Causes of the internal dissensions in the Ahmadiyya Movement

by Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din (translated and serialized by the LAM)

At the request of an impartial researcher into Ahmadiyya history, I am starting to translate an Urdu booklet of the above name, written by Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din (d. 1932). It was published in December 1914, the year that the split took place and the Ahmadiyya Anjuman Isha'at Islam Lahore came into being.

Statement of beliefs

I believe in Allah, His angels, His books, His messengers, the Day of Judgment and Gathering, and destiny from Allah, whether of good or evil. I truly believe the Holy Quran to be the word of God and the Holy Prophet Muhammad _Mustafa,_ Ahmad _Mujtaba,_ may peace and the blessings of Allah be upon him, to be the true and perfect messenger of God, the best and most excellent of all messengers, the _khātam_ of messengers, and my guide and leader.

I hold the following beliefs as expressed in the words of my mentor Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, the Promised Messiah, which he announced on 2nd October 1891 in Delhi in refutation of some false allegations against him:

bq. "After the Holy Prophet Muhammad, the _khatam-ul-mursalīn_, I consider anyone who claims prophethood and messengership to be a liar and _kafir._ It is my belief that revelation received by prophets (_wahy risālat_) began with Adam and ended with the Holy Prophet Muhammad." Similarly, I hold the following beliefs as expressed in the words of the Promised Messiah in his book _Nishān Āsmānī:_

bq. "I firmly believe that our Holy Prophet Muhammad is the _Khātam-ul-anbiya,_ and after him no prophet shall come for this _Umma_, neither new nor old. Not a jot or iota of the Holy Quran shall be abrogated. Of course, _muhaddases_ will come who will be spoken to by God, and possess some attributes of full prophethood by way of reflection (_zill_), and in some ways be coloured with the colour of prophethood. I am one of these." (_Nishān Āsmānī,_ May 1892, p. 28) I believe that from among these great men, one was my master Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, the Promised Messiah. This is a kind of prophethood by reflection (_zilli nubuwwat_), the door to which is open only in the _Umma_ of the Holy Prophet Muhammad, namely, the prophethood that is attained by perfectly following the Holy Prophet. Similarly, he writes in his book _Chashma-i Ma'rifat,_ pages 324--325:

bq. "He who makes the Holy Quran his guide and considers the Holy Prophet as really the _khātam-un-nabiyyin,_ and knows that he depends upon grace from the Holy Prophet, such a person becomes the beloved of God. And the love of God is that God draws him towards Himself, grants him the privilege of His communication, and manifests Divine signs in his support. When he reaches the stage of perfectly following the Holy Prophet he is granted a prophethood by reflection, which is a reflection of the prophethood of the Holy Prophet. This is so that Islam should always remain fresh by the existence of such persons and dominant over its opponents." To fulfil this aim, persons of the greatest status arose in this _Umma,_ such as Abdul Qadir Jilani, Junaid of Baghdad, and other holy people. From among them, the greatest of the great was my mentor who, because of the needs of the time, was called 'Messiah'. It was in the sense given above that the Holy Prophet Muhammad called him 'prophet of God', and it was in that sense that I accepted the mission of my master. I believe that his mission is true and that he was appointed by God and was a manifestation of the 'Ahmad' attribute of the Holy Prophet Muhammad. Of course, I do not regard Mirza _sahib_ as the equal of the Holy Prophet Muhammad. As he himself wrote in _Ainah Kamālāt Islām:_ "God the Most High knows well that I am a lover of Islam, a _ghulām_ (servant) of Ahmad, and a devotee of the Holy Prophet."

It is my belief and conviction that my master, Hazrat Mirza _sahib_, came only for the reform of the Muslims and the support and propagation of Islam. If Islam were to be broadcast in the world in its real sense and Muslims adopt a truly Islamic way of life, then I believe that the mission of Hazrat _sahib_ would be complete. These are my beliefs which I regarded as necessary to declare. Now I turn to the real subject.

Connection with the Founder

Do I bear animosity towards anyone? Towards Hazrat _Mian_ Mahmud Ahmad? He is the offspring of that holy body whose servant I am. How can I bear animosity towards the family of that holy one through whom I was rescued from Christianity, to which I was getting nearer day by day, and in 1892 I became a Muslim anew. Not only did I become a Muslim, but through his guidance and prayers I was able to make amends for the sin which had been taking me towards Christianity by showing Christians the right path today. It was the most auspicious and blessed day of my life in 1893 when I took the pledge, at the hand of the Messiah sent by God, to hold religion above the world. I would give any-thing for those times which I spent in the company and service of that spiritually perfect man, which enabled me to fulfil my pledge as best as I could. How can I forget those favours and that love which he bestowed on me, especially on me\! Even if I spent my whole life working for the aims and objects of the Divine mission of this Muslim Messiah, it would be little recompense for the continuous prayers he said for me.

Is it possible that I repay all this affection, favour and attention by fighting against his offspring? If we have a difference with the son of our mentor, it is on points of principle. Where we agree with him, it is also on points of principle. Differences too, according to the Holy Prophet Muhammad's saying, can be a source of mercy provided that people are not irresponsible and they put aside their egos. Regrettably, it has always been the case that most human beings are unable to distinguish between principle and personality. By construing differences which are based on principle as being opposition to persons, they draw wrong conclusions and descend to a personal level.

This is the real basis of the breach and dissension which has now assumed a most dangerous form in the Ahmadiyya community, and has, it seems, shaken the very foundations of the Movement. This Movement is, in fact, like that strong tree whose roots are firmly embedded in rock, but whose branches and leaves are sometimes shaken so violently by storms and gales that a short-sighted person thinks it will be uprooted. However, storms come and gales blow but at the end the tree remains standing as before. At this time we are overtaken by a storm. Most of us are unable to think and ponder rationally to reach the right conclusion. But, O you Ahmadiyya community, remember the lesson you learnt from the Promised Messiah over a period of a quarter of a century. It is the lesson of perseverance, of patience, tolerance and forbearance. It is the lesson of thinking and reflecting and prayer. We have seen with our own eyes how non-Ahmadis treated us for long. That should have provided us with the lesson not to resort to the same means in our affairs which certain non-Ahmadis employed against us.

This _Jama'at_ has been created through much hard work and labour. It has been taught those matters of true knowledge that had vanished from the face of the earth. Our master held debates with his opponents. He taught us, in many different ways, to follow the principles that apply to the institution of prophethood. To comprehend some of the issues in relation to this Movement requires a fine understanding. That depth of understanding was produced in us by our master at times of trials and tribulations. Today you could have disagreements in certain matters if the affair of Atham and that of Mubarak had not been before us. Why did those events take place? So that you would acquire true knowledge, so that you would distinguish between revelation itself and (the human judgment of) the man who receives revelation, and so that you realise the difference between God Who sends revelation and the man who receives revelation.

Thus if there are issues of difference between us, resolve them by referring to the matters of knowledge that our master has taught us with much effort and exertion. It is contrary to reason and sense to determine subtle issues on the basis of events that take place or are created, and it is to sell yourself to mere emotion.

Today there are two parties among you. If the only difference was on the question of who should be leader, then I believe it would be the easiest possible dispute to settle. As far as I know, our Imam has removed egotism from the hearts at least of those people who are considered responsible for the present differences. If those highly-placed followers of Hazrat Mirza _sahib_ who were close to him and under his care, and benefitted from his prayers, were to fight for the leadership of the _Jama'at,_ it would mean that his mission failed. It is not only my faith but I know as well that no elder in the _Jama'at_ has the desire to be leader. If we are not able to prefer holding the position of servant to holding the position of leader, then tell me, what has this true Movement achieved? Alas, the _Jama'at_ is so overcome by needless, heated emotion that it has lost the ability to consider how detrimental our objections against one another will be to the cause of proving the truth of this Movement. When men arise in the world with a mission from God, their real object is not to perform miracles and make prophecies, but to reform mankind. Just think, for God's sake, by making accusations against one another, are you not proving that the mission of my master was unsuccessful? Leaving aside the ques-tion of which party is in the wrong, when some leading persons are making accusations against others, both sides will be considered as guilty in the view of a non-Ahmadi. What will you then say about the achievements of Mirza _sahib?_

Foresight of Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din

What a far-sighted man was he whose name was Nur-ud-Din\! Did he not warn you all his life about the dangers of the Shia attitude? Do not the Shias believe that all those around the Holy Prophet Muhammad were hypocrites except his relatives and a small number from among the companions? Did not Hazrat Hakim _sahib_ (Maulana Nur-ud-Din) repeatedly relate to us that an unworthy Shia commentator of the Quran has explained the verse "when they are alone with their devils" (2:14) as meaning that those around the Holy Prophet were hypocrites and their leader was Umar? Why did Hazrat Hakim _sahib_ tell us this again and again? It was because a time was to come over our _Jama'at_ when that history was to repeat itself. It was going to be alleged: Hazrat Mirza _sahib_ was surrounded by a group of hypocrites whose leader was Muhammad Ali. That time came as soon as Nur-ud-Din died.

Today, those people are being called hypocrites who were close to the Promised Messiah. O you people who call the faithful as hypocrites, is it not true that the Promised Messiah especially favoured the members from Lahore? Look at any of the times when the Promised Messiah faced some tribulation. Did he specially consult anyone at all except the members from Lahore? Can you think of any great work of this Movement in which our Imam did not specially turn to the members from Lahore to involve them in its execution?

The mission of my master was spiritual. His wars were by the pen and the tongue. For these wars, whom did he himself, with his kindness, appoint as his commanders? Whom but me did he want to send as his emissary to the emperor of Japan with a book written by him? God willing, this wish of his will be fulfilled. While he himself fulfilled in a spiritual sense the prophecy of the Quran that God will make Islam prevail over all other religions, did not Hazrat Sayyid Muhammad Ahsan declare in a speech in December 1911, in my presence, Maulvi Muhammad Ali to be the manifestation of this promise? Is it untrue that it is the pen of Maulvi Muhammad Ali through which Allah has shown the glory of Islam? Can you undo all these events?

That man is accursed who wishes to make a show of his services. The question for you is only this. If some servants of the Movement differ with Mirza Mahmud Ahmad on certain points of principle, and they are also unable to accept his view that a person differing with him on those points can still enter into _bai'at,_ and they hold their beliefs sincerely, then even assuming that they are wrong, how can they be called disloyal, immoral and treacherous for this mistake which is being made out of sincerity? Let us suppose that your views are right. What has the teaching and the benefit of the company of the Promised Messiah done for you? Is this how you treat those who acted on the command: "O you who believe, be with the truthful" (9:119)? This is why Hazrat Mirza _sahib_ used to exhort people to come and stay with him, to leave their native places and come and live under his eye. Did many of us not leave our homes, in effect or actually, during his life? Did we not do everything to please him? Did he not express his happiness and pleasure with us by his actions, deeds and words, directly and indirectly, and by his treatment and practice?

Leaving that aside, ponder over the views which you yourself entertained till the last day of the life of Hazrat Mirza _sahib_ about those whom you are now calling hypocrites, reprobates and traitors. My question is directed at the _Jama'at_ as a whole, not at any individual whose affairs may have developed a personal colouring since long ago. If we are what we are being called today, or if we became so after the death of Hazrat Mirza _sahib,_ what significance is left of his messiahship, and how ineffective was his company\! As I have just said, these spiritual men do not come to perform miracles and make prophecies. Their real aim is the reform of people.

Mirza Mahmud Ahmad has written in his book _Tuḥfat-ul-Mulūk:_ \\

bq. "*{_}Thus the work of internal reform achieved by the Promised Messiah consisted in founding a community which is a model of piety and purity. Even our enemies will bear testimony to the fact that as soon as a man turns an Ahmadi, the tenour of his life undergoes a change and a reformation is wrought within him, such that if a comparison be made between his past life and{_}* *{_}his new life, a difference can be seen like that of the Nadir from the Zenith. There are thousands who have increased in sincerity to an extent as to become the counterparts of the Holy Companions. ... It may be possible and is natural that some small section of the community should still be weak, not having succeeded in deriving full benefit from the teachings of the Promised Messiah. But such weakness cannot be an argument against the truth of the movement, because in all communities there are sure to be found some members, who are more backward than others, even the Holy Companions being no exception to the rule, among whom even till the last days of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) there continued to exist a part of hypocrites. With the exception, therefore, of such a small section the community at large are the objects of the special favour of God."_* \[_Editor's Note:_ English edition, pages 80--81\] \\

He has cleverly referred to some "hypocrites" and pointed out that such hypocrites were around the Holy Prophet Muhammad as well. But did not God, the Most High, inform the Holy Prophet of the existence of the hypocrites, and then did He not bring about ways and means during the life of the Holy Prophet by which the hypocrites were identi-fied and separated? If Hazrat Mirza sahib is, as you and I believe, a spiritual image of Ahmad, then why did not Allah inform him, even by the end of his life, of the evil of those whom you call hypocrites? Then I ask the question: Were the hypocrites who were around the Holy Prophet as close to him and were they his specially favoured followers as were these men, whom you call hypocrites, the favourite followers of Mirza sahib? If your argument can be established, it can only be done on the basis of the principles of the Shiahs, not the beliefs of the Sunnis.

Such arguments show that Mirza sahib was a failure and not a purifier of people. But my conviction is that my Messiah was successful. God testi-fies to his success, so that his devotees and disciples rendered such service to Islam as befitted the training they received from their master. It was he who raised the dead to life in this world. His words were messianic and to be in his company was to receive life. The dead raised to life by him are alive even today and are doing the work that living ones do. But if your conclusions are right then one has to concede that, God forbid, the Messiah sent by God was unsuccessful. Alas\! By saying such things you placed a stain on his reputation. \\

According to our belief, did he not receive guidance from inner revelation always? Was he not one of those elect whom God does not let remain adhering to error? Then if these beliefs are correct, and you claim that some of the stalwarts of the Movement were inwardly full of impurity which has now become manifest, why did God the Most High keep him closely surrounded by such unclean persons till the end of his life? Why did he entrust the finances of the community to the hands of such deceitful people? Was he afraid of them? No one being an Ahmadi can hold this opinion. Is it not true that it was these persons whom he always sent as representatives of this Movement to government officials? If, as Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din and Maulvi Abdul Karim used to say, it is a sufficient rejoinder to Shiah doctrines that if the great companions had been hypocrites and disloyal it would mean that the teaching and training given by Holy Prophet Muhammad himself was at fault, then today I say the same about Hazrat Mirza sahib. If Muhammad Ali and his comrades are the kind of people that you keep on repeating they are, then the teaching and training given by Hazrat Mirza sahib was not correct, nor was he capable of recognising people for what they really are. May Allah save me and other Ahmadis from such appalling beliefs. \\

Such is obduracy and intolerance, that it takes a man to an extreme. For example, in the arguments that have arisen claiming that anyone who does not enter into the _bai'at_ of Mirza Mahmud Ahmad becomes a _fāsiq_ (violator of the Divine law), when a certain Maulvi sahib was given the reply in Lahore that Hazrat Aishah, Hazrat Zubair and Hazrat Talhah did not enter into the _bai'at_ of Hazrat Ali, I have heard that this gentleman felt no hesitation nor any fear in pronouncing the same verdict upon these three great elders of Islam. Do not let obstinacy and prejudice cloud your judgment, but think and ponder. No one can deny that some of the topmost followers of Hazrat Mirza sahib have now taken the _bai'at_ of Mirza Mahmud Ahmad. When his topmost and most trusted followers differ on these matters, it was imperative to treat these controversial issues with the greatest of wisdom, perseverance and gentleness, and moreover by means of strong prayers, not that we should unleash our tongues upon one another like sharp knives. \\

However, in this matter we have today exceeded even those opponents of the Ahmadis whose behaviour towards us was condemned by right-thinking non-Ahmadis themselves. Poems are written against one another worse than the poems that Sa'd of Ludhiana used to write in vituperation of Hazrat Mirza sahib. Our literature today contains abuse and bad language directed against one another. Not content with that, we have by means of our writings not hesitated to try to send our brothers to prison. We informed on one another. We were eagerly desirous of seeing those who differ with us meet with disgrace in this world so that it could be presented as a sign. For God's sake, refrain from this. We have brought the Movement into such disrepute that it makes one seek God's protection. This Divine Movement lost in a few months what it had hardly gained over a long period of years.

