(جناب یحییٰ بختیار کا قومی اسمبلی میں قادیانی مسئلہ پردوسرے دن خطاب) بقیہ
Now, I will come to one or two other instances of the meetings that he addressed. One meeting addressed by him was held in Lahore and, again, I am reading from his son's book, which I quoted just now. He says:
"During the days of his stay the, whole city was in an uproar. From morning till evening a great crowd waited outside the house in which the Promised Messiah had taken up his quarters, From time to time opponents used to come and abuse him and set up a row. Some of the more turbulent spirits even attmepted to force into the private apartments and had to be forcibly ejected. At the instance of the friends at Lahore a public lecture was arranged. The speech was printed and was read in a large Hall by Moulvi Abdul Karim, while the Promised Messiah sat by. There were from nine to ten thousand listeners. When the reading was over, the audience prayed that the Promised Messiah might address them a few words orally. In response he stood up at once and addressed the people for half an hour. Since it had been known by experience that wherever he went, people of every religion and sect displayed a keen animosity towards him, specially the so-called Mussalmans, the police authorities had, on the occasion, made very admirable arrangements for his safety. In addition to the Indian police, European soldiers had been put in requistion who were stationed sword in hand at short 3025intervals. It had come to the knowledge of the police authorities that some of the ignorant mob had resolved to create a disturbance outside the lecture hall. They had, therefore, taken special precautions to ensure the safety of the Promised Messiah on his return, journey from the lecture hall. First rode a number of mounted police. Then came the carriage bearing the Promised Messiah. This was followed by a number of policemen on foot. After them there rode again a number of mounted men, and thereafter walked another party of policemen. Thus was the Promised Messiah escorted back to his residence with the greatest possible care, and the mischief- makers were baulked of their designs. From Lahore the Promised Messiah returned to Qadian."
Then, a meeting at Amritsar, from the same book, page:70,71: "But the people, when once excited, could not be made to show restraint. The tumult went on increasing and inspite of the efforts of the police it could not be suppressed. At last it was thought advisable that the Promised Messiah should resume his seat and another man was called to give a political recitation. This quieted the audience. Then the Promised Messiah stood up to resume his lecture, but the Moulvis renewed their outcry. And when the Promised Messiah tried to continue with his speech, the Moulvis created a row and proceeded to attack the dais. The police tried to restrain the people, but thousands could not be checked by a few policemen. The mob rushed on like a sea wave and gradually gained ground. When the police saw the futility of their efforts, they informed the Promised Messiah that they could do no more. (It was my opinion considering the then circumstances that the police had failed to fully discharge their duty. There was no European officer among them. All the officers present were Indians who being the fellow countrymen of the rioters and themselves possessed of religious animosity towards the Promised Messiah, were willing to see the lecture come to a close). Upon this the Promised Messiah discontinued his lecture. But this did not suffice to allay the excitement. The People persisted in their attmept to force themselves upon the dais and to commit assault. Thereupon the Inspector of Police requested 3026the Promised Messiah to retire into an inner apartment, and sent a constable to fetch a carriage. Meanwhile the police restrained the people from entering, the apartments. The carriage was brought up to a side door of the apartment. The Promised Messiah started to occupy the same. Through the Grace of God none of us were injured. Only one stone passed through the window and then struck passed through the window and struck the hand of my younger brother Mirza Bashir Ahmad. Several of them struck the policemen who were surrounding the carriage. Upon this they struck at the mob and dispersed them from the neighbourhood. They placed themselves both before and behind the carriage, and some of them took their seat on the roof, and in this way they the drove the carriage quickly to the residence of the Promised Messiah. The people were so excited that in spite of the beating they received from the police, they pursued the carriage to a long distence. The following day the Promised Messiah left for Quadian."
Then, Sir, lastly, I will read a passage of what happened on the day of his death, when the news reached the people, from the same book, page:81: "Within half an hour of his death a gathering of the Lahore public assembled in front of the house where there still reposed his only remains and began to sing songs of triumph- thus giving evidence of the utter blackness of their hearts. Others indulged in fantastic masquerading and thus bore testimony to the baseness of their nature."
