1. Photo of Milford Sound in New Zealand
  2. ختم نبوت فورم پر مہمان کو خوش آمدید ۔ فورم میں پوسٹنگ کے طریقہ کے لیے فورم کے استعمال کا طریقہ ملاحظہ فرمائیں ۔ پھر بھی اگر آپ کو فورم کے استعمال کا طریقہ نہ آئیے تو آپ فورم منتظم اعلیٰ سے رابطہ کریں اور اگر آپ کے پاس سکائیپ کی سہولت میسر ہے تو سکائیپ کال کریں ہماری سکائیپ آئی ڈی یہ ہے urduinملاحظہ فرمائیں ۔ فیس بک پر ہمارے گروپ کو ضرور جوائن کریں قادیانی مناظرہ گروپ
  3. Photo of Milford Sound in New Zealand
  4. Photo of Milford Sound in New Zealand

(جناب یحییٰ بختیار کا قومی اسمبلی میں قادیانی مسئلہ پردوسرے دن خطاب)

محمدابوبکرصدیق نے '1974ء قومی اسمبلی کی مکمل کاروائی' کی ذیل میں اس موضوع کا آغاز کیا، ‏ مارچ 28, 2015

  1. ‏ مارچ 28, 2015 #1
    محمدابوبکرصدیق

    محمدابوبکرصدیق ناظم پراجیکٹ ممبر

    (جناب یحییٰ بختیار کا قومی اسمبلی میں قادیانی مسئلہ پردوسرے دن خطاب)
    Mr. Yahya Bakhtiar (Attorney- General of Pakistan): Mr. Chairman, Sir, when I was making submissions yesterday on the evidence that has come before the Special Committee, I submitted, while discussing the career of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, that there were three stages in his religious career. The first stage was when he was like all other Muslim leaders, a propagandist of Islam. His views on the concept of 'Khatm-e-Nabuwwat' were similar to those held by others. Then comes the next stage when he changed his views and founded an organisation and started receiving oath of discipleship and so on.
    It was in 1889 that the second stage comes. After that I was submitting that in the course of this stage what his views were, and why those views were expressed and a new interpretation of the concept of 'Khatm-e-Nabuwwat' was given, according to which many prophets will come from time to time as the world needs prophets to re-interpret the message of Allah given to Prophet Muhammad.
    ----------
    3005(At this stage Mr. Chairman vacated the Chair which was occupied by Dr. Mrs. Ashraf Khatoon Abbasi)
    ----------
    Mr. Yahya Bakhtiar: Madam, at this stage, I submitted that the second Caliph of Ahmadis or Qadianis had given reasons for which this series of Prophets will not stop, and I have also submitted that although they ostensibly and apparently gave a very rational reason for this, but still when we ask them whether there was any other prophet before Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, they say 'No'; when questioned as to whether any other prophet is going to come after him, they say 'No'; and ultimately it comes to this that 'Khatimun Nabiyeen', according to them, is Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.
    I will now go further and submit before the Committee as to what was the proof that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was 'Masih-e-Mauood' according to the Ahmadis. They say that he was to appear in a period of history when the means of communications would change and there would be earthquakes, there would be wars, and so forth, the donkey and the camel would be replaced by more efficient means of communication, and they say all these signs which were mentioned in the old books, apply to the age of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, and further they say, and I will read out from the book called "Ahmadiyyat or the True Islam" in support of their contention, that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was that Promised Messiah. I quoted from this book, page:20
    "Similarly, it was foretold that the Promised One would suffer from two maladies, one in the upper part of his body and the other in the lower, that the hair of his head would be straight, that he would be wheat coloured, that he would slightly stammer in his speech, that he would belong to a family of farmers, that, while talking, he would occasionally strike his hand against his thigh, that he would appear in a village named Kada, and that he would combine in himself the offices of the Messiah and the Mahdi. And so it has turned out be. Ahmad, the Promised Messiah, suffered from vertigo and diabetes; he had straight hair, was wheat- coloured, and occasionally faltered in his speech. He had the habit of striking his hand against his thigh while giving a discourse, 3006and belonged to a family of landowners. He was a native of Kadian or Kade as Qadian is popularly called. In short, when we consider all these prophecies collectively, we find that they apply to no age but to the present, and to no person but to person but to Ahmad (on whom be peace); and it appears that the present age is clearly the age of the advent of the Promised One whose apperance was foretold by the former prophets, and that Ahmad alone is the Promised One whose advent had been eagerly awaited for centuries."
    This is the proof or the argument in support of his being a Messiah. I do not want to comment on this. The Committee can judge for itself whether, it applies only to him or could have applied to hundreds and thousands of people living in this age.
    Now I come to the third stage of his religious career. Here he claims to be a full- fledged prophet, not a prophet of a subordinate or a temporary kind. Then we find gradually in this period that from a full fledged prophet, although he goes on saying that he is an 'Umati' prophet, he claims superiority first over Hazrat Essa then over all other prophets and then he claims epuality with the Holy Prophet of Islam, (Peace be upon him) and ulimately he claims, nauzubillah, superiority over the Holy prophet of Islam as well. This is in short his religious career. I will now just very briefly draw the attention of the Committee to some of those citations in support of what I hav said just now.
    I have already cited yesterday when he said: "without prophets you cannot do; you have to have a prophet." ’’بغیر نبیوں اور رسولوں کے ذریعہ تم نعمتیں کیوں کر پاسکتے ہو۔‘‘
    And then he says, and here also I think the basis for his claim to be there only Prophet after Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him) is found:
    ’’جس قدر مجھ سے پہلے اولیائ، ابدال، اقطاب اس امت میں سے گزر چکے ہیں ان کو حصہ کثیر اس نعمت کا نہیں دیا گیا۔ پس اس وجہ سے نبی کا نام پانے کے لئے میں ہی مخصوص کیا گیا ہوں اور دوسرے تمام لوگ اس نام کے مستحق نہیں۔‘‘
    3007So, this applies to past and future and this is again form "Haqiqatul Wahi" published in 'Roohani Khazain', volume:22, page:406 and 407. During this stage he also says:
    ’’میں رسول اور نبی ہوں یعنی بہ اعتبار فضیلت کاملہ کے میں وہ آئینہ ہوں جس میں محمدی شکل اور محمدی نبوت کا کامل انعکاس ہے۔‘‘
    And then he says:
    ’’اﷲجل شانہ نے حضرت محمد ﷺ کو صاحب خاتم النّبیین بنایا۔ یعنی آپ کو افاضۂ کمال کے لئے مہر دی جو کسی اور نبی کو ہرگز نہیں دی گئی۔ اس وجہ سے آپ ﷺ کا نام خاتم النّبیین ٹھہرایا گیا۔ یعنی آپ کی پیروی کمالات نبوت بخشتی ہے اور آپ کی توجہ روحانی نبی تراش ہے اور یہ قوت قدسیہ کسی اور نبی کو نہیں ملی۔‘‘
    This is also the stage when he, as I have already submitted said: ’’سچا خدا وہ ہے جس نے قادیان میں اپنا رسول بھیجا۔‘‘
    Now, the interesting stage comes when he claims to have the attributes of all the prophets in him and here he says, and this I quote again from 'Brahin Panjum', 'Roohani Khazain', volume:21, page:117-118:
    ’’اس زمانے میں خدا نے چاہا کہ جس قدر نیک اور راست باز اور مقدس نبی گزر چکے ہیں ایک ہی شخص کے وجود میں ان کے نمونے ظاہر کئے جائیں تو وہ میں ہوں۔ اس طرح اس زمانے میں بدون کے نمونے بھی ظاہر ہوئے۔ فرعون ہوں یا یہود ہوں۔ جنہوں نے حضرت مسیح کو صلیب پر چڑھایا۔ ابوجہل ہوں، سب کی مثالیں اس وقت موجود ہیں۔‘‘
    So, here he says that the best and the finest attributes of all the Prophets of Allah were combined and God wanted that they should be shown through one person and that he was that person. This is also the stage when he says:
    ’’میں خدا کی تیس برس کی متواتر وحی کو کیسے رد کر سکتا ہوں۔ میں اسی کی اس پاک وحی پر ایسا ہی ایمان لاتا ہوں جیسا کہ ان تمام وحیوں پر ایمان لاتا ہوں جو مجھ سے پہلے ہوچکی ہیں۔‘‘
    3008Again, Sir, this is from 'Roohani Khazain', 'Haqiqatul Wahi' volume:22, page:154, again he says:
    ’’میں خدا کی قسم کھا کر کہتا ہوں کہ میں ان الہامات پر اسی طرح ایمان لاتا ہوں جیسا کہ قرآن شریف پر اور خدا کی دوسری کتابوں پر اور جس طرح میں قرآن شریف کو یقینی اور قطعی طور پر خداتعالیٰ جل شانہ کا کلام جانتا ہوں، اسی طرح اس کلام کو بھی جو میرے پر نازل ہوتا ہے۔‘‘
    Now, Sir, this is a very big claim that he puts forward at this stage. He says the revelation that he receives from Allah is of the same quality and purity as that which came to the Prophet of Islam. Whatever his revelations, they are similar in nature and character to those of the Holy Prophet of Islam. So whatever he has said is just as good, according to him, as has come in the Holy Quran. This is his claim. He starts claiming equality with the Prophet of Islam and at this stage he has composed those laudable verses in Persian in which he said:
    ’’انبیاء گرچہ بودہ اند بسے
    من بہ عرفان نہ کم ترم زکسے‘‘
    (I am better and Superior to all the prophets who have come:)
    ’’آنچہ داداست ہر نبی را جام
    داد آن جام دا مرا بہ تمام‘‘
    (He who gave the cup to every Nabi gave me the same cup to the fullest measure, brimful.)
    Again he says he was better and superior to all the prophets that have come. But at the same time he does not claim superiority, till this stage over the Holy Prophet of Islam but only says that his Wahi and his status is similar because Vahi is similarly pure.
    I pointed out, it was my duty to point it out to Mirza Nasir Ahmad, as to what this meant and he did not deny it. The Committee will remember when he said that they were equal in status because of the source. The source is Allah. They considered 3009them to be equal. Then, Sir, throughout this period, that we have covered so far, he says. "I am an 'Umati' Nabi; I am 'Ghair Sharai Nabi', but here he thought he has attained equality with the Prophet of Islam except that he was an 'Umati'. By this he naturally gets a subordinate position because he does not get revelation which brings new law. He said he has not got a law of his own, but here we find- now he further promotes himself and says, and I am again quoting from 'Roohani Khazain' volume:17, pages: 435 and 436.
