Note: The Alislam Team assumes full responsibility for any errors or inaccuracies in this translation of the Friday Sermon.
(Sermon delivered on 14 March 1924) (Published in Al-Fazl, 21 March 1924)
Topics: Turkish Caliphate, Khilafat Movement, Muslim unity, Promised Messiah's prophecy, India's spiritual destiny
After recitation of the tashahhud, ta'awwudh, and Surah Al-Fatihah, Huzur (ra) said:
It is generally considered improper, under the natural norms of civilized conduct, for a person to say to his brother on some occasion: "You did not heed my advice, and as a result this harm has come to pass." The Holy Quran mentions an incident of battle in which certain individuals said that those whose opinion prevailed had acted contrary to the counsel they themselves had offered, and that the resulting loss was therefore due to that.¹ God Almighty found this displeasing and declared it to be a form of hypocrisy. Even if the outcome went against your wishes and harm did result, it ought not to have been said — for it was not necessary that the advice you gave should have been accepted. This, then, is a social failing prevalent among peoples, and the Holy Quran has confirmed this and classified such statements as hypocrisy.
Yet we also observe that the Quran addresses those who went against the opinion of the Holy Prophet (saw) — even in a way that, under ordinary social circumstances, would not be proper — saying that they acted against his counsel, and that harm followed. Why was this said? The reason is this: a brother cannot say to a brother, a friend to a friend, or a junior to a senior, "You acted contrary to my advice and suffered the consequence." But one who is in a position of authority over others — whose function it is to guide, admonish, and oversee — is entitled to say so.
A child has no right to say to his parents, "You did not do as I said, and the outcome was therefore poor." But parents have the right to say exactly that. No one finds fault with parents for doing so. If a child plays where he ought not to and where his parents have forbidden him from going, and he suffers harm there, the parents say: "Did we not tell you not to play there?" This is a matter of propriety, and it is correct. No one can say parents should not speak thus. But if an equal or an inferior says the same thing to a superior, he will be called arrogant and insolent — because he has no right in religious law, in custom, in ethics, or in civil law to do so. It is only he who possesses that right who says: "Did I not warn you that proceeding thus would bring you harm?"
After this preamble, I draw attention to an event of the greatest importance for Muslims — and that is the question of the Caliphate.
When the war between the Turks and the British began, the Muslims of India assisted the British. The religious scholars (maulvis) issued legal opinions (fatawa) declaring it obligatory to aid the British because they were allies, and aiding an ally is a duty. Such opinions were issued in the hope of salaries, for the sake of land grants, in greed for offices and titles, or to curry favour with the authorities. Recruitment was carried out for the British army. At that time, too, the Muslims called the Sultan of Turkey Khalifatul Muslimin — and yet they went forth with rifles on their shoulders to fight against the armies of that very Khalifatul Muslimin and, by force of bullets and swords, seized the very sacred sites on whose account the conflict had arisen, and handed them over to the British. Not a single voice was raised against this. Had the command of the Holy Quran been forgotten at that time?
Although the belief these people now profess is not, in fact, an Islamic one, I ask: in light of that very belief, what was their duty at the time — and what did they do?
We, too, aided the British — but in accordance with our religious conviction, we held it our duty to support and sympathise with whatever government we lived under. We went alongside the British to fight the Turks, but we did not go to fight the Khalifatul Muslimin — because we do not recognize the Sultan of Turkey as Khalifatul Muslimin. We went to fight because the Turks were in opposition to our King, and we went to fight the enemies of our King. Our conduct was therefore lawful and in accordance with religious law.
But when the result of the war began to emerge and peace negotiations commenced, those same people — who had not merely been willing to fight the Turks but had actually done so, and who had fired bullets into the chests of those they recognized as the Caliph's representatives, seized territory from them and handed it to the British — became agitated and began to say: "Why are you doing this? If you proceed thus, it will be an interference in our religion." And for this cause they raised in the lands of the British such a tempest of irresponsibility as was astonishing to behold.
