In
the 125-year old history of the Jamaat-e-
Ahmadiyya, Hadhrat Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad (ra) (1889-1965) holds a
very special place. If the idea of Khilafat-e-Ahmadiyya
was invented after the death and departure of the Promised Massih Hadhrat Ahmad
(as) (1835-1908) and took its initial contours during the time of the Khilafat of Maulvi Hakkim Nuruddin Sahib
(ra) (1908-1914), it was during the time of Hadhrat Khalifa Sani (ra) that the
institution, in many ways, got consolidated, as the period of his Khilafat extended over half a century. If
today, for devout Ahmadis, the institution of Khilafat-e-Ahmadiyya holds much significance in their lives and the
obedience to the Khalifatul Massih is
perceived by the members as a foundational act of religious sincerity, it has
occurred through the specific interpretations of the teachings of the Promised
Massih (as) and the conscious policy choices adopted especially during the
second Khilafat.
2014
marks the one hundred years of the beginning of the second Khilafat in the
Jamaat-e-Ahmadiyya. As tragic irony goes, the year also marks one hundred years of the
Great Split among the Ahmadis. It was with the death of the first Khalifa
Hakkim Nuruddin Sahib (ra) in March 1914 that the differences of opinion among
the companions on ideological directions of the Jamaat came to the foreground.
The refusal of some of the influential companions of the Promised Massih (as)
to agree upon the leadership of the eldest son of the Promised Massih (as) led
to the Split in the Jamaat and also the formation of the Lahore Ahmadiyya
Movement (LAM) and the Jamaat-e-Ahmadiyya Qadian (JAQ) as two separate
fractions.
Ideological
Implications of the Split
The
formation of the LAM under the leadership of Maulana Muhammad Ali Sahib
witnessed the intellectuals and the opinion makers within the Jamaat moving
along with him, out of Qadian, in the aftermath of the Split. On the contrary,
the substantial mass of common believers took allegiance to Mirza Bashir-ud-Din
Mahmud Ahmad Sahib, who became the second Khalifa of the JAQ at a relatively
young age of 25. Both fractions committed themselves to the propagation of
Islam as “originally” taught by the Promised Massih (as), even as they bitterly
differed among themselves on the ‘true’ conception of those teachings. The
great scholars in both the fractions produced volumes of literature in support
of their sectarian identity, chosen lexicological interpretations of abstract
concepts with nebulous meanings and advanced their respective terminological
preferences such as ‘Nabi’,‘Mujaddid’, ‘Ummati Nabi’, ‘Ummati wa Nabi’,
‘Khalifa’, ‘Amir’ etc.
To
the uninitiated and the ill-informed, the diverging philosophical positions
might appear like highly abstract matters. Yet, the fact is that the fractional
war within the Jamaat-e-Ahmadiyya has had its consequences, desired as well as
unintended fall-outs, both internally and externally. Most crucially, it was the
sectarian divisions within that played into and provided the fuel to the fire
of hatred and jealousy nurtured by the Mullah and the enemy class (often
feeding one another) to undermine and possibly attempt to destroy the Jamaat-e-Ahmadiyya
altogether by declaring it out of the pale of Islam in the murky politics of
Pakistan, in the subsequent decades.
Personal Dimensions of
the Split
Internally,
the hardening of doctrinal positions and ill- thinking of fellow brothers on
both sides of the divide led to intolerance of differences within the
Jamaat-e-Ahmadiyya. Some Ahmadis suspected fellow Ahmadis of ideological drift
and personal ambitions. These tensions in ideological positions and the
personal equations produced, in their wake, a number of allegations by people
who were once closer to one another than their own families and clans and
tribes, based on the affinity of Khilafat-e-Ahmadiyya. Some
of the bitter critics and vocal opponents of the second Khalifa alleged about
practices of social boycott and criminal intimidation in Qadian. Even allegations
of incitement to murder had been made against the Khalifa. The police records
and the court documents of the times speak about these controversies. In their
refusal to recognize the claim of the second Khalifa as to the fulfilment of
the prophecy Musleh Maoud, part of the reason or justification publically given
by his critics in the LAM includes the controversies and cases surrounding his
administration of the Jamaat in Qadian.
Whether
we like it or not, in the entire debates surrounding the existential identity
of the LAM, the figure of Khalifa Sani appears as the intimate enemy. In our
own times, the Lahori-fellow travellers like Mr. Rashid Jahangiri and Mr.
