Intro
Al-Haq Mubahathah Dehli seems to be an Ahmadiyya only record of events of the alleged written debate between MGA and Maulavi Muhammad Bashir. This book also contains the correspondence which led to the altercation of MGA and his team vs. Maulavi Muhammad Nadhir Hussain in Delhi at the famous Jamia Masjid in Oct of 1891. This debate barely lasted a few minutes, the British police immediately forced the crowd to disperse and moved MGA to safety (See Hidden Treasures). This debate was published by the Qadiani’s in 1905 (see Hidden Treasures).
On September 29th, 1891, MGA arrived in Delhi and stayed at Kothi Nawab Loharu, Ballimara.
Ahmadiyya sources allege (See Hidden Treasures), that MGA and his team issued a leaflet in Delhi on October 2, 1891, and challenged Maulavi Muhammad Nadhir Hussain—a mentor of Maulavi Muhammad Hussain Batalvi—to discuss in writing the subject whether Jesus was alive or dead. MGA and his team issued another leaflet on October 7, 1891, repeating the same invitation and stating that he was prepared to hold the debate even at the residence of Maulavi Muhammad Nadhir Hussain. Ahmadiyya sources allege that a mob came to the house where MGA was staying at in Delhi (see Hidden Treasures).
MGA and his team wrote to Maulavi Muhammad Bashir on October 15, 1891, intimating his acceptance of the proposal to hold a written debate with him on the question of the death of Jesus.
The debate itself was held on October 20, 1891, in the Jami‘a Masjid, Delhi, where more than five thousand people gathered. There was a European Superintendent of Police with a Police contingent watching eagerly. MGA went to the mosque with 12 of his disciples. The 12 disciples of MGA accompanied him to the cathedral Mosque in horsedriven carriages, and there the party walked through the angry crowd straight to the mihrab and took their
seats. A little later Nadhir Husain also arrived with Muhammad Husain Batalvi and Abdul Majid.
They were seated in the adjoining veranda. It was the time of ‘Asr, all Muslims in the mosque prayed together. MGA and his disciples had did not join the prayers.
The debate barely lasted a few minutes. Ahmadiyya sources alleged that the crowd was so hostile and many had stones in their pockets and some were armed with sticks and knives. At the very beginning of the engagement vs. MGA, Maulavi Muhammad Nadhir Hussain declared that MGA did not believe in miracles, the Mi‘raj and angels and, therefore, he was an infidel and no discussion was possible unless he answered the charges first. At this point, MGA read out a manifesto of his beliefs, which clearly contradicted his books, Maulavi Muhammad Nadhir Hussain refused to accept MGA’s explanation, the police then forced all the people to leave the masjid, they then escorted MGA to safety (See Hidden Treasures). MGA and his group of 12 Ahmadi’s were the only ones allowed to stay. MGA and his disciples exited the mosque via the north gate, however, the carriage and driver that they had rented was gone. The superintendant of the local police also showed up. A mob scene erupted. MGA’s disciples found another carriage for hire, they escaped via British escort, Maulvi Abdul Karim traveled with MGA in the carriage and a few others, all the others walked, they were Sayyid Amir Ali Shah, Ghulam Qadir Fasih, Muhammad Khan of Kapurthala, Hakim Fadl Din of Bhera, Pir Sirajul Haq, and six others (see Dard).
MGA and his team wrote three letters to Maulavi Muhammad Bashir dated October 21, 22 and 23, 1891, and the following points were further laid down:
(1) the debate should begin after the Friday prayer at Hadrat Ahmad’s house,
(2) Maulavi Muhammad Bashir would write the first paper,
(3) Maulavi Muhammad Bashir would bring only one man with him,
(4) Maulavi Muhammad Hussain Batalvi and Maulavi ‘Abdul Majid would not be allowed to take part in it; and
(5) not more than five papers would be exchanged.
It should be noted that it was not agreed that the papers would be written in the meeting.
The debate started on October 23, 1891, on Friday. Maulavi Muhammad Bashir quoted in his paper five verses of the Quran to show that Jesus was still alive in the flesh. However, on 10-28-1891, MGA abruptly leaves the debate. MGA breaks his own contract, which is a serious crime per the Quran. Only 3 arguments had been put forward by Maulvi Muhammad Bashir Bhopali and no response had been given by MGA and his team. MGA flees to Patiala wherein his father-in-law was ill, however, Mir Nasir Nawab hadn’t accepted Ahmadiyya yet. Patiala was 157 miles to the west, about halfway home towards Qadian (see Dard).
