The author of the extremely grotesque publication, Two in One, states in the opening pages of his book that while he would have preferred to remain aloof from this controversy, he was prompted to take action by the Mubahala challenge issued by the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community 'on the cover of which he came across such startling titles for Muslims like enemies, disbelievers and liars¹.' In the first instance, if his conscience had been as clear as that of the majority of people who happened to read the Mubahala, he would have neither had any cause to consider these titles as being directed towards Muslims nor be offended since the cover of the publication on which these words appear does not specify Muslims but states that it is the:

'Ahmadiyya Community International's open challenge to enemies, disbelievers and liars of the entire world.' ²

Furthermore, had Abdul Hafeez been as honest in his views and opinions in relation to the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, as he pretends to be before reading the Mubahala³, he would have realized that these titles are not directed to any particular community but to two categories of people only:

'Firstly: Those who direct every kind of vile attack against the person of the Founder of the Ahmadiyya Community and falsify all his claims; accuse him of disbelief and lies against God; denounce him as a Dadjaal and an impostor and attribute such false beliefs to him as are not a part of his faith. Secondly: Those who accuse his Community of totally false charges; engage themselves in active propaganda against it; persistently attribute such beliefs to the Community as are not a part of its faith; accuse the present Imam of the Ahmadiyya Community of serious criminal charges and give currency to this character assassination in Pakistan as well as overseas.' ⁴

What, if one may ask Abdul Hafeez, would he expect the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community to call people who indulge in such active enmity of the Community; who not only disbelieve in the truth of Hadhrat Ahmad^as but also fabricate lies against him and accuse him and his Community of serious moral and criminal charges? If he can suggest a more appropriate title for these people, then maybe one would take his suggestion into consideration. In the meantime, his objections leave a distinct impression that a mere profession of being a Muslim safeguards a person from having these appellations applied to one. In that event, the question that needs to be considered is whether it is proper or not to call a person who professes to be a Muslim an enemy, a disbeliever and a liar when such description is appropriate and truthfully applicable.

Linguistically, an enemy is a person who shows malice or hostility to another or who opposes the purposes or interests of the other person. A disbeliever is a person who refuses to believe and a liar is a person who deliberately presents a false statement or piece of information as being true with intent to deceive. In view of these definitions of the words to which exception is being taken, one would recall Abdul Hafeez's attention to the age of Hadhrat Muhammad^sa and ask him as to how would he define 'Abd Allah ibn Ubayy ibn Salul who embraced Islam after the battle of Badr but continued to nurture sentiments of hostility towards it for the rest of his mortal life - to become a centre of dissatisfaction in Medina; assume the position of the leader of the disaffected and thereafter utilize every available opportunity to suffer harm to the faith he verbally professed. Would he not accept that although Ibn Ubayy professed to be a Muslim yet he conspired against Islam from within?⁵ Would he not agree that although Ibn Ubayy swore allegiance to Islam yet he was not convinced of the truth of Prophet Muhammad's^sa claims?⁶ Would he not acknowledge that although Ibn Ubayy uttered unfavourable remarks in relation to Prophet Muhammad^sa, yet when questioned, he swore that neither he nor any of his associates ever made any such statement?⁷ Was Ibn Ubayy, therefore, not a hypocrite, an enemy of Islam and a liar?

The Holy Quran has often used these descriptions to which offense is being taken for people who outwardly professed faith in Islam but inwardly never reconciled to it.⁸ Although they identified themselves with the Ummah and claimed to be Muslims, yet God Almighty denounced them as transgressors who enjoined evil and forbade good⁹; hypocrites who found fault with believers¹⁰ and mocked them¹¹'; seditious people who devised plots against Islam¹²; enemies of Islam who cherished enmity against believers even after they had embraced the faith¹³; disbelievers who disbelieved in Allah and His Messengers¹⁴; people upon whose heart a seal had been set¹⁵; liars whose conduct was evil¹⁶ and enemies against whom Muslims should beware and upon whom God has placed a curse¹⁷. What would Abdul Hafeez say to such descriptions being applied to nominal Muslims who professed faith in Islam and yet, were denounced as hypocrites, enemies of Islam disbelievers and liars by God Almighty in the Holy Quran?