    ’’ماسوا اس کے یہ بھی تو سمجھو کہ شریعت کیا چیز ہے۔ جس نے اپنی وحی کے ذریعہ چند امر اور نہی بیان کئے اور اپنی امت کے لئے ایک قانون مقرر کیا۔ وہی صاحب الشریعت ہوگیا۔ پس اس تعریف کی رو سے بھی ہمارے مخالف ملزم ہیں۔ کیونکہ میری وحی میں امر بھی ہے اور نہی بھی۔‘‘
    Here he says that, well, "in my وحی there is also the law the do's and donts which Moses law contained." Sir, these are the three stages, very briefly, because I have to cover some more grounds and I will not go in any further details, but here I would submit that it is now for this Committee to judge whether he claimed to be a Prophet; Prophet of what nature and character and kind. Now, Sir, after he claimed this, the question arises as to what is the effect of this claim? Why this agitation? Why were there sharp reactions against this claim? And that will take us to the concept of خاتم النّبیین; as to what it means, Why there was sharp reaction throughout the Muslim society, why those who considered him as, a hero, for after all Musalmans are not ungrateful people, they respect their leaders, their ulema, and challenge a person as I submitted yesterday, who was their hero, and is attacked by them, as his own son says:
    ’’کہ اس کی بھیڑیں بھیڑیے بن گئیں۔‘‘
    Why? To show that, Sir, I will seek leave to submit very humbly as to what is the meaning of the concept of ختم نبوت and I hope that the learned friends here and he the Ulema will correct me if I make any mistake in explaining this concept according to my own dim light.
    3010Now, Sir, literally خاتم النّبیین means the Seal of the Prophets. By the Seal of the Prophets, the Muslims generaly, throughout 1400 years, have meant that the Prophet of Islam was the last of the Prophets, the Message of Allah was delivered, finalised compeletely, finalized, sealed and delivered, and therefore the Message was complete and he was the last prophet, and the wisdom that appeared is that as mankind had matured, as mankind has matured mentally as well as physically, Allah thought that the final Message should be given to them, the code of conduct should be given to them, which should be applicable to all ages because the basic human needs, problems, difficulties are the same although conditions change and their character changes. Allah delivered His final Message through His final Prophet. He said nobody can ever add anything to it or detract anything from it or modify it or change it now. This was the concept of خاتم النّبیین or ختم نبوت. It simply meant that, the doors of revelation are closed for future. Now, Sir, what is the philosophy, what is the wisdom of the concept, because we know what is meant when we say, خاتم النّبیین Muslims interpret it, but the authoritative interpretation for Muslims could only come from the Holy Prophet himself, he interpreted it by saying لا نبی بعدی (after me there shall be no Prophet) and that interpretation is binding on every Musalman, and no school of thought has disputed the authenticity of this Hadis that he was the last Prophet as he said himself. But, Sir, when you look at the wisdom, this becomes clearer when we find that during his last illness, the Holy Prophet told his followers that while he was with them, they should listen to him and obey him. After he was gone from this world, then they should, in his words, "Hold on fast to the Quran and whatever is forbidden there should be considered forbidden and whatever is permissible therein should be considered permissible for you". Sir, we have not appreciated the beauty and the wisdom of this lesson. As I submitted, mankind had matured, mentally man was mature, the Message was complete. Now, when the Holy Prophet uttered these words, what were the conditions in this world, what were the circumstances? Fourteen hundred years ago, we find rulers, kings, tribal chiefs, and that was the stage of society that whatever they said was law, the word of ruler was law, the word of king was law; there was no other law known to mankind. Here in this small Message, for the first time, mankind has been given the concept of rule of law and the Prophet said; after him you do not have to obey anybody. You only obey Allah and his Message, Allah and his 3011Prophet. Hold on fast to Quran, whatever is forbidden therein that is forbidden for you, whatever is permissible therein that is permissible for you; and there lies the beauty that the concept of rule of law appeared for the first time. This is, in my humble opinion, emancipation proclamation for mankind that you will no longer be governed by kings and their word, or by dictators or rulers. You will be governed by law, here is the law, and if you will carefully study the history, what do we find? We find that the moment Prophet passes away, حضرت ابوبکر is elected. What is his inaugural address? What does he say? Here is the message, he says, "Obey me so long as I obey Allah and his Prophet. If I revolt against Allah and his Prophet, you are not obliged to obey me." This is the rule of law; the concept of rule of law was there. That is why, I think, the Muslim society agitated when another person appeared and said that in future "I would give you rulings, I will receive divine messages and this shall be binding on you, my divine revelations". That was the main reason why Muslim society agitated.
    Another aspect, I hope, I am correct in explaining it, this was emancipation of thought. Muslims were free to think for themselves and interpret the Holy Quran for themselves. Nobody can give them a binding ruling on any provision and say this is binding on you. As Allama Iqbal said, "After the Holy Prophet there shall be no surrender in spiritual matter to any other individual". So, this was meant to be a charter of freedom to think for your-self. There is no doubt, Sir, that we got the freedom of interpretation, of course, that freedom of interpretation was limited within the frontiers of the cardinal Principles of Islam. For instance, the first principle was of توحید that is, Unity and Oneness Allah. So, the interpretation cannot challenge that.
    The second principle was the principle of finality of Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him). That could not be challenged; and so the other cardinal principles but within those forntiers you were free to interpret the way you like, the way you thought was correct. There was no doubt that because of this freedom of interpretation we go divided in many sects, in many 'Firqas' but that also leads to the synthetic character of Islam and that also shows the democratic process. In this regard I will respectfully draw your attention to what Allama Iqbal says about these 'Firqas' 3012and their calling each other 'Kafir'. Sir, I read; this comes from the controversy which was raised at the time when pandit Jawaharlal Nahru, who said something about Ahmadis and Allama Iqbal got into this controversy. So, I will read some passage from Allama Iqbal's reply and what he wrote to "The Statesman" paper. Here he says:
    "The idea of finality should not be taken to suggest that the ultimate fate of life is complete displacement of emotion by reason. Such a thing is neither possible nor desirable. The intellectual value of the idea is that it tends to create an independent critical attitude towards mystic experience by generating the belief that personal authority claiming a super- natural origin, has come to an end in the history of mankind. This kind of belief is a psychological force which inhibits the growth of such authority. The function of the idea is to open up fresh vistas of knowledge in the domain of man's inner experience."
    Then, again, with reference to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Allama Iqbal continues to say:
    "The opening sentence clearly shows that a saint in the psycholigical sense of the word or men of saintly character will always appear; whether Mirza Sahib belonged to this category or not is a separate question. Indeed as long as this spiritual capacity of mankind endures, they will rise among all nations and countries in order to show better the ideal of life to man. To hold otherwise would be to fly in the face of human experience. The only difference is that the modern man has a right to critical examination of their mystic experiences. The finality of prophethood means among other things that all personal authority in religious life, denial of which involves damnation, has come to an end."
    So, in future, Sir, no one individual will come and say, "I have received divine revelation and this is the message of God and naturally binding on you." The only thing binding is what has already come in the Holy Quran. Then he further says, I quote Allama Iqbal:
    3013"The simple Faith of Muhammad (Peace be upon him) is based on two propositions that God is one and Muhammad is the last of the line of those holy men who have appeared from time to time in all countries and in all ages to guide mankind to the right ways of living. If, as some Christian writer thinks, a dogma must be defined as an ultra rational proposition which, for the purpose of securing religious solidarity must be assented to without any understanding of the meta- physical import, then these two simple propositions of Islam cannot be described even as dogmas; for both of them are supported by the experience of mankind and are fairly amenable to rational argument."