This book carries a series of letters Muraslat No. 1, on page 221 onward that passed between Maulavi Muhammad Bashir and Maulavi Syed Muhammad Ahsan. Then on pages 483-507, under the heading of Muraslat No. 2, the letters passed between Munshi Bubah Shah, Munshi Muhammad Ishaq and the same devoted follower Maulavi Syed Muhammad Ahsan. They exchanged two letters. Maulavi Syed Muhammad Ahsan in his letter dated September 12,
1891, responding to the letter dated August 30 of Munshi Bubah Shah, discussed at length the points raised by him, specially the one in which Munshi Bubah Shah accused Mirza Ghulam Ahmad arrogating to himself the status of Ibnullah and ranking himself with Jesus Christ the son of God.
Per Ahmadiyya sources, “Al-Haq Mubahathah Dehli” was published 14 years later, in 1905 from Qadian (See Hidden Treasures). Months after the debate, Muhammad Hussain Batalvi wrote about it in his newspaper, the Ishaat us Sunnah.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Quotes
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Al-Haq Mubahathah Dehli, Ruhani Khaza’in Vol.-4, p. 115
MGA was referring to the famous hadith from Sahih-Muslim Hadith 2937a, The Book of Tribulations and Portents of the Last Hour, wherein Eisa (as) was called “Nabi-Ullah” 4 times. MGA said:
“It was unreliable, unacceptable, and not Sahih, which is why it is not in Bukhari.”
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Al-Haq Mubahathah Dehli, Ruhani Khaza’in Vol.-4, p. 167
4:21:31 time stamp
Translation
..”speaking here means, a special speaking, which Hazrat Messiah (eisa [as]) said to the Jews, who put allegations against his mother..”
Transliteration
...”kalam say murad vo khaas kalam hai, jo Hazrat Maseeh nay in yahoodi say kee-a taa, jo yah ilzam unkee walda per lagataytay…”
Scan
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Al-Haq Mubahathah Dehli, p. 190, Ruhani Khaza’in, vol. 4
https://www.youtube.com/live/KGHt49oxCdg?si=aBjtEbWlQBuUSBHa
Scan
______________________________________________________________________________________
al-Haqq, Mubahisa Ludhiana [The Ludhiana Debate]. RK.-4. 24, 25, 33, 34, 44, 122, 123
Ibn-al-Arabi
https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Ibn-al-Arabi-1.pdf
“””Then you say that ‘I have copied the statement of Muhiyudeen ibn ‘Arabi in Ishaatus Sunnah and written in the end that we do not consider revelation to be argument and proof.’ In reply to this I respectfully plead that if you were opposed to this statement why did you mention it without purpose? Your words must be extremely defective for firstly you clearly accept that for a claimant revelation is representative of a Legitimate Argument on behalf of a claimant as well as this you have openly accepted and in fact reiterated it referencing to the Hadith of Bukhari that the revelation of a scholar of Hadith is purified of Satanic intervention. Despite this I do not force you to consider revelation to be an argument but you do yourself accept in your Review that such revelation becomes an argument on behalf of the claimant. That is as much as I claim to establish. I too do not wish to force it upon you.
Then you say that it is wrong for me to ask why you had mentioned ibn ‘Arabi. If you were
opposed to him. For it is totally opposed to the purpose of your words. You stated in the beginning of your reply regarding the logicality of your statement that you are a follower of ibn ‘Arabi? If you are then may I ask why have you copied the Hadith of Sahih Bukhari which says that a scholar of Hadith is also a messenger like a prophet and why have you copied the saying of Muhammad Ismael that the revelation of a scholar of Hadith is purified of Satanic interventions as is that of a prophet. If you do not believe the Hadith of Bukhari then you ought to have said so in your previous papers that I do not consider the revelation of a scholar of Hadith to be purified from Satanic intervention! It is a surprise that on one hand you say Bukhari [this and] Bukhari [that] and on the other you act against it! Having said that if you believe that all the Traditions in Bukhari are Authentic then in this situation you will have to agree with ibn ‘Arabi because if it is revealed to a scholar of Hadith that a particular Hadith is a Fabrication and this is confirmed to him through repetitive revelation then will you not believe in accordance with the desire of Bukhari that the scholar of Hadith should consider such an Hadith to be Fabricated? Respected Maulvi why do you use such words? Why do you not inculcate the notion of God-Consciousness in your heart. Why become a liar, accursed one and devoid of faith. It is one thing to understand a precept from the point of view of estimation even if it is wrong and another to say something against an incident about which one knows the reality.
