Anti Ahmadiyya Movement in Islam
3rd February 1999
 

Chapter 7

PILGRIMAGE TO LONDON

In 1924, Mirza Mahmud made preparations to go London in order to attend the Exhibition World Faith Congress of the British Empire at Wembley. He claimed that he had already received revelations regarding the proposed journey to London. In Al-Mubashrat, the book of his dreams, revelations etc. we find some of his ‘divine’ revelations he had received three months before he undertook the proposed journey to London.1

Tarikh Ahmadiyyat states:

"When Hazrat Khalifatul Masih II pondered over the writings of the Promised Messiah, it transpired to him that in the Holy Quran it is said that Zulqarnain (Qadiani give this name to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad-compiler) or his vice-regent would go to Europe and there were also prophecies in the Hadithh about his journey to Damascus. On his further meditation on Zulqamain’s journey, it occurred to Hazoor (Mirza Mahmud) that his proposed journey to London would not exclusively be undertaken for Tabligh (preaching) but to prepare a scheme for ‘Islamic Revol.ution’ in Western countries.2 Mirza Mahmud boasted that God revealed to him that he was ‘William, the Conqueror.’3 On 12 July 1924 this self-styled William set out on his journey to England along with his twelve green turbaned disciples. On his way be stopped off at Port Said and visited among other places, Jerusalem and Damascus.

The world situation in 1924 was vol.atile both politically and economically. There was a worldwide depression and slowing down of economic activities coupled with general unemployment. In Britain Ramsay MacDonald’s Government was in power. The political scene in the Middle East was beset with danger for colonial powers. Turkey, under Mustafa Kamal marched towards progress. Syria was fighting to liberate its territory from the French colonialists. In Iraq, Sir Percy Cox persuaded Faisal and his Government to ratify an Anglo-Iraqi Treaty (1922) which provided for Britain's special interest. In Egypt, after a massive anti-British agitation Saeed Zaghlul emerged as a nationalist leader. India passed through an economic and political crisis. Lord Reading, the Viceroy of India, suppressed the freedom movements in India and being a Jew, took keen interest in political developments of the Middle East.

Palestine, the hot bed of intrigues, passed into the hands of British colonialists. From the time of Allenby,s advance into Palestine until June 1920 it was ruled by a military administration as Occupied Enemy Territory (OETA). It ended in early July 1920 when Sir Herbert Samuel assumed Office as the first High Commissioner of newly mandated territory. Under the terms of mandate, Britain was made responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative, and economic conditions as would be conducive to the establishment of a "Jewish National Home". A Jewish Agency, representing the World Zionist Organization, was to be set up for the purpose of advising and cooperation with the British Administration. Its president was Weizman and David Ben Gurion was the head of its Standing Executive Committee. The Agency had close links with the India Office and the Viceroy of India, Lord Reading. Its foreign Political Department was under the charge of Victor Arlosroff. The Arabs struggled under the dynamic leadership of Mufti Amin-ul-Husaini for liberating their sacred soil from the Zionists and their Imperialist collaborators.

Britain’s virtual seizure of Palestine gave her important strategic and political advantages. Its quarter of a century rule is a classic example of colonial enslavement and policy of suppressing Arab aspirations. In September 1920, the British authorities published the first ordinance on Jewish immigration by setting an annual quota at 16,600 Jews. Mufti Amin-ul-Hussaini headed the anti-Jewish demonstration and was sentenced by a British military court to 15 years imprisonment in absentia. In subsequent years, there were several riots, which resulted in a heavy loss of lives and the properties of the Arabs.

In the first week of April 1924, a high level Christian Missionary Conference was held at Jerusalem. Eighty one delegates from fifteen different countries participated. The first thing the Conference undertook, says a Christian paper, was to get before it a wide survey of the general conditions and accessibility found in the different lands, It was observed… ‘The abolition of Caliphate by Turkey, the spread of Bolshevik propaganda, the abolition of monarchies, etc, had left the Muslim World a seething mass of groping humanity, stunned and disintegrating, hunting for solutions of its vexing problems and planning its defenses almost without reason.4

Egypt

Against this political scene, Mirza Mahmud set his foot on the soil of Middle East On 29 July, he reached Cairo and stayed with Sheikh Mahmud Ahmad Irfani, a Qadiani agent working in Egypt since 1922. He held a series of meetings with the Cairo Intelligence Bureau and afterwards sought the advice of the British High Commissioner of Egypt on some political issues of the Middle Est. Egyptian ulema condemned the presence and activities of Qadiani mission in Cairo.