Hadeeth literature also indicates that such descriptions were employed by Hadhrat Muhammad^sa against Muslims not on one¹⁸ but several occasions.¹⁹ In view of these precedents in the Quran and Hadeeth, scholars of Islam have expressed an opinion that to say something about a person which is appropriate is perfectly permissible and in order.²⁰ Hence, amongst the many companions of Prophet Muhammad^sa, Hadhrat Umar ibn Khattab^{ra 21}, Hadhrat Sa'd ibn 'Ubada^{ra 22} Hadhrat 'Abd Allah ibn Abbas^{ra 23}, Hadhrat 'Abd Allah ibn Salam^{ra 24} as well as Hadhrat 'Ubada ibn Samit^{ra 25} used these appellations against Muslims whenever considered appropriate. What judgment would Abdul Hafeez now like to pronounce upon God Almighty, His apostle Prophet Muhammad^sa and his blessed companions for having described some people, albeit Muslims, as enemies, disbelievers and liars? Would he take exception to God Almighty and His Prophet^sa as well as early Muslims for having used these descriptions for people to whom these aptly applied? And if not, then is his entire premise for getting involved in this century old controversy not rather judged and without reasonable cause?

The author of Two in One may deceive the masses by pretending to have taken exception to these words contained in the Mubahala challenge issued by the Caliph of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community but it is an established fact of Islamic history that Muslim saints and scholars have employed such descriptions for other Muslims whenever considered appropriate. In fact, Islamic literature is full of instances where, in the interest of truth, Muslim divines have branded their co-religionists as enemies of the faith, disbelievers in Islam and personified liars. Had Abdul Hafeez been conversant with Islamic literature, he may have yet abstained from being engaged in this controversy which according to his own claim, he would have rather avoided.

THE OPEN MUBAHALA CHALLENGE

The Mubahala challenge to which Abdul Hafeez has taken exception may not have been necessary had the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community not been forced into a situation to finally take recourse to the Court of Allah against the persistent abuse being directed towards it and also its active persecution by its adversaries. This is clearly indicated by the announcement of Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad^ay prior to the challenge wherein he stated that since:

'This dispute has assumed grave proportions and the one sided persecution does not seem to relent. The Ahmadiyya Community having given evidence of its perseverance and forbearance and having employed every peaceful mean to counsel the leaders of this campaign against the consequences of their actions, it is now expedient that an open challenge to a Mubahala be given to these adversaries and this matter be referred to the Court of God Almighty as it is now not possible for the Ahmadiyya Community to persevere this oppression any longer.' ²¹

This statement indicates that the adversaries of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community had, with their century old persecution and vulgar abuse as well as fabrications, pushed Ahmadi Muslims to resort to Divine judgment in this controversy since this dispute has assumed such proportions that it is now not within human powers to bring it to conclusion. Where is the harm in this when there is a precedent for it in the history of lslam²⁷ and the permissibility of such a challenge is itself acknowledged by Abdul Hafeez with his own four point Mubahala? ²⁸

Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad's^ay challenge to Mubahala is an exceptionally bold and courageous step worthy of only such people who have absolute faith in the truth of their convictions and also ample proof of it. It has been divided into two Parts, the first dealing with the rejection of Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's^as claims by his adversaries who impute charges of falsehood against him and the second concerns the false allegations made against his Community, which has been further categorized into seven groups dealing which every fabrication concocted against Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad^as, his righteous successors and also the beliefs and conduct of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community.²⁹ But, such a bold step proved to be extremely unsettling to the leadership of the inimical organizations. Therefore, rather than accept this extremely comprehensive, yet a simple and straight-forward challenge and leave the judgment in the hands of Allah, these hostile elements made numerous attempts to wriggle out of their predicament.

Hence, Abdul Hafeez himself, rather than come in the open and accept the invitation to Mubahala, issues a restricted four point counter challenge³⁰ in which he dare not address the issues which prompted the Mubahala challenge in the first place. The question which one need ask him is that if he is so thoroughly convinced of the truth of his position, then why does he not just accept the challenge already issued by Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad^ay, which within its content embraces all the false allegations made against the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community by the author of Two in One in his book? Is it possible that he does not possess the moral courage to stand up to his false statements and allegations under oath - an oath invoking the curse of Allah upon the liar?

Nonetheless, since he has raised four points in his counter Mubahala, one considers it essential that these be analyzed and responded to so that in his conceit, he may not claim victory by default.