Sir, I am sorry, I have taken so much time in relating all this about the meetings that he addressed but of all the meeting that he addressed all this addressed except when he went to address a meeting on "Manazara" with the Christians, where he still continued to defend Islam, there was no hostile crowd, but whenever he wanted to preach his cause, his claim, there was hostile crowd and he could not address a single meeting anywhere without big police force to protect him, and mainly it consisted of European soldiers and policemen and officers; and when I submitted about songs of triumph on his death, I wanted to draw the attention of the honourable members to that prediction and prayer which he had made about Moulvi Sanaullah; people thought that, well, that prayer had its effect on him.
3027Now, Sir, what was the reaction, I have explained, and why we find that wherever he went, this hostile crowd went after him, and the reasons are obvious. The man had revolted against one of the basic concepts of Islam. Than, after that, we find that Mirza Sahib also becomes aggressive, and he used very offensive language, but I do not want to go into details. There are two aspects. First, when he proclaims that he is "Nabi", then naturally came the question of faith, because, according to the Muslim faith, if a person does not accept a true Prophet of God, he becomes a "Kafir". Every Muslim must accept all the prophets who are mentioned in the Holy Quran, and since he claims that he is also mentioned in the Holy- Quran, he is a prophet. Therefore, his stand was that those who do not accept him as such are "Kafirs" and the "Muslims" stand was that because he was an imposter and had put forward, this false claim, he was "Kazzaab" and "Dajjaal". Here starts the fierce controversy, attacks, counter- attacks, by Christians because he claims to be the Promised Messiah, by Muslims because he claims to be "Nabi" and Promised Messiah, so, he, Sir started saying:
’’جو شخص تیری پیروی نہیں کرے گا اور تیری بیعت میں داخل نہیں ہوگا اور تمہارا مخالف رہے گا۔ وہ خدا اور رسول کی مخالفت کرنے والا جہنمی ہے۔‘‘
And then he said:
’’کل مسلمانوں نے مجھے قبول کیا اور میری دعوت کی تصدیق کر لی۔ مگر کنجریوں اور بدکاروں کی اولاد نے مجھے نہیں مانا۔‘‘
This is from "Roohani Khazain", volume:5, page:547,548. Here I must say in fairness to Mirza Nasir Ahmad, who tried to explain that this is a translation from Arabic and he did not mean these words, but "baghay" meant one who revolts- a "baghi", and therefore, you can say اولاد of باغی not of بدکار weomen بدکاروں کی اولاد he says, this is not what he meant. Our Ulema here, they did not agree. They said that this word was used again and again by Mirza Sahib himself with reference to prostitutes and women of bad character. So I do not want to say anything more on this, but this is what he said. The next point which he did not deny was, when he said: ’’جو شخص میرا مخالف ہے…‘‘
Now, Sir, I am reading another quotation from "Roohani Khazain", page:53, volume:14:
3028’’بلاشبہ ہمارے دشمن بیابانوں کے خنزیر ہوگئے اور ان کی عورتیں کتیوں سے بھی بڑھ گئیں۔‘‘
Here he tried to explain that this was not with reference to Muslims, but with reference to Christians. Now, is this, with all the respect, the language which a prophet uses with regard to Christians or Hindus or anybody? I do not want to say anything more. This is no excuse, there is no justification for it whatsoever: Similarly, he says:
’’جو شخص ہماری فتح کا قائل نہ ہوگا تو صاف سمجھا جائے گا کہ اس کو ولد الحرام بننے کا شوق ہے۔‘‘
This is again from "Roohani Khazain", volume:9, page:31. This is really something which was highly offensive, provocative, inflammatory, to say with regard to his opponents whether they were Muslims or Christians or whoever it was, particularly coming from a person who claims to be عین محمد and better than Christ; all the wonderful attributes of prophets were shown through him by Allah, and this is the exhibition of those attributes! I need not say anything more on this.
