Note: The Alislam Team assumes full responsibility for any errors or inaccuracies in this translation of the Friday Sermon.
Friday Sermon delivered by Hazrat Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmad (ra) Khalifatul Masih II June 15, 1923
Topics: Hindu-Muslim Relations, Untouchability, Shuddhi Movement, Divine Attributes, Limited Anger Unlimited Mercy, Purpose of Creation, Khilafat Movement, Malkana Apostasy, Proportionate Response, Brotherhood of Humanity
After reciting Tashahhud, Ta'awwuz, and Surah Al-Fatihah, Huzoor (ra) said:
Everything has two purposes: one is the purpose it is actually fulfilling, and the other is the purpose for which it was made. For example, a person builds a house with the intention that his property should be safeguarded. Safeguarding his property is the purpose of building the house. But due to certain deficiencies, that house cannot protect against burglars, and his property is stolen — though through the house, he is protected from cold, heat, and rain. Another person builds a house to be protected from rain, cold, and heat. Due to certain remaining deficiencies, that house does not fulfill the purpose for which it was built — meaning the owner is not properly protected from rain — but his property is secured from theft through it.
Thus it becomes clear that the purpose for which something is made is one thing, and the purpose that the thing is actually fulfilling is another. For instance, a king builds a rampart around his city so that the city remains safe from enemy attack. It is possible that the wall or rampart cannot stop the enemy, but other benefits are derived from it. So one purpose of every thing is that which it is fulfilling, and the second is that which its maker had in mind.
Parents educate their children; their intention, for example, is that the children should serve the faith. But sometimes those children become atheists — though through that education, they earn their livelihood. Thus every thing contains two purposes within it: one that it is fulfilling, and one for which it was made.
Now, conditions vary. Sometimes the purpose a thing is fulfilling is greater than the purpose its maker had in mind. And sometimes the intended purpose is very lofty, but the thing is not fulfilling it — or the purpose it is fulfilling is inferior. If the purpose for which something was made is lofty but its current function is inferior, it can still be elevated.
This is the condition of things made by humans. But the things that Allah the Almighty makes also have the same condition — they too contain two purposes within them. And although the purpose for which they are made is not always fulfilled, unlike human-made things, they cannot go beyond their appointed purpose, for that would reflect a deficiency in Allah the Almighty.
Furthermore, purposes are of two types: one type must be fulfilled in all circumstances, and one type, if fulfilled by compulsion, would defeat the very object of those purposes.
Allah the Almighty created man to attain the highest spiritual advancement. This is the purpose of his creation, as He says: "I have not created the Jinn and mankind but that they may worship Me" (Al-Dhariyat 51:57). But if Allah the Almighty had made man a servant by force and had not given him choice in his actions, he would not have been worthy of reward, and the purpose of making him a servant would have been defeated.
The example of man in that case would be like this: we see that a person is thirsty, and another brings him water and quenches his thirst. The person who brought the water is thanked, but no one thanks the water — even though the thirst was quenched by the water. This is because everyone knows that water is compelled in its function of quenching thirst; it is not worthy of thanks. This is exactly what the condition of man would become under compulsion, and the purpose of his creation would be ruined.
Man has been given choice in his actions, which sometimes results in him not fulfilling the purpose for which he was created — rather, at times he becomes an obstacle in the path of that purpose, like Abu Jahl, Muhammad Husain, Sanaullah, and others, who not only fail to fulfill the purpose for which they were created but become obstacles in its path. But even here, compulsion is not applied to them.
Allah the Almighty stated the purpose of man's creation by saying: "I have not created the Jinn and mankind but that they may worship Me" (Al-Dhariyat 51:57) — meaning man was created to absorb within himself the attributes of Allah the Almighty and then manifest them in the world.
Among the attributes of Allah the Almighty is this: when He deals with someone, that dealing is governed by a law. Unlike human dealings, it is not blind or indiscriminate. Abu Jahl opposed the most beloved Messenger of God, yet God's sun rose for Abu Jahl just as it rose for Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah (saw). Similarly, his eyes, ears, nose, and stomach received help from Allah the Almighty to perform their functions, just as the eyes, ears, nose, and stomach of Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah (saw) received help. Both were receiving help from Allah the Almighty.
Abu Jahl was deprived of help and support only in the matter in which he opposed Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah (saw) — and even that deprivation occurred because he himself had shut upon himself the spiritual doors that God had opened. If such people open those doors, Allah the Almighty also opens the doors He had closed on His side.