THE FOUR POINT CHALLENGE

In the first of his four point Mubahala challenge issued by Abdul Hafeez, he demands that:

'if the first 40 years of the life of Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad^as resembles any Prophet then Ahmadi Muslims ought to prove this in writing.' ³¹

In making such a demand, the author of this grotesque publication has demonstrated that he does not understand the Holy Quran at all or else he would have known that a Mubahala is engaged into only after all avenues to reconcile differences between two parties have been exhausted and there is absolutely no prospect of the dispute being brought to an amicable conclusion through human efforts. Hence, to make such a demand at this late stage after an invitation to Mubahala has been issued or one engaged into is rather naive.

Secondly, a Mubahala challenge is issued on the command of Allah on behalf of the claimant to those who reject his claims and not to him and the ultimate judgment is left to Him to demonstrate the truthfulness of either party. If, at this stage, either of the party is required to provide evidence of its truthfulness, then the entire exercise of entering into a Mubahala contest would become superficial and there would be absolutely no point whatsoever in referring the dispute to the Court of Allah.

Alas! if this petty pir of Gujjo had a better understanding of the Holy Quran and the philosophy behind the need to engage in a Mubahala contest, he would not have made such naive demands. However, since he has demanded proof of the righteous life of Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad^as, one shall oblige him and leave it to his honesty and Islamic sense of justice, if he has any, to judge how far it fell within the expectations of the life of any prophet.

A GLIMPSE INTO HADHRAT AHMAD'S^as LIFE

In the absence of a criterion upon which the lives of the previous prophets have been judged being provided, one would have to rely upon the general criterion upon which the truth of a claimant to prophethood is evaluated. However, since an evaluation of a person's life by his own followers could be as prejudicial in one's favour as the evaluation of one's enemies prejudiced against him one would therefore, refer to the opinions expressed by Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's^as contemporaries who did not accept his claim to be the Promised Messiah and the Imam Mahdi but have had an opportunity to observe his life from close quarters. These should establish beyond any doubt that Hadhrat Ahmad's^as life did not fall short of the expectations of the life of any prophet in history.

The first maxim through which the truth of a prophet is generally evaluated concerns the claimant's personal purity and piety. The Holy Quran itself has established this criterion Hadhrat Muhammad^sa was directed by God to refer the disbelievers to the period of his life which had already passed as evidence of his truthfulness.³² The question that arises now is whether there is any evidence in history to suggest that Hadhrat Ahmad's^as life was of singular purity and piety. If there is, then he passed this very essential test of the truthfulness of his claim. For the information of Abdul Hafeez, Maulana Siraj ud Din, the editor of the leading Urdu newspaper Zamindar of Lahore who had an opportunity to know Hadhrat Ahmad^as from very early in his age stated in relation to him:

'He would be 22 or 23 years of age at that time. We can say from personal observation that even in his youth Mirza Sahib was a very virtuous, God fearing and venerable person. After work, all his time was spent in religious studies. He did not meet people much. In 1877, we had the honour of his hospitality at his home in Qadian for one night. In those days too, he was so engrossed in worship and devotion that he conversed little.' ³³

The age of early twenties is a period when young men normally begin to enjoy manhood and indulge in pursuits of fun and enjoyment. Yet at this stage of his life, Hadhrat Ahmad^as impressed his contemporaries with his high sense of virtue and devotion to worship which draws one's attention to the life of Hadhrat Muhammad^sa who, around the same age showed signs of singular purity and virtue and who also withdrew himself from worldly pursuits to dedicate his time in prayer and worship at the cave in Hira.

Hadhrat Ahmad's^as piety was also vouched for by the teacher of Allama Sir Muhammad Iqbal, Maulana Sayyid Mir Hasan when Hadhrat Ahmad^as was a young man of around 29 years of age. He stated:

'Hadhrat Mirza Sahib came to Sialkot in 1864 during his service and he lived there. As he was a pious man, he was averse to trivial and nonsensical talk. He lived in aloofness.' ³⁴

Maulana Abdullah al Imadi, another reputed intellectual and scholar of the Indian subcontinent was also the editor of the famous newspaper Vakeel of Amritsar which often engaged itself in the anti Ahmadiyya Muslim controversy. Yet he stated in relation to Hadhrat Ahmad^as:

'By virtue of his study and upright nature, he had attained mastery over religious literature. In 1877, when he was 35 or 36 years of age, we find him charged with unusual religious fervour. He is leading the life of a true and pious Muslim. His heart is unimpressed by worldly attractions. He is happy in solitude as if he were in congenial company and when in company he is enjoying the bliss of solitude. We find him restless and it appears as if he is in search of a lost thing no trace of which can be found in the mortal world. Islam has so overwhelmed him that he holds debates with the Arya and writes voluminous books in support of Islam.' ³⁵

This statement in relation to Hadhrat Ahmad's^as early life once again draws one's attention to the life of Hadhrat Muhammad^sa who, from the beginning, showed signs of being charged with religious fervour; spent most of his time in solitude at Hira; remained restless as if he has lost something and finally when the time was ripe he confronted the Kuffar of Mecca and the Jews of Medina as well as the Christians of Najran to overwhelm them with the superior argument of the Islamic faith. Although not a follower of Hadhrat Ahmad^as, the Maulana added:

'As to his character, there is not the slightest trace of a blot on it. He lived a virtuous life, the life of a righteous, God-fearing person. To conclude, the first fifty years of his life, in terms of moral integrity, commendable habits, and sterling services to religion, raised him to an enviable position of great distinction and honour among Indian Muslims.' ³⁶

Maulvi Muhammad Hussain Batalvi, the then leader of the Jamait Ahle Hadeeth in India and editor of the popular Muslim periodical Isha'atas Sunnah knew Hadhrat Ahmad^as since childhood. He stated on behalf of Hadhrat Ahmad's^as friends and foes alike:

'According to the experience and observation of friends and foes alike, the author of Braheen e Ahmadiyya regulates his life according to the Shariah of Islam and is a pious and truthful person by habit.' ³⁷

He became one of Hadhrat Ahmad's^as arch enemies at some later date but this change of heart was not occasioned by any fault in the latter's character. It was a question of him not being able to reconcile to Hadhrat Ahmad's^as claim to be the Promised Messiah since he subscribed to the dogma of Hadhrat Isa ibne Mariam's^as physical descent from heaven. Although he subsequently issued edicts of apostasy against Hadhrat Ahmad^as, yet he did not ever raise any objection against his character and continued to hold his personal piety and purity in high esteem. Hadhrat Khawaja Ghulam Farid , the patron saint of Chachran Shareef was a contemporary of Hadhrat Ahmad^as and is today revered in Pakistan and India as a great saint of his time. He too held Hadhrat Ahmad^as in high regard and vouched for his excellent character. He declared that:

'Mirza Sahib is a good and virtuous person. He has sent me a book containing the revelations received by him. That book alone shows his spiritual excellence. He is a true person in his claim. He is not a forger nor a liar.' ³⁸

The aforementioned testimonial admits that Hadhrat Ahmad^as was a person of spiritual excellence and also acknowledges that he was a recipient of Divine revelation - a phenomenon every apostle of God must essentially experience in his life to be true in his claim since according to the Holy Quran, God does not reveal His secrets to anyone except whom He chooses to be a Messenger.³⁹ Another seat sufi of the subcontinent, Hadhrat Sufi Ahmad Jan^rh of Ludhiana spoke of these revelations vouchsafed unto Hadhrat Ahmad^as and declared that he:

'is not one of the common run of divines and spiritual preceptors, but has been specially commissioned by God and is a recipient of revelation. Hundreds of revelations and messages and prophesies and true dreams and Divine directions and glad tidings relating to this book and comprising intimations of triumph and Divine help and Divine guidance couched in various languages, such as Arabic, Persian, Urdu, and even English, though the author is not at all versed in English, have been set out in this book, supported by the testimony of hundreds of opponents of Islam, which establishes their truth and proves that the author is doubtlessly writing this book under Divine instruction. It is also clear that according to the Hadeeth of the Holy Prophet^sa, Allah, the Lord of Glory and Honour, would raise among Muslims at the beginning of every century one who would revive faith. The author of this book is the Reformer of the 14th century and is a profound scholar and one of the most perfect individuals of the Muslim community. This is also supported by another hadeeth of the Holy Prophet^sa wherein he is reported to have said: The true divines among my followers will be like the prophets of Israel.' ⁴⁰

