Three in One — Page 127
The second quotation on this question is claimed by Abdul. Hafeez to be a 'summary of commentary on margins in Kitab ul. Bariah 33 and if the purpose in quoting this summary is to illustrate what kind of a person Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam. Ahmadas was, then one fails to understand why the author of. Two in One should have expunged from within the text of this commentary so many of the original sentences contained in. Hadhrat Ahmad's as original work which give thorough insight to his nature. For instance, where he speaks of his 'thorough dislike to being involved in worldly matters at the cost of his spiritual pursuits. ' Or where he alludes to his 'father's insistence that he become involved in the latter's attempt to regain their landed property confiscated by the British. ' Why has Abdul. Hafeez, after citing Hadhrat Ahmad's as statement in relation to him being made by his father to represent him in this litigation against the British 35, expunged the following sentences: 'I have always regretted that so much of my precious time was wasted in this useless pursuit. My father also committed the superintendence and management of our landed property to me. I had little interest in these matters and in consequence my father was often upset with me. He was most kind and affectionate, but he desired that I should pursue worldly affairs like my contemporaries and I was much averse to it. 136. Why has the author of Two in One also expunged the passage where Hadhrat Ahmadas explained that although he became occupied in these worldly pursuit much against his disposition, he did so, not for any material gain but to earn spiritual merits: 'My father was desirous that I should be completely occupied with worldly affairs, which was contrary to my disposition. . Nevertheless, out of goodwill and in order to earn spiritual 35. Ibid. , p. 8. 36. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Kitabul Bariyyah, pp. 164/5;. Ruhani Khazain, vol. 13, pp. 182/83 127