Then, Sir, it was through this period, his annoyance or his angers or his complexes, that he started abusing the Christ, Hazrat Issa. First he claimed to be superior to Hazrat Issa and he says:
’’ابن مریم کے ذکر کو چھوڑو
اس سے بہتر غلام احمد ہے‘‘
The justification given by Mirza Nasir Ahmad was that he said that not about himself, but "Ghulam-e- Ahmad's" (slave of the Holy Prophet of Islam). Now, we are taught that all prophets have to be respected and they are equal in this respect, they are prophets of Allah, and here this man says that he was better than Issa and he justifies this on the ground that any slave of Muhammad was better than Issa. This is not the Muslim faith and there could be no excuse or justification for it. But he goes on further and says:
’’خدا نے اس امت میں مسیح بھیجا جو اس سے پہلے مسیح سے اپنی تمام شان میں بہت بڑھ کر ہے۔‘‘
3029This is from Religious Review, page:438, and "Roohani Khazain", Volume:22, Page:153, where he says again:
’’مجھے قسم ہے اس اﷲ کی جس کے ہاتھ میں میری جان ہے، اگر مسیح ابن مریم میرے زمانے میںہوتا تو وہ کام جو میں کر سکتا ہوں وہ ہرگز نہ کر سکتا اور وہ نشان جو مجھ میں ظاہر ہورہے ہیں ہرگز نہ دکھلا سکتا۔‘‘
Well, if he claims superiority, it is bad enough, but he also composes a very laudable couplet- I should say, I hope I am not commiting a mistake- but in beautiful words, no doubt he is a very good poet, a very eloquent poet, he says:
’’اینک منم کہ حسب بشارات آمدم
عیسیٰ کجا ست تابنہد پابمنبرم‘‘
Now, this man ascends to those heights that he is superior to Issa, and Issa is not worthy of stepping on his Pulpit. This is the position; but after that he goes further and criticises and attacks the grand mothers of Hazrat Issa, I do not know why. The justification given was that because those people, those Christians in those days attacked the Holy Prophet of Islam and Islam, this was a reply given by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and other Muslim learned men of that period. But this is no justification; he was criticised for this even at that time. He says:
’’آپ کا خاندان بھی نہایت پاک اور مطہر ہے۔ تین دادیاں اور نانیاں آپ کی زنا کار اور کسبی عورتیں تھیں جن کے خون سے آپ کا وجود ظہور پذیر ہوا۔‘‘
And then further he says that because his (Christ's) grandmothers, maternal or paternal, were prostitutes, that is why, because of that association, he liked the company of prostitutes. Sir, this is how he said, and when I asked him (Mirza Nasir Ahmed) as to how could he be excused for these statements, he said this is not with reference to Hazrat Issa who appears in the Holy Quran, but is a reference to Yusu Massih (یسوع مسیح) who has claimed to be son of God, I asked him after all they are not two different persons but the same man, the same prophet, and asked whether the grand mothers of Yusu Massih were different from those of Hazrat Issa? He said that Holy Quran does not mention his grandmothers at all, nothing more than this.
3030Then after that he (Mirza Ghulam Ahmad) also says:
’’اور آپ کے ہاتھ میں سوائے مکر وفریب کے کچھ نہیں تھا۔ ہاں گالیاں دینے اور بدزبانی کی اکثر عادت تھی اور یہ بھی یاد رہے کہ کسی قدر جھوٹ بولنے کی بھی عادت تھی۔‘‘
So these are statements which naturally offended not only the Musalmans, but also Christians. Muslims consider Jesus Christ as a true Prophet of Allah. They did not like the criticism and these remarks.
