Intro
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
https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2018/03/20/quotes-from-surma-chashm-arya-collrium-for-the-eyes-of-the-aryas/

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

MURLIDHAR’S CONTROVERSY
“”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