Each day brings news of Muslims being subjugated – whether they are being policed through draconian laws to uphold “liberal values” in France, whether Muslim women are being “liberating” by emphasising their right to have premarital relationship as highlighted by Denmark’s Integration Minister or whether it’s the continuous persecution of minority groups such as Uyghurs, Palestinians and Rohingya people.
Muslims have been made easy targets to demonise, leading to unending harassment and, as some say, Islamophobia. According to the European Islamophobia Report of 2018, an increase of 52% of “Islamophobic incidents” took place in France while in Austria, there was a rise of about 74%. 44% of Germans see “a fundamental contradiction between Islam and German culture and values.” In Finland, 62% felt the same, while in Italy, it was 53%. “To be a Muslim in Europe is to be mistrusted, visible and vulnerable.” (www.nytimes.com/2020/03/06/opinion/europe-islamophobia-attacks.html)
External attacks increase the plight of the ummah, but even intra-Muslim atrocities are at their peak. Muslim nations are divided between blocs amongst themselves and give preference to geopolitical interests over their commonality as believers; political tussles between Saudi Arabia and Iran are a prime example.
Even amongst sects, sectarianism continues to fuel hatred; scholars are busy declaring each other “kafir” and minority sects face constant harassment and violence; bomb blasts targeted at Shias in Afghanistan and the endless murders of Ahmadis in Pakistan unveil the lack of acceptance within Muslim countries.
To find even a ray of unity within the ummah is a cumbersome task. It seems “a Muslim brother” is highly subjective.
Antipathy towards Islam isn’t within political spheres alone, but attacks on Islamic teachings and the Holy Prophetsa are common place amongst academia too.
New Atheists like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris seem to lead this crusade against Islam.
As we noted in our last issue, Muslims are now the new scapegoats.
Everything aside, the one person all Muslims hold in most reverence, love and respect is Prophet Muhammadsa. The man who was the “mercy for mankind” is vilified, slandered and mocked, often with the support of political leaders.
In response, the repetitive, reactionary and emotional retort has been shown by Muslims across the world in protests and boycotts, as we witnessed recently after Macron’s attacks on Islam and his support of caricatures of Prophet Muhammadsa being published and spread.
Thankfully, some Muslim leaders did openly condemn Macron’s divisive comments and support of the vile caricatures, such as President Erdogan, Iran’s Hassan Rouhani and Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan; however, the forthright condemnation by the actual leaders of Muslim countries themselves can be counted on one hand – many Muslims were urging their leaders to officially condemn the support of France in publishing the caricatures of Prophet Muhammadsa, but to no avail.
Nevertheless, even condemnations from government ministries in Qatar, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Morocco and Jordan etc. added to the unity in condemning the cartoons.
Imagine, if all 50-plus Muslim countries – in a united voice – openly condemned the vile attacks made against Prophet Muhammadsa and Islam, would any other world leader – like Macron – dare to support, promote and endorse such derogatory caricatures if faced with such a united front of Muslims?
The importance of Muslim unity was encapsulated by Hazrat Khalifatul Masih V, may Allah be his Helper, in his Friday Sermon soon after Macron’s anti-Muslim rhetoric:
“… it is clear that there is a lack of unity amongst Muslims and this is the very reason why all of this is occurring. Muslim countries are at odds with one another and increasing divisions display to the world that there is discord amongst Muslims.
“If the world knew that Muslims are united, that they believe in the same One God and His Messengersa and are ever-ready to present sacrifices for their sake, then the non-Muslim world would never act in this way and never would a newspaper be emboldened to publish caricatures of the Holy Prophetsa.”
Emphasising the solution for the ummah, Huzooraa went on to say:
“If the Muslim Ummah [nation] desires a permanent solution, then the entire Muslim world must become united. Even now, the president of Turkey responded to the French president and a few other [Muslim] countries responded as well. However, these responses do not bear the same impact as compared to the potential impact of a united response from all Muslims.
“It is said that as a result of the response from the president of Turkey and other nations, the French president changed and softened his statement and tried to justify what he really meant. Yet, at the same time, he firmly maintained his stance of being correct in their approach. However, if 54 or 55 Muslim countries were to speak out unanimously, then the French president would not simply make justifications for his statement; instead, he would have been compelled to plead for forgiveness.
“In short, all I wish to say is that we must pray for the Muslim nations to at least be able to raise a single, united voice against others; only then will we see true results. We have remained persistent in our mission and will continue to do so, insha-Allah!” (Hazrat Mirza Masroor Ahmad, Khalifatul Masih Vaa, Friday Sermon, 6 November 2020)
This back-to-basics approach towards unity while side-lining internal differences and personal interests is what the Muslim world desperately needs. A united Muslim front will effectively extinguish the uncontrollable fire of anti-Muslim rhetoric and malice-filled attacks against our beloved Prophetsa.
Apart from unity, productive and educational eff orts need to be made to show the world the beautiful teachings of Islam that are reflected in the blessed character of Prophet Muhammadsa. As Huzooraa has continuously pointed out in his sermons, momentary outcries and boycotts will not bring lasting changes.
The reaction of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community has been not only to condemn the defamation of Prophet Muhammadsa in the guise of freedom of speech, but also to actively educate people about the truth of Prophet Muhammadsa. This unified response by the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community has led to scores of intellectuals, leaders and members of the public, worldwide, to appreciate Islamic teachings and Prophet Muhammadsa.
Uniquely, Huzooraa has also hugely emphasised and encouraged Ahmadi Muslims towards invoking durood (salutations and prayers) upon Prophet Muhammadsa as a response to attacks on Prophet Muhammadsa – something wider Muslim leaders and scholars have not paid attention to.
Responding to attacks on Prophet Muhammadsa and Islam in a unified, collective and effective manner will enable the Muslim ummah to push back at a world that has demonised them and their beloved Prophetsa.
As the pandemic continues to spread and we continue to make changes and alterations in our lives whilst adjusting to the “new normal”, one thing is for certain, that the strong, unique and unwavering bond between the Khalifa and the Jamaat shall never diminish.
In such circumstances, while members of the Ahmadiyya Jamaat yearn to meet their beloved Imamaa once again, the national amila of Ghana were fortunate to have a virtual mulaqat with Hazrat Khalifatul Masih V, may Allah be his Helper, on 28 November 2020.
Along with the amila members, the zonal missionaries currently serving in Ghana were also present. The amila members gathered in the Wahab Adam MTA Studio at Bustan-e-Ahmad, Accra.
Hazrat Khalifatul Masih Vaa began the mulaqat with a silent prayer, after which the amila members had the opportunity to introduce themselves and their respective roles and departments. Every department had the opportunity to speak with Huzooraa and seek guidance and direction.
Hazrat Mirza Masroor Ahmadaa, having served as a waqif-e-zindagi in Ghana from 1977 to 1985, personally recognised many of those present during the mulaqat.
Whilst addressing the principal of Jamia Ahmadiyya International, Huzooraa enquired as to how many students were studying in Jamia. Upon this, the principal replied that 231 student from 24 countries were currently studying in Jamia. Hearing this, Hazrat Khalifatul Masih Vaa remarked, “Masha-Allah!” and added, “So this is a real international Jamia!”
Following this, whilst addressing the secretary Waqf-e-Jadid, Huzooraa asked if any special eff ort was being made as the Waqf-e-Jadid year approached its end. Huzooraa added, “This time, in Tahrik-e-Jadid, Ghana came in the top ten.”
Alluding to Waqf-e-Jadid, Huzooraa said, “At least among the African countries, Ghana should be at the top of the list. This is my wish and this is my desire. Extend this message to all Ahmadis living in Ghana.”
Addressing the assistant secretary tabligh, Huzooraa enquired about the work currently in progress and asked about this year’s target for new converts. Upon this, the assistant secretary stated that due to Covid-19, the tabligh work was not able to be conducted as it usually is.
Upon this, Huzooraa stated, “On a personal basis you can do tabligh.”
Hazrat Khalifatul Masih Vaa added, “Owing to Covid-19, you are talking to me directly and I am talking to the amila. So in this way, you can also explore some new avenues.”
Huzooraa, whilst providing direction, stated, “You should make a proper outreach plan; ‘Despite Covid-19, how can we reach the people? How can we do tabligh? What are the new ways we should explore?’ … You have a fertile brain, masha-Allah; you can do this if you wish.”
Addressing the national secretary tabligh (preaching), Hazrat Khalifatul Masih Vaa stated that due to health concerns, “if you cannot go outside to do tabligh, you can give a proper plan to your additional secretary so that he can implement those plans. As I have said, there are so many means and ways to find out and be used under the present circumstances.”
Whilst conversing with the secretary talim (education), lovingly, Huzooraa expressed, “When I left Ghana, you looked quite young. Now you look elderly.”
Hazrat Khalifatul Masih Vaa then enquired as to how many university-going students were present in Ghana. Huzooraa further said:
“You should have the data of all the students who are attending university; all the data of the students attending secondary schools; all those who have dropped out after doing their middle school; the data of those who dropped out after primary school and the reason as to why they didn’t continue their studies. [You should also ascertain] how we can help those students who want to persue further studies and go to school, but because of circumstances, family matters and financial affairs, they cannot continue; and what help the Jamaat can extend to them. You should have all this data.”
Following this, addressing the secretary for external affairs, Huzooraa asked about the relationship the Jamaat had with the politicians of different parties, members of parliament and presidents. Hazrat Amirul Momineenaa said, “You should have a personal relationship with all politicians, especially members of parliament.”
Huzooraa emphasised the importance of this task and said, “You should help them realise that they should work for the betterment of the nation so that the country can prosper.”
Addressing the sadr Khuddam-ul-Ahmadiyya, Huzooraa asked how many khuddam were in Ghana. Upon this, the sadr responded by saying that currently, there were 16,048 khuddam and 6,524 atfal. Whilst providing valuable advice and guidance, Huzooraa said, “You should try to improve your tajnid [census] … You should go to each and every majlis and try to get the tajnid from the grass-root level.”
Following this, addressing the secretary for new converts, Huzooraa asked about the measures being implemented to train and help in bringing them into the main system of the Jamaat and involve them in Jamaat activities. Huzooraa added, “You should make a plan in such a way that each and every new convert is involved in the mainstream of the Jamaat within a three-year time period.”
Addressing the secretary talim-ul-Quran and Waqf-e-Arzi (Quranic education and temporary devotion of time), Hazrat Khalifatul Masih Vaa directed, “You should ask your amila members to do waqf-e-arzi.”
“First”, Huzooraa said, “ask all the national amila members to do waqf-e-arzi, then regional amila members to do waqf-e-arzi, then local amila members. In this way, you can achieve your target.” Huzooraa further added, “In this way, you can do some tabligh, training and tarbiyat of the Jamaat as well.”
Whilst conversing with a missionary who acquired his Shahid degree from Jamia Ahmadiyya International, Huzooraa said, “Masha-Allah, so you can speak Urdu.” Upon this, the young missionary replied by saying, “Thori thori [only a little].” Hearing this, Hazrat Khalifatul Masih Vaa said, “This means you know Urdu very well, for a person who does not know Urdu well would have said ‘Thora thora.’”
Following this, a similar incident took place, whilst speaking with another missionary who graduated from Jamia International. Huzooraa instructed, “Write your letters to me in Urdu and your Urdu will improve.”
Whilst addressing another missionary who graduated from Jamia International, Huzooraa said, “All missionaries who are originally from Ghana and who have completed the Shahid degree and know Urdu, should write to me in Urdu.”
Huzooraa also expressed that one should read Malfuzat to improve one’s proficiency in Urdu, even if it be half a page a day.
In the end, the amir and missionary-in-charge requested Huzooraa to pray for peace to reign in the country as the presidential elections were due to take place. Upon this, Huzooraa answered, “If the present government has done well for the country and for the people of the country, then they should win. Otherwise, I pray that some other people come who are helpful and useful for the country, who work for the country with honesty and sincerity, insha-Allah.”
On 29 November 2020, members of Germany mayar-e-kabir Majlis Atfal-ul-Ahmadiyya were blessed to have a virtual class in the company of Hazrat Amirul Momineen, Khalifatul Masih V, may Allah strengthen his hand.
The class commenced with the recitation of the Holy Quran, followed by a nazm. Thereafter, the Atfal were granted the opportunity to ask Huzooraa various questions and seek guidance on an array of matters relating to Islam, faith and contemporary issues.
During the class, a tifl asked Huzooraa if he had ever seen the Holy Prophetsa in a dream. Hazrat Amirul Momineenaa said, “We must not indulge in this matter of who has seen the Holy Prophetsa in a dream or in what manner one sees him. However, we must see if we observe and follow the perfect example the Holy Prophetsa exhibited.”
