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 August 24, 1923
Topics: Obedience to Law, Political Commentary, Hindu-Muslim Relations, Government Treatment of Ahmadis, Rowlatt Act, Self-Governance, Moral Principles over Political Gain, Moplah Rebellion, Shuddhi Movement, Muslim Leadership Failures
After reciting Tashahhud, Ta'awwuz, and Surah Al-Fatihah, Huzoor(ra) said:
Last time, I had spoken about how a believer should carry out religious work. Since resolving that question required explaining what relationship the believer has with God Almighty and what responsibilities faith entails, I first addressed the nature of the believer's relationship with God. Regarding the remaining part, I had promised that if Allah the Almighty so willed, I would discuss it the following Friday. However, since today it has happened that there has been a delay and time is short, I postpone that part to next Friday.
Today, I wish to draw the attention of my friends — and also of those to whom this sermon may reach, whether they belong to the Ahmadiyya Jama'at or not, so long as they call themselves Muslims — to another matter. What I wish to say at this time pertains to current affairs. However, I have observed that no matter how good the advice given to people, they do not pay attention to it until they have suffered loss through experience and stumbling.
In recent days, a state of agitation had arisen particularly among Muslims and generally among all the people of India. At that time, Muslims committed acts that were morally, rationally, and religiously impermissible. At that time, I offered sincere counsel — generally to my countrymen and especially to those who share our name — because regardless of how much they may differ from us in beliefs, since they call themselves Muslims, from a political standpoint, if they benefit, we too deserve that benefit — even if they do not let us partake of it. And if they suffer harm, we too are harmed — even if they call us disbelievers. For the world does not exempt us from the treatment it metes out to Muslims, and we cannot separate ourselves from the treatment given to Muslims.
Therefore, it is our right to present sound and correct advice before them. Whether they accept it or not is their affair. But I have observed that on such occasions, Muslims become particularly displeased and say: "Why do you speak up?"
When Muslims took a step that could cause them harm, and I tried to restrain them from it, Muslims became upset and many people said to me: "Why did you interfere?" Regarding this, I say firstly that it is contrary to reason and humanity to watch someone being destroyed and ruined and not try to stop them. This is like someone falling into a pit, and when an effort is made to save them, they say: "What business is it of yours? Why do you advise me?" If one human being does not have even this much connection with another, then what kind of human beings are they?
So if we remain silent on such occasions, we step outside the circle of humanity — for it is the duty of a believer that when someone is about to fall into a pit, he should try to save them, even if the one falling takes it ill.
Thus, one reason for our intervention is that our morals do not permit us to see someone being harmed and remain silent. Secondly, even if you separate us from yourselves and do not consider us Muslims, since your affairs also affect us, it is our duty to advise you. For example, if two persons are tied to one rope and one of them begins to jump into a well while the other holds him back, and the first says: "What business is it of yours? Why do you interfere?" — even then the second person cannot remain silent, because the falling of his companion will affect him too.
This is exactly our situation. Muslims may separate us from themselves, but since the world does not consider us separate, we too have to bear loss along with their loss. And this is not a hypothetical matter — we have proof that due to the actions of others, our people have been punished.
The Rowlatt Act — which in Punjabi terms was such a "rola" (uproar) that it created an uproar throughout the entire country — when it was enacted, riots broke out in some places and shots were fired. At first, the people of the country for a few days attacked the Government or those loyal to the Government. Since the members of our Jama'at did not participate in the disturbances anywhere — they did not join rallies, nor strikes, nor demonstrations — the result was that in some places their shops were looted, they were beaten and struck, and they were harassed in various ways. This happened at that time.
Then, when the Government restored order, on the one hand it declared that the Ahmadiyya Jama'at had remained aloof from the disturbances everywhere and had rendered great service to the Government. And on the other hand, when fines were imposed on the people, Ahmadis were included in them as well. In Amritsar, Kasur, Gujranwala, and other places, Ahmadis were included in the collective fines, and despite appeal after appeal, they were not exempted from those fines.
And the irony is that others refused, saying: "We will not pay." But since our Jama'at considers obedience to the law its duty, the Ahmadis went and paid their share of the fine, and the Government gratefully accepted their payment.
Consider what we had done during the period of the Rowlatt Act disturbances — for which our people were made to pay the penalty. Only this: that we too were Muslims. And since the Government had imposed fines upon Muslims, it included us along with them.
