Intro
On Aug-16-2026, at the Hudawai cultural center in Huddersfield, UK, there will be a “Finality of Prophethood” seminar with Declan Henry, Sohail Bawa, Adnan Rashid and Bro Imtiaz via livestream.
Intro
Hud b. Muhakkam al-Huwwari, an early Ibaadi exegete of the third Hijri century in North Africa, he wrote a Tafsir called “Tafsir Kitab Allah al-‘Aziz”. It should be noted that Hud’s Tafsir is the only complete tafsir among early Ibaadi works in this field which still exists. Certain European scholars, especially French and British, have paid considerable attention to Ibadi history. British scholars dealt with Ibadi history in Oman while French scholars concerned themselves with Ibadi history in North Africa (See “Ibadi Tafsir with Special Reference to the Tafsirs of Hud al-Huwwarl and Sa”d ibn Ahmad al-Kindi” thesis by Sulaiman Ali Amer al-Shuaily, 2000).
In this Tafsir, in terms of 3:55, he says that wafah here is the one of raising ( i.e his explanation of mutawaffeeka), and he also adds another tafsir that it is taqdim and taakheer (via Ibn Abbas, mumeetuka) that Eisa (as) will be raised and then die when he descends. Hud b. Muhakkam al-Huwwari clearly believed Isa is alive and will descend.
In this Tafsir, in terms of 5:116-117, Hud b. Muhakkam al-Huwwari says that this “wafah” is a raising to the heavens.
In terms of 4:157-159, Hud b. Muhakkam al-Huwwari says that Eisa (as) was not killed, raised to Allah, and will descend.
In 2000, in this thesis (See “Ibadi Tafsir with Special Reference to the Tafsirs of Hud al-Huwwarl and Sa”d ibn Ahmad al-Kindi” thesis by Sulaiman Ali Amer al-Shuaily, 2000), Ka’b Al-Ahbar was mentioned over 10 times, however, he never related any Israʼiliyyat about Eisa (as) and the cross and nothing about 4:158, 3:55 and all the common verses.
Intro
In 1880-1882, MGA denied that Eisa (as) raised the dead (see 3:49 of the Quran, 3:50 in the Kadiani Koran)(See also 5:110 of the Quran, 5:111 in the Kadiani Koran)(See Braheen e Ahmadiyya, Vol. 3, pages 229 and 233). MGA also denied the miracle of the snake of Musa (as)(See Braheen e Ahmadiyya, Vol. 3, pages 229 and 233. The verses of the Quran, which prove that Musa (as) dropped his rod and Allah turned it into a snake are covered in Chapter 20: 17-20 (See Tafsir ibn Kathir)(See the Kadiani Tafsir of these verses herein).
In 1882-1884, MGA quoted the Bible, John Verses 2-5 (make sure you read John, verses 1-15 to properly understand the context), as he denies the miracles of Jesus in the bible. However, MGA forgets to mention that the Quran, 3:49 had already confirmed the many miracles of Esa (as) and it specifically spoke of the instance in John wherein Esa (as) healed the blind, the sick, the lepers and brought a man back to life. In fact, in MGA’s first 10 books, he never mentioned the Quran, Chapter 3 verses 45-51 (See Braheen e Ahmadiyya, Vol. 4, pages 31-35, online English edition). MGA also scoffs at how some insects can be brought back to life with salt. MGA is making a mockery of the miracles of Esa (as).
In 1886, MGA called the miracle of the splitting of the moon a rare natural phenomenon like male humans/goats that give milk (a lie).
In 1891, MGA denied all miracles and accused Eisa (as) of mesmerism and slight of hand, Musa (as) also. #Ahmadis deny 26:63 (26:64 in the Qadiani Quran) of the Quran and claim that Musa (as) never split the sea, it was a low tide phenomenon. Watch Bro Imtiaz explain this whole thing herein. MGA kept going, in 1893, via his written debate with Athim, MGA denied the miraculous birth of Eisa (as)(See Ruhani Khazain volume 6 Jang-e-Muqadas page 280-281) and later on Qadiani-Ahmadi’s began to call Maryam a Hermaphrodite (astagfarullah) and argued that all miracles happened via science.
