Three in One — Page 301
When Hadhrat Ahmad as read this second challenge, he directed the editor Badr, to announce: 'In reply to this challenge, I wish to convey to Maulvi. Sanaullah Sahib the good news that Hadhrat Mirza Sahibas has accepted his challenge. He should therefore solemnly declare that Hadhrat Ahmadas has fabricated his claim. He should then pray that if he, Maulvi Sanaullah, has lied in this utterance, then the curse of God shall befall the liar. 175. But the mullah, as was shown earlier, had admitted that he dared not enter into such a controversy. Hence, he shifted his position once again and publicly declared: 'I have not challenged you to a mubahala. I have only declared my willingness to take an oath but you can call it a mubahala whereas a mubahala involves the parties taking an oath in a contest against each other. I have declared my readiness to take an oath and have not issued a challenge to a mubahala. Taking a unilateral oath is one thing and mubahala is quite another. 176. What Sanaullah was suggesting here was that he had not intended to invite Hadhrat Ahmadas to curse the Maulvi while he himself, was quite prepared to unilaterally invoke such a curse upon Hadhrat Ahmadas. This is exactly the same position adopted by Abdul Hafeez in his Mubahala challenge contained in his publication, Two in One. He, for instance, demands of. Ahmadi Muslims that they desecrate the grave of Hadhrat. Ahmadas to prove the truthfulness of their stand while he does not offer to reciprocate in any similar manner whatsoever. ". However, this retreat by the Ahle Hadeeth maulvi gave evidence that he had, once again, shifted from his original position where he had demanded that Hadhrat Ahmad as be confronted against him. 75. Badr, Qadian. 4 April, 1907 76. Amritsari, Maulvi Sanaullah. Ahle Hadeeth, 19 April, 1907 77. Shah, Syed Abdul Hafeez. Two in One, p. 19 301