Khalifa Sani and the limits of Social Boycott

In a previous article in the Blog we have noted some of the outstanding allegations against Hadhrat Khalifa Sani (ra) (click here) from his critics– including the imposition of social boycott against rebels in Qadian and even a murder case involving  an Ahmadi alleged to have been “ordered” by the second Khalifa. From our examination of some of the public records and court judgements, what is apparent is that there was a religious, social and political context in which the unfortunate events have occurred in the 1930’s in Qadian under Hadhrat Khalifa Sani (ra).

As we have shown in the article, while the towering Majlis-i-Ahrar leader Maulana Ataullah Shah Bukhari was prosecuted and punished by the Lahore High Court for his hate speech and incitement to violence against the Ahmadis in a single public sermon in Qadian, the same High Court in the same period absolved the second Khalifa of the allegation of incitement to murder his “Muslim” enemies/ Ahmadi rebels, even after examining several of his speeches printed and published in the Ahmadi Press, including the “AL FAZL” of the 1930’s. The Hon’ble High Court had before it those very sermons and it reached its conclusions after forensically analysing the contents thereof and that too in the context of a murder case which took place in Qadian itself.

Flawed Perception of a Complex Legacy

Let truth be told. It is not just the Lahori-fellow travellers who are guilty of a flawed perception of a complex legacy of the past. Put differently, members of both the mainstream Jamaats- Jamaat-e-Ahmadiyya Qadian and the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement are wrong in their ‘blames’ and ‘accusations’ against Hadhrat Khalifa Sani (ra). If there is visceral hatred on the part of the enemies of Hadhrat Khalifa Sani (ra) to implicate and consider that he “ordered” murders and violence against his opponents, the people who claim they are his followers in the “mainstream” Jamaat are equally guilty of the sin of deification, unexamined adulation and uncritical implementation of his policies even for a new age.

'Muhyi-ud-Din': Testimonial of Time and History

Rebellion against the Divine Manifestation

At such a critical time, in this era, Allah (swt) had enabled one of the believers of Hazrat Muhammad (saw) and Hazrat Massih Ma’ud (as) to be raised with such a Jamaat, Jamaat Ul Sahih Al Islam to defend Islam, fight injustice and answer satisfactory the questions of the non-Muslims I come across concerning my claim as Muhyi-ud-Din, Khalifatullah etc. My enemies and the hypocrites got furious and in their rage which was quite out of proportion, they hurled abuses on me and dubbed me a drug addict, sorcerer, mischief-maker, dog, pig, liar and all sorts of names. My enemies even prepared a fatwa (religious decree to declare me a Kafir and false prophet). Alhamdulillah, Summa Alhamdulillah.

I do not see anything strange in it because that is what has always been done to godly people. It is only after some time has passed that their true position is recognized. I do not mind the fatwas of kufr and all sorts of names that are being issued against me, because through all these kinds of hardships, the people are only wronging their own souls, not the elect of Allah. The more they try to afflict me with their evil intents and deeds, the more Allah (swt) uses me to serve His religion and through this humble self He is able to establish the excellence of the Holy Prophet (saw), the Promised Messiah (as), and that of the Holy Quran.

I am of course only a like recipient in the hands of Allah. He does whatever He likes with this humble self, for when Allah chooses someone for His mission, then that being is wholly for Allah, and acts as per the will of Allah and everything that he does is through the permission and instruction of Allah. Everything has its measure with Allah. Every being has certain specific works to accomplish, as with the human messengers of Allah and also the angel messengers of Allah.

How to become good Muslims?

Truth about the Allegations on Khalifa Sani

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.