Abdul Sami Zafar tells the inside story on the May 29th, 1974 Rabwah train attacks

I have always written that Ahmadiyya leadership planned the 1974 Rabwah train attacks.  In this interview, Abdul Sami Zafar explains how Ahmadiyya leadership planned and executed the attack.  Abdul Sami is still an Ahmadi, however, he has called the Mirza family as a group of liars and thieves.  Abdul Sami still believes in MGA and that MGA was a prophet and a Messiah. That solidifies his testimony.  Further, much like all Ahmadis who were privy to this attack, he kept it a secret for 40+ years….the full interview can be found here:

Abdul sami has joined a splinter sect of Ahmadis and their youtube channel is as follows:

See here :

He says:

  1.  Indeed, the teenagers stopped in on May 22nd, 1974 and cussed at a few Ahmadis who were there that day.
  2. Majlis Aamila then got the report and began discussing the matter.
  3. Majlis Aamila then planned everything, they sent Ahmadis to Peshawar, Sarghoda and planned the entire attack.
  4. They then began to collect local Khuddam from Rabwah and had them hide in ambush.
  5. The train-station manager was also Ahmadi, he also knew the whole story, he purposely made the train wait 30 mins at least.
  6. The attack was a success…
  7. However, the next day, Ahmadis began to be murdered and burned alive. The Mirza family had these attacks carried out and then lied about everything, They purposely got themselves declared non-muslim so as to get asylum abroad.

Also see here:

Featured post

The Ahmadiyya fatwa (opinion) on saying prayers behind a non-Ahmadi imam


Some quotes
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Sahib was as much a prophet as was Hazrat Muhammad Mustafa(pbuh) in the nature of prophethood. So it is not permissible to pray for the salvation of a person who goes out of the circle of Islam by his denial of Mirza Sahib.”  (Al-Fazl, Qadian, Vol. 9, No. 30, Oct. 17, 1921)

“Chirag Din is a student of the Taleem-ul-Islam High School, Quadian. Recently, when he returned to his native place, Sialkot, his mother died. She had loved her son dearly, but since she was not an Ahmadi, Chirag Din did not attend her funeral prayers. He thus clung to his faith and principle. Well-done; Proud son of Taleem-ul-Islam. The movement (Quadianism) needs worthy sons like you. Well done.” (Al-Fazl, Qadian, Vol. 2, No. 129, Apr. 20, 1915)

“I believe that those who follow the lead of non-Ahmadis (Muslims) in prayers, it is not permissible to hold their funeral service. Similarly, those who have given their daughters in marriage to non-Quadianis and died without repenting, it is not permissible to hold their funeral service.”(Al-Fazl, Qadian, Vol. 13, No. 102, Apr. 13, 1926)

“If one asks ‘Is it permitted for us that funeral prayers be said for the children of Muslims’, I would say: No – just as it is forbidden to pray for Hindu and Sikh children as the religion must follow his parents.” (Anwar-e-Khilafat, Page 93)

‘To the question “What must be done to a Muslim who dies in a place where Qadianism is unknown? Should formal prayers be said?” I would say: “We do not know his full particulars but it would appear from his deed that he died in a state in which he was ignorant of Rasul of ALlah and His Nabi. Therefore, no prayers should be said for him. Nor would we say funeral prayers for a Qadiani who has followed a non-Qadiani in prayer or one who mixes with them by this action, he has left the pale of Qadianism.” (Al-Fazl, Qadian, May 6, 1915, Bashir-ul-Din Mahmood Qadiani)

“Fadl Ahmad, the eldest son of promised Messiah (Mirza Ghulam Qadiani) from his first wife, died, but he (Mirza Ghulam) did not say funeral prayers over his son as he (Fadl Ahmad) did not believe in his prophethood or in his prophecies, although he was obedient to his father in matters concerning day to day life.” (Al-Fazl, Qadian, Dec. 15, 1931 – Jul. 7 1943, Page 3)

“Hazrat Mirza Ghulam did not attend the funeral service of his son (late Mr. Fazl Ahmad) only because he was a non-Ahmadi (Muslim).” (Al-Fazl, Qadian, Vol. 9, No. 47, Nov. 15, 1921)