You commit a calumny from top to bottom and it is like fighting after the battle that you now
write this in your answer that ‘According to me such a scholar who calls an Authentic Hadith which is from the Canonical collections a Fabrication speaking on behalf of Satan and is Satan personified.’ You had listed in Ishaatus Sunnah the names of those respected persons who had mentioned such visions or such beliefs of theirs and never called them Satan embodied but have mentioned them as worthy recipients of praise for example in my support you copy the quote from the Futûhât of ibn ‘Arabi that some Traditions are revealed to be Fabricated through visionary experience so say truly what your intentions were at that time surely they were not to say that ibn ‘Arabi was Allah forbid an infidel or Satan personified? Does the word Great which you write here prove that those people were great infidels? You have in a letter included Muhiyudeen among the chiefest of mystics and the saints of Allah. That letter is not present at this time but there is another letter carrying the same meaning which you had written to Abdullah Ghaznavi deceased the text of which is this ‘Knowledge is of 2 kinds the first being apparent which is received through a means and endeavour and sight and demonstration the second being internal which is conveyed by the absolutely absent as stated by the Shaykh Muhiyudeen ibn ‘Arabi in the Futûhât.’ Do say why you mentioned Muhiyudeen ibn ‘Arabi here where you ought to have referred to words of the saints of The Gracious? If that respected one was Allah forbid Satan embodied according to your liberal heart would you have referred to him in a letter which you wrote to your teacher!”””
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Al-Haq Mubahathah Dehli, p. 194, Ruhani Khaza’in, vol. 4, edtion of 2009, p. 505, via Hidden Treasures
“””How long should I write a commentary about the differences that exist (in matter of faith). If any writing of Hadrat Mujaddid is in apparent contradiction with principles of Fiqah or hadith, and despite this contradiction, how it can be established that he was in error. He bases all his contention and assertions in the light of the Book of Allah, which is superior to all these sources. If anyone one has intellectual power to content with him, then he should foil his assertion in the light of Holy Quran, if not possible then through the hadith, and if that is not possible then prove it wrong through logic. Scholars of Islam have all been invited (by him) and see how many of them come in the field (to accept the challenge).”””
_____________________________________________________________________________________________Al-Haq Mubahathah Dehli, p. 85, Ruhani Khaza’in, vol. 4, p. 215, via Hidden Treasures
“””The soul is not something in space. The nature of its relationships cannot be determined. After death the soul has a relationship with the grave which is revealed to those who possess the faculty of seeing vision. They can see the dwellers of the graves sitting in their graves and can hold converse with them. This is established by true Ahadith. A well known hadith mentions Salat in a grave, it is also mentioned in the Ahadith that the dead can hear the sound of footsteps and respond to the greeting of peace. They also have a relationship with heaven. There are different degrees of their heavenly exaltation. Some arrives at the first heaven, others reach the second or the third heaven, but all righteous souls are exalted as is mentioned in true Ahadith and is also indicated by the verse: For those who reject Our signs and turn away from them in disdain, the gates of heaven will not be opened (7:41); but the nature of their relationship to heaven or to the graves cannot be determined.”””
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Al-Haq Mubahathah Dehli, p. 247, Ruhani Khaza’in, vol. 4
Scan
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
al-Haqq, Mubahisa Delhi [The Delhi Debate]. Ziaul Islam, 1905. R. K. iv, 499
Microsoft Word – Ibn al-Arabi 2
https://www.alislam.org/library/articles/Ibn-al-Arabi.pdf
“””The summit of union is to become identical to that through which it appears and not known in itself as I saw the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) in a dream that he embraces Abu Muhammad ibn Hazm the scholar of Hadith. Then one disappeared into the
other except that there was none other than the Prophet of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). So this is the summit of spiritual connection, which is also referred to as Union. (Futûhât al-Makkiya)”””.
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Links and Related Essay’s
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s debate with Syed Nazeer Hussain of Delhi in 1891
MGA lost the debate with MOLVI MUHAMMAD BASHIR BHOPALI (1891)
The Causes of Internal Dissensions in the Ahmadiyya Movement, By Khwaja Kamaluddin, 1914
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s famous announcement of 10-2-1891 from Delhi, British-India
MGA lost the debate with MOLVI MUHAMMAD BASHIR BHOPALI (1891)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syed_Nazeer_Husain
Mirza Ghulam’s Ahmad lecture in Amritsar (Nov–1905) was not a Lecture, it was a riot!!!
Mir Nasir Nawab (1846-1924), the father-in-law of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad
MGA lost the debate with MOLVI MUHAMMAD BASHIR BHOPALI (1891)
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad had 5 official written debates, NO ORAL Debates
In 1891, when MGA made his big claims, he denied prophethood–Mufti Sadiq was heavily involved
https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/?s=ghost
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Tags
#delhi #mirzaghulamahmad #ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog #messiahhascome
12 Pingback