I asked him (Mirza Nasir Ahmad) it was all very well to say that Jesus Christ was one person and Hazrat Issa was a different person, one was mentioned in the Bible and the other was mentioned in, the Holy Quran, but how could he justify his criticism of Shias. And he tells them that "You forget about the dead Hazrat Ali, here the living Ali is present amongst you." Again what he said about Hazrat Imam Hussain. How could he justify that he is perfumed and, Naooz-o-Billa, Hussain was a heap of turd: He (Mirza Nasir Ahmad) said here also it meant, Ali of Shia conception and Hussain of Shia conception. Not, I don't think there is any differnece between Muslims as far as conception of Ali or Hussain is concerned. In respect of admiration all Muslims hold the same opinion of them. But these were the things which, as I submitted, inflamed Muslims throughout this period and for this reason Mirza Ghulam Ahmad could not address meetings without police protections.
This brings me to another small aspect before I go to the next issue. All this, which I submitted before the House, was to show that he needed the British help to propagate his religion, for the security or his person, and the British provided that in abundance, and it was under these circumstances that some Mullahs, according to him, and some Ulema, according to us, had made life miserable for him and he writes to the Lt. Governor Punjab and I will now just briefly read from that letter. He writes, Sir:
’’میں اس بات کا اقراری ہوں کہ جب بعض پادریوں اور عیسائی مشنریوں کی تحریریں نہایت سخت ہو گئیں اور حد اعتدال سے بڑھ گئیں اور بالخصوص پرچہ 3031نورالاسلام میں جو ایک عیسائی اخبار لدھیانہ سے نکلتا ہے نہایت گندی تحریریں شائع ہوئیں تو مجھے ان اخباروں اور کتابوں کے پڑھنے سے یہ اندیشہ دل میں پیدا ہوا کہ مبادا مسلمانوں پر جو کہ جوش رکھنے والی قوم ہے ان کلمات سے کوئی سخت اشتعال دینے والا اثر پیداہو۔ تب میں نے کہا ان جوشوں کو ٹھنڈا کرنے کے لئے حکمت عملی یہ ہے کہ ان تحریروں کا اسی قدر سختی سے جواب دیا جائے تاکہ صریح الغضب انسانوں کے جوش فرو ہو جائیں اور ملک میں کوئی بدامنی پیدا نہ ہو۔ تب میں نے بالمقابل ایسی کتابوں کے جن میں کمال سختی سے بدزبانی کی گئی تھی ایسی کتابیں لکھیں جن میں سختی تھی۔ کیونکہ میرے Conscience نے قطعی طور پر مجھے فتویٰ دیا کہ اسلام میں جو وحشیانہ جوش رکھنے والے آدمی موجود ہیں ان کے غیض وغضب کی آگ بجھانے کے لئے یہ طریقہ کافی ہوگا۔ تو مجھ سے پادریوں کے بالمقابل جو کچھ وقوع میں آیا یہی ہے کہ حکمت عملی سے بعض وحشی مسلمانوں کو خوش کیاگیا اور میں دعوے سے کہتا ہوں کہ میں تمام مسلمانوں میں اوّل درجے کا خیرخواہ گورنمنٹ انگریز کا ہوں۔‘‘
I had asked him (Mirza Nasir Ahmad) as to why he attacked the Christians, why he repulsed their attacks against Islam? Was it because of his zeal for Islam, love for Islam, or was it for some other reason, because he got angry and he said, no, it was just like Jehad, it was zeal for love of Islam and the Holy Prophet of Islam that he attacked them. Now here he says himself, a miserable conception, that just to serve the cause of British Government and not of Islam, he was writing all those things, attacking the Christians or those Christian Priests. Then we go to another part of his letter. He says:
’’ان تمام تقریروں سے جن کے ساتھ میں نے اپنی سترہ سالہ مسلسل تقریروں سے ثبوت پیش کئے ہیں صاف ظاہر ہے کہ میں سرکار انگریزی کا بہ دل وجان خیرخواہ ہوں اور میں ایک شخص امن دوست ہوں اور اطاعت گورنمنٹ کی اور ہمدردی 3032بندگان خدا کی میرا اصول ہے اور یہی وہ اصول ہے جو میرے مریدوں کی شرط بیعت میں داخل ہے۔ چنانچہ شرائط بیعت میں ہمیشہ تعلیم کیا جاتا ہے۔ صفحہ چہارم میں ان باتوں کی تشریح ہے۔‘‘
Now, as I find it, he says that this speech of mine is supported by those I have delivered during the seventeen years. What I mean to say is that I am devoted to the British Government with all my heart, obedience to the Government and sympathy towards God's creatures, that is my principle and that is just the principle of the prescribe form, the religion makes that amply clear.