This testimony alone should answer the question as to what extent Hadhrat Ahmad's^as life resembled that of other prophets for his contemporaries to consider him to be, not a common run of divines and spiritual preceptors, but specially commissioned by God. If they had not found his life to resemble that of other prophets, they would have never considered Hadhrat Muhammad's^sa hadeeth in relation to the divines of his ummah being like the prophets of Israel applicable to Hadhrat Ahmad^as. Hadhrat Sufi Jan's^rh opinion was shared by Maulana Muhammad Shareef of Banglore, the editor of Manshoor Muhammadi who wrote an extended review on the publication of Braheen e Ahmadiyya. He stated that Hadhrat Ahmad^as was:

'the greatest of Ulema, the illustrious general, pride of the followers of Islam in India, the accepted one of God.' ⁴¹

The Maulana had absolutely no doubt that Hadhrat Ahmad^as was a recipient of revelation also and these revelations vouchsafed unto him were from God Almighty. Hence, he invited all those who doubted the Divine nature of these to stay in the company of Hadhrat Ahmad^as and acquire certainty for themselves. He stated:

'The author has also disclosed his visions and revelations to the opponents of Islam and if anyone has any doubts, he can attain certainty of observation with regard to these Divine revelations which are a gift of God by staying in the company of the author.' ⁴²

Maulvi Muhammad Hussain Batalvi was also convinced of the Divine nature of these revelations. He alluded to Hadhrat Ahmad's^as challenge to the deniers of revelation and stated that those who denied the possibility of it should come to Qadian and satisfy themselves that the challenger is a recipient of this bounty.⁴³ He declared that Hadhrat Ahmad^as:

'has announced to the whole world that anyone who doubts the truth of Islam should come to him and should witness the intellectual and spiritual proofs based upon the Quran, and the miraculous manifestation of the prophethood of Muhammad^sa in support of the truth of Islam by which he means the revelations and signs granted to the author of Braheen e Ahmadiyya.' ⁴⁴

He asserted that these revelations were positively of Divine nature since:

'It is well known that Satanic suggestions are mostly false but not one of the revelations received by the author of Braheen e Ahmadiyya have been proved false up to this day. These cannot therefore be considered Satanic suggestions. Can any Muslim follower of the Quran believe that Satan can be given knowledge, like the Prophets and the angels, of that which is hidden so that none of his disclosures should lack truth?' ⁴⁵

The aforementioned statement by the then leader Of the Jamait Ahle Hadeeth has raised a very appropriate question in relation to the nature of revelation and one is certain that no Muslim follower of the Quran could even remotely contemplate the feasibility of Satan being given knowledge of the hidden like the Prophets and angels of God. But people like Abdul Hafeez who profess faith in Islam and claim to be scholars of the Holy Quran believe Satan's knowledge to be superior to that of the Messengers of God Almighty. This is evident from his naive statement that, God forbid, 'Satan was the teacher of God Almighty's blessed Angels.'⁴⁶ How could any sane Muslim believe that an accursed being could ever be blessed with the honour of being a teacher of Allah's Messengers?

According to the wisdom contained in the Holy Quran, apostles of God Almighty are also recipients of Divine help.⁴⁷ Hence, one observes that Hadhrat Ahmad's^as, contemporaries bore testimony of being witness to him being assisted by God. For instance, at the time of the Conference of Religions held at Lahore in December 1896, a Muslim editor of an independent Indian periodical observed:

'If the paper of Mirza Sahib had not been there, Muslims would have faced degradation and shame at the hands of other religions. But the powerful hand of God saved holy Islam from defeat, and through that paper granted Islam such a triumph that let alone its adherents, even the opponents cried out spontaneously: This paper is the best of all! This paper is the best of all!' ⁴⁸

Pir Mehr Ali Shah of Golra Sharif in Punjab who later became engaged in a controversy with Hadhrat Ahmad^as also believed him to be a recipient of Divine help. In a statement made to Babu Feeroz Ali, he stated:

'Imam Jalal ud Din Sayuti^rh says that there are certain stages of spiritual progress where many servants of Allah become the Messiah and Mahdi. I cannot say whether he is only at that stage or whether he is the same Mahdi promised for this ummah by the Holy Prophet^sa but he is proving to be a cuffing sword against false religions and is certainly Divinely aided.' ⁴⁹

This statement was published in 1904, more than six years after Pir Mehr Ali had turned against Hadhrat Ahmad^as. He also lived another thirty three years after its publication and died in May, 1937. Yet, in all those years, he never contested the aforementioned statement attributed to him although it was published in Al Hakam after he became engaged in a dispute with Hadhrat Ahmad^as and even proceeded to write a book against him. This is an indication of the fact that despite his later hostility, he continued to believe that his opponent was Divinely aided.

