Fazl-e-Umar — Page 20
Fazle Umar 20 apparent from the following incident, when it was appropriate Huzur was very strict with his children. The difference was only that when Huzur personally felt the effect of the incident, he never reproached Hadhrat Musleh Mau’ood [ra] no matter how much discomfort his actions may have caused. But as far as religious matters were concerned, or such mistakes were committed that posed a danger of affecting one’s character adversely, he certainly reprimanded him gently or sternly as the occasion demanded. This differentiation is most important and carries a deep lesson for those who have the grave responsibility for moral training, as to where the limits of toler- ance end and the requirements of strictness begin. To illustrate this differentiation, two minor incidents are narrated here. Hadhrat Sahibzada Sahib himself has narrated the first one: n ational Sense of Honour “Once a dog came to our door as I stood there. Huzur was in the room alone. I beckoned the dog calling, ‘Teepu! Teepu!! Huzur came out in a distress and said, ‘aren’t you ashamed? The English because of animosity have named their dogs after the name of a sincere Muslim and you are copying them and call the dog Teepu. Beware! Never repeat it again!’ “I was only eight or nine at the time and it was the first day when the love of Teepu Sultan was established in my heart. ” 5 While on the one hand we conclude from this incident that to tolerate every action of a child without distinction does not fall under the definition of forbearance, we can also guess to some extent, the limitless religious and sense of national honour of the Promised Messiah [as]. He tolerated the action of this child when he set fire and reduced in a moment to dust his priceless manuscripts prepared with hard labour of, God knows, how many hours and how many nights and ignored the trouble of re- writing, yet he could not tolerate the innocent disrespect of a Muslim King who was