Search

ahmadiyyafactcheckblog

Search results

"Lekh Ram"

After Lekh Ram’s death, the Arya Samaj wrote poetry vs. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad

Intro
We have written extensively on the topic of Lekh Ram and his engagements with MGA.  Feel free to read that before you read any further.  We have found a poem vs. MGA which was published in the Ariya Musafir, which was a newspaper of the Arya Samaj.  Here is a poem “qadiai Nabi Kee Shaan”, at the time of murder of Pundit Lekh Ram. There was a special edition of Ariya Musafir paper, dedicated to the shahadat of Lekh Ram and this poem comes from that paper.

Transliteration
QADIANI NABI KI SHAN
Hai pakri hath mein mala
Magar dunya pe matwala
Kahe chanda idhar la la
Wo mirza Qadian wala

Na jisko dharam se ulfat
Na tha kuch deen se matlab
Na jhagron se jise fursat
Woh mirza Qadiani wala.

Nabuwwat ghar bulata tha
Naya firqa chalata tha
Mazahib ko larata tha
Woh mirza Qadian wala

Nigahen maal o zar pe hain
Phande har bashar be hain
Ye heela gar makar pe hain
Woh mirza Qadian wala

They khuwab maut k aadi
Hamesha soch barbadi
Ajab mehdi ajab hadi
Woh mirza qadian wala

Nikah Moosa se parhwaya
Yeh rasta kis ne dikhlaya
Laga kar zor sharmaya
Woh Mirza Qadian wala

Ajab guftar thi uski
Ajab raftar thi uski
Ajab harkar thi uski
Woh Mirza qadian wala

Shaheed Akbar ne lalkara
Bechara ghar mein hi hara
Yeh dejha sab ne nazara
Woh mirza Qadian wala

Yeh phir baleedan din aya
Bali apni charhao tum
Shaheedi waidi pe mar kar
Amar ban kar dikhao tum.

The scan-work

#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyatrueislam #ahmadiapartheid #Ahmadiyyat #rabwah #qadian #meetthekhalifa #ahmadiyyat #muslimsforpeace #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog #nolifewithoutkhalifa #drsalam  

Lekh Ram stumped MGA in his Face-to-Face discussion in 1885

Intro
Ahmadiyya leadership orders its mullahs to lie on their behalf, on behalf of the Mirza family that is.  To this end, the Ahmadiyya mullah team has been openly lying, brainwashing simple Ahmadis and financially exploiting its own people.  Further, they have went back to all of the literature and deleted and edited as they deemed fit.  In the case that I present in the below, Ahmadiyya leadership purposely left out the FACT that MGA met with Lekh Ram, as he visited Qadian, and he seems to have stumped MGA with a question and proved MGA to be an idiot.  Remember, Noorudin, Abdul Karim, Irfani and Mufti Muhammad Sadiq werent in Qadian to help MGA at this time, they came later, after 1890.  Finally, it should be noted that this story was never presented by an Ahmadi authors.

Summary 

In 1884, Mirza Qadiyani wrote letters to Hindu and Christian Missionaries to come to Qadiyan, stay there for one year they will witness the sign of my prophethood during this period if no such sign witnessed by them, he will pay Rs.2400.00 to such person ( @ Rs200/- per month).

Pandit Lekhram responded to show his willingness to visit Qadiyan. Since Mirza wants this stunt only to prove himself and gain popularity, he created many hurdles to stop him from coming to Qadiyan. Like he sent him a list of strict terms & conditions which include demand of financial guarantee from pandit. He also used delay tactics , yet Pandit Lekhram did not bother, crossed all barriers and reached Qadiyan

His hurricane arrival at Qadiyan took Mirza by surprise. One day Mirza was discussing the terms of his stay at Qadiyan to witness a sign, the discussion diverted toward definition of MOJIZA or
SUPER NATURAL things. LEKHRAM SAID SUPERNATURAL means something which breaks the law of nature. Like, he said, knife is meant to cut , fire,s purpose is to burn And a tree can not walk. Now if you r a truthful prophet you show me some thing where knife do not cut , fire refuse to burn and tree start walking on your permission. IF U SHOW ME ANY OF THIS I WILL EMBRACE ISLAM BUT IF U FAILS TO DO THIS YOU MAY ACCEPT HINDUISM.

