Questioner: Huzoor, have you received any details from the Geneva, which you have mentioned in your summary?
Huzoor: Yes, I was, throughout, in touch with them. In fact, telephonically, it’s not difficult at all, but we haven’t received the detail of the names of the participants, who voted for and who voted against. We know, generally, that ten members supported the resolution, two were against, and six were abstentions. And of those who were against, that we know, who they were, but I have not yet received a list, a full list. But as far as the rest of the impression is concerned, people were in fact very strongly favourable to Jama’at-e-Ahmadiyya’s cause, although the same members had previously rejected the resolution, not knowing the facts. This time, they were fully charged, and those who abstained, those who voted against, apologised very strongly, and told them, the representatives, that they were under pressure from their government. They didn’t say it in so many words, but they apologised in diplomatic terms, that we were under pressure. What pressure that was, they didn’t tell in detail. So, that was a great victory in fact.
Now, what is more very interesting, I forgot to tell the Jama’at in the khutba this afternoon, but maybe I inform the Jama’at in the next khutba. The very interesting background is this, that number one, this was not an effort, officially, formally, by Jama’at-e-Ahmadiyya, Jama’at-e-Ahmadiyya as such was not a party. Number two, like I took the position in Pakistan, I said Jama’at-e-Ahmadiyya is far too dignified and is above these things, to make petitions to other worldly organisations, whatever they respect be. Even courts, I shouldn’t like to go to courts on Jama’at-e-Ahmadiyya’s behalf, letting courts decide whether we are Muslims or not Muslims, this is absolutely out of our question.
Secondly, I permitted certain members of Jama’at-e-Ahmadiyya in Listan, England, to move the resolution, no, not the resolution, to sign the petition, and leave it at petition without demanding any resolution whatsoever, so that we use this as instrument of conveying our dissatisfaction at what’s happening in Pakistan, and letting the world know what actually is happening there. So that was all the objective. At a later stage, they wanted my permission positively to move a resolution, which I rejected. I said, apart from other things, you are not a government. You are just individuals. You are not even fully representing Jama’at-e-Ahmadiyya. So there will be strong government lobbies, and there is a danger of your resolution being rejected. Then the government of Pakistan would exploit this situation and publicise to the entire world that, look here, nothing is happening, because the Commission on Fundamental Rights has declared that nothing is wrong with the government of Pakistan, they are absolutely all right.
So I don’t want Jama’at-e-Ahmadiyya to be dragged into this very objectionable position. So they said, all right, we’ll not move. So they did not. But all this was brought about by Allah. It was ordained in such a manner that nobody could stop it. When we presented our case from different platforms, because we were not even allotted a platform, I did not permit these members to become regularly registered as a body with the Commission because then they will have to be authenticated by me. If not, then any other few people would say that we represent Jama’at-e-Ahmadiyya’s cause and nobody could stop that. There were so many difficulties, I said, no, nothing doing. So they had to seek time from such bodies who are already members, and who are, I mean, authentic members and who have some say in the matters there, to begin with, this happened. But later on, these bodies, such independent bodies, like minorities, who and this and that, they were so sympathetic with our cause that they themselves started offering us the time allotted to them. So our representation was made only in the time allotted to other bodies, not to Jama’at-e-Ahmadiyya. And those bodies voluntarily offered that Jama’at-e-Ahmadiyya, we consider Jama’at-e-Ahmadiyya deserving to be offered our time, so let them participate, let them speak for themselves in that time.
This was how the position stood. When Sheikh Nasir Ahmed Sahib presented the case, and very strongly so, and when Ilyas Sahib also presented the case on Jama’at’s behalf, and previously your son had already done it. The impression created was so strong that those members who had earlier rejected these efforts, they had become very sympathetic and, in fact, motivated. So one member from Canada, who wrote a paper on conditions of human rights, etc., in various countries, in the end mentioned, in a very one single short sentence, that also the position of Ahmadis in Pakistan is deplorable. Up till then, there was no suggestion of moving a resolution either.
Now this happened at an opportune moment, when a Pakistani representative was about to answer our allegations against Pakistan, by that I mean, the Ahmadi representative’s allegations against Pakistan were just happening. So it happened in between the two. After the Canadian read his paper, then it was the turn for the Pakistani to defend the case of Pakistan. Now he referred to this one short sentence, and took strong exception, and used rather strong language in condemning this. He suggested that this should be expunged from this, or these words should be taken back.
Now this Canadian was already so full of indignation at what was happening, that he burst into a very strong expression of condemnation. He took up the floor, and because he’s a regular member, he had the right to speak. He said, “what’s this nonsense? They want me to expunge this? But this is not enough. This is the ordinance now.” He took up the copy of ordinance, and piece by piece, he tore it to smithereens, and shredded it into nothing. He says, “this is what you call human dignity? Ahmadiyya is not allowed to this? Not this? And still you don’t consider it deplorable? What is the word for it then, if it’s not deplorable?” And after this, he said, “now look here, instead of expunging this remark from my article, now I have decided to move a regular resolution condemning you.” And then he moved a very strongly worded resolution. Perhaps the laity will not understand that it is strongly worded, but in diplomatic terms, that is a very pungent and very strongly worded resolution because he wrote with this background.
And people thought that perhaps, it will be carried with a small majority, but people will also mend it and soften it down, you know, to a very small diplomatic expression of disapproval, that’s all. But what happened was that it was carried exactly verbatim as it was moved. And the whole resolution has become a regular part. And the BBC has already announced, with their own comments. So we received a telephone call from Kuwait, we didn’t know that. He congratulated, that he said, I have just heard a program from BBC which has declared this and said that, I mean, expressed that it deserves such a treatment, you know, something like that. This is why I said it was entirely ordained by Allah. Jama’at-e-Ahmadiyya had some limitations, so naturally, we could not move a resolution, it was against our policy. So Allah managed it, and through that Pakistani representative, all started with his jama’ats.
Questioner: Thank you very much.
Huzoor: And congratulations to you, because your son also participated, I can see him. He is here.
Questioner: I have to tell Arif today, I have to bring Arif as well, because he wasn’t here in the sermon.
