One of the allegations against the Promised Messiahas is that he was an agent planted by the British to revoke the doctrine of Jihad from the minds of the Muslims. We have discussed in another article that the interests of the British were directed towards the evangelization of India (read here), as that they thought would guarantee the loyalty of the Indian people while the efforts of the Promised Messiahas were in opposition to the evangelization of India. The destitute state of the Muslims in India became more apparent after the mutiny of 1857.  

Although only a section of the Muslim population revolted against the British upon the encouragement of some Muslim cleric and despite the fact that Hindus also actively took part in this ‘struggle’, it was the Muslims who were viewed as traitors by the authorities. Books such as “Indian Musalmans” by W. W. Hunter, who at the time was the President of the Education Commission, depicted the Muslims as a people bound to rebel against the Queen because of their erroneous concept of Jihad.

The Promised Messiahas in the Third Volume of his book Braheen-e-Ahmadiyya strongly refuted Hunter’s remarks:

The matters which are required of the Muslims for their own betterment through their own effort and resolve will become clear upon reflection and deliberation without need of further statements or explanations. However, of these there is one matter which needs to be mentioned, on which the favour and consideration of the British government depends, and that is to clearly impress upon the mind of the Government that the Muslims of India are its loyal subjects. This is because of some ignorant Englishmen, in particular Dr. Hunter, who is currently the President of the Education Commission, and has strongly advocated in one of his well-known writings that Muslims, at heart, are not well-wishers of the Government, for they consider it an obligation to wage jihad against the British. Anyone who studies Islamic Shariah impartially will be convinced, on the basis of proofs, that this view of the doctor is absolutely baseless and contrary to the facts.

 Sadly, however, the deplorable actions of some uncivilized people, and those who are uncouth and foolish [from among the Muslims] support this view. Perhaps the illusion of the doctor has been reinforced by his incidental observations of such occurrences, as some ignorant people do occasionally perpetrate such actions. However, it cannot remain hidden from the view of a research scholar that such people are far and away from being steadfast in the religion of Islam and they are no more Muslims than McLain was a Christian. Obviously, these are their personal actions that are in no way sanctioned by the Shariah. On the other hand, there are thousands of Muslims who have always been well-wishers of, and devoted to, the British government and continue to be so. In the disturbances of 1857, with the exception of illiterate and wicked people, no decent and well-behaved Muslim, who was educated and well-mannered, took part in these disturbances at all. Rather, in the Punjab even less-privileged Muslims aided the British government beyond their means. As a gesture of goodwill and sincerity, my late father too, in spite of his limited resources, bought fifty horses and presented them, along with fifty strong and well-trained sepoys, to the Government as assistance and thus demonstrated himself to be a well-wisher beyond his straitened circumstances. As for those Muslims who were more privileged, they rendered even greater and more remarkable services.”[1]

While there were clear condemnations from various Muslim thinkers and writers on the concept of Jihad against the government, unfortunately there existed and still exists today, a party from the Muslim clergy that entertains the notion that the spread of Islam through compulsion is necessary. Inspite of the that the Promised Messiah(as) declared one form of Jihad which is an armed struggle as, forbidden in the era of peace in accordance with the prophecy of the Holy Prophetsa یضع الحرب that ‘he will put an end to religious wars’,[2] it was still alleged that the Promised Messiahas conspired with the British to injure Islam by abandoning Jihad.

In his book “The Causes of the Indian Revolt,” Sir Syed Ahmad Khan dismisses the idea that the Indian Mutiny was a religious war launched by the Muslims against the British. Rather he argues that the rebellion was based upon many grievances which had been rankling the hearts of the people under the East India Company.  He writes: “In course of time, a vast store of explosive material had been collected. It wanted but the application of a match to light it, and that match was applied by the Mutinous Army.”[3]

He says that as the British did not interfere with the Muslims in the practise of their religion, the idea of a religious crusade against the British could not be entertained. In other words, the Muslims neither had the excuse nor a legitimate reason to declare a holy war against the British. He gives the example of Shah Muhammad Ismail who had preached a religious crusade (Jehad) in India against the tyrannical Sikh rulers of the Punjab who were hindering the practice of Islam in the areas under their control.