“Our prayer has been channeled and we are not allowed to marry our daughters to them. To say funeral prayers for them is also prohibited. What else remains that we share with them? Relations are of two kinds: religious and worldly. The former comprises prayers and the latter relates to marriage. Thus, following non-believers in prayer is forbidden and it is also forbidden that you make them your sons-in-law. Should you then ask: ‘then why do we greet them?’ Then I would say that even the Prophet(pbuh) used to greet the Jews. In short, our Imam (Mirza Ghulam) has declared has declared us a distinct sect in every respect. There is no ceremony which occupies an important position in Islam in which we have not been separated from others.” (Kalimatul-Fasl, Vol. 14, P. 169, Mirza Bashi Ahmed Qadiani)

“If a non-Ahmadi dies is it permissible to say” ‘May Allah pardon him and grant him admission in the Heaven?Answer: The infidelity of the non-Admadis (Muslims) is a proven fact and it is not permissible to pray for their salvation.” (Al-Fazl, Qadian, Vol. 8, No. 59, Feb. 1921)

“It is my considered religion: it is not permitted that you should offer prayer led by a non-Qadiani in any place whatsoever, whosoever he may be and however respected among the people he may be. This is an order from Allah and this is what Allah expects of you. Those who doubt this are considered deniers. Allah desires that a distinction be made between you and them.”
(Al-Fazl, Qadian, Aug. 28, 1917)

“God has revealed to me that it is forbidden – strictly forbidden – that you should say prayers led by one who believes me to be a liar or is wavering in his allegiance to me. Instead it enjoined upon you that you should follow an Imam from amongst you.”
(Arbaeen, Vol. 3, P. 28; “Tuhfa-e-Golarwiah”, P. 27, Mirza Ghulam Qadiani)

“No Qadiani is allowed to say prayers which are led by a non-Qadiani. People have asked this question again and again – is it permissible to pray behind them? I would say, whenever I am asked, it is not allowed for any Qadiani to pray behind a non-Qadiani. It is forbidden – not permitted – prohibited.”
(Anwar-e-Khilafat, P. 93)

“God has revealed it to me that the person who did not believe in me after having heard about me is not a Muslim.” (Al-Fazl, Qadian, Jan 15, 1935 – Al-Hukum, 4:24, Mirza Ghulam Qadiani)

“It seems that the Promised Messiah had also suspected that the word ‘Muslim’ which he used also for non-Ahmadis might be wrongly understood. So, he has made it clear in his writings occasionally that the word ‘Muslim’ which he used for also non-Ahmadis meant ‘those who claimed to be Muslims.’ hence, wherever he has used that term for non-Ahmadis, he means by it those who claim to be Muslims, for he could not have recognized those who denied him as Muslims under divine instructions.” (Kalimatul Fasl, Vol. 14, No. 3, P. 126, Sahibaza Bashir Ahmad Qadiani)


#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyatrueislam #ahmadiapartheid
#Ahmadiyyat #rabwah #qadian #meetthekhalifa #ahmadiyyat #muslimsforpeace #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and Dr Mirza Yaqub Baig–who became a Lahori-Ahmadi in 1914

This is an interesting story about MGA and Dr. Mirza Yaqub Baig.  This was the doctor who treated Lekh Ram at the Mayo Hospitol in 1897, Lekh Ram died, mostly likely because the Ahmadi doctor allowed him to die.  See here:

In 1897, Lekh Ram is murdered and the the doctors assistance is an Ahmadi
Lekh Ram was eventually murdered in 1897.  Batalvi urged the govt. to search MGA’s house. MGA seemed to have inside information on how Lekh ram died, this seems to have startled the entire Punjaab.  However, the inside story was that Lekh Ram was taken to the Mayo Hospitol in Lahore after getting stabbed, and the Doctors-assistant who was working that night just so happened to be an Ahmadi.  Mirza Yaquub Beg was the young Ahmadi doctor and he shared all of the info with MGA, in terms of where Lekh Ram was stabbed and etc.  And he boasted and gloated and was happy that Lekh Ram died (see pages 10-14).  Also See the ROR of 1984 for the story.

