadian. What manner of God would now continue chastisement of these people despite His promise: 'I will inflict My punishment on whom I will; but My mercy encompasses all things; so I will ordain it for those who act righteously.' 149. Has the Master of Destiny and the Lord of Mercy, God. Almighty not, in His infinite Mercy promised mankind: 'whoso repents after his transgression and amends, then will. God surely turn to him with mercy; verily, God is Most. Forgiving, Merciful.160. It is, however, ironic that while the family directly affected by the prophecy admitted its fulfilment and turned to Hadhrat. Ahmadas, people like Abdul Hafeez continue to argue otherwise on the grounds that Muhammedi Begum was not married to 48. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Anjam e Athim; Ruhani Khazain, vol. 11, pp. 211/13 49. Al Quran 7.157 5.40 50. Ibid., 290

Page 303

Hadhrat Ahmadas. This they do tenaciously despite the fact that at no stage had her marriage to another person been ruled out by the prophecy nor was her marriage to Hadhrat Ahmadas, the primary purpose of the prophecy. On the contrary, it was a proposed mean to an ultimate end, that being, the prophecy itself indicated, 'the return of the faithless and the erring back to guidance,' as is sufficiently proven by the text of the prophecies against the dissident family.51 Once the ultimate purpose of the prophecy had been achieved with the repentance of the family and its conversion to Islam immediately after the death of Mirza Ahmad Beg, Divine justice demanded that the second part of the prophecy, that of forgiveness, be also fulfilled the part which hinged on the condition that in case the dissident members of the family repented, God would certainly turn to them in mercy and forgiveness. Hence, forgiveness by. God Almighty of the surviving members of the family, instead of giving a lie to this prophecy, is in fact further proof that the prophecy was fulfilled in its entirety a fact admitted by. Muhammadi Begum's own son, who stated of the ignoble death of his father: 'My grandfather, Mirza Ahmad Beg died as a result of the prophecy and the rest of the family became frightened and hence reformed themselves. An undeniable proof of this is that most of them joined Ahmadiyyat. 152. Does Abdul Hafeez then claim to know more about the fulfilment of this prophecy than those who were directly concerned with it and also those who witnessed every phase of its fulfilment? Mirza Sultan Muhammad, the husband of. Muhammadi Begum, who was spared death on account of the family's repentance, was also convinced that Hadhrat Ahmad's as prophecy had been fulfilled to the extent of God Almighty's will. In an interview, the details of which were published during 51. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Ayanae Kamalat e Islam, Ruhani Khazain, vol. 5, p. 566/74 52. Beg, Mirza Ishaq. Al Fazl, 26 February, 1923 291

Page 304

his lifetime, he stated: 'At the time of the prophecy, the Ayra Hindus, because of. Lekh Ram and the Christians, because of Athim offered me a hundred thousand rupees to file a case against Mirza. Sahib.If I had taken the amount, I would have become rich but it was my great faith in him that prevented me from doing so.' 153. While modern opponents of Hadhrat Ahmadas, such as the pir from Gujjo continue to argue that Hadhrat Ahmad's as predictions in relation to Muhammadi Begum and her family proved to be wrong, Hadhrat Ahmad's as opponents who lived at that point in time and who had committed themselves to his opposition believed that this prophecy had been fulfilled in the spirit in which it had been decreed by God Almighty. Maulvi. Muhammad Hussain Batalvi, the leader of the Ahle Hadeeth in. India was a committed opponent of Hadhrat Ahmadas. He personally witnessed the entire controversy between Hadhrat. Ahmadas and Muhammad Begum's family and he was also well aware of the prophecy pronounced against these people. Yet, despite the fact that he considered it his 'duty to bring Hadhrat. Ahmad's as fame to dust, a mission to which he had vowed himself,154 Maulvi Muhammad Hussain Batalvi witnessed the ignoble fate of Mirza Ahmad Beg and the conclusion of this prophecy and stated: 'though the prophecy was fulfilled, yet it was due to astrology,' 155. All praise belongs to Allah! He even caused Hadhrat Ahmad's as adversaries to admit that his prediction had come true. 53. Muhammad, Mirza Sultan. Al Fazl, 9 June, 1921 54. Batalvi, Maulvi Muhammad Hussain. Ishaa'tus Sunnah, circa 1891 55. Ibid., vol. 5 292

Page 305

PROPHECY CONCERNING ATHIM. Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's as other prophecy which Abdul. Hafeez argues was not fulfilled concerns an apostate from Islam,. Padre Abdullah Athim.56 In early 1893 CE, a Christian missionary,. Rev. Henry Martin Clark wrote a letter to a Muslim leader of. Jandiala, Muhammad Baksh Phanda, suggesting that some decisive action be taken to arrange a public debate between the representatives of Christianity and Islam so that a 'final decision could be taken on the relative merits of the two faiths and it might he determined which of them was true.' Hadhrat Ahmadas had, by this time, already routed many a Christian challenge to. Islam and he had been publicly acknowledged the champion of the faith. A Muslim newspaper of Amritsar stated in relation to. Hadhrat Ahmad's as excellent defence of Islam: 'The excellent merits and high spiritual accomplishment of. Mirza Sahib are too great for our humble observations. The cogent reasons and brilliant arguments he has brought forth in support of Islam and Truth in so beautiful a manner show beyond a shadow of doubt that he has excelled the writings of the old and the new Ulama in eloquence and presentation.'57. It was, therefore not surprising that Muhammad Baksh Phanda should forward Rev. Clarke's invitation to Hadhrat Ahmad as with a request that he might like to represent Islam in the proposed debate and since the Christian missionaries were, at that point in time, engaged in a wide scale attack against Islam; its noble Prophet, Hadhrat Muhammad Mustaphasa and its sacred Scripture, the Glorious Quran, Hadhrat Ahmad as considered this invitation to publicly establish the superiority of. Islam, a God sent opportunity. Hence, he immediately assented to the proposal and informed the Muslim leadership of Jandiala 56. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 42 57. Riyaz Hind, Amritsar, 1 March, 1886 293

Page 306

that he would be pleased to represent Islam at the debate.. Abdullah Athim was nominated by the Church to represent. Christianity at the debate. He was the author of some vile publications in which he described the noble Prophet of Islamsa, as God forbid, a Dadjaal 158 and also stated that the description of the First Woe in Revelation IX applied, every word to, God forbid, him.'59 However, the debate finally took place at. Amritsar and continued for a fortnight and Athim, was found wanting in knowledge of both religions, Islam and Christianity.. Consequently, he acceded several points, as for instance, on the question of Hadhrat Jesus as alleged divinity. He 'admitted the reasonableness and validity of Hadhrat Ahmad's as method of induction but could not refer to any actual fact by way of instance which could prove Hadhrat Jesus's alleged divinity.' He could only contend that 'reason and experience should not be the guides of faith and man cannot understand the doctrine of. Trinity.' Athim also found himself forced to admit that 'Hadhrat. Jesus as became a manifestation of God only when he saw His spirit descending upon him in the shape of a dove and lightning which effectively demolished the dogma that he, being the son of God was of the substance of the Father.' His lack of knowledge of Islam and its Scriptures was also exposed during this debate and he had to 'concede that he had incorrectly quoted several verses of the Holy Quran.'. Athim's inability to sustain the pace of intellectual discussion and his failure to present any novel and convincing arguments either in favour of Christianity or against Islam was more than apparent to the audience, including his own colleagues.. However, at the close of the debate, Hadhrat Ahmadas concluded with the announcement: 'When I prayed to God, in all humility and earnestness, that. He might give His judgement in the debate as we are weak mortals and without His judgement we could not accomplish anything, I was given a Sign, by way of glad tidings, that of 58. Athim, Abdullah: Androona Bible: pgs 143/145 & 196 59. Ibid., Aljawahirul Quran: pg 108 294

Page 307

the two parties to the debate, the one who was deliberately following falsehood and forsaking the true God and deifying a weak mortal would be thrown into hell within fifteen months, each month corresponding to each day of the debate, and that he would suffer open disgrace if he did not turn to the truth; and that the one who is following the truth and believed in the true God would be openly honoured.160. In conclusion to this announcement, Hadhrat Ahmadas directed a personal question at Abdullah Athim and enquired: 'Now I ask Deputy Sahib. If this sign is fulfilled, would you accept it as a perfect and divine prophecy according to your liking? Would it not be a strong proof that the Holy Prophetsa, whom you called the Dadjaal in your book Androoni Bible, is a true Prophet.161. This introduction to the debate between Hadhrat Ahmadas and. Abdullah Athim should establish the fact that the purpose of the entire exercise was to establish the superiority of one of the two contending religions, Islam or Christianity. Hadhrat Ahmad's as final announcement at the close of the debate is also indicative of the fact that the test was not between personalities but between Islam and Christianity, the respective faiths of the persons involved in the debate. Hadhrat Ahmad's as final question bore yet another evidence of the fact that the eventual outcome of the prophecy against Athim was to be 'a strong proof that the Holy Prophet, Hadhrat Muhammadsa, whom. Athim had the audacity to revile was a true prophet.'. At this stage, one would beseech Abdul Hafeez to reflect upon the consequences of his assertion that this prophecy against. Abdullah Athim was not fulfilled in the light of the fact that it was to be a strong proof of the truth of Hadhrat Muhammadsa whom Athim had so numerously insulted. Is this pir of Gujjo so engrossed in his prejudice against Hadhrat Ahmad as that he is 60. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Jang e Muqaddas, pp. 209/10; Ruhani Khazain, vol. 6, pp. 291/92 61. Ibid., p. 211; Ruhani Khazain, vol. 6, p. 293 295

Page 308

sa even prepared to compromise the truth of Hadhrat. Muhammadsa at the hands of the Christian padre, Abdullah. Athim, a person who had, in deifying a weak mortal Hadhrat. Jesusas, forsaken the true God and who had also reviled our noble Prophet, Hadhrat Muhammad in his literary pursuits?'. Isn't it sad that despite the fact that the entire purpose of this prophecy against Abdullah Athim was to warn the Christian against the stand he had adopted against Islam and Hadhrat. Muhammadsa, Abdul Hafeez is so blinded by his prejudice that he is even prepared to accept the victory of the Christian faith against Islam in alleging that Hadhrat Ahmad's as prophecy against the Christian proved to be wrong. 62 And yet, this pseudo pir of Gujjo has the audacity to claim that he is 'eager to sacrifice his life, money and honour for Prophet Muhammadsa 163. Is this how he proposes to prove his loyalty to Islam and its noble Prophets? How does he expect one to believe that he has an iota of sincerity in him?. The fact of the matter is that this prophecy against Abdullah. Athim was fulfilled to the extent of the Divine words vouchsafed unto Hadhrat Ahmadas since these stated quite clearly that the padre: 'would be thrown into hell within fifteen months of the prophecy and he would suffer open disgrace if he did not turn to the truth,164. The Divine words revealed unto Hadhrat Ahmadas did not, at any stage, declare that Abdullah Athim would die but that 'the one who was deliberately following falsehood and forsaking the true God and deifying a weak mortal would be thrown into. Haviaah within fifteen months, each month corresponding to each day of the debate, and that the polytheist would suffer open disgrace if he did not turn to the truth 165 - Haviaah being the lowest regions of hell. 62. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 42 63. Ibid., p. 6 64. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Jang e Muqaddas, p. 210; Ruhani Khazain, vol. 6, p. 292 65. Ibid., 209/10; Ruhani Khazain, vol. 6, p. 291/92 296

Page 309

66. Honesty demands that one admit that Hadhrat Ahmadas understood this to mean death as indicated by his explanation of the Divine revelation vouchsafed unto him. But this was a simple case of misunderstanding the true purport of the Divine revelation, just as our beloved Prophet, Hadhrat Muhammad. Mustapha misunderstood the true purport of the revelation vouchsafed unto him in relation to the performance of Hajj and. Umra as discussed earlier. It was a case of simple misunderstanding, similar to the one experienced by Hadhrat. Noahªs who misunderstood the true purport of God Almighty's promise that He would save the apostle's family from the. Deluge or Hadhrat Jonah's who misunderstood God Almighty's ultimate will in relation to the people of Nineveh and fled the city. The question which one would like to ask Abdul Hafeez is that if these earlier messengers of God could misunderstand the purport of God Almighty's promises, then what is so objectionable of Hadhrat Ahmad as being subject to the same kind of misunderstanding?. It is, however, as stated earlier, an established fact that the. Divine revelation vouchsafed unto Hadhrat Ahmadas in relation to Abdullah Athim was fulfilled to the extent of the Divine promise contained therein and the Christian padre was thrown into Haviaah. He suffered great mental anguish after the announcement of the prophecy against him and not only did he retire from active life of propagating his hatred of Islam but he began to have strange hallucinations. He day dreamt about snakes, rabid dogs and armed men, following him, ready to kill him. According to a British historian, Abdullah Athim: 'lived in absolute terror for the rest of his life, was almost permanently drunk and was moved by the missionaries from town to town. 167. Incidentally, while Abdul Hafeez alleges that Hadhrat. Ahmad's as prophecy in relation to Abdullah Athim proved to be 66. Ibid., p. 210; Ruhani Khazain, Vol. 6, p. 292 67. Adamson, lan. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian, p. 103 297

Page 310

wrong, his spiritual predecessor, Maulvi Sanaullah Amritsari, who was an eye witness to Abdullah Athim's state of life after the announcement of Hadhrat Ahmad's as prophecy against the. Christian priest believed otherwise. Despite his personal differences and constant intrigues against the Ahmadiyya. Muslim Community, he admitted that Hadhrat Ahmad's as prophecy against Abdullah Athim was fulfilled to the extent of the revealed words. He stated: 'If you consider the revealed words that we have also quoted and think about the predicament that encountered him, you shall have no doubt in your minds that he was, indeed, thrown into Haviaah and his heart was so badly affected that we could easily call it the torments of hell. But the extreme punishment which we had understood and which has been pointed out in our writings, that is to say, death, that has not yet come." 168. But death, as has been shown, was never indicated in the Divine words revealed unto Hadhrat Ahmadas. The prophecy merely stated that Athim would be thrown into Haviaah, i.e., the lowest regions of hell, which is precisely what befell him. This too, is admitted by Sanaullah Amritsari who stated: 'The manner in which he was continually affected with restlessness and fear and also the dread of death, that was indeed Haviaah or the lowest region of Hell." 169. That was the intent conveyed in God Almighty's revelation vouchsafed unto Hadhrat Ahmadas - that the padre would be thrown into Haviaah and that is what exactly happened to. Abdullah Athim. How, then, does Abdul Hafeez argue that this prophecy proved to be wrong? 68. Amritsari, Maulvi Sanaullah. Illahamat e Mirza, p. 22 298 69. Ibid.,. P. 23

