Life of Ahmad — Page 80
AFTER HIS FATHER’S DEATH as 80 followers of Swami Day a nand. They did not believe all that the Swami said, unless it was reasonable. This was a blow at the position of the Founder of the A rya Sam a j 15 himself, who made no attempt to defend himself. Nor could he give any reply to Ahmad’s as articles. He had to declare, on the contrary, that the number of souls was not really infinite; but that the perpetual transmigration of souls was true. He invited Ahmad as to a debate on the point through a letter and also sent three members of the Sam a j for this puropse. The invitation was promptly accepted by Ahmad as ; and in an open letter, dated June 10th, 1878. 15 B a w a N a r a ’in Singh Vak i l, Secretary A rya Sam a j, Amritsar, made a confused attempt to answer Ahmad as in the Aft a b-e-Punjab , Lahore. He also suggested an amusing correction in the Saf i r-e-Hind , dated February 23rd, 1878, to the effect that the word 'fine' should be used in place of 'prize' and that Ahmad as should satisfy him as to his capacity to pay the amount of Rs. 500. Ahmad as promptly made a fitting reply and declared that he was fully prepared to accept the conditions of B a w a N a r a ’in Singh. It is significant that Ahmad as included the name of Day a nand himself in the list of judges who were to decide the award of Rs. 500, with a detailed statement giving reasons for their decision. Nothing further was, however, heard from B a w a N a r a ’in Singh. Munshi Gurdiy a l, a teacher in the middle school, Chiniot, wrote an article in the Aftab-e-Punjab , dated May 16th, 1878. In it he dealt with the Sam a jist belief regarding all souls being uncreated. As he addressed Ahmad as in his article, Ahmad as had to write a reply which silenced the Munshi for ever. It may also be mentioned here that the Sam a j was originally founded at Bombay in 1875, but its principles had to be revised at Lahore in 1877. Even then a great controversy raged in the Sam a j as to how far the opinions expressed by Day a nand were binding on the Sam a j. In 1892 it split up into two sections; some members maintained that he was infallible, while others said that the teachings of Day a nand were not binding on the Sam a j and that a member need believe in the Ten Principles only and in nothing further (See The A rya Sam a j by Lajpat Ra’i, Lahore, 1932, pp. 111—124).