Note: The Alislam Team assumes full responsibility for any errors or inaccuracies in this translation of the Friday Sermon.
(Sermon delivered on 5 October 1923)
Topics: Shuddhi Movement, Ahmadi Tabligh, Muslim Unity, Religious Integrity
After reciting the Tashahhud, Ta'awwudh, and Surah Al-Fatihah, Huzoor Anwar said: When the apostasy movement [the Shuddhi fitna] began, I issued certain announcements to the effect that Muslims must collectively confront the enemy, because the nature of this attack was such that if it was not immediately checked, the result would be that Islam's long-established prestige and dignity in the world would suffer harm. The enemy would find an opening to undermine the edifice of Islam. And if a community numbering in the thousands were to pass over to the enemy's ranks without resistance or opposition, then however degraded that community might be, it would cast a stain upon the name of Islam — and beyond that, many other communities would become emboldened to leave Islam as well.
The intent behind those announcements has since been made manifest by our practical conduct. The manner in which we endeavoured to work jointly — despite obstacles placed in our path by opponents — makes it abundantly clear that our intention from the very beginning was to work together: with unity and cooperation, without confronting or opposing one another in the field of action.
However, I observe that certain people are, in error, deriving from my announcements a meaning that was never mine, and they harbour expectations of us that no reasonable person could harbour of any other reasonable person. Some people interpret this call for unity to mean that we should henceforth entirely abandon the preaching of the Ahmadiyya Movement and cease the propagation of our faith.
In my view, to expect from a person who sincerely believes his religion to be true and the means of salvation — who is convinced that without it progress is impossible and that it comes from Almighty God — that he will agree not to spread that religion: this is the greatest possible ill-assumption. Because, understanding that without this religion progress is impossible, that salvation cannot be attained without it, and that the world can only be saved from ruin and destruction through it — how could anyone possibly give the assurance that he will not preach it? And how could others, knowing someone to be the follower of a specific belief, harbour such an expectation of him?
Could one person say to another: "Yesterday you promised you would bring me the severed heads of your own wife and children, but you did not"? And when told, "I said no such thing," could the first reply, "Perhaps I misunderstood, you must have said something else"? If no one can say such a thing, and such a misunderstanding is impossible, then how can the same sort of false hope be entertained regarding something far more precious than one's wife and children — namely, one's religion?
Compared to religion, a wife, children, wealth, property, or even one's own life do not hold even as much worth as an ant. So if no one can expect sacrifice of something that is more insignificant than an ant when compared to faith, how was it imagined that we had agreed — or were willing to agree — to abandon the preaching of our religion? This can never be. And upon this, no basis for reconciliation can ever be built.
Can reconciliation between two people be founded on the condition that both drink poison and die? Once they are dead, what use is reconciliation? And the person who says he will abandon the preaching of his faith dies spiritually — he goes before Almighty God accursed and condemned. What benefit can any reconciliation render him?
So could we sacrifice our faith — which we value more than all the world — merely to keep the Malkanas, who do not even know the name of their religion, upon their former customs? I am astonished at the minds of those who hold the notion that we have made such a promise. I wish to put such people on notice and make it explicitly clear: we have never made such a promise, nor can we ever make it — even if the whole world were offered in exchange.
The Malkanas aside entirely: even if every disbeliever in the whole world were to say, "We will become Muslim if you abandon even one teaching of your religion," we would still never agree. Because in matters of religion, one's foremost concern must be for one's own faith and belief. And it is simply not possible that we would ruin our own faith for the sake of the entire world.
Even if a thousand people were to become Muslim through one man's lie, the Shariah would never permit that man to tell a lie. Similarly, if the entire world were to become Muslim on the condition that one believer become an unbeliever, Islam would never permit this — because in Islam, there is no substitute for faith and truthfulness. Therefore, these things cannot be sacrificed for anything. Sacrifices are made of things that are below faith in rank. For example, wealth, life, and dear ones can be sacrificed. But if there is one thing that cannot be sacrificed — even if a crore of people would come to Islam in exchange for one man's sacrifice — it is faith. And it is part of faith that a person convey his religion to others.
Any person who calls himself a Muslim but says, "I will abandon the preaching of Islam," is not a believer at all. This would be like saying, "I shall live but will eat nothing." Whoever forms the intention not to preach loses his faith at that very moment and exits the fold of Islam. How then could it be possible for us to, for the sake of people of uncertain benefit, abandon those who are bringing all of humanity the benefit of the faith that God Almighty has granted them — the faith which they hold with certainty to have come through God's Prophet, and through which they are spreading Islam throughout the world?
Therefore, it is absolutely impossible that we should ever say we will not preach Ahmadiyyat.
