Al Fazl, 17 July 1922
A virgin birth
Hazrat Khalifatul Masih II[ra] said:
“Mufti Sahib wrote to me that a new study has been published in America and the evidence is proving it to be true that a child can be born without a father. If this study is examined and comprehensively proved, it will support us and the divinity of Jesus will be destroyed. At the same time, Maulvi Muhammad Ali’s mujaddadiat [status of a reformer] will end, as he said, ‘The Promised Messiahas [came and] demolished the belief that Jesus was alive, and I have [come] to demolish the second pillar of his divinity, i.e. his virgin birth.’ However, the Promised Messiahas has stated the virgin birth of Jesus as one of his beliefs.”
10 June 1922
Aina-e-Sadaqat (The Truth About the Split)
On the mention of Maulvi Muhammad Ali Sahib’s yet-to-be-published treatise Haqiqat-e-Ikhtilaf [The Truth About the Dispute] in response to the book, Aina-e-Sadaqat (The Truth About the Split), Hazrat Khalifatul Masih [IIra] said:
“This issue [of the dispute] was remaining. The issues of prophethood, etc., have been well discussed. This discussion will complete the history of our Jamaat. I think that he will mention the disagreements regarding the Anjuman, etc. However, he will not be able to deny the incidents mentioned in the book [Aina-e-Sadaqat]. No matter how much Maulvi Muhammad Ali Sahib goes to extremes in opposition, it is difficult to deny those events.
“Moreover, his response will be the same as the Promised Messiahas used to narrate the story of a Punjabi man who was fencing his field. A person said to him, ‘Brother! Why are you putting up a crooked fence? Put it straight?’ He replied that, ‘You have also married your daughter to someone.’ The person said, ‘What is the connection between these two things?’ He replied, ‘Arguments are drawn from various things.’ In the same way, Maulvi [Muhammad Ali] Sahib must have left the actual events and delved into arguments.”
The subsequent events proved that the response of Maulvi [Muhammad Ali] Sahib was the same [as predicted above by Hazrat Khalifatul Masih IIra]. (Editor, Al Fazl)
11 June 1922
Descendants of an Ahmadi father
Regarding the religious supervision and improvement of the general state of the descendants of a sincere and an early Ahmadi who had passed away, Hazrat Khalifatul Masih [IIra] said to an Ahmadi worker:
“The deceased was a very sincere and an early Ahmadi. His sons should be taken care of. The youngsters are an asset of the Jamaat, if they are spoiled, then their respective jamaat will be held responsible.”
Tabligh by inviting someone over
Mistri Allah Bakhsh Sahib Ahmadi, of Amritsar, reported about the preaching method of an Ahmadi woman that she invited women to her house, prepared some tea, etc. for them and also preached to them.
Hazrat Khalifatul Masih [IIra] said:
“When the Holy Prophetsa observed that the people did not listen to him, he realised that if they did not listen like that, they would certainly listen to him when he would invite them over. Consequently, that method was adopted, but the people, instead of staying and listening to him, used to leave after eating. Hazrat Ali, who was a child at that time, said, ‘I will tell you another method. These people will listen in such a way that you preach them first and then offer food.’ In that way, though the people would become anxious, they used to listen to the Holy Prophetsa.”
Huzoor[ra] said:
“The worldly invitation becomes a means for spiritual invitation. When relations with people will be established through this manner of invitation, they shall also listen to us.”
Tabligh to Hindus
Huzoor[ra] enquired from Mistri Sahib if he preached to Hindus or not. He answered that he had not paid attention to that yet, but he would also preach to them in the future, insha-Allah. Hazrat Khalifatul Masih [IIra] said:
“There is a great need to preach among the Hindus. After all, they are also our brothers. I have brought to the attention of the Jamaat that a section [of our Jamaat] should be devoted to preaching the Hindus, because it has been observed that the converts from the Hindus, with some exceptions, are much more sincere. If considered, we will come to know that 70 million people of India have converted to Islam from Hinduism. The Muslims who have come to India from outside are very few. When Muslims thought that Hindus could not convert to Islam, they stopped converting. Those who came to this conclusion did not understand that so many Muslims converted to Islam from those very Hindus. Just as the downpour of fresh rainwater cleans the dirty water, so do new converts enter into the religion and bring new enthusiasm and new life, because in the previous people of that faith, the relationship with religion becomes merely ritualistic.”
A new objection about jizyah [tax]
Maulvi Mutiur Rahman, a Bengali student of BA, Islamia College, Lahore, presented the objection of the Hindus that they say that by imposing jizyah [tax] on the non-Muslim nations, the Muslims had freed them from war and thus made them cowards.