Page 311

DIALOGUE WITH. MAULVI SANAULLAH AMRITSARI. Finally, Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's as dialogue with. Maulvi Sanaullah Amritsari, and its subsequent outcome is another episode which Abdul Hafeez alleges rebounded on him.. He states that Hadhrat Ahmad as predicted Sanaullah's death within his life but the mullah died in 1947.70 How much truth is this pir of Gujjo uttering in this statement shall be presently illustrated.. Like many of his contemporary mullah, Sanaullah was passionately opposed to Hadhrat Ahmadas and never missed an opportunity to revile him. In 1897, Hadhrat Ahmadas wrote a book, Anjam e Athim wherein he challenged some religious leaders of India who called him a liar and a pretender, to a. Mubahala and Sanaullah happened to be one whose name was included in this list. However, he initially ignored this challenge until 1902, when, under some pressure from his colleagues, he took the initiative and challenged Hadhrat Ahmadas to a counter. Mubahala as Abdul Hafeez is seen to have done in his book. Two in One.. As soon as Hadhrat Ahmadas received word that the maulvi had issued such a challenge, he signified his acceptance and stated that 'he had seen the announcement of Sanaullah in which he has claimed that he has a sincere desire that he and. Hadhrat Ahmadas should pray that the one of them who is in the wrong should die in the lifetime of the other. 71 However, since he was aware of the cowardly disposition of the mullah, he stated that Sanaullah had made a good proposal and he hoped that the maulvi would stand by it. Hadhrat Ahmadªs then proceeded to state that if Sanaullah 'is sincere in his challenge that the one who is untruthful should die before the truthful one, then surely Sanaullah will die first.172 70. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 42 71. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Ijaz Ahmadi, p. 14; Ruhani Khazin, vol. 19, p. 121/22 72. Ibid., Ijaz Ahmadi, p. 14; Ruhani Khazin, vol. 19, p. 122 299

Page 312

As soon as the mullah came to know that Hadhrat Ahmadas had accepted his challenge and had assured him that if he was sincere in his proposal, then Sanaullah would certainly be the first to die, the maulvi made a hasty retreat with the excuse: 'I neither am nor do I claim like you that I am a prophet, or a messenger or a son of God or a recipient of revelation. I cannot therefore enter such a contest. Your purpose is that if. I should die before you, you will proclaim that as a proof of your righteousness and if you pass on before me, a good riddance, then who will go to your grave and hold you to account? That is why you put forward such a stupid proposal.. I regret however, that I dare not enter into such a controversy and this lack of courage is a source of honour and not humiliation to me.'. Since Sanaullah declined to pursue the duel of prayer provoked by him and accepted by Hadhrat Ahmadas in which the mullah was assured that he would be the first to die if he were sincere in his challenge, it became null and void. Why should people like Abdul Hafeez be blind to this established fact of recorded history if they do not wish to express their enmity to Hadhrat. Ahmadas?. Apparently, Sanaullah's refusal to proceed further with his own challenge became a source of embarrassment to his colleagues.. He was subjected to severe criticism as a consequence of which another five years later, i.e., in 1907, he issued another challenge wherein he called upon the members of the Ahmadiyya Muslim. Community to come forward and bring Hadhrat Ahmadas: 'who has challenged us to a mubahala in his book Anjam. Athim and compel him to confront me, for so long as there is no final decision with a prophet, nothing can bind all his followers." 174 73. Amritsari, Maulvi Sanaullah. Ilhamat e Mirza, p. 116 74. Amritsari, Maulvi Sanaullah. Ahle Hadeeth, 29 March, 1907, p. 10 300

Page 313

When Hadhrat Ahmad as read this second challenge, he directed the editor Badr, to announce: 'In reply to this challenge, I wish to convey to Maulvi. Sanaullah Sahib the good news that Hadhrat Mirza Sahibas has accepted his challenge. He should therefore solemnly declare that Hadhrat Ahmadas has fabricated his claim. He should then pray that if he, Maulvi Sanaullah, has lied in this utterance, then the curse of God shall befall the liar.175. But the mullah, as was shown earlier, had admitted that he dared not enter into such a controversy. Hence, he shifted his position once again and publicly declared: 'I have not challenged you to a mubahala. I have only declared my willingness to take an oath but you can call it a mubahala whereas a mubahala involves the parties taking an oath in a contest against each other. I have declared my readiness to take an oath and have not issued a challenge to a mubahala. Taking a unilateral oath is one thing and mubahala is quite another. 176. What Sanaullah was suggesting here was that he had not intended to invite Hadhrat Ahmadas to curse the Maulvi while he himself, was quite prepared to unilaterally invoke such a curse upon Hadhrat Ahmadas. This is exactly the same position adopted by Abdul Hafeez in his Mubahala challenge contained in his publication, Two in One. He, for instance, demands of. Ahmadi Muslims that they desecrate the grave of Hadhrat. Ahmadas to prove the truthfulness of their stand while he does not offer to reciprocate in any similar manner whatsoever.". However, this retreat by the Ahle Hadeeth maulvi gave evidence that he had, once again, shifted from his original position where he had demanded that Hadhrat Ahmad as be confronted against him. 75. Badr, Qadian. 4 April, 1907 76. Amritsari, Maulvi Sanaullah. Ahle Hadeeth, 19 April, 1907 77. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 19 301

Page 314

In the meantime, Hadhrat Ahmadas had perceived that. Sanaullah would not be prepared to take a definite position in this controversy. Hence, he had issued an announcement which included in its text a prayer to God Almighty that He 'decide the matter between him and Sanaullah and cause the real mischief monger and liar to die in the lifetime of the one who is truthful.78 He concluded his announcement with the request that the Maulvi should publish this announcement in his journal, the Ahle Hadeeth at the 'end of which he may write in response whatever he please and leave the judgement with. God. 179 But, no sooner did Sanaullah receive Hadhrat Ahmad's as announcement, he was stricken with fright. He immediately published a statement in which he declared: 'This document is not acceptable to me, nor would any sane person agree to such a challenge. I reject this offer which you have published.". In fact, the mullah not only refused to accept a simple and straight forward challenge to a duel of prayer that the real mischief-monger die in the lifetime of the one who is truthful, he complained that Hadhrat Ahmad as had no right to publish such an announcement without his consent. He stated: 'I cannot be deemed to be a party to this challenge because my consent regarding this prayer has not been taken and its contents have been published without my consent.'81. The Maulvi was, without a doubt, afraid that he would most certainly die an accursed death within the lifetime of Hadhrat. Ahmad as if he ever dared enter such a contest with him. Hence, he enquired of Hadhrat Ahmadas: 'In what manner can my death be a sign for others when as 78. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Announcement, 15 April, 1907 80. Amritsari, Maulvi Sanaullah. Ahle Hadeeth, 26 April, 1907 302 79. Ibid. 81. Ibid.

Page 315

you say, Maulvi Dastgir Qasoori, Maulvi Ismail Aligarhi, Dr.. Dowie of America etc., died in the same manner; have others accepted you? In the same way, if this death occurs, what good will it produce?182. This was clearly a plea by a very frightened man that he not be involved in any kind of a duel of prayer involving death. Hence, to spare himself an ignoble death, he demanded of Hadhrat. Ahmadas: 'Show me a sign that I may see myself. If I die, what can I see?'83. In fact, without actually realising what he was saying,. Sanaullah Amritsari specified the kind of a sign of the truthfulness of Hadhrat Ahmadas which he would like to see. He proposed a totally new criterion to settle this issue between him and Hadhrat Ahmadas and stated: 'The Holy Quran says that 'evil doers are granted respite' by. God. For instance, it is said: 'The Gracious One grants respite to those who are in error' [19.76] and 'We grant them respite so that they might multiply their sins' [3.97]; 'God will leave them to flounder in their transgression' [2.16] and 'The fact is that We provided for them and their fathers and they remained in enjoyment of Our provision for a long time. [21:25]. All these clearly mean that God Almighty grants respite and bestows long life on liars, deceivers, disturbers of peace and disobedient ones, so that during the period of respite, they should add to their evil deeds. How do you then propose a rule that such people do not enjoy a long lease of life?184. Hence, the entire dialogue between Hadhrat Ahmadas and. Maulvi Sanaullah Amritsari assumed a new dimension. The 82. Ibid. 83. Ibid. 303 84. Ibid

Page 316

mullah was convinced that according to the wisdom of the Holy. Quran, it was not the liars but those that were truthful that died first and he even proceeded to establish the validity of his belief with evidence from Islamic history. He stated: 'Despite the fact that the Holy Prophetsa was a true prophet of. God and Musailma a false pretender to prophethood, the latter survived the Holy Prophetsa. In other words, Musailma, a liar, died after the death of a truthful person.' 185. Now, not even an ignorant scholar like this pir from Gujjo could argue with this contention when based upon the wisdom contained in the Holy Quran and evidence from the history of. Islam. Hence, this issue between Hadhrat Ahmadas of Qadian and Maulvi Sanaullah of Amritsar had now, as is evident from the exchange between them, particularly, Sanaullah's excuses in response to Hadhrat Ahmad's as announcement, taken a totally new turn. Initially, the criterion for the determination of the truthful one amongst the two was to be the 'death of the liar within the lifetime of the other.' But, Sanaullah's objections to this established principle and his adamant insistence 'that God grants respite and long life to those who are in error and provides provision of them so that they may remain in enjoyment for a long time and thereby flounder in their transgression and multiply their sins,' coupled with his evidence from Islamic history that such an instance has been seen to happen, had laid a totally new criterion to determine this controversy and bring it to conclusion - namely that 'the truthful one ought to die within the lifetime of the liar' since God. Almighty, according to Sanaullah's exegeses, gives respite to the evil ones and grants them long life so that they may increase in transgression and multiply their sins. However, to the regret of. Sanaullah, his explanation was accepted by Hadhrat Ahmadas although Hadhrat Ahmad as stated that the Maulvi had 'suggested a completely different measure that the liar should 85. Amritsari, Maulvi Sanaullah. Muraqqa Qadian, August, 1907 304

Page 317

live longer than the truthful person just as happened in the case of Musailma Kazzab and the Holy Prophetsa. 86. It should be observed that Hadhrat Ahmadas did not, at any point throughout this controversy predict that Sanaullah will die in his lifetime. He merely invited the mullah to engage in a duel of prayer with him and pray that the liar die before the truthful.. But, this invitation, Sanaullah Amritsari refused to accept. And, he also complained about it. However, as Divine wisdom would have, the mullah was led to make an excuse that the truthful, and not the liar die first since the liars are granted respite and provided by God to remain in enjoyment of His provisions for a long time 88 so that they may multiply their sins89 and also flounder in their transgression just as Musailma Kazzab, the liar was given respite and provided with provision of enjoyment to multiply his sins and flounder in transgression while our beloved Prophet, Hadhrat Muhammadsa who was a truthful person died first.91. Hence, the Almighty Lord decreed that Maulvi Sanaullah. Amritsari be 'shown a sign that he might see for himself which he would not see if he died first' as the mullah had demanded of Hadhrat Ahmadas. 92 God Almighty caused him to fall into the snare of his own choice and in accordance with the novel criterion established by the Maulvi himself and also his wishes,. Allah granted the Amritsari mullah a long respite and he remained in enjoyment of His provision until 1947 so that. Sanaullah may multiply his sins and flounder in his transgression a period of forty years after the truthful person,. Hadhrat Ahmad's as death in 1908. All praise belongs to Allah! 88. Ibid., 21.25 89. Ibid. 3.97 90. 2.16 861. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Announcement, October, 1907 87. Al Quran 19.76 91. Amritsari, Maulvi Sanaullah. Muraqqa Qadian: August, 1907 92. Amritsari, Maulvi Sanaullah. Ahle Hadeeth, 26 April, 1907 305

Page 318

ABDUL HAFEEZ'S PROPHECY PROVEN FALSE. Abdul Hafeez has very rightly quoted Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam. Ahmadas to state that if even one prediction of an individual is proved to be wrong, then that person would certainly be a liar.93. The three prophecies of Hadhrat Ahmadas which the author of. Two in One falsely alleges were proved wrong have shown to have been fulfilled to the full extent of God Almighty's will.. Hence, Hadhrat Ahmadas cannot, under any justifiable criterion be stated to have been a liar. On the contrary, the person who makes such a false statement against his prophecies is the one who is proved to be a liar and in this instance, Abdul Hafeez is himself proven a liar for uttering a lie that any of Hadhrat. Ahmad'sas prophecies were not fulfilled.. That, however, is not the full extent of how this pir from Gujjo has been proved to be a liar by God Almighty. The criterion of a person's predictions not being fulfilled, being a sign of the lying nature of that individual, applies to the author of Two in. One as much as it applies to anyone else. If one may remind him, Abdul Hafeez sent an Eid greeting card to Hadhrat Mirza. Tahir Ahmaday on which he scribbled a prophecy that within one year of it, the Caliph of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community will, God forbid, be 'afflicted with paralysis and this would be a sign of the inveracity of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community and Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmaday. In fact, Abdul Hafeez's disciple, Dr. S. Rashid Ali of Dibba was so convinced that the prophecy of his spiritual guide and teacher would come true, that around the period when he expected it to be fulfilled,. Ahmadi Muslims in the vicinity of the Fazl Mosque in London were inundated with telephone calls by him demanding that they go to their mosque and observe the truth of the prophecy of his master. It is a small wonder that the telephone bills of. Rashid Ali ran into thousands of pounds when converted into. British sterling. 93. vide. Two in One, p. 67 306

Page 319

However, if Abdul Hafeez had not been a liar, his prediction written before the date of the receipt of this Eid card at the. London Mosque, i.e., the 30th of April, 1992 should have come to fruition in April, 1993, at the latest. But, with the grace of. God Almighty, that was not to be so which is an evidence of the fact that Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmaday and the Ahmadiyya. Muslim Community are on the truth while Syed Abdul Hafeez. Shah, the pir of Gujjo and the administrator of the Bait ul. Mukarram Trust in Pakistan as well as the spiritual guide and teacher of Dr. Syed Rashid Ali of Dibba, al Fujairah in the. United Arab Emirates is a personified liar because his prediction has been proven to be false. Thus, in accordance with his own prayer that 'if he is wrongly accusing the Ahmadiyya Muslim. Community or writing his book for worldly gains, then. Allah trap the liar and the accuser with His curse and reveal such signs as will decide between the truth and falsehood, 194 Abdul. Hafeez has been caused by God Almighty to be exposed as a liar with this prediction. Yet, he has the audacity to take exception to the appellation of a liar being stated on the cover page of the Mubahala challenge issued by the Ahmadiyya. Muslim Community. Does this prediction of Abdul Hafeez which did not come to fruition as predicted by the pir of Gujjo not make him deserving of the appellation of a liar? Why should he then take exception be being called one when the description aptly applies to him? Or else, how does he explain the non fulfilment of his prophecy, which, according to his own statement was supposed to illustrate the falsehood of Hadhrat. Mirza Tahir Ahmaday and the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community? 93. vide. Two in One, p. 67 94. Ibid. 307

Page 320

CHAPTER THIRTEEN. BLATANT SUBREPTION OF. AHMADIYYA MUSLIM LITERATURE. Finally, the author of Two in One cites 24 quotations which he claims are from Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad'sas books and asks Ahmadi Muslims to prove to him that these are being misquoted by their opponents with the view to defame them.¹. He also assures them that his entire purpose in being engaged in this query is for the sake of Allah only.² Yet, while he gives. Ahmadi Muslims such an assurance, even before he receives a reply, Abdul Hafeez exposes his true motivation and in the next line appends a statement that he considers Hadhrat Ahmadas and his followers to be liars and slanderers.³ This should be sufficient to indicate that all his pretensions of being a genuine student seeking true knowledge are no more than a fraudulent excuse by the pir of Gujjo and he is merely shielding his persecution of Ahmadi Muslims under the guise of zealous religious piety. Nonetheless, what he also does, is to append a prayer to this statement in which he states that if he is accusing. Hadhrat Ahmadas and the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community falsely, then: 'O Allah, trap every liar and accuser with Your Curse and reveal such a sign which will decide between true and false.". The following pages should sufficiently illustrate the extent to which Abdul Hafeez has manipulated the Ahmadiyya Muslim. Community's literature and also demonstrate how his prayer of being exposed as a liar and a slanderer has been responded to. 1. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, pp. 50/2 2. Ibid., 52 3. Ibid. 308 4. Ibid.