So when, in the Government's eyes, they and we are tied to the same rope, it is inevitable that when harm comes to them, it comes to us too. When the Government — despite acknowledging that the Ahmadiyya Jama'at was not involved in the disturbances — for some expediency of its own that we cannot fathom, and no person of reason could fathom, entangles our people along with others, then in such a situation it is our right to counsel others and try to prevent them from incurring loss.
So it was our right, and we did counsel at that time too, but people foolishly kept thinking that we are agents of the Government. But the question is: does anyone become an agent for free? And not merely for free, but an agent who gets beaten from both sides? Does anyone serve as an agent so that you may beat him and your enemies may also beat him? If not, then tell us: what has the Government given us?
The one who writes most in support of the Government is myself. If I support the Government for personal or national benefit, then one should examine what I or my family have obtained from the Government. I consider even the greatest reward of the Government to be utterly insignificant compared to what God Almighty has given me. But people consider Government titles to be a great thing — have I taken any title from the Government? Then people consider official positions a great thing and flatter for them — have I gotten any relative employed in Government service? Then people flatter so that they may receive land — have I taken land from the Government? Then people flatter so that they may gain a seat of honor — have I ever expressed such a desire?
This is regarding personal and family benefits. As for national benefit — someone might say: "You haven't gained personal benefit, so what? You flatter the Government to benefit your community." I say: by our community we mean Ahmadis, not Mughals — for those Mughals who are not Ahmadi are enemies of our very lives. What special favor has the Government given to the Ahmadi community that it has not given to others? Rather, as I have mentioned, when others committed disturbances, the Government was ready to fine the Ahmadis.
The Government exempted Christians on that occasion — who had fled to save their lives and gave no help. It also exempted Europeans, who sat in their bungalows. But it collected fines from Ahmadis — who heard abuses from the rioters, were beaten and struck, and suffered losses. And not only did they remain aloof from the disturbances, but they continued to assist the Government. And despite that acknowledgment, the fine was collected. If this is the reward, is it for this that we flatter the Government?
Then look at other benefits — what is our Jama'at obtaining from the Government? The Government's policy appears to be that the more someone creates an uproar and hurls abuses, the more it fears that person. Our experiences and outward circumstances show that far from any special accommodation, even our essential applications receive no attention.
In this very Qadian, non-Ahmadis came and held gatherings. In explicit and open words they said Ahmadis should be killed. And they called our master and guide — for whom we are ready at every moment to sacrifice every particle of our bodies and shed every drop of our blood — a transgressor and sinner, and hurled the most vile abuses, doing so in the presence of police and the magistrate. We sent telegrams to the Governor about this, wrote letters, drew the attention of the then Deputy Commissioner — but no one did anything. They simply said: "When a riot occurs, we will see." As if, if Ahmadis do not create riots and remain silent after hearing abuses, they should give up hope of any Government assistance.
The magistrate assigned to the gathering and the police also did nothing, sitting comfortably while abuses were hurled. The magistrate sat quietly merely to maintain his own reputation and good name, that he had managed things well. And the higher officials paid no attention because it was a small community — why pay attention to its voice? If someone hurls abuses at it, so what?
In contrast, if any article in our newspapers is published even in response, the Government stands ready to demand an explanation — asking why such-and-such was written about Maulvis or Aryas.
So the Government is such a "friend" to us that if someone comes to attack us and we raise a hand to defend ourselves, it grabs our hand and says: "Let it go" — and that is the extent of its friendship.
In the conquest of Iraq, Ahmadis shed their blood. At my urging, hundreds of men enlisted and went. But when the government was established there, the Government secured the condition that missionaries would face no obstacle in propagating Christianity, but for Ahmadis, not only was no such condition placed, but if Ahmadis present their difficulties, the High Commissioner of Iraq considers it beneath his dignity to intervene. Ahmadis are prevented from preaching there. They are prevented from holding meetings even in their own homes. They are prevented from publishing magazines. But Aryas and Christians are not prevented.
When English officers are alerted, they silence the matter by saying: "You should pass the time quietly." But we would see what happened if obstacles were placed in the way of Christians and the authorities gave the same response!
