✍ Written by: Shaykh Hafiz Salahuddin Yusuf (ḥafiẓahullāh), Lahore, Pakistan
As a reaction, they have started quoting past statements by Muslim groups and scholars expressing gratitude to the British Government for religious freedom and their non-interference in religious affairs. These include writings from Sunni, Shi‘a, and Ahl al-Hadith scholars, showing appreciation for British religious tolerance and the prohibition against labeling Ahl al-Hadith as “Wahhabi.”
Their argument is: if such scholars are not considered tools of the British despite expressing gratitude, then why is Mirza Qadiani labeled as such for similar expressions?
Thus, it is essential to clarify the vast difference between the attitudes of Muslim scholars and Mirza Qadiani toward the British government.
He explicitly claimed:
“I am a sapling planted by the British.”
(Tabligh-e-Risalat, vol. 7, p. 19)
He described himself and his community as a fortress and amulet of protection for the British Empire.
(Noor al-Haqq, part 1, p. 330–334; Taryaq al-Quloob, p. 62)
② Mission of Prophethood Tied to British Service:
Mirza claimed his divine mission was to serve the objectives of Queen Victoria:
“He (Allah) sent me from the heavens to participate in the noble and blessed objectives of Queen Victoria...”
(Sitara-e-Qaisariyah, pp. 10–15)
③ Calling the British Government a Divine Blessing:
He considered loyalty to Britain as part of faith, and the British Empire itself as a divine mercy.
(Shahadat al-Qur’an, pp. 82, 86)
④ Mass Propaganda for British Support:
He claimed to have published nearly 50,000 pamphlets and booklets in favor of the British.
(Sitara-e-Qaisariyah, p. 70; Taryaq al-Quloob, p. 25)
⑤ Declaring Jihād Against the British as Forbidden:
He labeled those who harbored any thought of rebellion against the British as:
“Fools, ignorant, rejecters of Prophets, corrupt, wicked, thieves, and enemies of God.”
⑥ Support for British in Muslim Conflicts:
During the 1914 WWI, when Turkey was defeated and Islamic lands like Iraq and Syria were seized by the British, Qadianis celebrated these defeats.
Al-Fazl (Sept 7, 1918) wrote:
“Why should we not rejoice at the conquest of Baghdad? We desire to see the gleam of our sword everywhere...”
They even celebrated with lighting and decorations in Qadian on Nov 27, 1918, upon Turkey’s complete defeat.
(Al-Fazl, Nov 13, 1918)
⑦ Betrayal Through Espionage:
Mirza compiled and submitted a list of Muslims—with names and addresses—who considered India a land of war (Dār al-Ḥarb) and handed it over to the British.
(Tabligh-e-Risalat, vol. 5, p. 11)
No Muslim scholar ever made obedience to the British a part of faith or declared Jihād abolished.
Mirza Qadiani, however, did both, making loyalty to British rule a religious obligation.
Mirza claimed Prophethood, while Muslim scholars did not. If even a non-prophet can be forgiven for lapses or political compromises under pressure, a Prophet can never display such moral inconsistency. True prophets are fortresses of integrity, not instruments of colonial rule.
Mirza Qadiani not only failed to oppose disbelief, he made obedience to disbelief part of belief. He spent his life supplicating for British victory and fostering slavery among Muslims. Can any prophet or reformer in human history be found with such a record?
Ultimately, the measure of a true Prophet is whether he opposes disbelief or supports it.
In this regard, Mirza Qadiani not only fails the test of Prophethood but even falls short of being a sincere reformer.
Had he not claimed Prophethood, his political behavior might be ignored.
But since he and his followers claim Prophethood and divine mission, this record becomes a glaring proof of falsehood.
If Qadianis cannot reject or correct this legacy, then their entire claim to Prophethood collapses.
❖ Introduction
Ever since the ruling declared that Qadianis (Ahmadis) are—according to both reason and revelation—a non-Islamic sect distinct from the Muslim Ummah, and that their founder Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani was a tool of the British, an uproar has emerged in Qadiani circles. They have been attempting various means to counter the impact of this decision. Some of their writers have tried to console their community by presenting this as a trial faced by divinely guided people.As a reaction, they have started quoting past statements by Muslim groups and scholars expressing gratitude to the British Government for religious freedom and their non-interference in religious affairs. These include writings from Sunni, Shi‘a, and Ahl al-Hadith scholars, showing appreciation for British religious tolerance and the prohibition against labeling Ahl al-Hadith as “Wahhabi.”
Their argument is: if such scholars are not considered tools of the British despite expressing gratitude, then why is Mirza Qadiani labeled as such for similar expressions?
Thus, it is essential to clarify the vast difference between the attitudes of Muslim scholars and Mirza Qadiani toward the British government.