Mirza refused to do this by saying such definition of MOJIZA , supernatural is not in Quraan. Lekhram SAID the words MOJIZA HAS NOT BEEN MENTIONED IN QURAN ALTOGETHER. MIRZA INSISTED THAT WORDS IS THERE IN QURAAN. LEKHRAM SAID BRING THE Quraan, Quraan was brought ! Lekhram handed it over to Mirza and said ok show it to me where this word MOJIZA appears in Quraan. Mirza flipped the pages of Quraan over and over but failed to find any such words.

Finally Mirza said ok it is not there i take my words back. Pandit Lekhram has quoted this in his book Takzib Brahin Ahmadiya in mirza,s life but he or Nooruddin could not deny this. Lekhram said Hakim jay kishan, Lala Nihal Chand Lala Lachmi Sahai, Hakim Daya Ram, Kamaluddin the cousin of Mgaq,Munshi Murad Ali and an old man traveler were present at the time of this dialogue.

(Taken from book Raeese Qadiyan quoting from Takzib barahin,ahmadiya. Page 86.).

The scans

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sent Abdul Hameed to murder Dr. Clark, after Lekh Ram was murdered

Intro
Dr. Clark helped Abdullah Athim in the famous 15-day debate of 1893, in fact, the debate was held in Dr. Clark’s house in Amritsar.  Athim died in 1896, Lekh Ram died in 1897 and now a few people remained alive who had opposed MGA.  It seems that MGA sent an undercover Ahmadi to murder Dr. Clark.  Read Dr. Clark’s testimony in the below.

From “Kitab ul Barriya”, aka “Account of Exoneration” (1897)
http://www.ahmadiyya.org/bookspdf/bar/bar138-153-frm.htm

In the Court of A.E. Martineau,
District Magistrate, District Amritsar.

Plaintiff: The Empress of India.

Crime: Under Section 107.

Defendant: Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib, Qadian, Tehsil Batala.

Statement of Doctor Martyn Clarke

I am a medical missionary and live in Amritsar. On 15th July Abdul Hameed came to me and said: “I am a Brahmin of Batala. Ghulam
Ahmad Qadiani made me a Muslim. I remained with him as a student for seven years, and arrived at the conclusion that he was a very bad
man. Now I want to leave him and become a Christian”. I admitted him. His story did not appeal to me. I started making investigations
about him. I came to know that this story was absolutely false. His name was Abdul Hameed, not Abdul Majeed as he had stated. Nor
was he a Brahmin of Batala. In fact, he was a born Muslim of the Jhelum area. His paternal uncle, Burhan-ud-Din Ghazi, is a well
known religious fanatic. His entire family are zealous followers of Mirza Qadiani. This young man had lived in Gujrat, like those seeking
the Christian religion. He stole forty Rupees of his paternal uncle and wasted them in vice. Thereupon his uncle sent him to Mirza Qadiani.
I personally went to Beas. Then I enquired from him. He openly admitted before five witnesses that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad had sent
him to kill me. He was looking for an opportunity to smash my head with a stone or something similar when he found me asleep or in some
other condition.

He wrote all these events of his own accord. I produce this written paper which he signed in the presence of eight witnesses.
I have known Mirza sahib since the time of the debate which took place in the summer of 1893. I had taken a major part in the debate.
This debate took place between him and a very important Christian Abdullah Atham who is dead. I presided over the meeting and on two
occasions had acted as debater in place of Mr. Atham. Mirza sahib was deeply aggrieved. Afterwards he predicted the death of all those
who had participated in the debate, and my contribution had been tremendous. Since then his attitude towards me has been very hostile.
After the debate the centre of special attention was Mr. Atham. Four separate attempts were made to kill him. During the last two months
of the period fixed for his death, a special twenty four hour policeISSUANCE OF WARRANT AND ITS STOPPAGE guard was posted at Ferozepur. He had to flee from Amritsar to Anbala and from Anbala to Ferozepur, because of the attempts made on his life. These attempts have been generally attributed to Mirza sahib. After his death, I have been in view.