Page 321

1. The first of these alleged statements he accuses Hadhrat. Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas of having made is that in Izalah. Auham, page 128 he stated that 'Prophet Muhammadsa understood the meaning of Surah Zilzal incorrectly." However, when Hadhrat Ahmad'ssa original work is checked, it establishes that he never made any such alleged statement, either on page 128 of Izalah Auham or its entire text or for that matter any of his writings. The passage of Izalah Auham which Abdul Hafeez cites to establish his false charge does not itself make any such statement. One cites here, Abdul Hafeez's own citation of the passage which he claims may be found on page 128 of Izalah. Auham. He states that: 'Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani says: Our religious scholars have given a literal meaning of this Surah that earth will face severe earthquakes in the last days and it will be of such severity that the whole earth will become upside down and that what will be inside will come out. And human beings i.e.: - disbelievers [Kafira] will ask the earth what has happened to it. So that day earth will talk and tell its condition. These meanings and explanations are entirely wrong.. As evident from this citation of the passage, the people who are stated to have misunderstood the meaning of Surah Zilzal are the religious scholars who have given this Surah a literal meaning. Now, and unless Abdul Hafeez wishes to argue that these religious scholars were collectively, God forbid, Prophet. Muhammadsa, his allegation against Hadhrat Ahmad as stands refuted.. It being established that Hadhart Ahmadas never made any such statement in relation to Prophet Muhammadsa which Abdul. Hafeez falsely alleges he did, one now turns to the validity of the grounds on which the author of Two in One makes such a false inference. He states that the meaning and explanation of. Surah Zilzal which in Hadhrat Ahmad's as is incorrect: 5. Ibid., p. 50 6. Ibid. 309 7. Ibid.

Page 322

makes such a false inference. He states that the meaning and explanation of Surah Zilzal which in Hadhrat Ahmad's as opinion is incorrect: 'are the meanings quoted by Ibn Abbas from Prophet. Muhammad [PBHU] and mentioned in Tafseer Ibne Kaseer,. Dur e Mansoor etc and books of Allama Sayooti.' 18. In the first instance, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever in the source material of Islamic literature to suggest that the meaning and explanation of Surah Zilzal attributed to Hadhrat. Muhammadsa by these later works were actually heard from him by Hadhrat Ibn Abbas personally. It is an established fact of. Islamic history that Hadhrat 'Abd Allah ibn Abbasas was born 3 years before Hijra' which means that he was only 13 years of age at the time of Prophet Muhammad's demise.10 It has also been reported on the authority of Hadhrat Yahya ibn Sa'id al. Qattant, one of the greatest scholars of Hadeeth literature, that. Hadhrat Ibn Abbasra related only between 4 to 10 Traditions from the Prophet of Islam sa himself.11 ra. Although one does not necessarily accept this assertion by the ulama of non Ahmadiyya Muslim persuasion to be absolutely correct, yet one cannot deny the fact that in the opinion of. Muslim scholars, Hadhrat Ibne Abbas reported very few. Hadeeth which he learnt directly from Hadhrat Muhammadsa.. Therefore, there is absolutely no concrete evidence whatsoever that what is being attributed here to the Prophet of Islams on the authority of Hadhrat Ibne Abbasra by later scholars was positively heard by him from Hadhrat Muhammadsa directly.. One should also not ignore the fact that Muslims scholars of non Ahmadiyya Muslim persuasion have generally expressed an opinion that while the 'reliability of the Ahadeeth proved to have been narrated by Hadhrat Ibne Abbasra is unquestionable, much of what has been attributed to him has been forged by 8. Ibid., p. 50 9. Athir, [Hadhrat] 'Izz al Din Ibn al. Usd al Ghaba fi Ma'rifat alSahabah, vol. 3, p. 193 10Siddiqui, Dr. Muhammad Zubayr. Hadeeth Literature, p. 33 11. 'Asqlani, [Hadhrat] Imam Ibn Hajar. Tahdhib al Tahdhib, vol. 4, p. 474 310

Page 323

later narrators.112. Secondly, the absence of any mention of Hadhrat Ibne Abbasta attributing any such meaning and explanation of Surah Zilzal to. Hadhrat Muhammadsa in the most authentic collections of. Hadeeth, including those of Hadhrat Imam Bukharith and. Hadhrat Imam Muslim is in itself an indication of the fact that no such meaning and explanation of the Surah has been traced by Isnad to Hadhrat Ibn Abbas and consequently to the. Prophet of Islam³ª. Its inclusion in later works could, therefore, be of suspect origin and hence does not conclusively establish that according to Hadhrat Ibne Abbasa, Hadhrat Muhammad sa ever explained the Surah in a manner in which the later scholars of Islam believed that he did. 113 га. While on the question of such a report being mentioned in later works, it is rather amazing that people like Abdul Hafeez should insist upon the authenticity of this report attributed to. Hadhrat Muhammadsa on the grounds that it has been 'mentioned in Tafseer Ibne Kaseer and Dur e Mansoor etc. and books of Allama Sayooti. ¹¹³ One states this in view of the fact that whenever expedient, these mullah criticise the reliability of the works of both these scholars. In fact, they even reject the authenticity of several Ahadeeth attributed to Hadhrat. Muhammads and considered genuine by Hadhrat Ibne Kathirth and Hadhrat Hafiz al Suyutith, who incidentally is the author of. Durre Manthur also. For instance, they censure Hadhrat Ibne. Kathir for expressing such opinions in relation to the authenticity of Ahadeeth as, to quote one opponent of the. Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, 'does not hold water. 14 This particular graduate from Medina University also criticises. Hadhrat Imam Suyutish for accepting Hadeeth with weak Isnad 15 and from weak and unknown reporters as well as unreliable authorities." They also deny the validity of some Ahadeeth reported by Hadhrat Hafiz Jalal al Din 'Abd al Rahman 16 12. Siddiqui, Dr. Muhammad Zubayr. Hadeeth Literature, p. 34 13. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 50 14. Hasan, Suhaib. Criticism of Hadith Among Muslims with Reference to Sunan Ibn Maja, p. 226 15. Ibid., p. 164 16. Ibid.,. P. 165 311 17. Ibid., p. 194

Page 324

in his work Durre Manthur.18 The question which one need ask. Abdul Hafeez is that if, in the opinion of his colleagues, there are to be found in the works of Hadhrat Ibne Kathirth and. Hadhrat al Suyutih, such Ahadeeth which according to them, either do not hold water or else are not authentic on account of being weak in Isnad and reported on the authority of weak and unreliable authorities - then, why could this particular Hadeeth in relation to the meaning and explanation of Surah Zilzal attributed to. Hadhrat Muhammadsa on the alleged report of Hadhrat Ibn. Abbasa not also be of suspect nature?. While one admits that Hadhrat Ibne Kathirth and Hadhrat Hafiz al Suyutih were both men of great understanding and scholastic ability, the aforementioned discussion should establish that even. Abdul Hafeez's own colleagues have acknowledged that not only has a colossal amount of fabricated Ahadeeth somehow managed to be included in their works but these great scholars have even endeavoured to prove the authenticity of such fabricated Ahadeeth. This admits the fact that a need to analyse the authenticity of Hadeeth attributed to Hadhrat Muhammad sa is paramount if the Islam which the Prophet of Islam³ taught has to be fully appreciated in its proper perspective. However, if Abdul Hafeez must insist that every Hadeeth reported in the works of these later scholars has to be accepted as authentic, then one would beg a question of him as to what opinion does he have in relation to the following Hadeeth reported in. Hadhrat Hafiz al Suyuti's works: 'When God Almighty wanted to create Himself, He created the horse first and let it gallop till it sweated. Then He created. Himself from its sweat.' 119. One would also beg a question of the author of Two in One as to what opinion does he have in relation to the following. Hadeeth reported in the works of Hadhrat Abu'l Fida Ismail Ibn 18. Maududi, S. Abul Ala. Finality of Prophethood, p. 21 19. Sayuti, [Hadhrat] Imam Hafiz. Jalal al Din 'Abd al Rahman, al L'ali al Masnu'a fi alAhadeeth al Maudu'a 312

Page 325

Kathirth. 'The Prophet took hold of 'Ali's hand in the presence of the. Companions, on his way back from the farewell Hajj. He let him stand till all of them knew him. Then he said: This is my attorney and brother and the Caliph after me. So listen to him and obey him.120. It is a fact of Hadeeth literature that many a fabrications have been concocted and falsely attributed to the blessed companions of Hadhrat Muhammadsa by the later generation Muslims and these have somehow found a way in the works of the best of. Muslim scholars, including Hadhrat Ibne Kathirth and Hadhrat. Allama Suyutih. For instance, the latter reports a Hadeeth by. Muhammad bin Sa'id al Maslub who invented a Tradition, allegedly on the authority of Hadhrat 'Ans bin Malikt, to state that Hadhrat Muhammad sa stated: 'I am the seal of Prophets except if Allah wishes. '21. Would Abdul Hafeez accept the authenticity of this Tradition reported in al Suyuti's works? If not, then why must he insist that the report in relation to the meaning and explanation of. Surah Zilzal in al Suyuti's works must be accepted as genuine?. In fact, such frivolous meaning and explanations of Quranic passages as given in relation to Surah Zilzal in the concocted. Hadeeth attributed to Hadhrat Muhammadsa on the authority of. Hadhrat Ibn Abbasra are neither few nor far in between. Nor are there fewer instances of educated and learned Muslims being persecuted by the likes of Abdul Hafeez for denying the authenticity of such fabricated Ahadeeth. For instance, when a. Hadeeth was concocted in relation to the meaning of the verse: 'Soon will thy Lord raise thee to a station of praise and glory' to state that it means that God shall seat the Prophets next to Him on. His throne, Hadhrat Muhammad ibn Jarir al Tabri™ inscribed the 20. Kathir, [Hadhrat] Abu'l Fida Ismail ibn al. Al Bidaya wal al Nihaya 21. Sayuti, [Hadhrat] Imam Hafiz Jalal al Din 'Abd al Rahman. Tadrib al Rawi, p. 186 313

Page 326

following on the doorway of his house: 'Glorified is He who has neither a companion nor anyone sitting beside Him on His throne.'. This created a fury amongst ignorant people and consequently. Hadhrat al Tabri's Th house was pelted with stones.22 It appears that this pir of Gujjo is probably a descendent of one of these ignorant people who pelted the sage's house in Baghdad for refusing to accept the validity of a concocted Hadeeth which runs against the essence of Quranic teachings. Or else, he would have exercised better sense than to insist upon the validity of a. Hadeeth which contradicts the teachings of the Quran.. There is sufficient evidence in Islamic literature to establish that many a fabrications on the meanings of the Quranic Surahs have been concocted in the history of the ummah by people who later justified their actions on the grounds that they: 'found people deserting the Quran and occupying with the Fiqh of Abu Hanifa and Maghazi of Ibn Ishaq, so they invented Ahadeeth for the sake of reward from Allah.123 Whatever be the merits of Abdul. Hafeez's claim that Hadhrat Ibne Abbasa was the source of this report in relation to the meaning and explanation of Surah. Zilzal, one cannot overlook the fact that the explanation contained in this narration is thoroughly opposed to the wisdom contained in the Quran. Therefore, the validity of the alleged claim that he heard such a meaning and explanation of the. Surah from Hadhrat Muhammadsa cannot be accepted on two accounts. Firstly, Hadhrat Muhammadsa is on record for having admonished that after him, a lot of sayings would be attributed to him and the only sensible course to adopt would be to refer to the Quran, and if, whatever is being attributed to him conforms to the essence of the Quranic teachings, it ought to be accepted, but whatever contradicts the essence of Quranic teachings ought to be rejected. Since the above meaning and 22. Sayuti, [Hadhrat] Imam Hafiz Jalal al Din 'Abd al Rahman. Tahdhir al Khaswas min. Ahadeeth al Qussas, p. 161 23. Albani, Nasir al Din al. Silsilat al Ahadeeth al Da'ifa wa al Maudu'a 314

Page 327

explanation of Surah Zilzal contradicts the essence of Quranic teachings, it cannot be accepted to have been given by Hadhrat. Muhammadsa. sa ra. Furthermore, taking into consideration Hadhrat Ibne Abbas'ra age during the lifetime of Hadhrat Muhammadsa, it is extremely probable that he may have misunderstood the noble Prophet of. Islam. While one is aware that people like Abdul Hafeez may make a capital issue of this opinion, this does not deny the fact that Hadhrat Ibne Abbasra himself owned up to sometimes misunderstanding certain things. For instance, Hadeeth literature reports that Hadhrat Ibne Abbas admitted that he, along with Hadhrat Umar ibn al Khattabra, used to dissuade people from offering two rak'ahs after 'Asr prayers since they believed that the Messenger of Allaha had prohibited these.. However when the matter was referred to the blessed consorts of the noble Prophets, it was found that any such opinion formed by Hadhrat Ibne Abbas³ and Hadhrat Umarra was based upon misunderstanding. 124 In fact, Abdul Hafeez's own colleagues in this anti Ahmadiyya fraternity acknowledge that. Hadhrat Ibn Abbasa was: 'quite shocked to know that the Prophet himself had prayed after 'Asr.'25. However, whatever be the merit of the report attributed to. Hadhrat Ibn Abbasa, the fact remains that Hadhrat Mirza. Ghulam Ahmadas did not, at any point in time, make any such statement that 'Prophet Muhammad sa did not understand the meaning of Surah Zilzal.' Hence, Abdul Hafeez has uttered a blatant lie against the founder of the Ahmadiyya Muslim. Community. 2. The second allegation which this pir from Gujjo makes against Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas is that he declared that 24. Sahih of Muslim 4.294 25. Hasan, Suhaib. Criticism of Hadith Among. Muslims with Reference to Sunan Ibn Maja, p. 65 315

Page 328

the Quran is God's book and the words of my mouth 2, the inference here being that he claimed the Quran to be the words of his own mouth. This allegation, once again, is a blatant lie by the author of Two in One since Hadhrat Ahmadas never claimed the Quran to be the words of his own mouth. Had Abdul. Hafeez been honest in his motivation, he would not have mistranslated this passage to suggest any such thing since. Hadhrat Ahmad's as original statement is a part of a revelation vouchsafed unto him which he recorded in Braheen e. Ahmadiyya to the effect: 'Go forth as thy time has arrived and the feet of Muslims will be planted firmly on a strong tower, Muhammad the Chosen. One, Chief of Prophets. God will set all thy affairs right and will bestow upon thee all thou desirest. The Lord of the hosts will turn His attention towards this. The purpose of this sign is that the Holy Quran is the Book of God and the word of My mouth. The gate of God's bounties are open and His holy mercies are directed towards this. The days shall come when. God shall help you. Glory be to the Lord God, Maker of the earth and the heaven. '27. What, if one may ask Abdul Hafeez is so objectionable about a human being, being a recipient of a Divine revelation from God. Almighty in which Allah claims that the Quran is His Book and the word of His mouth? If the author of Two in One must insist that the possessive pronoun in this revelation refers to Hadhrat. Ahmadas and not to God Almighty, then one would advise him that when this revelation was published, a question was raised as to what was meant by the possessive pronoun My, i.e., whose mouth is the Quran a word of, to which Hadhrat Ahmadas replied that it is the 'word of God's mouth and such phrases are also contained in the Holy Quran. 28 In case Abdul Hafeez is not aware of this, one suggests that he read the following passages 26. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 50 27. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Braheen e Ahmadiyya, pt. 4, fn. 3. pp. 521/22; Ruhani. Khazain, vol. 1, p. 623 28. Ibid., Badr, 11 July, 1907, p. 6 316

