The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement Blog

Miracles, Myths, Mistakes and MattersSee Title Page and List of Contents

See: Project Rebuttal: What the West needs to know about Islam

Refuting the gross distortion and misrepresentation of the Quran, the Prophet Muhammad and Islam, made by the critics of Islam

Read: Background to the Project

List of all Issues | Summary 1 | Summary 2 | Summary 3

August 3rd, 2010

A comment on Sir Zafrullah Khan’s “Re-institution of Khilafat”

Submitted by Ikram

Re-Institution of Khilafat by Sir Zafarullah Khan – a comment.

It is interesting to note that the sole justification for election of Khalifa-II after demise of Nurud-Din Sahib was that the assembled yelled in favor of said Khalifa. Hello! ever heard of “crowd for hire” tradition in Indo-Pakistan? Ever saw a state TV coverage of the head of states in Sub-Continent addressing herded masses? Irrespective of the sentiments of the apparently “independent minded crowd” and knowing the fact that intellectuals of the Jamaat had dissented on principle, it was morally incumbent on Khalifa-II to accept the role “thrust” on him in a transitional sense only and then he should had held Jamaat wide elections soon thereafter. But how could he, as it was an obviously staged crowd. One wonders what merits did Khalifa-II have been able to demonstrate at that point of his life when he was only twenty-five. The author of the article himself admits that due to eye ailment said Khalifa was not even a high school graduate. These are the same arguments that masses are asking now for the political dynasty taking shape in Pakistan.

Contrast this behavior with the principled stance of Muhammad Ali where the author writes – “…The Sahibzada Sahib … finally said that he and those who saw eye to eye with him were prepared to make the covenant of Bai’at at the hands of anyone whom Maulvi Muhammad Ali Sahib and his group might put forward for the office of Khalifa; but Maulvi Sahib would not agree.”

Muhammad Ali or like-minded could have put forward his own name but he did not. As a candidate Muhammad Ali had a lot to offer but did not. His stand was to preserve supremacy of institutions over personalities to which the author refers to – “…Sadar Anjuman Ahmadiyya was the true successor of the Promised Messiah and that anyone else who might be elected as Khalifa, and there could be several such persons, would have only an honorific position, but would exercise no authority…”

In the same article, the Electoral College appointed by Khalifa-II that elected Khalifa-III comprised of the following:

1. The surviving sons of the Promised Messiah.
2. The President of the Sadr Anjuman Ahmadiyya.
3. All Secretaries of the Sadr Anjuman.
4. The director General and the Directors of Tahrik Jadeed.
5. The President of Waqf Jadeed.
6. The Principal of the Talim-ul-Islam College.
7. The Headmaster of the Talim-ul-islam High School.
8. The President of the Theological Seminary.
9. The President of Ansarullah.
10. The President of Khuddam-ul-Ahmadiyya.
11. Representative of Lajna Imaillah.
12. Missionaries who had worked abroad for a minimum period of five years.
13. Missionaries who had worked within Pakistan or India for a minimum period of five years.
14. Ameers of circles in Pakistan.
15. Members of the Movement who had joined the Movement in the lifetime of the Founder of the Movement.
16. The total membership of the college is approximately one hundred and fifty.

This so-called “Electoral College” of Rabwah Jamaat has everyone included except the Electorate itself i.e. the representation of the commoner of the Jamaat which can be classically summed as “Too many chiefs and no Indian.” In any democracy, e.g. United States, each eligible citizen has the right to vote and the net win by a party in a particular state then becomes the component of national Electoral College. In sum total, unless a commoner has cast his/her vote, the Electoral College does not even come into existence.

Except line items 1 and 15 above, which are irrelevant now because of passage of time, each and everyone in the list was a relative or an appointee by the Chief Executive i.e. Khalifa-II and most likely in a salaried position. How can a subservient go against the wishes of the Master. No wonder that the façade of the Rabwah “Electoral College” has a juggernaut hold on the institution of Khilafat that historically has proven to be the proxy of the wishes and interests of the famous “Khandan.”

It is ironic that in order to sanctify Khalifa-II the above linked article tries to make comparisons between him and Umar-ibn-Khattab RA. What the author fails to mention that Umar was no son of Muhammad and drew little salary or perks of his office. He walked his personal camel to Jerusalem and back despite having the national treasury under his jurisdiction, not the First Class air travel and five-star hotels from mere donations of the members. Just so that both died the same way, does not make them equal at least not in this world. All that can be said is that We know Umar; Khalifa-II you are no Umar.

Of note are the contents of the Will of Nurud-Din Sahib (Khalifa-I) where he writes, “…My children are young and there is no money in our house. Allah is their Guardian. No provision should be made for them out of any fund for orphans and the needy. A loan might be provided for them which should be repaid by those of my sons who grow up into a position to do so….”

Any takers of the such standards of Khilafat? … Khalifa-II onwards?

11 Responses to “A comment on Sir Zafrullah Khan’s “Re-institution of Khilafat””

  1. August 3rd, 2010 at 12:02 pm
    From Zahid Aziz:

    I wish to refer to some incidents relating to Hazrat Umar while he was the second Caliph of Islam. These are taken from the classical book Tarikh-ul-Khulufa (History of the Caliphs), written five or six centuries ago by Allama Jalal-ud-Din Suyuti.

    1. Ans, who was a companion of the Holy Prophet Muhammad and his servant, relates that while he was standing in a garden on one side of a wall, Hazrat Umar was by himself on the other side, and he overheard him saying to himself: “O Umar! what are you as compared to the high rank of the chief of the Muslims? Fear God or he will punish you severely.”

    2. Umar used to say: “The person whom I love most is the one who lets me know of my faults”.

    3. Among the instructions that Umar gave as he lay dying from his wounds was: “When you carry my body out of the house for burial, walk fast, for if I am a good person in the sight of God then I should be taken to Him as quickly as possible, and if I am a bad person then you would be relieved of the burden upon your shoulders as quickly as possible.”

    4. Once Umar was unwell and people told him that he should take honey for his complaint. There was a bowl full of honey available but it belonged to the national treasury. Umar said to people: “If you allow me to use it then I will take it; otherwise it is unlawful for me.” So people allowed him to take it for his use. Thus Umar showed how responsible he was to the people whom he served.

    5. Abbas, a companion of the Holy Prophet, relates as follows. After a year had elapsed over the death of Umar, I prayed to God to show him to me in a dream. So I saw him in a dream, and he was wiping his brow of heavy perspiration. I asked him: What is the matter? He said: I have only just finished accounting (before God) for my deeds, and if God had not been merciful I would almost have been disgraced by Him.

    This dream is not to be taken in the literal, physical sense as meaning that one year is an actual period of time during which Umar was questioned by God. The dream is expressive of Umar’s deep sense of responsibility and accountability for his actions.

    When Umar lay dying, and people praised and lauded his achievements, he said it was enough that any good he had done had equalled and cancelled out the wrongs he had done!

  2. August 4th, 2010 at 8:26 am
    From Mohammed Iqbal:

    I am aware of the crowd hire culture of the subcontinent. But pls note that it was not this “hired crowd” who proposed the name of QK2. It was the venerable Syed Ameen Ahsan Amrohi who was certainly above being hired. The confusion about the nature of Ahmadiya Khilafat arose primarily because Maulana Nooruddin sahib didn’t give a ruling re it. When these things were debated during his lifetime, he didnt exactly say which side he was on. Didnt he once say that Khalifa had duties other than just leading the prayer? He is reported to have said to both the Khilafatists and non Khilafatists that since both of them have accepted him as their head, the matter should not be raised again in his lifetime. He should have issued a decisive Fatwa.

  3. @Mohammad Iqbal:
    Yes, it was Syed Muhammad Ahsan Amrohi sahib who proposed name of Mirza Mahmud Ahmad.
    Mohammad Iqbal, you have not mentioned what else Amrohi sahib stated and wrote. He regretted his decision in writing, and stated that he did NOT know about beliefs of Mirza Mahmud Ahmad, at time of proposal.
    In return Mirza Mahmud Ahmad and his cronies accused Amrohi sahib of accepting bribe (rishwat) from “Paghamis” (LAM elders).
    How you will convince a Qadiani who believes “Khalifa Khuda Banatta Hey”;
    Other than telling him ‘Hanuman Bhi Khuda Banatta Hey’?

  4. August 6th, 2010 at 5:18 am
    From Mohammed Iqbal:

    Rashid Sahib,
    Thank you for your reply. I was not aware what Hazrat Amrohi Sahib wrote later on. As for the belief that Caliphs are appointed by God, if the first four Caliphs were appointed by God, the subsequent Amavi caliphate to Usmania Caliphate too must have been appointed by God! The trouble is like Qadianis the muslim masses too believe in Caliphate but of a different kind. They believe that one day Muslims will have a khalifa who will rule the entire world. It is the duty of LAM to tell them too that their beliefs dont have the backing of Quran or Hadith. Both types of caliphate are unknown and alien to Islam.

  5. @ Rashid: there are close parallels between Catholics and Qadianis. The former made God out of a Prophet, and the latter made a Prophet out of  a Mujaddid. And the followers took it even further full circle where their God makes Pope and Khalifas for them respectively. Such minds then create the fundamental dogma of destiny in which human intelligence and freedom of thought does not count.