In many a veiled manner I have been reminded of this prophecy in Mirza sahib’s books. For this the greatest effort has been the one explained by Abdul Hameed. After Lekhram’s death in Lahore which everybody attributes to Mirza sahib, I had a special reason to believe that some sort of an attempt would be made to kill me. I had gone on leave of absence for three months. On my return, Mirza sahib at once came to know about my arrival and Abdul Hameed reached me. I have sufficient reasons to believe the statement of Abdul Hameed and also to believe that Mirza sahib intends to do harm to me. It has always been the technique of Mirza sahib that he predicts the death of his opponents.
Signature: A.E. Martineau, District Magistrate.

Read out. Accepted. Signature: A.E. Martineau, District Magistrate.

Statement of Abdul Hameed: I had myself written the sheet of paper presented by Dr. Clarke, and signed it.

Signed by Judge as above

Lekh Ram didn’t want to criticize Islam–Mirza Ghulam Ahmad forced him to

Intro
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, and most Ahmadis today are fond of engaging people into a match of cursing each other and etc.  Its really sick.  Even 100+ years ago, Ahmadis were doing the same.  We have come across some references wherein Lekh Ram is admitting that it was because of MGA that he began to ridicule Islam.  The scan in the below is from  “Takzeeb Braheen Ahmadiyya” which was written by Lekh Ram in the late 1880’s.

The scans

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad re-issued the Lekh Ram prophecy, after it expired

Intro
This blog entry was inspired by a question that I fielded on twitter.  An Ahmadi had asked me about the prophecies of MGA, he was asking in terms of how was it possible that MGA had so many prophecies come true and etc.  This Ahmadi, much like the majority of Ahmadis believe that ALL the prophecies of MGA had come true and this somehow proved MGA’s truthfulness.
In this short essay I will show just one example of MGA’s boasting-type-attitude and his non-stop deception, his constant lying, his never admitting to his mistakes, and other patterns of behavior that will shock even the most savage of men.  In the case of Lekh Ram vs. MGA, it is obvious that the Ahmadi-mullah team have tried their very vest to erase much of the evidence, nonetheless, i present the current research of 2016.

MGA’s beef with the Arya Samaj-Hindus of the Punjaab
After the publishing of BA-vol. 4, MGA began challenging the Hindus of India to a death contest, and by Ahmadiyya standards they call it a Mubahila.  This is also called the 1-year challenge. There were about 15 Arya Samajist in Qadian in those days (see page 78), it is interesting to note that Dard calls Arya-Samaj a cult on page 79, he seems to ignore the idea that Ahmadiyya is also a cult, like scientology.  Nonetheless, MGA had beefed with the Arya Samaaj since at least 1875 (Dard) and his beef continued.  This is against the Quran, since allah tells us to never criticize the Gods of other religions.  So obviously, MGA was ignoring a command of Allah and thus critisizing the God of the Hindus (see the Quran, 6:108, Tafsir Ibn Kathir).  In the history of Islam, no Muslim of India had ever challenged Hindus to Mubahila.  In fact, most muslims of the world had never ever done any Mubahila, and in fact, Muhammad (saw) never did any Mubahila.  The delegation of Christians that he met were in terms of collecting Jizya, which was a socio-political issue, not a matter of “lets argue religion”.

In 1885, Lekh Ram comes to Qadian
Per MGA’s challenge, Lekh Ram showed up and most likely stayed at the Arya Samaaj house of worship in Qadian.  To date, Lekh Ram’s writings on his visit to Qadian are missing from the records.  It is interesting to note, that from April 1885 to August 1885, Lekh Ram and MGA exchanged at least 10 letters (see Dard, page 109).  Finally, Lekh Ram showed up to Qadian in Nov of 1885.  MGA refused to meet with Lekh Ram and only letters were exchanged between the two.  ((((New research proves that MGA and Lekh Ram actually met, in this blog entry, I have cataloged the event)))).  They eventually agreed on a challenge of 300 rupees and this is where the Ahmadiyya records go blank.  They purposely hide the fact that MGA had also agreed to a Mubahila with Lekh Ram and this was a 1-year-Mubahila.  Lekh Ram countered and said that MGA and his lineage would be cut off.  He also said that MGA would die in 3 years.

