Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was really close friends with Batalvi going back to his childhood days, in fact, they even shared some of the same teachers. However, MGA began praying for people to die as early as 1880, nevertheless, by 1884 he was at odds with the ulema of India in terms of his claim of getting divine revelation. By 1889, MGA had turned on Muslims as he claimed that Esa (As) was dead and never returning and indicating that he (MGA) was an Esa (as) and others could also come. By 1893, he was telling the world that Lekh Ram would die violently, he was thus murdered in Lahore and was still alive until he got to the Mayo Hospital in Lahore and the Ahmadi doctor who just so happened to be on duty let him die (March 6th,1897). Athim was also given many death threats and eventually died of old age, which MGA argued fulfilled his prophecy. MGA beat the case, the same way he beat all of his cases, with the help of the British government. Kashful Ghita was published by the Ahmadiyya jamaat in 1898 in english. In this book MGA denied that he was publishing a death prophecy, he fell back and said it was just a prayer. Furthermore, he denied ever having a dream/ilham which indicated the end of the British Government within 8 years, however, by 1929, many Ahmadi’s came forward and admitted that MGA did in-fact have this dream/ilham, thus proving that MGA lied in his book. The British courts dropped the case vs. MGA and forced him and Batlalvi to sign a 6 clause declaration, wherein both of them agreed to stop insulting each other in the press and to stop doing death prophecies aka Mubahila’s. Thus, the British government ordered MGA to stop his silly death prophecies again. This was because of the help that MGA’s father gave the British in 1857, hence, MGA was above the law in British India. Even when MGA was totally guilty of breaking the law, the Brits pardoned him. MGA had some insults written about Batalvi in his newspaper also (the al-Hakam, however, in court MGA denied any connections to that newspaper). Batalvi never engaged MGA ever again.
Oct-November of 1898
Some Muslims of India ask Batalvi to officially engage MGA in a Mubahila (see Dard page, 604–608). On November 10th, 1898, Muhammad Baksh of Lahore (manager of the Ja‘far Zatalli, Tajul Hind Press), along with a colleague of his, Abul Hasan Tibbati, published a reply to the Ahmadi’s of Patiala, Simla, Allahabad, Batala, Amritsar, Lahore, Bhera, Sialkot and to MGA.
MGA’s house is raided and searched by Inspector Rana Jalal-ud-Din Khan, who had arrived in
Qadian under the command of the Superintendent of Police and surrounded MGA’s house. The Superintendent and the Inspector then climbed up to the roof of the mosque much to the consternation of Maulana Abdul Karim Sialkoti who was present on the roof and witnessed
this police action (see Mujadid e Azim, abridged english version).
MGA responds to the question of Mubahila with Batalvi
November 21st, 1898
“”””If I am, really a liar and an impostor as Muhammad Husain and his friends declare me
to be, then let me be disgraced. But if it is not so, O God, then bring disgrace upon them as
they have tried to bring disgrace upon me. Let them be disgraced within the next 13 months—
December 15th, 1898, to January 15th, 1900.””” (see Dard, page 605). Dard claims that MGA published an announcement, however, we haven’t found it as of yet.
MGA’s death prophecy vs. Batalvi is now official
MGA and Ahmadi’s were now praying that some disgrace happen to Batlavi in the in next 13 months. This was against the order that MGA had just signed with the British government, Via Judge Captain Douglas wherein he promised to stop making “death prophecies” and “disgrace predictions”.
November 30th, 1898
On November 30th, 1898, MGA issued another leaflet in which he instructed his followers to observe patience under every kind of provocation. They should purify their hearts and stick to their ways of humility, meekness and love. They should persevere in prayer and wait for the judgement of God promised in his leaflet dated November 21st, 1898.
Breach of peace by MGA on December 1st, 1898?
There was an apprehension of a breach of the peace and that therefore MGA and Maulawi Muhammad Husain should both be bound over to keep the peace under section 107, Cr. P. C. Muhammad Husain, he said, had bought a sharp dagger made at Bhera which he showed as his weapon of self-defense. The Gurdaspur police endorsed the report and confirmed the allegation that MGA was violating the order of Capt. Douglas which prohibited him from making such prophecies.
On December 5, 1898, Batalvi applied for an arms licence for a pistol on the plea that his life was in danger on account of the prophecy made by MGA, Batalvi argued that MGA was getting his death prophecies fulfilled by his fanatical followers, thus Batalvi’s life was in danger. The case was fixed for hearing against MGA on January 9, 1899.