Again, he say, Sir, in a different place:
’’میں یقین رکھتا ہوں کہ جیسے جیسے میرے مرید بڑھیں گے ویسے ویسے مسئلہ جہاد کے معتقدکم ہوتے جائیں گے کیونکہ مجھے مسیح موعود مان لینا ہی مسئلہ جہاد کا انکار کرتا ہے۔‘‘
"I believe", he said, "that the increase of my followers will reduce the number of believers in Jehad and to believe in me is to repudiate the doctrine of Jehad."
Then, Sir, again he says:
’’میری عمر کا اکثر حصہ اس سلطنت انگریزی کی تائید وحمایت میں گزرا ہے اور میں نے ممانعت جہاد اور انگریز کی اطاعت کے بارے میں اس قدر کتابیں لکھی ہیں، اشتہارات طبع کئے ہیں اور اگر وہ رسائل اور کتابیں اکٹھی کی جائیں تو پچاس الماریاں ان سے بھر سکتی ہیں۔ میں نے ایسی کتابوں کو تمام عرب ممالک مصر وشام، کابل وروم تک پہنچایا ہے۔ میری ہمیشہ یہ کوشش رہی ہے کہ مسلمانوں میں سلطنت کے سچے خیرخواہ ہوجائیں۔ مہدی خونی، مسیح خونی کی بھی اصل روایتیں اور جوش دلانے والے مسائل جو احمقوں کے دلوں کو خراب کرتے ہیں ان کے دلوں سے معدوم ہو جائیں۔‘‘
In translation: it means: "By far the greater part of my life has been spent in preaching loyalty to the British Government. I have written so many books to denounce Jehad and preaching loyalty to the Government and I have published so many hand bills that they would fill fifty almirahs if put together."
3033[At this stage Mr. Muhammad Haneef Khan vacated the Chair which was occupied by Mr. Chairman (Sahibzada Farooq Ali).]
Sir, before I read the next passage, please remember that author who wrote this beautiful Persian couplet:
’’اینک منم کہ حسب بشارات آمدم
عیسیٰ کجاست تابہ نہد پابہ منبرم‘‘
From that height, he goes down to this depth of degradation. Can you find anywhere sycophancy of this nature? This servility in a Prophet! Can this be the composition of a prophet? And I will say that if to deny the Prophethood of the author of this letter is KUFR, then I am the greatest Kafir:
گر کفر این بود بخدا سخت کافرم
Now, look at this man and look at this writing. Even an ordinary man, an ordinary human being, who has even the slightest regard for his own person, who has a little faith in God, who had a little confidence in himself will not say a thing like this. He claims to be a Prophet. We have that portrait of Quaid-i-Azam. (pointing to Quaid-i-Azam's portrait in the National Assembly Hall). He was an ordinary human being. What happened on the 2nd June 1947? You all know- it is mentioned in Campbell Johnson's book. He (the Quaid) reported on behalf of Muslim League whether they accept the well known Third June plan or not, whether the Muslim League accepted this sort of Pakistan which they were giving to the Muslims or not? Campbell Johnson writes that the whole day the Viceroy was waiting for Mr. Jinnah and he arrived just a minute before midnight. The Viceroy asked, "What is your answer, Mr. Jinnah?" The reply by Mr. Jinnah was: "I do not agree with it but I accept it." "What is the difference?" said the Viceroy. The reply from Mr. Jinnah was very simple: "I do not like it therefore I do not agrees, but I have no other alternative- you divide my Punjab, you divide my bengal. How can I be happy? I have no alternative. That is why I accept it. I am only the head of the Party. This thing must be decided by the Muslim League Council and that will take two weeks and so on behalf of the Council I cannot guarantee, whether they will agree or not but I will advise them to 3034accept it because we have no alternative." Lord Mountbatten was furious. He said, "I cannot accept it. Tomorrow was to be announced. Congrees has agreed, on behalf or their Council or Committee. How can you not agree?" Mr. Jinnah replied, "Mine is a political organization based on democratic principles. I must go before my people and get their sanction." Lord Mountbatten said, "Then look here Mr. Jinnah, if you on behalf of Muslim League do not give me an assurance that you accept this, then you will lose your Pakistan and for good." What was the reply of Mr. Jinnah? Here is a man who had spent his life- time in political wilderness; an old man of 70. He was to be the head of the promised home land. He was to be its master. But he did not cringe or crawl. He had faith in the Almighty Allah and he