Three in One — Page 260
Why then should Abdul Hafeez shift the blame of the doings of his spiritual predecessors in the subcontinent of India onto the shoulders of Hadhrat Ahmadas against whom nearly 200 maulvis of the Indian subcontinent prepared a fatwa of kufr whereby they fell within the purview of the aforementioned. Hadeeth. Hadhrat Ahmadas alluded to this fatwa of the Indian mullah and stated: 'These people first prepared a fatwa of kufr against me and nearly 200 maulvis put their seal upon it, calling me a kafir. In these fatwas, such hostility was shown that some Ulama even wrote that these people are worse in disbelief than the Jews and the Christians. They broadcast these fatwas saying that these people must not be buried in Muslim cemeteries nor saluted with salaam and greetings, and that it is not proper to say prayers behind them because they are kafirs nor must they be allowed to enter mosques because they would pollute them but if they did enter the mosques, then these must be washed. They stated that it is allowable to steal their property and they may also be killed because they reject the impending advent of the bloody Mahdi and deny Jihad. '33. Now, if in view of such fatwas against Ahmadiyya Muslim. Community, it decided to respond in a manner which was conducive to the welfare and security of its membership, then where is the harm? Is Abdul Hafeez not aware that within one year of the initiation of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community in 1889 CE, the ulama of Punjab and other parts of India issued a joint fatwa against Hadhrat Ahmadas in which he was addressed in every derogatory word known to religious vocabulary. 34 A similar edict was issued by the ulama of Ludhiana in the same year which was no less crude in its language and which also stated in relation to Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas of Qadian 33. Ibid. , Haqeeqatul wahi, pp. 119/120; Ruhani Khazain, vol. 22, pp. 122/23 34. Fatwa Ulama e Punjab wa Hindustan, circa. 1890, pp. 41/155. vide. Life of Ahmad, pt. 1, p. 426 260