There is a revelation of Hazrat Mirza sahib: "There are two groups of believers, of whom God sides with one, and this is the fruit of disunity". Although God's revelation must be fulfilled, and it is true that God will support one side, but I say that this revelation does not at all convey disappointing news. It gives the cause of differences only as disunity. Disunity can be resolved. Difference of opinion is not the same as disunity, most certainly not. Difference of opinion, if not accompanied by disunity, is a blessing. Are we not capable of removing the disunity from our ranks? \\

Have recourse to love, patience, tolerance and calm thinking. Peaceably, and in a civilised manner, settle the matters which divide us. It is not difficult to accept someone as the head of the Movement. If that was the only disagreement between us, I think that, God willing, it could be settled in just a day. In fact, our differences are on certain points of prin-ciple, and we need to think of a way of resolving these. If, for the unity of the Movement, you believe that there should be one head --- and I myself agree with this --- and there is also the thought that the differences on principles should be settled after-wards, then elect a leader in such a way that beliefs and differences are not sacrificed while a leader is still elected.

Have recourse to love, patience, tolerance and calm thinking. Peaceably, and in a civilised manner, settle the matters which divide us. It is not difficult to accept someone as the head of the Movement. If that was the only disagreement between us, I think that, God willing, it could be settled in just a day. In fact, our differences are on certain points of principle, and we need to think of a way of resolving these. If, for the unity of the Movement, you believe that there should be one head --- and I myself agree with this --- and there is also the thought that the differences on principles should be settled afterwards, then elect a leader in such a way that beliefs and differences are not sacrificed while a leader is still elected. \\

The Mian sahib \[Mirza Mahmud Ahmad\] saw this as an obstacle in his path even during the life of the late khalifa. During probably the last week of his life, it was published in _Al-Fazl_ \[Mirza Mahmud Ahmad's organ\] that there can be differences of belief between the leader and the disciple. Accordingly, Mirza Mahmud Ahmad later declared that _anyone who takes the bai'at at his_ _hand can differ from him in matters of belief\!_ \\

In my humble opinion this is not a solution to the obstacle that is in his way. We who are asked to enter into his _bai'at_ will not be entering it for the administration of a state but it will be for the establishment and propagation of certain beliefs and principles we learnt from the Promised Messiah, which is our duty. We have to make a united effort for that purpose. When we take the _bai'at_ on someone's hand, we pledge to propagate these beliefs and principles in obedience to that person. Now if I hold a doctrine to be true, and consider it my duty to propagate it, how can I preach it if it is opposed to the beliefs held by my leader? To preach it would be to deviate from obedience to my spiritual leader. If, however, while holding that belief I remain silent and do not declare it, and see my spiritual leader declaring the opposite belief and say nothing, would this not be hypocrisy? \\

Declaring other Muslims as kafir

Mirza Mahmud Ahmad should ponder over this submission of mine. For example, I consider it as a wrong doctrine to regard that person as _kafir_ who professes the _kalima_ and who does not call other Muslims as _kafir._ I believe that this causes great harm to Islam and in particular to the Ahmadiyya Movement. In my view, this creed is the chief obstacle in the way of the appeal and the spread of the Ahmadiyya Movement, a _fatwa_ about which has been handed to all non-Ahmadis. I have grounds for being sure of this. For example, Mirza Mahmud Ahmad prepared the declaration that all non-Ahmadis are _kafir,_ and it was printed in Amritsar. Its publication, I have learnt, was stopped by Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din, but a few copies reached the hands of the opponents of the Ahmadiyya Movement. They published 5000 copies of it at their own expense in Amritsar, and wherever in those days Ahmadi missionaries would go, this declaration was distributed in those places several days in advance in order to render their preaching ineffective. This is sufficient proof of the fact that our opponents, far and wide, realise that this declaration of non\- Ahmadis as _kafir_ is an obstacle in the way of the spread of the Ahmadiyya Movement. Otherwise, why would the opponents in Amritsar print 5000 copies of this writing by Mirza Mahmud Ahmad? \\

To sum up, I believe it on the basis of personal knowledge that Hazrat Mirza sahib did not declare any Muslim as _kafir_ who did not call him _kafir._ He refrained from this. I consider the creed of declaring other Muslims as _kafir_ as against the teachings of the Ahmadiyya Movement and highly damaging to its spread. This is not only my view but also a large number of Ahmadis including those who have takenthe _bai'at_ of Mirza Mahmud Ahmad also hold the same view. As opposed to this, he not only regards non-Ahmadi Muslims as _kafir_ but, as I have learnt, he thinks that unless they are called _kafir_ they will not pay any attention to the Ahmadiyya Movement. That would be true if they held those who call them _kafir_ in some regard. Anyhow, it is God Who knows who is right: us or Mirza Mahmud Ahmad. \\

Ponder on this, as to how in view of these opposite beliefs, one can honestly and sincerely take the _bai'at_ of the other? But this is not the only difficulty. The other problem is that Mirza Mahmud Ahmad also believes that in his capacity of being _khalifa_ he cannot be in error. Now if a person disagrees with him in some point of belief, does that person not consider Mirza Mahmud Ahmad to be in error at least as regards that particular point? It is impossible to understand how a person can be expected to hold two conflicting views: that on the one hand I believe him to be in error \[in some belief\], and on the other I should believe that he cannot commit an error \[as he is _khalifa_\]\! \\

Most importantly, such an action involves grave dangers. To bring people together on one person's hand by such means is not unity but will cause disintegration. Unity is brought about by agreement in beliefs. The suggested way allows every disciple of Mirza Mahmud Ahmad to construct any belief different from his. Will this unite the community or divide it? I am not speaking hypothetically. My fear has reached the point of fact. As far as I know, Mirza Mahmud Ahmad believes the Promised Messiah to be a servant of the Holy Prophet Muhammad and considers his prophethood as merely a reflected one. But I hear strange things about those who have taken his _bai'at,_ and the people who have conveyed this information to me have done so in the mosque under sworn oath.

Those beliefs that are said to be held are a falsehood and fabrication against my master. It is said that Mirza sahib was a full-fledged, independent prophet. It is said that Mirza sahib is equal to the Holy Prophet Muhammad. It is said that Hazrat Mirza sahib made more prophecies than the Holy Prophet Muhammad. It is said that not only is Mirza sahib an independent prophet but the Mian sahib \[Mirza Mahmud Ahmad\] himself is also a prophet of a high rank, though he has not yet attained the age of prophethood, but at the age of forty he will be made a prophet. It is said that Hazrat Mirza sahib was so exalted a prophet that the great companions of the Holy Prophet Muhammad are not worthy of untying his shoe laces. It is said that Ahmad is greater than Muhammad. It is said that Ahmad was not a name of the Holy Prophet Muhammad. \\

I have not heard these statements directly, but I swear with God as my witness that people who have heard them have told me under oath that they have heard them from some followers of Mirza Mahmud Ahmad. I am not discussing here whether these views are right or wrong, but it is my belief and conviction that by holding these views a man neither remains an Ahmadi nor a Muslim. \\

The letter written by Mirza Mahmud Ahmad to the brother of Dr Muhammad Umar does refute the false beliefs mentioned above. However, his statement in it, that due to the _expediency of time_ Hazrat Mirza sahib is being called prophet, further nourishes the extremism of those fanatics who believe in the independent prophethood of Hazrat Mirza sahib. Anyhow, as far as I know, Mirza Mahmud Ahmad himself does not hold these beliefs. So why are his followers laying so much stress on these false ideas? This is merely the result of his direction that his followers can differ from him in beliefs. \\

Now I make a request to Mirza Mahmud Ahmad that, for God's sake, he must counter these heresies. He should publish a statement of his beliefs in this matter. I am not asking him to enter into a debate or to make a long speech. Let him declare his beliefs in two lines, as to whether he considers the Promised Messiah to be an independent, actual, full-fledged prophet, who is equal to and like the Holy Prophet Muhammad, or he believes him to be a servant and devotee of the _Khatam-un-nabiyyin_ (peace be upon him), and through nothing but obedience and servitude to the Holy Prophet to have become a prophet in the reflected sense and a _Mujaddid._ For God's sake, he must declare his belief under his signature. If his belief is the same as my belief as I expressed it at the beginning of this booklet then he must expel from his discipleship such people who hold and spread the false beliefs mentioned above. \\

It is not difficult to understand how these beliefs came into being. When the followers of Mirza Mahmud Ahmad accepted him to be a _khalifa_ according to the _istikhlaf_ verse of the Quran (24:55), it became essential to declare him as _khalifa_ of an independent prophet. Naturally, their minds turned towards the idea that Hazrat Mirza sahib should be an independent prophet. The fact is that those who refuse to accept Mirza Mahmud Ahmad as _khalifa_ can only be branded as _fasiq_ \[transgressors of Divine commands\] if he is considered to be _khalifa_ of an independent prophet. And that cannot be done unless the finality of prophethood is denied and Hazrat Mirza sahib is made into an independent prophet. \\

Likewise, other Muslims cannot be called _kafir_ according to any clear argument of the Quran unless in the verse "his name being Ahmad" (61:6) Hazrat Mirza sahib is considered to be the Ahmad meant. These are the consequent difficulties created by wrong beliefs. Hazrat Mirza sahib has called the Holy Prophet Muhammad as Ahmad more than five hundred times in his writings. He has explained the verse "his name being Ahmad" no less than thirty times, writing repeatedly that it refers to the Holy Prophet Muhammad. Of course, he claims to be a perfect manifestation of the quality symbolised by the name Ahmad of the Holy Prophet. This is the true belief that we hold. The Holy Prophet was named Ahmad by his own mother. His uncle Abu Talib, I seem to recall, called him Ahmad in his poetry. Yet today, merely in order to apply the _khilafat_ verse of the Quran to Mirza Mahmud Ahmad, it is declared that no one named the Holy Prophet as Ahmad. \\

My belief is that my master, Hazrat Mirza sahib, manifested and displayed the name Ahmad of the Holy Prophet. I believe that the verse "his name being Ahmad" contains an implicit reference to Hazrat Mirza sahib. But I do not believe, certainly not, that this verse was _not_ fulfilled by the Holy Prophet Muhammad. I say that if we apply this verse to Hazrat Mirza sahib, it is only indirectly, and not because of his own person but due to his being a perfect follower of the Holy Prophet Muhammad. Mirza Mahmud Ahmad should publish a brief statement of his belief on this question as well. \\

Alas, these two doctrines, whether Mirza Mahmud Ahmad himself holds them or not, have caused grave damage to the Ahmadiyya Movement. \\

All those false accusations and fabricated allegations which were made against Ahmadis are thereby today proved true. Why should not non-Ahmadis say about us that we have a different _kalima_ from the _kalima_ of Muhammad or that we do not believe in the Quran but that Mirza sahib has made a new _shariah_ for us? Why should they not say about us that we do not consider _hajj_ as an obligation? Some of my acquaintances have said to me that I performed the _hajj_ against the teachings of my mentor because it is alleged that we consider visiting Qadian to be the equal of performing the _hajj_ {footnote}Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din had recently performed the _Hajj_ in October 1914 while returning from England to India.{footnote} 'We seek refuge in Allah from such false beliefs.' \\

Dear friends, are you going to spread the Ahmadiyya Movement? Listen, and listen attentively, if the news is true which I learnt last week from reliable sources, then the progress which Ahmadiyyat had been making quite speedily in Khorasan {footnote}This is an ancient term referring to parts of what are now called the central Asian republics.\\{footnote} and Afghanistan has come to an end and many Ahmadis have separated themselves from the Movement. The same two issues are the cause of this, as my information says: declaring non\- Ahmadis as _kafir_ and believing in the independent prophethood of Hazrat Mirza sahib. No one living in Afghanistan can hold the belief that all non-Ahmadis are _kafir,_ except by concealing it hypocritically. Moreover, to believe someone to be equal to the Holy Prophet or to be an independent prophet takes such a believer to the stage of unbelief and apostasy very easily. \\

Search all the books of Mirza sahib and you will find that all his writings can be summarised in the following words from his book _Ainah Kamalat Islam_ which I quoted at the beginning when explaining my beliefs: \\

"God the Most High knows well that I am a lover of Islam, a _ghulām_ (servant) of Ahmad, and a devotee of the Holy Prophet." \\

"After the Holy Prophet Muhammad, I consider anyone who claims prophethood and messengership to be a liar and unbeliever."

Then in his last major book _Haqiqat-ul-Wahy_ he has, in bold letters, called his prophethood as "metaphorical": \\

"I have been named by Allah as _nabi_ by way of metaphor, not by way of reality." \\

I have addressed Mirza Mahmud Ahmad regarding these matters because sometimes such writings appear from Qadian that should not come from there. It is true that they do not bear the name and signature of Mirza Mahmud Ahmad, but they are in the public considered as emanating from him, and when no refutation appears afterwards from him this proves that they are from him. \\

Take the article published in _Al-Fazl,_ December 1914, entitled: _With whom should we have social_ _relationship?_ Should we consider it as emanating from Mirza Mahmud Ahmad? It is indicated in this writing that his followers must not meet those Ahmadis who have not taken his _bai'at,_ nor have social relations with them, nor accept their hospitality. It is due to this article that I rejected the idea, which was originally my intention, that his followers and those who do not accept him should gather together in Qadian. What must be considered is the effect this article will have on the ordinary person, not the meaning the writer will give to it by way of expediency. Can such articles, published just at the time of the annual gathering when it was possible that some agreement may be reached, lead to any good result, or will they estrange his followers so much that they will not meet or greet or sit and eat with people of the other side? \\

The purpose of that article is to widen the gulf of disagreement that exists between us. When his followers are not allowed to converse with or have any kind of relations with those Ahmadis who do not accept him as leader, and are told to seek refuge with God when they see such a person, then non-Ahmadis are better than they. If this is the treatment you teach towards Ahmadis who have not accepted Mirza Mahmud Ahmad, then do tell us what kind of treatment you will extend to non-Ahmadi Muslims.