Page 329

of the Holy Quran: 'He it is Who sendeth down water from the sky and We bring forth buds of every kind. 129 'And Allah it is who sendeth the winds and they raise a cloud; then We lead it unto a dead land and revive therewith the earth after its death. Such is Resurrection.'30. Let Abdul Hafeez ponder over these passages of the Glorious. Quran and consider his allegation against Hadhrat Ahmadas in the light of these Quranic verses. 3. The third allegation which the author of Two in One makes is that Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas declared that the 'angels are the names of heavenly bodies and spirits of stars and whatever happens, occurs under the influence of the stars (31 whereas what he actually stated was: 'It appears clearly from certain indications in the Quran that some pure beings that are called angels have a distinct relationship with heavenly bodies. Some of them drive the wind and some cause rain to descend and some others cause other influences to descend upon the earth. There is no doubt that those creation would be related to the bright and illuminated stars that are in heaven, but this relationship that exists between them should not be deemed to be the relationship that exists between every animate and its soul.. Those pure spirits have, on account of the brightness and light they possess, spiritually an indeterminate relationship with the bright stars which is so strong that, if it were supposed that those pure spirits had departed from those stars, the faculties of the later would be upset. It is through the hidden power of those spirits that the stars carry out their functions. It might be said that as God Almighty is, as it were, 29. Al Quran 6.100; English Translation, Marmaduke Pickthall, p. 200 30. Al Quran 35.9; English Translation, Marmaduke Pickthall, p. 200 31. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 50 317

Page 330

the life of the universe, those illumined spirits are, as it were, the life of the planets and the stars and by their departure the condition of the planets and the stars is bound to be disrupted. 132. It should be clear from this passage of Tauzeeh Maram that according to Hadhrat Ahmadas, the angels are the driving force behind the heavenly bodies which includes the stars. It should also be evident that he was of the opinion that if the angels were to withdraw their support of the stars, the faculties of the later would be upset and disrupted since they are the life of the planets and it is through the hidden powers of the angels that the stars are able carry out their functions. Do these statements of Hadhrat. Ahmadas suggest, even remotely, that the angels are the names of heavenly bodies and that everything occurs under the influence of stars as alleged by the author of Two in One? How did he then come to such a deduction? Is it possible that the ignorant pir of Gujjo has not been able to distinguish between the illumined spirits which are the angels and the illumined stars alluded to in this passage of Hadhrat Ahmad's as book and hence in his confusion, he has alleged that Hadhrat Ahmadas stated that whatever happens, happens under the influence of the stars? 4. Abdul Hafeez then alleges in his fourth allegation that. Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas denied the descent of the angel, Hadhart Gabriel on earth 33 which is, once again, a sly misrepresentation of Hadhrat Ahmad's as original statement because he stated quite clearly that 'Gabriel, who is a grand angel, descends upon God's elect who are honoured with. Divine revelation.' He declared: 'Though he descends upon every person who is honoured with Divine revelation, the circle of the effect of his descent assumes small or great proportions according to different 32. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Tauzeeh Maram, pp. 37/8; Ruhani Khazain, vol. 2, p. 70 33. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 50 318

Page 331

capacities." 134. One would suggest that rather than borrow allegations against the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community from the hostile literature produced by Abdul Hafeez's equally ignorant colleagues, who have in turn, borrowed these allegation from other equally ignorant colleagues, the author of Two in One should, if his intentions are as pious as he pretends them to be, read the source material of Hadhrat Ahmad's as exposition in relation to his understanding of the angels. He is certain to find that. Hadhrat Ahmad as believed in the descent of angels but possibly not in the mythical and legendary manner in which these ignorant mullah assume the Messengers of God descend. 36 5. The fifth false allegation which Abdul Hafeez makes against. Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas is that he, God forbid, stated that 'Prophet are liars' and this statement is once again alleged to have been made in Izalah Auham, pages 688/8935 while. Hadhrat Ahmadas did not, at any point in time, in either Izalah. Auham or any other book written by him, ever make any such statement. The noble Quran declares prophets of God incapable of disobedience to Him³6 and, therefore, incapable of committing a moral offense or sin. They have also been declared truthful by nature and incapable of falsehood.37 It is, therefore, inconceivable that Hadhrat Ahmadas would ever make any such statement which contradicts the testimony of the noble Quran.. The passage of Izalah Auham on the basis of which Abdul. Hafeez falsely accuses Hadhrat Ahmadas of this thoroughly false charge discusses the prospects of the apostles of God misunderstanding the true purport of some of the Divine revelations vouchsafed unto them. All he stated in this passage of his book was that 'prophets and apostles of God are also likely to commit errors in the comprehension of the true purport of Divine will revealed unto them.138 He did not, even remotely, 34. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Tauzeeh Maram, pp. 67/8; Ruhani Khazain, vol. 3, p.84 35. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 50 36. Al Quran 21.28 37. Ibid., 3.162 38. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Izalah Auham, p. 688; Ruhani Khazain, vol. 3, p. 471 319

Page 332

suggest that they are liars or even capable of lying. One is certain that every sincere human being would acknowledge that it is one thing to state that a person is subject to a perfectly innocent and acceptable human error and another to state that one has committed a totally unacceptable sin of uttering a lie or falsehood. But such an acknowledgement can only be expected of sincere and honest people and not people who possess the nature of Abdul Hafeez and the likes of him.. The recorded history of religion indicates that prophets of God have, on occasions, been subject to understanding differently, the true purport of His divine will revealed unto them. The. Quran indicates that Hadhrat Noahas had misunderstood God. Almighty's promise of security in favour of his progeny³ and so had Hadhrat Jonahas made such an error in understanding the true purport of God's divine will vouchsafed unto him in relation to the destruction of the people of Nineveh. 40 Is Abdul. Hafeez prepared to assert that these facts recorded by the noble. Quran in relation to Hadhrat Noah's as and Hadhrat Jonah's as misunderstanding of the true purport of these revelations vouchsafed unto them are, God forbid, not correct? If not, then what error has Hadhrat Ahmadas committed in merely acknowledging the truth that prophets of God are also subject to commit an error in the true comprehension of the revelations vouchsafed unto them? 6. In his sixth allegation, the author of Two in One accuses. Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas of stating that, God forbid, 'Hadhrat Muhammad's revelations also proved to be incorrect 41 while Hadhrat Ahmadas did not, at any stage in his life, ever make any such statement which even remotely suspected the truth of the revelations vouchsafed unto his noble master, the Holy Prophet of Islams. This false charge by Abdul. Hafeez is based upon the manipulation of a passage in Izalah. Auham in which its author alluded to Hadhrat Muhammad's sa vision in which he beheld that he had entered the holy 39. Al Quran 11.46/7 40. Ibid., 21.88 41. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez, Two in One, p.50 320

Page 333

precincts of the Ka'aba and his subsequent journey towards. Mecca with his companions to perform the Umra in the 6th year of Hijra which ended in the Treaty of Hudaibiyya as well as the return of Muslims to Medina without being able to perform the sacred rites as indicated in the vision. 42 Hadhrat Ahmadas then added: 'it cannot be doubted that the Holy Prophetsa had undertaken this journey hoping that he would be able to perform the sacred rites at the Ka'aba and this is undoubtedly a part of the. Holy Prophet'ssa vision. But, since he had not been made aware of the error which had been committed in understanding the actual meaning of this vision, God knows after how many days arduous journey he reached Mecca. Had the Holy Prophet sa been made aware of this enroute to. Mecca, he would have definitely returned to Medina." 143. This statement is a clear admission of fact that while an error in understanding the meaning of the vision is being acknowledged, the truthfulness of the revelation vouchsafed unto Hadhrat. Muhammadsa by God Almighty is not being denied. Now, does. Abdul Hafeez deny the fact that Hadhrat Muhammadsa undertook such a journey to Mecca in the belief that he and his companions would perform the Umra that year on the basis of a dream he had seen? If not, then would he enlighten the masses as to whether the Muslims succeed in entering the sacred precincts of the Ka'aba that year to perform the sacred rites indicated in the vision? If they didn't, then does this incident in history not suggest that the true purport of the revelations was misunderstood as a result of which the journey to Mecca was undertaken that particular year? What harm is there in Hadhrat Ahmadas alluding to this incident recorded in. Islamic history and stating that an error had been committed in understanding the actual meaning of the revelation and why should this admission be claimed to mean that Hadhrat 42. Sahih of Muslim 17.736 43. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Izalah Auham p. 688; Ruhani Khazain, vol. 3, p. 571 321

Page 334

stated that, God forbid, the revelations of Hadhrat Muhammad³ also became wrong as alleged by Abdul Hafeez.. The Quranic verse revealed unto Hadhrat Muhammadsa on his return journey to Medina after the Treaty of Hudaibiyya bears testimony that the actual vision of Hadhrat Muhammadsa was in fact true" and that God Almighty had fulfilled this vision with the Treaty at Hudaibiyya which permitted Muslims free access to the precincts of the Ka'aba the following year.. Nonetheless, while it appears that the wisdom of God had determined to smooth the way for Muslims to perform these sacred rites in security the following year, they had, in the year of the Treaty of Hudaibiyya, undertaken this journey to Mecca with the mistaken belief that they would be performing their sacred rites that particular year. This is a clear indication of the fact that it was not the revelation of Hadhrat Muhammadsa which proved to be incorrect but the understanding of its true meaning.. The second example to which Hadhrat Ahmadas alluded in this passage of Izalah Auham" refers to Hadhrat Muhammad's sa prophecy in relation to 'his consort with the longest hands being the first to follow him in death.146 Does Abdul Hafeez. deny that any such prophecy was pronounced by the noble Prophets of. Islam? If not, then would he accept the evidence of Hadeeth that the blessed consorts of Hadhrat Muhammads used to literally measure the lengths of their hands in view of the generally understood meaning of the prophecy that his wife with the longest hands would be the first to die after him? Yet, while. Hadhrat Sauda bint Zam'aar was found to have the longest hands amongst all the noble consorts of the Prophets of Islam, it was Hadhrat Zainab bint Jahsha whose death proceeded. Hadhrat Muhammad sa 48 • 47. How does the author of Two in One reconcile the actual prophecy to the events that transpired, if it is not a clear case 44. Al Quran 88.28 44. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Izalah Auham p. 688/89;. Ruhani Khazain, vol. 3, p. 571/72 46. Sahih Muslim 29.1009 47. Tabaqat, Ibn Sa'd, vol. 8, p. 37. vide. The Blessed Women of Islam, p. 22 48. Sahih Muslim 29.1009 322

Page 335

of misunderstanding the true meaning of the prophecy?. It is an acknowledged fact that while the noble consorts of. Hadhrat Muhammadsa measured the lengths of their hands to determine which of them would be the first to join him after his death, the prophecy indicated that the wife who was most forthcoming in charity would be the first to die after him. The truth of the actual revelation vouchsafed unto Hadhrat. Muhammadsa was, therefore, proven when Hadhrat Zainabra, who had been the most charitable of his wives became the first of his consorts to die after him. This is a testimony of the fact that it was not the revelation of Hadhrat Muhammad sa which proved to be incorrect but the understanding of its true meaning. And, this is exactly what Hadhrat Ahmad as stated in the passage in Izalah Auham which Abdul Hafeez has so dishonestly manipulated to establish his false charge that he,. God forbid, stated that the revelations of Hadhrat Muhammad turned out to be incorrect. In fact, had this pir from Gujjo exercised honesty in his study of Izalah Auham, he may have discovered that within the context of this discussion Hadhrat. Ahmadas declared: 'However, all these incidence indicate that the apostles of God can also make errors in understanding the meaning or in the interpretation of prophecies. As far as the words of the revelation are concerned, these are without a doubt positively true. But, in matters concerning religion and faith, there is absolutely no possibility of an error.' 149. Is it not dishonest of Abdul Hafeez to even infer from this passage of Hadhrat Ahmad'sas Izalah Auham that he ever made any such statement to the effect that God forbid, the revelations vouchsafed to Hadhrat Muhammadsa, became wrong. 7. In his seventh charge, the author of Two in One accuses. Hadhrat Ahmadas for having stated that 'revelation did not 49. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Izalah Auham, p. 690; Ruhani Khazain, vol 3, p. 472 323

Page 336

inform Prophet Muhammadsa about Ibne Mariam, Dajaal, Khar. Dajaal, Yajooj Majooj and Dabbabtul Ard¹50 whereas what. Hadhrat Ahmadas stated in this passage of Izalah Auham is that 'if the actual identity of these was not fully disclosed to Hadhrat. Muhammads in his revelations, but to whatever extent possible, the matter was explained to him with identical examples or descriptions, then it should not be a matter of surprise. 151 Hence, this statement by Hadhrat Ahmadas rather than deny that the. Holy Prophetsa was not informed of these, acknowledges that he was informed of them by revelation.. Hadhrat Ahmadas did not, with the aforementioned statement state anything which had not already been established by the facts of history. It is, for instance, stated in Hadeeth that during the lifetime of Hadhrat Muhammadsa, there lived in Medina a person named Ibn Sayyad whom Muslims generally believed was the prophesied Dadjaal. Apparently, the Messenger of. Allah sa interrogated Ibn Sayyad in the presence of some of his companions and during the course of this conversation, Hadhrat. Umar ibn Khattabra became convinced that Ibn Sayyad was the. Dadjaal. He, therefore, sought Hadhrat Muhammad's sa permission to kill Ibne Sayyad but was restrained from doing so and advised: 'If he is the same [Dadjaal] who would appear near the Last. Hour, you would not be able to overpower him, and if he is not him, then there is no good in us killing him. '52. In another such Hadeeth in relation to Ibn Sayyad, it has been stated that when Hadhrat Umar ibn Khattab sought Hadhrat. Muhammad's permission to slay Ibne Sayyad, the Holy. Prophet denied this permission and stated: 'If indeed this man is he [Dadjaal] then he shall be slain by 50. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 50 51. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Izalah Auham, p. 691/920; Ruhani Khazain, vol 3, p. 473 52. Sahih Muslim 39.1206 324

Page 337

Ibne Mariam. You should not slay him. But if this man is not he [Dadjaal], then you have no right to kill the individual from amongst those we have guaranteed protection [dhimmies].' 153. These reports are a clear indication that while Hadhrat. Muhammad was apprised of the Dadjaal in his revelations, its actual identity was not disclosed to him. If its actual identity had been disclosed to him, then he would have either confirmed or else denied that Ibn Sayyad was or was not the prophesied. Dadjaal. The mere fact that he left the entire question in abeyance is an indication that while Hadhrat Muhammadsa was informed of the Dadjaal in his revelations, the actual identity of it had not been disclosed in these revelations. On the contrary,. Hadeeth literature suggests that, as Hadhrat Ahmad as stated,. Hadhrat Muhammad sa was appraised of the Dadjaal's identity with examples as of its physical peculiarities etc. The most authentic works of Hadeeth also indicate that these revelations, while not disclosing the actual identity of the Dadjaal to the. Holy Propheta, informed him that he would look like some person's known to him, as for instance, 'Abd ul Uzza ibn. Qatan.55 8. It is rather sad that despite claiming to be the followers of the Khatamal Anbiyya and of the ummah to which God. Almighty bestowed the most perfect and complete guidance,. Abdul Hafeez still gropes in darkness and ignorance. It is, therefore, not a surprise that in his eighth charge, the author of. Two in One argues against Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad'sas, interpretation of the vision beheld by Hadhrat Muhammad sa in relation to the advent of the Dadjaal5 because it does not conform to Abdul Hafeez's expectation of the literal fulfilment of the vision. Alas! were he to know that this entire Hadeeth rests upon a dream of Hadhrat Muhammadsa and dreams are subject to interpretations. One would, therefore, not engage in 53. Mistkat, Kitabul Fitan; vide. Maududi, A.A. Finality of Prophethood, p. 53 54. Sahih Muslim 39.1207/02 56. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, 55. Ibid., 39/1207. P. 50 325