Huzooraa explained that this matter has been explained and elaborated by Hazrat Khalifatul Masih IVrh.
Huzooraa further added, “The actual thing from which you will be able to derive benefit is acting upon the noble example of the Holy Prophetsa; this is the real essence of love.”
“Nowadays”, Huzooraa explained, “I am delivering sermons on the Companionsra of the Holy Prophetsa, in which many ahadith are mentioned along with many other incidents relating to the Companions’ love for the Holy Prophetsa or guidance relating to Namaz and other matters. Thus, it is our duty to act in accordance with the teachings.”
Following this, Huzooraa was asked about praying during sajdah (prostration) and the language one must pray in. Hazrat Khalifatul Masih Vaa explained, “During sajdah, you may pray in the language you are comfortable in. It is a fact that during sajdah, the one who prays in their own language is able to pray in a better manner as the words will be uttered directly from the heart.”
Hazrat Amirul Momineenaa was then asked how he was able to accomplish a great deal of work amidst a hectic schedule. Answering the question, Huzooraa said, “Firstly, you must make it a habit of working in a daily routine. Secondly, there are some works that can be achieved alongside performing other tasks … in this manner, the time consumed in performing that task, which otherwise would have been done later, is then reduced. Then, one must firmly commit to completing their work. By doing this, one is able to work with greater attention and focus. If you inculcate a habit of working hard then you can also work in this manner and complete your tasks.”
Following this, a tifl expressed that when a Muslim dies, we say:
اِنَّا لِلّٰہِ وَ اِنَّاۤ اِلَیۡہِ رٰجِعُوۡنَ
“Surely, to Allah we belong and to Him we shall return.”
He went on to ask whether it is permitted to say this when a non-Muslim dies.
Huzooraa answered in the affirmative and said, “We are all one day going to return to Allah … We recite this upon facing any type of grievance and in doing so, we express that we belong to Allah and to Him do we turn to at the face of every loss.”
A question was asked with regard to taqdir (divine decree). The tifl who posed the question asked that if God has written our taqdir, then why do we pray for certain things? Responding to this, Huzooraa said that there are certain decrees that are unalterable, while there are other destinies that can be changed.
“For example”, Huzooraa said, “we are all going to face death. No man can remain alive for eternity. This is a matter decreed by God. However, if person who falls ill and reaches a stage where doctors have given up, at such a stage, if we pray and God accepts the prayer and brings the person back from the brink of death, then this is God’s taqdir which has been averted … Thus, there are two types of taqdir. One that can be averted and the other which cannot.”
A young tifl expressed that he was currently pursuing memorising the Holy Quran and sought guidance from Huzooraa in this regard. He added that he wished to join Jamia Ahmadiyya. Upon this, Hazrat Amirul Momineenaa stated, “Complete your hifz [memorisation of the Quran] and after Abitur [examinations taken at the end of secondary school in Germany], you may join Jamia as this will prove to be more beneficial.”
Huzooraa was asked about what can be done in response to those people around the world who are unaware of the true teachings of Islam and fear Muslims.
Huzooraa replied, “This is why we have been holding peace symposia and why I have been telling others to also hold such events and to distribute pamphlets explaining the true peaceful teachings of Islam. You should preach the true message of Islam to the public and explain to them that Islam is a religion of peace.”
Following this, a tifl, alluding to the Covid-19 vaccine under preparation, asked if one should take the injection. Huzooraa responded by saying, “It needs to be established that it is a proper preventative. If the authorities say to take it, then you may. Let us first see how the trials go.”
A tifl, whilst asking his question, said that God created man so that he may worship Him; “Then what was the need to create dinosaurs?”
Answering this, Huzooraa said, “Everything God has created has a use and proves to be beneficial for mankind. For example, the scorpion’s venom can be and is being used in medicines.”
Thus, Huzooraa explained that all creation has a benefit and use for mankind. With regard to God’s knowledge, a tifl asked what the purpose of our life was if God already knows who will ultimately go to heaven or hell. Answering this, Huzooraa said that there are two aspects to this. One is God’s knowledge and the other is our deeds. God knows if so and so will go to heaven. However, it is our duty to pray to God to grant us death as believers and grant us His pleasure. With regard to the prayer oft-recited by Muslims:
“Our Lord, grant us good in this world as well as good in the world to come, and protect us from the torment of the Fire.” (Surah al-Baqarah Ch.2: V.202)
Huzooraa was asked how one may achieve success in this world and in the Hereafter. Hazrat Amirul Momineenaa explained, “We pray to Allah to grant us good in this world as well as good in the world to come. This means that we should do good deeds in this world and attain God’s pleasure. In this way, we also ask for God’s forgiveness in the Hereafter.”
A tifl expressed that he would soon be entering Khuddam-ul-Ahmadiyya and asked how he could ensure that he became a good khadim. Huzooraa said, “You should make a solemn promise that ‘even as a khadim, I will continue to speak decently and truthfully. I will continue to offer Namaz five times a day and offer voluntary prayers with every namaz, in which I will fervently pray to God to make me a good khadim.’”
Hazrat Khalifatul Masih Vaa was then asked how he prepared for his Friday Sermons. Huzooraa explained, “For the topics which require research, such as the sermons I am delivering on the history of the Companionsra, I have a team who helps with references. However, there are some sermons – on topics such as Tahrik-e-Jadid, Waqf-e-Jadid or tarbiyat – for which I take a verse of the Holy Quran and explain its commentary and prepare it myself. At times, the research team helps with references and at other occasions, I find the references myself. Sometimes, I ask the team to provide a reference and then I prepare the sermon myself.”
Alluding to the current pandemic, a tifl asked if the world would ever go back to living its normal life and condition. Huzooraa replied by saying, “As far as coming back to normal is concerned, only Allah knows. However, after the coronavirus, the effects of the impact it has had on the global economy will remain for some time.”
Huzooraa further explained, “Judging by the current condition of the world, it seems that a war may break out after this pandemic and the effects will remain for many years. Thus, we should pray for the world and world leaders that they act wisely and unite to work together so that the world can live in peace and harmony. If they do not endeavour in this cause, then it will take many years for the normal conditions to return.
“However, to achieve this, it is necessary for the world to turn to God. If the world does not turn to Him, then we will see more pandemics and other distressing occurrences in the future. Thus we, as Ahmadis, should strive and do tabligh and tell people that for the world to return to its normal conditions, we must bow before God and fulfil His rights and the rights of His creation.”
The Crown – one of the most popular series on Netflix – has now released its fourth season and is receiving great attention globally, thanks to Lady Diana’s entry once again. The series is based on a thoroughly researched script with historians of the royal family – the likes of Robert Lacey – on board.
The opening sequence proudly boasts the claim “based on true events” – a statement that simultaneously justifies the non-sequential order of events to facilitate the drama element.
The series can be called a screenplay of Queen Elizabeth II’s biography. The first season, however, suggests that the whole series rests on a single incident from the life of another monarch: The abdication of King Edward VIII. It is this incident that led to King George VI to accede to the throne and, consequently, for his eldest daughter to inherit it as Elizabeth II.
Coronation scene from The Crown | Netflix
The Crown, therefore, is a story of the tragedy that befell a young woman of 27 and deprived her of a normal life. Had she been brought up as other heirs-apparent usually are – groomed for their monarchical role from the first day of their life – her coming to throne may not have been as shocking.
For someone third or fourth in line of succession to suddenly become heir-apparent and then go on to actually ascend the throne, is a rare occurrence in modern monarchical history. It is this rare occurrence that suddenly struck the life of Queen Elizabeth II with the abdication of her uncle, King Edward VIII in 1936.
Edward VIII
So who was Edward VIII? A prince, a Prince of Wales, an heir to the crown, King of England or, eventually, only a historical figure buried in the grounds (and archives) of Windsor Castle?
Edward Prince of Wales
Prince Edward was officially invested as Prince of Wales on 13 July 1911 by his father King George V. In the years after the First World War, Edward represented the King on a number of goodwill tours of the dominions – visiting India in 1921-22.
While touring up and down the Indian subcontinent, he would be presented precious gifts from the native rulers and persons of influence, a gift that might not seem precious in the usual sense of the term, was a book written specially for the prince to introduce him to Islam. It was, however, invaluable for the community and its leader who had raised 1 anna (less than a penny) each to have it published.
“The cost of preparing this present,” wrote the author, Hazrat Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmadra, “has been defrayed from the contributions of 32,208 members of the community”. As head of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community – a progressive and proselytising sect in Islam – he urged the prince to read it “at least once from beginning to end”. (Hazrat Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmadra, A Present to His Royal Highness, The Prince of Wales, Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, Qadian, 1922)
The private secretary to the Prince of Wales wrote back that His Royal Highness had “read with interest the account given in the address” and wished to acquaint himself with fuller details of the teachings summarised therein. (Extract from Prince Edward’s Private Secretary, HE Sir Geoffrey deMontmorency’s diary, published in Programmes, Speeches, Addresses, Reports & References in the Press relating to His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales’ Tour in India, 1921-1922, compiled by M O’Nealey, Foreign and Political Department of the Government of India, Delhi, 1923)
British Empire Exhibition 1924
Despite its victory in World War I, the British Empire had suffered great economic setback and felt the need to reassure its colonies that the sun had still not set on it.
As part of a series of such efforts, a British Empire Exhibition was proposed. Edward, the Prince of Wales, agreed to be the president of the organising committee for this exhibition that aimed, as the organisers put it, “to enable all who owe allegiance to the British flag to meet on common ground and learn to know each other”. (British Empire Exhibition [1924]: Incorporated Handbook of General Information, published by the organising committee, London [British Library])
With Prince Edward in the president’s chair, the exhibition acquired royal patronage as well as the support of George Lloyd’s government and hence, the stage was all set. In a grand exhibition of a grand empire – where industry, culture and society of all British colonies were to be depicted – a group of academics felt that religion was an element that needed to be represented too. Spearheaded by the likes of Sir Denison Ross, Francis Younghusband and William Loftus Hare, a suggestion was presented before the organisers that the empire’s religious diversity deserved a fair share.
This was the genesis of the Conference of the Living Religions of the Empire, to which Hazrat Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmadra was invited – a speaker who travelled the farthest distance to introduce the British people to Islam.
The founder of the Ahmadiyya community – which Hazrat Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmadra was now the head of – had expressed his desire that such a conference be held in London where delegates from all faiths could introduce their teachings. He had sent this proposal, all the way from India, to the Queen Empress Victoria, in 1899. (Memorial addressed to the Empress of India by Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Tabligh-i-Risalat, published by Qasim Ali, Qadian, 1899)
The proposal saw fruition in the reign of Queen Victoria’s grandson in 1924, with her great-grandson in chair.
The abdication
Who would have known that the young Prince Edward, who was introduced to the message of Islam in India, had a very eventful, yet unfortunate, life lying ahead? After the death of his father, King George V, Edward acceded to the throne as King of England – and naturally back then, the Emperor of India and other dominions – on 20 January 1936. His tenure as Prince of Wales had left the British government suspicious of an ambitious king in the making – something that a constitutional monarch is not supposed to be.
He had addressed the issues of coal miners in South Wales and urged the government to take notice as well as bringing to its attention the rise in unemployment. He ascended, thus, amidst raised eyebrows of not only the government circles but also the Church of England – the two bodies he was to be the figurehead of.
Edward VIII as portrayed in The Crown | Netflix
The Church of England had its own problems with Edward VIII. He was seen by the archbishop of Canterbury as a free soul with little or no affiliation with religion. By presenting the royal family – the most respectable family, adored by the majority of the population – as practising, churchgoing, faithful Christians, the church saw a “unique selling point” in the royal household.
His affair – one of many – with an American divorced woman was painted by the church as obnoxiously unorthodox and his intentions to marry her as “sinful”.
Reaction of the Ahmadiyya Press
Edward VIII’s abdication made headlines across the world – British and American press in particular and the press of the dominions and India in general. We intend to undertake here a study of the unique response that came from the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community in India, through their newspaper, Al Fazl, on 22 December 1936. Titled “The latest revolution in Britain”, the story dealt with the issue in line with the rest of the vernacular press. The approach taken happened to be the opinion that the British government had intended to promote across the empire. Al Fazl too had criticised King Edward VIII for giving precedence to his personal interest over the greater interest of his empire. (Al Fazl, Qadian, 19 December 1936)
This put the pen of Hazrat Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmadra, then head of the Ahmadiyya community, into action. He wrote a feature article in response to the situation, which got published in the 22 December issue of Al Fazl.
