Last Updated on 15th March 2019
Taken from Al Fazl, 4 June 1918
Maulvi Sanaullah [Amritsari] took advantage of the fact that we did not obtain the books of the Promised Messiahas on the first day of the debate, and in doing so attributed a false doctrine to the Promised Messiahas. For this reason, we regretted not having the books of the Promised Messiahas and today, we have ordered many books and files containing newspapers of the Promised Messiahas from Kapurthala, which is 6-7 miles away from Kartarpur. Jamaat Kapurthala did a remarkable job in getting the literature to us.
Nonetheless, Maulvi Sanaullah Sahib did not even address those accusations and arguments, as he knew that we now had the books of the Promised Messiahas to answer from, thus able to reveal his evil plots. Otherwise, we had prepared many references that would have nullified the accusations of Maulvi Sanaullah Sahib. We could have, thus, proven that the victory of Islam is destined at the hand of the Promised Messiahas, however this Amritsari Maulvi steared clear of those subjects.
The convention commenced at 9 o’clock, and instead of Maulvi Sanaullah, Maulvi Nawabuddin approached the podium. Maulana Ghulam Rasul Sahib [Rajeki] represented us. The first session of the debate lasted three hours long.
As the Ahmadiyya representative, Maulana Ghulam Rasul Sahib proved the truthfulness of the Promised Messiahas through verses of the Holy Quran …
Further, he proved Huzoor’sas victory through Huzoor’sas very own revelations.
Maulvi Nawabuddin’s response
How could Maulvi Sahib answer Quranic arguments? So instead, he stood up and began reading from Maulvi Sanaullah’s journals Aqaid-e-Mirza and Chistan-e-Mirza, from beginning to end, thereby consuming his allotted time reading these journals aloud.
Readers will be aware that a written response to Chistan-e-Mirza was published quite some time ago, and Aqaid-e-Mirza is a recent publication which is based on nothing but fabrications. I do not feel the need to document each and every argument raised therein, as our readers are well-acquainted with most of them. Some, however, I shall present below …
Maulvi Sanaullah alleged: “I have a following of 150,000. 1,400 of them possess bachelor’s degrees, while 1,500 to 1,600 have master’s degrees. They are all my servants. I am a Godly saint and even if a person who sweeps my shoes rises up, no Ahmadi bears the strength to overpower them.”
The Ahmadi response: Maulvi Ghulam Rasul Sahib stated that to make such fabricated bold claims could not prove the truthfulness of anybody. “If you are indeed truthful, then surely you should be able to tell us where those people are who possess bachelor’s degrees. Otherwise, of course we will consider you a liar. And as far as your claim is concerned, that a person who sweeps your shoes is no match for any Ahmadi in argumentation, then we will have to see…”
Allegation: “Mirza Sahib[as] said that he was appointed as a prophet at the end of 1300 AH, but then in another place he states that he was appointed as a prophet in 1290 AH. Here, there is a difference of ten years. In another place he states that he was bestowed the honour of Divine discourse in 1275 AH, thereby creating a difference of 25 years. This is something that our minds cannot fathom.”
The Ahmadi response: “Maulvi Sahib, what a wonderful example of a discrepancy you have picked! But will you be so quick to reject the Quran on the basis of such a discrepancy. God states,
وَ اِ ذْ وٰعَدْنَا مُوْسيٰ اَرْبَعِيْنَ لَيْلَةً
[And remember the time when We made Moses a promise of forty nights. (Surah Al-Baqarah, Ch.2: V.52)]
whereas in another place, He states,
وَوَاعَدْنَا مُوْسيٰ ثَلَاثِيْنَ لَيْلَةً
[And We made Moses a promise of thirty nights (Surah Al-A‘raf, Ch.7: V.143)]
“Here, there is a difference of 10 days. Now, will you discard the Quran?
“The fact is that the difference is not of 25 years. In one place the Promised Messiahas refers to his prophethood, whereas in the other, he refers to the time when he began sharing words with his Lord. The year he was given prophethood was 1300 AH and he began receiving Divine revelations 25 years prior. Hence, there is no discrepancy.”
Allegation: “Mirza Sahib[as] writes that he saw God flicking ink from a pen and the drops of ink from the pen fell on Mirza Sahib[as].”
The Ahmadi response: “The Holy Prophetsa also saw God, and that too in the embodiment of a young man whose hair fell to his neck. This tradition is narrated in Sahih Al-Bukhari. If anyone should have any objection in seeing the Almighty, then it should first be raised against the Holy Prophetsa. As far as the red ink is concerned, that actually happened and the red ink did fall on him. There can be no denying it. Yes, you may obtain its proof from us, should you wish.”
Allegation: “Mirza Sahib[as] claims that he saw God personified as well as in visions and dreams.”
The Ahmadi response: “Perhaps Maulvi Sahib deems personification and visions to be two opposing phenomena. The fact is, Maulvi Sahib, that personifications occur in visions, and by not knowing this, the allegation occurred to you. Perhaps you would do better if you thought before you spoke.” …
The first session came to a close and the crowds discussed Maulvi Sahib’s embarrassing ignorance among themselves, so much so that when they reached home, the chairman of the congregation said, “Today, had anyone asked me the outcome [of the debate] I would have said that Maulvi Nawabuddin Sahib lost.” Upon this, Maulvi Nawabuddin replied, “Well, that does not make me a disbeliever!”
Before the debate commenced, participants of the event were told that if they could prove that Jesusas was raised to the heavens in bodily form, then the organisers would reject the claim of Hazrat Mirza Sahibas as the Promised Messiah and would accept that the same Jesusas was due to appear. However, if the Ahmadis were able to prove that Jesusas had passed away, then it would be accepted that Hazrat Mirza Sahib’sas claim was truthful.
Maulvi Sanaullah’s answer
Maulvi Sanaullah said to Miyan Muhammad Ismail Sahib Ahmadi, “If you wish to understand the reality about the ‘Death of Jesus’, then come with me and I shall explain this matter in private. This debate is unnecessary.”
Upon this, the response from our [the Ahmadiyya] side was, “Whatever you wish to explain in private, explain it here in front of everybody so that everyone can benefit from it. We will give you the proof of his death so that the issue is settled once and for all.” Maulvi [Sanaullah] Sahib evaded the opportunity with excuses.
Proof of Jesus’as death
At that moment, Hazrat Maulana Ghulam Rasul Sahib presented a lecture on the truthfulness of the Promised Messiahas and briefly expounded on the death of Jesusas in such a great manner that Maulvi Sanaullah Sahib was not given an opportunity to even whimper. Maulvi Sahib paid no attention to those arguments, even though he was directly questioned on them and was summoned to present a response. However, Maulvi Sahib avoided coming to those points.
Maulvi Sanaullah’s speech
As opposed to using the Quran, Maulvi Sanaullah Sahib succumbed to the prophecy pertaining to the nikah [marriage] with Muhammadi Begum instead. (As readers are aware of the sort of allegations Maulvi Sanaullah raises at this prophecy, it would be unfitting, and a means of prolonging this report, to mention each and every allegation. However, we shall present the core arguments.)
Maulvi Ghulam Rasul Sahib established the argument through the Quran that God reserves the right to abrogate or alter His signs, as He stated:
وَاِذَابَدَّلْنَا آيَةٍ مَّكَانَ آيَةٍ
[And when We bring one sign in place of another … (Surah Al-Nahl, Ch.16: V.102)]
مَا نَنْسَخْ مِنْ آيَةٍ
[Whatever Sign We abrogate … (Surah Al-Baqarah, Ch.2: V.107)]
and … the life of anything is in the Hand of God. As He states Himself,
يَمْحُوا اللہُ مَا يَشَاءُ وَ يُثْبِتُ
[Allah effaces what He wills, and establishes what He wills. (Sural Al-Ra‘d, Ch.13: V.40)]
Thus, if any abrogation or alteration is witnessed in a sign of God, then no objection can be raised against the truthfulness of the one who received the revelation. A prophecy containing a warning is more suitable to be altered or abrogated, as was the prophecy vouchsafed to Jonahas concerning a punishment that would appear within forty days on his nation. That punishment was avoided as a result of their repentance and it is God’s promise,
وَمَا كَانَ اللہُ مُعَذِّبَهُمْ وَهُمْ يَسْتَغْفِرُوْنَ
[And Allah would not punish them while they sought forgiveness (Surah Al-Anfal, Ch.8 : V.34)]
Thus, according to the prophecy of Ahmad Baig’s demise, his son-in-law and the rest of his family witnessed the truth of the prophecy, which ultimately made them fearful and led them to repent and seek forgiveness from God. They wrote letters to the Promised Messiahas and that is why he [Ahmad Baig’s son-in-law] avoided death and Muhammadi Begum’s nikah was also abrogated.
In response, Sanaullah cited the verse,
وَعْدَ اللہِ ۖ لَا يُخْلِفُ اللہُ وَعْدَهُ وَلَـٰكِنَّ أَ كْثَرَ النَّاسِ لَا يَعْلَمُونَ
[Allah has made this promise. Allah breaks not His promise, but most men know not. (Surah Al-Rum, Ch.30: V.7)]
showing his resolute belief that God never alters His promise. This is the summary of Maulvi Sahib’s argument. Readers can decide for themselves what the outcome was.
City of Jalandhar
(Al Fazl, 4 June 1918)