MGA gets an official notice to appear in court on Jan 9th, 1899
MGA came to know about the case instituted against him between December 10 and 15, 1898 and this book was published on December 27, 1898, in which he assured the Government and acquainted them with the peaceful principles of his Jama‘at. In this book, he also drew the attention of the authorities to the abuse and vituperation to which he was being subjected by
Maulavi Muhammad Hussain Batalvi and his friends. In the defense statement filed with the District Magistrate of Gurdaspur on January 27, 1899 (see Hidden Treasures).
The Kashful-Ghita was thus published
Dard tells us that MGA and his team wrote as follows:
“”””To recapitulate, five charges have been brought against me in this case: (1) that I habitually make prophecies of death or injury to others, (2) that I have disregarded the terms of the notice signed by me in Dr. Clark’s case by publishing a prophecy on November 21, 1898, (3) that I pre-arrange the fulfilment of my prophecies or make secret attempts to fulfil them afterwards, (4) that my writings are harsh and provocative, and (5) that my prophecy of November 21, 1898, is likely to cause a breach of peace.
My reply to them is:
(1) that no such prophecy was ever been published without the consent of the person about whom it was made and that it is only after much persistence on his part that such a course had been adopted,
(2) that the notice in question contains no prohibition against making a prophecy,
(3) that this was only a suspicion, not having the slightest evidence in support of it, and that the good conduct of my followers, the high moral tone of my teachings and the absence of any such assertion on the part of those about whom the prophecies were made, are strong proofs to reject such a supposition completely,
(4) that my writings are not provocative in the least, and this becomes clear on comparison of the
writing of the two parties, and
(5) that the prophecy had been made and fulfilled without causing any breach of peace.”””” (Life of Ahmad by A.R. Dard, online edition of 2008, pp. 633-634).
However, MGA lied about his 8-year prophecy of demise about the British Government
In roughly 1895, MGA saw a dream that he interpreted to mean that the demise of the British government would happen in 8 years.
Jan 9th, 1899 at Gurdaspur
MGA reached the court compound at about 10 o’clock, and waited till noon. The lawyer engaged by Maulawi Muhammad Husain could not come that day and at his telegraphic request the hearing was postponed by Mr. J. M. Dowie to January 11th, 1899. The attitude of the magistrate (Dowie) appeared to be stiff. In a note he asked the parties to show cause why they should not both be bound over for a period of 12 months and also furnish security of Rs. 1,000 each (see Dard).
Jan 11th, 1899 at Gurdaspur
The hearing began on the 11th at Gurdaspur. MGA was represented by Mr. W. Browne, Sh. Fadl
Din, Sh. Ali Ahmad and Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din. Mr. Browne admitted that his client had issued the following: Ishtihar dated 1.11.1898 (b) Ishtihar dated 3.1.1899 (c) Ishtihar dated 6.1.1899 (d) Kashful Ghita (e) Ishtihar dated 7.1.1899. Maulawi Muhammad Husain admitted in court that he had published in his paper.
Batalvi’s comments in terms of MGA were discussed
1—-“”””That the Qadiani is a Dajjal of this time, a second Musailma, perfidious, deceiver, cheat,
liar and impostor, and that he is the enemy of the faith of Islam and all other heavenly faiths.””” (Vol. 16, No. 1, p. 6.).
2—“””Had we been under Muslim rule, we would have given you (Ahmadas) a proper reply. We
would have at once cut off your head with a sword and made you a dead body”””. (Vol. 18, No. 3, p. 95).
3—“””Otherwise He would send down the severest punishment upon you and drive you to
destruction””” (Vol. 15, No. 1, p. 15. See also Vol. 18, No. 7, p. 215).
4—-“””‘If you are a man and have any courage, then prove both your claims in an assembly of
learned men—you will not come into the field—I challenge you to a Mubahala. Come out into the field of Mubahala and take an oath”””. (Vol. 14, No. 12 p. 338).
5—-“””Have pity on the creatures of God and give up stratagems. Either accept Islam—or prove by means of a controversy or a Mubahala that these articles of faith which you profess do not
lead to Kufr.”””” (Vol. 18, No. 3, p. 77 See also Vol. 17, No, 12, p. 384; Vol. 18, No. 4, p. 132).
