Ahmadiyya leadership is fond editing the writings of MGA. In the below, we present the work of Yohanan Friedman, entitled, “Prophecy Continuous. Aspects of Ahmadi Religious Thought and Its Medieval Background”, Berkeley, University of California Press, 1989.

My team and I have found a interesting situation wherein it seems that MGA made his claims in December of 1889. However, after researching this further, Friedman was incorrect. Ishaat us Sunnah vol.12 corresponds to December 1890, and vol.13 corresponds to January of 1891. This can be figured out by reading the essay of January 1891, (((13(1890): 1-100, under the titles, “A Discourse with the imaginary Messiah Mirza of Qadiyan”  (Khayali masih Mirza Qadiyani se guft o gu)))), which refers to 1891. Furthermore, the ROR of June 1908, which was in memorial to MGA, tells us that MGA found fault with the physical ascension and descent narrative in Islam in 1889, after he accepted Bait (see page 228).
_____________________________________________________________________________________________Friedman quotes the Ishaat us Sunnah of 1889 and 1890 vs. MGA

On page 6, of the 2003 edition, in a footnote, Friedman quotes as follows:

“Isha’at al-Sunnah 12 (1889): 353-388; 13(1890): 1-100, under the titles, “A Discourse with the imaginary Messiah Mirza of Qadiyan” (Khayali masih Mirza Qadiyani se guft o gu) and “A discourse with the fictitious apostle” (farazi hawari se guft o gu).  An account of the debate itself was published in the same journal, 13(1890): 115–326.”

The scan

Some additional data

Remember, MGA was claiming to be “like the messiah” in this era. The Maseel e Maseeh claim.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________The PDF file of Ishaat us Sunnah

FB Masih Maoud Claim
____________________________________________________________________________________________What’s in this PDF?

Ishaat Sunna No. 12 (december) vol 12, printed in 1890, a discourse with the fictitious apostle, also i have uploaded related pages from Fateh Islam, which were mentioned in Ishaat Sunna, so at least Urdu readers can read the letters exchanged between Mohammad Hussain batalwi and Mirza Ghulam ahmad of qadian. I have also circled the printing of first edition fateh Islam as 1308 Hijri. Please see the letter in Ashaat sunna where MGA says “yes” to batalwi query.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________Another piece of evidence that proves that Izala Auham was published at least before Feb 10th, 1891

In “Life of Ahmad” by Dard, Dard quotes (247-248) a letter between MGA and Batalvi wherein Batalvi claims to have already read Izala Auham.

‘””Copies of the letters which have passed between myself and Mirza Sahib have been sent to you so that you may have a say in the matter if you are so inclined. I am determined to refute the claim of Mirza Sahib. You always talk about him with others, but when I said something to you about Mirza Sahib you were displeased. If it is the same with you still, then I have nothing to suggest; but if you have the courage of hearing and saying anything about him, then it would be better if you could come to Lahore and have a talk. Taudih-e-Maram and Izala’-e-Auham cannot prove his claim. (The writer of this letter had not yet seen Fath-e- Islam and Taudih-e-Maram; Izala’-e-Auham had not even been published yet—Author). If you can do something, you should, there is time yet.’”””
Links and Related Essays

Nusrat Jehan Begum and other women didn’t get into to MGA’s bait in 1889 and after–were they illiterate?

Ahmadiyya leadership lied about the First Bait ceremony in 1889

Click to access reviewreligionsenglish1908.pdf

#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyatrueislam #ahmadiapartheid #Ahmadiyyat #rabwah #qadian #meetthekhalifa #muslimsforpeace #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog #nolifewithoutkhalifa #AhmadiMosqueattack #AhmadiyyaPersecution #Mosqueattack #trueislam #atifmian