20 Feb 1886 Prophecy
As everyone knows, this is the real prophecy vs. Lekh Ram.  However, it doesn’t mention Lekh Ram at all, in fact, it is mostly about the Promised Son.  It seems like that Ahmadi-mullah-team has edited all of those utterances totally out.

The March 1, 2886 Prophecy
On this date, MGA published an announcement vs. Lekh Ram.  

In 1893, MGA publishes his older correspondence with Lekh Ram
“””like Munshi Inderman Muradabadi and Pandit Lekhram Peshawari, about whose destiny and fate something will be written in this booklet (i.e. Siraj Muneer) provided there is enough time and the timing is right . . . I do so with a heavy heart . . . and if someone does not like a prophecy about them to be printed in this booklet . . . entitled to send me a written and signed statement by March 1, 1886, or within two weeks of the publication of this booklet . . ” (Collection of Advertisements, vol 1, pp 99-100) Lekhram promptly replied with a postcard asking to publish whatever Mirza Ghulam Ahmad wanted to publish about him. (RK, Vol 5. p.250).”””

Commentary
MGA and Lekh Ram entered into the death prophecy in 1886-1887.  This is the proof.  Lekh ram wrote as-follows:

Takzeeb-Braheen-e-Ahmadiyya, Vol.-1 :

“””This person will die of diarrhea within three years and none of his offspring will survive.””” (see the offical website of Ahmadiyya, retrieved on 11-9-16, https://www.alislam.org/library/history/ahmadiyya/19.html)

MGA also wrote about Lekh ram in 1888 as follows:

“What is the entitlement of the corpse-eating Liar that Heaven should show a sign for him and the earth should exhibit paranormal spectacles?” (Siraj-e-Muneer, Roohani Khazain vol.12 p. 3)

“Lekhram’s age is at present at the most 30 years and he is a young man of robust built in good health. And this humble self is little more than 50 years old and weak and permanently sick and is afflicted with different kind of illnesses. Despite that, it will be evident in this contest which thing is from human being and which is from God.” (Siraj-e-Muneer, Roohani Khazain vol. 12 p. 17)

All prophecies vs. the Arya Samaaj and Lekh Ram had expired by 1891
After 1891, Lekh Ram was provoked so much by MGA that he wrote some controversial tracts about Islam and etc.   At first, Lekh Ram had limited his attacks to the Ahmadi movement of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, but he increasingly attacked orthodox Muslims as well. His pamphlet, Risala-i-Jihad ya’ri Din-i-Muhammad ki Bunyad (A Treatise on waging holy war, or the foundation of the Muhammadan Religion) caused a considerable outcry, when it was published in 1892. Until his murder by a Muslim five years later, Lekh Ram continued to stir up animosity by his vituperative writings.” (Punjab and the Raj, 1849–1947″, p. 72–73) Ian Talbot.

In 1892, Lekh Ram’s life was in danger
From 1890-1893, a 3-year-period, MGA was silent on Lekh Ram.  All of sudden in 1893, MGA predicted the death of Lekh Ram in 6 years.  This is MGA and his team being dishonest yet again.  The saga and Mubahilas with the Arya Samaaj and Lekh Ram had all expired, MGA and Lekh Ram were still alive.  MGA admitted to making a prophecy about Lekh Ram in 1886, however, that is as far as he goes.

In 1897, Lekh Ram is murdered and the the doctors assistance is an Ahmadi
Lekh Ram was eventually murdered in 1897.  Batalvi urged the govt. to search MGA’s house. MGA seemed to have inside information on how Lekh ram died, this seems to have startled the entire Punjaab.  However, the inside story was that Lekh Ram was taken to the Mayo Hospitol in Lahore after getting stabbed, and the Doctors-assistant who was working that night just so happened to be an Ahmadi.  Mirza Yaquub Beg was the young Ahmadi doctor and he shared all of the info with MGA, in terms of where Lekh Ram was stabbed and etc.  And he boasted and gloated and was happy that Lekh Ram died (see pages 10-14).  Also See the ROR of 1984 for the story.