said- "What must be, must be", and walked away. This was the reply of a man who had faith, and a man who believed in God. The Viceroy had to rush after him and request him to come back. He said, "Mr. Jinnah, on behalf of the Muslim League I will give an assurance tomorrow morning that they will accept it- they will accept it because I know that they will accept your advice. You please only say that you have accepted it." Mr. Jinnah said: "Yes, I will say that", and that is how Pakistan was established. He could have lost Pakistan. He could have thought: here I am losing a country, let me agree on behalf of the whole nation. But, no, that man had faith. We should not be comparing that person with this man who claimed to be a Prophet and writes this letter and cringes before earthly power in this fashion. This disappointed me. I should not have become sentimental. What Iqbal said:
بتوں سے تجھ کو امیدیں خدا سے نامیدی
مجھے بتا تو سہی اور کافری کیا ہے
This is exactly what it means.
Sir, then I go to the next passage. He says:
’’سرکار دولت مدار کو ایسے خاندان کی نسبت جس کے پچاس برس کے متواتر تجربے سے وفادار اور جانثار ثابت کر چکی ہے… اس خود کاشتہ پودے سے نہایت ضروری احتیاط اور تحقیق اور توجہ سے کام لے اور اپنے ماتحت افسران کو ارشاد فرمائیں کہ وہ بھی اس 3035خاندان کی ثابت شدہ وفاداری اور خدمات کا لحاظ رکھ کر مجھے اور میری جماعت کو خاص عنایت کی نظر سے دیکھیں۔‘‘
He respectfully submits to the Lt. Governor that this family has been constantly tried during the last 50 years and found unflinchingly loyal, and pray that the Government be pleased to regard this sapling of their own planting with jealous care and unfailing interest and instruct its subordinate officers to protect, to accord him and his followers (Jamaat) preferential treatment in view of the loyalty of his family which had pledged or the cause of the Government.
Sir, I do not want to say anything more. Again I say: is this a prophet writing to the Lt. Governor? What does he say: Please instruct your subordinate officers to accord him preferential treatment. The prophet does not come even to the level of Lt. Governor, asking, requesting him, begging and praying: Please instruct your subordianate officers to treat me like this. And this man, I am sorry to say, I should have not said so much really, says that he is better than all other prophets:
’’آنچہ داد است ہر نبی راجام
داد آن جام را مرا بہ تمام‘‘
’’عیسیٰ کجا است تابہ نہد پابمنبرم‘‘
The author of the said couplet asking Lt. Governor "to treat me very nicely through the subordinates and look after this sapling of their planting" What was that:
’’آپ کا خود کاشتہ پودا۔‘‘
I asked him (Mirza Nasir Ahmad) a lot to explain this. I do not want to be unfair to him. He said it was only meant for his family. Now a prophet begging the Government to look after his family- the faith of an ordinary man can move heaven and earth- and here a prophet seeks protection and help from the earthly power and, cringes before it: 'protect my family, protect my Jamaat'. And then we are told, Sir, that "if you do not accept his Prophethood, you are Kafir and pucca Kafir". No wonder why Muslims revolted against his claim, if for nothing else, as I submitted, this is enough to put off any self- respecting man because he claims to be 'Ain-i-Mohammad' and we know what 3036Mohammad (peace be upon him) is for us- the perfect, most perfect human being that has ever walked on this earth, in kindness, in dignity and self respect and from every point of view. You look at his life when he goes to Makkah and vanquishes his enemies, he is kind, he is generous, and before the worst enemy and the greatest tyrants never stopped to say La- Ilaha- il- Allah. He did not give an application that in future "I will not disclose my revelations." I am sorry, I should not say because I have promised that I will try to plead their point of view also. I will make an attempt. But this is the thing you know, which we have to tell to show the other side. And in this country from that time this friction goes on. Now I will not comment more on this aspect because I do not have much time and I have plenty of ground to cover.
