Ahmadis will be seen running around making many false arguments. They are brainwashed to learn these arguments, so thus, they never listen or seek to understand why people don’t believe in Ahmadiyya, aka the Mirza family business.
New research from Upal (2017) proves that MGA was called a Kafir even before his wild claims!
All of the research work on Ahmadiyya up to 2016 indicated that MGA was only called a Kafir in 1891, as he claimed to be the second coming of Esa (as). However, new research from Upal proves that MGA was called a Kafir as early as the 1880–1884 era (see page 126). This was during the time that MGA was affiliated with the Ahle-Hadith aka Wahhabis of India. However, it should be noted that in 1891, MGA also did Takfir on any and all Muslims who believe in Abrogation or that Muhammad (Saw) isn’t the final prophet. MGA was denying a claim to prophethood in this era, in fact, he kept on denying it until Nov. of 1901, when he finally claimed prophethood and in a round about way.
Batalvi’s comments from 1884 on MGA being called a Kafir
As we know, the Ahle-hadith circles in British-India donated heavily towards MGA’s Braheen-e-Ahmadiyya. They were not impressed, in fact, the husband of the Queen of Bhopal tore up the Braheen-e-Ahmadiyya (we are not sure what year or which volume) and sent it back to Qadian in disgust. They were offended!!! MGA’s denied all the miracles of Esa (As) and was disrespecting a high-ranking Messenger of Allah.
Upal (2017) writes
“””While Nawab Sidiq Khan had criticized Braheen because of its anti-Christian
views, a number of other Muslim leaders saw in it claims that ran counter to their
understanding of Islamic doctrine. These included Amritsar and Ludhiana’s Muslim
leaders who issued a fatwa of kufr against Ahmad and went around India to collect
signatures from other Muslims to the same effect (Batalavi, 1884: 170). Ahmad’s friend,
Muhammad Hussain Batalavi, took upon himself to reply to this criticism through
his Ishat-us-Sunnah magazine. He devoted a whopping one hundred and fifty three
pages of Issue Nine and Ten to respond to each of these criticisms with well researched
arguments. The amount of time, effort, money, and his personal capital, Batalavi spent
on defending Ahmad reveals the extent of their ideological and social connections.
The review also reveals Batalavi’s perceptions of Ahmad. Batalavi clearly identifies
with Ahmad as a fellow Punjabi Ahl-e-Hadith who is willing to spend considerable
resources to defend Islam. He also sees Ahmad as more rural, less educated, less
sophisticated, and less successful than himself. He sees Ahmad as “a Punjabi who has
never had the opportunity” to live in the cosmopolitan cultural centers of Hindustan,
“who hasn’t had the occasion to read Urdu literature” and therefore is not able to write
“refined Urdu vernacular” (Batalavi, 1884: 346). There are also hints of a noble savage in
Batalavi’s perceptions of Ahmad as he sees Ahmad as someone who is so overcome with
religious fervor and zeal that “he’s unable to hold back” from including his unrelated
revelations in the Braheen (thereby lengthening it and “increasing publication
costs”), and someone who doesn’t understand that the “current civilization” demands
refraining from crudely attacking one’s enemies (Batalavi, 1884: 346).
Batalavi touts his personal knowledge of Ahmad’s beliefs beyond the words
written in Braheen to defend Ahmad. Answering the accusation that some of Ahmad’s
English revelations are grammatically incorrect, Batalavi says, “When I met the
author who visited the city of Batala, where I am now, I asked him, ‘when you receive
revelations in English, are you shown English alphabets or Persian alphabets?’ He
responded that he is shown English sentences written in Farsi script. That’s when
I became sure of my suggestion that the mistake lies in the author’s perception…
and not the divine revelation” (Batalavi, 1884: 291). Ahmad’s ignorance of English
and his miracle of English revelations will attract English speaking Christians and
Hindus to Islam argues Batalavi. It’s clear that Batalavi sees the younger Ahmad as
his junior, albeit more zealous, friend in need of assistance. Batalavi sees himself
as heroically defending Ahmad with his superior knowledge of Quran, Hadith, and
Islamic traditions. Since Batalavi does not see Ahmad as his competitor, he holds
nothing back in defending him.”””
In the Braheen-e-Ahmadiyya, vol. 3, 1883, MGA claimed that 9:32 was revealed to himself
In this era, MGA began faking revelations onto himself in great abundance. In fact, he applied 9:32 onto himself and without a commentary, later on in 1901, he would claim that the word Messenger in this verse and subsequently to the revelation of MGA in 1883, was an indication of MGA’s prophethood.