The story

“The heartfelt connection which the Promised Messiah had with me is known to everyone familiar with those times. When I took the final medical exam [to become a medical doctor] in 1897, he prayed for me, and received a revelation: ‘You have passed.’ Upon this, he said to me, and even wrote it in Haqiqat-ul-Wahy,: ‘As there is very close relationship between me and Yaqub Baig, this is why I have been addressed in the revelation [as ‘you’] whereas Yaqub Baig is meant.’

Then the affection and kindness of the late Maulana Nur-ud-Din, khalifat-ul-Masih, is known to everyone, that he always considered me as his son. From the beginning of our connection he addressed me as ‘son’. He maintained this relationship till the end. During his last illness, he would not take food or milk from anyone’s hand except mine or that of Maulvi Sadr-ud-Din. And it is the grace of Allah that the very last sip he took was honey by my hand.

As to the late Maulvi Abdul Karim, it was the Promised Messiah himself who designated me as his brother, and Maulvi Abdul Karim treated me with fraternal affection till he breathed his last.

I cannot sufficiently thank Allah that He, the Almighty, provided me with so much opportunity to serve all these three elders during their lifetimes, and at the time of their final, fatal illness Allah granted me to serve them as their medical doctor.” (Paigham Sulh, 22 August 1917, p. 5)

Note that it is not in Haqiqat-ul-Wahy, as stated above, but in his book Nuzul-ul-Masih (p. 223, Ruhani Khaza’in, v. 18, p. 601) that Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad mentions his revelation about Dr Mirza Yaqub Baig as ‘You have passed’.

#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyatrueislam #ahmadiapartheid
#Ahmadiyyat #rabwah #qadian #meetthekhalifa #ahmadiyyat #muslimsforpeace #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog

Noorudin’s comments on Muhammad Ali and Khwaja Kamaluddin

The split in the Ahmadiyya movement happened in 1914, however, the split started in 1909.  Noorudin was on his death bed by the winter of 1911, and wasn’t able to control all of the Ahmadi’s anymore.  He made some negative comments about Khwaja Kamaludin over the years, however, he also made some positive comments.  They are in the below..

The quotes

In a letter to Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din, dated 19th December 1913, he writes:

“Each and every hair of my body is pleased with you and is engaged in prayer for you.”

In the last of his Friday khutbahs which he was able to deliver, Khalifa 1 defended Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din against the supporters of your Khalifa 2 and said:

“You think ill of others. Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din does not work out of hypocrisy. He works only for Allah. This is my belief about him. Of course, he can make mistakes. I am happy with his works. There is blessing in them. Those who spread mistrust about him are the hypocrites.” (17 October 1913)

“Kamal-ud-Din is a good man. He is doing religious work…. He is engaged in a good work. None of you can compete with him. … Can any of you do the work which Kamal-ud-Din is doing?” (7 November 1913)

More generally, in June 1912 he declared in a speech in Lahore to these critics (supporters of Khalifa 2):

“You should first of all try to make yourselves sincere as they are. The people of Lahore are sincere. They love Hazrat [Mirza Ghulam Ahmad] sahib.”



Quotes from “Surma Chashm Arya” (1886) (“Collrium for the eyes of the Aryas”)

Just posting quotes here from “Surma Chashm Arya” (1886) (Collrium for the eyes of the Aryas).

…God has Vested in him a hidden faculty of receiving revelation. When human reason arrives at the limit of its reach, at that stage God Almighty, for the purpose of leading His true and faithful servants to the perfection of understanding and certainty, guides them through revelation and visions. Thus the stages which reason could not traverse are traversed by means of revelation and visions, and seekers after truth thereby arrive at full certainty. This is the Way of Allah, to guide to which Prophets have appeared in the world and without treading along which no one can arrive at true and perfect understanding; but an unfortunate dry philosopher is so much in a hurry that he desires that whatever has to be disclosed should be disclosed at the stage of reason. He does not know that reason cannot carry a burden beyond its strength, nor can it step forward further than its capacity. He does not reflect that to carry a person to his desired excellence God Almighty has Bestowed upon him not only the faculty of reason but also the faculty of receiving revelation. It is the height of misfortune to make use of only the elementary means out of those that God has, out of His Perfect Wisdom, Bestowed upon man for the purpose of recognizing God. (Surmah Chashm-e-Aryah, pp. 40-41, Ruhani Khaza’in, vol. 2, pp. 88-89) 

