The first schism of the Ahmadiyya occurred in 1914.
The personalities on each side were Mirza Mahmud Ahmad and Maulana Muhammad Ali
The took opposite stands on these two issues, which had immense repercussions in post-British Pakistan. The Qadianis believed positively in these two issues, while the Lahoris knew that it would put them out of the fold of Islam but they eventually had the weaker case.
The Qadianis have been labeled heretic because of these, and it is no surprise that they have wavered back and forth on them over the decades. However, thanks to Dr. Jamal Musa, we have uncovered the definitive reference on this issue in the form of a debate held in 1915 -- Qaul Faisal, Mubahatha Shimla. These proceedings represents the closest we will get to the original positions.
Subsequently, other issues emerged:
Maulana Muhammad Ali, and his friends, repudiated the Khilafat of the second Qadiani Khalifa; but during his tenure, the Lahori group elected three 'khalifas', in the sense acceptable in their eyes, namely, Maulvi Ghulam Hussain of Peshawar, Syed Hamid Shah of Sialkot, and Khawaja Kamaluddin. (Paigham-i-Sulha, March 24, 1914) (see also Truth Prevails by Qazi Muhammad Nazeer (1966), preface section).
Maulvi Ghulam Husain of Peshawar was the father-in-law of Mirza Bashir Ahmad circa 1906, and he also refused to pledge allegiance to Noorudin, and was also a member of the 14-member Anjuman. One year before his death, he left the Lahori Group and pledged allegiance to Mirza Mahmud Ahmad, the leader of the Qadiani group.
Khawaja Kamal-ud-Din writes in 'Androoni Ikhtilafat':
I have addressed Mirza Mahmud Ahmad regarding these matters because sometimes such writings appear from Qadian that should not come from there. It is true that they do not bear the name and signature of Mirza Mahmud Ahmad, but they are in the public considered as emanating from him, and when no refutation appears afterwards from him this proves that they are from him. Take the article published in Al-Fazl, December 1914, entitled: With whom should we have social relationship? Should we consider it as emanating from Mirza Mahmud Ahmad? It is indicated in this writing that his followers must not meet those Ahmadis who have not taken his bai‘at, nor have social relations with them, nor accept their hospitality. It is due to this article that I rejected the idea, which was originally my intention, that his followers and those who do not accept him should gather together in Qadian. What must be considered is the effect this article will have on the ordinary person, not the meaning the writer will give to it by way of expediency. Can such articles, published just at the time of the annual gathering when it was possible that some agreement may be reached, lead to any good result, or will they estrange his followers so much that they will not meet or greet or sit and eat with people of the other side? The purpose of that article is to widen the gulf of disagreement that exists between us. When his followers are not allowed to converse with or have any kind of relations with those Ahmadis who do not accept him as leader, and are told to seek refuge with God when they see such a person, then non- Ahmadis are better than they. If this is the treatment you teach towards Ahmadis who have not accepted Mirza Mahmud Ahmad, then do tell us what kind of treatment you will extend to non-Ahmadi Muslims. Also, the writer of that article should inform the world at large of the treatment he believes in extending towards non-Muslims, so that the general population gets to know of his civilised beliefs. It is a pity that the writer has cared not for the very basic principle of Islam.