The Holy Quran defines various functions expected of the prophets of God during their mortal lives one of which being the dedication of their lives to establishing the Unity of God on earth.⁵⁰ How far did Hadhrat Ahmad^as strive to establish this may be gauged by the comments of his contemporaries. Hadhrat Khawaja Ghulam Farid^rh referred to his endeavours in relation to this and stated:

'Mirza Sahib spends all his time in the service of Allah, prayer and recitation of the Quran and similar other preoccupations. He is so resolved to champion Islam that he has invited Queen Victoria of England to accept Islam. Similarly, he has invited the kings of France, Russia and other countries to accept Islam. All his efforts are for the purpose that the creed of Trinity and the Cross, or of total disbelief and godlessness should be eradicated and in its place the Unity of God should be established on earth.' ⁵¹

Does this not recall one's attention to the life of Hadhrat Muhammad^sa who sent such invitations to some of the mightiest kings and emperors of that period? Incidentally, while Abdul Hafeez demands proof of how Hadhrat Ahmad's^as life resembles that of any prophet in history, Hadhrat Ahmad^as appears to be the only prophet in history who followed the Sunnah of the greatest prophet known to the history of mankind, the Khatamal Anbiyya, Hadhrat Muhammad Mustapha^sa. History does not speak of any other prophet having sent letters of invitations to the mighty kings of their time to accept the faith of Allah, except the Prophet of Islam Hadhrat Muhammad^sa and his prophesied Messiah, Hadhrat Ahmad^as. All praise belongs to Allah!

The Holy Quran also indicates that Messengers of God are required to strive in the cause of Allah with their wealth and person⁵² which Hadhrat Ahmad^as did with the greatest of dedication. Hadhrat Khawaja Ghulam Farid^rh declared:

'Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Sahib Qadiani is on the truth. He is truthful in his affair. Day and night he is engrossed in the service of God Almighty. He has given his life for the progress of Islam and raising aloof the cause of the faith. I see nothing wrong or undesirable in him at all. If he has claimed to be the Mahdi and Isa, that too is among the things which are permissible.' ⁵³

He was so impressed by the manner in which Hadhrat Ahmad^as strove to serve the cause of Allah that he gave vent to his feelings of disgust with the ulema of his age who opposed him. He censured them and stated:

'Look at the ulema of that time that, leaving alone all false creeds, they attacked this decent man who is a complete follower of the Prophet of Allah^sa and who is on the right path and shows guidance to others. Such a venerable man who is perfect in all respects has been condemned as a kafir although if you see his writings they show that they are beyond the capacity of a human being. And all that he says is totally full of inner knowledge and truths and it is wholly the path of true guidance. And he is not a disbeliever in the faith of the Ahle Sunnat wal Jamaat and the requirements of the religion of Muhammad^sa.' ⁵⁴

Incidentally, such ulema exist in this day and age too, Abdul Hafeez being a classical example. If he had any respect for Islam and the truth which he so numerously claims in his book, then rather than attack such a perfect, decent and venerable man as Hadhrat Ahmad^as who was a complete follower of Prophet Muhammad^sa and whose writings are full of inner knowledge and truths and guidance, he would have rather engaged himself in fighting the influence of the false creeds of Trinity which appears to have heavily burdened his own homeland. If he were to visit the Christian centers at Shikarpur and Hyderabad, he would gauge the extent to which ordinary Muslims are being lured to Christianity and deluded into believing in the plurality of God.⁵⁵ But while he is able to do nothing to save Muslims at Shikarpur⁵⁶ or Hyderabad⁵⁷ in Sindh from falling into apostasy and being baptized into a faith which believes Christ to be either God, His partner of His son, Hadhrat Ahmad's^as high sense of dedication to the cause of Allah and establishing the Unity of God was applauded by many. Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad,