Telling it like it is - The Split: Anjuman V. Khilafat | Part C

This article was first published in its entirety in the 2008-2 issue of The The Muslim Sunrise, the oldest Muslim publication of the United States. Due to the obvious lack of space to reprint the entire article in one 'shot' here at Ahmadiyya Times, this is the third in a four part series addressing the question of the split of Ahmadi Muslims that occurred in the early 20th century. Each of the next three parts will be released on successive days at 5:00 AM [PST]. You can read the previous part here. [Part A, Part B, Part C]

Ahmadiyya Times | Articles | Part two of four
Source & Credit: The Muslim Sunrise | Issue 2/2008
By Fazil Jamal

Part C | Anjuman v. Khalifa: The Debate Within

We shall presently examine the guidance of the Promised Messiah on the issue of future direction of the Community and the practice of the Jama’at upon his death. With clear intimations from God of his impending mortality, Hadhrat Ahmad published a booklet in Urdu, entitled Al-Wassiyyat in 1905. In this testamentary declaration, the Promised Messiah referred to the enduring character of the work of the Community and gave clear indication that God would help the Community after his death, with the Second Manifestation of His Power, as had happened at the death of Holy Prophet Muhammad. The historical reference was to the time when Allah had raised Abu Bakr to rally the Muslim community at a critical point in the history of Islam. Hadhrat Ahmad further gave guidance to the Community to sustain and expand the larger goals of his mission, the propagation of Islam as expounded by him. 

Hadhrat Ahmad established the Sadr Anjuman Ahmadiyya with the task of administering the community’s expanding range of affairs and appointed Maulawi Hakim Nuruddin its President. Apart from the President, among the prominent members of the Anjuman in the early days were Maulana Muhammad Ali, Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmad, Maulawi Sayyid Muhammad Ahsan, Khawaja KamaludDin and Doctor Sayyid Muhammad Hussain. While there were clashes of personal views about the functioning and orientation of the Anjuman and associated matters between Maulana Muhammad Ali and Maulawi Hakim Nuruddin , they never took a larger ideological color during the lifetime of the Promised Messiah.

Upon the death of Hadhrat Ahmad, Maulawi Hakim Nuruddin was elected to the office of Hadhrat Khalifatul Messiah. When the institution of Khilafat was in the contemplation of the Community, Maulana Muhammad Ali agreed to go along with the prevailing consensus: to enter the Bai’at of Hadhrat Khalifatul Messiah I. It is also instructive to note the Maulana was one of the original signatories to the Statement issued by Khwaja Kamaluddin , member and secretary of Sadr Anjuman Ahmadiyya, on the institution of Khilafat in the community, part of which is reproduced below: “Before the funeral prayer for the Promised Messiah all members of the community who were present in Qadian and whose number was twelve hundred, accepted Hadhrat Haji Hakim Nur-ud-Din, may Allah keep him, as his Successor and Khalifa, according to the directions set out in Al- Wassiyyat and in conformity with the recommendation of the members of the Sadr Anjuman Ahmadiyya then in Qadian and the relatives of the Promised Messiah, and with the permission of Hadhrat Ummul Mu’minin; and took the pledge of allegiance to him”.

While being a signatory to the new order of Khilafat, Maulana Muhammad Ali had his reservations on the issue. The Maulana later wrote: “The Promised Messiah died in Lahore. When his body arrived in Qadian, Khawaja Kamal-ud-Din told me in the garden that it was proposed that Hadhrat Maulawi Nur-ud-Din should be his Successor. Then he told me that it was also proposed that all Ahmadis should swear allegiance to him. On this I observed that this was not necessary. Only new members of the Movement had to take the oath of allegiance, and that was what was laid down in Al-Wassiyyat. I am still of the view that those who had sworn allegiance to the Promised Messiah are under no obligation to swear allegiance to any one else. Yet I took the pledge in order to maintain accord in the Community.”

