By 1899, the British government had legally stopped Syed Muhammad Hussain Batalvi from commenting or responding to MGA. From 1889 to 1899, he vehemently opposed MGA, who was an old class mate of his and family friend. Like most Indians, he was denied a chair in court, whereas MGA was always given a chair, this was the level of racism in British-India. We found this testimony in MGA’s book,. “kitab ul Barriya” (1897), in a Lahori-Ahmadi translation, pages 182-183.
Maulvi Muhammad Husain, prosecution witness on solemn affirmation 13th August 1897
Son of Rahim Bakhsh, caste Shaikh, resident of Batala, age 56 years.
Stated: I have known Mirza sahib for a long time. He has made many prophecies, twenty to twenty-five prophecies. The writing at the end of page 44 of Anjam-e-Atham, that God would root out falsehood means that falsehood would perish. I do not construe from this writing
that there is some special personal enmity of Mirza sahib with Mr. Clarke. The debate is religious. I do not agree with Mirza sahib on religious matters. In this connection he has sown discord among the Muslims and Christians etc., so that they are going after each other’s blood. This is the result of his teaching. He is a trouble-maker. I am aware of the religious feelings of the Muslims. If Mr. Clarke dies, Mirza sahib will be greatly honoured among his followers and it will prove his complicity. Abdullah Atham died after the [appointed] period, while Mirza sahib has written in Anjam-e-Atham that he died according to his prophecy. I, the deponent, met Mr. Clarke in 1895. Never met him again afterwards. In fact I have a grievance against him and feel sorry that I had met him for a special purpose but he did not show sympathy. He has never met my brother. I have written an 80 page book about the murder of Lekhram. The gist of it is that on Mirza sahib lies the responsibility of giving information about the murder of Lekhram. For, according to him, God gives him information about everything; why does He not tell the whereabouts of the murderer? With the exception of the prophecy on page 44, marked ‘F’, Mirza sahib has not made any prophecy about Mr. Clarke. Question: I belong to the Ahl-e-Hadith who used to be erroneously called Wahhabi earlier. (Are the Muslims of other schools of thought, i.e.
Hanafi, Shia, etc., against the Ahl-e-Hadith? The court did not allow this question.) My meaning of “after each other’s blood” is that the people who are against Mirza sahib should be butchered by his followers, i.e. considered fit to be butchered. This is his teaching.
The witness presented page 601 of the book A’ina Kamalat Islam and stated: On page 600 the question marked with the letter ‘S’ has been written by me and the answer at letter ‘R’ is from Mirza sahib. I had written the review on Barahin Ahmadiyya, page 176 to 188 at letter ‘T’. At that time the affairs of Mirza sahib were favourable and I had written accordingly. I had written that Mirza sahib’s father had helped during the mutiny. In the book Isha‘at-us-Sunnah, volume 13 at letter ‘U’, I had given the judgment of unbelief [fatwa kufr] about Mirza sahib. I do not consider Mirza sahib a Muslim. He is an atheist. Maulvi Ghulam Qadir Hanafi does not call me a trouble-maker nor does he call the Ahl-e-Hadith as unbelievers. There are disputes among the people due to our writings and teachings also, but not of the type that would lead to blood-shedding. There have been court cases also. I have written an article in support of and in sympathy with the Sultan of Turkey. Mirza sahib has written against the Sultan of Turkey.
(At this stage, we reproduce below the note given by the court in English.) “I consider sufficient evidence has been recorded regarding the hostility of the witness to the Mirza and there is no necessity to stray further from the main lines of the case.”
Remaining statement of the witness:
Whatever I have said about the murder of Lekhram, that the murder has been committed by the conspiracy of Mirza sahib, has been deduced from the writings of Mirza sahib himself. (Said again) Mirza sahib is responsible for this murder. I do not call him a murderer. Nor is there a conspiracy. He is responsible from his own writings to point out [the murderer]. The number of followers of Mirza sahib, according to a list, is about 313 or close to it.
Question: Excepting these followers, are the other Muslims in India against Mirza sahib? (The court did not allow this question.) I saw Abdul Hameed on 8th or 9th August 1897. A Christian was taking him along with himself. At Batala I did not go to the residence of Dr. Clarke. Prophecy or no prophecy, Mirza sahib will derive benefit from the death of Mr. Clarke. My death will also bring benefit to Mirza sahib. I am very much against Christianity.
Written by the hand of Muhammad Hussain.
Links and Related Essays
#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyatrueislam #ahmadiapartheid #Ahmadiyyat #rabwah #qadian #meetthekhalifa #muslimsforpeace #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog #nolifewithoutkhalifa #AhmadiMosqueattack #AhmadiyyaPersecution #Mosqueattack #trueislam #atifmian