He opened the article by stating that Al Fazl’s immediate and initial response (19 December) was made in haste and that it was influenced by the bigoted opinion of the British government and the Church of England.
He suggested that it was inapt for a newspaper to base their editorial opinion on the content of the archbishop of Canterbury’s speech that had been broadcast on BBC and widely publicised and, in consequence, was heavily relied upon by the press in formulating their opinion.
He quoted the following words from the archbishop of Canterbury’s speech:
“From God, he had received a high and sacred trust. Yet, by his own will, he has abdicated – he has surrendered the trust. With characteristic frankness, he has told us his motive. It was a craving for private happiness.
“Strange and sad it must be that for such a motive, however strongly it pressed upon his heart, he should have disappointed hopes so high, and abandoned a trust great”.
(The part quoted in the original article in Al Fazl, 22 December 1936, is in Urdu. Quoted here is not a translation from Urdu, but the original speech of Cosmo Lang, the archbishop of Canterbury; acquired from the British Library Sound Archives, T8077/0404)
Hazrat Mirza Mahmud Ahmadra urged that instead of relying on the archbishop’s speech, it was essential that the circumstances leading up to the king’s abdication be examined in detail before forming any opinion. Below are some excerpts from his article:
“It is apparent from press reports that:
“1. Mrs Simpson is not new to the royal family. She had been acquainted to George V and has ever since frequented the royal circles.
“2. Edward VIII had not started seeing her recently, but had had a long-time relationship with Mrs Simpson. American press had been speculating for quite some time that she would seek divorce and marry King Edward VIII. She was often invited to royal events where the prime minister too would be present. She stayed in royal palaces and was driven around in royal cars. All this was known to the people of England, just as it was to the prime minister and the archbishop. Th e question is why they decided to stay silent.
“3. Mrs Simpson got her decree of divorce from an English court. The proceedings took place in strict supervision of the police and the press was not allowed to publish a photo of the event … If the British government was unaware of her situation in the palace, then why did it have to exercise such caution?
“4. The king went on a cruise with Mrs Simpson in August. Everyone knew of this yet no condemnation is on record … The prime minister has said in a statement that he had discussed this with the king only in late October … The fact is that everyone who attended royal parties in Mrs Simpson’s presence knew about her [affair] …
“The fact of the matter is that the problem started with a speech of the bishop of Bradford who had expressed that the king should show more inclination towards faith.
“With these words of the bishop of Bradford, the newspapers of North England, followed by the press of the whole of England created a hubbub that the bishop was referring to the king’s affair with Mrs Simpson …
“The bishop of Bradford denied any such reference, but the newspapers kept insisting that the bishop was now lying … But those who are aware of the circumstances know that the bishop had not alluded to the king’s affair with Mrs Simpson but had only indicated that the king should show more association to his Christian faith …
“Thanks to Colonel Wedgwood who stood up during the parliamentary debate and clarified that Mrs Simpson’s affair had come about as a coincidence and that the actual intention of the bishop was only to urge the king to show more affiliation to Christianity.
“Wedgwood went on to say that if the king had expressed his desire not to follow the religious ritual of the coronation ceremony, it was no reason to show antipathy – the coronation is only ceremonial and not a religious assembly – nor should it be a cause of abhorrence if the archbishop or the bishop or York or the prime minister decided not to attend …
“This, added to other happenings, goes to show that the issue of Mrs Simpson was not the actual bone of contention; the actual issue is that when the Coronation Committee met the king and presented the details to him, the king refused to take the religious vows …
“I now want to ask whether the actual issue was the king’s choice between a woman and the monarchy, or was it a matter of choice between monarchy and a matter of principle which meant more for him?
“The church was fearful to have a king – titled the Defender of Faith – who declined to take religious vows. The king, on the other hand, was reluctant in accepting something only for the sake of coming to the throne …
“We cannot say anything for sure about the king’s religious beliefs, but we now know for certain that he chose his principles over the throne.
“I now come to the issue that worked as a basis for the outcome in this conflict … Although the king’s faith was in question, but his decision to abdicate lay on marrying Mrs Simpson. How, then, is this a sacrifice?” (Al Fazl, Qadian, 22 December 1936)
Hazrat Mirza Mahmud Ahmadra went on to show how the question of marriage with a divorcee was, for the Church of England, an issue of faith. He asserts that the church did not object to the moral character of Mrs Simpson, but to the fact that she was twice-divorced and both her ex-husbands were still alive.
The question he raised was that the decree of divorce was issued by an English court under a law passed by parliament; if divorce was such a vicious act, why did parliament pass such a law? And if it is not, then why object to the king marrying a divorcee?
“The former king,” he stated, “had the lawful right to marry. This given, how true is it to say that the king rejected the throne for a woman?”
The article went on to prove that the actual problem, thus, was not whether the king could marry or not, but the fact that if he married, the dominions – especially those with Roman Catholics in majority like Canada and Ireland – would show resentment, leaving the empire in an unstable state. The king’s offer to the government of his morganatic marriage with Mrs Simpson is also discussed in the article, as well as the government’s denial of the proposal.
Hazrat Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmadra described the king’s predicament as such:
“The king had before him not the people of the country, but a small minority that suggested not marrying a divorcee and, on the other hand, a woman who was ready to marry him and to whom he had pledged to marry …
“The minority’s opinion has no legal standing, whereas the woman in question has the full right to marriage by law. The only way forward for the king was to side with the one who sided with the law …”
The latter part of the article takes a very interesting turn. The episode of Edward VIII’s abdication is linked to Islamic eschatological vision of Christianity, as well as highlighting the Islamic edict on divorce. To quote from the actual text:
“The whole issue is even more important for us and that is what made me write this article. It is in itself a fulfilment of a prophecy of and a means to refute an allegation on the Holy Prophetsa of Islam.
“Prophecy has it that Christianity would automatically melt away in the time of the Promised Messiah; the allegation was that the Holy Prophetsa had permitted divorce and had married divorced women.
“What better proof for the fulfilment of the prophecy could there be when a state that stands for Christianity and more so, whose king is meant to be the ‘Defender of Faith’ denies Christian rites for not having faith in them.
“The world has now come to realise the social importance of divorce and, if not found morally corrupt, a divorced woman’s honour is protected to the extent that a king emperor has forsaken his throne for her …
“Bishops declare victory in this conflict, but Edward’s sacrifice will not go in vain as it is backed by prophecies. There will come a day when England will not only destigmatise divorce, but will also consult Islamic teachings in law-making …
“Only God knows what the religious beliefs of Edward were in his final days as king, but we know from facts surrounding the situation that he was in full or partial disagreement with the religion of the state. Seeing that the church’s establishment was coercing restraint from a matter permissible by law, he must have considered what else they might go on to demand in future …
“The thought process of the church on the other hand seems to revolve around the king’s lack of faith in Christianity. Bishops, in their effort to please their Catholic counterparts in the dominions, saw in it a win-win situation: if they were able to subjugate the king’s opinion, he would forever remain under their thumb; if he chose to abdicate, they would get rid of a king who they saw as standing in their way …
“In short, the conflict was not what is generally understood, but that of faith and the supremacy of law. The king insisted on his personal faith on maintaining the state religion (although a state religion becomes merely politics, especially when it starts to intervene in matters of principle). The king wanted to respect the law and follow it. His opponents thought that the law of divorce was only but a showpiece; the law allowed it, the Church did not.
“Since the king did not approve of Christianity, fully or partially, he decided to side with what satisfied his conscience: the law of land. To save the empire from unrest, he hence gave up his throne.
“Those aware of this detail and the truth behind it tend to cry, ‘Long live Edward, long live!’ “That too is right, but the facts compel me to cry, ‘Long live Muhammad, long live!’” (Al Fazl, Qadian, 22 December 1936)
The above article was written only days after the abdication. Where it surprises one to note how well informed the writer was, it calls for a closer look at the issue at the heart of the abdication conspiracy – the crisis as it brewed in the government and church circles and, even more to one’s surprise, within the royal palace.
Royal family’s concern
To better understand Edward’s personality today, he can be seen as a forerunner of Lady Diana – of a non-monarchical bent, obsessed with public engagement, popular in the general public and devastated through marriage. The Prince of Wales was, as historian Adrian Phillips describes him, “the first member of the royal family to have extensive contact with public in Britain and abroad; he became the first celebrity royal”. (Adrian Phillips, The King Who Had to Go: Edward VIII, Mrs Simpson and the Hidden Politics of the Abdication Crisis, Biteback Publishing, London, 2016)
While it appealed to the general British public, the royal family did not approve of such non-royal behaviour. He appeared to be a “clear contrast to the stern and conservative image of his father” and hence, a “breath of fresh air” (Ibid).
This very factor that earned him a place closer to the public’s hearts left his future precarious in the eyes of his father and the rest of the royal family. Prince Edward openly resented to the way his father wanted him to always dress: formal and complex to carry the air of royalty. Edward on the contrary chose to dress in a way that was closer to general public, albeit to the gentlemen’s class. His father would openly criticise him, even publicly, usually keeping his criticism inconspicuous but also otherwise occasionally. (Philip Ziegler, King Edward VIII, Harper Collins, London, 2012)
The king also despised the men that Edward kept close to himself as friends and associated the prince’s violent habits with such company. Edward’s reproach to a full-time prince was another fundamental bone of contention between him and his father. He desired to play prince when on duty and a private individual in his personal time. This, again, was very un-royal for the household that he belonged to.
His affairs with women, and that too of all sorts, remained a major reason for the king’s concern all through the eventful youth of Edward. George V saw his heir’s casual, illicit and indiscrete affairs as a stigma that could result in loss of popularity of the future king and consequently, of the royal family; he was, after all, to be titled the Defender of Faith when he came to the throne. (Phillips, The King Who Had to Go)
While the modernistic appeal of Edward, Prince of Wales struck a chord with the young and the populace in general, it was seen by the royal family as a danger to the future of the royal family, especially at a time when monarchies were falling left, right and centre. It was essential that the royal family remained aloof, beyond public access and, as they say, “holier than thou”.
The government’s concern
Stanley Baldwin had served two of his prime ministerial terms in the reign of King George V – Prince Edward’s father. He had had cordial relations with the monarch and their correspondence reveals that the king would comfortably share with him what otherwise remained concealed emotions.
Writing to Baldwin on one occasion, King George V expressed his concerns for Edward – his son and heir to the throne – in stating, “After I am dead the boy will ruin himself in twelve months”. (Windham Baldwin Papers, 3/3/14, Cambridge University Library)
Biographers of George V, as well as of Edward VIII, associate the king’s dreads to Edward’s wayward behaviour. For Baldwin, and the government for that matter, it was not the flamboyant, playboy image of Edward that raised dismay and concern.
His ever-growing popularity in the general public – an unprecedented phenomenon for a royal in modern history – paired with his practice of openly voicing his opinion on political matters, is what alarmed Baldwin and his associates; When he comes to throne, what will we have? A constitutional monarch or a king who wants control in political affairs?
Attending a dinner with government dignitaries and foreign diplomats, Edward engaged the Russian ambassador, Ivan Maisky, in a fairly long conversation (Gabriel Gorodetsky [Ed], The Maisky Diaries: Red Ambassador to the Court of St James’s 1932-1943, 15 November 1934) – something very unconventional as a royal is only expected to engage in small talk and that too, limited to pleasantries. As if the prolonged interaction itself was insufficient to leave the establishment and the archbishop of Canterbury to exchange glances in shock, the issues he brought up left them stunned. The content revolved around British diplomacy and that of Germany and France. (Phillips, The King Who Had to Go)
After this dinner in 1934, a chain of similar events kept shovelling more coal to the already ablaze anguish of government circles. Addressing the British Legion, he urged for some members to be sent to Germany by way of extending a hand of friendship and to yield better diplomatic terms (The Times, London, 12 June 1935).
This was taken not only as a royal’s involvement in politics, but also as one that contradicted with the policy of the Foreign Office. Soon after this, Edward was at Berkhamsted School where, in his speech, he criticised the government’s policy of discouraging pupils to train with even light airguns. Anticipating another war, he went so far as to call those in charge of such policies as “misguided people”, adding, “I will even go as far as to call them cranks.” (The Times, London, 13 June 1935)
Enraged, Prime Minister Baldwin brought both the speeches to the table of the cabinet and sought advice. Having agreed that the king should be informed and asked to pull the prince’s reins, minutes of the cabinet’s meeting were forwarded to the palace for the king’s attention. (National Archives, CAB 23/82, 19 June 1935)
Had it been for encroachment in political realms only, the ministers could have pulled certain strings – which we will see that they often did – and got the prince confined to his royal nook. But as his popularity in the general public crept higher, and that too on a steep trajectory, the government was alarmed. What they saw was not a constitutional monarch-tobe, but a president or – as his fondness for Nazi Germany suggested – a Führer in the making.