Mushtaq Ahmad Malik, go out of their way to keep all kinds of allegations against
Hadhrat Khalifa Sani in circulation in the internet sites, long after the earth
had consumed all those who had been directly involved in the shady episode of
allegations. While the ‘official’ LAM policy has been not to lend ears to the
scandal- mongering against the second Khalifa, its members and fellow
travellers trample upon their own professed policy, without any sense of shame
or inhibition. There is little doubt that the LAM stands exposed for its
duplicity and deception in matters pertaining to allegations against Hadhrat
Khalifa Sani (ra). One might wonder how come decency and propriety take leave
of their “attack dogs” while the leadership apparently remains sober and responsible?
The
Indian political context of the 1930’s
The
personal allegations against Hadhrat Khalifa Sani (ra) had been initially fanned
in the 1930’s in a context of the Ahrari political mobilization against the
Jamaat-e-Ahmadiyya in Qadian. This was a time when the Indian subcontinent was
still under the British suzerainty and the anti-colonial struggle in the larger
polity was spearheaded by the Indian National Congress and the All India Muslim
League (AIML) represented the substantial Muslim interests in the national
freedom movement. 
As
the spiritual head of the Ahmadiyya community, Hadhrat Khalifa Sani (ra) took
an active interest in the Muslim question in India and the raging political
ideas of the day, including the liberation of the mainly Muslim Kashmir from
the clutches of a despotic Hindu Raja in power. The Muslim political leaders of
the day such as the distinguished poet-philosopher Sir Muhammad Iqbal, the
great Sheikh Muhammad Abdullah of Kashmir and the Qaid-e-A’zam Muhammad Ali Jinnah, in their own ways, listened to
his ideas with the shared objective of protecting the Muslim political
interests in a society in transition from a British-colonial administration to
a Hindu-majoritarian polity. During this period, Sir Zafrullah Khan Sahib even
went on to become the President of the AIML in one of its sessions.
The
Ahrari machinations in Qadian (1932-1936)
It
may be instructive to note that from the time of the Promised Massih (as), the
Muslim orthodoxy had taken offence at his Divine claims and often resented the
very presence of the Ahmadis in the public sphere, leading to constant friction
evidenced by published writings, often of an abusive, polemical character, on
both sides. According to certain reports of the times, in 1923 a conference of
the anti-Ahmadiyya forces at Qadian was brought to an end
by “rowdyism”. In the 1930’s, the Ahmadis in Qadian was in the range of
8,000 out of a total population of 9,000. The other Muslims numbered
400 or 500 and the rest the Hindus and Sikhs. As a corollary of this numerical
advantage, the Khilafat-e-Ahmadiyya was able to defend the community interests
in the town and to bring strong social pressure to bear upon individual
residents of the town who joined the machinations from outside.
Against
the backdrop of the social influence of the Jamaat-e-Ahmadiyya, the Ahraris
sought to bite a dent for themselves in the political scenario by raking up
controversial themes. To them, it became apparent that the political opposition
to, and religious mobilization against the Jamaat-e-Ahmadiyya is the weapon of
choice to attack and divide the Muslim emotional psyche. For the political
scoundrels, divisions and troubles in society are opportunities for political
fish-hunting by sailing to the then prevailing winds and they cannot be accused
of adhering to any scruples except that of expediency.
Ataullah Shah Bukhari
Case (1935)
Thus,
in 1934 the Ahraris decided to hold a Thabligh conference in Qadian at a time when
the hostile relations between the two had reached an acute stage.
The Ahraris obtained permission from one Ishar Singh, a
resident of Qadian, to hold the meeting on land in his possession, but the
Ahmadis were able to prevent this by building a wall on the village land
round the site. Unable to find another site in Qadian, the Ahraris arranged
for the conference to be held on the playground of the Dayanand Anglo-Vedic
High School premises in Rajada, a village a mile from Qadian.
The
conference began at the aforesaid site on 21st October 1934, on the evening of which
day Sayyed Atta Ullah Shah Bukhari, the president,
addressed an audience of many thousands for five hours. For making this speech,
which was a bitter attack in scurrilous-language upon the Ahmadis, their
leaders and beliefs, Sayyed Atta Ullah Shah was prosecuted
under Section 153-A, I.P.C, which pertains to the penal offence of inciting
hatred or ill-will and violence against a section of people in society.
At his trial he pleaded that his speech had been wrongly reported and that his
intention had been to spread the true religion of Islam. The court however,
found him guilty of the offence charged with and punished him eventually, with
a term of rigorous imprisonment for the gravity of crime he perpetrated -
inciting the Muslim crowds against the Ahmadis.
The Murder of
Fakhruddin Multani (1937)
Even
after the legal trial and punishment of the Ahrari leader Ataullah Shah
Bukhari, the situation in Qadian continued to remain volatile for many years. The
adverse social, political and religious environment in the pre-partitioned
Punjab/India and in a context of active opposition and hostile propaganda,
physical intimidation and threat of bodily harm and general insecurity and
other coercive tactics deployed by the anti-Ahmadiyya forces in Qadian, the
Jamaat-e-Ahmadiyya took special measures of internal security for the community
in general and its leadership in particular.
The
establishment of civil tribunals and the volunteer corps in Qadian for the
settlement of disputes within the community and for the protection of persons was
not per se illegal under the prevailing law of the land. As a court judgement
of the period noted, “persons who had become obnoxious to the
community were excommunicated or forced by social pressure to leave Qadian,
though there is very little to indicate that this pressure was brought to bear
illegally”. These measures
were applied only on persons belonging to the community who had left it or
had quarrelled with the administration. And there had never been any
complaint of intimidation by any person who refuse/choose not to come within its
fold.
According
to the accusations by the likes of Rashid Jahangiri and Mushtaq Malik, it was Hadhrat
Khalifa Sani (ra) who “ordered” the murder of Fakhruddin Multani in 1937
because of personal vendetta. And they claim that “complete proof” exists in
the form of public records of court judgements.
There
is little doubt that along with Misri Abdul Rahman, Fakhruddin Multani was a
virulent opponent of Khalifa Sani. He was not just a former Ahmadi who drifted
away from the mainstream Jamaat and turned into a vocal critic. He became the
secretary of a dissident group by the name Majlis
Ahmadiyya Qadian which was established
at that time with the sole purpose of opposing and ridiculing the Jamaat and
its leaders through a series of insulting postings and wall posters inside the
Qadian Mohalla.
The
Jamaat-e-Ahmadiyya applied boycott on his group and applied social pressure to
a great extent so as to make their lives a virtual hell in the very town. Khalifa
Sani gave several speeches during the period in question, in which he made
extraordinary attacks on the persons and morals of his opponents and divined
that spiritual punishment awaits them for their despicable crimes. And there is
little doubt that the murder took place in a context of denunciation against
the person because of his activities, including attacking the honour and morals
of the first family of Jamaat-e-Ahmadiyya.
Criminal
cases are decided solely on the basis of verifiable, corroborative evidence by
the courts of law. No evidence was produced by anyone to argue that Khalifa Sani
incited the murder and the court did not inquire into any perceived offence of murder
conspiracy against the Khalifa. However, for purpose of quantum of punishment,
the court did consider the potential mitigating factors that might give some
relief to the accused Aziz Ahmad Jan Muhammad in his appeal against the
conviction on charges of the murder of Fakharuddin Multani.
From
the judgement of the Lahore High Court, delivered on January 3rd
1938 by the Chief Justice Young, what is apparent is that the crime was
committed by the accused alone after careful premeditation. In his statement,
Aziz Ahmad admitted that he stabbed the diseased Multani and that he was
provoked by the language of the provocative poster put up by Multani,
questioning the honour and morals of the family of the Khalifa, whom he
respected he said more than his own life and honour.
Regarding
the potential role of Khalifa Sani and his speeches, the Judgement states: “With regard to the sentence of death imposed upon the appellant, we have
in fairness to him, considered a point which was not taken for him by his
counsel, who is himself an orthodox Ahmadi: that is that the speeches of the
Khalifa might have influenced the appellant in committing the murder; that he
might be said to be acting, as a result of these speeches, under the influence
of the head of his community whom, the appellant says in his grounds of appeal,
he loves more than his life, property, honour and every other worldly relation,
and that therefore he ought not to be condemned to death, but that the
alternative sentence of transportation for life would be appropriate…. we do
not think after giving the matter most anxious consideration, that
this is any ground for us to reduce the sentence. While it is difficult entirely
to dissociate the death of Fakhar-ud-Din from the denunciations in the mosque,
the appellant clearly had determined on the murder.”
- (Aziz Ahmad Jan Mohammad Vs. Emperor;
AIR 1938 Lah 355)
In
short, after a careful weighing of all evidence available, the Lahore High
Court did not find enough material to consider that Hadhrat Khalifa Sani (ra)
incited or ordered the murder of Fakharuddin Multani. The insinuation that
“complete proof” exists to corroborate his alleged or perceived complicity in
this murder case, as is being alleged by the Lahori-fellow travellers, is an
outright falsehood and a patent lie, especially when the Court had pronounced
that the public denunciations made by the second Khalifa could be taken as
being alluded to “spiritual punishment” and that the speeches can be delinked from the actions of his apparent follower. By spreading rumours and unfounded allegations
without carefully checking the records, they are being unfair to themselves,
besides doing a great injustice to Khalifa Sani and his illustrious legacy.
Allegations of Sexual
Misconduct
It
is intriguing that those who accused Hadhrat Khalifa Sani (ra) with charges of
sodomy and other sexual exploitation of children and molesting and raping of women
never dared to confront him in a court of law, with all the evidences they said
they have had with them, in terms of testimonial of witnesses. What prevented
them from going to the courts? What motivated them to unleash a campaign of
slander and defamation against the Khalifa in the streets of Qadian, right in
front of his own house and among his own people?
The
simple fact is that all people directly concerned with the episodes/allegations
are all gone and dead. And yet, the Lahori fellow-travellers and the other maverick
elements are hell-bent on continuing with their calumny against Hadhrat Khalifa
Sani (ra), half a century after his death and departure from this world. For
the “super-brats”, the spreading of grave and serious allegations of sexual
misconduct even today might be a simple way of having some ‘fun and laughter’
at the expense of the common members of the Jamaat-e-Ahmadiyya who are mostly
ignorant of even the existence of the alleged episode in the history of the
Jamaat.
The
truth is that such allegations are not a light matter. Islam does not like the
spreading of immorality and chaos in society. The Qur’an condemns scandal
mongering of all types and hues. It prescribes that all cases of sexual
misconduct should be reported to the State, rather than given credence through
word of mouth in society. The stringent norms of criminal evidence in Islam
seek to preclude false allegations and to ensure punishment for those who
indulge in scurrilous attack on the fair reputation of people.
The
Indian Penal Code of 1860, which is the penal law of the country, was
legislated during the British suzerainty over India. It continues to be valid
all over the Indian subcontinent, with modifications and adaptations, even
after partition of the country into India and Pakistan and later the formation
of Bangladesh as well. The Penal Code defines all or most offences punishable
in the country and these include offences such as unnatural sex, outraging the
modesty of a woman, rape, adultery, murder, incitement to murder, etc -which
had been and is being alleged, on Hadhrat Khalifa Sani (ra) .
It is a big irony
of history that those who accused Khalifa Sani of running his own Kangaroo
courts in Qadian wanted him to establish a commission to sit over the
allegations against him, rather than taking recourse to the public law of the
land, which is admittedly the way to go, in criminal offences. In the cold light of
the law of Islam, those who fail(ed) to establish a criminal allegation of sexual
misconduct were/are guilty of a grave and serious offence. According to some of
the learned Divines among the Ahmadi Ulema, those who indulge in the insinuations and
unproven charges are punishable with not less than eighty lashes.
It may, however,
be instructive to note that in the times of the revelation of the Qur’an, there
had been people who spread calumnies against righteous people. And some of the
early believers like Hadhrat Abu Baker Siddiq (ra) even vowed to punish these
culprits. But, then, the Qur’an revealed to state a profound teaching of
forgiveness and a reminder of the fallible human condition. According
to the Holy Qur’an, “but for the grace of
Allah and His mercy upon you, not one of you would ever be pure; but, Allah
purifies whom He pleases. And Allah is All-Hearing, All-Knowing”. In the very next verse, the Holy Book advices
believers to “forgive and pass over the
offence” of others and it goes further and pertinently asks: “Do you not desire that Allah should forgive
you? And Allah is Most Forgiving, Merciful”.
(Surah An-Nur: 22-23). It is incumbent upon all of us-regardless of which side of the divide we
are/were on- to ponder over the profound implications of the Divine
admonition and to seek to profit by acting upon it in our lives.