The anti-Ahmadiyya have alleged that Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad recommended to the British government of India that British soldiers stationed in India should have prostitutes provided for them from Britain itself.
They have pointed to a passage in volume 1 of the book Mujaddid-i Azam, the biography of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad written by Dr Basharat Ahmad. This volume was published in Urdu in 1939 and its English translation was published as The Great Reformer in 2007. The passage in the published English translation is as follows:
“The British Government had allowed brothels in the military cantonments to service the needs of British soldiers. In order to prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, the prostitutes were required to undergo medical examinations periodically. Later, under pressure from the puritanical elements of the British society, the compulsory medical examinations were made illegal. With the change of government in London, a movement was started to restore the medical exams and the London Times wrote several articles in its support.
When Hazrat Mirza learned of this, he published a notice in which he drew the attention of the government to the fact that it was only in Islam that fornication had been declared wrong and sinful under all circumstances. He petitioned the government to find ways to maintain the morals of its soldiers and to stop them from fornicating, but if this could not be done, then the government should import British prostitutes for the Britons. Indian women should not be used to satisfy the lasciviousness of the British soldiers.”
(v. 1, p. 572; underlining is ours. In the original Urdu book, see v. 1, p. 441)
I have underlined the words which are objected to by our critics.
1. Firstly, it appears that there is no writing by Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad containing the underlined words. This suggestion of importing prostitutes was in fact made by an Indian newspaper which Hazrat Mirza has merely quoted in his book Arya Dharm. Before quoting it he has commented and emphasised that it is only Islam which prohibits every kind of fornication and provides teachings on its avoidance in all kinds of circumstances.
Therefore, we in the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement have no hesitation in acknowledging that an error has been made in Mujaddid-i Azam in attributing these words to him. Perhaps by a printing mistake some text has been omitted after the words “to stop them from fornicating”, which makes it appear as if the underlined words are being attributed to Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.
2. Secondly, it may be objected that even if Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad did not write these words, a close follower of his has done so and thinks it is appropriate advice. But why is this statement objectionable? It is simply saying that if you cannot refrain from this immoral practice then please do not involve our Indian community in it, but go and do it among your own people who regard it as legitimate. Just before this, this statement says:
“it was only in Islam that fornication had been declared wrong and sinful under all circumstances”
This is a practical approach which is adopted today by Muslims living in the West. When they find that certain immoral practices are being promoted by Western people, Muslims say to them: Go and indulge in these yourselves, but do not involve us or our children.
The Quran itself says that fornicating men and women should confine their relations between themselves, and keep separate from the believers (24:3). It also says: “Unclean things are for unclean ones and unclean ones are for unclean things, and good things are for good ones and good ones are for good things” (24:26). Can it be said that the Quran is approving of this immoral behaviour?
3. Thirdly, our critics would not have objected if the above underlined words of the statement had been different as follows:
“… but if this could not be done, then the government should do what many Muslim Ulama advocate to Muslims: that the women of the conquered countries be distributed among the soldiers of the conquering army for use as concubines (sex slaves).”
Why would our critics not object at all to making this recommendation? It is because most of them believe in the allowability of concubines. To show this, we quote from Maulana Maudoodi’s famous commentary of the Quran, Tafheem-ul-Quran, in his footnote 44 to verse 4:24. Maulana Maudoodi writes:
“(1) It is not lawful for a soldier to have conjugal relations with a female prisoner of war as soon as she falls into his hands. The Islamic Law requires that all such women should be handed over to the government which has the right to … … distribute them among the soldiers. A soldier can only have sexual relations with the woman who has been given to him by the government officially as his property.
(6) While the Shariah has imposed a limit of four on the number of wives (for one man), there is no limit on the number of captive women (for one man)…
(8) The official handing over of the property rights over a slave-girl to a man by the government has the same legal standing as the legal standing of Nikah. Therefore, there is no reason why a man who feels no aversion to Nikah should feel any aversion to sexual enjoyment with a slave-girl.”
Our critics should ponder whether, in accordance with their beliefs about concubines, the Muslim opponents of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad should have suggested to the British government that they adopt these so-called Islamic rules for their soldiers.
— Zahid Aziz
You have previously sent us enquiries under different names and I have replied to you directly by e-mail but you…
----Aug 12, 06:53