Chapter 12
Disservice of ‘Ulama
|
Zafar ‘Ali’s false propaganda / ‘Ulama
abuse the Promised Messiah / ‘Ulama as described in Hadith
/ ‘Ulama’s disservice to Islam /
Zafar ‘Ali’s false
propaganda
An example of how false propaganda is being carried on against the
founder of the Ahmadiyya movement is the statement published very widely
by M. Zafar ‘Ali in his paper, the Zamindar, bearing the heading,
"An open letter to the King of England", in which he states that Mirza
Ghulam Ahmad accused Mary of adultery and called Christ a bastard. When
he was challenged to produce a single quotation in support of this statement,
he remained silent, though he continued to repeat the false allegation.
It is clear on the face of it that a Muslim who believed in the Holy
Quran could not make such a wild statement as that attributed to the
founder of the Ahmadiyya movement, but the public is being fed on these
lies by the sworn enemies of the movement. Far from accusing Mary of
adultery and calling Jesus a bastard, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad again and again
speaks of the miraculous birth of Jesus Christ. The following three
quotations will suffice for this purpose:
"One of the doctrines we hold is that Jesus Christ and John the
Baptist were both born miraculously . . . And the secret in creating
Jesus and John in this manner was the manifestation of a great sign
. . . And the first thing He [God] did to bring this about was the creation
of Jesus without a father through the manifestation of Divine power
only." (Mawahib al-Rahman, pp. 70-72)
"The ground on which this is based is this [Jesus Christ’s] creation
without the agency of a human father, and the detail of this is that
a certain section of the Jews, i.e., the Sadducees, were deniers of
the Resurrection, so God informed them through some of His prophets
that a son from among their community would be born without a father,
and this would be a sign of the truth of Resurrection." (Hamamat
al-Bushra, p. 90)
"The [Arya Samajist] lecturer also objected to Mary bearing a child
by the Holy Spirit and to Jesus being born from Mary alone. The reply
is that this was done by the same God who, according to the Arya Samaj
teachings, creates millions of people in the beginning of every new
creation, just as vegetables grow out of the earth. If, according
to the Vedic teachings, God has created the world millions of times,
nay times without number, in this manner, and there was no need that
men and women should unite together in order that a child should be
born, where is the harm if Jesus Christ was born similarly?" (Chashma
Ma’rifa, p. 217)
The above quotations should be sufficient to convince even the greatest
enemy of the movement that its founder sincerely believed that Jesus
Christ was born of Mary without her coming into union with a male. Ahmad
not only states his own belief on this matter, but he replies to the
objections of the Arya Samaj, and lays stress on the point that Jesus
Christ was born without a human father. How could he then accuse Mary
of adultery when he states again and again that she had not even a lawful
union with a man before the birth of Jesus Christ? In the face of these
clear statements, to say that he regarded Mary as having committed adultery
or that he called Jesus Christ a bastard is a bare-faced lie, yet it
is stuff such as this that the public is expected to take, and actually
takes, for Gospel truth.
‘Ulama abuse the
Promised Messiah
Another charge against Ahmad is that, in his dealings with the orthodox
‘ulama, he was very severe. As a matter of fact, the founder
of the Ahmadiyya movement, in this case also, paid back the opposing
‘ulama in their own coin. No sooner had he announced that Jesus
Christ was dead and that he himself was the Messiah who was to appear
among the Muslims than they denounced him in the most scurrilous terms
and applied to him every hateful epithet which they could think of.
The following are only a few examples taken from the pages of Isha’at
al-Sunna, a periodical issued by Maulvi Muhammad Husain of Batala,
which had become the mouthpiece of the ‘ulama:
"Hidden enemy of Islam"; "The second Musailima"; "Dajjal";
"a liar"; "a cheat"; "accursed one"; "he should have his face blackened,
and a rope should be tied round his neck and a necklace of shoes put
over him, and in this condition he should be carried through the towns
of India"; "a satan, a evil-doer"; "Zindeeq"; "most shameless"; "worse
than Dajjal"; "has the manners of ruffians and scavengers, nay
those of beasts and savages"; "progeny of Halaku Khan and Changez Khan,
the unbelieving Turks, this shows that you are really a . . ."