Sir Syed Ahmad Khan writes: “Thirty-five years ago a celebrated Moulvie, Muhammad Ismael by name, preached a religious crusade in Hindustan and called upon all men to aid him in carrying it out. But on that occasion he distinctly stated that natives of Hindustan subject to the British Government could not conscientiously take part in a religious war within the limits of Hindustan. Accordingly, while thousands of Jehadees congregated in every district of Hindustan, there was no sort of disturbance raised within British Territory.”[4]

Similarly, the Ahle Hadith leader, Nawab Siddiq Hassan Khan, wrote a book called, Tarjuman e Wahabiyat to assure the British Government that the Ahle Hadith in India were loyal to the British government[5]. He stated:

No Muslim subject of India and the Indian states bears malice towards this great power[6]

In response to the impression of Islam portrayed by W. W. Hunter to the government officials, the Promised Messiahas penned ‘The British Government and Jihad’ on 22 May 1900. The book begins with the verse ھَلۡ جَزَآءُ الۡاِحۡسَانِ اِلَّا الۡاِحۡسَانُ “The reward of goodness is nothing but goodness[7]” alluding to the goodness of the British government which replaced the tyrannical Sikh rule under whom the Muslims were killed for merely calling out the Adhan[8] (call to prayer), and under British rule the Muslims enjoyed religious freedom.

The Fourth Khalifa of the Promised Messiahas delivered a Friday sermon on this very topic which was later published in a pamphlet titled ‘Was Ahmadiyya Jamaat planted by the British?’ on 01 February 1985. He revealed the truth about this allegation in light of historical facts. He presented an example of the tyrannical Sikh rule from the book Sher-e-Punjab, (published in 1872) written by Tulsi Ram:

“In the beginning the Sikh practice was to devastate and plunder. They used to plunder whatever they came upon and distribute it among their own people. The Sikhs had great enmity towards Muslims. They would not let Adhan to be called out loudly. They used to forcibly occupy mosques and start recitals of Garanth in them—calling this practice ‘maut kara’. They were given to heavy drinking. According to eyewitness accounts, when they would come upon an earthen pot, which had evidently been in use of somebody of [non-Sikh] faith, they would lash it five times with their footwear and then use it for cooking their food. In other words, they thought that by hitting it five times with their shoes they had rendered it purified”[9]

These were the Sikh rulers from whose clutches the British delivered the Muslims. Various historical records contain detailed and very painful accounts of their dreadful atrocities against Muslims.

Muhammad Ja‘far Thanisari’s book, Sawanih-e-Ahmadi, contains a published account of Hadrat Sayyid Ahmed Barelvi (who was the mujaddid, or reformer, preceding the Promised Messiahas) in which he states: “During our journey through the state of Punjab, we approached a water-well to drink water. We saw a few Sikh women who were drawing water from this well. Since we were not conversant with the local dialect, [we used sign language, and] by placing our cupped hands near our mouths we indicated to them that we were thirsty and requested them for drinking water. At this, those women cautiously looked around and then addressed us in Pashto, saying: ‘We are Muslim women, of Afghan origin and were residents of such and such country and village. The local Sikhs have forcibly brought us here.’[10]

The details of atrocities committed by the Sikhs, contained in the Encyclopaedia of Sikh Literature, are heart-rending. These include accounts of numerous acts of defilement of Muslim women, destruction of mosques and converting them into stables for donkeys, killing Muslims for calling out the Adhan (call to prayer). Hazrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad writes: Human history passes through various transient phases. Whenever ignorance gets the better of humanity such actions proliferate. So, the real question in this context is not whether the Sikhs were alone in these atrocious acts historically. The real question is, is it not an act of humanity to express one’s gratitude to a nation that delivered the Muslims from persecution?

The British Government & Jihad
The British Government & Jihad

There were also other reasons for writing this book. Since the Promised Messiahas had put forward his claim of Messiah and Mahdi, many Maulvis according to their belief among that the Promised Messiahas would wage war against non-believers were comparing the Promised Messiahas to the Mahdi of Sudan. Some years before the Promised Messiahas announced his mission in March 1889, the Mahdi of Sudan appeared and declared Jihad against the British but was defeated by them in 1882. The British Government in India had not forgotten that event.

The Christian clergy who met repeated defeats at his hand were looking for some excuse to have the Promised Messiah imprisoned, and because his family were known as Mughal, it was proposed by some that had made this claim to demand the lost throne of Mughals, lost in the Sepoy Mutiny of 1857 in India.

