A Critical Review of the Pamphlet, 'Fateh-e-Qadian' — Page 14
14 A critical Review of the Pamphlet—‘f a te h -e-Qadian’ escape from the sincere invitation of the Promised Messiah as. Instead of a contest in written commentary, P i r [Meher ‘Al i ] put forward a suggestion for a debate about the Promised Messiah as ’s claim of being the Messiah. He went on to appoint a person 9 as judge who was the leader of the disbelievers and was known to hold the same views as those of P i r [Meher ‘Al i]. He was a declared opponent of the Promsied Messiah as over the matter of the death of Jesus [ Hadrat ‘ I s a as ] and based his entire faith on the continued life of Jesus [ Hadrat ‘ I s a as ] and on apposing the Promised Messiah as. It was also ridiculous that P i r [Meher ‘Al i Sh a h] Golarhv i himself appointed Maulav i Muhammad Bat a lv i to judge the verbal debate together with two other similar people, because these people were already supporting the P i r in his rejection of the Promised Messiah as. The Reply of Maulav i Muhammad A h san Maulav i Muhammad A h san published an announcement on August 14, 1900, that if P i r [Meher ‘Al i Sh a h] is not avoiding the contest, then the same three ulema 10 who were appointed by the Promised Messiah as to judge the written commentary should publish an oath that the P i r’s method is not a proof of his helplessness in the matter of writing a commentary. Then, if within a year, no sign appears in support of Mirz a [ Ghul a m Ahmad ] we 9 That is, Maulav i Muhammad H usain Bat a lv i [Publishers] 10 Maulav i Muhammad H usain Batalv i , Maulav i ‘Abdul Jabb a r Ghaznav i and Maulav i ‘Abdull a h. See page 11 above [Publishers]