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s first debate–1886, a written debate with Murlidhar

MGA only did written debates.  He wasn’t capable to even have any type of intelligent conversation with.  MGA had his first debate with a Hindu, and didn’t even properly finish the debate, MGA and his team then wrote about the entire scenario in Surma Chashm Arya (Collrium for the eyes of the Aryas).

The topics discussed in this book are:

  1. The miracle of the splitting of the moon by the Holy Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him.
  2. Is salvation eternal or a limited phase?
  3. The soul and the matter, whether they are uncreated and eternal, or they have been created by God.
  4. Comparison between the Holy Qur’an and the Vedas (the sacred scripture of the Hindus).

The book also contains a challenge in the form of a Mubahila (a prayer duel to prove the truth of a religious doctrine). It closes with a prize of Rs 500/ – for anyone who could refute satisfactorily the proofs adduced by Hadhrat Ahmad (as) in the book Surma Chashm Arya.

Quotes from this book

MGA vs. Murlidhar as explained per Dard, page 144-onwards

“”At the end of these days of communion with God, Ahmadas saw a great number of people there and accepted many invitations of friends and acquaintances. In those days a religious controversy also took place there between him and Murlidhar, an account of which is to be found in his book entitled Surma Chashm Arya.

Murlidhar was a leading Arya Samajist of Hoshiarpur. He was a teacher of drawing in a local school. He came one day to Ahmadas in March 1886, and wanted to ask him a few questions about Islam. Though the Arya was not a seeker after truth but merely wanted to hold a controversy, Ahmadas accepted the challenge.

Murlidhar began, on the evening of March 11th, 1886, at the house of Ahmadas, with an attack on the miracle known as Shaqqul Qamar (the rending of the moon). The debate was to be carried on in writing by an exchange of two papers from each side. The papers were to be written there and then and read out in a public meeting. But Murlidhar did not wait to hear the final reply from Ahmadas. He left the meeting on the lame excuse that it had become too late for him to stay there. One of the audience, Shatru Ghan, repeatedly asked Murlidhar to wait, but he would not listen. The following are the names of a few of those who were present there that evening: Shatru Ghan, eldest son of Raja Rudder Sen, ruler of Suket; Shatranji, younger son of the Raja of Suket; Janmi Ji, another son of the Raja; Babu Mulraj, copyist; L. Ram Lachhman, a headmaster of Ludhiana; and Babu Har Kishan Das, a second master, of Hoshiarpur.

The second meeting took place at the house of Sh. Mehr Ali on March 14th, 1886. It was Ahmad’sas turn to start, but Murlidhar would not let him do so. He insisted that Ahmadas should first of all verify his statement made on the previous day to the effect that Swami Dayanand had written in the Satyarath Parkash that the souls of human beings fall as dew on vegetables and are born into this world after being swallowed by women. He insisted that Swami Dayanand had made no such statement. He was told that it was not right to drag the previous proceedings into the second meeting, and that, if he must have the reference, he could have it later 30. But he was obstinate. The audience protested against his attitude but he stuck to his point. To stop him from wasting time, Ahmadas gave him a pledge in writing that the required reference would be inserted in the report of the proceedings which was to be published. This was done, to the eternal shame of Murlidhar. The reference is: Page 263, Sam. 8, Edition 1875.

