Ahmadiyya leadership is fond editing the writings of MGA. My team and I have found a interesting situation wherein it seems that MGA made his claims in 1889.
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.”
Why is this strange?
Ahmadiyya leadership tells us that MGA claimed to be the Messiah in 1891, however, this data seems to disprove that.
Some additional data
Remember, MGA was claiming to be “like the messiah” in this era. The Maseel e Maseeh claim. https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2016/11/14/mga-confuses-all-of-his-readers-in-1891-as-he-claimed-to-be-the-promised-messiah/
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 1889, 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. Reading all that i am convinced that Mirza ghulam claimed the title of Masih Maoud in 1889. 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.’”””