Also, the writer of that article should inform the world at large of the treatment he believes in extending towards non-Muslims, so that the general population gets to know of his civilised beliefs. \\

It is a pity that the writer has cared not for the very basic principle of Islam. The Holy Prophet has described the real aim of Islam to be kindness towards all people, not even limiting it to kindness towards Muslims, and yet you, leaving aside Muslims, are preventing kind treatment even of Ahmadis. This article is what is responsible for my not going to Qadian, whereas my intention was to go to Qadian at once {footnote} Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din had recently returned from England at the end of November 1914.{footnote}

Because of this article, I ceased to favour the idea that the two groups should gather in one place. I felt this article would incite those passions which would not be conducive to gathering together people of opposing views in one place, leading to the disturbance of peace. \\

If Mirza Mahmud Ahmad holds the same views as expressed in this article, he should declare this in _Al-Fazl_ under his own name. If these are not his views he should refute them and take some action against those irresponsible persons who bring out such writings. I know full well, and have realised it not only today but have known for the past five years or so, the way of operation of these people.

They are aware that the writings that come out of Qadian are generally considered to have the authority of the head of the movement. They also know that sometimes such writings do not come to the notice of the responsible persons in Qadian, or if they do they are generally not refuted. Therefore these irresponsible people achieve their aims by producing such writings. I want Mirza Mahmud Ahmad to take action against this and to write about these issues with his own pen. \\

I have just stated that there is a disagreement within our _Jama'at_ on some matters of belief and principle. The purpose of accepting a person as _Khalifat-ul-Masih_ is that under his leadership we should work for the aims and objectives for which this movement was created. Those aims are the spreading of the belief in the oneness of God (_tauhid_) in the world, which was the mission of all the prophets. That mission was finally completed at the hands of the Holy Prophet Muhammad. Therefore, after him servants of his religion refuted all kinds of _shirk_ in different ways. But there remained the last and very dangerous obstacle in the way of the propagation of _tauhid._ That is the doctrine of the divinity of Jesus which is based on the twin beliefs that Jesus is still alive and that he will return again. It was required in order to defeat the doctrine of the divinity of Jesus that the issue of the death of Jesus should be resolved, thereby falsifying the idea of the return of Jesus. This was not possible unless a servant of the Messenger Ahmad came in the likeness of Jesus to declare these facts. This is what our master, the Promised Messiah, has explained in the following verses of poetry: \\

"As unbelievers are, for no benefit, worshipping the Messiah, So God's sense of His honour has made me his like." \\

and: \\

"I am not a _rasul_ nor have I brought a book, But I receive revelation and am a warner from God." \\

Therefore, I consider this to be the mission of the Promised Messiah. He is Mahdi only for the purpose of bringing about internal reform. He is Messiah only so that by his coming the belief in Jesus being alive and in his return be refuted, and thus he should spread the doctrine of _tauhid_ in the world. This is what I understand to be the gist of the Ahmadiyya Movement. If this is the aim of this Divine Movement, then to achieve it we need a leader, whether you call him _khalifa_ or _ameer._

Under his leadership, all of us together resolve these problems through consultation, either by unanimous agreement or by majority opinion. Under these principles a _khalifa_ can be chosen, upon whom the entire community can today agree easily. It was in this sense that we elected Hazrat Hakim \[Maulana Nur-ud-Din\] sahib as _khalifa_ of the Promised Messiah, as I will later show. \\

Of course, if by _khalifa_ is meant that he should be considered as one commissioned by God (_mamur_), who is free from committing error and mistake, whose commands are like the commands of one holding a commission from God, whose orders in all matters are absolute, as was the case with the Promised Messiah, or will be the case with a Divine appointee when he comes, then to accept such a _khalifa_ is contrary to the beliefs of many of us. God well knows that it was not in these terms that we accepted Hazrat Hakim sahib as _khalifa._ To accept someone as _khalifa_ in these terms, or to compel everyone to take _bai'at_ at his hand, leads to disagreement and division in the Movement. If I honestly and sincerely believe that what the Promised Messiah meant was that the decisions of no person other than one commissioned by Allah are final and binding over the community, how can I enter into the _bai'at_ of a man who holds that the decision of the _khalifa_ is supreme over all consultations? I do not at all consider a _bai'at_ to be right if I and my mentor differ in beliefs.

O you wise ones of the Ahmadiyya community, for God's sake listen to what I am saying and think about it\! I tell you truly that we have no personal grudge against anyone. If we have differences, it is only in matters of principle and faith. And strangely enough, even certain followers of Mian \[Mahmud Ahmad\] sahib have the same differences with him. Here I will explain the major points of difference, and the reasons behind them. Let Hazrat Mian sahib ponder over these himself. Let him try to make me understand, and himself be prepared to understand. Along with this, he should try to find some way of reaching agreement.

I ask Hazrat Mian sahib himself to respond to my submission. That sacred figure who was his father did not ever leave his views to be explained by others. He always put forth his own position clearly. Hazrat Mian sahib is a writer himself. We do not need the pens of others. Then there is the difficulty that as his followers, according to his own permission, can hold beliefs different from his, how can their writings be authoritative about his beliefs, and what proof is there that what they say is also his own belief? Moreover, all the writings of his follo-wers that I have read employ far more appeal to emotion than to reason. The only response they give to the opposite point of view is to denounce it, and when facts are presented against them they avoid giving a reply by saying that these matters have been discussed before.

Anyhow, I say with God as my witness that I admit that we are not free of error. However, I have a true passion in my heart for this Movement and it is my desire that its greatness should be established in the world and its objectives should be achieved everywhere. With God as my witness, I say that I bear no grudge or ill-will towards Hazrat Mian \[Mahmud Ahmad\] sahib. Allah the Most High well knows my inner feelings. I would be proud to accept him as my leader as I am merely a soldier and have to serve under a commander of the army. I have a commander above me now as well. There is no reluctance in me to serve Islam under the leadership of the Mian sahib. I am in the field of a battle which is literary and spiritual. It is my duty to inform the general of my army about my way of fighting from time to time and act on his guidance.

This is the way of working I followed from 1909 till the death of Hazrat Maulana Hakim Nur-ud-Din. My style of propagation of Islam, whether in India or in England, was devised and suggested by the Hazrat Hakim sahib himself. Wherever I went, it was with his permission and under his instructions. Soon I will publish the letters he wrote to me in England. Then those eminent persons who are in the habit of criticising others will find out what he thought of them. Here, to show that in the spiritual war by the pen, in which I am a soldier, I obeyed my general and took advice from him in every matter, I refer to some of his first and last letters.

When I appeared in Qadian to take my leave, Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din said to me: Preach nothing other than the _La ilaha ill-Allah_ there.{footnote}In Badr, 5 September 1912, front page, column 2, it is re-ported that Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din came to take leave from Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din and the latter said many prayers for him.{footnote} After arriving in England, I intended to get admission to a course in elocution and public speaking, and also attend a Christian college, in order to improve my language and become familiar with their ways. Upon this, he wrote to me two letters towards the end of 1912. He writes to me:

bq. "You may take admission in these colleges. But don't spend a long time learning by rote like a child. It is only necessary to learn the principles, and then studying books is sufficient. It is enough there to teach _La ilaha ill-Allah._" In the second of these two letters he wrote:

bq. "Do take admission in the college, and teach _La ilaha ill-Allah, Muhammad-ur Rasulullah,_ and the words of the _Azan._"

bq. "Hazrat Mirza sahib did not know English, and yet many English-knowing people entered into his _bai'at._ To have full command of the language is a blessing and an advantage, but it is only Allah Who can make the words effective and useful." On receiving this letter I stopped going to college, and I know that God the Most High then Himself removed my defects. \\

In _Badr,_ 5 September 1912, front page, column 2, it is reported that Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din came to take leave from Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din and the latter said many prayers for him.

Likewise, when some members of the _Jama'at_ raised a clamour saying that, as I do not mention Hazrat Mirza sahib in my propagation, so it is fruitless for me to convert anyone to Islam, I wrote to the Hazrat Maulana asking for his instructions, saying that it was under his order that I was teaching only the _Kalima_ but some people had raised this criticism. At that time, a woman engaged to be married had come close to embracing Islam but her fiancé was opposed to Islam. I informed the Hazrat Maulana about her, and I also asked how I should teach Islam to Lord Headley, and mentioned the latter's prayers.

The Hazrat Maulana replied in a long letter, part of which is quoted below. Regarding the woman, he told me to bear in mind having recourse to prayer. He wrote: "Keep in view the words 'whoever keeps his duty to Allah, he ordains a way out for him' {footnote}The Quran, 65:2.{footnote}. This is not a difficult matter." Praise be to Allah, that prayers worked. The woman broke off her engagement and accepted Islam.

He then writes:

bq. "In every matter you must proceed with caution, foresight and patience. There must be nothing in the heart against the country, nation or law of the land. Every action must be done with sincerity, not out of hypocrisy. The fundamental and basic teaching is _La ilaha ill-Allah, Muhammad-ur rasulullah._ All else is secondary. ... Today I will say a special prayer for you ... Lord \[Headley\] should concentrate on seeking help through _dua_ (prayer). He must have much recourse to _Sura Fatiha,_ and not neglect giving in charity. Allah willing, truth will become clear to him. He will start saying the _namaz_ (regular prayer). Do not be impatient. The cross should be broken, the doctrine of trinity should be proved wrong, and belief in _La ilaha ill-Allah, Muhammad-ur rasul-ullah_ should enter the heart." This letter of his is from December 1913. How closely did that man follow the path of the Holy Prophet Muhammad\! Only those can appreciate this advice of the Hazrat Maulana who remember the hadith of Mu'az ibn Jabal.{footnote}This is the hadith in which the Holy Prophet advised Mu'az on how to propagate Islam when sending him to Yaman.{footnote} O you who object, ponder over this, ponder well\! It was my mentor who urged me to impress only the oneness of God on people's hearts. As to the fact that my every affair was under the orders, and for the pleasure, of my second spiritual leader, this is clear from another letter he wrote to me dated 19 December 1913:

bq. Respected and honoured Khwaja sahib, _Assalamu alaikum wa rahmatullah wa barakatu-hu\!_ May Allah bless your efforts. My Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah, _khatam-un-nabiyyin_ (may my parents be sacrificed for him), and your case is in London.3 Allah willing, you will win. Praise be to Allah, the Lord of the worlds. Each and every hair of my body is pleased with you and is engaged in prayer for you. --- Nur-ud-Din, 19 December 1913. By these quotations I wish to show that I am like a soldier in the battle field and have always worked under the command of a general. Even now I do not reject the leadership of someone else. However, it is essential that there must be agree-ment of beliefs between me and my leader, to pro-pagate which I have accepted him as head.

It is important here that I should mention those matters which are at present causing differences of principles and doctrines in our _Jama'at_. These are as follows. # One group believes that the _khalifa_ has absolute power in every matter. His opinion cannot be wrong. His decision is binding upon the Anju-man. He has the same authority over the Movement as did the Promised Messiah himself. None other than the _khalifa_ can admit anyone into the _bai'at._ Whoever within the community does not enter into his _bai'at_ is \[denounced by the Quran as\] a _fasiq._ The group opposed to this believes that, apart from the Promised Messiah, such powers can only belong to the one who will be raised in this Move-ment through God's revelation, and he will be the Promised Reformer (_Muslih Mau'ud_). Until he arises, every such person can admit people into the _bai'at_ who has been chosen to do so by forty members. The work of the Movement should be done by mutual consultation. That function is performed by the Sadr Anjuman, which is the successor of the Promised Messiah. Its decisions, arrived at by majority view or unanimously, will be final and binding in every matter. For existing Ahmadis it is not necessary to take the _bai'at_ on any person's hand; it is a voluntary matter. # Is Mirza Mahmud Ahmad the _Muslih Mau'ud_ or not? # Is Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad a full, perfect and real prophet, or is his prophethood a partial one without _Shariah?_ # Are non-Ahmadi Muslims _kafir?_ # What should be our way of preaching and propagating Islam?

These are the matters which are the basis of the disagreement between us. The books of the Promised Messiah are in the Urdu language, and we all know Urdu. So determine these matters by reading his books, not by means of weak arguments which pander to the emotions of love, prejudice and hate. All arguments I have heard are of this kind. Is it a valid criterion to say that one group is in Qadian \[and therefore right\] and the other is not in Qadian? Or that one group includes the progeny of the Promised Messiah and the other does not belong to his family? Similarly, there is no weight in the argument which is put forward that being chosen as the _khalifa_ is proof of truth. Or that those whom Hazrat Maulvi Sayyid Muhammad Ahsan Amrohi supports must be right because he is highly knowledgeable (_ahl al-dhikr_) and the Quran tells us to follow such persons. Likewise, I do not consider it a conclusive argument that the side which has majority support is the right one. History and events in the world tell us that this is sometimes the case and at other times it is not. By itself, it is not an argument. Is not every prophet, _mujaddid_ and reformer opposed by the majority, and are not the supporters of the truth always in a minority? According to the Quran, those possessing uderstanding, good sense, power of thinking and who accept the truth are always the minority.

Of course there comes a time when a group's large number is a sign of its truth, as the Quran says: "When you (O Prophet) see people entering the religion of Allah in companies" (110:2). But being in a majority or in a minority is not by itself an argument of a group's truth. History shows that at the beginning of such controversies the majority adopts the wrong path and the minority remains on the right path. In the end, the majority come to the right path. There are factors and circumstances other than merely the number of followers which are decisive in determining the truth.

No one can deny that Sayyid Muhammad Ahsan is one of the two scholarly men whom the Promised Messiah appointed to the Sadr Anjuman Ahmadiyya as one of the two men of learning \[as required by its rules\]. He called him as one of his angels. He is indeed an _ahl adh-dhikr_ (having authoritative knowledge). However, when two such men of authoritative knowledge differ, who is right?1 Was not Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din also a man of authoritative knowledge? Was he not also the first angel of the Promised Messiah? His merit and worthiness was borne witness to by Divine revelation \[of the Promised Messiah about him\]. Of these two leading figures, whose opinion should we accept? I do not know the views of Sayyid Muhammad Ahsan on the question of the prophet-hood of Hazrat Mirza _sahib,_ but in the matter of _kufr_ there was a difference between Maulana Nur-ud-Din and Sayyid _sahib._ Then there was the affair of the \[Anglo-Muhammadan\] University.1 Was not Maulana Nur-ud-Din a supporter and patron of this University, who donated 1000 Rupees towards it, and did not Sayyid Muhammad Ahsan object to this? I will explain this later on. So, which of these two venerable figures was right? If necessary, other examples of differences can also be given.