Page 338

a long and drawn discussion in relation to this objection raised by Abdul Hafeez. But, to illustrate that Hadhrat Ahmad'sas description of what is meant by various signs in the vision of the Holy Prophets is positively correct, one would merely beg a question of the author of Two in One that if the Christian priests are not the Dadjaal spoken of in this Hadeeth, then what was the purpose of Hadhrat Muhammadsa advising Muslims: 'Who ever commits to memory the first ten verses of Surah al. Kahf will be immune from the Dadjaal.' 157. In yet another Hadeeth, Hadhrat Muhammadsa advised Muslims that if ever confronted with the Dadjaal: 'Whoever recites the last ten verses of Surah Al Kahf will be safe from the trials of the Dadjaal.' 158. If Abdul Hafeez has a grain of intelligence, which one doubts he possesses, he would certainly be able to decipher the wisdom contained in this advise of the Prophet of Islamsa. But since this pir of Gujjo is a personified Dabbat al Ard himself, one should not expect him to know any better. 9. In his next charge, the author of Two in One states that. Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as stated that Hadhrat Jesusas 'used to practice mesmerism and was an expert in it 159 suggesting that he meant to belittle Hadhrat Jesusas. Yet, when one reads Hadhrat Ahmad's as original statement in the context of the larger discussion, one does not find anything objectionable in it. He stated that: 'It must also be understood that healing ailments and transferring the heat of one's body into another are all parts of the art of mesmerism. Men of this type have always existed who could cure leprosy and other such ailments. All those 57. Ibid. 58. Ibid. 59. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 51 326

Page 339

who are highly educated and are well read will agree with me and support my statement that some Naqshbandi and. Suharwardi saints also practised and performed similar services to mankind. Some of them were so well advanced in this field that they would make a very large number of diseased persons sit around them and cast them a glance which would heal them. The well known saint Muhiyud Din ibne Arabi was much reputed in this art. 160. If, in the context of this discussion, Hadhrat Ahmadas stated that Hadhrat Jesus as also, practised mesmerism and was an expert in it, then what is the harm in it - particularly when he also declared that he practised this appropriately as required by the times in which he lived?61 10. Abdul Hafeez then proceeds to state that on page 303 of his book Izalah Auham, Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as stated that: 'Hazrat Masseh [PBHU] was the son of Yusuf Najjar [Joseph the Carpenter] 162 However, when one consults the stated page of Izalah Auham, one does not find any such sentence contained in it. Nonetheless, since Joseph was Hadhrat Jesus'as step as well as foster father, Hadhrat Ahmadas referred to him as Hadhrat Jesus' as father 63 which any normal person would do in the course of a civilized conversation, unless the question of one's actual parentage is being specifically discussed. Where is the harm in it? Is a person who selflessly undertakes the responsibility of his wife's issues, without any bond of blood relationship between them, not entitled to even that much respect?. Incidentally, while the author of Two in One takes exception to. Joseph being referred to as Hadhrat Jesus as father, his mother. Hadhrat Maryas referred to her husband as Hadhrat Jesus'as father. On one occasion when the family were returning from 60. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Izalah Auham, p. 307/08; Ruhani Khazain, vol. 3, p. 287 61. Ibid. Izalah Auham, p. 209; Ruhani Khazain, vol. 3, p. 287 62.Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 51 63. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Izalah Auham, p. 303; Ruhani Khazain, vol. 3, p. 284 327

Page 340

Jerusalem after attending the Feast of the Passover and Hadhrat. Jesusas, who was then an adolescent, went missing, his mother, on finding him in a temple: 'said to him, Son, why have you treated us this way? Behold, your father and I have been anxiously looking for you.' 166 164. If the intent of Abdul Hafeez is to prove that Hadhrat. Ahmad's as statement is an evidence that he did not believe in the virgin birth of Hadhrat Jesusas, an assertion which the author of Two in One has made elsewhere 65 - then one would advise him that Hadhrat Ahmad as has clearly stated in his books that 'God Almighty had informed the Jews through some of His prophets that a son from among them would be born without a human father and that 'the first thing which He did to bring this about was the creation of Hadhrat Jesus as without the agency of a father through the manifestation of His Divine powers only. 167 Is Abdul Hafeez not being dishonest then? If not, then why, rather than quote Hadhrat Ahmad's as original statements, he concocts some in his own words to insinuate that. Hadhrat Ahmad as believed Joseph to be a biological father of. Hadhrat Jesusªs.. Incidentally, while Hadhrat Ahmadas held absolute faith in the birth of Hadhrat Jesusas without the agency of a father, Muslim scholars of several schools of thought have expressed an opinion that he had a father. Allama Abdul Quyyum Qayumi, for instance, stated: 'it is a matter of great astonishment that despite the fact that Mary was married, yet the son to whom Mary gave birth is stated to have no father. 168 He then proceeded to extend his gratitude to God that in his current book, he was able to 'prove in a most detailed and factual manner, the marriage of. Mary from evidences contained within the Holy Quran, the books of Hadeeth and the statements of Sunni Muslim 64. Luke 2.48 65. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 66 66. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Hamammatul Bushra, p. 90; Ruhani Khazain, vol. 7, p. 315 67. Ibid., Mawahibur Rahman, p. 72; Ruhani Khazain, vol, 13, pp. 290/91 68. Qayumi, Allama Abul Quyyum. Haqiqat al Masih, p. 237 328

Page 341

scholars and that he was also able to 'refute the false belief that. Jesus had no father.169. This opinion of the Ahle Sunnat scholars was shared by the scholars of Ahle Hadeeth and the Ahle Quran tendencies. For instance, Maulvi Hafiz Inayatullah Wazirabadi believed that. Hadhrat Jesusas had a father 70 and so does Ghulam Ahmad. Parvez. Yet, Abdul Hafeez has the audacity to censure Hadhrat. Ahmadas for beliefs which not he, but the scholars of his own non Ahmadiyya Muslim persuasion hold. 71 11. The author of Two in One then proceeds to falsely allege that on page 533 of Izalah Auham, Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam. Ahmad as stated that the Braheen e Ahmadiyya is the book of. God." Since one cannot find any such statement therein, which even remotely suggests any such declaration by Hadhrat. Ahmadas, one is not in a position to discuss this charge at length. One would, therefore, leave it to the masses to determine the validity of Abdul Hafeez's allegation. 12. In his twelfth charge, Abdul Hafeez states that between pages 488 and 753 of Izalah Auham, Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam. Ahmadas stated that 'miracles mentioned in the Holy Quran are mesmerisms [sic] 173 which is another blatant lie by this pir of. Gujjo. It is a small wonder that the author of Two in One has to cite 265 pages as reference to such a small statement allegedly made in Izalah Auham. Yet, the author of Two in One claims that all his efforts are for the sake of Allah.74 Is this the kind of service Allah expects of him? 13. The next allegation made against Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam. Ahmadas in this book, Two in One relates to the Holy Quran once again. The author of this hostile publication alleges that. Hadhrat Ahmadas claimed that 'the Quran was revealed near. Qadian and is mentioned in the Sacred Book.75 This is yet 69. Ibid. 70. Inayatullah, Maulvi Hafiz. Uyoon Zamzam fi milad Isa ibn Mariam, pp. 172/76 71. Parvez, Ghulam Ahmad. Shulah Mastur, pp. 132/33 72. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 51 73. Ibid. 74. Ibid., p. 52 75. Ibid., p. 51 329

Page 342

another case of a sly misrepresentation of Hadhrat Ahmad's as works since nowhere in either Izalah Auham or any of his other books did Hadhrat Ahmad as make such a claim. The passage of. Izalah Auham which Abdul Hafeez has manipulated states: 'In a state of vision, I saw that my brother, the late Mirza. Ghulam Qadir is sitting close to me, reciting the Holy Quran aloud. In the course of recitation, he recited: We have sent it down close to Qadian. I expressed my surprise that the name of Qadian should be mentioned in the Holy Quran, on which he said: Here it is, you can see. I looked and saw that this revelation was set out about the middle of the right page of the Holy Quran. Then I said to myself: It is true that the name of Qadian is mentioned in the Holy Quran and I also said:. Three names are mentioned with honour in the Holy Quran:. Mecca and Medina and Qadian.176. As evident from the above passage, this entire episode is stated by Hadhrat Ahmadas to have been observed in a state of vision.. Yet, Abdul Hafeez has the audacity to insinuate that he literally claimed that the 'Quran has been revealed near Qadian and is mentioned in it.' However, since this charge is similar to the one in relation to the alleged claim of Divinity, discussed in the preceding pages of the present publication, one would not dwell on it at length to show how ignorant Abdul Hafeez is in such matter or else how clever he is in manipulating the statements of Hadhrat Ahmadas. 14. Abdul Hafeez's next allegation in relation to the name of. Qadian being mentioned with respect in the Holy Quran along with Mecca and Medina" is a misrepresentation of a similar nature as above since this statement is also an integral part of the vision recorded in the aforementioned passage of Hadhrat. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's as book, Izalah Auham. Need one state anything further in relation to this charge? 76. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Izalah Auham, pp. 76/7; Ruhani Khazain, vol. 3, 77. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 51 pp. 140/41 330

Page 343

15. The author of Two in One also alleges that in his book. Braheen e Ahmadiyya, page 558, Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam. Ahmadas stated that the 'Bait ul Fiqr at Qadian is like the Haram e Ka'aba.178 This allegation is yet another blatant lie since no where therein is any such statement recorded by Hadhrat. Ahmadªs. Incidentally, it might interest Abdul Hafeez to know that while the Braheen e Ahmadiyya is of the 1880/1884 period, the Bait ul Fiqr at Qadian is of a much later date. How could. Hadhrat Ahmadas have made such a statement in relation to it when it did not exist at the time of writing the book in which he is allegedly stated to have made such a statement?. sa 16. In his next charge, Abdul Hafeez alleges that according to a pamphlet Minaret al Maseeh, the Quranic verses Surah 17.1 in relation to Hadhrat Muhammad's journey from Masjid al. Haram to Masjid al Aqsa is stated to apply, in its literal and real sense, to the mosque built by Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad'sas father at Qadian.” However, when one refers to the opinions expressed by the leadership of the Ahmadiyya Muslim. Community itself, rather then claiming that the said Quranic verse is a literal and real application of the mosque in Qadian, they have opined that: 79 'The vision may also be taken as referring to a spiritual journey of the Holy Prophets to a distant land in some future time. 180. How much of a difference is there between the opinion attributed to the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community by Abdul. Hafeez and the one held by its leadership is clearly evident from the above statement. 17. The pir of Gujjo also alleges that on pages 421/22 of Izalah. Auham, Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas stated that 'Hadhrat 78. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 51 79. Ibid. 80. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Bashir ud Din. Tafsir Kabir, English Edition, vol. 3, p 1411 331

Page 344

Rasul e Karimsa is not the last and final prophet'81 - suggesting that he denied Hadhrat Muhammad sa as the Khataman. Nabiyeen. Yet, neither on the stated pages nor in any of his works did Hadhrat Ahmadas ever make any such statement which could even remotely be construed to suggest the denial of the Seal of Prophethood. On the contrary, his works are full of statements to the effect that he acknowledges the Prophet of. Islams as Khataman Nabiyyeen and Abdul Hafeez has himself cited Hadhrat Ahmadas as having stated that he believed. Hadhrat Muhammadsa to be the Final Prophet.' 82. Incidentally, while Hadhrat Ahmadas is accused of this false charge, according to Abdul Hafeez's spiritual son and the driving force behind this constant tirade against Ahmadi. Muslim, Dr. Rashid Ali, the pir of Gujjo has claimed to be. Hadhrat Ilyasas. But, on account of the requirements of the. Constitutional Amendment 260, he has not made a public announcement of it. Now, unless the author of Two in One wishes to deny any such claim by him, and thereby prove Dr.. Rashid Ali to be a liar, what opinion would he express in relation to himself, in terms of his understanding of the expression Khataman Nabiyeen? 19. The nineteenth allegation made against Hadhrat Mirza. Ghulam Ahmad as refers to the question of the day of. Resurrection. In this instance, he is stated to have declared on page 2 of Izalah Auham that 'Qiyamah or the Resurrection day is nothing and there is no such thing as destiny. 183 However, when this page is consulted, one finds that he stated: خدا تعالیٰ سے ڈرو اور اپنی زبانوں کو تکفیر سے تھام لو خدا تعالیٰ خوب جانتا ہے کہ میں ایک مسلمان ہوں۔ أمنت بالله وملئكته وكتبه ورسله والبحث بعد الموت واشهران لا اله الا الله وحده لا شريك له واشهد ان محمدا عبده ورسوله فاتقوا الله ولا تقولو الست مسلما و اتقوا الملك الذي اليه ترجعون . 81. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 51 332 82. Ibid., p. 49 83. Ibid., p. 51

Page 345

When translated in English, this passage in which Abdul. Hafeez alleges Hadhrat Ahmadas denied the Day of Resurrection would read: 'Fear God Alimghty! Desist your tongues from uttering disbelief! God Almighty is well aware that I am a Muslim. I bring faith in God; His angels; His Books; His Messengers and in the Day of Resurrection, and I bear witness that there is none with of worship but Allah; He is alone and He has no associate and I bear witness that Muhammad is His servant and Messenger. Fear God and do not say that you are not a. Muslim and fear the Lord to Whom you will be brought back.'. Need one discuss this allegation any further. Incidentally, this statement of faith by Hadhrat Ahmadas is addressed to people like Abdul Hafeez since he states at the beginning of the page: اے شکر کرا والو!. Oh! those who doubt!. However, it appear that Abdul Hafeez is not only spiritually but physically blind also or else he would not have missed these words printed in such bold letters. He also appears not to fear. God or else he would eschew suspicion and desist from uttering such falsehood.. As regards the question of destiny, which the author of Two in. One alleges Hadhrat Ahmadas denied, not only does the above statement not contain any such denial but Hadhrat Ahmadas is on record for having stated that: 'Man is subject to Divine decree. If a human design should not be in accord with the design of God, no amount of effort can 333

Page 346

succeed in putting it into effect; but when the time of the design of God arrives, that which had appeared most difficult becomes easily available.184. Hadhrat Ahmad as discussed the question of Divine decree and determination at great length in his books and stated quite clearly that: 'It is not within the power of man to emerge from the operation of the system of Divine decrees and determination.185 186 20. In his twentieth allegation against Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam. Ahmadas, Abdul Hafeez alleges that in his book Izalah Auham,. Hadhrat Ahmadas declared that 'Hazrat Mahdi will not come" whereas when one refers to the original work, one finds that he did not deny the advent of the Imam Mahdi but of one who would not also be the Messiah³ prophesied in the traditions of. Hadhrat Muhammadsa. He argued this on the basis of the. Hadeeth attributed to the Holy Prophet of Islamsa in which he is reported to have declared: 'La Mahdi illa Isa, 188 i.e., There is no Mahdi except Isa and also: 'Whosoever lives from among you shall meet Jesus, son of Mary, who is Imam Mahdi, arbiter and judge'89 and stated that there is no reason why the Messiah cannot be the Mahdi⁹0 - a statement which constitutes an admission of the fact that the advent of the Imam Mahdi is a reality. 21. The next allegation against Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas refers to the question of the signs which would become apparent in the latter age amongst which it is stated that the sun would rise from the west which ignorant scholars of Islam like 84. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Braheen Ahmadiyya, pt. v, p. 2; Ruhani Khazain, vol. 21, p. 3 85. Ibid. p. 1; Ruhani Khazain, vol. 5, p. 2 86. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, 52 87. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Izalah Auham, 518; Ruhani Khazain, vol. 3, p. 378 88. Sunan Ibn Majah 35.24 89. Masnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal, vol. 2, p. 411 90. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Izalah Auham, pp. 518/19; Ruhani Khazain, vol. 3, p. 378 334