    (جاری ہے)
  2. ‏ مارچ 28, 2015 #2
    محمدابوبکرصدیق

    محمدابوبکرصدیق ناظم پراجیکٹ ممبر

    (جناب یحییٰ بختیار کا قومی اسمبلی میں قادیانی مسئلہ پردوسرے دن خطاب) بقیہ
    Then Sir, as I submitted with regard to the allegations of 'Kufr' or heresy of different 'Firqas' against each other. He says: "The question of heresy which needs the verdict whether the author of it is within or without the fold, can arise in the case of religious society founded on such simple proposition, only when the heretic rejects both or either of these propositions."
    One becomes a 'Kafir', according to Allama Iqbal, if he rejects either of these cardinal principles i.e. Tauheed or the concept of Khatm-i-Nabuwwat and "Since the phenomenon of the kind of heresy which affects the boundaries on Islam has been rare in the history of Islam, the feelings of every Muslim are naturally intense when revolt of this kind arises. This is why the feelings of Muslims in Iran were so intense against the 'Bahais'. That is why the feelings of Indian Muslims are so intense against the Qadianis." I was just explaning why there was sharp reaction against Mirza Sahib's claim. Now, Sir, I will cite one more quotation from Allama Iqbal on this point and then I will proceed with my submissions. On the question of heresy, on the question of calling each other 'Kafir',.....
    A Member: It is time for Maghrib prayers.
    Mr. Yahya BAkhtiar: I will just read this:
    "It is true that mutual accusations of heresy for differences in minor points of law of theology among Muslim religious sects 3014have been rather common. In this indiscriminate use of the word 'Kufr' both for minor theological points of differences as well as for the extreme cases of heresy which involve ex-communication of the heretic, some present- day educated Muslims who possess practically no Knowledge of the history of Muslim theological dispute see a sign of social and political disintegration of the Muslim community. This, however, is entirely wrong notion. The history of Muslim theology shows that mutual accusation of heresy on minor points of differences has, far from working as a disruptive force, actually given impetus to synthetic theological thought."
    Then he quotes some European professor Hurgrounje and he says and I quote:
    "When we read the history of development of Muhammadan law, we find that, on the one hand the doctors of every age, on the slightest stimulus, condemn one another to the point of mutual accusations of heresy and, on the other hand, the very same people with greater and greater unity of purpose try to reconcile similar quarrels of their predecessors."
    The Allama continues: "The student of Muslim theology Knows that among Muslim legalists this kind of heresy is technically known as 'heresy below heresy', i.e. the kind of heresy which does not involve ex-communication of the culprit."
    While on this point, Sir, if I am not taxing the Committee too much, I think it will be relevant to read yet another passage of Iqbal because it was stated by Mirza Nasir Ahmad that if you start any action against the Qadianis or Ahmadis, then next you will take action against Shias or the Agha Khanis and other sects. Pandit Jawaharlal Nahru had raised a similar issue. He said, "If you condemn Qadianis that they are not Muslims then you will have to condemn the Agha Khanis also." No better reply can be given by me but to quote Allama Iqbal. On this point also, Sir, if you permit me I will read what he said. He says: 3015"One word about His Highness the Agha Khan. What has led Pandit Jawaharlal Nahru to attack the Agha Khan, it is difficult for me to discover. Perhaps he thinks that the Qadianis and Ismailis fall under the same category. He is obviously not aware that however the theological interpretation of the Ismailis may err, they believe in the basic principles of Islam. It is true that they believe in a perpetual Imamate, but the Imam according to them is not the recipient of divine revelation. He is only the expounder of law. It is only the other day (vide the "Star" of Allahabad, March 12, 1934) His Highness the Agha Khan addressed his followers as follows: "Bear witness that Allah is One, Mohammad is the Prophet of Allah, Quran is the Book of Allah, Ka'aba is the Qibla of all. You are Muslims, and should live with Muslims, Greet Muslims with 'Assalam-o-Alaikum', Give your children Islamic names, pray with Muslim congregations in mosques, keep fast regularly, solemnize your marriages under the Islamic rule of 'Nikah'. Treat all Muslims as your brothers."
    Then Allama adds: "It is for Pandit Nehru now to decide whether the Aga Khan represents the solidarity of Islam or not."
    Sir, I will conclude this part now because I understand that they want to say....
    Madam Acting Chairman: Yes, it is time for Maghrib prayers.
    Mr. Yahya Bakhtiar: So I will resume after that.
    Madam Acting Chairman: So we will meet at 7:15 pm. The House Committee stands adjourned for Maghrib prayers.
    ----------
    (The Special Committee adjourned for Maghrib prayers to meat at 7:15 pm.)
    ----------
    3016(The Special Committee re-assembled after Maghrib Prayers. Mr. Chairman (Sahibzada Farooq Ali) in the Chair.)
    ----------
    Mr. Chairman: Just two minutes; let the members come. If we are able to conclude this debate, Attorney- Generals arguments plus any honourable Member who wants to speak, then we will finish this night, otherwise we will meet tomorrow morning. If something is left over this night then we will meet at 2:30 pm, as Committee of the Whole House, and then at 4:30 pm, we will meet as National Assembly. That has been agreed, and that tomorrow we will decide. Just wait for less than 24 hours. Tomorrow we will assemble at 4:30 pm. as National Assembly.
    The passes shall be issued only to the family members of the MNA's because of the position. I hope the Members will not take it ill, and inside the Assembly premises the entry will be regulated strictly, even in cafeteria and everywhere else. Inside Gates No.3 and 4, nobody will be allowed to enter unless he holds a valid pass which will be issued only to the family members and nobody else for tomorrow at 4:30. (Pause)
    Mr. Chairman: I am sorry for that. No authority has a right to regulate the entry of the members inside the premises. It was brought to my notice. I am sorry for that. The members will be allowed. Because of the precautionary measures we have to do it.
    Yes Mr. Attorney- General. Now we should start.
    Mr. Yahya Bakhtiar: Mr. Chairman Sir, ....
    Mr. Chairman: I am sorry, I have been going there. I wanted to hear your arguments. For the first time I have closed my chamber also.
    Mr. Yahya Bakhtiar: Well, Sir, I was making a submission about Muslim concept of Khatm-e-Nabuwwat or the meaning of Khatimun Nabiyean. And I was submitting that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad had claimed that he was a prophet first of the subordinate 3017kind, i.e. Ummati, then he claimed to be a prophet with his own law, and I submitted that he said that in his revelations there were commandments, there was "Amar-o-Nahi". It is not only that he said it. But even his son Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmood Ahmad also said in his book 'Ahmadiyyat or True Islam' that Mirza Sahib had left a complete code of instructions for his followers. He says, I may read from page:26 of the book: "As I shall presently show he has left us such a complete code of instructions and rules of conduct, that all sensible persons will be bound to admit that by acting on them the objects of his advent, as above stated, can be easily and fully achieved."
    Now, Sir, this was the thing. Every Musalman thought that complete code of conduct for life was the Holy Quran for them. Here is another prophet who comes, who appears and claims to be an Ummati Nabi without his own laws and then he leaves the code of conduct for his followers. As I submitted, Sir, then he goes on to claim superiority. I do not want to go into detail. The honourable members heard the evidence. I want just to refer to one or two things from the record. He said that at the time of the Holy Prophet, during that period, the condition of Islam was like moon of the first day; but in the period of Masih-e- Mauood I would be Badr-e- Kamil (full moon). I gave full opportunity, I should say on behalf of the House, to the witness, Mirza Nasir Ahmad, to explain this and, in my humble opinion, he could not. First he said that during the life time of the Holy Prophet, during his period, Islam was confined to Arabia only. Then he changed the posotion. He said, "every period is his period. It will last throughout the history." Then he said that during the life- time of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Islam had spread to various countries in Europe. But I said that in the time of Masih-e- Mauood it should spread all over the world and there should be no non- Muslims left and that is what Masih-e- Mauood's period was meant to be. On this, he said, "No, that period will last for two to three hundred years. As far as the period of the Holy Prophet is concerned, that is confined to life- time and to Arabia only." These were the contradictions. But such claims were made.
    There are other references also. The members have heard them. But one part of the evidence which requires mention was the 3018incident when that 'Qasida' or poem was read in praise of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, which included the following couplet:
    ’’محمد پھر اتر آئے ہیں ہم میں
    اور آگے سے بھی بڑھ کر اپنی شان میں‘‘
    This was, according to the author, read in the presence of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. Mirza Nasir Ahmad first said it was not read. If he had heard it, he would have disapproved of it and he would have expelled the author of this poem from the Jamaat. Then it was pointed out to him that, in the Qadiani newspaper "Badar" of 1906, this poem had appeared and nobody would be live that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad did not read it. That was his own paper, and that none of his followers or close associates pointed it out to him. Mirza Nasir Ahmad said that in the book containing poems of Akmal, who wrote this, the said couplet was deleted when this book was published in 1910. The Committee may take that into consideration. But we were concerned with the period of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. In that period, we have no evidence to the effect that he disapproved of it. On the contrary, it was pointed out to him, although he said that, that was contradicted in 1934 in "Al-Fazal" .... that, in 1944, the author himself said that he had recited this in the presence of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, that he had approved of it, and that he took it with him inside his house. I do not want to say anything more on this, but it shows, although he has tried to explain in a different way that there is another couplet in the poem also wherein he does not claim superiority but I don't want to say anything more. These were the conditions, Sir, under which he claimed the prophethood and how he gradually end slowly promoted himself from one stage to another.
    Now, Sir, I will briefly submit as to what Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's or the Qadianis concept of Khatm-e- Nabuwwat and the interpretation of 'Khatimun Nabiyyen' was. Generaly, Muslims thought that no more prophets would come after the holy Prophet of Islam but the Qadiani's concept is that Khatimun Nabiyyen means that no more prophets will come in any religion whatsoever except in Islam and the person who would be the prophet will be an 'Umati' and his authority of prophethood will bear the seal of the holy prophet of Islam. This is what they mean by "the seal of prophets." He will not bring his own law. But, at this stage, it 3019seems, they thought that not only one but many prophets would come and this is how the position is confused, because even Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmood Ahmad, when he speaks on this point, says, and I quote- I read it out to Mirza Nasir Ahmad- this is from the Review of Religion, page:110:
    ’’اگر میری گردن کے دونوں طرف تلوار رکھ دی جائے اور مجھے کہا جائے کہ تم کہو کہ آنحضرت ﷺ کے بعد کوئی نبی نہیں آئے گا تو میں اسے ضرور کہوں گا کہ تو جھوٹا ہے، کذاب ہے۔ آپ کے بعد نبی آسکتے ہیں ضرور آسکتے ہیں۔‘‘
    This is "Anwar-i-Khilafat', pages:62 to 65. Then again he says:
    ’’یہ بات بالکل روز روشن کی طرح ثابت ہے کہ آنحضرت ﷺ کے بعد نبوت کا دروازہ بند نہیں ہوا۔‘‘ (حقیقت النبوۃ ص۲۲۸)
    Then, again, he says in Anwar-i-Khilafat:
    ’’انہوں نے یہ سمجھ لیا کہ خدا کے خزانے ختم ہوگئے۔ ان کایہ سمجھنا خداتعالیٰ کی قدر کو نہ سمجھنے کی وجہ سے ہے۔ ورنہ ایک نبی کیا، میں کہتا ہوں کہ ہزاروں نبی ہوں گے۔‘‘
    On this, when it was pointed out to Mirza Nasir Ahmad, he said that this "is in the sense of possibilities that Allah can do anything." They did not mean that many Nabis would come, but only one Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. Another aspect which may not be directly relevant is that here is Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's son who says this and boldly says:
    ’’اگر میری گردن کے دونوں طرف تلوار بھی رکھ دی جائے اور مجھے کہا جائے کہ تم کہو کہ آنحضرت ﷺ کے بعد نبی نہیں آئے گا تو میں اسے ضرور کہوں گا کہ تم جھوٹے ہو، کذاب ہو۔ اس کے بعد نبی آسکتے ہیں اور ضرور آسکتے ہیں۔‘‘
    ----------
    (At this stage Mr. Chairman vacated the Chair which was occupied by Mr. Mohammad Haneef Khan)
    ----------
    3020Mr. Yahya Bakhtiar: Sir, This is a very bold statement, a very courageous statement, by the son of a person who claimed to be a prophet. But when you compare it with the conduct of the prophet himself, one is amazed. In the District court of Gurdaspur, a complaint was filed against him i.e. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. He had porphesied or predicted something against somebody who told the court that this man should be stopped from making such predictions, and he gave it in writing to the court that in future he would not make predictions, or disclose such revelations that he might receive. Now here is the prophet of God! He stopped the relevation under the orders of the District Magistrate, and his son says this.
    Now, Sir, we found the same thing in the annexure which was filed on behalf of Rabwa Jamaat, namely, that more prophets will come. And this is a book written by Maulvi Abu Ata Jalandhari, and I had read out page:8 from this end pointed out to Mirza Nasir Ahmad in which he said:
    ’’خاتمیت محمدیہ یا آنحضرت ﷺ کو خاتم النّبیین ماننے والوں کے دو نظریے ہیں۔ پہلا نظریہ یہ ہے کہ آنحضرت ﷺ کی خاتمیت نے دیگر انبیاء کے فیوض کو بند کر کے فیضان محمدی کا دروازہ کھول دیا ہے۔ آپ ﷺ کی امت کو آپ ﷺ کی پیروی کے طفیل وہ تمام انعامات ممکن الحصول ہیں جو پہلے منعم علیہم کو ملتے رہے ہیں۔ دوسرا نظریہ یہ ہے کہ آنحضرت ﷺ کے بعد خاتمیت فیضان محمدی کے بند ہونے کے مترادف ہے۔ آپ ﷺ کی امت ان تمام اعلیٰ انعامات سے محروم ہو گئی جو بنی اسرائیل اور پہلی امتوں کو ملتے رہے ہیں۔‘‘
    I pointed out this writing to him and he said that it had thing do with the prophets or their coming, although the book was written on the subject. But, in any case, on the one hand this stand is taken that more prophets will come, and they try to rationalise this by saying that this is a sensible idea, but on the other hand they say that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was the only prophet who would come.
    Sir, as I submitted, the second issue was the effect of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's claim as a prophet in Islam or in relation to 3021Muslims. After he made this claim, there were naturally the Muslim's feelings; the Muslims thought that any person who claims to be Prophet after the Holy Prophet of Islam is an impostor. That was a natural reaction, the natural understanding, that he wanted to subvert their social and religious system. According to the Muslims, he had revolted against the cardinal principles of Islam, one of the most cardinal principles, that of he had struck at the root of that principle end there was ختم نبوت naturally a very sharp reaction.
    Now, Sir, before I go into the details of the effect, I will point out very briefly as to what happened when he claimed this and how he could go round and address meetings. This will also show, Sir, another aspect of Mirza Sahib's claim about Prophethood, because there is some confusion. I said there were three stages, one stage, second stage, third stage, but sometimes we find that a statement appeared in the third stage which is similar to that which should have been in the first stage when he denies completely that he never made such a claim and that he meant this and not that. The reason, I believe, was that wherever the opposition was very strong and hostile, whenever he found himself to be in a tight corner, he changed the position. Later on, again he tried to rectify it in a very diplomatic and tactful way of proclaiming his religion and the Prophethood. So, Sir, in 1891, he goes to Delhi after he claimed to be a Prophet, and here I read from his son's (Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmood Ahmad's) book "Ahmad or the Messenger of the Later Days", pages:32,33 and 34. I just want to show, Sir, I will try to be as brief as possible, but it is important to show what happened to explain what I would be submitting later on:
    "The Juma Mosque was fixed as the place of discussion. But all these arrangements were settled by the opponents themselves, and no information was given to Ahmad. When the time fixed for the discussion arrived, Hakim Abdul Mejid Khan of Delhi came with a carriage and requested the Promised Messiah to proceed to the mosque where the discussion was to be held. The Latter answered that in the prevailing state of Public excitement there was likelihood of a breach of the peace, and that therefore he could not go unless police arrangements were made, and that more over he should have been previously consulted regarding the discussion, and 3022the conditions to be observed by the parties in the debate should have been previously settled. His non- appearance served to increase the public excitement. He, therefore, issued a declaration to the effect that if Moulvi Nazir Hussain of Delhi would take an oath publicly in the Juma Mosque stating that Jesus (peace be upon him), according to the version of the Holy
    Quran, was still alive and had not met with his death, and if within one year of taking the oath Divine punishment should overtake him, then the claimant should be proved a liar and should burn all his books. He also fixed a date for the oath- taking. The disciples of Moulvi Nazir Hussain were much perturbed at the proposal and began to set up obstacles in its way. But the populace were insistent. What harm was there, they asked, if Moulvi Nazir Hussain should hear the proposition of the claimant and swear that the same was false. A great crowd assembled in the Juma Mosque. People advised the Promised Messiah not to go to the Mosque as there was likelihood of a serious riot. But nevertheless he went there and with him there went twelve of his disciples. (Jesus of Nazareth had also His twelve disciples. The conincidence of number was itself a sign.) (Now mark, Sir, in the brackets, he says). The spacious edifice of the Juma Mosque was full of men both inside and out, and even the stairs were crowded. Through this sea of men who were mad with rage and looked at him with bloody eyes, the Promised Messiah and his little band made their way to the Mehrab and took their seats. For the order there had come the Superintendent of Police with other police Officers and nearly one hundred constables. Many of the crowd had stones concealed in their skirts and were prepared at the slightest hint to cast them at Ahmad and his party. Thus would the Second Messiah have been a prey to the wickedness of the Pharisees and Scribes the like unto his prototype of Nazareth. Instead of crucifixion the people were bent upon stoning the Second Messiah. They failed to carry their point in the verbal discussion which followed. They did not agree to discuss the question of the death of Jesus. None of them were prepared to take the proposed oath nor would they allow Moulvi Nazir Hussain to do so. At this stage Khawaja Mohammad Yousuff, a Pleader of Aligarh, got from the Promised Messiah a written statement of the articles of his faith, and prepared to read out 3023the same. But since the Moulvis had given out to the public that the claimant did neither believe in the Holy Quran nor in the angels, nor in the Holy Prophet, they apprehended that the recital of the articles would expose their deceit. They therefore incited the people. Immediately a great row was set up and Khawaja Yusuff was prevented from reading the statement. The officers of police, when they saw the gravity of the situation, ordered the constables to disperse the crowd, and announced that no discussion would be held. The gathering thereupon dispersed. The police made a ring round the Promised Messiah and led him out of the Mosque."
    Now, Sir, my object in reading this in detail is two- fold, and I will be reading some more citations. First of all, what he said, what he gave in writing at that time when he was faced with the hostile crowd is in the following words. It is on October 23, 1891. I quote:
    ’’ان تمام امور میں میرا وہی مذہب ہے جو دیگر اہل سنت والجماعت کا ہے۔ اب میں مفصلہ ذیل امور کا مسلمانوں کے سامنے صاف صاف اقرار اس خانہ خدا جامعہ مسجد دہلی میں کرتا ہوں اور میں خاتم الانبیاء کی ختم نبوت کا قائل ہوں اور جو شخص نبوت کا منکر ہو اس کو بے دین اور دائرہ اسلام سے خارج سمجھتا ہوں۔‘‘
    Now, Sir, the other aspect was that he could only preach or explain his stand as a Prophet under a heavy police guard and not otherwise. Again, Sir, I have been asking these questions. At one stage when with one abdul Hakim of Kalanor he discussed the matter about his claim and when he found that the Muslims were very much annoyed with him, he after that announced that he had through his simplicity (سادگی) written the word "Nabi" about himself. That actually he meant ’’محدث‘‘ and the Muslims, wherever they found this word in his writings, should amend it, cancel it and substitute the word ’’محدث‘‘ for ’’نبی‘‘ and yet we find that after that he again went on writing the word 'Nabi' for himself, and no plausible explanation was given. I asked certain questions on this point from the Lahori Group because that was more relevant in their case. In that context, first of all, it was said that because people misunderstood, he did not mean to be a Nabi, he did not say that he was a Nabi in the real sense, he was a "Mohdis", as the Lahori group says, therefore, he issued this order that the word 'Nabi' 3024about him should be deemed to have been cancelled. And when I asked as to why did he again write 'Nabi' for himself and why did he use this word, the spokesman of the group said, some people were confused and for their sake he amended this but some had no doubt and for their sake he continued to write the word. Again I asked him that when he himself says that he is a Nabi, in whatever sense it is, why don't you call him Nabi in that particular sense, in which you mean that "Nabi" means a "Chair Nabi", as the Rabwah Jamaat was calling Nabi in some sense? I was really shocked to hear that the Lahori Group did not use the word 'Nabi' for him because the people got annoyed. So, it was expediency more than anything else. Why did they not use the word "Nabi", the Lahori Group, the reason is given. So, Sir, I was just saying that sometimes within these three stages, he is changing statements depending on circumstances.
    .
    (جاری ہے)
  3. ‏ مارچ 28, 2015 #3
    محمدابوبکرصدیق