    7:179: Our Law has committed to Hell numerous people, rural and urban; they are living the life of hell. They have hearts that they use not to understand. They have eyes with which they see not, and ears with which they hear not. They are like cattle. Nay, they are even worse. Such are the people who have chosen to live through life in total darkness of ignorance. [Shabbir Ahmed]

    8:22. Verily, the vilest of all creatures in the sight of God are those deaf, those dumb ones who do not use their reason. [Nooruddin]

  6. It seems that the early muslims who elected the khalifa rashid were also influenced by tribal and financial reasons. i.e., the differentiation between Muhajireen and Ansar, Ahle Bait and non- ahle bait, Hashimiites and Umayyids. Then there was the matter of vast revenues coming in from various tribes and the war booty. People used to get their share very regularly.
    So, seeing your comments on the Ahmadiyya electoral college, may I ask if you would care to apply the same principles to the early Islamic electoral college?

  7. August 20th, 2010 at 3:00 am
    From yusuf mirza:

    Ok so you are saying that every single member of the family of the Promised Messiah (as) left him and went in the wrong direction? (viz your list) Every “single” member? Lolzz you are trying to please the non Ahmadis yes? you are telling them that even his own children did not understand his status or mission? non ahmadis acuse him of double speaking.They must love you people. Not one single member of the family of Promised Messiah (as) is with you people.
    Come back to Ahmadiyyat and repent!

  8. Similarities between Election of Catholic Pope and Qadiani Jamaat Khalifa in words of current Qadiani Khalifa 5 Mirza Masroor Ahmad:
    Hadhrat Khalifatul Masih V(aba): my relationship is that of great grandson but this relationship has nothing to do with the Khilafat. An electoral college is convened for the elections of Khilafat, as the Pope is elected, behind closed doors. Hence in 2003, at the demise of the Fourth Khalifa(rh), members of the Electoral College, who were from amongst notable persons from all over the world, elected a person behind closed doors; in fact, it was inside a Mosque.”
    Do LAM needs to explain further?

    Link to QK 5 visit to Shroud of Turin

  9. You can read the 1956 speech by Mirza Mahmud Ahmad entitled Khilafat-i Haqqa Islamia at this link.

    See page 2, top lines: “though Pope and the Papal system has become corrupt, we must not let this make us think why is a resemblance being given with them [in khilafat verse of the Quran]”

    Also on page 2: “Look at the Christians. Even if their khilafat is false, they have continued it for 1900 years. But the misfortune of the Muslims is that the khilafat of the Promised Messiah has only existed for 48 years and many cats are dreaming of the meat they can feed on, and are planning to destroy the khilafat.”

    Page 5 (within 1st para): “I have constituted a committee to consider the Christian way of election … Their way is very simple. A small group from among their leading learned men elects the Pope, and the rest of the Christian world accepts it.”

  10. August 21st, 2010 at 9:34 am
    From Zahid Aziz:

    Dear Mr Yusuf Mirza, I suggest that you read the 1956 speech of your Khalifa 2, which is on your Jamaat’s website at this link, and ponder on his condemnations of the family of Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din sahib. For example, he says: “At this time Shaitan has chosen the sons of Hazrat Khalifa 1, just as at the time of Adam he chose the tree of life …” (p. 5). On the same page he says that the sons of Khalifa 1, and their sons also,  are expelled from the Jamaat.

    Consider this point: You believe Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din to be khalifa appointed by Allah, and yet you also consider all his sons and their sons to be tools of shaitan and as having gone on the wrong path which would shatter the Jamaat. If someone were to apply this to the Promised Messiah and his sons, how could you object?

    But we certainly don’t go that far about the Promised Messiah’s sons as to call them tools of the devil.

  11. Mirza Mahmud Ahmad in his 1956 speech entitled Khilafat-i Haqqa Islamia.
    Page 4:
    “So I give glad news to a person whom Allah Ta`ala makes third Khalifa, if he has belief in Allah Ta`ala, then what are Mannan [Abdul Mannan Omar son of Maulana Noor Ud Din], Wahaab [Abdul Wahaab Omar son of Maulana Noor Ud Din], and Paighamis [LAM elders]? And if world governments will oppose him, they will destroyed (Shout Takbeer).”
    According to attendees who listened to the speech of Qadiani Khalifa 2 Mirza Mahmud Ahmad [QK2] and were witness:

    QK2 in his speech built the tempo and made effort to raise temperature and anger among audience and his staunch and crazy followers, with intention that they get provoked and attack and hopefully murder Abdul Mannan Omar, Abdul Wahaab Omar and their families who were present and listening to QK2 speech. Just the way as in Qadian QK2 follower Aziz Ahmad murdered Fakhar Ud Din Multani Shaheed in 1937 after listening to provoking Friday Khutaba of QK2.

    So QK2 shouted “Narah-e-Takbeer”, after uttering fiery statements against sons of Maulana Noor Ud Din. Please note it was QK2 himself who shouted “Narah-e-Takbeer”. But in reply there was NO shout of “Allah-o-Akbar” by the audience. So, QK2 tried 2nd time to provoke audience and then again shouted “Narah-e-Takbir”. Again there was no response. Then again QK2 for 3rd time made the same effort after uttering fiery statements against children of Maulana Noor Ud Din. Again there was no response by the audience.

Leave a Reply