This oath of allegiance at the hands of the Khalifa created a problem of complementarity for the Maulana with his own line of thinking. For the time being, he was forced by the prevailing circumstances to go along with the dominant view within the Community. The strategic calculations of the dissident group was apparent to keen observers of the scene. As Sir Zafrullah Khan astutely observed later: “Under the stunning impact of the sudden death of the Promised Messiah, they had committed themselves too far to leave room for a bare-faced volte-face. They had themselves tied their own hands too tightly. They soon realized that they had made a mistake, and began to cast about for devices to help them pull back from a difficult situation with the minimum loss of face. A direct confrontation with the Khalifa would not be tolerated by the bulk of the community and would, therefore, be unwise”.

It was this unedifying predicament that led the dissidents to rationalize their critique against Khilafat and legitimize their rejection of the system on grounds of doctrinal revision and purity of the faith. In course of time, the nature of power and authority wielded by the office of Khalifa began to be questioned by at least by a section of the influential members of the Anjuman. The idea that the office of the Khalifa was purely spiritual and that for the purpose of the regulation of the community and the administration of its affairs the Sadr Anjuman was the successor of the Promised Messiah began to gain some advocates such as Khwaja Kamaluddin . They maintained that “Promised Messiah had given the status of finality to the decision of the Board of Trustees of Sadr Anjuman Ahmadiyya.”

Two developments helped to muddle the issues further. First, the fact that Hadhrat Khalifatul Messiah I was also the President of the Anjuman created an ambivalent situation and even confusion about the respective roles and responsibilities of both offices. For instance, as noted by Sir Zafrullah Khan , “in the minutes of the proceedings of the Anjuman the directions of Hadhrat Khalifatul Messiah were referred to as the directions of the President”. Secondly, and more importantly, as per the existing rules of the Anjuman, it was a “self renewing body”: “by its rules, which were approved on the recommendation of Khawaja Kamalud-Din, a vacancy among the members of the Anjuman, arising from the death or resignation of a member, was filled by nomination by a majority of the remaining members. So that, once as many as eight members, out of a total of fourteen, found themselves in accord with each other, they formed a majority which could perpetuate itself by filling every vacancy by nominating a like-minded person”.

The self renewing character of the Anjuman made it susceptible to the perils of groupism and partisanship. The growing assertion of authority by the Anjuman created clouds of confusion on the question of supremacy of the Khalifa. The Khalifa called for a comprehensive meeting of the Community, which was duly convened on 3st January 1909, when members and delegates from far and wide
were present. The meeting gave everyone concerned the opportunity to freely and frankly air their views and test the legitimacy of their opinions against the standard of public acceptance. Reflecting on the question, in that historic setting, Hadhrat Khalifatul Masih I finally made it clear to the minority dissident group that created the confusion, in no uncertain terms: “You cannot derive any benefit from this controversy. No one will make you Khalifa, nor can anyone else become Khalifa in my lifetime. When I die only that one will arise whom God chooses, and God will Himself raise him.”

It is instructive to note that the greatest bulwark in the revolt against the authority of Khilafat at the time was the personal stature and authority of the then Khalifa himself. Furthermore, by consulting the bulk of the community on the matter, the Khalifa adhered not just to the Islamic principles of democratic deliberation and consultation, but also blunted the ‘parliamentary’ argument of the dissident group. While Hadhrat Khalifatul Masih I was alive, the dissidents could not directly confront the institution of Khilafat, primarily because of the personal reputation of piety and scholarship and the remarkable esteem in which he was looked up to by the rank and file of the community. In a way it was the great fortune of the Ahmadiyya Community to have been led by such an august figure in the spiritual world of the time.


Previously Published:
February 10, 2010 | 5:00 AM [PST] | Part A | The darkest hour is before the dawn
February 11, 2010 | 5:00 AM [PST] | Part B | The Split: A Moment Frozen in Time

Coming up next:

February 13, 2010 | 5:00 AM [PST] | Part D | In Lieu of Conclusion

-- Ahmadiyya Times staff selection