Page 347

the author of Two in One allege would be fulfilled literally.. Nonetheless, Abdul Hafeez states that Hadhrat Ahmadas declared that the sun will not rise from the west⁹ - suggesting that Hadhrat Ahmadas denied the authenticity of the Hadeeth.. This, once again, is a blatant lie since Hadhrat Ahmad as stated quite clearly that 'he held faith on the authenticity of the. Hadeeth in relation to the rising of the sun from the west.192. Although, on the basis of a vision, he interpreted this to mean that the west would be enlightened to the truth of Islam,. Hadhrat Ahmad as also declared that he does not deny that it could also have some other meaning '93 - suggesting that if God. Almighty so decreed that the sun should physically rise of the west, then it is in his power to do so. 22. Abdul Hafeez then accuses Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas for having stated that 'there is no punishment in the grave 194 which is yet another blatant lie uttered by the author of Two in. One. What he argued against was the literal torment of the dead in their graves by scorpions and snakes since what is stated on the basis of a vision or a dream is subject to interpretation." As regards punishment in the grave, Hadhrat Ahmad as stated that 'for the dead body of a person, a window is opened in the grave towards hell through which a consuming vapour arrives in the grave from hell and that wicked soul burns all the time in its flames.1% 23. It is then alleged that Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas claimed that 'tanasikh [transmigration of souls is correct '97 which is a sly misrepresentation of his discussion on this concept. If. Abdul Hafeez must know, Hadhrat Ahmadas considered the 91. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 52 92. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Izalah Auham, p. 515; Ruhani Khazain, vol. 3, p. 376 93. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Izalah Auham, pp. 515/16; Ruhani Khazain, vol. 3, p. 376 94. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 52 95. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Izalah Auham, p. 415; Ruhani Khazain, vol. 3, p. 316. 96. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Izalah Auham, p. 358; Ruhani Khazain, vol. 3, p. 283 97. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 52 335

Page 348

entire doctrine to be so false that he believed that the sense of human purity condemns it. He stated: 'There is no other doctrine as false as the doctrine of the transmigration of souls, inasmuch as its basis is false. Its falsehood is established by observation; a sense of human purity condemns it; and it is the duty of every godly person to condemn it on account of its repudiation of Divine power.. Hadhrat Ahmadas also declared that the 'doctrine of the transmigration of soul offends against purity. 199 24. And finally, in his last allegation against Hadhrat Mirza. Ghulam Ahmadas, the author of Two in One alleges that he declared the Holy Quran to, God forbid, be full of filthy words 100 which is a blatant lie since Hadhrat Ahmadas did not, either in Izalah Auham or any of his other works, ever make such a statement. One challenges Abdul Hafeez to prove that there is any such sentence contained in any of Hadhrat. Ahmad's as books.. This, in brief, is the reality of the twenty four alleged citations claimed by the pir of Gujjo to have been cited from Hadhrat. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's as books. As blatantly evident, Abdul. Hafeez has caused such subreption of the Ahmadiyya Muslim. Community's literature as does not behove a believer. In fact, it would even put the advocates of the devil to shame. Yet, this petty pir of Gujjo has the audacity to take exception to the appellation of a liar, a disbeliever an enemy stated on the cover of the Mubahala. If, after what he has done, he is not a liar, a disbeliever and an enemy - all three in one - then what, if one may ask is he? 98. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Nassem e Dawat, f/n. 1, p. 76; Ruhani Khazain, vol.19, p. 441 99. Ibid., p. 78; Ruhani Khazain, vol. 19, p. 443 100. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 52 336

Page 349

CONCLUSION. While one has disagreed with Abdul Hafeez on every one of his statements in his publication, to his satisfaction one agrees with his statement that on the Day of Judgement, right and wrong will be decided and no one will be able to convert a false prophet into a true one. 101 However, one hopes that the author of Two in One will reciprocate by agreeing with the author of. Three in One that on that very day, no one will be able to convert a true prophet into false also. In this relation, one is certain that if Abdul Hafeez ever attempted to prove Hadhrat. Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas as anything but a true prophet, his efforts will fail miserable because Hadhrat Ahmadas is an elect of God Almighty. But that is an event which will take place in the future. For the moment, Abdul Hafeez may continue to persecute Hadhrat Ahmadas in this world but here again, one can assure the pir from Gujjo that he shall Inshallah suffer certain failure as stated by Hadhrat Ahmadªs: 'I claim with all certainty that I am truthful and with the grace of Allah, I shall be victorious in this battle. When I look into the distant, I see the signs of my victory and when I observe the period closer, I see that in the near future, I shall gain a glorious victory because another Tongue is speaking in my favour and for the establishment of my hand, another hand is working. What the world cannot observe, I observe. A heavenly soul is speaking within me, and it is granting life to every word which I utter. A certain power and glory has come into movement in the heavens, which has established this humble person. Anyone upon whom the doors of repentance have not been closed will observe that I am not on my own.. Do they not possess the eyes which can distinguish the truth?. Is he alive also who cannot feel the thunder from heaven?'102 101. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 36 102. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Izalah Auham, p. 562/63; Ruhani Khazain, vol. 3, p. 403 337

Page 350

While one would have been inclined to make a concluding statement to the present publication, one believes that in view of the extent to which Sayed Abdul Hafeez Shah, the administrator of The Baitul Mukarram Trust in Pakistan; pir of. Gujjo in Sindh; author of the obnoxious publication Two in One and the spiritual guide and teacher of Dr. Rashid Ali of Dibba, has been exposed as a liar, a disbeliever and an enemy all. Three in One, the present publication does not require any such submission by its author. Therefore, one would conclude this book with the supplication contained in the concluding Surah of the Glorious Quran: 'In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful! Say, I seek refuge in the Lord of Mankind, The King of Mankind, The God of mankind, From the evil [whispering] of the sneaking whisperer; Who whispers into the hearts of men, From among jinn and men.' - Surah al Nas. Al Quran 114.1/7337. May Allah, the Gracious and the Merciful, the Lord and King of mankind accept this humble supplication and preserve the members of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community as well as all sincere and honest human being from the evil whisperings of the sneaking whisperer, this advocate of the devil, Syed Abdul. Hafeez Shah, the pir of Gujjo who whispers into the hearts of men from amongst, only God knows, whether the jinn or men,. Amin!. ALL PRAISE BELONGS TO ALLAH! 338

Page 351

GLOSSARY. INDEX. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Page 352

GLOSSARY. Ahle Qibla: lit. people of the direction - in this instance the Ka'aba at Mecca. Al Hamd: prayer contained in the opening chapter of the Holy Quran. Alim: scholar. Allama: scholar. Ameerul Momineen: leader of believers. Ansar: lit. helper. Title bestowed upon Muslims of Medina. Arsh: lit. Throne. Arya Samaj: A Vedantic sect founded by Swami Dayanand in around 19th Century CE as: alayhe salatoo wassalaam. Peace be upon him. Avatara: lit. one who descends. In Vedic terminology it is used in relation to reformer. Bahadur: lit. brave. Bai'at: oath of allegiance. Bharata: land of Vedic India. Brahmo Samaj: A Vedantic order. Darul Harb: lit. land of war. Darus Salam: lit. Abode of Peace. Fajr: 1st of the five daily obligatory prayer services.. Fatwa: findings by a religious authority. Fidya: ransom paid in lieu of fast. Gaddhi nashin pirs: hereditary spiritual leaders. Gadha Gadee: cart pulled by a donkey. Ghair muqallid: lit. non conformists. Hajj: Pilgrimage to Mecca. One of the five pillars of Islamic faith. Hakeem: herbal doctor. Haq. lit. Truth. Haviaah: the lowest depth of hell. Imam: leader. Iman: faith. Isa, Hadhrat: name of Hadhrat Jesus in the Holy Quran. Istikhara: prayer addressed to God to solicit His assistance in a particular matter. Jahd: lit. effort or striving. Jai: lit. Hurray in Punjabi. Kafir: disbeliever or denier. Kalimah: credo of Islam. Kaliyuga: lit. dark age. Kashf: vision. Khalifa: title bestowed upon leader of Muslim congregation. Khalifatul Muslimeen: lit. caliph of Muslims. Khatamal Anbiyya: Seal of Apostles

Page 353

Khataman Nabiyyen: Seal of Prophets. Khilafat: Institution of Caliphate in Islam. Krsna, Hadhrat: Indian prophet. Kuffar: Plural of Kafir, i.e., disbeliever or denier. Kursi: lit. Chair. Luh: lit. Guarded Tablet. Maghrib: 4th obligatory daily prayer. Mufti: religious scholar authorised to issue edicts. Muhaddith: reformer. Mullah: Muslim priest. Muqallid: lit. conformist. Mureed: follower. Murtad: apostate. Musalmans: Muslims. Nabidh: drink prepared by mixing fresh dates and grapes. Paramesvara: lit. The Supreme Person. Vedantic name of God. Pir: spiritual leader. Qaim: lit. Pen. Qibla: direction in which Muslim pray, i.e., the precinct of Ka'aba. Qiyyama: The day of Doom. Rak'a: one unit of prayer. Rak'at: plural of Rak'a. Roza: fast. Sa: Arabian unit of measure. Sahu:prostration of condonement offered when a mistake is committed during prayer. Salaam: Islamic salutation. Shahada: bear witness or martyrdom. Shaheed: martyr. Singh: lit. lion. Sufi: Muslim sage. Sunnah: practice or example. Sunnat: lit. practise. Tabi'un: second generation collector of Hadeeth. Takfir: edicts of kufar. Tanga: horse driven cart. Ummah: religious community, especially amongst whom a prophet is raised. Ummul Momineen: mother of the faithful. Title given to wives of prophets. Umra: lesser pilgrimage to Mecca which can be undertaken any time of the year. Wali: saint or sage. Yaka: cart driven by animal. Zakat: charity, one of the five pillars of Islamic faith. Zuhr: 2nd daily obligatory prayer

Page 354

BIBLIOGRAPHY 'Abd Allah, [Hadhrat] Sheikh Wali al Din Muhammad. Miskat al Masabih. Adi, [Hadhrat] Abu Ahmad 'Abdullah al Jurjani ibn. Muqaddima al Kamil. Ahle Hadeeth, Amritsar, India. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Bashir ud Din Mahmud, lawab Mubahala. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Bashir ud Din Mahmud. The Holy Qur'an with English Translation and. Commentary. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Bashir ud Din Mahmud.Tafsir e Kabir. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Anjam Atham, Ruhani Khazain, vol. xi. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Anwar ul Islam; Ruhani Khazain, vol. 9. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Anouncement, 20 February, 1886. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Anouncement, 10 July, 1888. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Anouncement, 15 July, 1888. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Announcement 15 April, 1907. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Arb'aeen, No. IV, Ruhani Khazain, vol. xvii. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Ayanae Kamalat e Islam, Ruhani Khazain, vol. v ·. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Ayyamus Sulh, Ruhani Khazain, vol. xiv. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Chashma Marifat, Ruhani Khazain, vol xxiii. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Dafa e Balaa, Ruhani Khazain, vol. xviii. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Dafe Waswas, Muqadimah Haqeeqatul Islam, A y ana e. Kamalat e Islam, Ruhani Khazain, vol. v. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. vide. Durre Thamin. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Government Angrezi aur Jihad, Ruhani Khazain, vol. xvii. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Jang e Muqaddas, Ruhani Khazain, vol. vi. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Hammatul Bushra, Ruhani Khazain, vol. vii. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Haqeeqatu! Mahdi, Ruhani Khazain, vol. xiv. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Haqeeqatul Wahi, Ruhani Khazain, vol. xxii. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. How to get rid of the bondage of Sin. vide. Review of Religions, January, 1902. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Ijazi Ahmadi,; Ruhani Khazain, vol xix. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Islami Usul ki Philosophy, Ruhani Khzain, vol. x. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Izalah Auham, Ruhani Khazain, vol. iii. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Karamat us Sadiqeen; Ruhani Khazain, vol. vii. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Kashti Nuh, Ruhani Khazain, vol. xix. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Kitabul Bariyyah, Ruhani Khazain, vol. xiii. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Lahore Lecture, Ruhani Khazain, vol. xx. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Majmu'a Ishtiharat, vol. i. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Maktoobat. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Malfoozat, Ruhani Khazain II, vol. 1. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Masih Hindustan Mein, Ruhani Khazain, vol. xv. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Mawahibur Rahman, Ruhani Khazaain, vol. vii. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Muqadimah Haqeeqatul Islam, Ayanae Kamalat el slam,. Ruhani Khazain, vol. v

Page 355

Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Naseem e Dawat, Ruhani Khazain, vol. xix. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Nurul Haq, Ruhani Khazain, vol. viii. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Paigham e Sulh, Ruhanbí Khazain, vol. xxiii. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Sat Bachan, Ruhani Khazain, vol. x. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Surma Chashm Arya; Ruhani Khazain, vol. ii. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Sitara Qaisariyyah, Ruhani Khazain, vol. xv. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. vide. tabligh e Risalat. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. vide. Tadhkirah, English Translation, London. Mosque, 1976. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Tadhkirah Shahadatain, Ruhani Khazain, vol. xx. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Tatimmah Haqeeqatul Wahi, Ruhani Khazain, vol.xxii. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. vide. Tabligh e Risalat. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Tiryaqu! Qulub, Ruhani Khazain, vol. xvi. Ahmad, [Hadhṛat] Mirza Ghulam. Tauzeeh e Marham, Ruhani Khazain, vol iii. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Tohfa e Qaisariyya, Ruhani Khazain, vol. xxii. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Tahir. Audio/Video, Khutba Jummah, 30 July, 1988. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Tahir. Audio/Video, Khutba Jummah, 5 August, 1988. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Tahir. Audio/Video Khutba Jummah, 12 August, 1988. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Tahir. The Gulf Crisis & The New World Order. Ahmad, Sayyid Tufail. Musalmanon ka Roshan Mustaqbil. Ahmad, Shah Niyaz. Diwan e Niaz. Ahmadiyya Muslim Association. An Open Invitation to Mubahala. Ahmadiyya Muslim Association. Mubahala, Urdu Edition. Ahmadiyya Muslim Assiciation. Ruhani Khazain. Aid to Bible Understanding. Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. Alhram a Shariat Mukamal. Abhoh al Munzanb. Alami Tahuffuze Khatme Nubuwwat. Quran Sharif mey Rado Badal. Albani, Nasir al Din al. Silsilat al Ahaeeth aal Da'ifa wa al Maudu'a. Al Fazl, Qadian, India. Al Hakam, Qadian, India. Ali, Abdullah Yusuf. The Holy Qur'an. Text, Translation and Commentary. Ali, Dr. S. Rashid. vie. Two in One. Ali, Maulvi Ashiq. Qaisar al Tawreekh. Ali, Maulvi Ashiq. Tadhkirah al Rasheed. Al Imdad. Aligarh Instutute Gazette, Aligarh, India. Al Nadwa, Deoband, India. Alusi, [Hadhrat] Abu'l Fadl Shihab al Mahmud al Baghdadi. Tafsir Ruh al Ma'ani. Amritsari, Maulvi Sanaullah. Illhaamaat e Mirza. Amritsari, Maulvi Sanaullah. Fatwa Shariat Ghara. Amritsari, Maulvi Sanaullah. Muraqqa Qadian. Arabi, [Hadhrat] Muhiy ud Din ibne. Fatuhat Mkiyyah. Arguments with regard to the expulsion of Wahabbis from Msques. vide. Tulu' e. Islam. Asqalani, [Hadhrat] Anu'l Fadi Shihab al Din Mahmud ibn Ali. Fath al Bari. Athim, Abdullah. Aljawahirul Quran

