Ahmadis are all over the internet arguing that MGA loved Esa (As), they refuse to put all of MGA’s comments together and then decide, they only want to judge MGA on a few of the positive statements that he made in terms of Esa (As). This is yet another case of academic dishonesty.
The “Epistle of Jihad” by Lekh Ram was published in 1892. He wrote another book the same year wherein he attacked Christianity, i.e. Christian Mat Darpam.
“…while Christianity and Islam have a long history of disputations, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad not only used many of the arguments against Christianity as put forward by Dayanand Saraswati in the Satyarth Prakash…..”(From “Moral Languages from Colonial Punjab” by Bob Van Der Linden, Page 183)
In the referencing section of Chapter 5. Under reference number 19. Page 217
“””19 . He (Lekh Ram) published “Christian Mat Darpam” in the same year as “The Epistle of Jihad”. In it, Lekh ram argued that Christ was not sinless but, on the contrary a cruel illiterate drunkard, liar and thief who insulted his mother. In selections, 1897, Nur Afshan, 14 May p. 387.”””
After Lekh Ram insulted Esa (As)…MGA copied his arguments
Firstly, in 1892, in Nishan Asmani, MGA insulted the name Esa:
“””I am extremely perplexed as to why these Ulema are vexed by the word ‘Isa. In Islamic literature,
even detestable things are named ‘Isa. For instance, in the book Burhan-e-Qati‘a, under the letter ‘‘Ain’, we read, that ‘Isa Dihqani is a metaphor for wine made from the grapes and ‘Isa Nau Maha is the bunch of grapes from which wine is made. Wine made from grapes is also called ‘Isa Nau Maha. Now, it is outrageous that these Ulema should name a wine ‘Isa and not hesitate to mention this in their books and consider it permissible that an abominable thing and a holy man should have the same appellation, while the person whom God Almighty, by His grace and power, names ‘Isaas, as opposed to the prevalent Dajjaliyyat, should be considered by them to be an infidel.””””(Nishan Asmani, online english edition, page 37).
In 1895, MGA and his team finally called Esa (as) a drunkard, and its obvious that they copied Lekh Ram. Here is the quote:
“Jesus was an Alcoholic and Gluttonous person, neither Abstinent nor a Pious Worshipper, nor a Truth seeker. He was a Proud and a Self- conceited Claimant of Divinity.” (Nur-ul-Quran, Roohani Khazain Vol 9 p.387)
“A beautiful prostitute is sitting so close to him as though she is embracing him. Sometimes she massages his head with perfume or holds his feet, and sometimes she lays her beautiful black hair on his feet and plays in his lap. In this situation Mr. Messiah is sitting in ecstasy. If someone rises to object he is scolded. Besides his young age, the habit of alcoholism and being a bachelor, a beautiful prostitute is lying in front of him touching her body with his. Is this the behavior of a virtuous person? And what evidence or proof is there that Jesus did not get sexually aroused by the touch of the prostitute? Alas! Jesus could not even have the facility of sexual intercourse with a wife of his own after passing his glance upon that adulteress. What sexual excitement would have been provoked by the touching of that wretched adulteress and her playfulness! The sexual excitement and arousal would have done its work to the extreme. This is the reason why Jesus could not even open his mouth to say, ‘Oh adulteress! Keep away from me’. It is well established in the Bible that that woman was one of the prostitutes, notorious for adultery in the entire city”. (Nur-ul-Quran, Roohani Khazain vol 9 p.449)
“You may have tried to find a solution to the objection (raised) about the Messiah’s paternal and maternal grandmothers. I am tired of thinking (of a justification of this). Up to now no nice solution has occurred to do me. What a glorious god he is whose paternal and maternal grandmothers are of such repute!” (Nur-al-Quran, Roohani Khazain, vol 9 p.394)
“(while on the cross) Jesus could not portray himself as pious man because people knew he was gluttonous alcoholic and these bad habits were not ever since claiming divinity but it seems from early age he had (these habits). Therefore to claim divinity is one of the bad after effects of alcoholism.” (Satt bachan, Roohani Khazain vol 10 p 296)
Later in 1897, MGA continued to insult Esa (As)
“(Jesus) had the habit of uttering obscenities and frequently using foul language. He used to get angry over petty things. He had no control over his emotions.” (Zamima Anjam-e-Atham, Roohani Khazain , Vol 11 p.289 )
“Jesus had an inclination for prostitutes, perhaps due to his ancestral relationship with them, otherwise no pious man could allow a young prostitute to touch his head with her filthy hands, and massage his head with the unclean perfume purchased with the earnings of adultery and rub his feet with her hair. Let the intelligent judge what sort of character such a person must possess.” (Zamimah Anjam Atham, Roohani Khazain Vol 11 p.291)
“The family of Jesus was perfectly holy and immaculate. Jesus’ three paternal and maternal grandmothers were fornicators and prostitutes, from whose blood the body of Jesus came into existence.” (Zamima Anjam-e-Atham, Roohani Khazain vol 11 p.291)
MGA kept going…he never stopped insulting Esa (As)
“The root cause of all the damage that alcohol consumption has had on the Europeans was that Jesus used to drink alcohol, perhaps because of some disease or an old habit.” (Kashti-e-Nooh, Roohani Khazain vol 19 p.71)
MGA violated the Quran and criticized the God of Hindus and Christians
Allah tells us in the Quran, Chapter 6, Verse 108, (109 in Qadiani Qurans): “And revile not those whom they call upon beside Allah, lest they, out of spite, revile Allah in their ignorance. Thus unto every people have We caused their doing to seem fair. Then unto their Lord is their return; and He will inform them of what they used to do.”http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/showChapter.php?submitCh=Read+from+verse%3A&ch=6&verse=107
In fact, in the official 5 volume commentary on alislam.org, Malik Ghulam Fareed has written on page 729:
“In the forgoing verses, the Quran has spoken rather contemptuously of the utter helplessness of the false deities whom people associate with God. This might lead some Muslims to revile the false deities of the polytheists; the present verse warns them against following such a course. God has denounced the idols in his capacity as a judge, and the denunciation of a judge is not considered as abuse, but as a necessary expression of opinion. This does not give others the right to abuse the persons condemned by the Heavenly judge and thereby offend their feelings, or the feelings of those who love and respect them.
“The verse provides yet another reason for this noble teaching. It purports to say, “If you, O Muslims, revile disbelievers’ false Gods whom they treat with love and reverence, the result will be that they will be excited by your abuse and will retaliate by reviling God in return. The verse thus not only inculcates respect for the feelings of others but also assures amity between nations and communities.”