Ahmadas wrote the first paper in which he pointed out that, according to the teachings of the Arya Samaj, God could not create anything; and in so far as man could not attain to everlasting salvation, God was void of love. This paper was read out in one hour. Murlidhar spent more than an hour, not in explaining and vindicating the position of the Samaj, but in pointing out that Ahmadas raised two questions instead of one. Ahmadas removed his misunderstanding, and then he took three hours in writing his answer, which was even then not complete. It had to be read out incomplete because he said the remaining portion would later be supplied at his own convenience. He was pressed to complete his answer there in the meeting, in which hundreds of people had gathered. But he neither completed his answer nor handed over the written portion to Ahmadas for reply; and instead of finishing the debate as previously arranged, he left the meeting, as before, under an excuse that he had to attend another meeting of the Samaj. The following are the names of a few of those who were present in that meeting: Sh. Mehr Ali, M. Ilahi Bakhsh, Vakil; Dr. Mustafa Ali, Babu Ahmad Husain, Deputy Inspector of Police; MiyaĔ Abdul Hakim, Miyan Shahabuddin, dafadar; L. Nara’in Das Vakil; Pt. Jagan Nath, Vakil; L. Ram Lachhman, headmaster; B. Harkishan Das, L. Ganesh Das, Vakil; L. Sita Ram, Shatru Ghan, Shatranji, M. Gulab Singh, M. Ghulam Rasul, a teacher; and M. Fateh Din, a teacher.

Ahmadas was prepared to stay for two more days if Murlidhar desired to complete the debate but the latter did not agree; therefore, Ahmadas returned to Qadian on March 17th, 1886; in one of his letters dated March 11th, he had written that he would leave for Qadian, on Tuesday, March 16th, 1886. I have also seen a notebook of my uncle in which it is definitely written that the party reached Qadian on the 17th.

It may be noted here that the sole aim of Ahmad’sas controversy was to spread truth and refute error. It was entirely free from exaggeration, bitterness, and any show of spiritual pride. Ahmadas desired not to display his learning but to reveal the will of God. He loved not controversy for its own sake, but whenever he feared the truth to be in danger, he gladly undertook it as a holy duty. The modern man, on the contrary, refuses to take religion and theology seriously. It seems as though the many religious wars of the past have made him so fearful of conflict that he has swung to the other extreme and has developed a lamentable spirit of indifference towards the vital matters of faith. ‘It is a very shallow view that so long as a man’s conduct is honourable his creed is a matter of no importance. Conduct depends on character, and character is built on creed. That is a point worth insisting upon, for there are many people who, while admitting the importance of right conduct, on which the happiness and well-being of society depend, yet fail to see that morality and faith are necessarily bound up together. Figs do not grow on thistles.'”””

#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyatrueislam #ahmadiapartheid
#Ahmadiyyat #rabwah #qadian #meetthekhalifa #ahmadiyyat #muslimsforpeace #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog

Dear Muslims, beware of the Ex-Ahmadi-Atheists!!!!

This blog and research group has been in existence for almost 2 years now.  We are pro-muslim, however, we don’t have any issues working with Atheist, Christians, Hindus or whatever.  We wanted our readers to understand that most Ahmadi’s who become Atheist see Muslim’s as worse then Ahmadi’s.  They see Ahmadi’s as better, and Muslims as terrorists and etc.  These are facts.  These facts have been experienced through 15 years of online presence and 100 years worth of research on Ahmadiyya.

Ex-Ahmadi-Atheist hate Muslim’s
Just be careful out there, per the Ex-Ahmadi-new-Atheist, Muslims are the bottom of the evolutionary scale.  They see Ahmadi’s as better off, in fact, Nabeel Qureshi  (ex-Ahmadi Christian) never directly criticized Ahmadiyya, he blamed Islam.  Another Ex-Ahmadi-new atheist, Reason on Faith, he blames Islam, not Ahmadiyya.

We blame the MGA and his sons
Ahmadiyya is something unique, Islam cannot be blamed for it.  Ahmadiyya comes from capitalism, under British capitalism, any citizen of British India was allowed (even congratulated) for calling Islam as stupid and needing reform.  Thus, the Mirza family business was launched.  Under the Mughal Empire, MGA and his family would have never been allowed to open this type of business.

In their desperation, Ahmadi’s are now claiming that MGA came after 30 Dajjals


Ahmadi’s are inventing arguments all the time.  They are radicalized by the Mirza family and can’t simply just work, provide for their families and enjoy their lives, NOOOO, they are forced to do Jihad for the Mirza family.  This is a Jihad wherein you give your life to the Mirza family through free labor, donations, and ultimately your children’s lives.

