I am very thankful to you for your critical leader on my statement which was published in your issue of the 14th May. The question which you have raised in your leader is a very important one, and I am really very glad that you have raised it. I did not raise it in my statement because I felt that, considering the separatist policy of the Qadianis, which they have consistently pursued in religious and social matters ever since the birth of the idea of building a new community on the foundations of a rival prophethood and the intensity of the Muslim feeling against this move, it was rather the duty of the Government to take administrative cognizance of such a fundamental difference between the Qadianis and the Muslims without waiting for a formal representation on behalf of the Muslim community of India. I was encouraged in this feeling by the Government's attitude in the matter of the Sikh community which till 1919 was not administratively regarded as a separate political unit, but which was later treated as such without any formal representation on the part of the Sikhs, in spite of the Lahore High Court's finding that the Sikhs were Hindus.

However, now that you have raised this question, I should like to offer a few observations on a matter which I regard as of the highest importance both from the British and the Muslim points of view. You want me to make it perfectly clear whether, when or where I can tolerate official cognizance of any one community's religious differences. Let me point out:

First, that Islam is essentially a religious community with perfectly defined boundaries — belief in the Unity of God, belief in all the Prophets and belief in the Finality of Muhammad's Prophethood. The last mentioned belief is really the factor which accurately draws the line of demarcation between Muslims and non-Muslims and enables one to decide whether a certain individual or group is a part of the community or not. For example, the Brahmos believe in God, they also regard Muhammad (on whom be peace) as one of the prophets of God, yet they cannot be regarded as part and parcel of Islam because they, like the Qadianis, believe in the theory of perpetual revelation through prophets and do not believe in the Finality of Prophethood in Muhammad. No Islamic sect, as far as I know, has ever ventured to cross this line of demarcation. The Bahais in Iran have openly rejected the principle of Finality, but have at the same time frankly admitted that they are a new community and not Muslims in the technical sense of the word. According to our belief, Islam as a religion was revealed by God, but the existence of Islam as a society or nation depends entirely on the personality of the Holy Prophet. In my opinion, only two courses are open to the Qadianis, either frankly to follow the Bahais or to eschew their interpretations of the idea of Finality in Islam and to accept the idea with all its implications. Their diplomatic interpretations are dictated merely by a desire to remain within the fold of Islam for obvious political advantages.

Secondly, we must not forget the Qadianis' own policy and their attitude towards the world of Islam. The founder of the movement described the parent community as "rotten milk" and his own followers "fresh milk", warning the latter against mixing with the former. Further, their denial of fundamentals, their giving themselves a new name (Ahmadis) as a community, their non-participation in the congregational prayers of Islam, their social boycott of Muslims in the matter of matrimony, etc., and above all their declaration that the entire world of Islam is Kafir — all these things constitute an unmistakable declaration of separation by the Qadianis themselves. Indeed, the facts mentioned above clearly show that they are far more distant from Islam than Sikhs from Hinduism, for the Sikhs at least intermarry with the Hindus, even though they do not worship in the Hindu temples.