Hazrat Khalifatul Masih [IIra] said:
“It was not that they were stopped from war, only the conscription was discarded on the payment of jizyah. The Muslims were compelled to fight wars. However, the non-Muslims were not forced to fight. It is questionable in the present system of government that the volunteers are not accepted, though history bears witness that the people of other creeds and religions used to take part in the war on behalf of the Muslims.”
It was asked whether those who joined the war were exempted from jizyah or not.
Hazrat Khalifatul Masih [IIra] said:
“In spite of the war, they had to pay some of the taxes that the Muslims used to pay as well. Some of the Muslim kings waived jizyah. However, I do not know any such example during the time of the Holy Prophetsa and his Companions.”
I (assistant editor of Al Fazl) submitted, “This case does not seem objectionable. At first, they used to object as to why jizyah was imposed. Now, they object that they have made cowards by depriving them of military service by taking jizyah.”
Hazrat Khalifatul Masih [IIra] said:
“This is human nature. If it rains, they say it is muddy and if it doesn’t, they say that it is scorching heat. Or, for example, when a person was asked for work, he said that he was hungry. When he was asked again after he had eaten, he said that his stomach was full. In both cases, he refused to work. Likewise, the adversaries used to say about the Promised Messiahas that he only prophesied that such and such person would die or that a calamity would befall so-and-so. However, when God Almighty showed a sign of the truthfulness of the Promised Messiahas by keeping a person alive, those people objected as to why he did not die. So, if someone died, then they objected as to why he died, and if someone lived, they still objected as to why he did not die.”
Habs-e-Dam [holding one’s breath] and tawajjuh [attention] have nothing to do with nearness to God
A friend asked what the connection of habs-e-dam [holding one’s breath for a long time, a practice of some fakirs who considered it a righteous act], etc., was with attaining closeness to God.
Hazrat Khalifatul Masih [IIra] said:
“It has nothing to do with it. I have come to understand that when the Muslims arrived in India and observed that the Hindu Sadhus practised tawajjuh and mesmerism and the people were falling into doubts about the real miracles, the saints of the ummah who had come to India also practised them to remove all the doubts and to tell the people that they were not at all miracles. In fact, it had nothing to do with tasawwuf [mysticism]. Just as philosophy was not related to ilm al-kalam [Islamic scholastic theology] and it was introduced into ilm al-kalam to teach religion to the people, the teachers of mysticism introduce tawajjuh into tasawwuf, so that the people may not say that they did not know that art. If those practices were a part of tasawwuf, they would have been found in other countries as well, but except for India and the saints of India, they were not taught in the books of the saints of Arabia, Iraq, Egypt and Iran. For example, Hazrat Abdul Qadir Jilanirh, Talib al-Makkirh, Bayazid Bastamirh, Junaid Baghdadirh, etc. From the accounts and books of the aforementioned [saints], we only come to know that they used to get up at night, beseech prayers and offer salat.
“It [the knowledge of those practices] is the same as the new sciences of today, though they are not related to religion, but we have to be aware of them. If we do not know them, then those who have the knowledge [of those sciences] will not listen to us about religion. If the knowledge [of those practices] was truly related to spirituality, non-religious people could not have mastered it and it would have been found only in a true religion. However, its practice by the followers of every religion and every other person shows that it has nothing to do with the true religion.”
It was asked if it was permissible to learn it [such practices] or not.
Hazrat Khalifatul Masih [IIra] said:
“It is permissible, but it is useless. I have learned it and it is a very trivial thing. The ignorant fakirs have made it their miracle, even though there is no such thing as a miracle, etc., in it. If one learns it, they should not use it on people as a means of deception.”
Difference between a miracle and mesmerism
It was asked as to what was the difference between a miracle and mesmerism.
Hazrat Khalifatul Masih [IIra] said:
“A master of mesmerism can perform this spectacle whenever he wants and every person can master it, but a miracle cannot be shown all the time and not every person can show it. Mesmerism can be taught but how to perform miracles cannot be taught. Moreover, there are many external differences as well.”
Shaq-ul-Qamar [the miracle of the splitting of the moon] was a divine vision and a prophecy
It was asked whether the miracle of Shaq-ul-Qamar [the splitting of the moon] was shown on the demand of the disbelievers.
Hazrat Khalifatul Masih [IIra] said:
“It contained a prophecy that the Arab kingdom would come to an end. The moon was not actually split into two parts, but it was shown in a divine vision. A vision can be such that others also join in it. Thus, the people of that gathering saw the moon split into two parts and a king of India also saw it as a testimony for the future. The idea that the moon was actually split in two is not correct. If it had happened, the astrologers sitting in the observatories would have seen it, but they did not record it.”
(Translated by Al Hakam from the original Urdu published in the 17 July 1922 issue of Al Fazl)