Page 356

Athim, Abdullah. Androona Bible. Attar, Khawaja Habib Ullah. vide. Masnavi Bahr al Irfan. Attar, [Hadhrat] Sheikh Farid ud Din. Fawa'id Farifiyya. Attar, [Hadhrat] Sheikh Farid ud Din. Tadhkirath al Aulia. Azad, Maulana Abul Kalam. Mas'ala Khilafat. Azhar, Maulvi Zafr Ali. A Grave Conspiracy. Azid, Hadhrat Umar ibn. vide Tarikh al Khulafa. Baghdadi, [Hadhrat] Abu'l Fadl Shihab al Din Mahmud. Ruh al Ma'ani. Bahu, [Hadhrat] Sultan. Kaleed t Tauheed. Baidawi, [Hadhrat] Imam Qadi Nasir | Din Abu Sa'id 'Abd Allah ibn 'Umar al. Anwaral Tanzil wa Asrar al Ta'wil. Baksh, Muhamamd. Jafar Zatalli. Baqr, [Hadhrat] Imam. Bahar ul Anwar. Barq, Ghulam Jilani. Imam Ibn Taimiyya. Batalvi, Maulvi Muhammad Hussain. Al Iqtisad fi Masa'il al Jihad. Batalvi, Maluvi Muhamamd Hussain. vide. Sharai Faisala. Bhagavad Gita. The Bhaktivendata Book Trust. Bihari, Maulvi Abdur Rahman. vide Fatwa Shariat Gharra. Bukhari, [Hadhrat] Abu 'Abd Allah Muhammad ibn Ismail. Sahih al Bukhari. Chashme Noor, Amritsar. Chishti, Faqir Muhammad. Tadhkirah Pak. Chishti, [Hadhrat] Khawaja Mu'in ud Din. vide. Diwan Khawaja Ajmeri. Collection of Fatwas. vide Tulu' e Islam. Collins Clear Type Press. The Holy Bible. Curzon Gazette, Delhi, India. Daily Haider, Rawalpindi, Pakistan. Daily Jang, Pakistan. Damishiqi, [Hadhrat] Imam Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr ibn Ayyub. Zad Ma'ad fi HadiyiKhair al 'Ibad. Dard, [Hadhrat] A.R. Life of Ahmad, vol. 1. Dard, [Hadhrat] Khawaja Mir. Risala Dard. Dastkari, Amritsar, India. Daud, [Hadhrat] Hafiz Sulaiman ibn Ash'ath Abu. Sunan Abu Daud. Da'wat, Pakistan. Dehivi, [Hadhrat] Wali Ullah. Al Fauz al Kabeer. Dhorat, Muhammad Saleem. Qadianism. Eliasi, Muhamamd Abdul Haleem. The Holy Quraan with Transliteration in RomanScript. Fatwa, Saniyyah. Fawa Ulama e Ludhiana. vide. Life of Ahmad. Fatwa Ulama e Punjab wa Hindustan. vide Life of Ahmad. Farid. [Hadhrat] Ghulam. Isharat e Faridi Farid, [Hadhrat] Malik Ghulam. The HolyQur'an with. English Translation and Commentary. Gangohi, Maulvi Rashid. vide. Sharai Faisala. Gangohi, Sheikh Sadiq. vide. Al Takashaf an Mahmat al Tasawwuf. Ghazali [Hadrta] Imam: Al Munqidh min al Dalal. Ghaznavi Abdullah. Biography of Maulvi Abdullah Ghaznavi

Page 357

Guhar Asafi, Calcutta, India. Haft Aktalab. vide. Kitab e Mahfooz. Hairat, Mirza. Hayyat e Tayyaba. Hanbal, [Hadhrat] Imam Abu 'Abd Allah Ahmad ibn. 'Aun al Ma'bud, Sharh Abu Daud. Hanbal, [Hadhrat] Imam Abu 'Abd Allah Ahmad ibn. Masnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal. Haq, Chaudhry Afzal. Fitna i Irtdad aur Siysasi Qalabazian. Haqqani, Abdul Haq. Tafsir Haqqani. Hasan, Maulana Muhamamd,. Swanih Ahmadi. Hasan, Maulana Shah Gul. Tadhkira Ghausiyya. Hasan, Maulvi Mahmud ul. Kuliyat Shaikh al Hind. Hasan, Prof. Masud al. History of Islam. Hasan, Sheikh Mahumud al. vide. Marsiyya. Hasan, Suhaib. Criticism of Hadith Among Muslims With Reference to Ibn Maja. Hasan, Suhaib. The Study of Al Quran, Lesson 1. Herts, Dr. J.H.. The Pentateuch & Hafthrahs. Hibban, [Hadhrat] Abu Hatim Muhammad ibn. Kitab al Majruhin. Hunter. W.W. The Indian Musalmans. Husain, Maulvi Nazir. Fatwa Naziriyya. Husain, Maulvi Nazir. Maj,u'a Lectures. Husaini, Maulvi Zahid al. vide. Khuddum ud Din, Lahore. Ibne Waseem. Halat e Janab e Gauth e Azam. Ibrahim, Muhammad. Unanimous Fatwa of Three Hundred Ulama. Iman, Pakistan. Inayatullah, Maulvi Hafiz. Uyoon Zamzam fi milad Isa ibn Mariam. International Review of Missions. Iqbal, Afzal. The Life and Work of Jalal ud Din Rumi. Iqbal Muhammad. vide. Bakayyat e Iqbal. Iqbal, Muhammad. Bang e Dara. Iqbal, Muhammad. Islami Sirat ka Taith Namuna. Iqbal, Muhammad. vide. Millat e Baidza per ayk Imrani Nazar. Iqbal, Muhammad. The Doctrine of Absolute Unity as expounded by Abdul Karim. Jilani. Irfani, Maulvi Abu al Bashir. The Cunning Chameleon. Isha'atus Sunnah, India. Islam International Publications, Kitab e Mahfooz. Ismail, [Hadhrat] Muhammad Ismail. vide. Najm al Saqib. Ismail, Maulvi Muhammad. Yak Rozi. Jaffar, Maulvi Muhamamd: Barakat ul Islam. Jami al Shudood. vide. Tulu' e Islam. Jan, [Hadhrat] Sufi Ahmad. Tassurate Qadian. Jilani, [Hadhrat] Sayyid 'Abd al Qadir. Bihjat al Israr. Jilani, [Hadhrat] Sayyid 'Abd al Qadir. Futuh al Ghaib. Kalyari, Sheikh Sabir. Miraj ul Mu'imineed. Kashmiri, Agha Shurush. Ata Ullah Shah Bukhari. Khan, Ahmad Raza. vide. Hisam al Haramain. Khan, Imtiaz Muhammad. Maulana Rum

Page 358

Khan, Jahangir. Jesus More than a Prophet, Interversity Press, Leicester. Khan, Murtaza Ahmad. Tarikh Aquam 'Alam. Khan, Nawab Siddiq Hasan. Hujaj al Kiramah. Khan, Nawab Siddiq Hasan. Iqtraab as Sa'a. Khan, Nawab Siddiq Hasan. Tarjuman e Wahabiyya. Khan, Murtaza Ahmad. Tarikh Aqwan 'Alam. Khan, Sir Syed Ahmad. vide. Bhaghawat e Hind. Khuddum ud Din, Lahore, Pakistan. Kausar al Nabi, Ktab ul Fai'. Laggawati Sutatta. vide. Buddah, Dr. Herman Oldenberg. Makki, Sayyid Muhammad. Saif ar Rabbani. Materia Medica of Pharmaceutical Combinations and Specialities. Manshoor Muhammadi, Banglore, India. Mashriq, Lahore. Mashriq, London, England. Mashriq, Quetta, Pakistan. Maududi, Sayod Abul Ala. Book on Interests. Maududi, Sayid Abul Ala. Finality of Prophethood. Maududi, Sayid Abul Ala. Tafhim ul Quran. Metcalf, Dr. Barbara daly. Islamic Revival in British India. Mir, Maulanna Sayyid. Hayat i Tayebbah, complied by Sheikh Abdul Qadir. Mundani, Delhi. Muttaqui, [Hadhrat] Sheikh 'Ala al Din 'Ali. Kanz al 'Ummal. Muttaza, Maulvi Sayyid Muhammad, vide. Radd at Takfir ala i fahsash al Tanzir. Maududi, Syed Abul Ala: Tafhim al Quran. Muttaqi, [Hadhrat] Sheikh 'Ala al Din. Kanz al 'Ummal fi Sunan al Aqwal wa'l Af'al. Nadwi, S. Abdul Hasan. Qadianism, A Critical Study. Nadwi, Sayyid Sulamiman. vide. Sirat an Nabi. Nasa'i, [Hadhrat] Hafiz abu 'Abd al Rahman Ahmad ibn Shu'aib. Sunan Nasa'i. Nawa e Waqt, Lahore, Pakistan. Nawawi, [Hadhrat] Imam Muhyi ad Din Zakariyya Yahya ibn Sharaf an. Riyadh as Salihini. Niazi, Abu Javed. Ibni Arabi. Nigar, Lucknow, India. Olderberg, Dr. Herman. Buddha. Paigham e Sulh, Lahore, India.. Pakistan Times, Pakistan. Parvez, Ghulam Ahmad. Shulah Mastur. Parwez, John. Jesus More than a Prophet, Interversity Press, Leicester. Pickthall, Mohammad Marmaduke. The Holy Qur'aan with English Translation. Prabhupada, A.C. Bhaktivendata Swami. Bhagavad Gita, English Translation with Commentary. Qadir, [Hadhrat] Sheikh Abdul. Hayat e Tayyaba. Qashiri, [Hadhrat] Hafiz Abu'l Husain Muslim ibn Hajjaj al. The Sahih of Muslim. Qayumi, Allama Abul Quyyum. Haqu-iqat al Masih. Qaisari, [Hadhrat] Sheikh daud ibn Mahmud al. Sharh Fusoos al Hukum. Razi, Hadhrat Imam Fakhr ud Din. Tafsir Kabir. Review of Religions, Qadian

Page 359

Riaz Hind, India. Riyaz Hind, Amritsar. Rumi, [Hadhrat] Jalal ud Din. Mathnavi. Rumi, [Hadhrat] Jalal ud Din. Miftah al 'Ulum. Shah, [Hadhrat] Wali Ullah: Tafhimat Illahiyya. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One. Sadiqul Akhbar, Rewari, India. Sayuti, [Hadhrat] Hafiz Jalal al Din. Hujaj al Kirma. Sayuti, [Hadhrat] Hafiz Jalal ad Din. Tadhir al Khaswas min Aheedth al Qussas. Sayuti, [Hadhrat] Hafiz Jalal al Din. Tarikh al Khulafa. Sharanpuri, Maulvi Khalil Ahmad. Fatwa Shariat Gharra. Sidiq, Maulvi Muhammad. Haq Parast Ulama ko Maudidiat say Narazghi ke Asbab. Siddiqui, Muhamamd Saeed, the Blessed Women of Islam. Siddiqui, Abdul Hameed. Sahih Muslim, English Translation. Siddiqui, Dr. Muhammad Zubayr. Hadith Literature. Sirhind, [Hadhrat] Ahmad. Maktubat. Smith, Morton. The Secret Gospel. Suharwardy, [Hadhrat] Sahab ud Din. 'Awarif al Mu'arif. Tabri, [Hadhrat] Imam Abu Jafar Muhammad ibn Jarir al. Jami Bayan. Tabriz, [Hadhrat] Shams ud Din. vide. Diwan Hadhrat Shams Tabriz. Tabriz, [Hadhrat] Shams ud Din. vide. Kuliyyat Shams Tabriz. Taimiyya, [Hadhrat} Imam, vide. Imam ibn Taimiyya. Tanesari, Muhammad Ja'far. Swanih Ahmadi. Tarikh e Ahmadiyyat. Tehzib e Niswan, Lahore, India. Thanvi, Maulvi Ashraf Ali. Holy Quran with Commentary. The Indian Antiquary, India. The Lockman Foundation. The Topical Chain Study Bible. The Sun, London. Thanivi, Maulvi Ashraf Ali. vide. Arwah e Salasah. Tirmidhi, [Hadhrat] Abu 'Isa Muhammad ibn 'Isa. The Jami of Tirmidhi. Tonoki, Maulvi Muhamamd Abdullah. Sharai Faisala. Umm al Qura, Saudia. Usmani, Maulvi Shabbir Ahmad. Fath al Mulhim. Vakeel, Amritsar, India. Wahid, Maulvi Abdullah. Ishtihar Mukadat Musailimah Qaadiani. Weekly Khursheed, Sandela, Pakistan. Wells, A.G. A Short History of the World. Zamakshari, [Hadhrat] Imam Mahmud ibn Umar. Al Kashshaaf 'an Ghawamid al. Tanzil. Zamindar, Lahore, India. Zamindar, Lahore, Pakistan. Zaheer, Ehsan Elahi. Qadianyat, An Analytical Survey, ed. May, 1973. Zurqani, [Hadhrat] Imam Muhammad ibn 'Abd al Baqi al. Sharha Zurqani