Therefore, it became necessary for the Promised Messiahas to propound the true stance of Islam on Jihad. Hence, this book The British Government and Jihad clarified that Islam does not allow Muslims to take up arms against a government which ensures complete religious freedom, the rule of law, and fully protects life and property. He made it clear that his praise and loyalty to the government was prompted by three facts: The British government had liberated Muslims in the Punjab from the tyranny of Sikhs, it had established complete peace and had given complete religious freedom. 

Thus, the Promised Messiah as not only explained the true concept of Jihad, but he also mentioned the reasons why some Muslims, especially in the frontier region[11] were hostile towards the British. He writes that collective effort of the Maulvis and Christian priests had led to the defamation of Islam.

The Promised Messiahas writes: “At this point I must with great regret say that although ignorant maulavis have instructed the ordinary public in plunder and killing by calling these actions jihad, Christian clerics have also done something similar. They have, in Urdu, Pashto and other languages, produced thousands of publications, journals and flyers alleging that Islam was spread by the sword. This literature, which has been distributed by them in India, Punjab and the Frontier Region, wrongly claims that Islam is synonymous with violence. The people’s penchant for violence has increased as a result of the combined testimony of the maulavis and Christian clerics. The dangerous lies of the Christian clerics create unrest and rebellion, and, in my view, it is essential that our government prohibits them[12]

The Promised Messiahas also urged the Amir of Kabul to educate the public and remove such errors which would gradually calm the false passions instilled by the maulvis. The Promised Messiah also warned that “The Amir’s citizens will surely suffer if he fails to pay heed to this essential reform.[13] Sadly, this warning went unheeded as it became evident upon the Martyrdom of Abdul Rehman, and Sahibzada Abdul Latifra.[14]

The Promised Messiahas wrote an addendum to “The British Government and Jihad” in which he explained his claim of being the Messiah and Mahdi. He discussed the religious extremism rampant at the time and the vilifying attacks of Christian priests on Islam, and he presented a proposal to ban all parties from negative attacks on other faiths for the period of five years. Such an action he said would have a beneficial impact on society and would promote peace and friendship.

The Promised Messiahas wrote:

“The Christian priests have embarked on a very dangerous course of action. On one side, they falsely argue that the Qur’an summons Muslims to jihad at all times and occasions, as if seeking to draw attention towards this tradition. And then they incite the Muslims’ passion with provocative literature. It is unclear why these people naïvely fail to recognise that these actions can combine to produce dangerous consequences. I have written repeatedly that jihad is certainly not a Qur’anic commandment. The truth of the matter is simply that some of Islam’s early opponents wanted to forcibly restrain or rather annihilate it. Islam raised the sword against them only in self-defence. Only for such enemies was it ordered that they could be killed unless they accept Islam. This permission was for specified circumstances and not forever. Islam is not responsible for the erroneous or self-serving actions of the monarchies that came after the time of the Prophetsa. Anyone who raises the issue of jihad to deceive ignorant Muslims in fact wants to promote this poisonous habit… Because of these concerns, I have twice before requested His Excellency the Viceroy to suspend debates in which one party criticises the religion of another. However, up to this point no attention has been given to these suggestions. For the third time, I humbly request His Excellency to ban this practice of attacking the faiths of others for a period of at least five years. These practices are leading to chaos in the country, so much so that friendly meetings of different groups have ceased to occur…I believe that the poisonous growth of envy and spite, which is secretly flourishing, will quickly disappear if our wise government passes a law that: [a] prohibits all parties, including the clerics of the Church, from indulging in negative attacks on other religions for a period of five years, [b] asks all parties to live together with love and civility, and [c] encourages all groups to focus on the positive features of their own religions. Not every ruler or administrator can implement or accept my suggestion. Only a highly astute administrator will under-stand its true significance. I hope that his Excellency the Viceroy Lord Curzon, who is both broad-minded and perceptive, will consider this suggestion and implement it with determination.”[15]

On September 27, 1899, the Promised Messiahas had previously addressed the Viceroy of India, Lord Curzon, by means of a leaflet which was published as a third supplement to the book ‘Tiryaq Ul Qulub’ (Panacea of the Souls). In this he referenced, by way of introduction, the services which he and his family had rendered to the cause of peace and gave an assurance that he was a sincere well-wisher of the Government and the country. He said that the forceful language which he had used in some writings against Christian missionaries was in response to their continuous attacks on Islam and the founder of Islam. The Promised Messiahas in his book Kitab ul Bariyya (The Acquittal) published a thirty-page long list of such books in which vilifying attacks were made against the Holy Prophet.[16]

The Promised Messiahas had not formed this belief as a result of any pressure or fear from the government. Rather he declared that gratitude towards a beneficent government was an Islamic belief. However, many other scholars who inwardly believed and proclaimed to the Muslims that an armed struggle against the government was necessary, instigated the public against the Promised Messiahas saying that he had revoked jihad due to a sense of hopelessness or mere flattery. At the same time, they would caution the government that the Promised Messiahas was a very dangerous man who claimed to be the Imam Mahdi but in fact held seditious motives towards the British Empire.