The issue of being the progeny is also clear. "So whoever follows me, he is surely of me" \[the Quran, 14:36\] is a prayer of Abraham which is conclusive on this. It is not by being someone's physical progeny but by being his followers that you gain the right to be counted as the _āl_ of that person. We see before us the sayyids, who are the _āl_ of the Holy Prophet. The true _āl_ and members of the household of the Holy Prophet are those who follow him. Those who do not follow him are not from among his _āl._

If God considers the ways and beliefs of Hazrat Mian \[Mahmud Ahmad\] sahib to be in accordance with the wishes of the Promised Messiah, then he is among his _āl_. If --- and may God not let it be so --- the opposite is the case then he is only the Promised Messiah's physical son but not his spiritual son. It is true that the Promised Messiah said prayers about Hazrat Mian sahib, and they will be fulfilled, being the prayers of one whose prayers were accepted. But it does not mean that what is taking place in the Movement today is the fulfilment of those prayers. It is possible that Hazrat Mian sahib is on the wrong path, and eventually as a result of the prayers of the Promised Messiah he may be delivered from his error and unite the whole of the Movement. Thus this Movement may carry out the grand services for which it was created, and in this way those prayers of the Promised Messiah be fulfilled which he said in regard to the Mian sahib.2

The manner of the election of Hazrat Mian sahib is, again, not in itself a proof of truth. History records the means by which, after Hazrat Uthman, Muawiya was chosen as against Hazrat Ali. Does it seem strange to us that history could repeat itself? If we can see the example of the appointment, and justified appointment, of Hazrat Abu Bakr and Hazrat Umar, we can also see the succession of Yazid. Election can neither make someone into an Abu Bakr nor into a Yazid. It is other circumstances that determine whether he is like Abu Bakr or is like Yazid. By this analogy I am not making a personal attack against anyone. God knows that in citing this example I am not pointing to any person. I have presented this parallel only in order to explain that the support of the majority at the time of election for one side is not, by itself, a proof of the truth of that side.

Leaving Qadian is no proof of being in the wrong

Then there is Qadian. There is no Ahmadi who does not regard Qadian as _Dar-ul-Aman_ (abode of spiritual security). There is no Ahmadi, no follower of the Promised Messiah, who does not regard Qadian as the last place from where the light of God was manifested, as the seat of Divine light. Yes, the light of God descended in Qadian, and from there that light reached and will reach the whole world. It will become a great place, to which people will flock. This is my belief, a firm belief. But I ask you: Do you and I not hold the same belief about Makkah and Madinah? These holy cities are greater in their sanctity and majesty than Qadian. Consider then, for God's sake, that these two holy cities are in the custody of people whom you consider to be wrong in certain religious beliefs, and some among you even consider those people as _kafir._ If the fact that Qadian is in someone's custody at a certain time is proof of the truth of that occupier, then our entire Movement would turn out to be false because those who have the custody of Makkah and Madinah consider the Ahmadiyya Movement to be in the wrong.

Ponder and think deeply over the point that the greatness of a true movement does not lie in its blessings being limited to its place of origin, but its value increases as that circle expands which was at first limiting its light to its home town. The Holy Prophet Muhammad left Makkah to go to Madinah. The place which was the ancient house of God, where a man like Muhammad was born, and where much of the Quran was revealed, was left by the Prophet of God who went to reside in Madinah. Then for many years Madinah remained the centre from which Islam won its victories. Then Hazrat Ali left that same Madinah. Think about this, and ponder over it much, that the centres of all the literary and scholarly achievements of Islam were places other than Makkah and Madinah. It always happened that the great righteous men of Islam travelled to Makkah and Madinah to attain that privilege and to complete their spiritual progress, but they did not belong there. In fact, having received blessings from there they returned and became a light for the guidance of the world. \\

Likewise, Qadian is the place where Divine light has rained down, and so it will continue. Persons of pure nature will go there, and after benefitting from that rain, wherever they go they will illumine the world with the light of their godly countenance. But to say that the mere presence of some people in Qadian at a certain time proves that they are right, or that they are wrong, is a claim which is illogical and very far from the right path. It is true that we regard Qadian as _Dar-ul-Aman_ (abode of spiritual security). The promise "whoever enters it is in peace" applies to it as well. But apart from Qadian there is the city about which God Himself has used the same words, that is, the venerable city of Makkah. Yet even within that holy Makkah a man of the stature of Abdullah ibn Zubair was martyred.{footnote}Abdullah ibn Zubair rebelled against the tyrannical caliph Yazid, and was eventually besieged and killed in Makkah in 692 (some sixty years after the Holy Prophet's death).{footnote} Therefore it is unjustified to raise the objection that because certain persons have been compelled to leave Qadian, which was due to un-avoidable circumstances, it proves that they are on the wrong path.

Dear ones, your Movement is a group of wise people, so why are you talking like simpletons? Has not the Holy Prophet urged Muslims to pray in mosques and said that the reward for that is much greater than saying prayers at home? No one was a greater admirer and devotee of his than Hazrat Mirza sahib. Yet he was compelled to stop us from going to mosques of non-Ahmadis. Why did he tell us to pray at home instead of going to those mosques? If, because of the fear of disorder, it was not wrong to stop going to those mosques, and this is not an evidence against the truth of our Move-ment, then how can someone's leaving Qadian because of certain adverse circumstances be wrong and a proof that he is not on the right path?

Remember it well that we did not stop going to the mosques because we considered other Muslims as _kafir._ The decree of being _kafir_ was issued against us in 1891. Even after this decree, Hazrat Mirza sahib himself prayed behind non-Ahmadis in Delhi. In 1892, Hazrat Mirza sahib prayed standing by my side in the Chaniyan mosque in Lahore behind Maulvi Rahim Bakhsh who had declared him a _kafir._ For years after the decree of _kufr_ against us by \[Maulvi Muhammad Husain\] Batalvi we prayed behind non-Ahmadi imams. However, the non-Ahmadis took their opposition to an extreme and disturbed our peace. Disorder was caused in mosques which led to court cases and people being bailed. We were put to difficulty in courts because of our small numbers and the large numbers of non-Ahmadis. It was then that Hazrat Mirza sahib realised that our safety and security lay in forsaking the mosques. Think about this: did not circumstances arise in Qadian which compelled Hazrat Maulvi Muhammad Ali to depart from it? For the sake of his safety and protection of his dignity he realised that he had to leave. These circumstances were created by the disagreement in beliefs. This disagreement did not arise just now. Its beginning was in 1909. Why then did he not leave Qadian six years ago, and why did he leave now? It was because as soon as Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din passed away, the honour and life of Maulana Muhammad Ali was placed in danger. The same difficult circumstances were created in Qadian for the persons who did not take the _bai'at_ of Mirza Mahmud Ahmad which, at one time, Ahmadis faced in the mosques of their opponents.

If Qadian is no longer for them _Dar-ul-Aman,_ where their honour and lives are safe, why should they not move elsewhere, so that in the words of the Promised Messiah, they "work together", and create an organisation for the propagation of Islam? If they cannot carry out their duties in Qadian, why should they not move elsewhere to fulfil them? \\

Today, two weeks before the _Jalsa_ in Qadian, an article has been published in _Al-Fazl_ containing the instructions that members of the other side should be regarded as the devil himself, as soon as they are sighted one must recoil and seek refuge in Allah, meeting with them, eating with them and speaking with them must be stopped, and they must be treated with revulsion in every way. Then we are told during a _dars_ \[talk on the Quran\] that the treatment meted out to Hazrat Maulvi Muhammad Ali in the Nur mosque upon the death of Hazrat Hakim Maulana Nur-ud-Din is an evidence of the truth of Hazrat Mian \[Mahmud Ahmad\] sahib.

Tell us, what effect on the members in general has that person tried to create who published these writings and statements? How far is he responsible for general peace and order? Those who subject someone to bad treatment, or to arrange to have him badly treated, and claim that this proves that person is false and disgraced, have forgotten the ill-treatment and abuse to which our leader, the Promised Messiah, was subjected in Amritsar and Delhi. It is a matter for consideration that this article which has been published in _Al-Fazl,_ just before the _Jalsa,_ entitled 'With whom should we have relations?', asking those who have accepted the leadership of Mirza Mahmud Ahmad to be rude to the others and to shun them, is giving teachings which are unacceptable to a person's good nature. However, scores of people acting upon these teachings will be present at the _Jalsa_ in Qadian. How, then, can that gathering be a place of security and respect for those who have differences of belief with the Mian sahib?

Then think about those published notes of the _dars,_ in which the alleged disgrace suffered by Hazrat Maulvi Muhammad Ali is presented as proof of the truth of the Mian sahib. His only fault was to consider it wrong to enter into the _bai'at_ of the Mian sahib. If the incident at the Nur mosque is considered a sign of the truth of Hazrat Mian sahib, then why shouldn't his supporters subject anyone else who differs with him to the same treatment? This would justify the writer of the notes of the _dars_ to repeat what he wrote: "You saw the great honour in which this man was held in Qadian. But when this same man opposed the truth, God brought him to disgrace in that very place."

We have heard that there are many statements published from Qadian without the knowledge of Hazrat Mian sahib. This is why we have not attributed the above two writings to him. However, he bears a heavy responsibility for the fact that statements from the pens of highly irresponsible persons appear from there. He should recall the days of the court cases at Gurdaspur \[in 1904\], when problems were caused for the Promised Messiah by statements published from Qadian before the case without his knowledge. It is possible that the article in _Al-Fazl_ under discussion was written without his knowledge. Nonetheless, it was carelessness and lack of caution. Such writers should remember that the intent of a writing is not what is in the writer's mind, or the interpretation he gives it out of expediency, but its aim in the eyes of the law is the effect it has on the general readers. To publish such articles before the _Jalsa_ was highly inappropriate and inopportune. It was because of these writings that I refrained from going to Qadian upon my return from England, or participating in the _Jalsa,_ or trying to gather the two parties at one venue. I am truly pained by these events. I wish that friends would join together, but what can one say to those whose personal interest lies in the disunity of the Movement? \\

The last straw was the latest announcement by Nawab Muhammad Ali Khan, stopping people from going to Lahore. Alas, how foolish is this\! In Lahore I saw that those who had entered into the _bai'at_ \[of Mirza Mahmud Ahmad\] were being instructed all the time not to meet or talk with the other side, nor to read their books and newspapers. This shows an anxiety that the arguments of the other side might have an influence. This technique is very wrong and cannot continue for long. If you are on the side of truth, why do you stop people from meeting those who disagree with you? This was the technique of non-Ahmadi religious leaders in regard to Ahmadis at one time. You should enter the field like men, listen and listen again, and allow people the freedom to go anywhere. If a person goes where you do not approve, you send him delegation upon delegation. For this _Jalsa_ men are being sent to different villages to urge people to come, so that the success of the _Jalsa_ may be presented as a sign of truth. These are only shallow techniques, which cannot be maintained for long.

Turning again to the writings and speeches I was mentioning above, no doubt they do not name the persons whom they attack. But remember that it is not in accordance with the tolerance and for-bearance which you have been taught that while you do not name those whom you are attacking, yet you refer to them by indication and allusion, and behind the scenes use the strongest language against them. Then, when someone raises an objection, you say: we have not mentioned any name, so why do certain people think that they are meant? I am saying that neither by taking someone's name directly nor by alluding to them indirectly should you use abusive language about them or level accusations. The discussion should be about principles and beliefs, conducted in a peaceable manner.

In short, the circumstances in Qadian are such that anyone differing with Hazrat Mian sahib realises that his safety and dignity lies in either remaining silent or departing from Qadian. This in one way stems from his own declared condition that those who enter his _bai'at_ can differ from him in beliefs. Do not those who differ with him have the right to proclaim their views? What should those people do who are obliged under the Will of the Promised Messiah to "work together after me" and who bear the responsibility for propagation of Islam placed upon them by order of the Promised Messiah? Remember that the great Hazrat wrote clearly in his Will: "You must work together after me". If work is done as directed by the personal opinion of one man, this cannot be called working together, but is obedience to one man. Can it be called "working together" if in some matter every-one else holds one view but the _khalifa_ holds the opposite view, and the Anjuman is required by its current rule \[as modified by Mirza Mahmud Ahmad in April 1914\] to obey that one, sole view? \\

So, since it has become difficult to remain in Qadian, and the current Anjuman has a rule comp-letely opposite to the intent of the Promised Messiah, what else can certain members of the Anjuman do if, as a matter of compulsion and necessity, they have to leave this holy place --- the place which God blessed and where, according to the Will, the headquarters should be located? Since the Anjuman has, in effect, been dismantled, how can it be said to be located anywhere? \\

Moreover, to where did these people go, who have left? They went to Lahore, about which the Promised Messiah had received the revelation: "Our righteous members are in Lahore". They went to that very place in Lahore where the Messiah sent by God died. This city was described as 'Madinah' in the revelation of the Promised Messiah: "I will die in Makkah or in Madinah". O you unwise ones, fear God, and restrain your obstinacy. Are not Makkah and Madinah two different places? Does not the term 'die' mean the soul leaving the body, or does it mean being buried? How far has bigotry taken us? For God's sake, don't distort this revelation. It applies the name 'Madinah' to the place where the great Hazrat died, and not to any other place. In short, when it became impossible for those people to continue residence in 'Makkah', they sought refuge in 'Madinah' according to the example of the Holy Prophet. They started their work there, selecting for it the place where the house of the Promised Messiah's servant, Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din, is located, about which house the great Hazrat had this revelation: "I will protect all those who are in this house". I hope Hazrat Mian sahib will not deny this revelation which the Promised Messiah received on the 2nd or 3rd day of his stay in Lahore \[in April 1908\] in my presence in the courtyard of my house. \\

In short, when it became impossible for those people to continue residence in their 'Makkah', they sought refuge in 'Madinah' according to the example of the Holy Prophet. They started their work there, selecting for it the place where the house of the Promised Messiah's servant, Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din, is located, about which house the great Hazrat had this revelation: "I will protect all those who are in this house". I hope Hazrat Mian \[Mahmud Ahmad\] sahib will not deny this revelation which the Promised Messiah received on the 2nd or 3rd day of his stay in Lahore \[in April 1908\] in my presence in the courtyard of my house. Mir Nasir Nawab had created an anxiety and the Hazrat was in a mood of uncertainty. It was after the _'asr_ prayers. He was lying on the bed and I was sitting near him. He became drowsy, and after a while he opened his eyes and said: "I have just received this revelation, and it is good news for you because it is about your house; now I will not follow the doubt created by Mir sahib." \\

Also, it is not necessary that the move \[to Lahore\] is forever. It is possible, and may God let it be so, that moving out of Qadian may be a temporary change in location. The point under discussion was, which of the two parties is in error? The argument that the group which remains in Qadian is on the right path is in itself ridiculous and baseless. Likewise, two or three other points are presented which appeal to emotion, but are considered as solid arguments in support of one's claim.

These are not arguments, but they are used to excite bigotry and hatred in order to obscure rational thinking and sincere motives. They render man unable to think and reflect correctly. \\

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

Question of Khalifa (inserted heading)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

\[_Translator's note:_ The reference here is to the following resolution passed in Qadian shortly after Mirza Mahmud Ahmad became _khalifa:_ \\

bq. "By Resolution 198 of the _Majlis-i Mu'timidin_ (Council of Trustees) held in April 1914 it was resolved that in Rule no. 18 of the rules of the Sadr Anjuman Ahmadiyya Qadian, in place of the words 'Promised Messiah' the words 'Hazrat Khalifat-ul-Masih Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad the second Khalifa' shall be entered. Therefore, Rule no. 18 shall now be as follows: In every matter, for the _Majlis-i Mu'timidin_ and its subordinate branches if any, and for the Sadr Anjuman and all its branches, the order of Hazrat Khalifat-ul-Masih Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad the second Khalifa shall be absolute and final." \\

--- _Review of Religions,_ Urdu edition, the issues for April 1914 and May 1914, inside of the front cover. \] \\

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remember it well, that in interpreting the Promised Messiah's Will, a court will only consider the points I have mentioned above. It will not care at all for how the Anjuman, according to you, is supposed to have been run during the time of Hazrat Hakim sahib. It will not consider what anyone else, including Hazrat Hakim sahib, said about the Anjuman. ... The fact that the leaders of the Qadian section are avoiding the Will shows the weakness of their position. It is interesting to see that the Lahore group says, "let us look at what Mirza sahib said", and the Qadian group says: "Ignore that, but look at what Nur-ud-Din and Kamal-ud-Din did".