Edward’s tours across the length and breadth of the Empire earned him a great deal of popularity not only in but beyond the British Isles. “HRH really does work very hard,” reported Admiral Halsey, who had accompanied him on such journeys abroad. Halsey’s letter to Lord Stamfordham goes on to tell how the prince loved to be around common people “especially as he talks to practically every soldier who is bedridden, and his sympathy with them is so genuine that if finds it hard to go on for any length of time” (Phillips, The King Who Had to Go).
The 1920 Royal Tour of King George V’s son, Edward, Prince of Wales, who was in New Zealand between 24 April and 22 May. It shows the Prince talking to a returning serviceman in Ashburton
This affectionate approach was reciprocated with even more warmth and fervour. By the time he acceded the throne, he was known to be one “too very well known by most of the people of the Kingdom and … very popular with them” (Duke of Connaught to Princess Louise, Royal Archives, RA Vic Add A 17/1590); to be a “genuine solicitude for the unemployed” (Clement Attlee, As it Happened, William Heinemann, London, 1954); one who was with “enormous amount of general knowledge” (Hugo Vickers, Cecil Beaton: An Authorised Biography, Hodder & Stoughton, London, 2020) and who never forgot names and was good at statistics.
But from how the events unfolded, it appears that all this panegyric by politicians and bureaucrats was in fact to mask their dread of a rising revolution. Edward was himself aware of his popularity and of the advantages he had had through his career as Prince of Wales.
“At forty-one I had seen about as much of life as my position had allowed”, the Prince was to write, many years later, in his memoirs.
“The First World War had made it possible for me to share an unparalleled human experience with all manner of men. I had visited practically all the important countries of the world, except Soviet Russia, and many of the smaller ones. I had seen the good and the bad in the Empire, its triumphs and its failures. Princely progresses, diplomatic and commercial missions, not to mention the continuous travelling that I did on my own account, had taken me again and again into realms previously unknown to Royalty.” (Edward, Duke of Windsor, A King’s Story: The Memoirs of HRH the Duke of Windsor KG, Cassell & Company, London, 1951)
Edward went on to boast the titles that he had received through public opinion and had been reflected in the newspapers:
“Britain’s First Ambassador” and “Britain’s Best Salesman”. He held these titles, which acknowledged his services as being above all titles “hereditary or complimentary” ever applied to him. (Ibid)
Edward’s popularity among the general public and his insight of the state machinery and that of the Empire was seen by Westminster and Whitehall as a storm that loomed the horizon. The fear masked under the above pleasantries becomes conspicuous from Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin’s statements to his confidants. One of the three goals that he set for his civil service at the very outset of his term, stated:
“To enable the Prince of Wales (should he succeed to the throne) to make a favourable start as a king”. (National Archives, PREM 1/466)
The very short statement is much sufficient to uncover Baldwin’s doubts and anxieties. The same becomes even more doubtless when Baldwin describes the king as “an abnormal being, half childish, half-genius … It is almost as though two or three cells in his brain had remained entirely undeveloped while the rest of him is a mature man.” (Baldwin Papers f418, University of Cambridge Library, The Royal Box)
Then there are accounts of the private secretary of the Prince of Wales, Allan Lascelles confiding in Baldwin and listing the Prince’s defects. Lascelles bitterly resented the Prince’s “drinking, womanising and pursuit of selfish pleasure” and doubted if he was fit for his future role as king.
Protocols were not only breached by Lascelles in directly approaching the prime minister, but by Baldwin also in entertaining the grievances of a royal’s private secretary. Lascelles’ despise for the Prince was even bolder when he told the prime minister that “the best thing that could happen to [the prince], and the country, would be for him to break his neck”.
Even bolder was Baldwin’s endorsement:
“God forgive me, I have often thought the same.” (Duff Hart-Davis [Ed], King’s Counsellor: Abdication and War: The Diaries of ‘Tommy’ Lascelles, Weidenfeld & Nicholson, London, 2006)
With these deep-seated loathsome anxieties for King Edward VIII, from the time he was next in line to the throne, Baldwin’s role surfaces even more when he collaborates with the Church in conspiring to bring the king down; to this we will return later.
The Church of England’s concerns
Lambeth Palace seems to have remained indifferent of Prince Edward’s womanising and other wayward characteristics. What seems to have concerned them most is his lack of religious affiliation, which, in view of his public popularity, could weaken the grip of the church on state affairs. He was known to be non-practising, but that he had drifted even farther away from Anglican beliefs became apparent with his ascension.
Edward VIII
Edward VIII’s official biographer, Philip Ziegler, notes that “even if there had been no Mrs Simpson, a clash between the King and the Establishment was inevitable.” Explaining his stance further, Ziegler explains that the Establishment had deep-rooted traditions and that to shake these roots was bound to come with lethal results for a constitutional monarch.
“Edward VIII recognized,” he says, “that he would be offending vested interests and injuring people who felt that they deserved better of him, but he was a strong proponent of the view that omelettes are only made by breaking eggs.” (Ziegler, King Edward VIII)
Edward VIII’s characterisation by HG Wells is worthy of note:
“He betrays the possession of a highly modernized mind by his every act, he is unceremonious, he is unconventional, and he asks the most disconcerting questions about social conditions …” (Baltimore News Post, 9 December 1936)
The Church of England would naturally be far from comfortable with a king who had “an enquiring mind, was disinclined to accept dogma as invariably correct, grew impatient if told that something could not be done because it had never been done before”. (Ziegler, King Edward VIII)
With such a figure on the throne, Cosmo Lang, the Archbishop of Canterbury, decided to personally, but discretely, intervene. With his shrewd intellect, he was to be instrumental in the abdication, yet maintain his image of being aloof from the politics that was to rampage the Crown.
It is not hard to imagine what the Archbishop would have felt when his principal adviser, Alan Don, reported to him that the new King intended to turn Roman Catholic to “escape from his unwelcome task”. “This was told to me,” he wrote in his diary, “by as Diocesan Bishop who had just been talking to an ex-Cabinet Minister”. (Alan C Don’s diaries, Lambeth Palace Library, MS 2864, 19 February 1936)
While Don’s above statement came as a reminder at the outset of Edward VIII’s reign, his reproach for Anglican faith was quite commonly known from many years before. He himself admitted to not being versed with the “Protestant faith, of which, by virtue of my birth, I was destined one day to be the ‘Defender’”. (Edward, A King’s Story)
During his early days on the throne, Edward VIII was swamped in conflicting emotions. That he expressed them added fuel to the fire of anxiety already giving sleepless nights to the Archbishop. The King knew that the popular opinion of his subjects saw him as progressive and had invested in him their hopes for change.
“It became increasingly plain to me,” he recalled later, “… that however wholeheartedly I might adapt myself to the familiar outward pattern of kingship … I could never expect wholly to satisfy the expectations of those for whom the rigid modes of my father’s era had come to exemplify the only admissible standard for a King … But I was also acutely conscious of the changes working in the times, and I was eager to respond to them as I had always done.” (Ibid)
The King was in this conflicting state of mind when the Archbishop had his first audience. It was on the day after George V died. This first meeting struck the wrong chord for both these stalwarts of the Church of England. Cosmo Lang, the Archbishop, recorded the meeting in his chronicle:
“… I had quite a long talk with the King. I told him frankly that I was aware that he had been set against me by knowing that his father had often discussed his affairs with me … He did not seem to resent this frankness, but quickly said that of course there had always been difficulties between the Sovereign and his heir.” (Cosmo Lang Papers, Lambeth Palace Library, Vol. 223)
The King’s account on this meeting matches Lang’s account but also captures the negativity that this meeting had sown in their relationship.
“No man likes to be told,” the King wrote, “that his conduct has provided a topic of conversation between his father and a third person. At any rate the Archbishop’s disclosure was an unpropitious note with which to inaugurate the formal relations between a new sovereign and his Primate.” (Edward, A King’s Story)
Lang’s account also confirms that the meeting had left a somewhat bad taste: “It was clear that he knows little, and I fear, cares little, about the Church and its affairs.” (Lang Papers, Lambeth Palace Library, Vol. 223)
The King concluded his recollection of the meeting in saying, “That encounter was my first intimation that I might be approaching an irreconcilable conflict”. (Edward, A King’s Story)
Lang proactively maintained an active connection with anyone who could bring him ammunition for his battle against a king that he desired not to stay on the throne. Disgruntled staff from the palace – mostly for being sacked or demoted by King Edward – would approach Lang to further nourish his ambitions against the King.
Just as Lascelles had confided in Baldwin, Admiral Lionel Halsey is reported to have headed straight to Lambeth Palace as soon as he was told by the King that he was no longer required on the household staff.
Halsey continued to visit Lang and write to him, originals of which are archived in the Lambeth Palace Library. He had been Edward VIII’s private secretary, replaced soon by Wigham. Halsey’s letters to Lang contained information acquired from Wigham which only go to show the King’s own staff’s disloyalty to him but loyalty to the establishment.
Halsey’s letters also indicate that Wigham had been providing information about the King to Baldwin. That the Viceroy of India, Lord Linlithgow, discussed the situation with both Baldwin and Lang during a visit to London, reveals that the Establishment had taken the dominions on board their malicious intents; Baldwin and Lang knew very well that dominions will have to play their part when the time came.
Very soon after Edward VIII’s ascension to the throne, the government and the Church of England – notoriously known as the Establishment – had joined hands in their conspiracy against a King who did not suit their agenda. The King himself was generous in providing the Establishment with stories to further stack their growing piles.
Breaking away from his father’s practice, he refused to subscribe to ecclesiastical charities right at the start of his reign. Chaplains of the Archbishop brought to his knowledge that the King did not attended the Chapel Royal – confirming doubts that he had no interest in Christian faith. (Diaries and Papers of Rev Alan C Don, Lambeth Palace Library, under various dates of March 1936)
Such a petty observation that the “king had also fidgeted all through the Royal Maundy Service” was important enough a piece of information as to be worthy of reporting to the Archbishop. (Ibid)
Launcelot Percival, who had been the precentor at the Chapel Royal for 14 years when Edward VIII acceded to the throne, would report every action of the King to Archbishop Lang; that the King and Mrs Simpson stayed out late at night and that the King laid expensive gifts at the feet of his mistress are some of the issues on record that he conveyed to Lang. Trivial they might seem, but that even such issues reached the Archbishop reveals a lot about the gravity of the conspiracy.
A collection of cuttings from the American press – that had remained vocal about the Edward/Simpson affair – held at Lambeth Palace archives points to the level of interest that the Archbishop had in the situation; that letters with these cuttings were addressed directly to him tells even more. Adding insult to injury was Edward VIII’s disinclination to consult the Archbishop who had, during all his career, been consulted in every matter by George V.
How the Church would hold the monarch under its thumb seems to have become a matter of greater concern for Archbishop Lang. Baldwin and his government also faced the same predicament. It would not be wrong to conclude that it was at this crossroads that their paths crossed and it was here that the Church and the Government united in their efforts to topple their own King. It was here that they might have continued to sing “Long live the King!” – hand on heart – quite contrary to their actions.
The Church and government against the King
The Establishment – which here means the Church and the Government combined – now united and turned all guns in the King’s direction; even though the king is meant to be the third pillar of the establishment.
By this point, the American press had gained significant momentum about the King’s affair with Mrs Simpson. It was at this point that the Establishment unbolted and flung open the sluice that had so far been holding the British press at bay.
Confidential meetings with Geoffrey Dawson, Editor of The Times, with Archbishop Lang, and their correspondence – both on record and held at the Lambeth Palace Library and Bodleian Library, Oxford University – speak volumes about how all major state institutions had their strings tied to the Archbishop’s fingers.
The Archbishop recorded this meeting with Dawson in his diary:
“I had a long and very confidential talk with him in which he spoke to me about the possibility at some early date of The Times intervening in an article”.