Page 360

Aaron, Hadhrat: 195. Abbas Hadhrat 'Abd Allah ibn: 6,133,180-82, 210, 310-15 'Abd Allah", Hadhrat Muhamamd ibn: 222 'Abd Allah, Sheikh Jamaluddin ibn: 228. Abraham, Hadhrat: 1,86,88,91,97,99,135, 137, 95, 240. Abu Bakr, Hadhrat: 98,134,139,197. Abu Bakr, Hadhrat Ayesha bint: see Ayesha. Abu Hanifa", Hadhrat Imam: 225-5. Accra, Ghana: 275. A Character Sketch of The Promised Messiah. by Maulana A. Karim: 123. Adam**, Children of: 103. Adamson, lan: 123. Adam*, Hadhrat: 83,97,1195-96. Affan, Hadhrat Uthman ibn: see Uthman. Afghanistan: 249,151. Africa: 266. Afrika Speaks: 212. AhleHadeeth:172,185,235,239,242,249,256-58, 261,301. Ahle Hadeeth, Amritsar: 302,329. Ahle Sunnat: 220,239,242,249-50,329. Ahle Qibla: 267. Ahle Quran: see Parveizi. Ahmad", Hadhrat Mirza Bashir. 123,136,17880,240,247. Ahmad": Hadhrat Mirza Bashir ud Din. Mahmud: 43,123,165, 189-90,192-94. Ahmad, Sahibzada Mirza Fazl: 143. Ahmad, Sahibzada Mirza Mubarak: 123. Ahmad, Sahibzada Mirza Mubarak: 161-62. Ahmad, Hadhrat Mirza Nasir. 192,212. Ahmad, Sahibzada Mirza Sultan: 143. Ahmad, Hadhrat Mirza Tahir. 6-8,32,36-7,39 -44-8,190,197,273,306/07. Ahmad, Shah Niyaz: 87-8,99*. Ahmad, Syed Muhammad: 245. Ahmad, Waheed: 123. Ahmadi Muslims. Maulana N.D. Muneer: 123. Ahmadiyya Anjuman Isha'ay Islam, Lahore: 191. Ahmadiyyat, The Renaissance of Islam. M.Z.. Khan: 123. Ahrar, Majlis e: 24,27,251. A'inah Jamal. Sahibzada M. B. Ahmad: 123. Ajami Israel: 246. Ajmeer, India: 87,114-16. INDEX. Alami Tahuffuze Khatme Nubuwwat: 207. Al Fatwa International, Dibba: 31,33. Al Fazl, Qadian: 165. Al Hakam, Qadian: 17. Al Hamd: 214. Ali, Babu Ferooz: 17. Alrª, Hadhrat: 64,67,69,91,97,99,138,201-02, 313. Ali, Maulvi Ashiq: 243-4. Ali, Maulvi Irshad: 22. Ali, Meer Mahboob: 243,245. Ali, Safdur: 22. Ali, Dr. S. Rashid: 31,33,183,267-8,270,274-5, 306/07. Ali, Maulana Sayyid Mumtaz: 28. Aligarh Institute: 22,175,194. Aligarhi, Maulvi Ismail: 303. Al Khaleej: 275. Allah, Hadhrat Jabir ibn 'Abd: 34-5. Amajan", Hadhrat: 162,178. Ameer", Hadhrat Said: 99,108. Amendment of Pakistan Penal Code: see under Pakistan. America: 303 'Amr": Hadhrat 'Abd Allah: 34-5. Amran, Hadhrat: see Imran. Amritsar, India: 11,193,264,298. Amritsari, Maulvi Sanaullah: 129,232,262,289,299-305. Androona Bible: 295. Angels: 16,167,186-86,190,220-2,317-19,333. Angels: also see under name of angel. Anjam e Athim: 299-300. Ansar: 100. Antartica: 39 'Aqib, 'Abd al Masih al: 52. Arabi; Hadhrat Muhiy ud Din Ibne: 65,67,86, 88,97,116. Arabic: 14,174-75,213,226,271,273. Arb'aeen: 124. Ark of Noah: see Noah. Arsh: 64,96-7. Arshad, Maulvi Allah Yar. 41. Arya, King of: 89-93. Arya Samaj: 20-1,27,72,91,101,184,285. As'har, Hadahrat Musa ibn: 103. Assiya: 83,105 'Ata: 180

Page 361

Athim, Abdullah: 140,293-8 'Atiyya", Hadhrat Um: 132. Attar, Hadhrat Farid ud Din: 65,67,76,97,99. Attar, Hadhrat Khawaja Habib: 218-19. Aulia, Hadhrat Nizam ud Din. 65,108,224. Avatara: 89-91. Ayanae Kamalat e Islam: 60,204,208-09. Ayesha, Hadhrat: 132-33,139,181,197. Ayyamud Solh: 220-4,225. Ayyub, Hadhrat: see Job**. Azad, Maulana Abul Kalam: 19-20,23-5,27-30, 168-70,172-73,211,229. Aziz, Hadhrat Umar ibn 'Abd Al: 255. Badr, Battle of: 4,42. Badr, Qadian: 301. Baghdad, Iraq: 34-5,314. Bagti, Muhammad Akbar: 211. Bahadur, Jai Singh: 92-3. Bahu, Hadhrat Sultan: 65,67,76,97. Baksh, Maluvi Muhamamd: 261. Bakr, Hadhrat Abu: see Abu Bakr. Balakot, India: 245. Balouch, Muhammad Aslam Khan: 193. Baluchistan, Pakistan: 211. Baptish, Hadhrat John: see John". Barelvi, Hadhrat Ahmad Shah: 86-8, 100, 108, 116, 234-5,244-5,246,. Barelvis: 255-6. Bashir, Hadhrat Numan ibn: 134. Bashir II, Mirza: 143. Batalaa, India: 187-88. Batalvi, Maulvi Muhammad Hasan, 12-13,15, 20, 143-44,172,185,231-2,236-7,241,261. Battery, Eveready: 94-5. Beelzebub: 153. Beg, Ahmad: 281,284,286,288,89,291. Beg, Mahmud: 288. Begum, Hadhrat Nusrat: 287. Begum, Khurshid: 286. Bhadrak, Orissa: 266. Bharat & Bharata: see India. Bhirai, Maulvi Abdur Rahman: 262. Bhopal, India: 235-6,242. Bhutto, Zulfiqar Ali: 252. Baitul Fiqr, Qadian: 331. Baitul Mukakkar, Sindh: 307. Bibi, Hurmat: 287. Bishr, Hadhrat Muhamamd ibn: 222. Braheen e Ahmadiyya: 12,14-15, 82, 104, 109, 118, 169,171-72,204,206,316,329. Brahmo Samaj: 20. British: 136,234-251. Bukhan, Hadhrat Imam: 35,311. Bukhari, Sahih of: 223,228. Buddha, Sakyamuni: see Sakyamuni. Buddiist Scriptures: 89. Bujaina", Hadhrat 'Abd Allah ibn: 156. Buraira, Hadhrat: 132. Burma: 249. Burton, Robert: 146. Bushra, al: 68-9. Bustami: Hadhrat Abu Yazid: 63-4,67,76,96-7, 116. Caesar: 134. Calicut, Malabar: 266. Canaan: 87-8,100,277. Cannanore, Malabar: 265. Cemeteries: 260. Chachran Shareef, India: 13. Chashma Marifat: 199. Chief Civil Surgeon, Lahore: 187-88. Chinioti, Maulvi Manzoor: 40-1. Chishti, Hadhrat Mu'in ud Din: 85,87-8,98, 108,114-16,217-19. Chishti, Nur Muhammad Qadri Naqshbandi: 23. Chishtiyya, School of Mysticism: 258. Cholrea: 187-88. Chosroe: 134. Christ: see Jesus**. Christians & Christianity: 12,21-4,73,80-1, 150, 166,169,170,174,183-84,196,238,250, 260,275,281,285,293-6,326. Civil Disturbances, Ahrar, 1934: 24. Civil Disturbances, Punjab, 1953: 24. Clarke, Rev. Henry Martin: 293. Conference of Religions, Lahore, India: 16,172. Constitutionl Amendment: see Pakistan. Copt, Hadhrat Maria” of: see Maria”. Cross: 18. Crucifix: see Cross. Curzon Gazette: 174. Cuttack, Orissa: 265-6. Dabbatul Ard: 324,326. Dadjaal: 4,90,257-9-262,294-5,324-26. Dafe al Waswas: 203-207. Daniel, Book of: 89. Dard", Hadhrat A.R: 122. Dard, Hadhrat Khawaja Mir: 85,88,116,287. Darda, Hadhrat Abu: 192. Darwin, Charles: 147. Daud, Hadhrat: see david“. David, Hadhrat: 196

Page 362

Day of Judgement: 236. Day of Resurrection: 333. Deoband, India: see Nidawatul Ulama. Deoband Seminary: see Nidawatul Ulama. Delhi: 53,88,166,211,221,235,242,261. Delhvit: Hadhrat Shah Wali Ullah: see Shah. Delhvi, Mirza Hairat. 21,174. Deluge: 297. Din", Hadhrat Hakeem Maulana Nur ud: 188. Din, Maulana Bashir ud. 21,174. Din, Maulana Siraj ud: 10. Din, Maulana Waheed ud: 22,175. Din, Mirza Kamalud: 286. Din, Mirza Imamud Din: 284,286. Din, Mirza Nizamud: 285,286. Divine Decree: 222. Divinity, Claim of: see God. Doomsday: 280. Don Quixote: 117. Dowie, Alexander. 303. Dreams: 61. Durr e Thamin: 124. Dur e Manthur. 326. Durr i Manthur. Sahibzada M.B. Ahmad: 123. Durr i Mukam. Sahibzada M.B. Ahmad: 123. Earth: 63-4,96. Egypt & Egyptians: 42, 87-8,100,129,153,249. Eid: 306. Eliasi, Muhammad Abdul Hakeem: 166. England: 17,23,159-60. English: 14,122-3,333. Enoch, Hadhrat: 99. Ethopia: 275. Europe: 163. Eveready Battery: see Battery. Faisal: see Saud. Faislabad, Pakistan: 215. Fair: 192. Farid, Hadhrat Ghulam: 13,17-19. Farooq: see Umar”. Fast: see Ramadhan. Fatehpuri, Allama Niaz: 22,26. Fatihah, Surah: 97. Fazl Mosque: 306. Fatimah, Hadhrat: 138. Feast of Passover. 328. Fidya: 179. France: 18. Freud, Sigmund: 146-48. Gabriel, Hadhrat: 97,221,223,241,318. Galen: 146. Gangohi, Maulvi Rashid: 243,254,262. Gangohi, Sheikh Sadiq: 218-19,251. Ganj, Hadhrat: Farid ud Din Shakar: 99,108. Germany: 146. Ghana: 275. Ghani, Shah Abdul: 108. Ghazali, Hadrat Imam: 255. Ghaznavi, Maulvi Abdullah: 108,261,272. Glora, India: 17. God, Claim of: 59-71. God, Claim of Father of: 59,74-81. God, Claim of Son of: 59,68-73,300. Gongohi, Maulvi Rashid Ahmad: 87-8,100,116. Greece/Greek: 146. Guinness Book of Records: 111,115,117. Gulf Crisis: 275. Gurdaspur, Punkab, India: 172. Hafeez, Hadhrat Amatul: 143. Hajj: 97,220-3,276,297,313. Halla: Hadhrat Hussain ibn Mansur al: 65, 76, 97. Hanafi: 257-9. Hanif, Sheikh Umar: 238. Hanifa, Hadhrat Imam Abu: 164. Hanifiyya, Hadhrat Muhammad ibn al: 133. Hanifi School of Jurisprudence: 164,172,223-4, 258,314. Hanbal, Hadhrat Imam: 258. Hanabli: 255. Hanbali, School of Jurisprudence: 258. Haq, Chaudhry Afzal: 27. Haqeeqat Pasand Party: 189,191. Haqeeqatul Wahi: 45-47,136. Haq, Maulana Abdul: 211. Haq, Zia ul: 33,41-2. Haqqani, Allama Abdul Haq: 231. Harb, Hadhrat Samak ibn: 133. Harith, Hadhrat Juwariyya: see Juwariyya™. Harith, Hadhrat Um 'Atuyya: see Attiya™. Harun, Hadhrat: see Aaron**. Haruni, Hadhrat Khawaja Usan: 108. Hasan, Maulvi Mahmud al: 87. Hasan, Sayyid Mir. 11,29. Haviaah: 296,298. Hazrat Ahmad, The Promised Messiah. M. B.. M. Ahmad: 123. Heaven: 63-4,96,220,2634,279. Heaven, Kingdom of: 108-09. Heavenly Bodies: 317. Hebrew prophets: 25. Hebrew prophets: see also under name

Page 363

Hell: 220,263-4,293,298. Hind, Jami'at e Ahle: 231. Hind, Majlis e Ahrar. see Ahrar. Hindu: 24,80,89-91, 101, 150,170,183,241, 243, 285. Hindu: also see Arya & Brahmo Samaj. Hippocrates: 146. Hira, Mecca: 11-12. Hisham, Abu: see Jahl. Hud, Hadhrat 1,119,152,154. Hudaibiyya, Treaty of : 276,297. Huraira, Abu: 156,221-2. Husain, Sayyid Nazir: 235,242,251,261. Husaini, Maulvi Zahid al: 232. Hussain, Hadhrat Imam: 251. Hussain, Hakeem Muhammad: 159,161-62. Hyderabad, Pakistan: 19. Iblis: 186. Iblis: see also Satan. Ibn Abbas, Hadhrat: see Abbas™. Ibrahim, Hadhrat: see Abraham**. Ibrahim, Sheikh Hussain ibn: 238. Idris**, Hadhrat: 141,196. Idara Isha'at e Dinyat, New Delhi: 53,166-67. Ijebuode, Nigeria: 212-14,217-18. Imadi, Abdullah al: 11,26,168. Imam Mahdi: see Mahdi. Imran, Father of Hadhrat Maryª: 83,105. Imran, Surah al: 166. India:169,170,172-73,175,224,234-8,243,246-8, 260, 264,2760,285-6,299. Indian Mutiny: 236,239-45. Inspirations: 60-1. Iqbal, Muhammad: 11,65,176,194,232,251. Iraq: 275. Isa", Hadhrat: see Jesus". Isaac, Hadhrat: 99,195. Isha'atas Sunnah of Batala: 12. Islamabad, Pakistan: 33. Ishaq", Hadhrat: see Isaac“.. Ishmael, Hadhrat: see Ismail". Ishmail: Hadhrat: 91,100. Islamabad, England: 273. Islamic Foundation, Leciester. 232. Islami Usul ki Phiposophy: 199. Israel, House of: see Jews. Israel, State of: 273. Israelites: see under Jews. Israfeel, Hadhrat: 97. Istikhara: 286. Izalah Auham: 199,203,308-336. Izraee, Hadhrat:97. Jacob, Hadhrat: 129,195. Jaffar, Maulvi Muhammad: 250. Jahan, Hadhrat Nusrat: see Amajan™. Jahl, Abu: 28-9. Jalali School of Sufism: 110-13. Jamaat e Islami: 257. Jamaitul Ulema Islam, Pakistan: 211. Jami Tirmidhi: see Tirmidi. Jan", Hadhrat Sufi Ahmad: 13-14. Jandialaa, India: 293. Jang Muqaddas: 205-206. Jannat: 126. Janpuri, <aulvi Abdul Wahid: 264. Jersualem: 328. Jesus, Appelation of: 97,104-20. Jesus, Claims of: 82-8. Jesus, Hadhrat: 1,13,18,23,73,91,97-8,100-01, 129, 153-54,185,196,252-4,294-9,334,326-29. Jetro: 129. Jews:12,14,25,132-33,153-54,196,201,262,273 4,328. Jihad: 22,25,220-45,260. Jilani, Hadhrat Sayyid Abdul Qadir. 98,184. Jillani, Hakeem Ghulam: 149. Jinn: 196. Jizya: 89. Job“, Hadhrat: 141,196. John of Damascus: 140. John, Hadhrat Baptist: 99. Jonah, Hadhrat: 99,196,297,320. Joseph, Hadhrat: 87-8,97,99,129,196. Joseph, step father of Hadhrat Jesus**. Joshua, Hadhrat: 91 0Judgement Day: 220-2. Juwariyya, Hadhrat: 132,182. Ka'aba: 65,96,98,100,276,321-22. Ka'aba, Imam of: 256. Kafir & Kuffar: 1,12,19,42,78,120,1532-54,252 -70. Kalimah: 212-19,220,259,263,269-70. Kaliyuga:89. Kalyari, Sheikh Sabir. 65,100. Karachi, Pakistan: 53. Karim, Hadhrat Maulana Abdul: 123,188 1. Kashf. see visions. Kashmir: 99. Kashmiri, Agha Shurush: 246,249. Kashti Nuh: 109-10. Kashti Nuh: see also Noal,. Kathir, Ibne: 311-13 1 1

Page 363