You should place the following points before an attorney and seek his opinion. First show him the following text from the Will:

bq. "For this purpose, there should be an Anjuman entrusted to spend, as it deter-mines fit, the funds thus collected from time to time, on proclaiming the teachings of Islam and spreading the message of the oneness of God." After the Will, the Hazrat \[Mirza Ghulam Ahmad\] published an Appendix relating to the Will which was legally valid. Throughout this Appendix it is the Anjuman only which has been empowered to deal with every matter. Almost all the clauses in the Appendix contain the word 'Anjuman'. It is true that the name of the Anjuman given in it by the great Hazrat is "the Anjuman in charge of the affairs of the graveyard", but Mian sahib himself does not deny that this Anjuman was named _Sadr Anjuman Ahmadiyya_ by the order of the great Hazrat in his lifetime, and the Sadr Anjuman took the place of "the Anjuman in charge of the affairs of the graveyard". {footnote} In the Will published by the Qadiani Jama'at in the collec-tion _Ruhani Khaza'in,_ the minutes of the first meeting of the Council of Trustees of the Anjuman, on 29 January 1906, have been appended. The heading of the minutes shows the name as _Sadr Anjuman Ahmadiyya._ See v. 20, p. 330. {footnote}

The following clauses of the Appendix to the Will are worthy of note:

bq. 5. In case of any deceased who did not die within the limits of Qadian, it shall not be allowed to bring the body to Qadian without being carried in a coffin; and it shall also be imperative to give prior notice of at least one month, in order that the Anjuman may be able to resolve any temporary problems regarding the graveyard it may be facing, and grant permission.

bq. 9. The Anjuman, which is to hold these funds, shall not be authorised to spend the monies for any purpose except the objectives of the Ahmadiyya Movement, and among these objectives the propa-gation of Islam shall have the highest priority. It shall be allowed that the Anjuman, by consensus of opinion, expand these funds through commercial investment.

bq. 10. All members of the Anjuman must belong to the Ahmadiyya Movement, and must be virtuous and honest. And if, in future, it is felt that someone is not virtuous, or that he is not honest, or that he is cunning and tainted with worldly motives, it shall be the duty of the Anjuman to expel him from its ranks forthwith and to appoint another in his place.

bq. 13. As the Anjuman is the successor to the _Khalifa_ appointed by God, this Anjuman must remain absolutely free of any taint of worldliness. All its affairs must be completely above board, and based on fairness.

bq. 14. It is allowed that, for the help and support of this Anjuman, there should be other Anjumans in distant countries, subordinate to its directions.

After this, the rules and regulations of the Sadr Anjuman were formulated, which were published with the knowledge and permission of the Promised Messiah under his signature, {footnote} These were published under the title _Regulations of the Sadr Anjuman Ahmadiyya Qadian Approved by Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, the Promised Messiah,_ in _Badr,_ 16 Febru-ary 1906, page 5, and 23 February 1906, page 8.{footnote} and the Anjuman was officially registered on the basis of those rules. Then when the construction of the Mubarik mosque was taking place under the supervision of Mir \[Nasir Nawab\] sahib, and certain problems arose, I myself submitted to the great Hazrat that he should decide to what extent the orders and decisions of the Sadr Anjuman are subject to the views of one individual, whether the affairs in the charge of the Anjuman are subject to some individual's decisions or the Anjuamn's decisions regarding them are final. I have not given details here, but if the Mian sahib allows me I can go into details.

Upon my submission, that Messiah sent by God wrote the following words:

bq. "*{_}My view is that when the Anjuman reaches a decision in any matter, doing so by majority of opinion, that must be considered as right, and as absolute and binding. I would, however, like to add that in certain religious matters, which are connected with the particular objects of my advent, I should be kept informed. I am sure that this Anjuman would never act against my wishes, but this is written only by way of precaution, in case there is a matter in which God Almighty has some special purpose. This proviso applies only during my life. After that, the decision of the Anjuman in any matter shall be final._* *{_}Was-salaam._* *{_}Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, 27 October 1907."_* O you people who take the name of Ahmad\! Was there not a time when you treated as sacred any handwritten note of the Promised Messiah, you would wear it in your necklaces as a token for bless-ing, and you would pay a high price to purchase it? Today, this is his writing whose original is in the possession of the "pious members of Lahore", and I present it before you to give you light and blessing. Yet some unworthy people from among you mock and ridicule the publication of its photograph and say of us with scorn: "They carry around a photo". For your factional interests, you tolerate this insult to his writing.

I am pained to say that I foresee two grave dangers and can see signs of them already. Never forget what happened in the case of the Israelite Jesus. He was elevated to the position of God, merely due to the exaggerations of his followers. I pray God does not allow that kind of misguidance to take root in the Ahmadiyya Movement. At this time people in Lahore are being told two things. Each and every Ahmadi is being visited at home and told, firstly, that Mirza sahib was an independent prophet in his own right. The second point they are informed of is that Mirza Mahmud Ahmad himself is a prophet of a high rank. The time is near when the doctrine will be coined that Hazrat Mirza sahib possessed such qualities that from him was going to be produced another man who would be a great prophet. I have heard these doctrines from the lips of a maulvi.

The same misrepresentations of the Promised Messiah's writings which his opponents used to make, alleging that he claimed to be an independent prophet, which the holy Hazrat used to condemn as fabrications and slander, are now being substan-tiated by your own actions and beliefs. If the holy Hazrat is a real prophet in his own right, and is not merely one who possesses some qualities of pro-phets partially by being a reflection of the Holy Prophet Muhammad, if Ghulam Ahmad is not Ghulam of Ahmad but is himself Ahmad, and if the verse of the Quran about the coming Ahmad applies to him not merely in a secondary sense but in the real sense, and does not apply at all to the Holy Prophet Muhammad, then it implies that the _Kalima,_ 'There is no God but Allah, Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah', has become altered. These beliefs are a dangerous attack on the holy _Kalima._ Alas, today you proved those allegations true which the opponents used to make against us. An allega-tion made against us is that we, the Ahmadis, have coined a separate _Kalima._ Remember that all these false charges and fabrications have been answered by your guide himself in the following words:

"After the Holy Prophet Muhammad, the _Khatam-ul-mursalin_, I consider anyone who claims prophethood and messengership to be a liar and _kafir._" {footnote} Statement issued in Delhi, 2 October 1891. _Majmu'a Ishtiharat,_ 1986 edition, vol. 1, pages 230-231.{footnote}

Now what is the verdict of your own Imam about yourselves? This is the punishment for your declaring the other followers of the _Qibla_ and reciters of the _Kalima_ as being _kafir._ As a result of this wrong belief of yours, the heresy which you impute to others falls on you by the real verdict of your own guide. As far as I can guess, Hazrat Mian \[Mahmud Ahmad\] sahib is not responsible for this erroneous doctrine. If his private letter is true, which he wrote to Muhammad Usman and which was printed in _Paigham Sulh,_ then he does not consider Hazrat Mirza sahib to be a prophet in his own right. But so far he has assumed silence about it. In that letter, while he calls it merely an exigency of the time that in order to show the real status of Hazrat Mirza sahib the word prophet must be used, yet on the other hand he expresses the fear that, because of this, people might come to believe in him as an independent prophet in his own right.

I inform Hazrat Mian sahib that his fear has proved true. May God save us from the exaggerations that are being told in parts of Lahore. A delegation is going from house to house with the message that Hazrat Mirza sahib was an in-dependent prophet on par with the Holy Prophet Muhammad. This is why I have requested Mian sahib to clarify his own position. He must issue a clear statement about this doctrine and expel those people from his _Jama'at_ who spread such beliefs. He must dissociate himself from these ideas and, along with that, he must amend his principle that his followers can disagree with him in matters of faith. I think it is that principle which is responsible for the exaggerations and erroneous beliefs about pro-phethood that are being spread.

I quoted above extracts from the Will and the Appendix to the Will, and then I presented that handwritten note of the great Hazrat which is con-clusive and decisive in fully explaining the purport of the Will. From these, the following conclusions emerge most clearly and plainly: # The Anjuman is the successor to the _Khalifa_ appointed by God \[i.e. the Promised Messiah\]. # The funds of the community are to be en-trusted only to the Anjuman, not to any individual. Only the Anjuman is entitled to spend or make use of those funds. # All kinds of powers and responsibilities are given to the Anjuman, not to any indivi-dual. # The power to expel any member lies in the hands of the Anjuman, not in the hands of any individual. # All branches of the Anjuman are sub-ordinate to the Anjuman, not to any individual who is _khalifa._ # After the lifetime of Hazrat Mirza sahib, the decisions of the Anjuman in all matters shall be final.

For God's sake, consider how explicit are these instructions\! In the dialogue published in \_Paigham Sulh\_ between Hazrat Mian sahib and Sardar Ajab Khan, one reason given by Mian sahib for the need of an all-powerful _khalifa_ is that he can expel unfit members from the Anjuman. Is this view not in plain contradiction to the instruction of the holy Hazrat about expulsion of members which he expressed in plain words \["...it shall be the duty of the Anjuman to expel him..."\].

If the conclusions I have drawn above are correct, then to place all the funds of the Anjuman under the authority of one individual is contrary to the intent of Hazrat Mirza sahib. We are not discussing whether someone is trustworthy or not. I accept that Hazrat Mian \[Mahmud Ahmad\] sahib is honest in financial matters. However, it is a question of principle. The Promised Messiah gave the right to take donations from the members of the community to the Anjuman, and only to the Anju-man, but under the new beliefs this right is given to one individual. The Mian sahib announced that all donations must be sent to him by name and not to the Anjuman, and he kept this in force for about two weeks. Although afterwards, due to the needs of the time, he corrected this announcement, but he set a dangerous precedent by taking these powers.

It will be argued that the Anjuman itself gave these powers over to one individual, and this answers the objection raised by the Lahore Ahmadis. They say that as the members of the Anjuman gave these powers to the Mian sahib, this cannot be in violation of the Promised Messiah's intent. Dear ones, this argument is wholly wrong\! If, God forbid, the Anjuman were to take a decision clearly against the teachings of Islam, would that be right? A decision of the Anjuman cannot be legally correct if it is opposed to a clear instruction of the Will. Not only legally, but also according to Islamic law as well, if an executor is given full authority in a will, that authority can only be used to carry out the intentions of the deceased. If the deceased has clearly expressed his intent in some matter, and the executor acting under that will does something opposed to it, this would be invalid in the law of the land and in Islamic law. For the Anjuman to give supreme authority over its affairs to an individual and not retain this power for itself is contrary to the plainly expressed Will of the holy Hazrat. Therefore, the decision of the present Sadr Anjuman of Qadian to give Mian sahib the same authority as that held by the Promised Messiah is invalid, even assuming that this Anjuman is legally still in existence and that its composition does not suffer from defects which invalidate its existence.

For the Anjuman to give supreme authority over its affairs to an individual and not retain this power for itself is contrary to the plainly expressed Will of the holy Hazrat. Therefore, the decision of the present Sadr Anjuman of Qadian to give the Mian \[Mahmud Ahmad\] sahib the same authority as that held by the Promised Messiah is invalid, even assuming that this Anjuman is legally still in exist-ence and that its composition does not suffer from defects which invalidate its existence. Consult any legal advisor and ask whether my opinion is correct or not, that the Anjuman cannot exercise any autho-rity which is contrary to the clear words of the Will of Hazrat Mirza sahib, and it is the right of every member of the Ahmadiyya Movement to challenge this in court.

O you Ahmadis, it is a serious sin to violate the Will. Whomsoever we have accepted as leader, or will accept as leader, we will accept him through the holy Hazrat \[Mirza Ghulam Ahmad\]. If you know that the Mian sahib has acted against the Will, having confirmed this from some legal advisor, then remember that you would not be Ahmadis, nor would you be followers of the Quran, nor would I consider you to be Ahmadis, unless you try to rectify this error. May God not let it be that you go to courts, but you should request Hazrat Mian sahib to satisfy you from the legal point of view.

As I said above, we did not accept Hazrat Hakim \[Maulana Nur-ud-Din\] as _khalifa_ with the powers that are today being given to Hazrat Mian sahib.

It is clear that during the lifetime of the holy Hazrat he had appointed two of his followers to take the _bai'at_ from people in his name. When he wrote the Will, he stipulated in it and in its Appendix two points relating to the situation after his lifetime. One is that, after him, certain persons in the _Jama'at_ would take people into the _bai'at_ in his name. As to who these persons are, he writes as follows: \\

bq. "*{_}Such persons shall be chosen by mutual agreement among the faithful. So any person in respect of whom forty faithful agree that he is fit to take from people the{_}* *{_}bai'at{_}* *{_}in my name, he shall be entitled to take the{_}* *{_}bai'at{_}{*}{*}_."_* \\

This was his instruction about administering the _bai'at._ As to managing the affairs of the Movement, the holy Hazrat himself declared the Anjuman as sovereign in all matters after him, and made it "the successor (_ja-nashin_) to the Vicegerent appointed by God". O you who quibble over words, for God's sake tell us if the words _khalifa_ and 'successor' are not synonymous. Isn't the disciple, who admits new persons into a movement by taking the _bai'at_ from them in the name of his spiritual leader, commonly called _khalifa?_ Isn't the man who is charged with transacting someone's affairs on his behalf called his _khalifa?_ These are the literal, legal and well-known meanings of this word. Will you call the man who is chosen by agreement of forty faithful to be entitled to take the _bai'at_ from people in the name of the Promised Messiah, as anything other than _khalifa_ of the Messiah?

Dear ones, what has happened to you, why have you stopped using your sense? If the words _khalifa_ and 'successor' are synonymous, then who has been made as his _khalifa_ by the Promised Messiah him-self? Look, your Anjuman has been called by the Promised Messiah himself as "the successor (_ja-nashin_) to the Vicegerent appointed by God". Any _khalifa_ besides that is elected by you, but the Anjuman has been called _khalifa_ of the Messiah by the Promised Messiah himself. Is this merely my interpretation? Let me read to you the words of Hazrat _Khalifat-ul-Masih_ Maulana Hakim Nur-ud-Din himself:

bq. "*{_}In the writing of Hazrat sahib \[i.e. the Promised Messiah's{_}* *{_}Al-Wasiyyat{_}{*}{*}_\] there is a point of deep knowledge which I will ex-plain to you fully. He left it up to God as to who was going to be the{_}* *{_}khalifa{_}{*}{*}_. On the other hand, he said to fourteen men: You are collectively the{_}* *{_}Khalifat-ul-Masih,_* *{_}your decisions are final and binding, and the government authorities too consider them as absolute. Then all those fourteen men became united in taking the{_}* *{_}bai'at{_}* *{_}at the hand of one man, accepting him as their{_}* *{_}khalifa,_* *{_}and thus you were united. And then not only fourteen, but the whole community agreed upon my{_}* *{_}khilafat._{*}{*}_"_* *{_}1{_}* ( _Badr,_ Qadian, 21 October 1909, p. 11, col. 1. ) Now let me read to you the words of Hazrat Sayyid Muhammad Ahsan. In the matter of the Muhammadan University his opinion was that the Sadr Anjuman should not donate any funds for this university. He wrote a letter to Shaikh Muhammad Latif which still exists and can be seen by anyone who so wishes. Quoted below is its last part:

bq. "*{_}My submission should be placed before the Secretary and the President of the{_}* *{_}Majlis._* *{_}I believe the Sadr Anjuman Ahmadiyya to be the deputy (_{*}{*}{_}na'ib{_}{*}{*}_) of the Promised Messiah under Hazrat{_}* *{_}Khalifat-ul-Masih._* *{_}However, Hazrat Abu Bakr, the deputy of the Holy Prophet, said in his sermon: 'O people ... If I do right, then help me, and if I do wrong then set me right'. On account of this, I submit to the Sadr Anjuman that in the matter of donating to Aligarh \[University\] this verse should be kept in mind: 'And incline not to those who do wrong, lest the fire touch you, and you have no protectors besides Allah' \[11:113\]"_* Are these not the _ulama_ whom the holy Hazrat included in the Sadr Anjuman in their capacity as scholars? Ponder over this, that one of them has called the Anjuman as _Khalifat-ul-Masih,_ and the other has called the deputy (_na'ib_) of the Promised Messiah. You may perhaps understand that the words _khalifa_ and _na'ib_ mean the same thing. Today much emphasis is being laid on the command of the Quran to "ask the men of authoritative knowledge and opinion" (the _ahl az-zikr_). Now as regards this opinion of those whom you accept as "men of authoritative knowledge and opinion", what has Nawab Muhammad Ali Khan written? In the poster issued by him, which I mentioned earlier, he writes that in the programme of the _Jalsa_ \[of the Lahore Ahmadis\] that has been published the names of Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din and Maulvi Ghulam Hasan Khan have appeared with the title _Khalifat-ul-Masih._ This, he says, has hurt the feelings of the followers of Mirza Mahmud Ahmad and is meant to mock at them. If a man, who has been chosen by forty of the faithful and is thus entitled to take the _bai'at_ from people in the name of the Promised Messiah, has the right to be known as _Khalifat-ul-Masih_ according to common usage, and if the Anjuman being the successor to the Promised Messiah is _Khalifat-ul-Masih_ in the words of Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din and of the Sayyid Muhammad Ahsan sahib, then the hurting of feelings and the mockery has been done by the Promised Messiah himself and after him by Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din and the Sayyid sahib. \\

At this juncture it is necessary to mention the conversation that took place between myself and the Promised Messiah in Qadian immediately after the Will was written. This happened in the presence of Hazrat Maulvi Muhammad Ali and Maulvi Ghulam Hasan Khan, and I am sure Nawab Muhammad Ali Khan was present as well, and I recall that it was after speaking to him that I submitted to the holy Hazrat that his Will might lead to there being a _khalifa_ in each and every village. The Promised Messiah replied: "What harm do you perceive in that? These men would only be admitting outsiders into the Ahmadiyya Movement, and enlarging the _Jama'at._ They have no power over the funds of the Movement, because that has been entrusted to the Anjuman."

I am amazed as to what has happened to our friends. Reading the poster mentioned above, one cannot find any sound argument in it from begin-ning to end. It merely appeals to the emotions of the readers, wrongly describes events and attempts to exacerbate hatred between the two sections. It contains matter which would incite the ordinary man to depart from rationality and sound thinking. Moreover, this poster contains the threat to publish certain letters which are said to have been written by various friends to Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din. Let Nawab Muhammad Ali Khan remember that others are in possession of even more valuable letters which are written in the hand of Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din himself, whose publication could cause pain to some responsible elder. The recipient of those letters showed them to someone and via that intermediary he sent a message to cer-tain elders to say that it is repugnant to descend to personal attacks, and that if someone still resorts to personal attacks then these letters can be published, which would cause considerable pain. If the Nawab sahib so wishes, for his satisfaction those letters can be shown to some former confidant of his.

Our Movement is based on reason. So you should refrain from presenting the kind of argu-ments with which Nawab Muhammad Ali Khan has filled his poster. These are not arguments but sar-castic allegations not worthy of the Nawab sahib. If you wish to understand the issues then discuss in a rational way the differences in belief which have split the _Jama'at_ into two sections. It is possible that those others may be deserving of the inappro-priate labels that the Nawab sahib has applied to them from the height of his dignity, but they can confront him on their own behalf. Irresponsible persons are not worth addressing. However, the Nawab sahib is regarded as a responsible man. \\

We were discussing that according to the writing of the Promised Messiah, and its interpre-tation as expounded by Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din, any person who is entitled to take the _bai'at_ from people in the name of the Promised Messiah, and similarly the Sadr Anjuman itself, is _Khalifat-ul-Masih._ Bearing in mind these points, at a time when there was no difference in beliefs, we elected Hazrat Hakim sahib as _Khalifat-ul-Masih._ It was the special favour of God upon him that, not merely forty members, but the entire _Jama'at_ chose him as _khalifa_ and head for itself. As to the allegation that we regarded him, due to being _khalifa,_ as supreme over all affairs of the Anjuman, this is a fabrication and slander against us. I am not saying this just today. I stated the same before Hazrat Hakim sahib in February 1909 and put it in detail in a writing which was signed by myself and some of the people from Lahore. It also contained the following explanation which has been published in _Paigham Sulh:_ \\

bq. "I stated at the beginning that the holy Hazrat has handed various affairs such as propagation to the Anjuman. He did not hand over to the Anjuman the task of admitting people into the Movement by accepting _bai'at_ in his name. He has given that duty to those righteous elders who are chosen by at least forty faithful. This implies that the man upon whom more than forty agree is even more worthy of this burden. There-fore, we preferred that instead of having different persons in every village and town to administer the _bai'at,_ as we are fortunate to have one man whom not forty but four hundred thousand would agree is a worthy person to take the _bai'at,_ we should accept him as _khalifa._ This is the meaning we understand of_khalifa,\_ and his scope of work is what is assigned to him in the Will. However, if some _khalifa_ of the time, due to his righteousness, piety, selflessness and vast knowledge, possesses moral authority so that his view on its own is superior to the views of the members of the Anjuman, as is the present _khalifa,_ then he will hold this position by virtue of his personal qualities, not by virtue of being _khalifa._ Hazrat Mirza sahib had appointed three _khalifas_ of his during his life: Sayyid Abdul Latif _shaheed,_ Maulvi Hasan Ali of Bhagalpur, and a third who lived in Khushab. These three were allowed to take people into the_bai'at\_ in his name. Were they not _khalifat-ul-masih_? They were _khalifat-ul-masih_ during the life of Hazrat Mirza sahib \[but they could not interfere in the affairs of the Anjuman\]. The Anjuman also existed, but during the life of Hazrat Mirza sahib the Anjuman was above any such _khalifas._ " This was not only my opinion, but it was also the opinion held by Maulvi Sher Ali. Read it here. If we are insincere in holding this opinion, Maulvi Sher Ali should answer how far his intention was pure at that time when he wrote: \\

bq. "A study of the Will shows that the Promised Messiah, in all the matters which he handed to the Anjuman during his life, appointed it as his successor. As far as I can understand, the holy Hazrat wrote nothing about a _khalifa_ in the Will. Where he has written "After me, the righteous ones in the _Jama'at,_ possessing pure souls, should take the _bai'at_ from people in my name", as far as I understand the holy Hazrat has not here mentioned that there should be one _khalifa_ for the whole community, upon whose hand the entire _Jama'at_ must take _bai'at,_ but he has mentioned such men who can take the _bai'at_ from people to admit them into the Ahmadiyya Movement, and according to this writing there can be numerous such men. As far as I understand, a _khalifa_ is not meant here upon whose hand the entire _Jama'at_ must take _bai'at,_ but such persons of pure character at whose hands non\- Ahmadis take the _bai'at_ to enter the Ahmadiyya Movement." \\

For God's sake, you wise people, consider what a false allegation it is that, out of fear of Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din, we had concealed those beliefs of ours which we express today. Are these not the same things which we wrote at a time when a dangerous commotion was raised \[during his time\]? And that commotion was created by the very people who accuse us today. I myself sent my beliefs in writing to Hazrat Hakim sahib. Then I remained firm on these beliefs openly, and hold them up to now. The gist of my writing is that whoever we elect to be _khalifa,_ it is done on the basis of the rule that forty members can elect him. That is the meaning of _Khalifat-ul-Masih_ as we understand it, and that is his work. However, if a _khalifa_ of the time, due to his righteousness, his selflessness, his scholarly knowledge, etc., has such moral authority that his individual view is superior to the views of the members of the Anjuman, as was the case with Hakim sahib, then this would be due to his personal accomplishments, nor due to his holding the office of _khalifa._ \\

It is a fact that I adhered to this standpoint openly, as was known to Hazrat Hakim sahib and everyone else. The Nawab \[Muhammad Ali Khan\] sahib and Hazrat Mian \[Mahmud Ahmad\] sahib are themselves witness to this. It is what I believe today. If Mian sahib is _khalifa,_ then in his capacity as _khalifa_ he cannot have authority over the Anjuman. However, Allah can bestow upon him personal qualities, on account of which he can rule over us all. The argument is over matters of principle.

To replace the name of the Promised Messiah by that of Hazrat Mian sahib \[in the regulations of the Anjuman\] nullifies this principle of ours. Hazrat Mian sahib can only rule over us by dint of his personal moral qualities, and not as a matter of principle. \\

In the affairs and administrative matters of the Anjuman, sometimes there was a difference of opinion between Hazrat Hakim sahib and the members of the Anjuman. Such differences were inevitable. After all, the Anjuman was not an animal whose reins were in someone's hands. It was a body to be consulted. The fact that in some matters some members differed with Hazrat Hakim sahib, and brought the matters to a conclusion after a vigorous discussion, shows that they were true to the trust reposed in them by the Promised Messiah, not that they were opposed to Hazrat Hakim sahib.

What I am saying can perhaps be illustrated by an incident involving Sayyid Muhammad Ahsan sahib, to which I referred earlier. In the matter of the university,1 Hazrat Hakim sahib openly favoured providing assistance, but the Nawab sahib differed with him. I have given above the summary of Sayyid Muhammad Ahsan sahib's statement. Then when Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din ordered the giving of financial assistance to the university, did the Nawab sahib obey the _khalifa_ of the time or go against him? \\

I believe that it was commendable what Hazrat Sayyid Muhammad Ahsan sahib did. He made clear to the _Khalifat-ul-Masih_ what he believed to be right. If we had believed Hazrat Hakim sahib to be the kind of _khalifa_ who had absolute power over us in his capacity as _khalifa,_ then how could the man who today upholds this most of all, namely the Sayyid sahib, dare oppose the view of the first _Khalifa?_ We were, after all, dealing with the affairs of the community. We were in charge of income amounting to some 150,000 Rupees annually. Therefore it is no surprise that difference should arise with the _Khalifat-ul-Masih_ Hakim sahib in some matters, and the other members freely express their views. But those people who have certain aims put their own gloss on those events and present them to the world today as if we were opposed to Hazrat Hakim sahib. This is the gist of those events which they are misrepresenting as our opposition to him. If we were opposed to him, then what kind of a man was he, that he placed us in charge of all the works which required great trust. One group always tried to make him displeased with us, but God granted us the favour that before Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din departed from this world he declared that he was happy with us.

\[_Translator's note:_ The reference here would be to the Friday _khutbas_ of Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din on 17 October and 7 November 1913. In these he said:

bq. "You think ill of others. Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din does not work out of hypocrisy. He works only for Allah. This is my belief about him. Of course, he can make mistakes. I am happy with his works. There is blessing in them. Those who spread mistrust about him are the hypocrites." --- _Khutba_ of 17 October 1913. \\

bq. "Kamal-ud-Din has not gone to England for personal ends. He has not cared even for his family. Someone wrote that Kamal-ud-Din has shaved his beard (in England). The other day I saw his photo. The beard is there. I think that even if he had shaved his beard, I would still say about the work for which he has gone there that it is good. If there is some fault in it, I myself overlook it. There is no one who is free from faults." --- _Khutba_ of 7 November 1913. \\

It is recorded that at this point in the above _khutba_ of 7 November 1913 Maulana Nur-ud-Din was overcome by weakness and had to sit down. He then rose and said: "Can any of you do the work which Kamal-ud-Din is doing? If he commits a fault, what does it matter? He is a man who used to earn thousands."\] \\

I have advised friends to publish all the letters which Hazrat Hakim sahib wrote to them. If he has expressed any unhappiness in them, it is due to love. Ah\! What a wonderful man he was\! Once I arrived late for a _Jalsa_ in December and did not meet him for one day. The next day, when I met him, he said: "Remember, love means a thousand misgivings. If I am grieved by your delay, it is because I have love for you." It was this love which made the Hakim sahib feel sad as if about a dear child. Otherwise, he clearly and plainly declared his affection and trust in us. I am reading with much pain the writings that are being published alleging that the people from Lahore were strongly opposed to the Hakim sahib. To reply to this allegation fully, many matters need to be disclosed, whose disclosure will be a source of distress for certain people. If I consider it necessary in future, I will speak openly about them at some time. \\

Here I only pose the following questions for Nawab Muhammad Ali Khan sahib and Mian Mahmud Ahmad sahib:

1. Is it not true that the whole commotion raised in February 1909 had but one aim: that those powers be given to the _khalifa_ which today the Mian sahib has taken for himself?
2. From 1909 till the death of Hazrat _Khalifat-ul\- Masih,_ were not efforts constantly made to give absolute authority to the _khalifa,_ and to have this inserted into the regulations of the Anjuman? And did not the members from Lahore vigorously oppose such a dangerous principle till the death of Hazrat Hakim sahib?
3. Did not the Nawab sahib himself propose various resolutions and regulations from time to time, which are on record, underlying which there was only one point: that the _khalifa_ should rule over the Anjuman? Those resolutions were always rejected, and at last the Nawab sahib, seeing that his aim was not fulfilled, resigned.
4. Is not the following incident true? On one occasion I said to the Nawab sahib, with much pain: For God's sake, let us have pity on the community. Why are we opposing each other on every matter, be it support for the Muslim university, or method of propagation, or the issue of calling others as _kafir,_ matters on which the community is being split into two? On this point, the Nawab sahib and I talked privately in the grounds of his house at about 9 or 10 p.m. He replied: Just decide one matter. Give all authority to the _khalifa,_ and the other differences will disappear. In reply to this, I said to the Nawab sahib that a _khalifa_ who would be like Nur-ud-Din would rule over us by virtue of his personal qualities, not by virtue of being _khalifa._ The following day, the Nawab sahib and the Mian sahib walked out of the meeting of the Anjuman. I swear by God the Most High that this incident is true and correct as I have described it.
5. Is it not true that when the Hakim sahib heard all this from me, he said: Who are these people to bring my powers under discussion, etc.
6. Was not the controversy between us fully known to Hazrat Hakim sahib? If all these are true --- and God is Witness that all these are true --- then all matters are resolved thereby. Had the Hakim sahib believed in absolute rule by the _khalifa,_ then as he knew that we obeyed him, why did he not end this dispute by ordering that same addition in the rules of the Anjuman which today the Mian sahib has done? If this dispute was new, and had not arisen during the life of Hazrat Hakim sahib, only then could the following objection be raised against us: 'You obeyed him in his lifetime and now you are against obedience \[to the _khalifa_\]'. Both parties concur that my mentor and guide, Hazrat Hakim sahib, was neither a hypocrite nor a coward. So, since this issue was raised before him, then if he believed in autocratic rule by the _khalifa_ why did he not give the decision in favour of the Nawab sahib and his supporters.

I say on oath that this was the only difference between ourselves and the Nawab sahib and Mian Mahmud Ahmad sahib \[whether the _khalifa_ has absolute power or the Anjuman is the supreme body\]. There was no personal grudge or friction. The Hakim \[Maulana Nur-ud-Din\] sahib knew this. If there was any other difference, let the Nawab sahib name it. We have the letter written by the Mian sahib to Hazrat Hakim sahib asking him to settle the issue of the position of the _khilafat._ Then why did he not settle it? If it is said that during the time of Hazrat Hakim sahib this was a settled matter, why was this uproar raised in 1909, and why did the Mian sahib write to him to settle it? And why were ever newer ways being tried for this pur-pose? Can the honourable Nawab sahib testify that after 1909 there was no controversy about the issue of the powers of the _khalifa?_ If there was, then why is it said that the Hakim sahib's view was against us? Why did he not give a decision? The fact that he did not give a decision, and did not go against our view, is sufficient evidence that we were right.

It is said that Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din made me take the _bai'at_ again. This is perfectly true. But what was the _bai'at_ about? It was the _bai'at_ of obedience (_bai'at-i irshad_) to him. Can you honest-ly say that he made me retake the _bai'at_ of repent-ance? Now go and read the histories of the Sufis and see from which disciple they take the _bai'at_ of obedience. When they admit a disciple into the movement, they take from him the _bai'at_ of repentance (_bai'at-i tauba_). Then when they find in him the capacity of obedience they take from him the _bai'at_ of obedience. And when they have full confidence in him, they take from him the _bai'at-i dam._ Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din was very happy with me and I fulfilled my _bai'at._ In God's name, give the testimony yourself, tell us for God's sake what did he say about me in his sermons and lectures? \\

It is the height of injustice and fabrication that it has been spread about that we were opposed to him and he made us renew our _bai'at._ Alas, today obstinate opposition misrepresents an accolade as a failure. It was this very _bai'at_ of obedience that Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din took from Hazrat Mian sahib and the Nawab sahib verbally in my presence at that time. This was in February 1909.

In 1908 the Promised Messiah left this world. Immediately after the close of 1908, some questions are raised about the Anjuman and the _khalifa,_ with the aim of giving absolute power to the _khalifa._ These are sent to certain people. I write my reply to them and send it to Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din. I state plainly that I give preference to your decision over my opinion and the opinion of the Anjuman only because, due to your personal qualities, I believe that I should follow your instructions, other-wise I do not consider the _khalifa_ to be a ruler over the Anjuman. I said this to him verbally as well. At that time there were two groups which differed over the issues raised in these questions. On the one side was Hazrat Mian sahib and the Nawab sahib, and on the other side was Hazrat Maulvi Muhammad Ali and other friends. As both sides regarded the instructions of Hazrat Hakim sahib as above all, and I too said to him that I accept his orders, so he took from me the _bai'at_ of obedience in the manner of the righteous ones of the past. Before doing this, he asked the Mian sahib if he would obey him. The Mian sahib replied that he would, and that he would also obey _khalifas_ after him. As far as I remember, he took the same promise from the Nawab sahib. This is the _bai'at_ which has been unjustly called as the renewal of my _bai'at._

This was in 1909. Can you name any instance before February 1909 when I opposed Hazrat Hakim sahib and he compelled me to retake the _bai'at?_ What reply will these people give to God, for having knowingly distorted the facts so much? Let Hazrat Mian sahib himself tell us: Did not Hazrat Hakim sahib take from him the pledge that he would obey him? Does it mean his obedience was in doubt? Do not indulge in such useless talk. However, it is true that when someone has no sound arguments and evidence, he descends to the level of such mediocre talk. Anyhow, this was the question faced in 1909 and Hazrat Hakim sahib was well aware that we did not believe in a _khalifa_ having autocratic power. Then he took from us the _bai'at_ of obedience. So why did he not then enter this into the rules of the Anjuman when that was what the Nawab sahib and his friends were trying to have done, which the Hakim sahib well knew? Was he, God forbid, a coward? If not, why did he not sup-port a viewpoint while knowing it to be right, and put an end to the controversy during his life? But in fact he did put an end to it in his speech of 1909.

\[_Translator's note:_ The reference here would be to the _Eid khutba_ by Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din on 16th October 1909, published in _Badr,_ 21 October 1909, in which he said: \\

bq. "In the writing of Hazrat sahib \[i.e. the Promised Messiah\] there is a point of deep knowledge which I will explain to you fully. He left it up to God as to who was going to be the _khalifa_. On the other hand, he said to fourteen men: You are collectively the _Khalifat-ul-Masih_ , your decisions are final and binding, and the government authorities too consider them as absolute. Then all those fourteen men became united in taking the _bai'at_ at the hand of one man, accepting him as their _khalifa,_ and thus you were united. And then not only fourteen, but the whole community agreed upon my _khilafat_.

bq. "...I have read _Al-Wasiyya_ very thoroughly. It is indeed true that he has made fourteen men the _Khalifat-ul-Masih,_ and written that their decision arrived at by majority opinion is final and binding. Now observe that these God-fearing men, whom Hazrat sahib chose for his _khilafat,_ have by their righteous opinion, by their unanimous opinion, appointed one man as their _Khalifa_ and _Amir_. And then not only themselves, but they made thousands upon thousands of people to embark in the same boat in which they had themselves embarked." \]

From that day till 1911, the Nawab sahib and his friends kept on raising the same point indirectly, and it kept on being rejected. When I informed Hazrat Hakim sahib as to what was the real issue behind this, he perhaps mentioned his views to the Nawab sahib and the Nawab sahib resigned. Thus, this question came to an end till his death.

Anyhow, the disagreements within the Movement up to this time are on principle, but people want to settle these by appeal to emotion. I have discussed the real points at issue from various aspects. I consider the most important question to be that of the position of the Anjuman. \\

Secondly, there is the question of the powers of the _khalifa._ Even if we did not have the Promised Messiah's Will before us, we still could not possibly give absolute power to one individual unless we held the doctrine of the infallibility of the _khalifa._ My knowledge is that a man appointed by God is not allowed by God to remain adhering to an error till the end, because of the dignity of his position. There is no such promise for any other _khalifa_ not appointed by God. How then can we let the opinion of one individual, which could be in error and remain in error, override the joint opinion of several people? There is no need to be involved in an intellectual discussion here. A _khalifa_ has passed away before our eyes. Several events of his life and many of his beliefs are in complete conflict with the views of Hazrat Mian \[Mahmud Ahmad\] sahib. So which _khalifa_ must we take as being right and which one as wrong? In particular, if Hazrat Hakim sahib was wrong, then as he stuck to his error to the end of his life, it disproves the notion that a _khalifa_ is not kept adhering to an error by God. For example, he considered it wrong to regard non-Ahmadis as _kafir._ In the last days of his life he remarked that the Mian sahib had not understood the issue of _kufr._ As opposed to this, the Main sahib believes in regarding non-Ahmadis as_kafir.\_

Secondly, the principles for the propagation of Islam which Hazrat Hakim sahib taught me, he himself remained firm on those principles till his last breath. The Mian sahib considers those principles to be wrong and damaging. The recent announcement by the Nawab sahib, which I just mentioned, is a testimony that he does not consider our propagation of Islam to be propagation of Islam.

Then the Hakim sahib used to give permission to say prayers behind non-Ahmadi imams outside India. He told me in person, and then conveyed his permission by letter and telegram, that in Englnd I can pray behind non-Ahmadis. The Mian sahib does not allow this. These are both _khalifas._ Which one is right and which one is wrong? However, if the concept put forward is valid, that a _khalifa_ does not persist in error till the end of his life, then because the Hakim sahib has died holding these views till the end, it means he was right in that non-Ahmadis are not _kafir_ and that my method of propagation is correct and that, outside India, prayers behind non-Ahmadis are allowed; and therefore the Mian sahib is wrong in these matters. After all, the principle which has been coined, on which rests the doctrine of autocratic rule by the _khalifa,_ means that if Hazrat Hakim sahib had been wrong he would not have persisted in his error till the end of his life. Thus according to this, the practice of Hazrat Hakim sahib has set the seal of truth on our beliefs and actions. \\

I have now discussed almost all the points of controversy. I will now add something about myself. I entered into the _bai'at_ on 22nd November 1893 and pledged at the hand of the holy Hazrat \[Mirza Ghulam Ahmad\] to hold religion above the world. I made the utmost efforts to fulfil this promise. The holy Hazrat bestowed special favours upon me. He was affec-tionate to me as one is to a dear child. He prayed for me, and said quite unique prayers. Purely through the grace of God and the kindness of Hazrat Mirza sahib towards me, I was able to be of service to him in diffi-cult times, as few in the Movement had the chance to do. Accursed is the man who makes a show of his services. I was his adviser in the most delicate matters, which no one knows about but me. He sought my advice regarding the future of the members of his family and what would happen after him, and he acted on my recommendations. On my insistence, he prayed to God in certain matters, and informed me of God's decision. I conclude this by asking you: Leaving aside those few persons whose ambitions have been thwarted by me, what was the opinion of thousands of you about me? Say honestly, in what regard did you hold me, and how you saw with your own eyes the special favours bestowed upon me by the holy Hazrat, that Imam accepted by God?

I have now discussed almost all the points of controversy. I will add here something about myself. I entered into the _bai'at_ on 22nd November 1893 and pledged at the hand of the holy Hazrat \[Mirza Ghulam Ahmad\] to hold religion above the world. I made the utmost efforts to fulfil this promise. The holy Hazrat bestowed special favours upon me. He was affectionate to me as one is to a dear child. He prayed for me, and said quite unique prayers. Purely through the grace of God and the kindness of Hazrat Mirza sahib towards me, I was able to be of service to him in difficult times, as few in the Movement had the chance to do. Accursed is the man who makes a show of his services. I was his adviser in the most delicate matters, which no one knows about but me. He sought my advice regarding the future of the members of his family and what would happen after him, and he acted on my recommendations. On my insistence, he prayed to God in certain matters, and informed me of God's decision. I conclude this by asking you: Leaving aside those few persons whose ambitions have been thwarted by me, what was the opinion of thousands of you about me? Say honestly, in what regard did you hold me, and how you saw with your own eyes the special favours bestowed upon me by the holy Hazrat, that Imam accepted by God. \\

Then came the time of the Hakim \[Nur-ud-Din\] sahib. I had a very special relationship with him. What he said about me in his lectures and sermons, you have yourself heard and read. And then came the time when I went to England \[in September 1912\]. \\

I am embarrassed to mention these matters but when one is facing cowardly attacks then it is unjust to remain silent. I went to England and I obeyed Hazrat Hakim sahib till the end of his life. I followed the manner of preaching Islam that he suggested. I sought his guidance on the smallest of matters and adhered to it till he passed away and left his testimonial of being happy with me. \\

Then I ask you: what was your opinion about me before his death? Let the district of Sialkot in particular ponder. Many of your elders received revelation that I was on the right path in the matters of controversy. The recipients of revelation among you supplicated before God as to whether I was in the wrong or the Mian \[Mahmud Ahmad\] sahib in matters of propagation. One of them, whose revelations were valued by both Hazrat Mirza sahib and Hazrat Hakim sahib, received about me the revelation: _'ala-sirat-ilmustaqim_ ('he is on the right path'). _Al-Fazl_ itself \[magazine started by Mirza Mahmud Ahmad\] declared that my going to England was in fulfilment of the prophecy of the holy Hazrat Mirza sahib. \\

Then came the time when Allah made my efforts bear fruit. Lord Headley accepted Islam and its news reached India. I called it the fulfilment of the prophecy and vision of Hazrat Mirza sahib when he saw himself catching birds in London, and at that time I wrote a poem about it. This was not only my judgment, but many leading men of the Movement stated the same. Sayyid Muhammad Ahsan Amrohi also wrote a poem to the same effect which was published in _Badr_ or _Al-Fazl._ \\

In _Al-Fazl_ itself, dated 17th December 1913, an article was published entitled _Lord Headley,_ in which it was written: \\

bq. "*{_}Thirteen centuries ago Allah the Most High gave the news about Islam that He would make it grow and spread, and broadcast it all over the world. Great rulers would follow it and it would prevail over all other religions. As this promise was given by the Powerful, Omnipotent One, Whose every word is true and firm, it could not be averted. The world then saw how God brought Islam out of obscurity into fame, how He spread it in the East and the West and brought millions of people into its fold. Then, in accordance with the law of God, it went into decline and decay. Muslims ceased to act on that holy scripture which God had revealed for their guidance. Their fall began, and their degradation became worse and worse everyday. This tribulation came upon them that they might realize their weaknesses, be warned of their errors, regret their sins and repent of their faults. But when they did not turn away from the wrong course, nor did they turn towards God, other nations were made dominant over them. Islam's position was taken by Christianity, and Muslims became the subjects of other nations._* \\

bq. *{_}Even then they did not reform themselves, their wicked ways increased beyond all limits, and they were not motivated by their decline to strive for self-improvement. Then, just at the time when their spiritual crops dried up and those who were thirsty for the truth were left unable to swallow and had parched lips, God opened the doors of the heavens for their guidance and scattered the wind of good news all around telling the world of the coming of the victories of truth. He sent the pleasant rain of His mercy so that the worthy ones should manifest their righteousness. God sent His appointed one \[Hazrat Mirza sahib\] who descended upon the minaret of Damsacus with the support of not two but thousands of angels. The world saw his wonders. The dead were raised to life, the sick were healed, the lepers were cured, the blind{_}* *{_}began to see, the deaf began to hear, and the crippled began to walk._* \\

bq. *{_}His messianic spirit changed the world. Before, in the world of Islam no one was willing to go out to serve the religion. The situation was as described in the poetic verse \[by Hazrat Mirza sahib\]: "Everyone is preoccupied with his own business, no one is concerned about the religion of Ahmad", and in the saying: "What concern have you for others, take care of your own problems". Now, due to the efforts and hard work of the second Messiah, hundreds of thousands of champions rose up for the service of Islam with their lives. They pledged at his hand to hold religion above the world in every matter. They donated money beyond their capacity for the propagation of the faith. They spent day and night in concern and worry as to how to spread Islam._* \\

bq. *{_}God made many great promises through His Messiah for the success of these people. Hence He foretold that the same Europe which, so hope the opponents of Islam, will destroy and ruin Islam, shall one day repent of its sins at the hands of this Messiah and join the servants of Islam, and it shall work not for the destruction but for the establishment of Islam. By the grace of God this promise was fulfilled, and by the hands of the servants of this Messiah Europe has begun to turn towards Islam. Thus God has enabled the honourable, respected Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din sahib, who has gone to England for the propagation of Islam at the cost of making many sacrifices, to bring many British people into the fold of Islam. The best indication of his success is that his achievement is quite unlike that of the Christian missionaries whose{_}*

bq. *{_}call has only been answered by the ignorant sections of the population of India, apart from rare exceptions, by those who hope to gain worldly benefits by becoming Christians, and therefore a large section of the converts to Christianity are from the lowest classes. But those in England responding to the call of Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din are educated people, and an aristocrat belonging to an exalted family, Lord{_}*

bq. *{_}Headley, has declared his acceptance of Islam. He has thus fulfilled the word of God which He sent to us a long time ago through His appointed one, giving the news of the spread of Islam in Europe._* \\

bq. *{_}Congratulations then, O you Ahmadiyya community, that the truth of your Imam has also been proved in Europe, going beyond Asia. Congratulations, O you Ahmadiyya community, that the trees of your efforts are bearing the finest fruits. Congratulations, O you Ahmadiyya community, that your opponents have suffered another defeat. Congratulations, O you Ahmadiyya community, that God the Most High has yet again set His own seal of confirmation upon your truth\!_* \\

bq. *{_}Where are the opponents of the Ahmadiyya Movement, those who declared the Promised Messiah to be a{_}* *{_}kafir{_}{*}{*}_? Let them observe this invisible hand of help, as to how God the Most High places blessings in the works of this community. ..._{*}{*}_"_* \\