Mirza Mahmud says:

"There are three parties in Egypt. One party is headed by Saeed Zaghlol, the Prime Minister of Egypt, the other belongs to Watnis and the third party is called Hizab-I-Ahrar. Abdul Aziz Shah Waish, a Watnis and the third party is called Hizabi Ahrar. Abdul Aziz Shah Waish, a Watani is bitterly against Ahmadis. The Azhar Group and sufi Syed Abu Ali Azam who met me, wanted to appoint someone as Khalifa for the Muslim World. This is not possible, only at the hands of a spiritual caliph people can assemble."5 He was obviously referring to himself. From Egypt he went to Jerusalem where he was accorded a warm welcome by a Zionist organization.

Jerusalem

On his arrival in Jerusalem, he announced that on the basis of revelations and prophecies of the Promised Messiah (Mirza Qadiani), it had been a proven fact that Jews would succeed in colonizing Palestine. Mirza Mahmud said that he had seen the ‘pitiable condition’ of Jews. They were bitterly weeping in front of the Wailing Wall. It was a highly pathetic scene. He was greatly moved by it. 'I felt that these people had the right to get a part of the Solomon’s Temple (Al Aqsa) to erect their synagogue for their prayers. More than that I had in my mind the condition of those Muslims who had not accepted the Promised Messiah and became Jews like people. I thought over their (Muslims) crimes and the punishment they would receive. It terrified and moved me. They are inviting the wrath of God without having any fear.' 6 He then adds: 'I (Mirza Mahmud) saw Muslim chiefs (in Palestine) and found them satisfied. They thought they would succeed in ousting Jews. But I believe they are wrong. The Jewish nation has determined to occupy their ancestral land.7 Though they, for some time, had not been successful in colonization as they were mostly businessmen and had less experience in agriculture, nevertheless it could not shake their determination. No wonder if they met some setbacks in their early attempts at colonization.8 The prophecies of the Holy Quran and certain revelation of the Promised Messiah, reveal that Jews must succeed in colonizing this land. (subsequent events testified Hazoor (Mirza Mahmud’s) statement verbatum-Foot note by Dost Muhammad Qadiani in Tarikh-e-Ahmadiyyat).9 As far as I think, Muslims should come to terms with the Christian and Jews. According to these terms Jews could settle in this country and Muslims could maintain their superiority as well. I had a scheme in my mind which I could not explain here.’10 Sir Herbnert Samuel (1870-1963), the High Commissioner of Palestine, was in London at that time and Sir Gilbert Clayton was the officiating High Commissioner of Palestine. It may be recalled that Sir Clayton was a staunch Zionist and had been the head of Military Intelligence in Cairo during the Wartime. He was a close associate of Lawrence of Arabia and also worked as an adviser to General Allenby during his campaign in Syria. He was, in fact, the architect of the spying network as an adviser to General Allenby during his campaign in Syria. He was, in fact, the architect of the spying network in the Middle East, which played an ignominious part to bring the Arabs under Imperialist-Zionist subjugation. Mirza Mahmud had very frank discussions with him. The President of the Jewish Agency and head of its Foreign Political Department took keen interest in the outcome of these meetings. Sir Clayton highly appreciated Ahmadiyya beliefs and discussed various aspects of Palestine question with him.

On 12 August, Mirza Mahmud was invited to tea by Mufti Amin-ul-Hussaini, President Supreme Council of Palestine. Also present there was Chief of the City. He explained him the nature and growth of Ahmadiyya missions. Discussions were held over wide range of subjects from Dajjal to Khatam-i-Nabuwat.11 The Chief of the City felt aversion to his cacophony.

Mirza Mahmud then called on the High Commissioner of Palestine. He gives the following account of his meeting with Clayton:

The Governor is called High Commissioner (H.C) of Palestine. The HC of Palestine is nowadays in Britain and Sir Gilbert Clayton is working in his place. I met him and had discussions with him for an hour on Palestine affairs. He is a European and had sympathy with Muslims. He had prepared a scheme for future development of the country, which I think could prove very beneficial. Regrettably, he wants to get an early retirement. It is possible that other people may not execute it in a better way. The Muslims have complaints about their educational affairs. He admitted it and told me that he had sent a proposal to the British Government for the formation of a sub-committee vested with certain powers on educational matters.12 Mirza Mahmud then adds: In the very first meeting, Mr. Clayton expressed his very keen interest in our (Ahmadiyya) order. Although we have to leave next day, he insisted to have a lunch with him at 1:30 p.m. (on 13 August). Thus discussions were also held with him the next day for 1/1/2 hours. I got a lot of information from him regarding the affairs of Palestine. Clayton discussed the Indian politics as well besides conditions of Palestine.13

We gave him some proposals 'which he accepted with pleasure and respect. He was very pleased and at the time of our departure showed a map of Palestine to us which highlighted the Dead Sea. He, without any request from us, brought two letters for me. One was addressed to the Consul in Damascus and other to the Consul in Italy. He used a highly commendatory language and showered a lot of praise on us in them. He also showed his keen interest in our further stay in Palestine.