Sir, I will now go to the next subject which was rather important because issues Nos. 4 and 5 I will take together which are: The Effect of not accepting Mirza Sahib's claim as prophet- its effect and the reaction of Muslims. Before I go into that- because here I had a very difficult time in dealing with Mirza Nasir Ahmad and it is also I think appropriate that I should, in passing, refer to one or two other facts. Sir, after Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's death, Hakim Nooruddin was the first caliph of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. Hakim Nooruddin became the first caliph. Nothing more has come on the record about him. He seems to have been a very quiet man and hardly anything was said about him. But then after his death a split took place in the party or the Jamaat when they go into two groups, one Lahori group and the other Qadiani group or Rabwah school of thought. After Bashiruddin Mahmood Ahmad died, the next caliph, Mirza Nasir Ahmad took over. He appeared before the Committee. I asked a question about his own life. He related those things which are on the record. And apart from that what I have gathered something from the Qadiani literature, I will respectfully narrate this also. Mirza Nasir Ahmad succeeded his father, Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmood Ahmad, as third Caliph- Imam of Ahmadeya Jamaat in 1965 and as the present Head of the movement, Qadiani Rabwa section. He was born in 1909. He is highly educated and cultured man with very impressive personality. He is a Hafiz-i-Qur'an, M.A. (Oxford), a great scholar of Arabic, Persian and Urdu religious literature. According to the literature of his Party- and I refer to 'Africa Speaks', a magazine brought out by them, he was Head of Youth Organization of Ahmadis called 3037Khuddamul Ahmadia. He is the "promised grandson of the promised Messiah and Mehdi." His election as Caliph fulfils the prophecy whcih mentioned that "the throne of the Messiah, descending to his Grandson" They say it is given in the Bible that the Messiah, when he comes again, his grandson will sit on his throne, and then it says- elected for life, he is Voice- Articulate of the age, and in direct communication with God. Before his election as Head of the Qadiani Ahmadiya Community, he was also Principal of Talimul Islam College from 1944- 1965, an educational institution run by this Jamaat. He is also addressed as Amirul Momineen by his followers. According to his evidence, the Khalifa of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is elected by an electoral college which at the time of his election was of about 500 representatives of various groups. He did not contest election as a candidate nor were the nominations or proposals filed at the time of election. Two names his and of another person belonging to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's family, were suggested and he was elected unanimously. It is their belief that the Khalifa is elected through divine intervention and blessing. The question of his removal on grounds of mental or physical incapacity does not, therefore, arise. He is guided by Allah. He may fall ill or physically get paralysed but mentally he can never get paralysed. The Jamaat has its branches all over the world and everywhere where the Ahmadis live. He says it is purely a religious organization. He is head of religious empire like the Pope. He has an advisory body whom he consults. The decisions are taken by him mostly with their consent and are generally unanimous but he has the final authority to overrule the body. In short, the belief of his followers is that he can do no wrong because of the divine guidance and blessing.