The literature produced against Ahmad teemed with such scurrilous epithets,
and even worse than these; no abusive word could be thought of which
was not applied to him merely because he claimed to be the Promised
Messiah. In addition to this, fatwas were issued against the
founder and the members of the Ahmadiyya movement, declaring them to
be too polluted to set foot in a mosque, declaring even their dead bodies
to be unfit for a Muslim graveyard, and pronouncing their marriages
to be illegal and their property to be lawful spoil for others, so that
it was no sin to take it away by any means.
‘Ulama as described
in Hadith
It was ‘ulama of this type whom the founder of the Ahmadiyya
movement sometimes dealt with severely, and, if he occasionally made
a retort in kind and gave a bad name to such irresponsible people who
had lost all sense of decency, he could not be blamed according to any
moral code. Thus he writes in one of his latest books:
"Those ‘ulama of the latter days whom the Holy Prophet has
called the Yahud [Jews] of this umma are particularly
those Maulvis who are opponents of the Promised Messiah and are his
sworn enemies who are doing everything possible to bring him to naught
and call him kafir, unbeliever and Dajjal . . . But those
‘ulama who do not belong to this category, we cannot call them
the Yahud of this umma". (Barahin Ahmadiyya, Part
5, p. 114)
Elsewhere, explaining his attitude, he says:
"This our description of them does not apply to the righteous but
to the mischievous among them." (Al-Huda, p. 68)
It cannot be denied that a certain class of ‘ulama is spoken
of in very strong words in Hadith itself. Thus, in one hadith, the ‘ulama
of the latter days are described as "the worst of all under the canopy
of heaven", and it is added: "From among them would the tribulation
come forth and into them would it turn back." (Baihaqi) According
to another hadith, the Holy Prophet is reported to have said: "There
will come upon my umma a time of great trial, and the people
will have recourse to their ‘ulama, and lo! they will find them
to be apes and swine." (Kanz al-‘Ummal, vol. vii, p. 190)
‘Ulama’s disservice
to Islam
There is almost a consensus of opinion that what was stated about the
evil condition of ‘ulama had come true in the present age. Writing
shortly prior to the founder of the Ahmadiyya movement, Nawab Siddiq
Hasan Khan wrote in his book, Kashf al-Litham, to this effect,
admitting clearly that this condition of the ‘ulama could be
plainly witnessed at the present time. It is at least certain that the
debasement of the ‘ulama and the advent of the Messiah are described
as contemporaneous events. Equally certain is it that the ‘ulama
in this age have done the greatest disservice to Islam by wrangling
among themselves and wasting all national energy in internal dissensions
and not caring in the least for the sufferings of Islam itself. They
have entirely neglected their prime duty of upholding the cause of Islam
as against the opposing forces and have brought further discredit on
it by their narrow-mindedness in fighting among themselves on the most
trivial points, thus making themselves and Islam itself, whose champions
they are supposed to be, the laughing-stock of the world.*
If these people, when reminded of their duty, turned against the man
who was commissioned to lead Islam to triumph and heaped all sorts of
abusive epithets upon him, thus hampering the great work which he was
to accomplish, he was justified in calling them unworthy sons of Islam,
and, in a spiritual sense, the illegitimate offspring of their great
ancestor.
[*Authors
footnote: A very severe contest has been raging in the Muslim world
over the accent of the "Amen" recited after the Fatiha in prayers, the
majority holding that it should be pronounced in a low voice, and a
small minority, the Wahabis, holding that it should be pronounced loudly.
How often has the sacred and serene atmosphere of a congregational prayer
been disturbed by the taking-up of cudgels to belabour an unfortunate
member of the congregation who happened to pronounce the Amen
aloud! Cases have gone right up to High Courts of Judicature to determine
the right of one section to say their prayers in certain mosques which
were built by Muslims of another persuasion. Even this becomes insignificant
when one finds that a great struggle is carried on over the pronouncement
of the letter dzad, which some read as dad and others
as zad, the real pronunciation lying somewhere midway between
the two, and fatwas of kufr have been given against one
another on a matter of which a man possessing a grain of common sense
would not take notice.]
|