These so-called scholars embodied hypocrisy of the worst kind. Maulvi Muhammad Hussain Batalvi was known to some of the high officials of the government, and it was through his efforts that the name of the sect Wahhabism which was linked to extremism and had a radical connotation was changed to Ahle Hadith in the government papers. Maulvi Muhammad Hussain Batalvi wrote in his Isha‘atus Sunnah, vol. 16, footnote 4,:                 

“[Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani’s] being deceptive is proven by the belief in his heart that it is permissible, and lawful to commit murder against, and rob the property of, a government which subscribes to a different religious belief. [What a robust ‘proof’ this is, indeed: ‘… the belief in his heart..’!] So it would not be prudent for the Government to trust him, and it is essential to remain wary of him. Otherwise, this Mahdi Qadiani will wreak such havoc which even the Mahdi Sudani did not cause.”

The Promised Messiahas was therefore a common enemy for the Muslims and Christians. The scholars of both faiths joined hands and published such false information extensively declaring him as rebellious. Padri Imad ud din in his book Tauzin ul Aqwal called the entire work of the Promised Messiah(as) ‘political’ and stated “It looks to me as if a number of men in the same secret had formed a Committee, with the Mirza Sahib as Chairman, the purpose of which is to secure, by making Messianic claims, a large Muhammadan following, and then when the time is ripe, to make a political demonstration against the peace of the country”[17]

Professor Griswold quoted the statement of Padri Imad ud deen in his book “Mirza Ghulam Ahmad: The Mehdi Messiah of Qadian.” which will be discussed in detail in the forthcoming chapters. These submissions and observations were taken by the opponents quite seriously. For instance, the famous English newspaper of the time, the Civil and Military Gazette, Lahore, which was held in high esteem and remained in publication for a very long time, picked up on these false allegations and wrote an editorial on 24 October 1894 titled “A Dangerous Fanatic”. It cautioned the British not to be taken in by the facade of peacefulness maintained by the Promised Messiah(as). It alleged that this dangerous man would destroy the British government.

The Civil & Military Gazette

The consequence of such allegations was quite serious, especially in the era that is being discussed here. For instance, an Ahle Hadith scholar Nawab Siddiq Hassan Khan discussed above, who was the husband of Shahjahan Begum of Bhopal in his book Hujajul Kiramah, described the coming of the Mahdi at the end of the 13th or the beginning of the 14th century.[18] Due to some of his comments against the government he was put under house arrest and his titles were revoked.

The Promised Messiahas requested many affluent Muslim rulers to make donations for the publication of Braheen-e-Ahmadiyya, including the Ahle Hadith Scholar Nawab Siddiq Hassan Khan, who promised to buy fifteen to twenty copies of the book. However, when he was reminded, he wrote back that it was contrary to the desires of the British government to purchase or to make any contribution towards books in relation to religious debates, and so the Promised Messiahas should not entertain any hope that his State would be making a purchase or helping in any other way.

The Promised Messiahas stated in the fourth Volume of Braheen-e- Ahmadiyya:

“So, I too do not place any hope in the nawwab. The Benevolent God alone is my hope and He indeed is sufficient. (May the British government be well-pleased with the nawwab.)…It is not a principle of the British government to stop anyone from proving the truth of his religion or from giving a donation [for the publication] of religious books. The Government would only intervene if a piece of writing disrupts the peace or is subversive to the State.”[19]

Despite the response received earlier from the nawab, the Promised Messiahas sent him a free copy of Braheen-e-Ahmadiyya which was returned and when it reached the Promised Messiahas it had been torn up. On seeing the state of the book, which was written solely for the defence of Islam, the face of the Promised Messiahas became red with displeasure, He stated: “You may please your government[20]

The Promised Messiahas referring to Nawab Siddiq Hassan Khan in Haqiqatul-Wahi (The Philosophy of Divine Revelation) writes:

“Among the Signs of Allah the Exalted which appeared in my support is the Sign pertaining to Nawab Siddiq Hasan Khan, a Minister in the State of Bhopal, and it is as follows: Nawab Siddiq Hasan Khan had written in some of his books that when the Promised Mahdi would appear, monarchs belonging to other faiths would be arrested and brought before him. In this context, he also said that since this country was under the British rule, it was quite possible that when the Mahdi appeared, the Christian monarch of this country would also be brought before him. These were the words that he used in his book and are still to be found therein, and these words were taken as evoking rebellion. It was an error on his part that he wrote such a thing because no authentic hadith is proven about such a blood-shedding Mahdi……However, since Nawab Siddiq Hasan Khan was under the influence of extreme Wahhabism, he threatened non-Muslims with merely the sword of the Mahdi, and was eventually caught. He was stripped of his title of Nawab and he wrote very humbly to me, requesting me to pray for him. Considering his situation pitiable, I prayed for him and God Almighty addressed me saying:

سرکوبی سے اس کی عزت بچائی گئی

His honour has been saved from being shattered.

I informed him of this through a letter and I also informed many others who were then my opponents. Among them were Hafiz Muhammad Yusuf—a district irrigation officer, presently a pensioner, and a resident of Amritsar—and Maulawi Muhammad Husain Batalavi. After some time, the Government issued orders to the effect that Siddiq Hasan Khan’s title of ‘Nawab’ would be restored, as if it was understood that what he had said was only an antiquated religious belief which dwelt in his heart and that he did not intend to be seditious.”[21]

Thus, it is clear that the consequences of these allegations were dangerous, therefore the Promised Messiahas had to refute and clarify his beliefs in many of his books where he exposed the hypocrisy of these scholars.  This hypocrisy was evident from the actions of Muhammad Hussain Batalvi. Despite having published that the Promised Messiahas was a loyal subject, even including some of the certificates granted by the government officials to the father and the brother of the Promised Messiah as for their services in the mutiny of 1857[22], he later blatantly lied to the Government. In order to find favour with the authorities stated that he neither believed in a violent Jihad, nor did he believe in a Mahdi who would shed blood. he further shamelessly submitted to the Government that the beliefs of the Promised Messiah as were completely opposed to his own. The Promised Messiah as in his book Haqiqatul Mahdi (The True Nature of Mahdi) compared his beliefs with those of Nawab Siddiq Hassan Khan who had been declared by Muhammad Hussain Batalvi and other Ahle Hadith scholars of the time, as the Mujadid (Rejuvinator) of their century. He did this to draw attention to the difference between his position and that of Nawab Siddiq Hassan Khan to demonstrate the hypocrisy of these scholars, due to the sheer enmity that they held against the Promised Messiahas.

The hypocritical nature of these scholars, who alleged the Promised Messiahas to be an agent of the British is further demonstrated by the fact that they later aligned their viewpoint with that of the Promised Messiahas and signed a Fatwa that Jihad against the British is forbidden because the Muslims enjoy full religious liberty.[23] This was reported in the Homeward Mail on Oct 19th, 1907.

The Homeward Mail

However due to the misinformation spread by scholars against the Promised Messiahas, the government was suspicious of him and his community despite his clarification of his position in his various books. Secret police would keep an eye on the community’s activities and would report on his whereabouts and record the names of those who would come to visit the Promised Messiahas. One such individual was Hakim Ali who was appointed as superintendent police in Qadian.[24] Often respected members of society were told not to meet the Promised Messiah on the grounds that the government was suspicious of him. In fact, they were always in search of any such information which would lead to an arrest.

The reason for the above suspicion was the Promised Messiah’s claim of being the Mahdi. The erroneous notion of bloodshed attached to the advent of the Mahdi was strengthened by the incident of the Mahdi of Sudan which was fresh in the minds of the British. One such example is given below which shows the connotation in which the title ’Mahdi’ was being discussed in the British Press.[25]

The West Somerset Free Press

The members of the community also had to face many difficulties at government level. The Promised Messiahas himself was not satisfied with the government’s policy up to his demise.[26].