    محمدابوبکرصدیق ناظم پراجیکٹ ممبر

    (جناب یحییٰ بختیار کا قومی اسمبلی میں قادیانی مسئلہ پردوسرے دن خطاب) بقیہ

    Now, I will come to one or two other instances of the meetings that he addressed. One meeting addressed by him was held in Lahore and, again, I am reading from his son's book, which I quoted just now. He says:

    "During the days of his stay the, whole city was in an uproar. From morning till evening a great crowd waited outside the house in which the Promised Messiah had taken up his quarters, From time to time opponents used to come and abuse him and set up a row. Some of the more turbulent spirits even attmepted to force into the private apartments and had to be forcibly ejected. At the instance of the friends at Lahore a public lecture was arranged. The speech was printed and was read in a large Hall by Moulvi Abdul Karim, while the Promised Messiah sat by. There were from nine to ten thousand listeners. When the reading was over, the audience prayed that the Promised Messiah might address them a few words orally. In response he stood up at once and addressed the people for half an hour. Since it had been known by experience that wherever he went, people of every religion and sect displayed a keen animosity towards him, specially the so-called Mussalmans, the police authorities had, on the occasion, made very admirable arrangements for his safety. In addition to the Indian police, European soldiers had been put in requistion who were stationed sword in hand at short 3025intervals. It had come to the knowledge of the police authorities that some of the ignorant mob had resolved to create a disturbance outside the lecture hall. They had, therefore, taken special precautions to ensure the safety of the Promised Messiah on his return, journey from the lecture hall. First rode a number of mounted police. Then came the carriage bearing the Promised Messiah. This was followed by a number of policemen on foot. After them there rode again a number of mounted men, and thereafter walked another party of policemen. Thus was the Promised Messiah escorted back to his residence with the greatest possible care, and the mischief- makers were baulked of their designs. From Lahore the Promised Messiah returned to Qadian."
    Then, a meeting at Amritsar, from the same book, page:70,71: "But the people, when once excited, could not be made to show restraint. The tumult went on increasing and inspite of the efforts of the police it could not be suppressed. At last it was thought advisable that the Promised Messiah should resume his seat and another man was called to give a political recitation. This quieted the audience. Then the Promised Messiah stood up to resume his lecture, but the Moulvis renewed their outcry. And when the Promised Messiah tried to continue with his speech, the Moulvis created a row and proceeded to attack the dais. The police tried to restrain the people, but thousands could not be checked by a few policemen. The mob rushed on like a sea wave and gradually gained ground. When the police saw the futility of their efforts, they informed the Promised Messiah that they could do no more. (It was my opinion considering the then circumstances that the police had failed to fully discharge their duty. There was no European officer among them. All the officers present were Indians who being the fellow countrymen of the rioters and themselves possessed of religious animosity towards the Promised Messiah, were willing to see the lecture come to a close). Upon this the Promised Messiah discontinued his lecture. But this did not suffice to allay the excitement. The People persisted in their attmept to force themselves upon the dais and to commit assault. Thereupon the Inspector of Police requested 3026the Promised Messiah to retire into an inner apartment, and sent a constable to fetch a carriage. Meanwhile the police restrained the people from entering, the apartments. The carriage was brought up to a side door of the apartment. The Promised Messiah started to occupy the same. Through the Grace of God none of us were injured. Only one stone passed through the window and then struck passed through the window and struck the hand of my younger brother Mirza Bashir Ahmad. Several of them struck the policemen who were surrounding the carriage. Upon this they struck at the mob and dispersed them from the neighbourhood. They placed themselves both before and behind the carriage, and some of them took their seat on the roof, and in this way they the drove the carriage quickly to the residence of the Promised Messiah. The people were so excited that in spite of the beating they received from the police, they pursued the carriage to a long distence. The following day the Promised Messiah left for Quadian."
    Then, Sir, lastly, I will read a passage of what happened on the day of his death, when the news reached the people, from the same book, page:81: "Within half an hour of his death a gathering of the Lahore public assembled in front of the house where there still reposed his only remains and began to sing songs of triumph- thus giving evidence of the utter blackness of their hearts. Others indulged in fantastic masquerading and thus bore testimony to the baseness of their nature."
    Sir, I am sorry, I have taken so much time in relating all this about the meetings that he addressed but of all the meeting that he addressed all this addressed except when he went to address a meeting on "Manazara" with the Christians, where he still continued to defend Islam, there was no hostile crowd, but whenever he wanted to preach his cause, his claim, there was hostile crowd and he could not address a single meeting anywhere without big police force to protect him, and mainly it consisted of European soldiers and policemen and officers; and when I submitted about songs of triumph on his death, I wanted to draw the attention of the honourable members to that prediction and prayer which he had made about Moulvi Sanaullah; people thought that, well, that prayer had its effect on him.
    3027Now, Sir, what was the reaction, I have explained, and why we find that wherever he went, this hostile crowd went after him, and the reasons are obvious. The man had revolted against one of the basic concepts of Islam. Than, after that, we find that Mirza Sahib also becomes aggressive, and he used very offensive language, but I do not want to go into details. There are two aspects. First, when he proclaims that he is "Nabi", then naturally came the question of faith, because, according to the Muslim faith, if a person does not accept a true Prophet of God, he becomes a "Kafir". Every Muslim must accept all the prophets who are mentioned in the Holy Quran, and since he claims that he is also mentioned in the Holy- Quran, he is a prophet. Therefore, his stand was that those who do not accept him as such are "Kafirs" and the "Muslims" stand was that because he was an imposter and had put forward, this false claim, he was "Kazzaab" and "Dajjaal". Here starts the fierce controversy, attacks, counter- attacks, by Christians because he claims to be the Promised Messiah, by Muslims because he claims to be "Nabi" and Promised Messiah, so, he, Sir started saying:
    ’’جو شخص تیری پیروی نہیں کرے گا اور تیری بیعت میں داخل نہیں ہوگا اور تمہارا مخالف رہے گا۔ وہ خدا اور رسول کی مخالفت کرنے والا جہنمی ہے۔‘‘
    And then he said:
    ’’کل مسلمانوں نے مجھے قبول کیا اور میری دعوت کی تصدیق کر لی۔ مگر کنجریوں اور بدکاروں کی اولاد نے مجھے نہیں مانا۔‘‘
    This is from "Roohani Khazain", volume:5, page:547,548. Here I must say in fairness to Mirza Nasir Ahmad, who tried to explain that this is a translation from Arabic and he did not mean these words, but "baghay" meant one who revolts- a "baghi", and therefore, you can say اولاد of باغی not of بدکار weomen بدکاروں کی اولاد he says, this is not what he meant. Our Ulema here, they did not agree. They said that this word was used again and again by Mirza Sahib himself with reference to prostitutes and women of bad character. So I do not want to say anything more on this, but this is what he said. The next point which he did not deny was, when he said: ’’جو شخص میرا مخالف ہے…‘‘
    Now, Sir, I am reading another quotation from "Roohani Khazain", page:53, volume:14:
    3028’’بلاشبہ ہمارے دشمن بیابانوں کے خنزیر ہوگئے اور ان کی عورتیں کتیوں سے بھی بڑھ گئیں۔‘‘
    Here he tried to explain that this was not with reference to Muslims, but with reference to Christians. Now, is this, with all the respect, the language which a prophet uses with regard to Christians or Hindus or anybody? I do not want to say anything more. This is no excuse, there is no justification for it whatsoever: Similarly, he says:
    ’’جو شخص ہماری فتح کا قائل نہ ہوگا تو صاف سمجھا جائے گا کہ اس کو ولد الحرام بننے کا شوق ہے۔‘‘
    This is again from "Roohani Khazain", volume:9, page:31. This is really something which was highly offensive, provocative, inflammatory, to say with regard to his opponents whether they were Muslims or Christians or whoever it was, particularly coming from a person who claims to be عین محمد and better than Christ; all the wonderful attributes of prophets were shown through him by Allah, and this is the exhibition of those attributes! I need not say anything more on this.
    Then, Sir, it was through this period, his annoyance or his angers or his complexes, that he started abusing the Christ, Hazrat Issa. First he claimed to be superior to Hazrat Issa and he says:
    ’’ابن مریم کے ذکر کو چھوڑو
    اس سے بہتر غلام احمد ہے‘‘
    The justification given by Mirza Nasir Ahmad was that he said that not about himself, but "Ghulam-e- Ahmad's" (slave of the Holy Prophet of Islam). Now, we are taught that all prophets have to be respected and they are equal in this respect, they are prophets of Allah, and here this man says that he was better than Issa and he justifies this on the ground that any slave of Muhammad was better than Issa. This is not the Muslim faith and there could be no excuse or justification for it. But he goes on further and says:
    ’’خدا نے اس امت میں مسیح بھیجا جو اس سے پہلے مسیح سے اپنی تمام شان میں بہت بڑھ کر ہے۔‘‘
    3029This is from Religious Review, page:438, and "Roohani Khazain", Volume:22, Page:153, where he says again:
    ’’مجھے قسم ہے اس اﷲ کی جس کے ہاتھ میں میری جان ہے، اگر مسیح ابن مریم میرے زمانے میںہوتا تو وہ کام جو میں کر سکتا ہوں وہ ہرگز نہ کر سکتا اور وہ نشان جو مجھ میں ظاہر ہورہے ہیں ہرگز نہ دکھلا سکتا۔‘‘
    Well, if he claims superiority, it is bad enough, but he also composes a very laudable couplet- I should say, I hope I am not commiting a mistake- but in beautiful words, no doubt he is a very good poet, a very eloquent poet, he says:
    ’’اینک منم کہ حسب بشارات آمدم
    عیسیٰ کجا ست تابنہد پابمنبرم‘‘
    Now, this man ascends to those heights that he is superior to Issa, and Issa is not worthy of stepping on his Pulpit. This is the position; but after that he goes further and criticises and attacks the grand mothers of Hazrat Issa, I do not know why. The justification given was that because those people, those Christians in those days attacked the Holy Prophet of Islam and Islam, this was a reply given by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and other Muslim learned men of that period. But this is no justification; he was criticised for this even at that time. He says:
    ’’آپ کا خاندان بھی نہایت پاک اور مطہر ہے۔ تین دادیاں اور نانیاں آپ کی زنا کار اور کسبی عورتیں تھیں جن کے خون سے آپ کا وجود ظہور پذیر ہوا۔‘‘
    And then further he says that because his (Christ's) grandmothers, maternal or paternal, were prostitutes, that is why, because of that association, he liked the company of prostitutes. Sir, this is how he said, and when I asked him (Mirza Nasir Ahmed) as to how could he be excused for these statements, he said this is not with reference to Hazrat Issa who appears in the Holy Quran, but is a reference to Yusu Massih (یسوع مسیح) who has claimed to be son of God, I asked him after all they are not two different persons but the same man, the same prophet, and asked whether the grand mothers of Yusu Massih were different from those of Hazrat Issa? He said that Holy Quran does not mention his grandmothers at all, nothing more than this.
    3030Then after that he (Mirza Ghulam Ahmad) also says:
    ’’اور آپ کے ہاتھ میں سوائے مکر وفریب کے کچھ نہیں تھا۔ ہاں گالیاں دینے اور بدزبانی کی اکثر عادت تھی اور یہ بھی یاد رہے کہ کسی قدر جھوٹ بولنے کی بھی عادت تھی۔‘‘
    So these are statements which naturally offended not only the Musalmans, but also Christians. Muslims consider Jesus Christ as a true Prophet of Allah. They did not like the criticism and these remarks.
    I asked him (Mirza Nasir Ahmad) it was all very well to say that Jesus Christ was one person and Hazrat Issa was a different person, one was mentioned in the Bible and the other was mentioned in, the Holy Quran, but how could he justify his criticism of Shias. And he tells them that "You forget about the dead Hazrat Ali, here the living Ali is present amongst you." Again what he said about Hazrat Imam Hussain. How could he justify that he is perfumed and, Naooz-o-Billa, Hussain was a heap of turd: He (Mirza Nasir Ahmad) said here also it meant, Ali of Shia conception and Hussain of Shia conception. Not, I don't think there is any differnece between Muslims as far as conception of Ali or Hussain is concerned. In respect of admiration all Muslims hold the same opinion of them. But these were the things which, as I submitted, inflamed Muslims throughout this period and for this reason Mirza Ghulam Ahmad could not address meetings without police protections.
    This brings me to another small aspect before I go to the next issue. All this, which I submitted before the House, was to show that he needed the British help to propagate his religion, for the security or his person, and the British provided that in abundance, and it was under these circumstances that some Mullahs, according to him, and some Ulema, according to us, had made life miserable for him and he writes to the Lt. Governor Punjab and I will now just briefly read from that letter. He writes, Sir:
    ’’میں اس بات کا اقراری ہوں کہ جب بعض پادریوں اور عیسائی مشنریوں کی تحریریں نہایت سخت ہو گئیں اور حد اعتدال سے بڑھ گئیں اور بالخصوص پرچہ 3031نورالاسلام میں جو ایک عیسائی اخبار لدھیانہ سے نکلتا ہے نہایت گندی تحریریں شائع ہوئیں تو مجھے ان اخباروں اور کتابوں کے پڑھنے سے یہ اندیشہ دل میں پیدا ہوا کہ مبادا مسلمانوں پر جو کہ جوش رکھنے والی قوم ہے ان کلمات سے کوئی سخت اشتعال دینے والا اثر پیداہو۔ تب میں نے کہا ان جوشوں کو ٹھنڈا کرنے کے لئے حکمت عملی یہ ہے کہ ان تحریروں کا اسی قدر سختی سے جواب دیا جائے تاکہ صریح الغضب انسانوں کے جوش فرو ہو جائیں اور ملک میں کوئی بدامنی پیدا نہ ہو۔ تب میں نے بالمقابل ایسی کتابوں کے جن میں کمال سختی سے بدزبانی کی گئی تھی ایسی کتابیں لکھیں جن میں سختی تھی۔ کیونکہ میرے Conscience نے قطعی طور پر مجھے فتویٰ دیا کہ اسلام میں جو وحشیانہ جوش رکھنے والے آدمی موجود ہیں ان کے غیض وغضب کی آگ بجھانے کے لئے یہ طریقہ کافی ہوگا۔ تو مجھ سے پادریوں کے بالمقابل جو کچھ وقوع میں آیا یہی ہے کہ حکمت عملی سے بعض وحشی مسلمانوں کو خوش کیاگیا اور میں دعوے سے کہتا ہوں کہ میں تمام مسلمانوں میں اوّل درجے کا خیرخواہ گورنمنٹ انگریز کا ہوں۔‘‘
    I had asked him (Mirza Nasir Ahmad) as to why he attacked the Christians, why he repulsed their attacks against Islam? Was it because of his zeal for Islam, love for Islam, or was it for some other reason, because he got angry and he said, no, it was just like Jehad, it was zeal for love of Islam and the Holy Prophet of Islam that he attacked them. Now here he says himself, a miserable conception, that just to serve the cause of British Government and not of Islam, he was writing all those things, attacking the Christians or those Christian Priests. Then we go to another part of his letter. He says:
    ’’ان تمام تقریروں سے جن کے ساتھ میں نے اپنی سترہ سالہ مسلسل تقریروں سے ثبوت پیش کئے ہیں صاف ظاہر ہے کہ میں سرکار انگریزی کا بہ دل وجان خیرخواہ ہوں اور میں ایک شخص امن دوست ہوں اور اطاعت گورنمنٹ کی اور ہمدردی 3032بندگان خدا کی میرا اصول ہے اور یہی وہ اصول ہے جو میرے مریدوں کی شرط بیعت میں داخل ہے۔ چنانچہ شرائط بیعت میں ہمیشہ تعلیم کیا جاتا ہے۔ صفحہ چہارم میں ان باتوں کی تشریح ہے۔‘‘
    Now, as I find it, he says that this speech of mine is supported by those I have delivered during the seventeen years. What I mean to say is that I am devoted to the British Government with all my heart, obedience to the Government and sympathy towards God's creatures, that is my principle and that is just the principle of the prescribe form, the religion makes that amply clear.
    Again, he say, Sir, in a different place:
    ’’میں یقین رکھتا ہوں کہ جیسے جیسے میرے مرید بڑھیں گے ویسے ویسے مسئلہ جہاد کے معتقدکم ہوتے جائیں گے کیونکہ مجھے مسیح موعود مان لینا ہی مسئلہ جہاد کا انکار کرتا ہے۔‘‘
    "I believe", he said, "that the increase of my followers will reduce the number of believers in Jehad and to believe in me is to repudiate the doctrine of Jehad."
    Then, Sir, again he says:
    ’’میری عمر کا اکثر حصہ اس سلطنت انگریزی کی تائید وحمایت میں گزرا ہے اور میں نے ممانعت جہاد اور انگریز کی اطاعت کے بارے میں اس قدر کتابیں لکھی ہیں، اشتہارات طبع کئے ہیں اور اگر وہ رسائل اور کتابیں اکٹھی کی جائیں تو پچاس الماریاں ان سے بھر سکتی ہیں۔ میں نے ایسی کتابوں کو تمام عرب ممالک مصر وشام، کابل وروم تک پہنچایا ہے۔ میری ہمیشہ یہ کوشش رہی ہے کہ مسلمانوں میں سلطنت کے سچے خیرخواہ ہوجائیں۔ مہدی خونی، مسیح خونی کی بھی اصل روایتیں اور جوش دلانے والے مسائل جو احمقوں کے دلوں کو خراب کرتے ہیں ان کے دلوں سے معدوم ہو جائیں۔‘‘
    In translation: it means: "By far the greater part of my life has been spent in preaching loyalty to the British Government. I have written so many books to denounce Jehad and preaching loyalty to the Government and I have published so many hand bills that they would fill fifty almirahs if put together."
    3033[At this stage Mr. Muhammad Haneef Khan vacated the Chair which was occupied by Mr. Chairman (Sahibzada Farooq Ali).]
    ----------
    Sir, before I read the next passage, please remember that author who wrote this beautiful Persian couplet:
    ’’اینک منم کہ حسب بشارات آمدم
    عیسیٰ کجاست تابہ نہد پابہ منبرم‘‘
    From that height, he goes down to this depth of degradation. Can you find anywhere sycophancy of this nature? This servility in a Prophet! Can this be the composition of a prophet? And I will say that if to deny the Prophethood of the author of this letter is KUFR, then I am the greatest Kafir:
    گر کفر این بود بخدا سخت کافرم
    Now, look at this man and look at this writing. Even an ordinary man, an ordinary human being, who has even the slightest regard for his own person, who has a little faith in God, who had a little confidence in himself will not say a thing like this. He claims to be a Prophet. We have that portrait of Quaid-i-Azam. (pointing to Quaid-i-Azam's portrait in the National Assembly Hall). He was an ordinary human being. What happened on the 2nd June 1947? You all know- it is mentioned in Campbell Johnson's book. He (the Quaid) reported on behalf of Muslim League whether they accept the well known Third June plan or not, whether the Muslim League accepted this sort of Pakistan which they were giving to the Muslims or not? Campbell Johnson writes that the whole day the Viceroy was waiting for Mr. Jinnah and he arrived just a minute before midnight. The Viceroy asked, "What is your answer, Mr. Jinnah?" The reply by Mr. Jinnah was: "I do not agree with it but I accept it." "What is the difference?" said the Viceroy. The reply from Mr. Jinnah was very simple: "I do not like it therefore I do not agrees, but I have no other alternative- you divide my Punjab, you divide my bengal. How can I be happy? I have no alternative. That is why I accept it. I am only the head of the Party. This thing must be decided by the Muslim League Council and that will take two weeks and so on behalf of the Council I cannot guarantee, whether they will agree or not but I will advise them to 3034accept it because we have no alternative." Lord Mountbatten was furious. He said, "I cannot accept it. Tomorrow was to be announced. Congrees has agreed, on behalf or their Council or Committee. How can you not agree?" Mr. Jinnah replied, "Mine is a political organization based on democratic principles. I must go before my people and get their sanction." Lord Mountbatten said, "Then look here Mr. Jinnah, if you on behalf of Muslim League do not give me an assurance that you accept this, then you will lose your Pakistan and for good." What was the reply of Mr. Jinnah? Here is a man who had spent his life- time in political wilderness; an old man of 70. He was to be the head of the promised home land. He was to be its master. But he did not cringe or crawl. He had faith in the Almighty Allah and he said- "What must be, must be", and walked away. This was the reply of a man who had faith, and a man who believed in God. The Viceroy had to rush after him and request him to come back. He said, "Mr. Jinnah, on behalf of the Muslim League I will give an assurance tomorrow morning that they will accept it- they will accept it because I know that they will accept your advice. You please only say that you have accepted it." Mr. Jinnah said: "Yes, I will say that", and that is how Pakistan was established. He could have lost Pakistan. He could have thought: here I am losing a country, let me agree on behalf of the whole nation. But, no, that man had faith. We should not be comparing that person with this man who claimed to be a Prophet and writes this letter and cringes before earthly power in this fashion. This disappointed me. I should not have become sentimental. What Iqbal said:
    بتوں سے تجھ کو امیدیں خدا سے نامیدی
    مجھے بتا تو سہی اور کافری کیا ہے
    This is exactly what it means.
    Sir, then I go to the next passage. He says:
    ’’سرکار دولت مدار کو ایسے خاندان کی نسبت جس کے پچاس برس کے متواتر تجربے سے وفادار اور جانثار ثابت کر چکی ہے… اس خود کاشتہ پودے سے نہایت ضروری احتیاط اور تحقیق اور توجہ سے کام لے اور اپنے ماتحت افسران کو ارشاد فرمائیں کہ وہ بھی اس 3035خاندان کی ثابت شدہ وفاداری اور خدمات کا لحاظ رکھ کر مجھے اور میری جماعت کو خاص عنایت کی نظر سے دیکھیں۔‘‘