Mr. Clayton ordered the Railway authorities to provide all facilities to us during our journey to Damascus. A letter was also sent to the District Maistrate, haifa for taking care of us."14

Damascus

In Damascus, a number of Qadiani agents had actively been working since the time of Zaindul Abdin (1912), the notorious Lawrence of Qadian. They established a mission there. Mirza Mahmud stayed in the Central Hotel. To attract Syrian Muslims, Qadiani agents resorted to free distribution of Ahmadiyya literature they had already prepared in Qadian for that purpose. The Syrian press strongly reacted over this vicious campaign and the ulema demanded the expulsion of Qadiani troupe from Damascus.

Mirza Mahmud gives an account of his activities in the following words:

"As we arrived in Damascus, we faced a great difficulty in finding a place to stay. There was no one to pay attention towards us and our presence remained unnoticed for two days. I got afraid and prayed to God the fulfillment of the prophecy concerning Damascus. I feared I had to leave after a short stay without any success. I prayed for my success. When I slept after praying, the following words were revealed to me which I slowly uttered "Abad-e-Mukaram" i.e. My (God) servant upon whom the reverence is bestowed. I was now sure of my success in preaching Ahmadiyya beliefs there. Thus the very next day people poured in. From morning till midnight two to twelve hundred persons awaited in front of the hotel. The owner of the hotel anticipated disturbances and the police arrived. The police officer also feared the eruption of disturbances. To dispel their fears, I stood in front of the people to show that they had not come to create any disturbance. A few among them hurled abuse on us but most of them expressed their feelings of love by pointing at me and saying, 'he is the son of Mahdi' and also saluted. The police forced us to stay in hotel as they were afraid to take any responsibility of a mishap. We were confined in our room. I telephoned the British Consul at Damascus and explained him the position. He made necessary arrangements and the people could come after obtaining permission from us."15 Syrian Muslims strongly protested to General Maxime Weyguard, the French High Commissioner of Syria against the presence and provocative activities of the Qadiani troupe and demanded their immediate expulsion from Damascus. They also demanded the confiscation of Qadiani literature they had been distributing in Syria. Mirza Mahmud tried his best through the good offices of the British Consul to prolong his stay in Damascus but could not succeed. On 18 August, the British Consul in Damascus called on Mirza Mahmus at the Central Hotel and briefed him on his future strategy. Mirza Mahmud also met the Governor of Syria, Subhi Beg, and explained him the nature of Ahmadiyya movement. Some ulema and Chiefs who were present there were bitterly against Ahmadiyya mission and demanded their immediate expulsion. Mirza Mahmud, in one of his Friday addresses, compares the British support given to Qadiani missions abroad with that of other colonial powers specially the French and states: "When I reached Syria on my way to England, I published a pamphlet for Tabligh purpose. The Muslims strongly protested and demanded a ban on it. It was just a chance that on that day I had a meeting with the French Governor. When I met him he talked in a sweet manner and asked whether I would like to take a glass of lemonade or a cup of coffee. He also inquired about my health and assured his full cooperation to me. All that was in line with our (Indian) traditions. During the course of discussion, there came up the question of Ahmadiyya tract, which the Syrian Muslims demanded to be banned. I told him that people were protesting for nothing and sought his opinion on its ban. He expressed his firm belief that it was neither reasonable to ban it nor did he intend to interfere in religious matter. Afterwards, I came to know that the Government had, in fact, already proscribed it. When a complaint was lodged with certain officers that contrary to the Governor’s assurance the said pamphlet had been proscribed, they informed us that it was perfectly in pursuance of the orders given by the governor. Our men were also informed that the time, the governor was offering a glass of lemonade and emphasizing his policy of noninterference in religious matters, he had already instructed to ban that pamphlet."16 During his stay in Damascus, Mirza Mahmud was interviewed by the correspondent of an Arab Journal Alif Ba on 9 Muharrum 1342 A.H. (14 August 1924): Q: What do you think about AlKhilafatul-Islam (Caliphate in Islam)?

Ans.: I do not believe any one could have a right to proclaim his Caliphate except me. The Caliph of Islam whom the people all over the world whether living in East or West must obey is no one else except me.

Q: What is the future of the East? How can Ahmadiyya order exert influence on its political condition?

Ans.: I do not dabble in politics. I may like to say that the Ahmadiyya order will spread all over the world. At that time all people will be like brothers and no one will be a ruler and a ruled one like these days. 17

 The Syrian newspapers especially Fatiul Arab and Alif Ba wrote convincing articles to expose Qadianism and its anti-Islamic and pro-Imperialist stance.

Tarikh-e-Ahmadiyyat observes:

"Despite adverse circumstances, God bestowed upon the Khalifa an extraordinary success and repute in completion of his mission."18

Italy

On 17 August Mirza and his party reached Italy. He called on Italian Fascist leader Mussolini on 19th August and explained him the aims and object of the Ahmadiyya order. He requested the Pope to give him some time for exchange of views but he declined. The Assistant Editor of the daily La Tribuna held an interview with him. He asked him some questions on Indian politics. Regarding the possibilities of forging unity among different religious and ethnic groups in India, Mirza Mahmud explained that no unity could be achieved in a multi-religious society where mistrust prevailed. He criticized the Khilafat issue and claimed to be the true Khalifa.19

London

On 22 August, he reached London and took up his residence at 6 Chesham Place. A British paper reported: ‘His Holiness, the Khalifatul Masih, Alhaj Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmad, the head of the Ahmadiyya Movement in Islam, who is to represent Islam at the forthcoming Conference of Religions of the Empire at Wembley arrived at Victoria Station, London, on August 22. Owing to a misunderstanding, the Khalifa arrived at a time when half of those who were to have assembled to welcome him were absent. Those present, however, joined him in saying prayer, and the luggage having been put in charge of one member of the party, they moved off to Ludgate Hill, and thence to St. Paul Churchyard. This was done to fulfil a tradition with Muhammadans which says that after coming from Damascus the Mahdi will pray at ‘Bab-e-Lud’ i.e.Ludgate. The Khalifa called at Damascus on his way to England. From Ludgate, His Holiness went to Chesham Place where he is staying during his visit to London. He also proposes to visit Brighton to see the memorial erected there to Mohammadan soldiers who fell during the War.'20 According to Tarikh-e-Ahmadiyyat, Mirza Mahmud received an extraordinary coverage from the British press. A ‘bigoted’ Roman Catholic paper had to call it a ‘conspiracy'. 21 Zionist-backed press was in the forefront to introduce Mirza Mahmud and Ahmadiyyat to the British public.

Wembley Conference

The Conference on Living Religions within the Empire was organized under the presidency of Sir Denison Ross by the School of Oriental Studies and the Sociological Society, was held at the Imperial Institute, South Kensington from 22nd September to 23rd October 1924.

The session devoted to Islam was presided over by Dr. Margoliouth and during that three discourses were delivered. Khawaja Kamulud Din’s paper The Basic Principles of Islam was read by Yusif Ali. It consisted of a careful exegesis of the teaching of the Quran. The social influence of Islam was set forth in eloquent passages, and the moral qualities that are generated in man by obedience to faith. The paper explained the position of woman which was elevated by Islam to equality with man. Material progress was the closing subject of the Paper.

The second paper was from Sheiikh Khadum Dojaily, a learned Shia from Baghdad. He gave the historical development of Shia faith and explained the main elements of Shia creed. Then came Mirza Muhmud’s paper entiled Ahmadiyat 22. It was read out by Zafarullah Khan. Before that Theoder Morisson, the British MP, introduced him to the participants of the Conference. In his paper he introduced the Ahmadiyya movement, gave the main objects of religion and expounded an International Peace formula.23 The formula was based on the follwing broad principles:

  1. International conduct should be subject to acceptable individual moral standards. A League of Nations to be established.
  2. Aggression should be collectively fought out by all the member nations of the International Peace Commission.
  3. Treaties should be fully respected but unjust treaties should not be sought to be implemented.
  4. Hard conditions should not encourage aggressive policies.
  5. Nationalism should not encourage aggressive policies.
  6. No power should covet what a neighbour possess and therefore should not disturb its peace nor infringe its rights on frontiers.
  7. No nation should harbor feelings of superiority.
  8. There should be peace between Government and their respective peoples.
  9. No nation should take advantage of any situation at the expense of a weak nation.
  10. Nations should not take sides in disputes between sister nations but collectively endeavour to settle the differences amicably and justly.
  11. Nations should be prepared to make sacrifices for international peace.
  12. Nations should forget old jealousies and prejudices and act justly towards one another.
  13. Each nations should be well prepared to fight back aggression so that its weak defenses may not tempt a better equipped neighbour to invade its territory. 24

Qadiani spies stoned

In the second week of his stay in London he received news of he death by stoning of a Qadiani missionary in Kabul. Naimatullah, like Molvi Latif was a British spy planted in Afghanistan. The Afghan police was suspicious of his activities and watched them closely. At last, he was arrested and confined in a cell. He was proved guilty of spying as well as Apostasy from Islam and was stoned to death on 26 August 1924. 25

Qadianis never lost any opportunity to spread their heretical beliefs in Afghanistan. They were well informed that any propaganda against established religion of the state was punishable by death but they openly defied the Ameer’s decree of ban and forced the Kabul authorities to take action against them for the solidarity of the state.26

A London paper reports:

'When the news of Naimatullah Khan’s martyrdom was received in London, Hazrat Khalifatul Masih and his party were overwhelmed with grief and pity for the young martyr. A protest meeting was held in Essex Hall, Essex Street, which runs from the eastern end of the strand down to Victoria Embankment. It was presided over by Dr. Walter Walsh and was well attended. 27 Khawaja Nazir Ahmad, son of Khawaja Kamaluddin of Woking Mission, was also present there. He sharply reacted over the text of the resolution and called it ‘one sided and partial.’ This helped people know the other side of the story.   Zafarulllah expressed his resentment over the cruel murder of the young ‘martyr’ and rebuked the ulema and the Amir. He called it a ‘barbaric atrocity’, and a ‘story of meanness and deceit.'28  Telegrams of protest were sent to the League of Nations and Prime Minister of Great Britain, France, and Italy and the President of the United States29, to apprise them of the policy of persecution adopted by the Afghan government under Amanullah against Ahmadis. Zafarullah addressed a strong protest note to the Afghan ambassador in Paris, who was also accredited to Britain. He tore it into pieces.30 Zafarullah also offered his services to serve as an Ahmadiyya missionary at Kabul.

Sir Zafarullah says that a year after the killing of Ahmadiyya missionary when King Amanulllah and his consort, Queen Surayah returned from their European tour, "Within weeks as uprising led by a scalawag overturned the monarchy, and sent the King and the Queen scampering into ignominious exile. Amanullah Khan settled in Rome to a life of low debauchery, his wife and daughter lift him in disgust, and he dragged out the remaining few years of his miserable existence in loneliness. Sic transit gloria mundi."31

In reply to Qadiani propaganda, the Afghan government clarified that the freedom of religion given in the Republic’s Constitution safeguarded the rights of followers of all religions, but was not a license for so-called Muslims to preach heretical doctrines. It was officially stated that the Qadianis were invol.ved in politics and conspired to foment the 1924 rebellion of Khost against Amanullah Government.32

The Secretary of State for India informed Mirza Mahmud in London that the Government would take up this matter with Afghan Government on informal basis. Sher Ali, Amir Ahmadiyya Community India sent telegrams to the Presidents of Muslims League and the Congress requesting them to condemn the killings. Gandhi, in his personal capacity, called the incident ‘deplorable.’33

A public meeting was held in London and a resolution was passed to express grief and resentment over the incident. Copies of resolution were sent to the Governments of Afghanistan, USA, France, Italy, Germany, Japan, Turkey, Egypt and India. The resolution was signed by the following eminent personalities of Britain.34

  1. A.R. Nicholson M.A. D.Litt, Prof. Cambridge
  2. H.G. Wells
  3. Sir A.Canon Doyal, M.D.Litt
  4. G.R.Esmod, Editor, The Coast, London
  5. Sir Sydney Lee Land, D.D.Litt, Prof. .English Literature
  6. Sir Oliver Lodge, FRDSC
  7. Sir Francis Younghusband, KES,LLD,DSC.
 The Muslim press in India the Siyasat and Zamindar of Lahore, Vakil, Amritsar and Hamdam Lukhnow wrote on the issue and unveiled the political conspiracy of Qadian. They disclosed that Naimatullah was an accomplice of Khost rebels. The Kabul government never persecuted Hindu, Sikhs and other minorities as they lived peacefully 35 and did not conspire against the solidarity of the State.

The British papers viz. Daily News, Daily Express, Daily Chronicle and Daily Telegraph splashed the news and wrote leading articles on ‘persecution of Ahmadis.’36

A British paper, The Near East and India criticized Amir Amanullah of Kabul’s reforming zeal.

‘From the fact that Molvi Namatullah Khan, who has thus met his death, enjoyed at one time the favour of the Amir, and that his offence was as much his adherence to a banned Muslim sect as his alleged complicity in political intrigue, it has to be inferred that this reversion to type represents a desperate attempt on the Amir’s part to direct the storm which his measures have raised among his subjects.'37 To the great surprise of Qadian, the London press published a telegram received from the British Government, Simla stating that Naimatullah had been invol.ved in political affairs and that resulted in his stoning. To death by the Kabul Government. That was enough to sadden Mirza Mahmud. Qadian stood exposed.

Mirza Mahmud lost no tome to send a telegram to the viceroy of India from London deploring the Simla’s telegram published in The Times, London, which stated the political invol.vement of Qadianis in Kabul affairs. He called it ‘unbelievable and misconstrued’ and stated:

"Foreign Political Department of India had already guessed in June the upcoming events. If the story of Molvi Naimatullah’s assassination attempt on Amir of Kabul is true then why the Kabul authorities arrested Ghulam Rasul and Abdul Haleem four or five months before the incident? Ghulam Rasul died due to police atrocities and Haleem was under arrest when I left Qadian. Moreover why did the Afghan Government force the British Government of India to call back Dr. Fazal Karim who is an Ahmadi and is serving in the British Embassy in Kabul? 38 These events show that all was a pre-planned affair. I do not believe that the Government of India, instead of sympathizing with the Ahmadis, who had a centre in India and who had made tremendous sacrifices for the Government and extended help to it under extraordinarily difficult conditions, would add to their anguish and grief by publishing and authenticating the ridiculous story of assassination attempt." 39 Qadiani saboteurs continued to play a heinous role in Afghan politics in subsequent years. In February 1925, two more Qadiani agents were arrested on the charge of conspiring against the integrity of the Afghan Republic and were put to death. The Interior Minister of Afghanistan issued the following statement on the execution of these Qadiani "spies". 'Two Kabulis viz. Mullah Abdul Hakeem Chahar Asani and Mullah Noor Ali shopkeeper embraced the Qadiani creed and were occupied in misleading the people from the right path. The Republic was forced to sue against them in the court. As a result of it, they were proved guilty and were done to death by the people on Thursday, the 11th of Rajab. Another case had also been pending against them for a long time and treacherous letters from foreigners against the interest of the Afghan Government were found in their possession. This shows that they had sold themselves to the enemies of Afghanistan. More details will be made public after further inquiry." 40 Qadianis extended full support in men and money to the British in their offensive to oust King Amanullah Khan from his Kingdom. Bacha Saqqa was promoted by the British to acquire the throne. It resulted in the death of hundreds of Afghan fighters. Qadianis claim that in accordance with the prophecy of the Mirza, pronounced on 15 April 1903, ‘About 85,000 man shall be slain in the dominion of Kabul’, the vicil was claimed 100,000 lives.

On 9 March, General Nadir Khan returned from France, declared was against Bacha Saqqa and captured Kabul. Unfortunately on 8 November 1933 he was shot dead. Mirza Mahmud jubiliantly declared: "Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s prophecy "Alas! Where is Nadir Shah gone"41 had been fulfilled."

Qadiani conspiracies against the solidarity of Kabul regime never ended. The anti-Afghan posture of Qadian took different shapes at different occasions. They hated the Afghan rulers openly condemned their policies.

London ‘Mosque’

Dr.Henry Leitner, an Orientalist of repute and former Principal of the Oriental College, Lahore, thought of establishing an Oriental Institute in London which should have a mosque attached to it. "He received substantial contributions from India, the largest subscribers were Her Highness, the Begum of Bhopal and Nawab Sir Salar, Jang, Prime Minister of the State of Hyderabad. Dr. Leitner setup the Institute and mosque at Woking in Surrey, some 24 miles from London. The mosque was called Shah Jehan Mosque, in honour of Begum of Bhopal and adjacent to it were erected a residential building which was named Sir Salar Jang Memorial House. After Dr. Leitner’s death the whole estate passed into the hands of his family headed by his eldest son. 42

The Mosque and the Memorial House were looked after by his family but were not put to any practical use. Syed Amir Ali and other leading Muslims then in London requested them that the estate being a Muslim foundation should be handed over them. It was not acceptable to them because they considered it their personal Property. However, a compromise was reached whereby the family handed over the Mosque and Memorial House to the control and management of the Muslims and retained the Institute and the area attached to it. 43

In 1912, Khawaja Kamaluddin was sent to England by Hakim Nuruddin to preach Qadiani beliefs. He requested Syed Amir Ali that he should be put in-charge of the Mosque and the House so that the Mosque could be used as a place of worship and the Memorial House could be used as the residence of the Imam. Syed Amir Ali agreed and a formal deed of trust was concluded in 1913 whereby the management of the Mosque and the House was vested in him. 44

In 1914, Qadiani community was divided into two belligerent groups. Fateh Muhammad Sayal, an agent of Mirza Mahmud, planted in London to check the activities of Khawaja Kamaluddin, was ousted by the Khawaja. Members of Jama'at Ahmadiyya Lahore continued to use that platform for the propagation of their ideas. The Woking Mosque is now under the Muslim control.

Qadiani Jama'at felt a great need to establish their Mission in London. The House and ground at 63, Melrose Road, London were acquired from a Jew to build a Mosque. 45 Before leaving for India. Mirza Mahmud laid the foundation stone of the ‘Mosque’ in London. The stone laying ceremony was attended by Sir Alexander Drake, former Financial Commissioner of the Punjab, Mrs. Reni Spain of India Office, the Japanese Ambassador, the German Charge’de Affairs, the Esthonian and Albanian Ministers, the Serbain consul and the Mayor of Wandsworth. The Turkish Minister was prevented by illness from attending.

It was announced that the ‘Mosque’ would be erected at a cost of about ten thousand pounds for which funds were said to be in hand. At the time of ceremony only the Mihrab or praying place was built. 46

Mirza Mahmud also made it clear that the ‘Mosque’ was meant for the worship of God and would be open to Christians and Jews alike as they believed in God. He emphasized that humble efforts of the Ahmadiyya community would help in promotion of justice, amity and love. 47

A report of the Yorkshire Observer, London says:

"This afternoon the foundation stone of the first London Mosque was laid at Southfields, under the auspices of the Ahmadiyya community which owes much to Western environment. His Holiness, the Khalifatul Masih, who leads this Community, which was founded in the Punjab thirty four years ago, and who is the third in succession to the founder, presided. The assembly proved a picturesque one, and I noticed especially the green turbans, signifying that the pilgrimage to Mecca, had been made by their wearers and the red fezes." 48 A confidential report of the Christian missionary journal says: "Other Muslims treat the Ahmadiyya movement as an impostor, but it is, nevertheless, steadily gaining converts, particularly in Western countries. It stands towards Islam as Christianity stood in its early stages towards Judaism, and its founder claimed, of course, to be the Mahdi and Messiah of prophecy." 49 The paper adds: "Many British residents in Muslim countries under our rule or influence deplored the indifferent manner in which the government treated the recent proposal that it should lend its support to a project for building a ‘Mosque’ in London worthy of the religion. The French Government has built such a Mosque for the use of its Muslims subjects, and has thereby greatly increased its prestige." 50 In the last week of October 1924 Mirza Mahmud left for India. Before his departure he said: "There is, in my opinion, a great responsibility on the shoulders of the English people. They are the nucleus and bond of the British Empire, which I hope will be strengthened more and never be shaken. For myself and my community I can assure my fellow subjects of the British Isles and other parts of the Empire that we will do our best to strengthen the movement of cooperation and unity in the British Empire, and with all the world.’ 51

Opening Ceremony

The London ‘Mosque’ served as a powerful propaganda centre in promoting the Imperialists aims. It was a church as well as a synagogue. The opening of the ‘Mosque’ after its completion in 1926 was also an interesting episode. Mirza Mahmud, at first, proposed the name of Amir Zaid, the son of former Sharif of Mecca, for the task. Subsequently his name was replaced by King Faisal of Iraq. An invitation was extended to him but he simply declined. 52 Mirza Mahmud’s real intention in proposing the name of an eminent Arab Muslim was to establish the position of that structure as Mosque as well as to project the image of Qadiani Jama'at as a missionary movement in Islam. He turned his attention towards Prince Faisal of Saudi Arabia (Shah Faisal Shaheed) and wrote to King Saud to instruct his son to inaugurate the function. He also requested Sir John Philby a great friend of King Saud, whose association with the Saud family was not above-board, to persuade him to instruct his son to perform the ceremony. 53 It may be mentioned here that Philby was the father of Kim Philby. Kim became a notorious double agent and said to have betrayed the British in the post War II period by siding with the Russians. 54

In September 1926, Amir Faisal was on an official visit to London. Mirza Mahmud sent telegrams to the senior British Officials including Mr. Jordan, British Consul at Jeddah and Mr. Victor Malet of Department of Foreign Affairs and made repeated requests to King Ibn Saud to instruct his son to perform the ceremony. The London Missionary, Abdul Rahim Dard, continued to make announcements that the proposed opening ceremony would going to be performed by Amir Faisal without getting his formal consent and confirmation.

Mirza Mahmud went to the extent of urging upon King Saud that if he could not instruct his son to perform ceremony, his Government, having already lost the sympathies of a layman, would invite the wrath of wise and educated class of India. 55

Amir Faisal did not perform the opening ceremony of the ‘Mosque’ despite strong persuasion from different British quarters. The arrival of Sir Abdul Qadir, President, Punjab Legislative Council and the editor of the Makhazan, Lahore, helped Imam Dard save his face. He had come to represent India in the League of Nations. He was persuaded to perform the pending ceremony of the Fazal ‘Mosque’, London. Tarikh-e-Ahmadiyyat says:

"Although Prince Faisal did not come yet Ahmadiyya Jama'at gained what it planned after opening ceremony of the Fazal ‘Mosque.’ The British Press gave wider publicity to the London ‘Mosque’ and Ahmadiyya Jama'at." 56 The Imam read out a message of the Khalifa, ‘the key note of which was the duty which lay equally at the door of Christian and the Mussalman was to strive for peace and friendliness on earth. To this end, houses consecrated in the name of God might be made centres of union. The Iman, in his address confessed his inability to understand the change in attitude on the part of Ibn Saud towards this effort of the Ahmadiyya community.

Sheikh Abdul Qadir protested his unworthiness to open the Mosque. First he was not a prince, and secondly he disliked ceremonies. He, however, expressed the hope that the British government would follow the example of France, and build mosque in the capital of the British Empire.