Yes, it may be acceptable to a certain degree to say: "In such-and-such an area, at such-and-such a time, we will not raise such-and-such topics." But even this kind of undertaking would become impermissible as soon as circumstances change. For instance, if a person denies the existence of God, it would not be correct to begin by telling him that if he does not pay Zakat he will be a disbeliever. One would tell whoever raised Zakat: it is not yet the time to teach him this; first establish belief in God, then have him accept the truthfulness of the Holy Prophet(sa), and then convey the injunction of Zakat.
Similarly, if a teacher placed MA or BA textbooks before a child and was told to start with the primer, and he responded by asking whether he was being told to stop teaching — one would tell him: you are not being stopped from teaching, but the method you have adopted is itself an obstacle to learning; in this manner, you are not teaching but preventing learning. If you truly want to teach, first teach the primer.
In the same way, when we say that we go to the people who are under the influence of the Aryas and being caught in their prayer and deception — to protect them from the Aryas' attack — this is not stopping the preaching of Ahmadiyyat but is itself a form of preaching. However, if a situation arises where those people are already aware that our men are Ahmadis and they ask, "What is an Ahmadi?" — then if at that moment we do not speak about Ahmadiyyat, that would constitute a restraint on preaching. Because when someone asks about Ahmadiyyat, it indicates that he has the capacity to understand it and the time for him to comprehend it has arrived. At that point, it is our duty to explain.
This was the pledge I had made — that we do not go to the Malkanas for the purpose of preaching Ahmadiyyat, but to save them from the Aryas' attacks. That was our primary objective: to protect them from the Aryas. And we fulfilled this pledge. Our workers were given strict instructions not to preach Ahmadiyyat, and to direct all their efforts against the Aryas. Our missionaries, with few exceptions, fully complied with this directive and set aside every internal difference in their opposition to the Aryas.
But regrettably, our announcements were taken as a sign of our weakness; our desire for reconciliation was construed as our defeat; and our assistance was attributed to personal ambition. As soon as the Maulvis observed that this community's sacrifices were drawing people's attention and that people were beginning to regard their own work as insignificant in comparison to ours, the concern for serving Islam departed from their hearts and the desire to oppose us took its place. The Aryas were now forgotten, and our very existence became a thorn in their eyes.
Either the Maulvis have no knowledge of geography, or they are unacquainted with census reports and other sources of information — or else those villages to which our Ahmadi workers were sent held some particular attraction for them. In any case, they adopted the practice of following closely on the heels of our workers: wherever our people arrived, they arrived too. In some places they stayed as guests of our very own people, ate food with them, drank refreshments with them. The poor, travelling Ahmadi missionary cooked food with his own hands and set it before them.
Upon their departure, whenever the opportunity arose — if not verbally then through a letter — they warned the village headman: "Never allow the Qadianis to stay here; these people are worse than the Aryas. Better to become an Arya than to associate with them."
In some places, the effect of these words was that our missionaries were expelled. In one place, during the intense summer heat, one of our missionaries who was entirely unfamiliar with the area lay in the jungle for three days without food, in the scorching afternoon sun — because he could not leave his post without orders, and the Maulvis had incited the villagers to drive him out, saying he was worse than the Aryas.
In some places, the Maulvis' words had the opposite effect. The people refused to be herded like animals at the Maulvis' instigation. They declined to surrender their minds and eyes to the Maulvis, and they came to our people and began asking: "Why do these Maulvis call you unbelievers? Everything about you appears to be of Islam. You offer prayers. You serve Islam without charge. What is the basis on which you are called unbelievers?" Our people, in most places, still replied: "There is no element of disbelief among us; you can observe this for yourselves. These people have said so out of personal enmity." But the Maulvis found no peace even in this. In a second round of visits they began saying: "These people are liars; they conceal their true beliefs. They consider a certain person from Punjab to be a Prophet; they have invented a new Kalimah; and they reject the Quran."
The effect of these words too was mixed: in some places people began opposing our workers without investigation, while in other places people came again to question our workers — and ultimately, our workers were compelled to answer. When they answered, the question of preaching Ahmadiyyat inevitably arose in some places, and in those circumstances it was bound to arise. But we are not responsible for that; the responsibility lies with those Maulvis who themselves went into those areas and incited the people against our missionaries.
A gathering was organised against the Aryas in Gohatta, District Etah. All the Maulvis assembled there, and in the presence of Arya lecturers, they stood up in the lecture hall and raised the clamour that Ahmadis are worse than Aryas. Not a single word about Ahmadiyyat had been said at that gathering — non-Ahmadi Maulvis had themselves been brought forward as lecturers — yet in the presence of Aryas, we were abused; and Arya newspapers mocked and expressed delight at this.