So what benefit and profit have we derived from the Government? If anyone uses even a little reason, they will realize that not only have we not derived any benefit, but we have suffered loss — on one side, we suffered pain and hardship from the people, because when rioters were rioting, they harassed Ahmadis for remaining aloof, looted them, and beat them. On the other side, when the Government arose, it fined the Ahmadis. Thus we were plundered and harassed from both sides — from the right and from the left.
If justice and fairness mean anything, then those who accuse us of flattery should see what benefit we have derived from the Government. We have suffered losses, but we have gained no benefit.
If someone asks: "Then why, despite all this, do you call the Government a benefactor?" — the answer is that we do not mean the Government has done us some favor that distinguishes us from other communities. Rather, we mean that under this Government, the treatment we receive is better and more distinguished than what we would receive under other governments, and its laws are such that under them we find an open field to grow and spread. But this benefit is such that Mr. Gandhi, Lala Lajpat Rai, Mr. Muhammad Ali, and others who are dangerous enemies of the Government receive the same benefit as we do — we do not receive more than them. Rather, if those people come into competition, we have to suffer loss, not gain benefit.
So to say that we flatter the Government is an outright lie. If people acted with even a little fairness, they would realize that we have been advising our brothers not because of Government flattery but purely out of sympathy and sincerity — not because the Government gives us anything.
As for certain bigoted Government officers who care more about being Christians than about being officers — the situation is this: an application was made from here for a work of public welfare, and it was a work for which the Government gives millions of rupees to missionaries. The Commissioner of the time wrote on it: "What need is there to give aid to this community? They are a very wealthy people." So those people who are millionaires and give millions of rupees to missionaries for the propagation of Christianity — they are poor, and so the Government gives money to missionaries for this purpose. But we Ahmadis are wealthier than them, so there is no need to give to us!
We remain silent about such conduct of the Government and its officers so that no disturbance or riot may occur — because we religiously disapprove of disturbance. And today I mention these matters only out of necessity, so that those who call us Government flatterers may see how unjust they are.
So we have suffered losses from the Government, and compared to others, have had to endure greater hardship. But despite all this, we cannot abandon the principle of living in peace. And we cannot overlook the principle that even if the most exalted benefits are to be gained — for which one must abandon high morals — one should pay no heed to those benefits.
If even the sovereignty of the world were at stake and we were told that we could save it by abandoning morals, we would care nothing for the sovereignty and would not abandon morals.
One reason for adhering to this principle is that the religion we have received from God Almighty takes precedence over everything for us, and its instruction is: do not rebel against the established government of the country in which you live.
People say that self-rule (Swaraj) will not be achieved this way. We say: forget Swaraj — if we lose everything because of following the Holy Quran, we will not care. One India? Even if a thousand Indias were to be lost, let them go. But the one who says that following the Holy Quran causes one to lose one's country is a liar. Did the Companions(ra) not receive dominion? And did they achieve it through rebellions? Absolutely not.
Similarly, did the disciples of the Messiah(as) not receive dominion? And did they rebel? God made kings followers of the Messiah(as). In the same way, those who rose to destroy Islam were made to embrace Islam. Who are the Turks? The very people who had risen as enemies of Islam — but God Himself made them Muslims.
So we wish to state clearly: sovereignty will be achieved by walking the very path we are walking upon. The rulers of today — God will open their minds and convince them of the truth of Islam. And a day will come when these people will understand that making a human being into God was a great error. Then will come the day when they will realize: "We caused suffering to the truly loyal ones and favored others instead." At that time, they themselves will come, ashamed, and ask our forgiveness. They will bow before us in respect and say: "Admit us into Islam, for its truth has become clear to us. Forgive us for the ill-treatment we have been meting out to you, for God Almighty has lifted the veil from our eyes and your true form has become visible to us."
You ask: when will this happen? The answer is that neither we have been told, nor was our guide told. Just as the Holy Prophet(sa) was not told the exact time. Yes, this much has been told: that just as it happened in the time of earlier Prophets, so shall it happen now. We do not know when it will happen, but we know for certain that it will happen.
So we have not been advising out of any personal gain. Whatever counsel we gave was purely out of sincerity and love. But alas, Muslims did not heed it, and today they are suffering the consequences.
What is happening now can be gauged from the atrocities that occurred against Muslims at the hands of Hindus in Malabar (Moplah region), which knew no bounds. First they told them: "Stand up against the Government and seize self-rule." But then, just like the treachery of the Mutiny era, they committed treachery, sided with the Government, and raised an outcry: "We have been attacked! Muslims committed such-and-such atrocities against us!" Undoubtedly, some Muslims had committed excesses against Hindus, but those were nothing compared to the atrocities Hindus committed against Muslims. Yet, sadly, Muslims remained completely silent and did not help the poor Moplahs at all.
Then, what happened in Multan, Amritsar, Allahabad, and other places — in all of these, Muslims were caused the most severe losses. Then, in the Malakana region, Aryas are forcibly converting Muslims, and Hindu princely states are using coercion for this purpose. When Aryas convert Muslims to apostasy in their territories, they say: "No problem, do it freely." But when any Muslim goes to prevent the apostasy, they say: "It creates disorder," and expel the Muslim missionaries.
This is the result of the misdeeds that Muslims committed — that they handed their reins over to the Hindus. Now if the Hindus grind them like kohl and scatter them like dust in the air, it would be no surprise.
I had expected the day when, just like in the Mutiny era, Hindus would step forward and tell the Government: "The Muslims did everything; we did nothing." And indeed, that is exactly what is happening now. Hindus themselves commit disturbances, fight with Muslims, beat them — and then go to the authorities and raise an outcry that the Muslims attacked them.
The English are a third party, and moreover, they operate on the principle that whoever shouts the loudest will be heard. So Hindus make themselves heard, while Muslims say: "Why should we go to a Government with which we have adopted non-cooperation?" But Hindus, despite calling themselves non-cooperators, go and file complaints against Muslims. As a result, Muslims are arrested. And even when the authorities arrest Hindus based on their own investigation, those Hindus escape through various deceptions.
Just as happened in Amritsar itself: Hindus told Muslims: "Come, we had a fight among ourselves — so what? We should not give the Government an opportunity to interfere. The method is that Muslims should not identify the Hindu accused and Hindus should not identify the Muslim accused." So the Muslims said they did not recognize the Hindu accused, and those Hindus were released. But the Hindus gave all the names of the Muslim accused, and those Muslims were arrested.
So Muslims at this time are being beaten from every direction, but they do not come to their senses. They fall from one pit into another, but still they do not understand.
The daily events occurring are no ordinary matter. But the greatest impact on me has been made by a speech of Pandit Motilal Nehru, and the pattern of the Mutiny has passed before my eyes again.
Pandit Sahib is a very great leader. In a speech of his regarding Hindu-Muslim unity, he said: "Although I myself am a true Hindu, I am a great admirer of Islamic civilization, culture, and the democratic traditions of the religion of Islam." Having said this, he expressed his sympathy and goodwill toward Muslims. But the clear meaning of this is: "In reality, I am indeed a Hindu, and I am indeed a well-wisher of Hindus, and it is feelings of support for Hindus that arise in my heart — but first let us bring Muslims along and gain the government of India, then we shall push them out. Why alienate them now?"
And in another speech, he said something that smacks of the same treachery as the Mutiny. He said: "It is regrettable that our Muslim brothers have given too much freedom to their Ulema (religious scholars) in their politics, which has produced bad results. I shall urge them that henceforth they should insist that the Ulema refrain from meddling in politics."
Although, in Pandit Sahib's view, all the trouble has been caused by the Maulvis, and therefore they should not be allowed into politics, the situation on the Maulvis' side is this: Maulvi Abul Kalam Azad, Maulvi Azad Subhani, Maulvi Sana'ullah, Maulvi Ibrahim, and others have worn out their tongues flattering people, saying that whatever the Hindus may do, remain united with them. And if not through actual prostration, then through mental submission, they have been bowing so much that calluses have formed on their foreheads. Yet from Nehru Sahib, the reward they have received is: "All the trouble has been caused by the Maulvis — don't even let them enter politics."
Consider: just a short while ago, they used to beg and beseech these very Maulvis to come and issue fatwas (religious rulings) against the Government. But now they say: "Don't even let them into politics — rather, throw them out!"
In my view, these Maulvi Sahibs deserve exactly this treatment — because one who abandons the door of Muhammad(sa) and goes to the door of Gandhi deserves whatever punishment he receives. But it is false that the Maulvis have caused division or are causing it. Even today, they are saying: "Whatever the Hindus do, we are ready to follow them." But now the Muslims do not listen to them, because they have seen that Hindus, under the guise of friendship, want to cut their very roots.
In Amritsar, Maulvi Sana'ullah, and in Sialkot, Maulvi Ibrahim, delivered sermons about remaining united with Hindus. Over there, Abul Kalam Sahib and Subhani Sahib will not let go of C.R. Das's coattails and are following in his footsteps. Yet despite all this, the entire blame is being placed on them — that they are the ones spreading mischief — and it is being said they should be removed from politics.
When there was a need to obtain fatwas against the Government, at that time Mr. Gandhi himself used to seat Maulvi Abdul Bari Sahib beside him, and all Hindu leaders used to say: "If self-rule is to be achieved, it will be achieved only through the Ulema." But now that failure has occurred and a different path is being sought, it is being said that the failure happened because of these Maulvis — and thus the entire blame has been placed on them.
I appreciate the idea that Maulvis should not meddle in politics, so that at least the common people would not be led astray by their fatwas. But it is false that the Swaraj effort was ruined because of them. They have been roaming about as slaves of the leaders. And why should they not? Those who previously could not even gain entry to the assemblies of these leaders and lay about like useless limbs — when they were invited to the stage and were warmly received, they became happy with just that. Otherwise, those who considered merely lying down as their occupation — what did they do, and what could they have done? Whatever was done was done by the political leaders. But when the loss occurred, the entire blame was placed on the Maulvis.
But it is astonishing that Pandit Sahib, despite his claim of impartiality, did not pause to consider: if the Maulvis have meddled in politics, have the Pandits not done so too? If the Shankaracharya's meddling in politics does not spoil political affairs, then why does the Maulvis' meddling spoil them?
The blame upon the Maulvis is, for them, a punishment for the fact that they defamed the Holy Quran for the sake of their base desires. But as for the basis on which blame has been placed upon them, it is a lie and an injustice. And even greater injustice is that only the Maulvis have been made the accused, while not a single word has been said about such a well-known political Pandit as the Shankaracharya — so that the entire blame may remain on the Muslims.
Whether this ought to be the result of Hindu-Muslim unity, the Muslims can judge for themselves.
No one desires peace more than us. It was our Imam who first gave the message of peace. But we say: true peace can only be achieved by defining the respective rights of each party. If Hindus and Muslims had followed the principles we laid out, there would never have been any quarrel, and genuine peace would have been established. But since this was ignored, the situation that is now visible has come to pass.
Moreover, the peace that would have been achieved under that principle would not have been only with the Hindus, but also with the English, the Sikhs, and all other communities. Now, God Almighty has shown through experience that peace can never be achieved in the manner that has been adopted.
Since we still hope that God Almighty will open people's eyes and they will act upon the correct method of peace, it is our right to tell them — so that we may be protected from the consequences of the losses they bring upon themselves.
Today, just as other Muslims are being deprived of employment, trade, and other livelihoods, so too are Ahmadis being pushed aside. The reins of governance are entirely in the hands of Hindus, who do as they please.
So it is our right that we raise our voice so that Muslims do not commit another mistake and we do not have to suffer loss along with them. In fact, in some situations, we have to bear even greater loss.
The harm from the apostasy of the Malakanas — was it we who bore it, or they? The Malakanas were non-Ahmadi, but since it was we who were serving the faith, we had to make the sacrifice for them. Thus, at present, we hold the largest area of work, the most of our people are working there, and we are bearing the most hardships. We are confronting the princely states. When afflictions and hardships fall upon us too, why should we not raise our voice in times of danger?
So on the one hand, I say to my Jama'at: see what benefit you gained by using reason during the time of uproar and heeding my words. And how pleased you are that you did not murder your conscience.
On the other hand, I wish to say to Muslims: if one who is lost in the morning returns home by evening, he is not considered lost. Even now, if you people come to your senses, no one will call you lost.
May God Almighty keep the feet of our Jama'at firmly upon truth and sincerity, and may He also grant understanding to those who, though they beat and strike us, share with us in that name which God Almighty Himself has chosen for His servants.
May God Almighty protect them from the punishment of "bima kasabat aydikum" — "that which your own hands have earned."¹ May they walk the right path, may they distinguish between friend and foe, and may they not bring Islam into disrepute through their impulsive passions.
(Al-Fazl, August 31, 1923)
References:
¹ The Holy Quran, Surah Ash-Shura, 42:31 — "And whatever misfortune befalls you, it is because of what your hands have earned. And He pardons much."
Related Resources