Truth About the Split — Page 136
136 was not my article a piece of sheer inanity, and, in that case, was not the action of the Khalifatul Masih ra in correcting it and sanctioning its publication something still less complimentary? To say therefore that the Khalifatul Masih ra permitted the publication of my article because he understood it in the sense quoted by Khwaja Kamaluddin, is something altogether without foundation, and constitutes in itself a refutation of Maulawi Muhammad Ali’s contention. But I do not stop here. I am prepared to cite the writings of Maulawi Muhammad Ali himself in refutation of his own statement. In his book, Maulawi Muhammad Ali writes:" M. Mahmud had taken up another point viz. the question of Kufr of those who did not formally accept the Bai‘at of the Promised Messiah as. " Now if, as stated by Maulawi Muhammad Ali my article did not deal with the Kufr of non- Ahmadis, but, in the words of Khwaja Kamaluddin, merely laid down that those who did not accept the Promised Messiah as were deniers of the Promised Messiah as , how could Maulawi Muhammad Ali trace my belief on the point, to the leaflet issued by Zahiruddin (of course, actually subsequent to my article)? To prove the point that those who did not accept the Promised Messiah as were deniers of the Promised Messiah as , it was certainly immaterial