In this matter we too sympathized with the Turks — because in our view the Turks were not treated as other defeated nations had been. In our assessment, greater harshness was shown toward the Turks than toward other conquered peoples, and this was solely because the Turks were Muslims. Although harshness was also shown toward Austria, the harshness visited upon the Turks was greater — for the territories of Austria that were separated were ones whose peoples wished to be free. But the territories under Turkish rule were not consulted as to whether they wished to remain under Turkish sovereignty or not; the British, Americans, and French forcibly detached them from Turkey. Had those territories been asked, many among them would have preferred to remain under Turkish rule. Where populations did express their preference, they were not heeded. Moreover, what remained of Austria was left free, whereas the freedom extended to the Turks was nominal, and four or five powers exercised dominion over them. The judgment against the Turks thus carried the scent of religious prejudice.
Regarding this decision by the victors, we acted and drew attention to the matter in the way that is proper for subjects, and in the manner that was our right — namely, that the Turks should be treated as political necessity demands, without allowing religious bias to influence the settlement. Subsequently, a decision was indeed reached in keeping with this, and it was acknowledged that the initial peace terms had been harsh and that revision was necessary.
Nevertheless, despite all this, those who had themselves gone to fight against the Sultan whom they called their Caliph began calling us cowards and flatterers. Had we accepted the Turkish Sultan as our Caliph and then gone to fight him, that would have been our dishonour, our flattery of the British, and cowardice in the face of the British. But since no such thing was the case, where is the question of flattery and cowardice? We went to fight the Turks precisely because they were not our Caliph and there was no religious impediment for us in fighting them. But in anger, a person does not think, and those against whom the accusation was directed turned in anger and began accusing us.
In this state of anger, a wrong path was adopted. At the outset, two conferences were convened to deliberate on the judgment against the Turks, and I was invited to both. I knew personally that my attendance at these conferences was unnecessary, because when a decision has already been made beforehand, inviting people for consultation means nothing more than having people trail along behind you. Nevertheless, in order to establish a proof, I sent two tracts to these conferences in which I explained that the stance being adopted, and the basis on which demands were being built, could not be beneficial for the Turks — but was, in fact, dangerous.
For example, to say that all Muslims recognise the Turkish King as Caliph, and that it is on this basis that we have risen in his support — this was wrong in principle and in fact. The Shia do not recognize the Turkish Sultan as Caliph. For seven hundred years the Iranian government has been at odds with the Arab power, and for five or six hundred years the Kurd and the Turk have been engaged in subjugating the Arab. If Iranians considered him Caliph, why would they act thus? Furthermore, if prior right to the Caliphate is the criterion, then Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman (ra) are more deserving of recognition as Caliphs. But since the Shia do not recognize those three, how could they recognize the Sultan of Turkey as Caliph?
Then there are ourselves: under no circumstances can we recognize the Turkish Sultan as Caliph. In our view, the Caliph can only be one who is a follower of the Appointed One of this age, the Promised Messiah (as). None other than he can be a Caliph.
The position of the Ahl-e-Hadith is that the Caliph must be from the Quraysh. Those among them who raised their voices in support of the Turkish Caliphate and considered it valid — their opinion was not in accordance with their own religious creed, but was a view born of cowardice and self-interest. Beyond this, even among the Sunnis there are those who do not recognize the Turkish Sultan as Caliph.
I had therefore said that it was an error to base the movement for sympathy with the Turks upon a point on which all Muslims cannot agree. Instead, the movement should be conducted on a political footing, and opposing opinions should be won over, and the Turkish government should be presented as an Islamic state in its capacity as such. This suggestion of mine was treated with contempt, or appeared to be — because some influential persons in their private meetings praised my proposal and said that things ought indeed to be done thus, but that the situation was now such that they could not go against the public.
