You will see Ahmadis running around boasting that their precious MGA was some type of “well-known” islamic scholar in British-India.  However, this is a lie.  The evidence comes from Upal’s (2017) newest work on Ahmadiyya.  Upal quotes Batalvi’s magazine of 1884, as Batalvi defended MGA to the Muslims of India.  The Muslims of India were accusing MGA of claiming prophethood, denying the miracles of Esa (As) and many other things.  MGA had just published Braheen-e-Ahmadiyya vol. 4 and the book was total garbage, as well as the 3 volumes that came before it.  Muslims of India were sooo upset they even tore up this book and sent it back to Qadian in that condition and they demanded a refund.  In the quotes below, it is proven that by 1884 MGA was terrible at Urdu, Arabic and English.

Batalvi gave us the background on MGA, per Upal’s translations and interpretations
Quotes from Upal (2017)

—-He also sees Ahmad as more rural, less educated, less sophisticated, and less successful than himself.

—He sees Ahmad as “a Punjabi who has never had the opportunity” to live in the cosmopolitan cultural centers of Hindustan

—“who hasn’t had the occasion to read Urdu literature” and therefore is not able to write
“refined Urdu vernacular” (Batalavi, 1884: 346). 

—Batalavi’s perceptions of Ahmad as he sees Ahmad as someone who is so overcome with
religious fervor and zeal that “he’s unable to hold back” from including his unrelated
revelations in the Braheen (thereby lengthening it and “increasing publication

—and someone who doesn’t understand that the “current civilization” demands
refraining from crudely attacking one’s enemies (Batalavi, 1884: 346).

—Batalavi touts his personal knowledge of Ahmad’s beliefs beyond the words
written in Braheen to defend Ahmad. Answering the accusation that some of Ahmad’s
English revelations are grammatically incorrect, Batalavi says, “When I met the
author who visited the city of Batala, where I am now, I asked him, ‘when you receive
revelations in English, are you shown English alphabets or Persian alphabets?’ He
responded that he is shown English sentences written in Farsi script. That’s when
I became sure of my suggestion that the mistake lies in the author’s perception…
and not the divine revelation” (Batalavi, 1884: 291). Ahmad’s ignorance of English
and his miracle of English revelations will attract English speaking Christians and
Hindus to Islam argues Batalavi.

—Over and over again, Batalavi insists throughout his review that Mirza Ghulam
Ahmad had not made any prophetic claims (pages 175; 191; 260; 268; 269; 273; 275;
278; 279). Muslim leaders who insist that he has, are mistaken argues Batalavi. Mirza
Ghulam Ahmad is a Muslim and not a kafir, argues Batalavi.