An Ahmadi claims that MGA came after the 30 DAJJALS, hence, he is true
From our FB-Forum on Ahmadiyya


Musailma kaazab
Sajah kahena
Saf son of sayyad
Tulayha son of khalid
Aswad anse
Muhammad jaunpuri
Muhammad ahmad
Arnold potter

John nichols thom
Bernhard muller
Ann lee
Muhammad son of Said
Al harith son of said
Abu Mansoor eessa
Saleh son of Tarif Burghwati
Shabbatai Zevi
Al mizra Abbas
Mahmud son of al-Faraj

Al-Mukhtar Al-Thaqafi
Jacob Joseph frank
Lobele prossnitz
Miguel cardoso
Jacob querido
Sabbatai zevi
Solomon molcho
Asher lammlein
David alroy
Abu ‘Isa (also known as Ovadiah, Ishaq ibn Ya’qub al-Isfahani, Isaac ibn Jacob al-Isfahani)

Here’s your list. Therefore Mirza Ghulam ahmad is true 🙂

Error’s in this Ahmadi’s theory
1.  Firstly, he claims that after 30 DAJJALS, then MGA appeared.  He made the argument that since 30 Dajjals had appeared before MGA, then MGA can never be a DAJJAL, or a false claimant to prophethood.

2.  However, he forgets that Bahaullah was alive when MGA made his initial claim of divine revelation, which is 1882.  Bahaullah died 10 years later.   Based on this fact, his list is wrong, since MGA was there on the scene, while a DAJJAL was just 1000 miles away from him.

3.  The hadith on DAJJAL’s specifically states that they will claim prophethood/messengership.  However, the list that this ahmadi gives has many christians on it.  Hence, the list doesn’t even reach 30.

4.  MGA claimed that the Christian clergy were DAJJAL, not any person, or any claimant.  This Ahmadi contradicts his own prophet in this regard.

This Ahmadi doesn’t care about the implications of his stupid arguments
Most Ahmadi’s are sooo brainwashed that they don’t care about what they say or do, they simply exist to annoy others and thus continue to make silly and stupid arguments, as they give their life away to the Mirza family.

The hadith on DAJJALS
“…Verily by God, the Last Hour will not come until 30 liars of prophecy will appear and the final one will be the One-eyed False Messiah.” (Narrated by Imam Ahmad as a sound Hadeeth).

#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyatrueislam #ahmadiapartheid
#Ahmadiyyat #rabwah #qadian #meetthekhalifa #ahmadiyyat #muslimsforpeace #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog


Mirza Ghulam Ahmad had 5 written debates, NO ORAL Debates

We all know that MGA was unable to have oral debates with anyone, he stuttered terribly into his 50’s, his arabic was horrendous, and most of his speech was unintelligible.  MGA’s team did most of the writing on behalf of MGA anyway.  Further, Maulvi Abdul Karim Sialkoti was MGA’s mouthpiece, with Syed Muhammad Ahsan Amrohi working behind the scenes editing arabic and etc.

The hard evidence
1. March 1886 Hushiarpur with Master Murlidhar.
2, July 1891 at Ludhiana with Molana Muhammad Hussain Batalvi.
3. October 1891 at Delhi with Molvi Muhammad Bashir Bhopali
4. January 1892, at Lahore at Lahore with Molvi Abdul Hakim Kalanori
5. June 1892 at Amritsar Deputy Abdullah Athim.
Seeratul mahdi pages 219-220

The scans

MGA lost the debate with MOLVI MUHAMMAD BASHIR BHOPALI (1891)

MGA and his team only did written debates, this was how MGA got help from his team of ghost writers and debaters.  In today’s research, we have uncovered new data in terms of the debate that MGA lost in 1891, and at his own house in Qadian.  Dard mentions this incident on page 297-299.

The story


In October 1891 When Mirza was in Dehli and had recently escaped from the debate with Molvi Nazir Hussain in the Jamia Masjid Dehli, Molvi Muhammad Bashir Bhopali who was a high ranking Scholar and one of the disciples of Molvi Nazir, challenged Mirza Ghulam Qadiani for a debate.