    He respectfully submits to the Lt. Governor that this family has been constantly tried during the last 50 years and found unflinchingly loyal, and pray that the Government be pleased to regard this sapling of their own planting with jealous care and unfailing interest and instruct its subordinate officers to protect, to accord him and his followers (Jamaat) preferential treatment in view of the loyalty of his family which had pledged or the cause of the Government.
    Sir, I do not want to say anything more. Again I say: is this a prophet writing to the Lt. Governor? What does he say: Please instruct your subordinate officers to accord him preferential treatment. The prophet does not come even to the level of Lt. Governor, asking, requesting him, begging and praying: Please instruct your subordianate officers to treat me like this. And this man, I am sorry to say, I should have not said so much really, says that he is better than all other prophets:
    ’’آنچہ داد است ہر نبی راجام
    داد آن جام را مرا بہ تمام‘‘
    ’’عیسیٰ کجا است تابہ نہد پابمنبرم‘‘
    The author of the said couplet asking Lt. Governor "to treat me very nicely through the subordinates and look after this sapling of their planting" What was that:
    ’’آپ کا خود کاشتہ پودا۔‘‘
    I asked him (Mirza Nasir Ahmad) a lot to explain this. I do not want to be unfair to him. He said it was only meant for his family. Now a prophet begging the Government to look after his family- the faith of an ordinary man can move heaven and earth- and here a prophet seeks protection and help from the earthly power and, cringes before it: 'protect my family, protect my Jamaat'. And then we are told, Sir, that "if you do not accept his Prophethood, you are Kafir and pucca Kafir". No wonder why Muslims revolted against his claim, if for nothing else, as I submitted, this is enough to put off any self- respecting man because he claims to be 'Ain-i-Mohammad' and we know what 3036Mohammad (peace be upon him) is for us- the perfect, most perfect human being that has ever walked on this earth, in kindness, in dignity and self respect and from every point of view. You look at his life when he goes to Makkah and vanquishes his enemies, he is kind, he is generous, and before the worst enemy and the greatest tyrants never stopped to say La- Ilaha- il- Allah. He did not give an application that in future "I will not disclose my revelations." I am sorry, I should not say because I have promised that I will try to plead their point of view also. I will make an attempt. But this is the thing you know, which we have to tell to show the other side. And in this country from that time this friction goes on. Now I will not comment more on this aspect because I do not have much time and I have plenty of ground to cover.
    Sir, I will now go to the next subject which was rather important because issues Nos. 4 and 5 I will take together which are: The Effect of not accepting Mirza Sahib's claim as prophet- its effect and the reaction of Muslims. Before I go into that- because here I had a very difficult time in dealing with Mirza Nasir Ahmad and it is also I think appropriate that I should, in passing, refer to one or two other facts. Sir, after Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's death, Hakim Nooruddin was the first caliph of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. Hakim Nooruddin became the first caliph. Nothing more has come on the record about him. He seems to have been a very quiet man and hardly anything was said about him. But then after his death a split took place in the party or the Jamaat when they go into two groups, one Lahori group and the other Qadiani group or Rabwah school of thought. After Bashiruddin Mahmood Ahmad died, the next caliph, Mirza Nasir Ahmad took over. He appeared before the Committee. I asked a question about his own life. He related those things which are on the record. And apart from that what I have gathered something from the Qadiani literature, I will respectfully narrate this also. Mirza Nasir Ahmad succeeded his father, Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmood Ahmad, as third Caliph- Imam of Ahmadeya Jamaat in 1965 and as the present Head of the movement, Qadiani Rabwa section. He was born in 1909. He is highly educated and cultured man with very impressive personality. He is a Hafiz-i-Qur'an, M.A. (Oxford), a great scholar of Arabic, Persian and Urdu religious literature. According to the literature of his Party- and I refer to 'Africa Speaks', a magazine brought out by them, he was Head of Youth Organization of Ahmadis called 3037Khuddamul Ahmadia. He is the "promised grandson of the promised Messiah and Mehdi." His election as Caliph fulfils the prophecy whcih mentioned that "the throne of the Messiah, descending to his Grandson" They say it is given in the Bible that the Messiah, when he comes again, his grandson will sit on his throne, and then it says- elected for life, he is Voice- Articulate of the age, and in direct communication with God. Before his election as Head of the Qadiani Ahmadiya Community, he was also Principal of Talimul Islam College from 1944- 1965, an educational institution run by this Jamaat. He is also addressed as Amirul Momineen by his followers. According to his evidence, the Khalifa of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is elected by an electoral college which at the time of his election was of about 500 representatives of various groups. He did not contest election as a candidate nor were the nominations or proposals filed at the time of election. Two names his and of another person belonging to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's family, were suggested and he was elected unanimously. It is their belief that the Khalifa is elected through divine intervention and blessing. The question of his removal on grounds of mental or physical incapacity does not, therefore, arise. He is guided by Allah. He may fall ill or physically get paralysed but mentally he can never get paralysed. The Jamaat has its branches all over the world and everywhere where the Ahmadis live. He says it is purely a religious organization. He is head of religious empire like the Pope. He has an advisory body whom he consults. The decisions are taken by him mostly with their consent and are generally unanimous but he has the final authority to overrule the body. In short, the belief of his followers is that he can do no wrong because of the divine guidance and blessing.
    Now, Sir, when this august person appeared before the Committee, the question came- and I will not go into details of the citations- as to what Mirza Sahib said about those who do not accept his claim of prophethood- He said they were Kafirs- what is meant by that? He said 'Kafir' did not mean the person who is apostate, a person who is renegade in the sense that he has to be ex-communicated from Islam but it means a sort of 'Gunahgar', a sinner, a Kafir of a second category, because he believes in the Holy Prophet of Islam. Therefore, according to Mirza Nasir Ahmad, he remains within the Millat-i-Mohammadia but he is outside the Dairah of Islam or Circle of Islam. This was 3038all lost on me. I made a big effort to understand that a person when he becomes Kafir:
    ’’دائرہ اسلام سے خارج ہے مگر ملت محمدیہ سے باہر نہیں۔‘‘
    What does it mean? We had very difficult time for many days. Ultimately, Sir, when he was confronted with the citation from Kalama-tul-Fasal, I read from page:126. I read it to him and when I read it out, I asked him as to what it meant? Here is:
    ’’معلوم ہوتا ہے کہ حضرت مسیح موعود کو بھی بعض وقت اس بات کا خیال آیا ہے کہ کہیں میری تحریروں میں غیراحمدیوں کے متعلق مسلمان کا لفظ دیکھ کر لوگ دھوکا نہ کھائیں۔ اس لئے کہیں کہیں بطور ازالہ غیراحمدیوں کے متعلق ایسے الفاظ بھی لکھ دئیے ہیں کہ ’’وہ لوگ جو اسلام کا دعویٰ کرتے ہیں۔‘‘ جہاں کہیں بھی مسلمان کا لفظ ہو، اس سے مدعی اسلام سمجھا جاوے نہ کہ حقیقی مسلمان۔‘‘
    Here I asked him as to what 'Haqiqi Musalman' meant. He has gone into great detail in Mehzarnama also to explain as to what is a true Muslim and he said, "there are many of them." I said, "Do they exist today? Because it is a very difficult definition." In the definition, there is no mention of accepting Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as prophet or not, and I said it is a very difficult definition. Do such people exist who are true Muslims in this sense? He said, "Yes, hundreds of them, thousands of them, Lakhs of them." I was amazed as to where those people were. Then, when I asked him he was avoiding this- direct answer. I said, "Can there be or is there a single 'Haqiqi Musalman' a true Musalman among non- Ahmadis?" He said, 'No'. That finished the matter; that concluded the controversy, because, according to them, Musalman is only a Musalman who is true Musalman; the others are only political Muslims, Muslims in name only or bogus Muslims, false Muslims; but true Muslim, good Muslim is only an Ahmadi or from among the Ahmadis and now here else. So, Sir, this is the position that has to be considered. And then in the same book, Sir, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's son Mirza Bashir Ahmad, says:
    ’’ہر ایک شخص جو موسیٰ کو مانتا ہے مگر عیسیٰ کو نہیں مانتا، عیسیٰ کو مانتا ہے مگر محمد ﷺ کو نہیں مانتا، محمد ﷺ کو مانتا ہے مگر مسیح موعود کو نہیں مانتا کافر اور پکا کافر اور دائرہ اسلام سے خارج ہے۔‘‘
    3039Now, in spite of this clear language, he said that when he says that anybody who does not accept Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as Prophet is outside the pale of Islam. He says, "No, no, this is not what we mean by دائرہ اسلام سے خارج ہے But it means that he still remained in the Ummat of Holy Prophet or Islam." Sir, this is something which most of the time we were discussing with him and we tried to find a way so that they could accept the general Muslim body as Musalmans because it was not our effort and it is not our effort to save the situation. Of course, it is far from this Committee to decide what ultimately should be done. But I thought that if he said that we are Muslims and we will say that they are Muslims and ignore these Fatwas which have been going on for a long time, but he bluntly said that there was no حقیقی مسلمان among Non- Ahmadis. It was impossible for a
    non- Ahmadi to be a حقیقی Muslim.
    Now, Sir, he said many things also about prayers and marriage, but I will go to the next issue and shall try to deal with that part of his statement when I make submission on the next issue whether he founded an Ummat of his own or he only created a new sect in Islam, that is, their separatist tendency about which a lot was said. I have little time, Sir, I am conscious of that. I do want that this thing should be brought on the record because this is ultimately going to be something which the members will have to take into consideration when they give a decision or make a recommendation. Here, Sir, I will take back the members to what I stated before about the claim of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.
    .