But the same outcome that befell the Hijrat movement and the boycott movement at last befell the Khilafat movement too. During the height of the Khilafat agitation, it was said that leaving off prayers or not paying zakat was of no consequence, but whoever denied the Caliphate was an unbeliever. And the very person who was said to be the saviour of the Caliphate and its establisher now does something regarding the Caliphate that is most shameful. He is not content merely with abolishing the Caliphate, but commits an act of such cruelty and disgrace as is most reprehensible.
He does not merely depose the Caliph; he expels the Caliph's family — his wives, children, and all members of his household — from the country, shuts the doors of the land to them, and bars them from entering their ancestral homeland. This is a punishment not even inflicted upon thieves and robbers. A thief is imprisoned, but his lineage is not imprisoned. His wife and children are not exiled, because they bear no guilt. Yet with the Turkish Caliph all of this is done. If the Turkish Caliph was not worthy of the Caliphate, if on account of his actions he deserved punishment — what moral law is it that his family should also be exiled and their properties placed under supervision? This is an act that one would not commit even against the most tyrannical of kings. And then, the manner of his deposition is so shameful as to cause grief: it was not done in the ordinary way of writing a letter saying, "Depart; you have been deposed." Rather, while he sat upon his throne, he was told: "By order of the country, descend from the throne." What a spectacle of humiliation must have unfolded there. There was a time when the whole world was being stirred to rise in his support. Imagining that moment — what feeling must have surged in the Caliph's heart regarding the loyalty of the hundreds of millions of Muslims, when he was told: "Step down from the throne and leave the country within two hours. You, your children, your wife, and all members of your family are forbidden from entering this country." Had it been any other government, I would hope it would not have conducted itself with such cowardice.
But why did this come to pass? It came to pass because the Turks felt that the Caliphate question had become acutely complicated, and that it could be used to raise a storm against the republic. In my view, this Turkish action is the consequence of the very fervour that Muslims had displayed regarding the Turkish Caliphate. The Turks reasoned that if the question of the Caliph versus the republic were raised, sympathy would lie with the Caliph and our government would collapse. Politically, their thinking was sound, and to save themselves from that danger it was necessary for them to erase every trace of the Caliphate. But the dishonourable treatment meted out to the Caliph is most lamentable and detestable.
It is to be hoped that now those things will become clear to the Muslims which they did not understand before.
I say with sorrow — and I say it because of the position God has placed me in, which gives me the right to say it — look: I had said that you should not act thus regarding the Turkish state, but you did exactly that. Now the frightful consequences of that error have become manifest to you. I can say this; others cannot. Even now the path that God opened is open: hear the voice that the Appointed One of God raised. No other voice can stand against that voice.
Now no Caliph can exist in whose neck there is not the yoke of obedience to the Promised Messiah (as). The authority of Muhammad (saw) was given to the Promised Messiah (as), and given through absorption into Muhammad (saw). Now only he can receive the Caliphate who, passing through the Promised Messiah (as), is connected to Muhammad (saw).
When Husain Kami came to Qadian, the Promised Messiah (as) said at that time: "I see with the eye of vision that in the Sultan's court there are some fragile threads which will break at a critical moment."² And so they broke, and took the Sultan down with them in ruin. What a magnificent prophecy it was that was fulfilled — and within fifteen years it was fulfilled on multiple occasions: first in the time of Sultan Abdul Hamid Khan, then in the time of the predecessor of the present Caliph, and now again — when the Caliphate broke and the word of God was fulfilled.
It is said of us that people living in a village eleven miles even from the railway station — what can they understand of politics? We say: look, the word of one who lived miles from the station was fulfilled, because it was filled with truth. The politicians remained unaware, but he who was called ignorant of politics — his word proved true. Had his word been heeded, the politicians today would not be on their faces.
Even now there is an opportunity for Muslims to act with wisdom and take a lesson from the example of the breaking threads — as Maulawi Rumi (rh) has said:
Every affliction that God has given to a people — beneath it He has buried a treasure of grace.
At this time the gaze of the entire world is falling upon India, which demonstrates that the means of future progress will come from India. Whether anyone accepts this or not, the world's attention being drawn to India shows that India is attaining a special rank. See — the one who until yesterday was Caliph is today the oppressed, and he who was called the Exalted Sultan says: "We await the voice of India." Then Mr. Gandhi has sent a telegram to Mr. Muhammad Ali on the breaking of the Caliphate, in which he writes that the future of Islam lies in the hands of Indian Muslims. What is the reason that eyes are falling upon India? It is, in truth, the hidden hand of God at work, turning the world toward India — not because Gandhi and Muhammad Ali are in India and the world is being drawn to them, but because Ghulam Ahmad (as) was born in India, and God wishes to draw the world toward him and to make manifest from whom the future salvation of the world is bound.
This voice of Providence does not draw attention to America and England, where Dowie and Piggott arose. It does not draw attention to Iran and Syria, where the Bab and Baha'ullah arose. It does not lead to Africa to seek a remedy there. Rather, it draws attention to India — because that righteous one came in India, with whom the future progress of the world is bound.
This is a Friday sermon, and I do not wish to prolong it — but I wish to make this clear: it is God's law that when He wishes to turn the world's attention toward a particular direction, He creates for it extraordinary and seemingly unrelated means. Now, just as India is being regarded on account of political affairs, other means have also been created to bring India into people's view — because there are countless people in the world who are not yet ready to turn their attention directly to religion. Therefore, God Almighty caused Tagore to be born in India, so that those who have a taste for literature would be drawn toward India, and thus Tagore became a means of bringing people toward the Promised Messiah (as). Then the Prophet of God does not come to solve problems of science — but since in this age the world's attention is upon science, God caused Bose to be born in India, who through his discoveries distinguished India in the eyes of the world. And this happened so that those who are drawn to science would be attracted to India through that very means, and in this way, employing these various means, God Almighty has brought the world to stand before the Promised Messiah (as).
These preparations are being made so that the world may come to know that the future reforming nation of the world will be in India, and that the guide of the world has come in India — and he is the Promised Messiah (as).
Even now I hope that if our brothers reflect, they can save themselves from stumbling, and by pondering this matter, save Islam from destruction — for there is no shame in accepting the truth, nor is it cowardice. A coward is one who, upon finding the truth, does not accept it. If they have been in opposition for twenty or thirty years and the truth has now become clear to them, there is no fault in accepting it. Let them not now act with sloth.
I say to my Muslim brethren and to the other people of my homeland: hear the voice of God. Grasp the hand that God has extended. Do not regard God's message as an ordinary thing. And live your life in God and through God.
Footnotes
¹ Al-Imran 3:155 — "Then, after the sorrow, He sent down peace on you — a slumber that overcame a party of you — while the other party was anxious concerning their own selves, thinking wrongly of Allah like unto the thought of ignorance. They said, ‘Is there for us any part in the government of affairs?’ Say, ‘All government belongs to Allah.’ They hide in their minds what they disclose not to thee. They say, ‘If we had any part in the government of affairs, we should not have been killed here.’ Say, ‘If you had remained in your homes, surely those on whom fighting had been enjoined would have gone forth to their deathbeds,’ that Allah might bring about His decree and that Allah might test what was in your breasts and that He might purge what was in your hearts. And Allah knows well what is in the minds;"
² Tadhkirah, p. 300 (Urdu). This refers to a vision of the Promised Messiah (as) regarding Husain Kami's visit to Qadian, in which he (as) described seeing in a spiritual vision (kashf) that the Sultan's court contained fragile threads that would snap at a critical moment. For the Tadhkirah, see: https://new.alislam.org/library/books/tadhkirah. Note: The first compiled Urdu edition of the Tadhkirah was published in 1935; the sermon's (1924) citation of "Tadhkirah, p. 300" therefore refers to an unpublished manuscript.
Related Resources