Mirza Bashir Ahmad MA son of Mirza Qadiani in his book Seeratul Mahdi Volume 2 at page No 90-91 giving the accounts of this debate, writes:- “after 3 or 4 days of Jamia Masjid incident, Hazrat Masi e Moud had a debate with Molvi Muhammad Bashir Bhopali at his house (the house that MGA was staying at in Delhi). It was decided that both parties would exchange 5 papers of arguments and answers with each others but when Hazrat Masih e Moud saw that Same old arguments which were refuted earlier, were being repeated by Molvi Muhammad Bashir and no new argument is being advanced from the opponent, he ended the debate on 3 papers. Hazrat Masih e Moud did not care the humiliation and mockery of the opponents. This debate has been published with the title of Al Haq Dehli. Readers can see Hazrat sb ended the debate when Molvi sb had exhausted all his arguments and he was only doing repetition.”

See here also:


On the contrary, the actual detailed accounts of this debate has been published in the contemporary Magazines , Al Haq Assarih and Tarikh e Mirza pages 42-44. This has been compiled by Muhammad Rafiq Dilawari, author of Book Raees e Qadian, pages 341-344. Author RQ says that some body sent the Ishtihar dated 6 October 1891 published by Mirza Qadiani, for scholar of Dehli, to Molvi Muhammad Bashir Bhopali as well, who sent a reply to the Ishtihar to Mirza Sahib whereby accepting his all terms and conditions for debate. The debate was agreed on the following terms and conditions:-

1,Government security would be provided.
2.It would be a written debate. Each party would write his arguments in the session and would hand over signed copy to other for reply.
3. Issue of Life of Hazrat Essa a.s would be taken up first. If Life of Essa a.s is proved Mirza would leave his claim of Masih. And descending of Masih a.s would be discussed.
4. Any party quitting the debate without its final settlement, would be considered as the loser one.

However on arrival of Molvi Muhammad Bashir in Dehli, Mirza Qadiani in violation of earlier agreed terms and conditions added the new conditions that :
(a) the burden of proof would lie on Molvi Muhammad Bashir because he would be a claimant of life of Essa a.s.
(b) the debate would be held at Mirza,s residence with no public proceedings would be held.
(c) In all 10 persons would be allowed to participate. However Molvi Abdul Majeed and Molana Muhammad Hussain Batalvi would not be allowed under any circumstances.
(d) Debate would be limited to 5 papers only.

Although this was a violation of earlier terms and conditions yet Molvi Bashir accepted it. Molvi sb went to the House of Mirza and he wrote Five arguments in support of Life of Essa a.s on paper read it to the audience there and handed over a signed copy to Mirza Qadiani. Instead of writing reply in the session Mirza did not write its reply and said Ok you may leave now to come at 10 o’clock tomorrow. but when they reached next day to receive reply Mirza did not come out of house and send some one telling that the reply is not ready yet and you may leave for now. Molvei sahib will be informed as soon as the replies are ready. Peoples agitated this attitude to be a violation of the terms and condition but Mirza remained adamant. At 2 o clock they were again called by Mirza and a reply was handed over with the directions that rejoinder may be prepared at home and be delivered to him once it is ready. It continued like this for five days wherein 3 papers were exchanged. On the sixth day Mirza Qadiani announced that his father in law is seriously ill and he was quitting. Peoples said this is against the law which he himself had laid down but Mirza did not agree. Since Molvi Muhammad Hussain Batalvi and other ulema knew his level of learning, they had prepared a condemning article which was read over in Mirza, s presence peoples laughed at him made a mockery of him still it did not make any impact.

Actual reason for Mirza,s escape from debate was that as a claimant of Masih, Mirza had created two walled defence first wall being Death of Hazrat Essa a.s and the second one being descending of Essas a.s. Molvi Muhammad Bashir had destroyed his both walls and now Mirza Was to prove how he became Masih e Moud which eventually made him run for life.
(Screen shots of relevant pages Seeratul Mahdi and RQ attached)


Up ↑