Hazrat Musleh-e-Maud’sra guidance in relation to an allegation by Muslims
Al Fazl, 28 August 1923
Dear Master [Maulvi Mubarak Ali] Sahib! Assalamo alaikum.
Alhamdolillah, the foundation stone for the mosque has been laid. I had a general idea of its occurrence, but I interpreted it according to what you wrote; that the timings were not given in the initial telegram and were mentioned in the second.
When I heard that the Egyptian national delegation opposed this development when they came to know of it, I was astonished. What do they know about us? I hope that you will have refuted their opposition.
At present, I do not have enough time, but next week, I shall write an article about it and dispatch it from here, in which the notion that we are the “agents” of the British shall be properly refuted.
I was surprised to hear of the objection regarding “Khalifatul Masih”. The word “masih” [messiah] is not as commonly used amongst the Christians as is “Yasu” [Jesus]. “Masih” is a status rather than a name. This word is used both in Arabic and Hebrew and its meaning is “mamsuh”, i.e. whom God has blessed and placed His hands upon. Thus, what relation does it have with the Christians? Further, is the word “Khalifa” not enough to demonstrate that the word refers to the forthcoming Messiah who would be a Muslim? If we accept this objection that these people raise, we should also remain prepared, in future, when they object as to why Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas is called “Masih-e-Maud”. What connection does this have to Christianity?
If it is not objectionable to call Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad the “Masih”, then why is it objectionable to brand his successor Khalifatul “Masih”? Thus, altering the words “Khalifatul Masih” would be tantamount to showing that we are prepared to forsake the words “Masih-e-Maud” for Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas.
God Almighty has bestowed the name “Masih” upon the Imam of this age. Hence, his successor will be Khalifatul Masih. Those who fathom spiritual insights can understand that this word is not parallel to that of the Christians but is, on the contrary, a powerful weapon to shatter the false doctrines of Christianity.
I have come to understand from what you have written regarding politics that you have neither understood the manner in which the Jamaat is run, nor are you well versed in politics yourself. As a result, you cannot satisfactorily reply to those who raise allegations. On no account do we claim that every Englishman ought to be supported, nor do we claim that the British government is perfect. The crux of what we say, rather, is that subjects of every country should respect their country’s laws and also that India benefitted to a great degree by the arrival of the English government. Since India has accepted the British government as rulers, offices can be taken by coming to a compromise with them in accordance with international law and a code of conduct.
Freedom is undoubtedly an admirable thing. However, are the Germans prepared to separate from the Rhine and Bavaria through a palisade? Was the war of Southern America lawful? Thinkers in Europe name it a struggle for freedom. If it was not, then why? Are the Germans now ready to make Hamburg and Berlin independent or have those who make tall claims of freedom deemed such struggles for these cities lawful? Or do they currently think it lawful?
A principle should initially be established and then, all matters ought to be decided based on that principle. It should not be that there be a different law for others and another for yourselves.
(Translated by Fateh Alam, UK)
