In debates this line is heard again and again: “Mirza Sahib himself prayed against Maulawi Sanaullah Amritsari that whichever of them was the liar would die in the lifetime of the truthful one. Then in 1908 he was the one who died first. So the matter was settled.”
It sounds very strong. But to judge any event you need the whole story, not just the last line: who called whom, who agreed, and who wrote back to say he did not agree.
Two men, ten years of debate
Maulawi Sanaullah Amritsari was a well-known scholar of the Ahl-e-Hadith school and the editor of the newspaper “Ahl-e-Hadith”. He was one of the loudest opponents of the claim of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (as).
In 1897, in the book “Anjam-e-Atham”, Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (as) invited the opposing scholars to a mubahala, and Maulawi Sanaullah’s name was on that list. A mubahala means that both sides pray together to Allah with deep humility, asking that the curse of Allah fall on the one who is lying.
In 1902 the matter came up again in the book “I‘jaz-e-Ahmadi”. There he wrote that Maulawi Sanaullah had stated in writing that he was ready for such a decision, and that if he truly stood firm on this challenge, he would be the one to die first (I‘jaz-e-Ahmadi, Ruhani Khazain 19, pp. 121, 148). But the Maulawi then replied in his booklet “Ilhamat-e-Mirza” that he did not have the courage to enter such a contest.
April 1907: the “Final Decision”
On 29 March 1907 Maulawi Sanaullah threw down the challenge again in his newspaper. It was accepted in the 4 April issue of the newspaper “Badr”. Then on 15 April 1907 Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (as) published an announcement titled “The Final Decision with Maulawi Sanaullah Sahib”.
It was a prayer to Allah: that whichever of the two was the liar, Allah should bring him to his end in the lifetime of the truthful one. And the most important part comes at the end: he asked the Maulawi to print this text in his newspaper and to write whatever he wished beneath it. In other words, the whole proposal was left waiting for the other side’s reply.
Maulawi Sanaullah’s own reply
The Maulawi did print the announcement. What he wrote beneath it, on page 5 of the “Ahl-e-Hadith” of 26 April 1907, is the key to this whole episode. His words were roughly these:
“My consent was not taken for this prayer.” “This writing of yours can in no way be a final decision.” “If I die, what will my death prove?” And at the end a clear declaration: “This writing of yours is not acceptable to me.”
Not only that. In the same reply it was written in his support that Allah gives liars a long life, so that in that time they do even more evil and fill up their punishment.
Now pause for a moment. When the other side has rejected a proposed decision in writing, and has said himself that the liar actually lives longer, does he have any right to claim its result?
A few months later, in August 1907, in “Muraqqa-e-Qadiani”, the Maulawi himself wrote something else: the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa) passed away before Musailimah, the false claimant to prophethood. In other words, he himself accepted that who dies first does not, on its own, decide who is true and who is false.
Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (as) passed away in Lahore on 26 May 1908. Maulawi Sanaullah died in 1948.
Questions people ask
Wasn’t this a mubahala? In a mubahala the liar dies first.
The Quran itself lays down the rule of mubahala. During the debate with the Christians of Najran, Allah instructed the Holy Prophet (sa):
Notice the words: “Come”, “let us call”, “let us pray”. A mubahala is a joint act of both sides. The delegation from Najran did not agree, so that mubahala never took place, and no one says the matter was settled by a one-sided invitation.
Maulawi Sanaullah wrote exactly the same thing: a mubahala happens when both sides swear against each other, and he did not agree to it. So in his own words this was not a mubahala.
Still, the prayer said the liar would die first. Why did he die first?
The prayer was a proposal for a decision, and at the end of the proposal the other side’s view was asked for. The other side wrote back: this decision is not acceptable to me, and in any case the liar is granted a long life. When one of two men has publicly rejected an agreement, that same man cannot later claim victory by it.
Think about it: by his own principle the Maulawi cannot call his long life a proof of truth, because he himself wrote that Allah gives the liar more time. And by giving the example of Musailimah he himself accepted that dying earlier or later is not, on its own, any proof.
So does this episode prove nothing at all?
It proves one thing: who stepped back each time the invitation was made. In 1902 the Maulawi wrote that he did not have the courage to enter such a contest. In 1907 he wrote that he did not agree to this prayer. For someone who turned down the proposal twice, saying later that “the matter was settled” is not a reasonable argument.
The Quran gives the real test of truth and falsehood elsewhere: the claimant’s teaching, his life, and whether Allah’s help stays with his work. That discussion is found in other articles on this site.
In short
- The “Final Decision” of 15 April 1907 was a proposed prayer, in which Maulawi Sanaullah’s reply was requested.
- In the “Ahl-e-Hadith” of 26 April 1907 he wrote that he did not consent to it and that this writing was not acceptable to him.
- A mubahala in the Quran is a joint prayer of both sides; if one side does not agree, there is no mubahala.
- The Maulawi himself wrote that the liar is granted a long life, and that dying first is not, on its own, any proof.
Further reading
Quran verse numbers count Bismillah as the first verse; in the common count they are usually one less. Translation of the Quran: Maulawi Sher Ali.