No one can prove that at that time Ahmadiyyat was being preached in the sensitive areas — yet when opposition to the Movement was voiced in a gathering attended by representatives from various regions, people themselves became stirred. Nabi Hasan Khan Sahib of Darr Patti was present at that gathering. He found this behaviour of the Maulvis objectionable and said: "This is a strange conduct — to be fighting amongst ourselves without cause at the very moment of confronting the enemy." But the Maulvis were unmoved. This event left a deep impression on his heart. Some days later he came to Qadian and accepted Ahmadiyyat. Similarly, after this incident some other people also came to Qadian and accepted Ahmadiyyat.
In short, we fully honoured our pledge. But every agreement is conditional upon its terms. If the Maulvis violated the conditions upon which the agreement rested; if they changed the circumstances under which such an agreement could exist; if they stirred curiosity about Ahmadiyyat in the hearts of people and awakened them to this important matter — then can they still expect us to remain silent in such areas and not answer the questions that the Maulvis themselves have planted in the people's hearts? If such an expectation exists in their minds, let them remove it.
We certainly do not preach Ahmadiyyat among those who are under the influence of the Aryas, nor among those who do not yet have the capacity even to understand the foundational principles of Islam. But beyond the Malkanas, among others who can understand Islam — or among those Rajput people whom the Maulvis themselves have prodded into asking questions — how can we stop our preaching? Is it also necessary, for the purpose of repelling the Aryas' attack, that we refrain from preaching in Qaim Ganj and Farrukhabad and other cities where there are no Malkanas?
In short, we have never promised — nor can we — that we will not preach Ahmadiyyat anywhere, under any circumstances. Our pledge was conditional and was only this: that we would not go to that community for the purpose of preaching Ahmadiyyat — that is, we would not initiate it. But to remain silent even when compelled by others — that was never our intention, and we never made such a pledge. If such a promise has been made even by implication or allusion, let it be produced. We are prepared for an impartial committee to be formed to examine whether non-Ahmadi Maulvis went to those people and told them about our missionaries: "These are unbelievers — drive them from your villages; it is better to become an Arya than to listen to them." If this is proven, then what person of sound mind would present himself before the world as rational and claim that even then the Ahmadi missionaries should not have replied?
We are warned and threatened: "If you do not stop preaching Ahmadiyyat, this will be done and that will be done." But when have we been cowed by the world? When have we submitted to anyone? When have we been overawed? We were not afraid of the entire world even when we were few in number. Almighty God, seeing our weakness at that time, came to our aid and brought hundreds of thousands into Ahmadiyyat. He granted us strength, power, prestige, and majesty through His grace and mercy. So after all these favours of God, are we now to be afraid? Never.
Only those who are accustomed to servitude can serve another. God Almighty has not made us servants of anyone save Himself — He has made us free. And we cannot become the servants of anyone. The pledge we made was made for the honour of the name of Islam, because the grief of Islam was our grief. It was for this reason that we rose to tend to those who called themselves Muslims. We made that pledge not out of fear of anyone, not due to any threat, not under any intimidation — but purely out of the necessity of the moment. Because to raise the issue of the life or death of the Messiah before a community that could not even grasp the basic principles of Islam was a mistake. But when the Maulvis incited the people against us and drew their attention to this matter themselves — just as the people of Makkah, by provoking the Muslims, enabled the conquest of Makkah — so too these Maulvis, by inciting the people, opened the path of Ahmadiyya preaching for us.
For it is a principle of Islam not to attack anyone of one's own accord. Had the people of Makkah not attacked the Muslims, the Muslims would not have come to rule Makkah — and had they never attacked till the Day of Resurrection, Muslim rule would never have come there, except through those people themselves becoming Muslim. But since God Almighty willed that the Muslims should have authority there, He used the disbelievers — Abu Jahl, Abu Sufyan, and others — who rallied the people and launched an attack on Madinah, thereby giving the Muslims the lawful right to attack Makkah and conquer it.
We are not displeased that the Maulvis placed obstacles in our path and incited people against us — because we had not wished, as long as those people had not firmly established themselves as Muslims, to preach Ahmadiyyat among them. And we had not wished to become embroiled with those Maulvis while the enemy stood before us. But certain Maulvis preferred otherwise — they felt that the fame Ahmadis were acquiring through their work was increasing their income. Although we did not wish to take even a penny from anyone, the Maulvis began inciting people against us. And when the people asked us about Ahmadiyyat, we told them.
Even now, if anyone wants to stop us and says we should not present Ahmadiyyat until the enemy flees from the field — then his first duty is to restrain his own Maulvis from planting doubts in people's hearts against us and from inflaming them. Otherwise, what greater foolishness could there be than to not restrain one's own people while ordering us to stop? If their own household does not listen to them, what right do they have to stop us?