Then came a striking address by a non-Muslim, the Maharaja of Burdwan. He also conceived it his duty to attend the ceremony to give proof that Hindu and Muslim could live in amity. He was glad to have asked to attend a Muslim gathering, regarding this occasion, with Khan Bahadur presiding, as a manifestation of the catholicity of Islam. Among those who accepted the invitations to be present, were some members of the diplomatic and consular corps, Viscount Versey, Lord Vesty, Lord Ashfield, Lord Riddle, Sir Newton Moor, MP; Col Sir Authur Holbrook, MP; Sir Parkgoff MP, Sir Michael and Lady O’Dwyer, Sir William Simpson, Sir Henry Jackson, MP, Mr.H.St.J.B. Philby, Lt.Col T.S.B. Williams and Lt. Col. Cunlilffeewen. It was noticeable that no Muslim Country was officially represented.’ 57 (Italics added).

The paper concluded that the ‘Mosque’ does itself represent the kind of compromise between East and West that members of the Ahmadiyya Community endeavour to strike between Islam and Christianity. 58

References

  1. Al Mubashrat, Adara-tul Musanifin, Rabwah, P.76
  2. Tarikh Vol. V, P.393
  3. Ibid P.394
  4. News and Notes, Series XII, Nos 5 & 6 May and June 1924 (Confidential)
  5. AlFazl Qadian, 13 September, 1924
  6. AlFazl Qadian, 13 September, 1924
  7. Tarikh Vol. V.P.411
  8. AlFazl Qadian, 13 September, 1924
  9. Tarikh Vol. V,P.411
  10. AlFazl Qadian, 13 September, 1924
  11. AlFazl Qadian, 13 September, 1924
  12. AlFazl Qadian 4 September, 1924
  13. Ibid
  14. AlFazl Qadian, 4 September, 1924
  15. Tarikh, Vol. V P.412
  16. AlFazl Qadian, 22 November, 1934
  17. Zafarul Islam, Fazal-e-Omer Kay Zarin Karnamay, Qadian 1939 P.143
  18. Tarikh-e-Ahmadiyyat, Vol. V P.412
  19. AlFazl Qadian 20 September, 1924
  20. Near East And India, London, 11 September, 1924
  21. Tarikh Vol. V, P.417
  22. Mirza Mahmud Ahmad, Ahmadiyyat or the True Islam, Qadian Secend Edit. 1937
  23. Review of Religion, Rabwah, March 1963
  24. Ibid.
  25. Text of the judgment delivered by the Afghan Court of Law and ratified by two Courts of Appeal was published in the Kabul paper Haqiqat, 6 September, 1924
  26. Sardar Iqbal Ali Shah, Afghanistan and Afghans, Reprint Gosha-e-Adab, Quetta 1978 P.215
  27. See AlFazl Qadian, 18 October, 1924
  28. AlFazl Qadian, 16 October, 1924
  29. The Near East and India London, 28 August, 1924
  30. Sir Zafarullah, Tahdith-e-Naimat, Lahore, P.219
  31. Sir Zafarullah, Servant of God, P.51
  32. Aman-I-Afghan V, No.13, 1-5, Annual Register 1925, quoted by Leon B.Puollada, Reform and Rebellion in Afghanistan, 1919-29, Cornell University Press, USA 1973, P.124
  33. AlFazl Qadian, 21 February, 1925
  34. AlFazl Qadian, 24 April 1925
  35. AlFazl Qadian, 16 September, 1924
  36. Ibid
  37. The Near East and India, London 11 September, 1924
  38. Naimatullah wrote Fazal Karim a letter during his arrest from Kabul jail and remained in contact with him till his death. (see AlFazl Qadian, 11 September 1924)
  39. AlFazl Qadian, 16 October, 1924
  40. AlFazl Qadian 3 March 1925. Also Tarikh Vol. V,467 Lahore Jama'at supported Qadiani point of view on killing of Qadiani apostates/spies in Kabul (Moulvi Muhammad Ali, The Ahmadiyya Movement and Jehad, Attitude towards Afghanistan, Civil Printing Press, Lahore, 1925)
  41. Mirza Mahmud Ahmad, Sarzamin-i-Kabul Mein Aik Taza Nishan Ka Zahoor, Qadian, November, 1933
  42. Sir Zafarullah, Ahmadiyyat, P.248
  43. Ibid P.249
  44. Ibid P.250
  45. Dr. Muhammad Ismail, Tarikh-e-Masjid Fazal London, Qadian, 1927, PP.32-34
  46. The Moslim World, October 1925, P.409
  47. Tarikh-e-Ahmadiyyat Vol. V,P.427
  48. The Moslim World, October/November 1925
  49. News and Notes 1st January 1925 (Confidential)
  50. Ibid
  51. Near East and London, November, 1924
  52. Tarikh-e-Ahmadiyyat Vol. V,P.548
  53. Dr. Ismail, op. Cit. pp. 32-33
  54. Bruce Page, David Leitch and Philip Knightley, Philby - the Spy who Betrayed a Generation, London, 1980
  55. Dr. Ismail, op. cit. P.
  56. Tarikh, op. cit. P.548
  57. The Near East and India, 7 October, 1926
  58. Ibid