This was in the editorial columns and the Mian sahib himself was the editor. I myself sent a speech for the December 1913 annual gathering from England, in which it was clearly stated that the prophecy of Hazrat Mirza sahib had been fulfilled. That article was read out in the presence of the Mian sahib and Hazrat Hakim sahib during the _jalsa_ and was printed in the newspapers. At that time, no one wrote to me or informed me to say that my conclusion was wrong. In short, the entire Ahmadiyya Movement declared the new mission in England to be a fulfillment of the prophetic vision of Hazrat Mirza sahib. \\

Then there is my approach to propagation, which was set out to me in writing by Hazrat Hakim sahib, that I should teach only that "there is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is His Messenger". His letter, which I quoted earlier, is dated December 1913, showing that even up to three months before his death this was his instruction. In short, Allah the Most High, purely out of His grace and favour, made my efforts fruitful, and the whole of the Movement was at one with me. \\

Then another phase came upon the Movement. Mian \[Mahmud Ahmad\] sahib became the head of one section of the _Jama'at_. There was a wait to see what stand I would take in the matters of difference. During that time the columns of _Al-Fazl_ remained largely silent. Then when my article on the _khilafat_ was published, or perhaps Ch. Fateh Muhammad \[from England\] informed the Mian sahib of the situation in private letters, immediately the whole of my mission was declared worthless. It was announced that no one should provide me with assistance. O you unwise ones\! This work is not dependent on anyone's assistance. It is God Who takes care of all. Attempts were made to boycott the _Islamic Review._ The door of allegations opened. I was called a rebel, and those newspapers were given financial help which accused me of rebellion. Alas\! By having a different opinion, have we become such enemies of yours that you are ready to cause us every harm? Plans were made to attack my character. Ch. Fateh Muhammad wrote private letters and asked Mian sahib not to publish them. But they were published. It was stated in them that some English ladies have doubts about my character. These vague words were used to commit an injustice against my character. The letters did not contain any truths which were necessary to be published. Today a newspaper writer says that, in obedience to instructions from the Mian sahib, he withholds his pen from making allegations against the Lahore group. Why was he not stopped earlier? It is clear that those newspaper writers received money from Qadian who constantly filled their columns with vile words against us. If they have been stopped now, this could have been done earlier, but then new responsibilities have other requirements. \\

O wise people of this Movement, think for God's sake. Can having a difference with the Mian sahib and refusal to enter into his _bai'at_ make me a sinner and hypocrite, as Nawab Muhammad Ali Khan has written? First he called me a sinner. Now, because of his position of responsibility, he has considered it appropriate to replace this by the word hypocrite. Although the Mian sahib in a private letter sent to Peshawar has watered down the meaning of the word sinner (_f{_}{_}ā{_}{_}siq_) so much that it has become meaningless, it is perhaps not possible to give the word hypocrite a toned-down meaning. O wise ones, I ask you: Was my connection with the Ahmadiyya Movement for the past twenty years, which I outlined above, going to lead to me becoming a sinner, hypocrite and deceiver? And could God the Most High find only a sinner, hypocrite and deceiver at whose hands to fulfil a prophecy of His Messiah? If what you are doing today is right, it casts doubt on the promises made in the Quran. Hazrat Mian sahib should either declare that he was wrong to say in _Al-Fazl_ that Lord Headley's acceptance of Islam was in fulfilment of the prophecy made by the Promised Messiah, or that he did it out of fear of Hazrat Hakim sahib while not believing it. But if this opinion was right then why was my work opposed? \\

I am, after all, the same person that I was at the death of Hazrat Hakim sahib. My way of working and preaching now is the same as it was during the time of Hazrat Hakim sahib. So, should I consider you as seekers of the right path or as followers of factionalism? As long as Hazrat Hakim sahib was alive, you people regarded my work as right and correct, and you even had revelations to that effect. You wrote poems in my praise. You regarded it as a blessing to serve me by cleaning my shoes and cooking food for me. Then Hazrat Hakim sahib died, and I had a difference of opinion with your leader, which is an entirely sincere difference. So today you call me a hypocrite and declare all my work as wrong. If you had recourse to honesty, then as long as I was working along the same lines in England, you could not change your opinion about me. Now your heads are ringing aloud with the religious concept that a person's earlier deeds can become null. But remember that it is only opposition to a man appointed by God that makes someone's earlier good deeds go to waste. Opposition to a man who is not appointed by God does not make anyone subject to such punishment. But I am not even opposing but having merely a difference of opinion. \\

Then I ask Mian sahib himself: On what grounds did he stop Maulvi Sher Ali from going to England to assist me? Did he not make an affirmation to Hazrat Hakim sahib, in February 1909, when I also took the _bai'at_ of obedience, that he would obey him, and did he not say: I will obey your orders and those of future _khalifas?_ Was there not an order in regard to Maulvi Sher Ali, and did he not come to Lahore to buy his ticket in obedience to that order? Why was he stopped? It is perfectly true that I always called for Maulvi Sadr-ud-Din sahib, not only now but since I went to England. Due to certain circumstances and qualities I preferred to have him in England rather than Maulvi Muhammad Ali sahib, and events have proved my view to be right. But the answer to the question is not whom I wanted to have in England.

The question is, since Maulvi Sher Ali had been ordered to go to England, under what principle did the Mian sahib stop him? For his guidance he had before him the example of Hazrat Abu Bakr and Hazrat Abu Ubaidah. If the Mian sahib declined to obey the _khalifa_ on the basis of his own judgment, why does he compel others to obey the _khalifa,_ when he himself could not do it? \\

Then I was further surprised that he separated Ch. Fateh Muhammad from my mission without reason. He is working on the same principles as myself, and not only him, but sometimes the Mian sahib himself and his disciples, according to need, follow the same path of propagation as myself. What was the need to place another burden upon the community by separating Ch. Fateh Muhammad from me? I had never asked the Sadr Anjuman to provide me with his help. The fact is that the advisers of the Mian sahib are very short-sighted. They want to raise some issue within the community and feel that their success lies in keeping some controversy going. \\

Dear ones\! All these are wrong paths. You will soon find that the path you have opened by separating Ch. Fateh Muhammad from me and the Woking Mission is not only wrong but will create many problems. Anyhow, all these events show that at this time obstinacy is prevailing over right thinking. We read in the Quran that wherever you see good work being done, you must not oppose it merely because it is being done by those who have a difference of opinion with you. Then I am surprised by the unrighteous actions being employed in connection with the translation of the Quran. You declare in your newspapers that the translation being done by Maulvi Muhammad Ali is wrong, yet you try to take it from him. If you want to print it then I put to you a proposal. I am prepared to be responsible for a half of the printing costs, and you pay the other half. Let us then print the Quran and distribute it free. Other conditions we can settle among ourselves. \\

In short, if the new activities from Qadian were based on truth and right, then can someone explain to me why this obstinacy is being shown? I am also extremely concerned that in our Movement difference of opinion is being taken as meaning animosity. There is dangerous mutual hatred and desire to destroy each other, instead of brotherhood, love and politeness. Allegations are being made against one another. All those ways of civility and friendliness which, according to Islam, we must show towards every human being, are absent. Think for God's sake, if this is the condition of the _Jama'at_ created by the man who was purified by God, the group which represented the latter day appearance of the companions of the Holy Prophet, and to which applied the description "He made you brethren by His favour", then why do we need enemies in the world? This condition itself runs counter to the truth of this Movement. \\

Come, have mercy on the Movement and leave such things. Resolve differences of opinion among yourselves harmoniously. This problem would be finished tomorrow if Mian sahib laid claim to be appointed by God; otherwise he cannot be considered as free of error nor can the refusal by someone to enter into his _bai'at_ make that person a sinner. Some people said to Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din that they had not entered into his _bai'at._ He replied: Now you are my brothers in spiritual leadership, if you enter into my _bai'at_ then you will be my disciples. One of them was my brother Khwaja Jamal-ud-Din and another Malik Sher Muhammad B.A. Despite not having entered into the _bai'at_ of the _khalifa,_ did these people not play a full part in all the projects of the Ahmadiyya Movement? Did not Hazrat Hakim sahib look upon them with favour? Did not the Mian sahib go to Kashmir and give them the same entitlements as are due from one brother to another, and they reciprocated in the same way? So what has happened now, that not entering into the _bai'at_ of a _khalifa_ is treated with the cutting off of social relations, friendship, and conversation? You say that if an Ahmadi does not enter into the _bai'at_ of Mian sahib, believes his actions to be wrong, has a difference of opinion with him, and tries to convince others of his viewpoint, then he becomes unworthy that the followers of the Mian sahib should meet or communicate with him or have any dealings with him. If this is correct, then how would you deal with anyone else in the world because non-Ahmadi Muslims would be worse, and non-Muslims worse still? It would mean that followers of the Mian sahib would not be able to meet with, speak to, or eat with anyone except those of their own community. \\

Now I make a last request to Hazrat Mian Mahmud Ahmad sahib:

1. If he has been appointed by God through revelation then he must announce by a sworn statement, in the style of the oath proposed in the Quran, which Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib himself also used, that he has been raised through revelation, and that he is the one whose coming has been prophesied by Hazrat Mirza sahib in his Will (_Al-Wasiyya_), and that he has been informed by revelation that he is the manifestation of the second power (_Qudrat Sani_). Who does not want that time to come soon? I want to make a decision at least about myself. If he makes such a sworn declaration, it would then be unlawful for me to write anything against his beliefs. I will then either accept him or I will have recourse to prayer. In any case, I would become silent.
2. If he is the Promised Reformer (_Muslih Mau'ud_), then he must declare on oath that he has received revelation that he is the promised son mentioned in the 'green notice' \[by Hazrat Mirza sahib\]. If he has not been informed through revelation then he must stop his disciples from saying that he is the Promised Reformer or promised son. Why is he silent on this? This silence is highly damaging. One of his followers has written a booklet to show that the Mian sahib is the Promised Reformer. The other side has published a refutation of this. Why does he not clarify his position? Why is he afraid? Irresponsible persons are speaking on his behalf. Of course, if it is merely his own human judgment that he is the promised son mentioned in the 'green notice', then he must declare this also. I have heard that in reply to a question from Ch. Abdullah Khan of Bahlulpur he has denied being the Divinely-appointed one mentioned in _Al-Wasiyya_ but considered himself the son prophesied in the 'green notice'.

The Mian sahib must also clarify the following points in the declaration. Upon his birth, Hazrat Mirza sahib wrote: \\

bq. "A son has been born in the house of this humble servant, who has been given the names Bashir and Mahmud by way of omen. After I receive full disclosure by revelation I will let it be known, but as yet it has not been disclosed to me whether this boy is the _Muslih Mau'ud,_ who shall have long life, or if it is someone else". \\

The question is, Did Hazrat Mirza sahib ever receive any such disclosure, and did he ever write anywhere that he had received disclosure by revelation? He has written something in his book _Siraj Munir,_ but not that he received disclosure by revelation. This view is proved correct because, long after _Siraj_ _Munir,_ when the book _Tiryaq-ul-Qulub_ was written, Hazrat Mirza sahib expressed his view that the younger brother Bashir might be the promised son. Then there was his view about the youngest son, Mubarak Ahmad, that he would be the promised son, which I need not repeat here. \\

I say to Mian Mahmud Ahmad sahib: These are the works of God, by which the Almighty wishes to establish in this world the true knowledge of His Uniqueness, that the words of revelation are God's words, and the words of the one who receives revelation are the words of a human being. This is why sometimes the one who receives revelation can make an error in interpreting the revelation. In any case, if you have been informed by Divine revelation that you are the promised son then declare it. But if you have not been so informed, then instruct your followers to refrain from calling you as 'Promised Son', 'Promised Reformer', 'a great prophet of God', and 'the pride of messengers', which is what they are doing, and causing a dangerous mischief thereby in the world. Whatever they say should be according to your instructions. \\

Along with this, I also add here that you should declare, in a few words, your belief about the prophethood of Hazrat Mirza sahib, and also let people know in what sense you regard non-Ahmadis as unbelievers. \\

I take this opportunity to submit respectfully that I am your servant. I feel no hesitation in working under your leadership. You are the flesh of my master. Of course, if your belief is that Hazrat Mirza sahib was a real and full-fledged prophet in his own right then I say with great regret that in terms of this belief I part company with you forever. However, if your belief is the same as mine, that my master the Promised Messiah was a servant of the Holy Prophet Muhammad and Ahmad and his follower, and that only because of perfectly following the Holy Prophet, the _Khatam-un-Nabiyyin,_ he became the reflection of a prophet with partial prophetic qualities, and that it was in this sense that the Holy Prophet spoke of the coming Messiah as prophet of God, then I hope for the day when the mutual differences will come to an end, and a way might be found of working under your command. \\

_Wassalam._

--- Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din, 24 December 1914. \\

_Postscript Note:_

A distinguished follower of Hazrat Mian sahib has just told me that the Mian sahib does not accept the doctrine that the _khalifa_ is infallible, even though the ordinary followers do believe this. If this is true, then why is his opinion regarded as supreme over the collective view of the Anjuman? If he really believes that his opinion is fallible, and that there is no Divine promise that he shall not remain adhering to an erroneous opinion, then it is most dangerous to give the _khalifa_ those powers which belonged to the Promised Messiah who could be protected from error by his true revelation. Anyhow, the Mian sahib himself should declare his belief in this matter. \\

_Editor's Note:_ This concludes the serialisation of the translation of the Urdu booklet _Ikhtil{_}{_}ā{_}{_}f{_}{_}ā{_}{_}t SilsilaAhmadiyya Kay Asb{_}{_}ā{_}{_}b_ ('Causes of the Internal Dissensions in the Ahmadiyya Movement') by Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din, which he wrote after his return to India, in late 1914, from his first visit to England where he established _The Islamic Review_ and the Woking Muslim Mission in 1913.

{display-footnotes}{display-footnotes}