❖ Key Differences Between Mirza and Muslim Scholars
- The Intent Behind Expressing Loyalty:
- Muslim scholars expressed loyalty due to the religious freedom under British rule and the lack of military power to overthrow the government. They never declared Jihād null or forbidden, nor labeled Imam Mahdi as “bloodthirsty.”
- In contrast, Mirza Qadiani not only amplified his loyalty to the British in extraordinary ways, he also attempted to nullify the belief in Mahdi by labeling the awaited Mahdi as a “bloodthirsty Mahdi,” presenting himself as the peaceful alternative.
❖ Key Evidences of Mirza Qadiani’s Loyalty to the British
① Self-Acknowledgment of Being a British Plant:He explicitly claimed:
“I am a sapling planted by the British.”
(Tabligh-e-Risalat, vol. 7, p. 19)
He described himself and his community as a fortress and amulet of protection for the British Empire.
(Noor al-Haqq, part 1, p. 330–334; Taryaq al-Quloob, p. 62)
② Mission of Prophethood Tied to British Service:
Mirza claimed his divine mission was to serve the objectives of Queen Victoria:
“He (Allah) sent me from the heavens to participate in the noble and blessed objectives of Queen Victoria...”
(Sitara-e-Qaisariyah, pp. 10–15)
③ Calling the British Government a Divine Blessing:
He considered loyalty to Britain as part of faith, and the British Empire itself as a divine mercy.
(Shahadat al-Qur’an, pp. 82, 86)
④ Mass Propaganda for British Support:
He claimed to have published nearly 50,000 pamphlets and booklets in favor of the British.
(Sitara-e-Qaisariyah, p. 70; Taryaq al-Quloob, p. 25)
⑤ Declaring Jihād Against the British as Forbidden:
He labeled those who harbored any thought of rebellion against the British as:
“Fools, ignorant, rejecters of Prophets, corrupt, wicked, thieves, and enemies of God.”
⑥ Support for British in Muslim Conflicts:
During the 1914 WWI, when Turkey was defeated and Islamic lands like Iraq and Syria were seized by the British, Qadianis celebrated these defeats.
Al-Fazl (Sept 7, 1918) wrote:
“Why should we not rejoice at the conquest of Baghdad? We desire to see the gleam of our sword everywhere...”
They even celebrated with lighting and decorations in Qadian on Nov 27, 1918, upon Turkey’s complete defeat.
(Al-Fazl, Nov 13, 1918)
⑦ Betrayal Through Espionage:
Mirza compiled and submitted a list of Muslims—with names and addresses—who considered India a land of war (Dār al-Ḥarb) and handed it over to the British.
(Tabligh-e-Risalat, vol. 5, p. 11)
❖ Fundamental Differences in Intent and Actions
The above eight points demonstrate the huge difference between Mirza Qadiani’s collaboration and the loyalty some Muslim scholars expressed out of necessity.No Muslim scholar ever made obedience to the British a part of faith or declared Jihād abolished.
Mirza Qadiani, however, did both, making loyalty to British rule a religious obligation.
❖ The Reality Behind Accusations on Ahl al-Hadith
It is unjust to label Ahl al-Hadith as British loyalists using isolated references, such as those from Maulana Muhammad Husayn Batalvi. He was one individual—not representative of the entire movement. In fact, most Ahl al-Hadith scholars actively resisted British rule:- After the failure of the 1857 independence movement, Ahl al-Hadith scholars faced the harshest British repression.
- Between 1863 and 1870, five major trials were held against them in Allahabad, Patna, Malda, and Rajmahal.
- Many were executed, sent to Andaman Islands, or had their properties seized.
- These individuals were labeled “Wahhabis,” but they were Ahl al-Hadith and part of the Jihād movement of Syed Ahmad Shaheed.
❖ Final Reflection: Prophethood and Complicity with Kufr
It is further critical to reflect:Mirza claimed Prophethood, while Muslim scholars did not. If even a non-prophet can be forgiven for lapses or political compromises under pressure, a Prophet can never display such moral inconsistency. True prophets are fortresses of integrity, not instruments of colonial rule.
Mirza Qadiani not only failed to oppose disbelief, he made obedience to disbelief part of belief. He spent his life supplicating for British victory and fostering slavery among Muslims. Can any prophet or reformer in human history be found with such a record?
❖ Conclusion
Therefore, the Qadiani attempt to equate their Prophet’s actions with those of Muslim scholars is misleading and baseless. Expressing gratitude to the British under compulsion is not equivalent to making their support part of religious faith.Ultimately, the measure of a true Prophet is whether he opposes disbelief or supports it.
In this regard, Mirza Qadiani not only fails the test of Prophethood but even falls short of being a sincere reformer.
Had he not claimed Prophethood, his political behavior might be ignored.
But since he and his followers claim Prophethood and divine mission, this record becomes a glaring proof of falsehood.
If Qadianis cannot reject or correct this legacy, then their entire claim to Prophethood collapses.