    (جاری ہے)
  4. ‏ مارچ 28, 2015 #4
    محمدابوبکرصدیق

    محمدابوبکرصدیق ناظم پراجیکٹ ممبر

    (جناب یحییٰ بختیار کا قومی اسمبلی میں قادیانی مسئلہ پردوسرے دن خطاب)بقیہ
    جناب محمود اعظم فاروقی: اگر اتنی دیر تک بیٹھنا ہے تو میں برف ہو جائوں گا۔ مجھے ٹمپریچر بھی ہے۔ (مداخلت)
    جناب چیئرمین: آپ کی رضائی کا بندوبست کرنا ہے۔
    میاں محمد عطاء اﷲ: فاروقی صاحب ٹھنڈے ہورہے ہیں۔ (مداخلت)
    Mr. Yahya Bakhtiar: Sir, as I said before that this is a very important aspect and it requires special considerations. After all, if a decision is adverse, it will affect that community. I understand 3040that he claimed to be Massih-e-Maoud and then he said that Prophets are of two kinds, and I read from Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmood Ahmad's book "Ahmadiyat or the True Islam", page:28. He says I quote: "In short Prophets are of two kinds, those who are law- bearers like Moses (on whom be peace) and those who only restore and re-establish the Law after mankind forsaken it; as, for instance, Elijah, Issaiah, Ezekiel. Deniel and Jesus (on all whom be peace). The Promised Messiah (on whom be peace) also claimed to be a Prophet like the latter, and asserted that as Jesus was the last Khalifa (Successor) of the Mosaic dispensation, he was the last Khalifa of the Islamic dispensation. The Ahmadiyya Movement, therefore, occupies, with respect to the other sects of Islam, the same position which Christianity occupied with respect to the other sects of Judaism."
    Here, Sir, you will find a parallel. He says that Jesus Christ was a Prophet without his own law. He belonged to the Jweish sects which followed the Law of Moses. Then he says that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad holds the same position with regard to the Prophet of Islam which Jesus Christ holds with regard to Moses. Now, Sir, in every religious society and a religious system, the followers of the disciples of a Prophet revolve round the personality of their Prophet. That is how the system works. In Judaism, we have Moses; in Christianity, we have Christ; and in Islam, we have the Holy Prophet of Islam Muhammad (peace be upon him) how, when Jesus Christ appeared in Jewish society, although he claimed and said, "Think not that I have come to destroy the law or the Prophets; I have not come to destroy but to fulfill." See the significance: "I have not come to destroy the law or the Prophets. I have come to fulfil." Mirza Ghulam Ahmad says: "I have not come to change even a dot of the Holy Quran. I want to re-establish it", the same parallel; and when Hazrat Issa started re-interpreting the Moses laws, he changed their shape, "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, changed into "offering the other cheek", but the followers of Jesus Christ asserted that the basis for all this could be found in to Torah itself, in the teaching of Moses itself, exactly the same thing Mirza Ghulam Ahmad started, re-interpreted parts of the Holy Quran which got altogether new 3041meanings like the expression خاتم النّبیین or about the life or death of Hazrat Issa. So, Sir, this was the parallel which you will kindly see as to what happened in the case of Jewish society when Jesus Christ appeared. He changed the law. Some people within the same society, started revolving around him. Now if in any religious society, in a religious system, there is a pivot already and another pivot is added, another personality is added, and some people start revolving aroung him also, conflicts and frictions take place. Either the whole thing must get upset, get destroyed, or that one group must part company and start a religion of their own, as happened in the case of Christianity Vis-a-Vis Judaism.
    My own impression is that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad wanted to follow the line of Jesus Christ. After he got enough strength and support, he would announce and declare, "I have a seperate 'Umat' of my own." This line, I think, be followed and this is what he was aiming at. Now, for that, the Committee's members are well aware because we brought a lot of evidence on record and I have just, cited from that book, that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad left a code of conduct for his followers. Then, Sir, he issued the injunctions to his followers with regard to marriage, I have quoted from the book 'Ahmad' before, and I quote again the injunctions to Ahmadis regarding marriage, page:54:
    "The same year with a view to strengthen the bonds of community and preserve a distinctive feature he promulgated rules regarding marriage and social relations and forbade Ahmadis to give their daughters in marriage to non-Ahmadis."
    Now, if you belong to the same 'Ummat' and are brothers, can you issue such an injunction and yet say I am an 'Ummati' and belong to the same faith? Then, Sir, he issued injunctions about prayers including Janaza prayers. I have a lot of citations but I will not take your time. The Committee heard this. There was a stand taken very firmly by Mirza Nasir Ahmad. He said, "We do not say prayers for the simple reason that all the sects of Muslims had given Fatwas against us. They called us Kafirs. The Fatwas boomeranged and made them Kafirs, and because of this position in Shariat. We cannot join them in the prayers." He insisted on that position and several days were actually wasted because I wanted him to be frank. If you have a certain faith, be frank about it, why evade 3042questions. But he evaded, I am sorry, to say, he evaded again and again and insisted on this point that because of these Fatwas they do not pray with us.
    About the Qaid-i-Azam's Janaza he said because Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Usmani had given a Fatwa, therefore, Sir Zafrullah could not join that Janaza. Well, I asked him, why did not you offer 'Ghaibana Janaza' prayers anywhere behind your own 'Imam'? He said he had no idea whether anybody offered that or not. He evaded the question. I am sorry, this thing went on for quite a few days and the Committee is well aware what ultimately came out. They thought they would carry the day on that firm ground of Fatwa; nobody could dispute those and they cited so many Fatwas. But ultimately the real fact came out when I asked him that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad had a son, I believe, Fazal Ahmad, who had not become an Ahmadi. I asked him about him. He said: "Yes." I asked, "Did he die in his life time?" He said: "Yes." I said: "Did Mirza Sahib offer his Janaza prayers?" He said: "No." I said: "Did he offer or give any Fatwa against Mirza Sahib?" He said: "No." And then I said: "Was he annoyed with him?" Because Mirza Sahib said: بڑا فرمانبردار بیٹا تھا۔ اس نے کبھی شرارت نہیں کی and that "Once I was ill and when I opened my eyes", Mirza Ghulam Ahmad said: "This boy was standing and weeping", and still in spite of that he refused to say Janaza prayer for the simple reason that Mirza Sahib did not consider him to be a Muslim. Mirza Sahib considered him to be a Kafir. So all the stories about Fatwas were meaningless.
    Same is the position with regard to marriage, Sir. He said that they did not do it "because the Muslim- by Muslim I mean non- Ahmadi- do not look after the Qadianis girls well. They would not be able to perform their duties and obligations according to the injunctions of Islam." What an arrogant statement to make and how to insult the people on their face! The best and the finest human beings who know how to treat their wives are only amongst Ahmadis! But on the other hand he says, "Yes, a Muslim girl can marry an Ahmadi; but an Ahmadi girl cannot marry a Muslim. An Ahmadi girl will be unhappy with a Muslim and the Muslim girl will be happy with an Ahmadi." So, Sir, on this ground also his claim about happiness and unhappiness, I am sorry to say, is not correct because their own book, again I come to this second little book, I do not know how many times I have read it. This is 3043"Kalam-tul Fasal". Here is the explanation, Sir. This is by Mirza Bashir Ahmad, page:169. He says:
    ’’غیراحمدیوں سے ہماری نمازیں الگ کی گئیں۔ ان کو لڑکیاں دینا حرام قرار دیا گیا۔ ان کے جنازے پڑھنے سے روکا گیا۔ اب باقی کیا رہ گیا ہے جو ہم ان کے ساتھ مل کر کر سکتے ہیں۔ دو قسم کے تعلقات ہوتے ہیں ایک دینی دوسرے دنیوی۔ دینی تعلق کا سب سے بڑا ذریعہ عبادت کا اکٹھا ہونا ہے اور دنیوی تعلقات کا بھاری ذریعہ رشتہ وناطہ ہے۔ سو یہ دونوں ہمارے لئے حرام قرار دئیے گئے۔ اگر کہو کہ ہم کو ان کی لڑکیاں لینے کی اجازت ہے تو میں کہتا ہوں نصاریٰ کی لڑکیاں لینے کی بھی اجازت ہے۔‘‘
    That is the reason, Sir, that they considered us in the same position as the Christians consider Jews. They consider us in the same position as the Holy Prophet considered the Jews and the Christians with regard to the Muslims. Ahmadis consider Muslims just like the Prophet of Islam considered Jews and the Christians as separate ummats and separate people. But their girls are allowed to Marry muslim males. Muslim girls are not allowed to marry them. The same policy has beed adopted.
    Further, I asked him this, again and again, to explain about the separatist tendencies. The reason was that I wanted him to have the full opportunity to explain that there was no such tendency among the Ahmadis or Qadianis. But what we find is that there is a similar parallel as between the Christianity and Islam. There is a parallel between Ahmadiat and Islam. It goes on. On the same line Mirza Sahib is trying to find a separate Ummat of his own. There is another instance from the census report of 1901 when he directed his followers to register themselves as a separate sect, or course calling themselves as Ahmadi Muslim. Then, Sir, Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmood Ahmad said, and it was cited before him (Mirza Nasir Ahmad), that "Our Allah, our Prophet, our Quran, our Nimaz, our Haj, our Roza, our Zakat, everything is different from the rest of the Muslims." I do not know what does that mean. He said this means "The way we interpreted them." He gave many explanations about their separatist tendencies and the Committee 3044should take into consideration the fact that from time to time they have been supporting the Muslims and the Muslims cause in political field. He gave a long history. He related the services of Sir Zafrullah. He related the services of his own father, Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmood Ahmad, in the Kashmir committee. Of course, Dr. Iqbal resigned from the Committee for the simple reason that the Qadianis were exploiting it for their own ends. But that apart, his point of view was that they always served the cause of Muslims and they joined hands with them. There is no doubt that in the newspaper of the 13th Novermber, 1946, Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmood Ahmad says in his 'Khutba', which is reported there, that if the British Government took any action against the Muslim League, that would be considered an attack against the Muslim nation and they (Qadianis) will support the Muslim nation. There he definitely sides with the Muslims. But in the same issue we find that while he says this, he sent a messenger to the Viceroy and he tells him that just like the Christians and parsis got their representation and their interests were protected, "Protect our interests also", and the Btritish Viceory or some High-up tells him or his representative, "You are Muslim sect and these are minorities, religious minorities." He replied that the Ahmadi's interests should also be respected in the same manner and protected in the same way: "If they can produce one Parsi, I can produce two Ahmadis for each parsi." That is the line he has taken himself. On this point, Sir, I will again quote from Dr. Iqbal. He says:
    "Considering the separatist policy of the Qadianis, which they have consistently pursued in religious and social matters ever since the birth of the idea of building a new community on the foundation of a rival prophethood and the intensity of the Muslim feeling against this move, it was rather the duty of the Government to take administrative cognizance of such a fundamental difference between the Qadianis and the Muslims without waiting for a formal representation on behalf of the Muslim community of India. I was encouraged in this feeling by the Government's attitude in the matter of the sikh community which till 1919 was not administratively regarded as a separate political unit, but which was later treated as such without any formal representation on the part of the Sikhs, in spite of the Lahore High Court's finding that the Sikhs were Hindus."
    3045So, Sir, Allama Iqbal was of the view that Qadianis themselves have been insisting and wanting to be treated as a separate religious community and here is also an answer to the objection that the House has no authority or power or jurisdiction to declare them as such because the High Court in Lahore and the Privy Council had given the decision that Sikhs were part of Hindu community and the Parliament declared them to be a separate community. Parliament can do that. That is also the thing to be noted by the Committee.
    Again, Sir, about the Qadianis, Allama Iqbal says and I quote: "According to our belief, Islam as a religion was revealed by God, but the existance of Islam as a society or nation depends entirely on the personality of the Holy Prophet. In my opinion, only two courses are open to the Qadianis, either frankly to follow the Bahais or to eschew their interpretations of the Idea of finality in Islam and to accept the Idea with all its implications. Their diplomatic interpretations are dictated merely by a desire to remain within the fold of Islam for obvious political advantages."
    Again, Sir, Allama says: "Secondly, we must not froget the Qadiani's own policy and their attitude towards the world of Islam. The founder of the movement described the parent community as "Rotten Milk" and his own followers as "Fresh Milk", warning the latter against mixing with the former. Further, their denial of fundamentals, their giving themselves a new name (Ahmadis) as a community, their non-participation in the congregational prayers of Islam, their social boycott of Muslims in the matter of Matrimony, etc, and above all their declaration that the entire world of Islam is Kafir- all these things consitute an unmistakable declaration of separation by the Qadianis themselves. Indeed the facts mentioned above clearly show that they are far more distant from Islam than Sikhs from Hinduism, for the Sikhs at least intermarry with the Hindus, even though they do not worship in the Hindu temples."
    So, Sir, these are the views of Allama Iqbal.
    3046What I was submitting and what we have seen here is that they do not consider us Muslims. I pointed out respectfully to Mirza Sahib that a resolution was passed in England by the Ahmadis after Rabwah incident, where they described themselves as "We, The Ahmadi Musalmans" and "Condemned" the "Non-Ahmadi Musalmans of Pakistan". They referred to them as Pakistanis. So, this is the position in which they have landed themselves.
    Then, Sir, we find that they have a parallel system of personalities to be respected in Islam: صحابہ، اہل بیت Kept in highest regard. They started a parallel class: امیرالمؤمنین، ام المؤمنین and these differences created friction in the society a parallel system created by them. Then, Sir, when we are happy, they are not happy; when we are unhappy, they are happy. This is what the evidence has shown. Muslims were unhappy when the British conquered Iraq during the first War, and they had a چراغاں in Qadian. We cerated a separate State, with the help of God, because we thought and felt like one man that we shall remain together because we think and feel in the same manner; there is a subjective psychological feeling of belonging to one another, whether we are Baluchis or Pathans or Sindhis or Punjabis, and for this reason we feel and think very differently from them. That is also a factor which the Committee will take into consideration although, as I submitted, they have said things which could also be kept in mind that they will support the Muslims.
    Now, Sir, I come to the last part. I have taken too much time and I am trying to rush through this constitutional position about Ahmadis. Whatever may be the decision, whatever stand the members of the Committee may take, please remember that they are Pakistanis and they are entitled to equal rights of citizenship, and there is no question of 'Zimmis' or of second class citizen in Pakistan. It is not possible. I will tell you why it is not possible. Please remember that Pakistan was not created through conquest, it was created through compromise and an agreement. It was signed on behalf of the Muslim nation and the agreement was based on Two-Nation Theory. We were a Muslim nation in India or in the Indian sub- continent and other nation was the Hindu nation and the rest were small sub-national group. Now, the creation of Pakistan divided the Pakistani nation and part of it was left in india and we 3047could not let them down because they made sacrifices for the creation of this promised land. So, the agreement was that they will have equal rights- political and civil rights- with other Hindus in India and we will give the Hindus and other minorities equal rights political and civil in Pakistan. This is what you will find the interpretation given in the book "Emergence of Pakistan" by Ch. Muhammad Ali. The Pakistani Constitutent Assembly met for the first time on the 11th August, 1947, and the Quaid-i-Azam addressed it. Those were very very difficult days a lot of Muslims had lost their lives, sacrifices were made, people were butchered by Hindus in spite of this agreement and naturally there was reaction and retaliation in parts of Pakistan, and the Quaid-i-Azam made a passionate plea to the Muslims in Pakistan for toleration. He was reminding them of our commitment. He was reminding them of the duty of the government to look after the interests of the minorities. There he said, "You are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques", and then he said, in the course of time: "Hindus shall cease to be Hindus and Muslims shall cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, but in the political sense, i.e, political equality." Although this speech was misinterpreted and certain people said that he gave up the Two- Nation Theory, but this was not so. This was the commitment and the agreement that he was talking about. He talked of the Two- Nation theory after that and Chaudhri Mohammad Ali has explained this in detail in his book. But the idea was to remember that we are committed, as a nation, to treat all the minorities with equality and to see that they have all the rights under the Constitution, which include the right not only to enter services without discrimination, not only of equality before law and to have the equal protection of law, but also to preach, practise and propagate their religion, to manage and maintain their religious institutions. This thing the Committee will kindly keep in mind. They have a right, whether you declare them a separate community or not, this is their right and this is guaranted in the Constitution, and the honourable members of this House have taken oath to preserve and protect the Constitution and uphold its dignity.
    Sir, there will be many complications if such a decision is taken, and I say this from the Qadiani's or Ahmadi's point of view. What does he say? The letters you have received, the letters I received, those should also be kept in mind. He says that look, you 3048will call me a non-Muslim, but in the outside world, I will be considered as a Muslims:
    ’’زاہد تنگ نظر نے مجھے کافر جانا
    اور کافر یہ سمجھتا ہے مسلماں ہوں میں
    He says: "Look at the anamoly. I will be saying prayers, I will go on fast, I will be following all the rituals of Islam, and still you will call me "Kafir", and the Kafirs will think that I am a Muslim", and this will create complications and anamolies. But this is something which they say, and it is my duty to point out to the Committee their point of view.
    Finally, Sir, I want to express my gratitude to you to begin with, and then to all the members who helped me in understanding this subject, particularly, I should not really single out anyone, but I am very much indebted to Maulana Zafar Ahmad Ansari who helped me very much, and then Mr. Aziz Bhatti, M.N.A. Both of them were very helpful; but I am very grateful to every member. They really helped me to understand and to make my submissions; whatever I have said, I hope they will be of some help.
    Thank you very much.
    Mr. Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Attorney- General. On my personal behalf and on behalf of the members of the House Committee, let it be placed on record the labour you have put in for these months, the pains you have taken, and really whatever you have done, you have done not only for the House but for the country for which we are grateful to you. Thank you very much.
    Now, I will request the honourable members if anyone of them would like to speak.

اس صفحے کی تشہیر