6—-“”””Having expressed many a time my readiness to have a Mubahala with him, I prevented his having recourse to a challenge for Mubahila. I showed the mischief contained in the conditions added by him to a Mubahila—when these machinations of his were broken and he was left helpless he devised another plan which he published in his Ishtihar of May 19th, 1897,
viz. both parties should pray to God without coming into the presence of each other. This
showed clearly that he was unable to have a Mubahila with me in my presence, and that
therefore no one should go to him in Qadian. I accepted this method also.””” (Vol. 18, No. 7, p.
MGA’s comments in court at Gurdaspur
MGA stated in court that the prophecies about the Rev. Abdullah Athim and Pt. Lekhram had been made at their written request and with their consent.
Muhammad Bakhsh, who was a prosecution witness at Gurdaspur
He stated that he had been at Batala from 1893. In his opinion there was real danger to Muhammad Husain from MGA. Sayyid Bashir Husain, Police Inspector, also appeared in court and deposed that there was real danger to peace and that there had been strong suspicion against MGA in the matter of the murder of Pt. Lekhram. There was no suspicion against Muhammad Husain. The houses of MGA’s enemies were also searched when Pt. Lekhram was
murdered (See Dard).
January 13th, 1899 at Gurdaspur
MGA presented over 50+ witnesses to the court, however, the court complained that these were too many.
January 17th, 1899 at Gurdaspur
After asking MGA to reduce his amount of witnesses a second time. The case continued.
January 27th, 1899 at Dhariwal
MGA presented the court with a 20-page letter in english (See Dard, 614-634). MGA defended himself against all allegations. Nevertheless, the case was extended.
Feb 3rd, 1899
MGA is sent a letter from the British courts that he might be forced to pay 1000 rupees as guarantee that he would keep the peace and thus not cause a “breach of peace”, which was against the law.
February 14th, 1899
MGA and his team wrote another letter begging to not have to pay the 1000 rupees and full of flattery. (See Dard, pages 635-638).
February 24th, 1899
The Judge makes a final decision on the case, he forces MGA and Batalvi to sign a 6-clause declaration, wherein they will not be able to insult each other or make prophecies about each other (see Dard). The case ends with this declaration.
The 6-clause declaration
(1) I will abstain from publishing any prophecy which implies or might reasonably be
considered to imply that any person will suffer disgrace or be an object of the Divine displeasure.
(2) I will abstain from publishing any appeal to God requesting that He will, by disgracing any person or by granting a sign that any person is an object of the Divine displeasure, show who is right and who wrong in any matter of religious controversy.
(3) I will abstain from publishing as an inspired message any statement which implies
or might reasonably be held to imply that any person will be disgraced or is an object of the
(4) I will abstain from employing in any controversy with Mirza Ghulam Ahmad or any
friend or follower of his any abusive epithet or injurious expression and from publishing any
writing or picture which might cause him pain. I promise not to use with reference to him or
any friend or follower of his such expressions as Dajjal, Kafir, Liar, Kadiani. (note: Kadiani
spelt with a means cheat. J. M. Dowie). I will publish nothing with refererce to his
private life and family relations which might reasonably cause him pain.
(5) I will abstain from challenging Mirza Ghulam Ahmad or any friend or follower of his
to resort to any appeal to God (Mubahala) for the purpose of showing who is right and who wrong in any controversy. I will not challenge him or any friend or follower of his to make
any prophecy with reference to any person.
(6) I will to the utmost of my power induce any persons over whom I have influence to act
on their part in the manner in which I have promised to act in clauses 1,2,3,4,5′.
A six clause declaration?
A reference to this case in Seeratul Mahdi
“””This case registered against him for maintenance of Public Law keeping Arms and Ammunition under section 107 of criminal procedure code. The court of Mr dowie Deputy Commissioner Gurdaspur exonerated hazrat sb being bailable offence on 24 february 1899. The case was filed on the application of Molana Muhammad Hussain Batalvi and on the report of in-charge Police station Batala on 1st December 1898. Detail published in Al-Hakam March 1899.”””
Links and Related Essays
#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyatrueislam #ahmadiapartheid #Ahmadiyyat #rabwah #qadian #meetthekhalifa #muslimsforpeace #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog #nolifewithoutkhalifa #AhmadiMosqueattack #AhmadiyyaPersecution #Mosqueattack #trueislam #atifmian