Some Conclusions
All of the Mubahilas between MGA and the Arya Samaaj seem to have ended by 1891.  MGA claimed that Lekh Ram would be punished and etc etc.  However, that happened, so in 1893, MGA simply re-issued the same mubahila and attached a 6-year period to it.  Later on, he would attach a 15-month death prophecy vs. Abdullah Athim which also failed.

The Ahmadiya editorial team seems to have struck again, as they continue to tie up loose ends in the writings of MGA.  Its non-stop.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kulliyat Arya Musafir by Lekh ram (1886)–quotes

Intro
Lekh Ram wrote extensively vs. Ahmadiyya from 1885-1890.  I will post the quotes here.

The quotes
Dard tells us (page 159) that Lekh Ram and the Arya Samaaj issued a special leaflet was issued at the Chashma Nur, Amritsar on July 27th, 1886, in which Ahmad was threatened with murder within three years.  However, this was not a threat, this was in retaliation to MGA’s mubahila-challenge.  MGA seems to have issued the same type of death prophecy vs. Lekh Ram, unfortunately, the Ahmadiyya editors seem to have erased the data.  Based on this admission by Dard, MGA should have died by at least 1890-1891.  And thus all of these “death-threats” that were issued back and forth came to an end in 1890-1891.

Nuskha-e-Khabte Ahmadiya (1888) by Lekh Ram

Intro
Below are some quotations from this famous book by Lekh Ram.

The quotes
“O Permeshwar (God) make decision between us truly; let your Sat Dharma (true religion) flow forth not by sword but through love, understanding, submission of proof and open out the adversary’s heart by conferment of Sat Gayan (True wisdom ) on him so that ignorance, prejudice, oppression and outrage are destroyed because a liar can never glorify in Thy Audience like the truthful. Writer: Your eternal slave, Lekh Ram Sharma, Sabhasud, Arya Samaj, Peshawar”. (Nuskha-e-Khabte Ahmadiya, P. 347; ret Lekh Ram & Mirza, P. 2, Author: Maulana Sanaullah Amritsari).

“Mirzaji has promised me Rs.500/-. This is his old habit (promising but not paying). Here is a poetic portrayal of his money promise through this couplet:

“””My life if you want dear, I mind it not; But knots of my purse, Oh, open them not!”””

We fully know his moveable and immovable assets and his indebtedness is not unknown to us. We throw his offer of monetary give and take into dust and make a present of those five hundred rupees back to him as betel-leaf chewing expenses from our side, on his on-coming new marriage* for which he says he has received a fresh revelation only recently”. (Nuskha-e-Khabte Ahmadiya, ret Rais-e-Qadian, Vol. 1, P. 121).

 

MGA used Lekh Ram’s arguments vs. Esa (as)

Intro
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 Explanation
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.

The Quotes
“…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
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)
https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.wordpress.com/2016/11/13/mgas-tirade-against-esa-as-was-too-much/

“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)

Conclusions
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.”

See—http://www.alislam.org/quran/tafseer/?page=729&region=E1

 

 

Lekh Ram’s correspondence with MGA in 1893

Intro
The Ahmadi-Mullahs have purposely deleted lots of data on Ahmadiyya.  They were ordered to do so from the Mirza family, and as loyal employees, these Mullahs delivered and deleted lots of controversial content.

The Quotes
Taken from here: http://www.anti-ahmadiyya.org/en/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=160

Letter of Pandit Lekhram to Mirza

On 24th June 1893, Pandit Lekhram wrote in his letter to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad:

“If writing a rebuttal of Braheen is ill-mannerism, then you are the first criminal, because according to Quran you had committed Kufr, you provoked us, because of which we wrote a reply. Had you not provoked us, then Permeshwar knows, that we had never thought of writings against religion of Islam. Thus if God forbid, divine punishment will descend then first its lightening will fall on your sitting room in Qadian. Then if self defense is a crime, then I too should be blamed.” (Weekly Satdharam Parcharak, Jallundher, dated 16th July 1897, mentioned in Raees-e-Qadian by Rafiq Dilawari p.133)

 

Up ↑