If they have the strength, if they have any authority, if anyone listens to them — then let them go and restrain their Maulvis from opposing us. If the Maulvis desist, then we again pledge that as long as the enemy is there, we will not carry out the kind of preaching that the Maulvis' opposition has forced us to undertake. But if the Maulvis — who are nourished from their own people's funds — are not restrained, how can they restrain us — whom they declare to be unbelievers, whom they drive from homes and afflict with every manner of hardship?
They should first stop those people for whose sake this pain has been and is being inflicted upon us. If they do not stop those Maulvis, how can they dare to stop us — against whom they have consistently behaved badly and in the affliction and persecution of whom they have spared no effort?
If they restrain their Maulvis and the Maulvis cease their opposition to us, then they may make a request of us — but as a request, not as a command. And then we shall see: if the occasion warrants acceptance of their request, we will accept it; and if the enemy has already fled by then, we will decline it.
The hand of a believer is always raised — never lowered. Therefore, we are not prepared to hear any command from anyone. In religious matters we acknowledge the authority of only one — and that is God. No one holds any sway over us except one who comes bearing the truth. So whoever wishes to make any kind of request of us must first establish the right to do so, and then come to us. And when someone establishes the right, however weak or lowly he may be in worldly terms, he will be mightiest in our eyes. His lack of knowledge, wealth, or rank will not stand in his way. And we will not say: "Since this person is not the chieftain or leader of any community, he has no standing, and therefore we will not hear him." Rather, if someone comes with the truth, we will welcome him wholeheartedly, meet him with respect, and accept his word gladly — on the one condition that he comes bearing the truth.
Through this sermon, I wish to make clear to all those who may be under a misapprehension regarding this matter — whether from among others or from within the Ahmadiyya community — let them hear well: we have never said, nor can we ever say, that we will wholly abandon the preaching of Ahmadiyyat. Yes, we did say that we would not go to the Malkana people — who are unfamiliar even with the foundational principles of Islam — with the purpose of preaching Ahmadiyyat, and that we would not preach among them until the enemy's attack is repelled and they are firmly established upon the name of Islam. Because the time for preaching among them has not come. But when others provoked us, construed our silence as defeat, incited people against us, and planted false ideas in their hearts — how then could we remain silent? Now what we do is not preaching in the initiatory sense; it is defence.
Furthermore, I also wish to convey to the world that reconciliation is not achieved by each party abandoning its own religion. By this means, no reconciliation can be achieved, nor can it endure. For the sake of reconciliation, only those things can be set aside that the Shariah has sanctioned to be set aside. But the Shariah does not permit that when someone asks about one's beliefs, one should not answer. In secondary matters there may be differences, and maintaining a judicious silence on them out of expediency may be permissible. But those matters that pertain to fundamental beliefs — upon which the foundation of faith rests — can never be abandoned under any circumstances, and silence regarding them is impossible.
Therefore, we neither expect this from them, nor should they expect it from us — that we could make such a declaration. Unity is possible in this way: that we do not abuse one another; that we do not oppose one another; that we do not obstruct one another's preaching; that a missionary who is working in a certain area is not followed there by a missionary of different beliefs; and if he does come, that he does not raise contentious issues.
If any missionary also teaches the Malkanas that Jesus(as) is alive — in our view, the Malkanas would be better off in that state than if they were to become Aryas and abuse the Holy Prophet(sa). Therefore at this time we will say nothing on that matter. So missionaries should work each in their own area and take no action against one another. For this, we are ready at all times.
But that we should conceal Ahmadiyyat — such an expectation should absolutely not be held of us. Reconciliation means not raising secondary issues. Concealing fundamental principles is appeasement (mudahanat), and we will never adopt it.
In other areas too, we continue to advocate for this same kind of reconciliation. It does not mean that anyone should not preach his religion, or that we should not preach ours. Rather, it also means: that in those matters where we are united, we stand together against the common enemy. And that no sect calling itself Muslim should abuse another, or provoke passionate feelings in people against one another.
May God Almighty grant Muslims the tawfiq to understand the difference between fundamental and secondary matters, and may they realise that the demand to abandon foundational principles is madness. May He open their hearts so that they too may join us, and these daily quarrels may be done away with.
Today I shall lead a funeral prayer in absentia. In Jhang, we had a sincere friend, Ghulam Mustafa Sahib, who was deeply devoted and worked diligently for the Community. I consider him to have been such a person in his area that his funeral prayer should be offered.
(Al-Fazl, 16 October 1923)
Related Resources