Yet based on the teachings of Islam the Promised Messiahas always preached loyalty to a government which granted peace and freedom of belief. Every opportunity was taken to remove such misinformation. One example is from July 1899 when a respectable government officer had come to Qadian. The Promised Messiahas invited him to dinner and before the food was served, the Promised Messiah as delivered a speech on the topic “The Purpose of the Establishment of the Ahmadiyya Community”. The Promised Messiahas explained that his entire mission was religious and spiritual in nature and that it was to dispel such beliefs which posed a danger to people from every aspect. The Promised Messiahas further refuted the idea of violence and its connection with Islam. Discussing this issue, the Promised Messiahas stated:

A religion of compulsion is no religion at all. In short, terrifying doctrines of this sort and false ideologies have taken root in the hearts of people, and it is to dispel and replace them with peaceful doctrines that my community has been established. As has always been the case, people of worldly bent have always opposed divine reformers, saints and those who came to teach virtue. So, too, has been the case with me. My opponents have spread false information about me purely by way of slander and calumny, to such an extent that in order to cause me grief they even submitted false reports about me to the government, stating that I was a conspirer who harboured intentions of rebellion.[27]

The absurdity of this allegation is apparent from the fact that those who accuse the Promised Messiahas of flattery or being the agent of the British government against the doctrine of Jihad do not know that their forefathers had accused him and reported him to the government as a seditious. Although the allegations of the opponents are farcical, the evidence yet again proves the truthfulness of the Promised Messiahas. His entire life was spent not only defending Islam but establishing the superiority of Islam through literary work, debates and interfaith dialogues and most importantly proving that Islam is a living religion through the demonstration of heavenly signs. The later chapters will also present the reports of Christian missionaries stating the community of the Promised Messiahas to be utmost antagonistic towards Christian beliefs.

The Promised Messiahas states:

So, be advised, O you who are uninformed! I do not indulge in any flattery of this government. Rather, in the light of the Holy Qur’an, it is prohibited to wage a religious war against a government which does not itself interfere in the religion of Islam or religious practices – nor does it draw its sword against us in an attempt to promote its own religious beliefs. The reason for that is that this government is not waging any religious war.”[28]

Again, he wrote:

“My temperament never felt inclined to mention these consistently performed services to the Government authorities, because I was not motivated by any desire to be acclaimed or compensated for that. Quite the contrary, I felt it was my duty to explicitly acknowledge the truth.”[29]


[1] BRAHIN-E-AHMADIYYA PART THREE P. 8-9

[2] Fathul Bari commentary on Hadith Bukhari 3448 Chapter: The advent (descent) of ‘Isa (Jesus), son of Maryamas

[3] The Causes of the Indian Revolt by Sir Sayyad Ahmad Khan P.3

[4]  The Causes of the Indian Revolt by Sir Sayyad Ahmad Khan P.3

[5] Metcalf, Dr Barbara Daly. Islamic Revival in British India p.279

[6]  Nawab Siddiq Hassan Khan. Tarjuman-e-Wahabiyat P.4-6

[7] Surah Ar-Rahman Ch. 55 V.61

[8] The British Government and Jihad P.15

[9] Was Ahmadiyya Jamaat planted by the British by Mirza Tahir Ahmad P.7

[10] Ibid P8

[11] The North Western Frontier Province of India (now Pakistan) and contiguous regions of Afghanistan.

[12] THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT 10 AND JIHAD P.10-11

[13] THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT AND JIHAD P. 21

[14] The book Tazkiratul Shahadatain (The Narrative of Two Martyrdoms) explains the detail account of these martyrdoms.

[15]  THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT AND JIHAD P. 39-41

[16] Kitabul Bariyya Ruhani Khazaen Vol 13 P.122

[17] Tauzin ul Aqwal by Padri Imad ud deen P.5/ Mirza Ghulam Ahmad: The Mehdi Messiah of Qadian P.25

[18] Hujajul Kiramah by Sadeeq Hassan Khan P.395

[19] BarĀhĪn-e-aHmadiyya — Part Four P.13

[20] Tarikh-e-Ahmadiyyat Vol 1 P. 188

[21] Haqiqatul-Wahi (The Philosophy of Divine Revelation) P.581-585

[22] Ishat-u-Sunnah Vol 7 Number 6 P.176-177

[23] The Homeward Mail Oct 19th 1907

[24] AlFazal 21 September 1923/ Seerat-ul-Mahdi Vol 1 P. 257, Vol 4 P.141

[25] West Somerset Free Press – Saturday 09 October 1897 P.3

[26] Tarikh-e-Ahmadiyyat Vol 2 P. 100

[27] AlHakam 24 July 1899/ Malfoozat – Volume II P.30

[28]  (Kishti-e-Nuh, Footnote 68)

[29] Kitabul Bariyyah, Ruhani Khaza’in, vol. 13, p. 340.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *