Since the decision was made regarding the Mirzais that “they are a non-Islamic sect separate from the Muslim Ummah by reason and tradition, and their founder Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani was an agent of the British,” there has been turmoil in Mirzai circles, and they have been trying in various ways to curb the impact of this decision. Some of their literati have tried to reassure their community by saying that this is a trial that the people of Allah must face. As a reaction, certain thoughts of some Muslim groups and individuals have been presented, in which they expressed gratitude for the British government’s “religious tolerance” and loyalty to them. Accordingly, some references related to Shia, Sunni, and Ahl-e-Hadith have been presented by their literati. Also, some writings of Ahl-e-Hadith scholars have been presented, in which gratitude was expressed for religious freedom granted by the government. Furthermore, gratitude was expressed for the legal prohibition of the use of the word “Wahhabi” for the Ahl-e-Hadith community. Moreover, these literati argue that if these gentlemen are not agents of the British despite expressing loyalty to them, then how can Mirza Qadiani be called an agent of the British based on such thoughts? Therefore, we consider it necessary to clarify the difference and nature of the attitude towards the British between Mirza Qadiani and some Muslim scholars.
In this regard, first of all, it is extremely necessary to consider the difference found in the feelings of loyalty between Mirza Qadiani and other scholars. Among the Islamic scholars who expressed loyalty to the British, the reason, according to them, was that under this government, religious freedom was fully obtained. Also, Muslims did not have the strength, power, means, and resources to wage war and expel them from the country. Therefore, under such circumstances, they did not issue a fatwa justifying rebellion against the government, and under these conditions, loyalty to the British government was considered appropriate. However, it is certain that no Muslim scholar ever declared jihad completely abolished or forbidden, nor did they call the Mahdi of the end times a “bloody Mahdi.” On the contrary, Mirza Qadiani not only loudly supported the British in such a way that strengthened the suspicion that he was “forced” to claim prophethood at the British’s signal, but also, in an attempt to assume the position of “Mahdism” himself, he tried to abolish the Muslim belief in the coming of the promised Mahdi by calling Sayyidna Mahdi a “bloody Mahdi.”
In any case, a few remarks are presented in this regard:
First, Mirza Qadiani himself admitted to being a plant of the British.
He described himself as unique, unparalleled, and matchless in goodwill and support for the government and as a talisman and refuge (fortress) for the British government.
He accepted the British Empire as his refuge for himself and his community.
Second:
Mirza Qadiani stated that the purpose of his mission was not the reform of mankind but the support and assistance of the British. He said: “He sent me from the heavens according to His ancient promise so that I may be engaged in the trust of the noble and blessed purposes of Her Majesty the Queen (Victoria). He touched me with immense blessings and made me His Messiah so that He might help the pure purposes of Her Majesty the Queen (Victoria) from the heavens.”
“O Most Noble Queen, Empress of India! May God bless your life with prosperity and happiness. Your reign is truly blessed because God’s hand from the heavens supports your purposes, and angels clear the paths of kindness for your subjects. It is due to your pure intentions that God sent me.”
Third:
He called the English government a blessing of God, a great mercy, and a heavenly blessing, and considered gratitude to the British government as gratitude to God and disobedience to them as disobedience to God.
Fourth:
He declared his religion to be obedience to God in heaven and to the British government on earth, and disobedience to it as disobedience to God and the state.
Fifth:
He authored, compiled, and printed nearly fifty thousand books, magazines, and advertisements in support and loyalty to the British government.
If the written works of Mirza Sahib related to the British are collected, they would fill fifty cupboards.
Sixth:
Most importantly, he declared jihad against the British not only forbidden and abolished in the strongest terms but also insulted those who harbored rebellious feelings against the British with terms such as fool, very ignorant, very stupid, infidel, enemy of God, denier of the Prophet, wicked, evil-natured, scoundrel, incompetent, oppressor, thief, pirate, and similar derogatory epithets.
Seventh:
Wherever there was a clash between the British and Muslims during this era, the Mirzai community supported the British instead of supporting the Muslims according to the teachings of their prophet, prayed for their victory and success, and celebrated the defeat of Muslims and the success of the British. For example, in the First World War of 1914, when the Turks were defeated and some Arab regions were separated from the Islamic Caliphate of Turkey by the British, the Mirzai community commented:
Hazrat Masih Mau’ood said that the government is my sword, so why should we Ahmadis not rejoice at this victory (the conquest of Baghdad)? Whether Iraq, Arabia, or Syria, we want to see the shine of our sword everywhere. In fact, the driving force behind this was two angels sent by God to help the government.
Some time before this, Russia had attacked Islamic Turkey and seized some areas. The Mirzai reaction was:
Recent news indicates that the Russians are steadily advancing into Turkish territory. God is not unjust; His judgment is correct and just, and we are content with His decision.
On 27 November 1918, upon the complete defeat of the Turks, grand illuminations and celebrations were held in Qadian.
Al-Fazl wrote: “This delightful and joyous scene was very impressive and beautiful and clearly reflected the devotion Ahmadis have for the British government.”
Eighth:
Mirza Qadiani also acted as a spy for the British and, with the help of his community, compiled a list with names and addresses of such ignorant Muslims who considered India a land of war and presented it to the government.
Due to these eight reasons, the difference between Mirza Qadiani’s support and loyalty to the British government and the loyalty and gratitude of some Muslim scholars is like the difference between heaven and earth. It can be considered a party difference. By equating the behavior of both, the British allegiance of Mirza Qadiani cannot be concealed. The difference between them, from the arrangement of words to the meaning and sense, is so great that even hundreds of references of this kind would not suffice to explain it.
The Truth About the British Allegation of Loyalty Against Jamat Ahl-e-Hadith
Then, it is very strange to base some references of “Isha’at al-Sunnah” and specifically accuse the Ahl-e-Hadith group of loyalty to the British. If Maulana Muhammad Hussain Sahib Batalviؒ expressed such thoughts, it is also worth considering whether Ahl-e-Hadith is only Maulana Batalvi himself, that his individual thoughts should be attributed to the entire Ahl-e-Hadith group? He was only one member of the group, who, like some other Islamic scholars, considered the British government better for certain reasons, but is it possible to deny the historical fact that the majority of Ahl-e-Hadith scholars were engaged in jihad against the British! Were the scholars of Sadiqpur not Ahl-e-Hadith, who, after the martyrdom of Syed Ahmad Shaheed and Shah Ismail Shaheed, carried forward their jihad movement with full determination and courage! Is it not a fact that after the failed War of Independence of 1857, the group whose members suffered the most from British atrocities was this very group. In just a short span of seven years from 1863 to 1870, five major cases were filed against the leading members of this group: Allahabad (1864), twice in Patna (1865 and 1870), Malda (1870), and Rajmahal (1870). In these cases, the leaders and scholars of the group were dragged to the gallows. Besides, they were sentenced to transportation (Kala Pani) and confiscation of property. The dark prisons were inhabited by the devotees of this group, and the activities of these Mujahideen unnerved the British, who called them Wahabis. Who were these Wahabis? If you read Hunter’s book, you will find that they were members of one group. In any case, except for a few individuals, the majority of Ahl-e-Hadith have been in conflict with the British from beginning to end. We have never engaged in such British sycophancy, which was the slogan, rather the religion, of the late Mirza Qadiani.
Another Perspective for Reflection:
Then this aspect of the discussion is also worthy of consideration and reflection that Mirza Sahib claimed prophethood, while Muslim scholars consider the claim of prophethood as disbelief. If we momentarily overlook the great difference between some scholars’ loyalty to the British and their gratitude, and Mirza Qadiani’s making the British government’s support a part of faith (which we have repeatedly highlighted), it is still a matter to ponder that the steps of non-prophets can falter, they can waver. It may be that at some occasions they may not be able to demonstrate the steadfastness and determination which is necessary against disbelief, and in some cases, non-prophets are permitted such concessions, but the Prophets, peace be upon them, never tolerated such wavering, nor were they allowed to do so. Against disbelief, they were like a naked sword and a mountain of steadfastness and determination for the hardships of that path; they never allowed their nation to be enslaved by disbelief. But Mirza Qadiani, it is unknown which kind of “prophethood” he was honored with, that instead of confronting disbelief, he declared obedience to it as obligatory and a part of faith. Instead of freeing the nation from British slavery, he strengthened the habit of slavery among the nation and instead of praying to his God for deliverance from the British disbelievers, he prayed for their victory, support, survival, and stability. Truly astonishing. Can any prophet or reformer in human history be presented with such a character? This is the point that clearly shows that Mirza Qadiani was not the messenger of that Allah who commands confrontation with disbelief, but rather a product of British diplomacy whose aim was to create discord and division among Muslims.
Therefore, it is completely inappropriate for the Mirzai followers to present references to save their prophet at this point, in which loyalty to the British is expressed. Mere loyalty or disloyalty to the British is not a sign of truth or falsehood, nor has truth or falsehood ever been decided from this perspective. The Shia, as a whole, have remained loyal to the British, which they themselves have expressed in their book, but merely on the basis of this role, it has never been said about them that they are wrong. However, the decisive factor for the truth or falsehood of a prophet is whether he supported disbelief in his lifetime or raised the banner of rebellion against it? Did he strive to free the nation from the slavery of disbelief or did he consent to the nation continuing to wear the iron chains of slavery? In this regard, undoubtedly, Mirza Qadiani’s role is not only below the status of prophethood but even below the level of reform and renewal because no reformer, Muhammad (peace be upon him), or great leader ever taught the nation the lesson of slavery. If Mirza Qadiani were an ordinary man, it would have been possible to ignore his conduct, but considering the claim he made about prophethood and renewal and the way his followers insist on establishing his status and renewal (God forbid), this character of his, who spent his entire life supporting the British, cannot be ignored. This very character is a clear proof of his falsehood. Individuals can make great mistakes. The groups associated with the writers whose works were published in “Al-Furqan” can dismiss them as the mistakes of their individuals. Their admission cannot affect their sect. But can the Mirzai people dare to call their prophet’s character wrong? And if they do so, would it not cause the collapse of prophethood itself?