The Archbishop was so thankful for his support that he wrote to Dawson the next day (12 November 1936). Half of the letter has been torn off but the remaining sits in the shelves of Lambeth Palace Library:
“I need not tell you how grateful I was to you for our confidential talk yesterday. Since I saw you I have talked to other responsible people and it becomes increasingly apparent that some decisive clearing of the air must be achieved within the shortest possible time. I only hope that the Prime Minister will now take some further definite step.” (Cosmo Lang Papers, Lambeth Palace Library, Vol. 129)
Although the letter does not reveal who these “other responsible people” were, but since Baldwin has been mentioned, it only goes to mean that the Archbishop had all instruments of the Empire’s machinery under his thumb. Dawson had also been to see Prime Minister Baldwin and had found him equally concerned about the situation. (Geoffrey Dawson Papers, Bodleian Library, University of Oxford, Vol. 55)
The Establishment let the British press off the lead and newspapers, especially tabloids, were soon buzzing with sensational stories. As Hazrat Mirza Mahmud Ahmadra had rightly assumed, the Establishment had Mrs Simpson’s story ready as their scapegoat.
The Archbishop had carefully engineered the search for a sacrificial lamb and had finally managed to find a femme fatale. A letter of his, written after the storm of abdication had settled, is quite indicative of his approach:
“… as the months passed and his relations with Mrs Simpson became more notorious the thought of my having to consecrate him as King weighed on me as a heavy burden.” (Cosmo Lang Papers, Lambeth Place Library, Vol. 223)
“Think of pouring all those sacred words into a vacuum” is a remark that Archbishop Lang made to one of his confidants. Not only is his intention to not let the King make it as far as his coronation evident, but even more striking is this intention’s similarity to that of Baldwin’s – “should he succeed to the throne”. (Ibid, Vol. 318)
Archbishop Lang took his Bishops in confidence before moving on to the big step. He invited them all to his room “of which windows were fast closed, and the atmosphere stifling”, as Herbert Henson, one of his bishops, later described. No minutes of this in-camera meeting were taken but Bishop Henson’s diary holds most of the secrets discussed. He recalls the Archbishop briefing them about the coronation:
“It would not be edifying to stir up the nation to a religious preparation for the King’s crowning when the King himself was making it apparent that he himself took anything but a religious view of the ceremony.” (Bishop Henson Papers, Durham Cathedral Library, under 17 November 1936)
This statement of Lang’s refers to the King’s intention to dismiss the Christian vows that have remained at the heart of a British monarch’s coronation. Soon after Edward VIII’s ascension to the throne, during a meeting to map out coronation plans, Archbishop Lang “had to defend the importance of the Christian ritual involved in the coronation service when challenged by sovereign who wanted to scale back what he perceived as humbuggery of royal ceremonial”. (Edward Owens, The Family Firm: Monarchy, Mass Media and the British Public 1932-53, University of London Press)
It is concluded by most historians and biographers that the above was “just one example in a catalogue of offences” compiled by Archbishop Lang against Edward and one that compelled him to pave the way to topple a king with a modernising agenda; an agenda that did not suit the Church of England and, for that matter, the status quo. (Ibid)
Edward VIII seems to have tried all possible ways to exercise his lawful rights as well as stay on the throne. Although he thought that he could lawfully marry Mrs Simpson, he was flexible enough to respect the sentiments of the Establishment by proposing a morganatic marriage with Mrs Simpson.
This meant that Mrs Simpson would legally be the King’s wife, but would not be titled the Queen-consort, nor would their children from the marriage be placed in the line of succession to the crown. This too was rejected by Baldwin who, as is now quite obvious, was not acting alone.
Archbishop Lang wanted to see the King’s removal from the throne “as soon as possible”, an intention that he had quite plainly expressed in a letter to Baldwin – in an envelope marked “Strictly Private”. (Stanley Baldwin Papers, Cambridge University Library, Vol. 176, 25 Nov 1936)
The letter concluded with these words:
“Only the pressure of our common anxiety – and hope – can justify this letter”. (Ibid)
Not everyone in the Parliament was an ally of Baldwin and his cabinet. There were ministers, including the likes of Winston Churchill, who had a soft corner and sympathy for the king. (Montgomery Hyde, Baldwin, the Unexpected Prime Minister, Hart-Davies, MacGibbon, London, 1973)
Although The Times was hijacked by the Establishment, the popular press continuously expressed allegiance to the king. The public did not want their king to go and that too for a matter that they saw as a trivial one. It was beginning to seem highly likely that there could form a “King’s Party” in the Parliament. This is something that Edward VIII did not desire for his country and the Empire. He could not bear the bifurcation of the nation on an issue of so personal a nature.
On the dull evening of 2 December 1936, Prime Minister Baldwin headed to the Palace to see the King to tell him that it was now a matter of urgency and that the decision must now be made. He presented the King with three options:
To give up Mrs Simpson
The morganatic marriage option (which was by then an invalid option)
Abdication
(Cosmo Lang Papers, Vol. 318, Lambeth Palace Library)
Baldwin, as a matter of fact, knew that the King was now only left with the third choice to opt for. He reported the details of his audience back to Lang the next day. Through a very opportunistic move, they thought that they had finally toppled the King. And they were right.
Edward VIII, seeing that he would not be allowed by the Establishment to remain on the throne, decided to abdicate. He signed his abdication notices on 10 December and announced it to the public through a radio broadcast on 11 December 1936.
Braggers of “freedom of speech”
Going through the archives and records of this crisis, one is shocked to notice how the King was cornered and pinned down by the British Establishment. Edward VIII, with the intention to know how his subjects saw the whole situation, expressed his desire to address the nation through a radio broadcast. Edward VIII later recalled:
“I thrust at once to the point of the meeting, the project of the broadcast. The idea seemed to startle him and, if I correctly read his thoughts, he seemed to be saying to himself rather irritably, ‘Damn it; what will this young man be thinking up next?’” (Edward, A King’s Story)
He was absolutely right in reading Baldwin’s mind. Baldwin took the proposal to the cabinet and came back to tell the King that the proposal had been rejected. (Baldwin Papers, Vol. 176)
In their dread of a monarch who could challenge the status quo, the Establishment denied him the right to even address his people. Thrown out was the fact that he was still the King; ignored were the crowds outside the palace who sang “Long live the King!” and “For he’s a jolly good fellow” in showing their support for their King; brutally disregarded was the notion of “freedom of speech” that the British Government was, and is, very proud of.
Archbishop Lang was, however, allowed to broadcast his message to the nation a few days after the abdication. Having observed that the public opinion was bewildered (Lang Papers, Lambeth Palace Library, Vol. 318), he broadcast his address on radio.
Lang’s biographer, Robert Beaken, is rightly of the opinion that the Archbishop’s voice sounded “nervous in comparison with other recordings”. (Robert Beaken, Cosmo Lang: Archbishop in War and Crisis, IB Tauris, London, 2012)
It was this speech that Hazrat Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmadra had referred to in his Al Fazl article – only having read excerpts and with no access to the audio. Robert Beaken’s observation is absolutely correct, which can be confirmed by listening to the speech preserved at the British Library. (British Library, Sound Archives, T8077/0404)
Lang’s close confidant, Alan Don, recorded in his diary how the Archbishop was found kneeling in prayer beside his desk just before leaving for the broadcast. (Don Diaries, Lambeth Palace Library, under 15 December 1936)
Don also noted down his own impressions about the address:
“I am a little apprehensive about it, for I think it may have the effect of confirming suspicion … that he had engineered the whole thing”. (Ibid)
Conclusion
It is incredibly amazing to note how a man in a small town of the Punjab – thousands of miles away from the hubbub of the abdication crisis – could so minutely understand the facts behind the fictional presentation of the story.
How right was Hazrat Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmadra in asserting that the King’s abdication to protect his lawful right to remarry a divorcee would set up a legacy – a legacy of allowing, along the Islamic lines, to divorce when inevitable and to remarry when divorced.
There is no need to delve into how members of the Royal Family have ever since been able to divorce and to remarry of their own freewill. There are many! (And counting, it seems!)
Despite the flamboyant claims of being secular, are the so-called modern Western governments still puppets of the church? This too is not the scope of this article. Does the church still try to control state affairs or is that now a bygone? Or is it that the church’s establishment in the West is more skilled at the cunning art of keeping their interventions discreet (as opposed to the clergy pressure groups of the Muslim East)?
The answers are still hazy. We may find out in another few decades.
When a prophet appears, disbelievers are often at the height of power and glory – and also the height of arrogance and evil. They have power, wealth and resources. The prophet has absolutely nothing but a band of poor followers, a heart full of compassion and a tongue flowing with pathos-filled prayers. He is God’s most beloved person on earth, yet he is the most despised by the majority, persecuted by the elite and ridiculed by the masses.
However, after many years of heartfelt prayers, constant efforts and preaching, he overturns the circumstances and succeeds in establishing the unity and glory of God on earth.
Worldly wealth and resources are not a sign of God’s love, approval or acceptance. As Allah says in the Holy Quran, “Wealth and children are an adornment of the life of this world. But enduring good works are better in the sight of thy Lord in respect of [immediate] reward, and better in respect of [future] hope.” (Surah al-Kahf, Ch.18: V.47)
The world is very transient. Every honour, respect, glory, wealth and success in this life is short-lived. It doesn’t guarantee you happiness; it doesn’t prove your nearness to Allah and ultimately leaves a person with emptiness inside, if not filled with sincerity and moral values.
Nations who have abandoned God today, thinking their wealth and knowledge is sufficient for them, are in grave error. Having forsaken God, they have been left to their own devices to a large extent. And since they desired the world and also strove for it, the law of cause and effect operates for them as much as it does for believers – efforts don’t go wasted.
At times, the doors are flung wide open for those who seek only worldly wealth and glory:
“Whoso desires the harvest of the Hereafter, We give him increase in his harvest; and whoso desires the harvest of this world, We give him [thereof], but in the Hereafter he will have no share.” (Surah al-Shura, Ch.42: V.21)
For many, such prosperity in this life becomes a means of their downfall:
“So let not their wealth nor their children excite thy wonder. Allah only intends to punish them therewith in the present life and that their souls may depart while they are disbelievers.” (Surah al-Taubah, Ch.9: V.55)
In this is a message for believers specifically – don’t wonder why these people have so much more than you. It’s a trial for them; as they desired the life of this world and gave scant regard to religion and the higher values of life, God has given them what they wished for, but ultimately it will result in nothing but their own ruin.
“And strain not thy eyes after what We have bestowed on some classes of them to enjoy [for a short time] – the splendour of the present world – that We may try them thereby. And the provision of thy Lord is better and more lasting.” (Surah Ta Ha, Ch.20: V.132)
Muslims are instructed to look to the everlasting heavenly life and not pine after or fret at the fact that today the disbelievers are vaster in number, wealth and power. It is only short-lived. It’s bound to end quickly and suddenly.
The signs of this are already appearing. Both the US and Europe are suffering from economic uncertainties, deepening division and political turmoil. Every nation has its day and only those endure who stay just.
The Holy Quran has made prophecies regarding Latter-Day Christian nations:
“When the disciples said, ‘O Jesus, son of Mary, is thy Lord able to send down to us a table spread with food from heaven?’ he said, ‘Fear Allah, if you are believers.’” (Surah al-Maidah, Ch.5: V.113)
“Said Jesus, son of Mary, ‘O Allah, our Lord, send down to us a table from heaven spread with food that it may be to us a festival, to the first of us and to the last of us, and a Sign from Thee; and provide sustenance for us, for Thou art the Best of Sustainers.’
“Allah said, ‘Surely, I will send it down to you, but whosoever of you disbelieves afterwards — I will surely punish them with a punishment wherewith I will not punish any other of the peoples.’” (Surah al- Maidah, Ch.5: V.115-116)
Christian nations were destined to be given much glory, wealth and resources in the Latter Days. Jesusas and his disciplines were found in strenuous circumstances but had prayed to Allah to bless them and their future peoples. Allah had promised it to them, but also issued a warning – those who would be ungrateful thereafter would be met with a severe punishment.
Those who claim to be representatives of God on earth and claim they are following the true faith, but fail to exhibit the qualities that that necessitates, incur the wrath and displeasure of God.
In fact, both Muslim and non-Muslim nations have succumbed to the lure of lavish luxuries and wealth. Oil-rich Muslim countries are basking in what seems unlimited wealth, yet their neighbours are drowning in poverty, disease and conflict.
If this is the state of Muslims, why should anyone be surprised when their nations become political puppets for other nations? Why should they accept to be treated any differently by God than those who deny God? Allah changes not the condition of people until they change what is in their hearts.
Muslims have malice and hatred in their hearts for their fellow Muslim brothers. Yemen is one of the worst humanitarian disasters in recent history, yet nothing is done to help it. When one’s words and actions are not in accord then can anyone expect God to help them?
Allah says “Why do you say what you do not do? Most hateful is it in the sight of Allah that you say what you do not do.” (Surah al-Saff, Ch.61: V.3-4)
Looking at the condition of Muslim nations in the world is not dissimilar to the condition of disbelievers. Muslims may pray, but do not do justice to their prayer by way of actions and have fallen prey to the verse “Woe to those who pray, but are unmindful of their prayer.” (Surah al- Ma‘un, Ch.107: V.5-6)
If you are a Muslim in name alone, then you’re not much different from anyone else. Allah does not promise a mere Muslim success; nowhere does it say that merely being called a Muslim is something of merit; rather, it is the believers who show in their actions the proof of their faith and their Islam, that are recipients of God’s special favours.
Before the siege of Baghdad in 1258, when the Mongol invader Hulagu Khan ransacked the city, it is narrated that the caliph asked a saint to pray that he be saved. A few nights later, he told the caliph the divine answer had come:
“O ye disbelievers, kill the wrongdoers.”
It is a similar situation happening in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East. Muslims have no longer remained believers but have fallen to sinful activities, hence as a way of punishment, God also withdraws His protection and it is as if he has given permission to the disbelievers to destroy the wrongdoing Muslims.
It must also be remembered that all races, religions and nations have been given a fair share of talent and ability.
Amongst Muslims, you will find those who are more successful and those less. Amongst non-Muslims there will be the more prosperous and the less well off. The believer’s objective, however, is the Hereafter. This is why Jesusas said that it is easier for a camel to go through an eye of a needle than a rich man to enter heaven.
It is not that every rich person is bound for hell, but that abundance of wealth very often leads to indifference to the higher values of life, laxity in regard to responsibilities and a false sense of security. It also paves the way for a lavish and extravagant lifestyle.
Allah does not differentiate between religions when it comes to material benefits; to some he tries with wealth and success, while others are tried with illness and affliction, poverty and distress. But the Promised Messiahas has explained that the latter trial is less dangerous, as the former often leads to arrogance and a false sense of superiority.
This is why saints and prophets of the past did not consider trials and difficulties as God’s displeasure; rather, the Holy Prophetsa has stated that if Allah intends good for you, He afflicts you. There is much spiritual progress to be had under difficult and trying conditions. The stars only show their light under darkness. You don’t know who is good until they are tried and tested. Otherwise good nature is a natural state, not a moral one and only until it is tested can one manifest it at every appropriate occasion. If you have never experienced difficult times, how can your good qualities be exhibited?
Non-Muslims will also be rewarded for their actions, but believers who struggle and establish a relationship with God by honing their spirituality begin to see God in this life. Believers hope from Allah what others do not. (Surah al-Nisa, Ch.4: V.105)
This is why a lot of the Muslim world’s dilemmas is their own doing. Allah blesses people with prosperity and adversity. In prosperity, they are meant to be grateful and use their power and resources to serve God and His creation. In adversity, they are meant to be steadfast and resolved to the will of God, whilst patiently striving and praying for better.
Hence, the Holy Prophetsa gave the glad tiding:
“There is good for a believer in everything. If he experiences something pleasing, he is grateful; if he experiences something disagreeable, he is patient.”
But Muslims nations, having been blessed with abundant wealth, have become greedy, selfish, lax and immoral. They conspire with non-Muslim nations against their own fellow Muslim brothers. They oppress their own citizens and do not fulfil the dues of God and mankind.
In such a condition why do they expect their prayers to be answered and God to grant them success? In adversity and suffering, Muslims have become emboldened in their harshness, resentful of the West and forgotten the qualities of gentleness, forgiveness and forbearance.
The prophecy of the Holy Prophetsa that his ummah would resemble the Jewish nation has been fulfilled. Just as the Jews were vengeful, harsh and scheming at the time of Jesusas, so are Muslims now.
The difficulties Muslims nations are undergoing are not the same as trials endured by believers and true Muslims. For those who are good-natured, trials lead only to their own betterment. For those who are crooked, trials only expose their own wrongdoing and lead to their ruin.
Everyone is tried one way or another and it all comes down to how you respond to it. For believers, however, strained circumstances and difficult conditions do not lead them away from God or to wonder or question why Allah has blessed non-Muslims more than them in this world.
The Holy Prophetsa has given us such inspiring and enlightening spiritual knowledge. It puts a perspective on all the woes, worries and wounds of this world. Once he was lying on a rough straw mat when Hazrat Umarra wept and said, “O Prophet! When the Chosroes of Iran and Byzantine emperors live in such luxury and comfort, how can you live like this? You deserve better!”
The Prophetsa replied, “O Umar, is it not enough that for them is this world and for us is the next?” He taught that this life is a drop in the ocean compared to the next and that this life is like a prison for the believer and a paradise for the disbeliever.
The success and prosperity in the minds of people is not the same as the success mentioned in the Holy Quran. To be free from the covetousness of one’s own soul and at peace with God is the supreme triumph which transcends and outlives every other worldly wealth, glory or honour.
England is an independent country and its inhabitants are considered liberal. Certainly, a section of its people is unbiased and open-minded, but some of them are still under the influence of Christian prejudice.
A few days ago, a friend took me to YMCA (Young Men’s Christian Association). There, I first spoke to an African-American. He got upset after hearing the Islamic belief about the death of Jesusas and said, “I would cut off your head if I could.”
English women were also present in the room, including the housekeeper. Thinking that these English women would express displeasure at the comment of this black man, I turned towards them and repeated the said sentence.
Hazrat Maulvi Abdur Rahim Nayyarra
However, I was completely surprised when I heard the soft-hearted white Christians of the Young Men’s Christian Association address me with the utmost conviction that, “Yes! I would [have also cut off your head] if I could.”
The best way for an Ahmadi to respond towards such conduct is to pray for their guidance, in accordance with the teachings of the Promised Messiahas, and leave that place.
African brotherhood
A society by the name of United African Brotherhood has been formed by the African people. Recently, one of its conferences was held at the house of our friend, Ahmad Ibrahim Thomas. I was also invited to it. The speakers delivered speeches with political zeal and called for establishing mutual unity. They also emphasised on proving their superiority over the white man.
During his speech, an African American said:
“Europe has received all knowledge of religion and civilisation from Africa. Even the name of this continent has been given by us. Europe means the land of no sun. As our people came from lands that benefited from sunlight, they called this cold continent the land of no sun, or Europe, because the sun shines less often over here.”
I also gave a short speech at the conference and advised them to leave Christianity and convert to Islam, to learn the lessons of brotherhood, to reform themselves and to progress gradually with moderation, patience and hard work. Many European women who had married African men were also present there. By the grace of God, [my speech had] a good effect on everyone.
Lecture in East Finchley
Finchley is an area in north of London. I went there to give a speech at the invitation of a women’s society. The name of the society is Women’s Guild. The gathering was arranged in a room of the Wesleyan church. More than 60 women were present there. The subject of the lecture was, “What Britain and India owes to each other”.
In the speech, I mentioned the benefits that the two countries had enjoyed from each other. Moreover, acknowledging the former services of England, I told the audience that India presents an Indian Prophet to the people of Britain in return for their good works. I also conveyed the message of the Ahmadiyya mission and the teachings of Hazrat Jariullah [the champion of Allah] and people were glad [to hear it]. Ahmadiyya literature was then distributed to the audience.
Lecture in Watford
There is an area called Watford on the outskirts of London. It is twenty-five miles from the city centre. One of its societies invited us to deliver a lecture. At their request, I went there on 2 November [1920]. More than a hundred men and women were gathered there. The title of the lecture was “Family life in India”.
In the speech, apart from discussing happiness, sorrow, dress and habits, I talked about religion as well. Then eventually, I mentioned the reforms that came about, which are still taking place, in India through the teachings of the Promised Messiahas.
Furthermore, I mentioned the instructions laid down by the Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, regarding the rights of women in times of joy and grief. The full speech lasted for one and a half hours and then a question and answer session took another half hour. Everyone unanimously expressed thanks and liked the speech, alhamdolillah.
Speeches at home
In addition to outdoor gatherings and speeches at various societies, regular lectures are held at home as well. Hence, last Sunday, Chaudhry Fateh Muhammad Sayal Sahib delivered a lecture on the topic of “Unity of East and West” at the Ahmadiyya Lecture Room.
The erudite speaker presented his lecture brilliantly and proved that the unity of East and West is possible only through Islam, the acceptance of which can end differences and lead to unity and peace. Esteemed Chaudhry Sahib said:
“Three religions are worth mentioning in this speech: Hinduism, Christianity and Islam. Hinduism has cut off the roots of equality, justice and peace by making caste and race a part of religion. On the other hand, discrimination began in Europe under Christianity.
“Europe was a [unified] nation at first, but it was divided into countries. After the division of countries, they were divided into smaller groups. At present, there is so much animosity between the labourers and the merchants, or the labourers and the landlords, that they are ready at each other’s throats. Similar incidents are taking place in Russia as well.
“Thus, how is it possible for those who are themselves falling apart to create unity in the world?
“India did not benefit from Christianity. There is no harmony and compassion between the ordinary Christians [of India] and the English people. In the same way, the Brahman-Christians look down on the ‘chuhra’ [lowest caste in Indian] Christians.
“Hence, Islam is the only religion through which unity and peace can be established amongst mankind. In Islamic civilisation, there is neither any conflict of caste, nor any differences and enmity among various groups. The followers of Islam consider each other as brothers.”
Tabligh
Certain eminent and highly learned people are under being preached. We request members of the Jamaat to pray for them that Allah the Almighty may enlighten them with the light of Islam. Moreover, may He accept our prayers and hard work and overlook our shortcomings.
Al Fazl, 6 December 1920
Donations for Mufti Sahib’s magazine
1. By the grace of Allah, I promise to give a monthly donation of five rupees for the magazine that Hazrat Mufti Sahib wants to publish from America. May the expenses for this magazine be arranged soon and may it start publishing in the near future.
Humbly yours, Inayatullah (Sub-Inspector, Bank Zamindara), Bahlolpur
2. I promise to donate one dollar annually for the English magazine, which will be launched by Hazrat Mufti Muhammad Sadiq Sahib from America. The dollar will be sent according to the instructions as soon as its publication starts, insha-Allah.
(Muhammad Ali Ahmadi, Dera Ghazi Khan)
3. This is to inform you that all the employees of the Promised Messiah’saslangar khana [a place funded by charity, offering free food and accomodation to all] and guesthouse want to present a donation of 15 rupees annually for the launch of Hazrat Mufti Muhammad Sadiq Sahib’s proposed Ahmadiyya magazine from America. They will start submitting one rupee and four annas [a unit of currency formerly used in the subcontinent, equal to 1/16 of a rupee] monthly in the accounts office of Sadr Anjuman Ahmadiyya from their salary of November 1920, insha-Allah.
Wassalam, Muhammad Din, Clerk at Langar Khana, Qadian
Honourary magistrate accepts Islam Ahmadiyyat and other tabligh efforts
First class courtier, kursi nasheen [successor of a sufi], prominent and esteemed Khan Sahib Chaudhry Muhammad Khan Sahib Zaildar, Honourary Magistrate, Gujrat, is the brother of Khan Sahib Chaudhry Fazal Ali Khan Sahib, First Class Honourary Magistrate and President Municipal Committee, Gujrat.
He had already allowed Ahmadis to pray in their mosque. Now he has sincerely accepted the rightful Ahmadiyya Jamaat and written the following letter to Hazrat Khalifatul Masih IIra:
“In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful.
“Peace and blessings of Allah be upon the Holy Prophet.
“To His Holiness, Khalifatul Masih, may Allah prolong his life. Assalamo alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu!
“I sincerely believe in the Promised Messiahas and join his truthful Jamaat and accept all of his claims. [I promise] to follow all the conditions of Bai‘at and I request you to accept my Bai‘at and pray for my religious and worldly betterment. Moreover, especially pray that may God grant me the strength to do good deeds, protect me from evil paths, give me perseverance and make me beneficial for the Jamaat.
“Humbly yours, Muhammad Khan, Honourary Magistrate, Gujarat, Punjab”
New postal address of Hazrat Mufti Sahib
Hazrat Mufti Muhammad Sadiq Sahib went through a lot to find a suitable house in Chicago due to the impediments placed in his way by the bigoted Christians. His current postal address is: 4334 Ellis Avenue, Chicago, Illinois, USA …
Patiala Jamaat introduces resolution – The need for a college in Qadian
A meeting was held on 31 October 1920 in the presence of Dr Hashmatullah Sahib and members of the Jamaat at the Ahmadiyya Mosque, Dhak Bazar. The following proposals were presented in the meeting by Sheikh Muhammad Afzal Sahib, Secretary Patiala Jamaat and passed. They were then sent to be presented before Hazrat Khalifatul Masih for approval and it was requested that if Huzoorra considers it to be appropriate, he may appeal to other Anjumans in this regard. Anjuman Patiala Jamaat is ready to donate as much as it can for this cause.
1. All members of the Jamaat should try to send their children to study in Qadian.
2. The educational institute of Qadian only offers education up to intermediate level. People want to acquire education up to BA [Bachelor of Arts]. Some of them want to educate their children up to BA or MA [Master of Arts], so students have to enroll in other educational institute. As admission in other institutes causes a negative effect on some innocent natured children, it is best if education up to MA level is established in Qadian.
On 18 November [1920], Hafiz Ghulam Rasul Sahib came here [in Raotiani] and delivered many sermons before the people, who are generally unfamiliar with religion. By the grace of God, the sermon he gave in Wapa 34 had a very positive impact. The women also listened to the sermon while observing purdah. May Allah the Almighty help people to understand.
(Muhammad Akbar Zamindar, Wapa 34, President Anjuman Ahmadiyya, Raotiani)
Tabligh in Shakargarh
Sheikh Chirag Din Sahib Munshi Fazil has been engaged in carrying out tabligh in this [Shakargarh] tehsil for a month. My wife and daughter-in-law did Bai‘at in Mauza Dudhu.
“By accepting the criticism made by Muhammad Hasan, rather absurdly, Mehr Ali accused me of copying proverbs and sayings from other works such as Maqamat al-Hariri. I did indeed reproduce them in my book [Ijaz-ul-Masih] but in the form of extracts or citations that cover no more than two or three lines [i.e. only a few lines]. In the opinion of this vacuous man, this was evidence of plagiarism. But the prophecy:
اِنِّیْ مُھِیْنٌ مَّنْ اَرَادَ اِھَانَتَکَ
“[Surely, I shall humiliate him who seeks to humiliate you], loomed over him and instead, he was found guilty of stealing a whole book. He lied and put his faith in false criticism and did not grasp the fact that it was without any merit whatsoever. Thus, he was guilty of three great sins. Is this not a miracle?” (A Gift for An-Nadwah, pp. 21-22 [English Translation of Tuhfatun-Nadwah])
Referring to the above mentioned extract of the Promised Messiah and Mahdi, Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas, opponents suggest the he plagiarised more than three lines from Maqamat al-Hariri [The Assemblies of Al-Hariri] in his book, Ijaz-ul-Masih, and also copied from it in various other Arabic works of his. In their view, this is sufficient evidence that the Arabic writings of Promised Messiahas were not a miracle of God Almighty.
First of all, it is important to note that the words of the Promised Messiahas, “I did indeed reproduce them in my book [Ijaz-ul-Masih] but in the form of extracts or citations that cover no more than two or three lines,” mean that his work, Ijaz-ul-Masih, contains only a few proverbs and phrases of the Arabs which are also recorded in Maqamat al-Hariri.
The Promised Messiahas has used the said phrase as an idiom of Urdu language and it not at all carries the sense that he counted each and every line of the book, Ijaz-ul-Masih, which was related to Maqamat al-Hariri and came to the conclusion that there are exactly two or three lines from it. His words plainly mean that there were only a few examples of Maqamat al-Hariri in his book.
Similar phrases are present in the Holy Quran as well, which are used as idioms. For example, Allah the Almighty says:
“Those who reject Our Signs and turn away from them with disdain, the gates of the spiritual firmament will not be opened for them, nor will they enter Heaven until a camel goes through the eye of a needle. And thus do We requite the offenders.” (Surah al-A‘raf, Ch.7: V.41)
A camel can certainly not pass through the eye of a needle. Hence, this expression has been used to describe the nearly impossible. The Promised Messiahas has also used the phrase, “two or three lines”, in the same way to indicate that only some sentences of Hariri are present in his book. We assure the readers that beyond any doubt, only a few phrases of Maqamat al-Hariri can be seen in the book, Ijaz-ul-Masih, by the Promised Messiahas.
On the other hand, the manner in which our opponents cite examples from the books of the Promised Messiahas, everyone’s work could be declared a copy of Maqamat al-Hariri or of any other book of Arabic for that matter. Even Maqamat al-Hariri itself would fall in the category of “stolen work”.
In fact, this allegation of plagiarism is raised against the Holy Quran as well, as there are certain phrases in the Holy Quran that are present in pre-Islamic Arabic literature.
The proverbs and sayings mentioned in Maqamat al-Haririare from the Arabic language and are the same proverbs that the Arabs used in their daily conversation. Those phrases and sayings were not created by Hariri himself. In fact, Hariri has combined most of the Arabic proverbs and idioms in his work.
Thus, did Hariri write these phrases with the help of revelation? Where did Hariri get these proverbs from? Were they not used by the Arabs before Hariri wrote them? If the Arabs also used such phrases, did Hariri steal them from Arabs? If the Arab people did not use those words before the compilation ofMaqamat al-Hariri, then how did the Arabs understand it?
Hence, Hariri has only created stories by collecting the proverbs and sayings that the Arabs used in their discourse.
As far as the question of plagiarism in the books of the Promised Messiahas is concerned, we will commence by shedding some light on the book Ijaz-ul-Masih, which has been mentioned in the excerpt presented at the outset.
The Promised Messiah’sas personal ink-pot, which he used to write many monumental works
The Promised Messiahas was born on 13 February 1835 and his book, Ijaz-ul-Masih, was published in 1901. His age was 66 at that time. The Promised Messiahas suffered from diabetes from the year 1883 and he also suffered from migraines. Throughout those years, Muslims and non-Muslims used to visit him daily. He would talk to them and respond to their objections as well. Throughout those years, Muslims and non-Muslims would visit him on a daily basis. He would talk to them and respond to their objections. Each day, he would receive many letters from friends and foes and would read them, or have them read out to him by his companions, and would write or dictate replies to these letters. Above all, Hazrat Ahmadas continued to produce extraordinary works of Arabic like Ijaz-ul-Masih, Minan-ur-Rahman, Al-Tabligh etc.
In fact, it is a miracle in itself for a person like Hazrat Ahmadas, who did not even acquire basic education of Arabic language, to write expressive and eloquent Arabic books throughout his life, despite the circumstances.
The Arabic book, Ijaz-ul-Masih, which contains a unique commentary of Surah al-Fatihah and spans over 200 pages, was written in response to the fraudulent deceptions of Pir Mehr Ali Shah. The Promised Messiahas challenged him on 15 December 1900 to a contest of writing an expressive commentary of Surah al-Fatihah in Arabic within 70 days. The Promised Messiahas completed his miraculous work, Ijaz-ul-Masih, within the fixed period of time and posted it to Pir Mehr Ali Shah on 23 February 1901. Pir Mehr Ali Shah remained silent and the words of Allah the Almighty recorded in the same book were fulfilled.
The Promised Messiahas said:
“For this book, I prayed that God, in His Majesty, make it a miracle for the Muslim clergy that no writer is able to produce a book equivalent to it and no one is given the ability to write such a book. My prayer was accepted and God gave me the good news, ‘We will stop it from heaven’; I then concluded that this was a hint that the enemy would be unable to produce a book like thereof.” (Ijaz-ul-Masih, Ruhani Khazain, V. 18, p. 68)
The details of the artful and tricky behaviour of Pir Mehr Ali Shah Sahib of Golra Sharif to avoid the challenge of the Promised Messiahas have already been mentioned in a previous article of Responding to Allegations series, under the heading, “All prophets are rejected and questioned on their sanity – Part II”. Readers can easily understand from the article that the Promised Messiahas openly challenged Pir Mehr Ali Shah and the rest of the Arab and non-Arab religious and secular scholars to present a better book that Ijaz-ul-Masih, but nobody accepted it. If this book was a mere copy of other Arabic books, at least one person would have responded to the challenge of the Promised Messiahas. The challenge of the Promised Messiahas still stands.
If, according to the opponents, the Promised Messiahas wrote his Arabic books by stealing various phrases from Maqamat al-Hariri, then the opponents should write answers to all the Arabic books of Promised Messiahas and prove that the said miracle was false. Hence, the opponents are only interested in raising objections.
On the one hand, they raise objections on the usage of Arabic regarding the syntax and proverbs used, and when this isn’t an option, they allege that the Promised Messiahas copied the Arabic works of others.
Perhaps they should first decide what kind of narrative they want to push, before attacking the writings of the Promised Messiahas; this, at least, would be a consistent attempt.
Did you know that Islam spread in Abyssinia (modern day Ethiopia) in Africa seven years before it spread in Medina? And did you know that the Christian King of Abyssinia, Negus, whose land the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, advised his companions to seek refuge in, embraced Islam and became a loyal follower of the Holy Prophetsa?
After persecution intensified in Mecca, Muslims sought protection in his land because he was a just king who did not oppress anyone. When the message of Islam was conveyed to him, he said:
“I bear witness that he is the Messenger of Allah, about whom Jesus, son of Mary, gave glad tidings. If I were not in the land which I am, I would come to him and carry his shoes.”
Not only that, but Negusra was the representative of the Messengersa of Allah when he married his cousin, Hazrat Umm-e-Habibara. Hazrat Umm-e-Habibara, whose name was Ramla bint Abi Sufyan, became widowed in Abyssinia and was left alone with her daughter in the country of exile.
On the other hand, her father, Abu Sufyan, the leader of Mecca, was one of the fiercest enemies of Islam. Thus, the thought of going back there was a dangerous one whereby her fate would have been unknown. It was a dead end for her and she had no refuge except with Allah the Almighty.
Indeed, Allah comforted her in the most beautiful way as in a dream, she saw someone calling her, “O Mother of the Believers.” She woke up frightened and interpreted it that the Messengersa of Allah would marry her.
What happened after is that when Umm-e-Habiba’sraiddah (the waiting period after the demise of one’s husband) finished, the Holy Prophetsa sent a message to Negusra, King of Abyssinia, asking him to ask on his behalf for the hand of Umm-e-Habibara.
Negusra sent to Umm-e-Habibara his maid, Abraha, to tell her that Allah’s Messengersa requested her hand and if she accepted, then she should appoint someone to give her in marriage.
When Umm-e-Habibara heard this happy news, she gave Abraha some jewellery as a gift and told her to inform the king that she would appoint Khalidra bin Saeed bin al-Aas as her representative.
The marriage took place, with Negusra as the representative of the the Holy Prophetsa and Khalidra bin Saeed bin al-Aas the representative of Umm-e-Habibara.
On behalf of the Holy Prophetsa, Negusra gave Umm-e-Habibara a dowry of 400 dirhams. When Umm-e-Habibara received the money through the maid Abraha, she gave her 50 golden coins and said:
“Last time, I gave you something simply because I had nothing, but now Allah has given me this so please take this money and benefit from it.”
Here, this loyal Abyssinian Muslim girl, Abraha, was deeply touched and uttered the following words:
“The king has commanded me not to take anything from you and to give back what I took before, but please listen: I believe that Muhammadsa is the Messenger of Allah and I follow him. Therefore, I have only one favour to request from you: convey my greetings to him and tell him that I accept his religion.”
Hazrat Umm-e-Habibara promised her to do so, yet Abraha remained anxious lest Umm-e-Habibara forgot, so she kept reminding her of her request till her last day in Abyssinia.
In the marriage ceremony of the Holy Prophetsa and Umm-e-Habibara, Negusra delivered the marriage sermon and said:
“God be praised – the King, the Holy, the Source of Peace, the Guardian of faith, the Protector, the Mighty, the Compeller.
“I bear witness that there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is His servant and messenger. He is the one whose coming was prophesied by Jesus, son of Mary.
“The Messenger of Allah wrote to me asking that I give Umm-e-Habiba, daughter of Abu Sufyan, in marriage to him; I hereby comply with the Prophet’s wish and give 400 dirhams for her dowry.”
Subsequently he gave the money to her representative Hazrat Khalidra bin Saeed, who then said:
“God be praised! I praise Him and ask His help and assistance and testify that there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is His servant and messenger. He is the one Who has sent His messenger with the guidance and the religion of truth that He may make it prevail over [every other] religion, even though the idolaters may dislike [it]. I comply with the Prophet’s wish and give him Umm-e-Habiba in marriage. May Allah bless His messenger!”
After the marriage announcement, people stood up to leave, but Negusra said, “Sit down, for it is the custom of prophets to serve food upon marriage.”
Then he ordered for food to be served. The king provided for Umm-e-Habibara out of his own wealth, sending her with Abraha a big quantity of clothes, saffron, ambergris and perfume. Abraha prepared Umm-e-Habibara for the journey and reminded her again, “Do not forget the favour I asked of you.”