Now, Sir, when this august person appeared before the Committee, the question came- and I will not go into details of the citations- as to what Mirza Sahib said about those who do not accept his claim of prophethood- He said they were Kafirs- what is meant by that? He said 'Kafir' did not mean the person who is apostate, a person who is renegade in the sense that he has to be ex-communicated from Islam but it means a sort of 'Gunahgar', a sinner, a Kafir of a second category, because he believes in the Holy Prophet of Islam. Therefore, according to Mirza Nasir Ahmad, he remains within the Millat-i-Mohammadia but he is outside the Dairah of Islam or Circle of Islam. This was 3038all lost on me. I made a big effort to understand that a person when he becomes Kafir:
’’دائرہ اسلام سے خارج ہے مگر ملت محمدیہ سے باہر نہیں۔‘‘
What does it mean? We had very difficult time for many days. Ultimately, Sir, when he was confronted with the citation from Kalama-tul-Fasal, I read from page:126. I read it to him and when I read it out, I asked him as to what it meant? Here is:
’’معلوم ہوتا ہے کہ حضرت مسیح موعود کو بھی بعض وقت اس بات کا خیال آیا ہے کہ کہیں میری تحریروں میں غیراحمدیوں کے متعلق مسلمان کا لفظ دیکھ کر لوگ دھوکا نہ کھائیں۔ اس لئے کہیں کہیں بطور ازالہ غیراحمدیوں کے متعلق ایسے الفاظ بھی لکھ دئیے ہیں کہ ’’وہ لوگ جو اسلام کا دعویٰ کرتے ہیں۔‘‘ جہاں کہیں بھی مسلمان کا لفظ ہو، اس سے مدعی اسلام سمجھا جاوے نہ کہ حقیقی مسلمان۔‘‘
Here I asked him as to what 'Haqiqi Musalman' meant. He has gone into great detail in Mehzarnama also to explain as to what is a true Muslim and he said, "there are many of them." I said, "Do they exist today? Because it is a very difficult definition." In the definition, there is no mention of accepting Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as prophet or not, and I said it is a very difficult definition. Do such people exist who are true Muslims in this sense? He said, "Yes, hundreds of them, thousands of them, Lakhs of them." I was amazed as to where those people were. Then, when I asked him he was avoiding this- direct answer. I said, "Can there be or is there a single 'Haqiqi Musalman' a true Musalman among non- Ahmadis?" He said, 'No'. That finished the matter; that concluded the controversy, because, according to them, Musalman is only a Musalman who is true Musalman; the others are only political Muslims, Muslims in name only or bogus Muslims, false Muslims; but true Muslim, good Muslim is only an Ahmadi or from among the Ahmadis and now here else. So, Sir, this is the position that has to be considered. And then in the same book, Sir, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's son Mirza Bashir Ahmad, says:
’’ہر ایک شخص جو موسیٰ کو مانتا ہے مگر عیسیٰ کو نہیں مانتا، عیسیٰ کو مانتا ہے مگر محمد ﷺ کو نہیں مانتا، محمد ﷺ کو مانتا ہے مگر مسیح موعود کو نہیں مانتا کافر اور پکا کافر اور دائرہ اسلام سے خارج ہے۔‘‘
3039Now, in spite of this clear language, he said that when he says that anybody who does not accept Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as Prophet is outside the pale of Islam. He says, "No, no, this is not what we mean by دائرہ اسلام سے خارج ہے But it means that he still remained in the Ummat of Holy Prophet or Islam." Sir, this is something which most of the time we were discussing with him and we tried to find a way so that they could accept the general Muslim body as Musalmans because it was not our effort and it is not our effort to save the situation. Of course, it is far from this Committee to decide what ultimately should be done. But I thought that if he said that we are Muslims and we will say that they are Muslims and ignore these Fatwas which have been going on for a long time, but he bluntly said that there was no حقیقی مسلمان among Non- Ahmadis. It was impossible for a
non- Ahmadi to be a حقیقی Muslim.
Now, Sir, he said many things also about prayers and marriage, but I will go to the next issue and shall try to deal with that part of his statement when I make submission on the next issue whether he founded an Ummat of his own or he only created a new sect in Islam, that is, their separatist tendency about which a lot was said. I have little time, Sir, I am conscious of that. I do want that this thing should be brought on the record because this is ultimately going to be something which the members will have to take into consideration when they give a decision or make a recommendation. Here, Sir, I will take back the members to what I stated before about the claim of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.