This is Allah the Almighty's attribute: He looks only at the matter regarding which He is to deal, and that dealing remains confined to that matter alone.
Since the purpose of man's creation is to absorb the attributes of Allah the Almighty and to manifest them through his actions, it is man's duty that if he opposes another person in some matter, he should confine his opposition to that matter alone.
The prophets, the beloved ones of God, and certain individuals of the community manifested this attribute of God through their actions. But no community, as a community, has displayed this divine attribute — even though the very purpose of man's creation was to manifest God's attributes.
But I observe that there is a great deficiency in manifesting this attribute of Allah the Almighty. For example, there is an Imam of prayers. He has two capacities: one as an Imam, and one as an ordinary person. It has been observed that if there is displeasure with that Imam over some personal matter, people stop coming to prayers — with no regard for confining their displeasure to the extent that pertains to his being a human being. They have no right to stop coming to prayers. This is the same as if Abu Jahl opposes the Messenger of Allah (saw) and God cuts off his bread.
If any person wants to become a manifestation of God, he should take God's attributes into himself and manifest them through his actions. His reward should be unlimited like God's reward, but his anger and displeasure should be limited like God's anger and displeasure.
Allah the Almighty says: "My mercy encompasses all things" (Al-A'raf 7:157). But regarding anger, He has not said this. And within "all things" are included anger, punishment, displeasure, severity in retribution, and taking vengeance — all of these. God's mercy prevails over all of them.
So our mercy should be unlimited, and our anger and displeasure should be limited. But regrettably, mercy remains limited while anger becomes unlimited. Once displeasure arises with someone, all faults are attributed to him. If a person is seen lying once, all his statements are considered lies. But if he is seen speaking the truth once, not all his statements are considered true. Their mercy is limited, and their anger, displeasure, and suspicion are unlimited — whereas Allah the Almighty's dealings are the opposite.
Man cannot become Allah the Almighty's beloved until he takes God's attributes into himself. If this principle is not kept in view, many defects and disorders arise.
Muslims raised the question of the Khilafat. We were opposed to the methods they employed to resolve the Khilafat question. But we had sympathy for them, because it was a question of their life and death. However, I observed that among Muslims at that time, the prevailing attitude was: whoever does not side with us on the Khilafat issue should be destroyed. They did not consider how many other matters we and others agreed with them on.
We said: "We are ready to give men, money, and resources for preaching in support of Islam and the Turkish government. But we cannot accept the Sultan of Turkey as our Khalifa." But the Muslims did not accept this and made their anger and displeasure toward us unlimited, saying: "Destroy them." The result was that Ahmadis, Shias, and others separated. Therefore, their dealings with the government were also of the same nature. But they did not think in their fervor. Yet our sympathy for them continued, because the Promised Messiah (as) had said:
"O heart, keep in view the sake of these people too, For they make the claim of love for the Prophet."
For the sake of Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah (saw), Allah the Almighty showed consideration for the Muslims and, taking mercy on their condition, quickly opened their eyes to the fact that their path was wrong.
Now I see that a new mistake is beginning. A disagreement has arisen between Hindus and us. Among Hindus and Muslims, people do not see that this disagreement is only about one matter. They want to make this disagreement encompass all matters.
Hindus are aggrieved that Muslims demand their rights — whether those rights actually exist or not is another matter. But in their protest, they have begun opposing Muslims in every affair, the result of which has appeared in the form of riots in Multan and elsewhere.
In the Shuddhi movement, a very significant revelation has emerged. The Malkanas are also becoming Hindu because Hindus do not eat from the hands of Muslims, whereas Muslims eat from the hands of Hindus. From this, it appeared to them that Hindus are more honorable than Muslims. Therefore, considering Hindus more respectable, they are becoming Hindu.
Whereas in the Vedas, there is no mention of untouchability anywhere. The Vedas even declare beef kebab as permissible, and beef was indeed consumed in India in the past. But somehow, they have made untouchability a part of their religion.
Since there is no untouchability in Islam, Muslims did not adopt it. But since the Shariah is silent on this matter and does not give any specific command, we can, as circumstances dictate, adopt whatever method of protection we find for the defense of Islam and ourselves.
The Shariah has not commanded us not to eat from others' hands. But it has also not said that we must eat from their hands. Now, since Hindus practice untouchability with Muslims — the result of which has been that the Malkanas undergoing Shuddhi consider Hindus honorable and Muslims degraded, and are thus becoming Hindu — it is the duty of Muslims to also practice untouchability with Hindus, so that Hindus are not considered honorable and Muslims degraded.
Muslims should not eat from their hands until the present circumstances change. Because eating from the hands of Hindus is merely a permission for us — there is no command. But I say that Muslims should not eat from the hands of Hindus — not because "Verily, the idolaters are unclean" (Al-Taubah 9:28) and they are impure under that verse. We have no religious command to practice untouchability with them. They are People of the Book just as Jews and Christians are. Untouchability with them is not under the command of the Shariah; rather, it is being adopted out of compulsion arising from circumstances.
Its example is like this: there is no command of the Shariah that one should not eat guavas. But during the days of cholera, we do not eat guavas. At this time, eating from the hands of Hindus is causing a nation to die spiritually. Therefore, stop eating from the hands of Hindus — not because religion commands it, but because of the circumstances.
However, I observe that this matter has been greatly exaggerated. Among Muslims, in some places the question has arisen of making it a religious issue. And Hindus have begun saying that Muslims are creating mischief. But it is a strange thing: Hindus practiced untouchability with Muslims for hundreds of years and were not troublemakers, but if Muslims adopt untouchability to save a people from spiritual death, they are troublemakers?
This is wrong, and in reality, both sides are in error. Despite these disagreements, we can maintain unity with them, and despite their practicing untouchability with us for ages, we maintained unity with them. But now when we are compelled by a national necessity to do so, why do they consider us troublemakers, enemies, and breakers of unity?
This is the result of that narrow-mindedness — that man does not think about the purpose of his creation. Previously, the Muslims fighting us was their mistake. Now, the Hindus fighting Muslims over untouchability, and the Muslims making this question into a religious question — both are mistakes.
At this time, the question is not about untouchability. In reality, it is a question of a nation's death. To convey to that nation that we are not degraded — rather, we only did so out of religious permission — so that they may be saved from spiritual death, we have been compelled to do this. And this is for a fixed period, or until Hindus abandon their untouchability.
If Muslims make the issue of untouchability into a religious question, they are interfering in religion.
I advise my Jama'at to keep every matter confined to the extent that pertains to it.
The Shuddhi is happening there. Here, Hindus and Muslims are evicting each other from houses and boycotting each other. When I went to Bombay, they searched for a house for fifteen days. After fifteen days, the house of a Diwan of a Raja was found. He promised to vacate the house quickly. But the next day, when he was approached, he refused to give the house on the grounds that other Hindus had told him not to give any house to a Muslim.
These quarrels have started only now, but Hindus have been continuing this behavior for a long time. Muslims are generally very clean, but Hindus make the excuse that Muslims ruin houses.
Whoever crosses the limit and causes more harm to the enemy than the enemy causes to him is in the wrong. In this way, humanity will be nullified and savagery will increase. Our mercy should be broad and our displeasure and anger should be limited.
Here in Qadian, the Hindus have caused us much trouble. Regarding the Minarat-ul-Masih, they opposed it, saying there should be no minaret — even though all mosques have minarets. When the Tahsildar came regarding the Minaret case, the local Lala Budhay Shah was present before the Tahsildar. The Promised Messiah (as) said to the Tahsildar: "Tahsildar Sahib, ask this Budhay Shah: since he was born, what good deed is there that I have not done for him, and what evil is there that he has not done to me?" Budhay Shah lowered his head in shame.
Hazrat Khalifatul Masih I (ra) asked a Hindu of this place: "What harm has come to you from our coming here?" He said: "None whatsoever; rather, there has been benefit." He said: "Then why do you keep trying to harm us?" He replied: "The heart simply desires that harm should come to you."
So it is our duty that to the extent someone causes us harm or damage, we should oppose and boycott him to that extent — but beyond that limit, they are our brothers. Not just Hindus — beyond that limit, even the lowest castes are our brothers. We are all children of one Adam. To the extent that boycott pertains to the protection of Islam, boycott to that extent. To the extent that boycott does not pertain to the protection of Islam and our religion derives no benefit from it — to that extent, withholding one's hand from goodness and kind treatment is not humanity; it is savagery.
I advise my Jama'at to keep this in view in all their dealings.
(Al-Fazl, June 25, 1923)
Related Resources