When Umm-e-Habibara arrived and met the Holy Prophetsa, she told him about the marriage ceremony and about Abraha. She greeted him on her behalf and upon this, the Holy Prophetsa smiled and replied, “May peace and blessings of Allah be with her too.”
When Negusra passed away, the Holy Prophetsa was informed about it by the angel Gabriel. He told his Companionsra, “Today, a pious man has died. Rise and offer the funeral prayer for your brother Ashama.”
This was the only funeral prayer in absentia that the Holy Prophetsa led.
Hazrat Aishara (may Allah be pleased with her) once said, “When Negus died, we were told that a light would be seen perpetually at his grave.”
In accordance with the instructions of Hazrat Amirul Momineen, may Allah be his Helper, in the capacity of missionary of Rio de Janeiro, I toured São Paulo – the largest city of Brazil, with a population of around 12.3 million – as well as three other neighboring cities.
The tour lasted two weeks. During the tour, two lectures were delivered at different events, to which local non-Ahmadi guests were invited.
Furthermore, a local television channel hosted an interview with me, in which a brief introduction about Jamaat-e-Ahmadiyya was presented.
Similarly, another city hosted a radio programme which lasted an hour. Along with discussions about the teachings of Islam, the attributes of Allah the Almighty were also discussed.
An online programme was also held where similar topics about the Jamaat were discussed. This is a digital radio channel and can be listened to around the world. The radio channel has around 30,000 listeners daily. A live video of this interview was played on Facebook as well.
Another purpose of this tour was to get together with Jamaat members, offer congregational prayers, including the Friday prayer, with them and visit their homes.
Leaflets about the Jamaat and its teachings were distributed, all the while maintaining social distancing.
I also had the opportunity to visit Ahmadis who live at a distance and who had lost contact with the Jamaat. I visited the home of a Brazilian convert and had a lengthy conversation with him and his family.
Moreover, I had the opportunity to have a sitting with another family who showed great interest in Islam.
A priest of a local church and his team also took time out to speak to me, which lasted an hour and 30 minutes. They all showed great interest in Islam. This discussion was mentioned on their Instagram page.
During this tour, around 6,000 leaflets about the Jamaat were distributed and two copies of the Holy Quran and five copies of a book of the Promised Messiahas, Jesus in India, were gifted to guests.
In this third year of Al Hakam, we will present a selection of incidents from the blessed life of the Promised Messiah, peace be upon him, this time, with some more details
4 December 1888: On this day – 29 Rabi‘ al-Awal 1306 AH – the Promised Messiahas composed a lengthy letter to Hazrat Hakim Maulvi Nuruddinra and also sent copies of the letter to close friends in Ludhiana and Kapurthala. The contents of the letter explained the importance and different aspects of the prophecy pertaining to the Musleh-e-Maud (the Promised Reformer). The Promised Messiahas also responded to allegations people had raised at the time against the demise of Bashir Awal. This letter cleared a lot of the doubts, misunderstandings and allegations many people had regarding the prophecy of Musleh-e-Maud. (Maktubat-e-Ahmad, Vol. 2, p. 73)
4 December 1898: The Promised Messiahas replied to a letter of Hazrat Maulvi Abdullah Sanaurira and also prayed for him. The Promised Messiahas further wrote, “You must spare some time and meet with me every so often.” (Maktubat-e-Ahmad, Vol. 3, p. 235)
4 December 1903: The Promised Messiahas wrote to Hazrat Chaudhry Ala Dadra and stated that he had read his letter from start to finish. With reference to Hazrat Chaudhry Sahib’s government job, Huzooras said that he should give precedence to the monthly salary of 25 rupees in Qadian as opposed to the monthly salary of 50 rupees for the government job as God is the One Who provides and the door to His grace can never close. Also, Huzooras said to Hazrat Chaudhry Sahibra that he would benefit from his company. Hazrat Chaudhry Ala Dadra was a resident of Shahpur, a town in India, who left his government job and relocated to Qadian, where he served in The Review of Religions’ office. He passed away at a young age. The Promised Messiahas, seeing his sacrifice and services to religion, had him buried in Bahishti Maqbarah and also led the funeral prayer. As he was known to be a very trustworthy man, friends would hand over their valuable possessions to him for safekeeping. Some friends would call him “amin-ul-millat”, the trustee of the people. (Maktubat-e-Ahmad, Vol. 3, p. 363)
5 December 1891: The Promised Messiahas replied to a letter from Hazrat Mian Abdullah Sanaurira, in which he stated that he had not been feeling well for the past few weeks. Huzooras further stated that he was praying for him and assured him that Allah would help him as He is All-Powerful. (Maktubat-e-Ahmad, Vol. 3, p. 213)
Hazrat Mian Abdullah Sanaurira
6 December 1902: On this day, the Promised Messiahas replied to Hazrat Haji Seith Allah Rakha Abdur Rahman’sra letter. In the letter, the Promised Messiahas elucidated important matters and explained the philosophy of religion. In this lengthy letter, Huzooras explained the meaning of the revelation he received:
“O my Lord, everything serves You. So, O my Lord, protect me, help me and have mercy on me.”
In the end, Huzooras wrote, “Patience is that alchemy, whose gold never ceases to exist. God causes one to face situations as trials; however, those who show patience and are loyal are enveloped with His love and such a one’s second state becomes better than the former.” (Maktubat-e-Ahmad, Vol. 2, p. 414)
7 December 1889: The Promised Messiahas replied to a letter he received from Hazrat Munshi Rustam Alira. In the letter, the Promised Messiahas prayed for him and said that one should continuously recite prayers of seeking repentance (istighfar) as it repels calamities and protects one from misfortunes. (Maktubat-e-Ahmad, Vol. 2, p. 569)
7 December 1889: On this day, the Promised Messiahas wrote a letter to Hazrat Hakim Maulvi Nuruddinra in which he expressed his gratitude and stated that he had received 100 rupees from him. The Promised Messiahas, in the letter, further mentioned that Maulvi Muhammad Hussain had deviated from the right path. Huzooras added that when one analyses oneself, instead of running after the material world, seeks forgiveness for their sins, then Allah grants them better insight in certain matters. Huzooras stated that even an apostate or an atheist can attain some knowledge and can gain the ability to partake in intellectual debates. However, Huzooras said that one should not feel proud simply in this matter. Man’s salvation lies only in his relation with Allah the Almighty; otherwise, having mere knowledge can never benefit anyone. (Maktubat-e-Ahmad, Vol. 2, p. 89)
Hazrat Hakim Maulvi Nuruddinra
7 December 1892: On this day, the Promised Messiahas published an ishtihar (announcement) titled “Assalamo alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu” in which he explained the importance of Jalsa Salana. (Majmua-e-Ishtiharat, Vol. 1, p. 360)
7 December 1894: The Promised Messiahas replied to a letter he received from Hazrat Munshi Rustam Alira in which he acknowledged the receipt of the 20 rupees he had sent and further stated that as the seasonal holidays were approaching, he should visit him in Qadian. (Maktubat-e-Ahmad, Vol. 2, p. 607)
7 December 1897: The Promised Messiahas replied to a letter he received from Hazrat Haji Seith Allah Rakha Abdur Rahmanra. Huzooras expressed words of consolation and stated that he was busy praying for him. Huzooras wrote, “Despair not of Allah’s mercy and grace for He does not take long in showing His grace.” (Maktubat-e-Ahmad, Vol. 2, p. 357)
7 December 1907: The Promised Messiahas replied to a letter he received from his companion, Hazrat Syed Nasir Shahra, in which he mentioned that he was unable to reply to the letter earlier due to poor health. In this letter, the Promised Messiahas wrote, “Insha-Allah, I shall continue to pray. It is absolutely necessary that you, in these days of difficulties, frequently or even daily, continue to keep me updated. I am extremely concerned. Your letter has kept me worried.” (Maktubat-e-Ahmad, Vol. 3, p. 334)
8 December 1888: The Promised Messiahas, in his letter, reminded Hazrat Munshi Rustam Alira to visit Qadian during the seasonal holidays. (Maktubat-e-Ahmad, Vol. 2, p. 552)
8 December 1905: The Promised Messiahas shared his thoughts during a private sitting with companions about a separate graveyard for his followers. Huzooras stated, “I desire that a piece of land be acquired to serve as a graveyard, a monument and a reminder [to all that follow].”
Huzooras added, “It will be an impactful spectacle to see the [members of a] Jamaat who were united during their lifetime also united after their demise. This is very good … It is not an innovation to add inscriptions on gravestones; in fact, this serves as a reminder and every gravestone will serve as a piece of history of the Jamaat.” (Malfuzat, Vol. 4, p. 586)
9 December 1894: The Promised Messiahas replied to a letter he received from Hazrat Haji Seith Allah Rakha Abdur Rahmanra. Huzooras expressed his gratitude for his financial sacrifice and further wrote, “You have occupied a warm place in my heart. I continuously pray for you in your absence and I also pray for your brothers, Salih Muhammad, Ali Muhammad and Yunus.” (Maktubat-e-Ahmad, Vol. 2, p. 334)
9 December 1897: On this date, Al Hakam (Vol. 1, no. 7, 9 December 1897, p. 5) reported that news was received from Qadian that members of the Jamaat ought to profusely recite the following prayer in the last rak‘ah of their Prayers after the ruku:
“Our Lord, grant us good in this world as well as good in the world to come and protect us from the torment of the Fire.” (Malfuzat [Urdu], Vol. 1, p. 6)
10 December 1892: The Promised Messiahas issued an open announcement to all clerics and religious authorities, which can be termed as the first call of mubahala (prayer duel). This was chosen as a decisive measure to reach a solution between him and his opponents. (Majmua-e-Ishtiharat, Vol. 1, p. 363)
10 December 1892: The Promised Messiahas wrote a lengthy letter to Hazrat Nawab Muhammad Ali Khanra. In this letter, Huzooras narrated the purpose of establishing the Jamaat, Allah’s treatment with the Jamaat and shared details of a few prophecies and eradicated misconceptions with regard to the aforementioned prophecies. After removing some doubts in light of Quranic verses, Huzooras stated that though this letter was addressed to Nawab Sahibra, however many points had been written for the benefit of removing misconceptions that others may have also. This precious letter is cited in Aina-e-Kamalat-e-Islam (Ruhani Khazain, Vol. 5, pp. 331-358). (Maktubat-e-Ahmad, Vol. 2, p. 170)
10 December 1894: On this day, the Promised Messiahas wrote to Hazrat Mian Abdullah Sanaurira. Huzooras stated that he was pleased to receive his letter in which he mentioned that Allah the Almighty had saved him from a certain matter. Huzooras, in the letter, prayed that Allah the Almighty granted Hazrat Mian Abdullah Sanauri Sahib’s father good health. (Maktubat-e-Ahmad, Vol. 3, p. 222)
10 December 1894: The Promised Messiahas issued a handbill on this day for the eyes of the British Government, the Empress of India Queen Victoria, the governor general of India, lieutenant governor of Punjab and other concerned influential figures. This was published in Gulzar Muhammadi Press, Lahore and contained the rebuttal of an article titled, A Dangerous Fanatic, published in the Civil and Military Gazette on 24 October 1894. The article was about the Promised Messiahas and was misleading and deceitful. (Majmua-e-Ishtiharat, Vol. 1, p. 595)
10 December 1899: On this date, the Promised Messiahas said:
“It is my desire to write a book of teachings which Maulvi Muhammad Ali Sahib should then translate. This book will have three sections. The first section will be on our duties to Allah the Exalted; the second section will deal with the rights that we owe to our own souls and the third section will provide an exposition on the rights that we owe to humanity at large.” (Malfuzat [English], Vol. 2, p. 105)
10 December 1899: The Promised Messiahas wrote to a sajjada nasheen (a term used within the sufi tradition for a successor or sufi master), Maulvi Sultan Mahmud Sahib, in which he gave a short, yet comprehensive introduction to his Jamaat and the status which Allah the Almighty granted him and his mission. After conveying his message in full, Huzooras stated:
“This is a proclamation from me to you. The responsibility for all those individuals who can accept the truth with a slight gesture by you, rests on your shoulders.” (Maktubat-e-Ahmad, Vol. 1, p. 483)
10 December 1901: The Promised Messiahas was extremely worried for the masses as the plague was claiming lives in many parts of the Indian subcontinent. On this day, out of sheer sympathy, he issued a written announcement in three languages, Arabic, Urdu and Persian, with a supplement in Pashto so that his message could reach as many locals as possible and they could safeguard themselves from this growing pandemic. (Majmua-e-Ishtiharat, Vol. 2, pp. 537-553)