In 1891, MGA argued that in terms of 29:50 of the Quran, the people specifically wanted “punishment” (See “3 Questions by a Christian”, pages 11-12)(See also Dard, page 220).
In 1893, via his written debate with Athim, MGA denied the miraculous birth of Eisa (as)(See Ruhani Khazain volume 6 Jang-e-Muqadas page 280-281) and later on Qadiani-Ahmadi’s began to call Maryam a Hermaphrodite (astagfarullah) and argued that all miracles happened via science. In 2023, they have backtracked and only call it a possibility, however, to consider this a possibility is to cede and reject the signs of Allah.
In 1897-1898, MGA and his team of writers argued that the Christians have written about many miracles of (Jesus) but the fact is that he did not perform any miracle (moijza)(See Zamima Anjam-e-Atham, RK-v11 p.290).
In 1899, MGA and his team of writers alleged that Mirza Mubarak Ahmad (MGA’s son) spoke twice in his mothers womb. Tiryaqul-Qulub Page 119 (arabic edition), Tiryaqul-Qulub Page 80 (Lahori-Ahmadi version online), Ruhani Khazain, Volume-15, page 217, Tiryaq ul Quloob page 41.
In 1899, via Malfuzat-2, online English edition (page 102, updated via Raoof), MGA denied the miracle of the snake of Musa (as).
In 1902, MGA and his team of writers alleged that 3000 miracles were displayed by the Prophet Muhammad (saw) (See RK, Vol. 17, page 153, Tohfa Golarvia).
In 1903 (See Tadhkirat-ush-Shahadatain [1903] online english edition), MGA began to allege that he had a 100,000 predictions/prophecies fulfilled, and even if a few didn’t get fulfilled, like Athim and also the death of Ahmad Baig‘s son-in-law (Sultan Muhammad, married to Muhammadi Begum), that shouldn’t be a big issue.
In 1905 (Feb), MGA and his team of writers alleged that prophets are not magicians and do tricks for people, 29:50 was quoted (See Al-Badr, vol. 4, no. 6, p. 3,4, dated 18 February 1905; al-Hakam, vol. 9, no. 7, p. 2,3, dated 24 February 1905, via Malfuzat-7, online English edition, pages 122-123).
In 1906, in Chashma Masihi, MGA denied the miracle of the snake of Musa (as) again.
In 1906-1907, MGA alleged that his son Mirza Mubarak Ahmad had died, MGA then placed his hand on Mirza Mubarak Ahmad’s body and focused my attention toward God Almighty [and] so after two or three minutes the boy started breathing and a pulse could be felt and the boy became alive. Then it occurred to me that the giving of life to the dead, by `Eesaa, peace on him, was of this same kind and then the ignorant embellished upon it (See “Haqiqatul Wahi”, online English edition, page 324, Sign-104)(Urdu, RK, v. 22, p. 265). MGA also scoffed at snakes turning into rods and vice and versa (see page 355 of “Haqiqatul Wahi”, online English edition).
In 1908, (April-May), in Chashma-e-Marifat, MGA and his team of writers wrote that Maryam (as) had both male and female “characteristics” and was thus able to impregnant herself via male sperm if she ever got excited (See the Hermaphrodite theory). They were arguing that Hindu’s shouldn’t object to the miraculous birth since strange stories of births exist in Hindu literature.
In 1908 (Mar-2), MGA and his team of writers argued that there is the issue of creating birds by Jesus. I do not deny miracles, rather I believe in them. The miracle of creation of birds by Jesus as is very much akin to the incident of the staff of Moses (as). Despite the fact that it became a snake at the time of the confrontation with the enemies, yet at other times it had remained the same staff that it ever was and had not gone and mingled with some colony of snakes afterwards. Similarly, the birds of Jesus were, in the end, just of clay. In fact, the staff of Moses is far superior than the birds of Jesus as because it had to face the challenge and showed its supremacy in that challenge whereas those birds did not compete with anything nor was their supremacy ever proven (See Al-Hakam, vol. 12, no. 16, p. 4–6, dated 2 March 1908, via Malfuzat-10, page 175).
In 1908 (Apr), MGA and his team of writers argued that the miracle of Moses as in converting his staff into a snake, is far greater than raising the dead (See Al-Hakam, vol. 12, no. 26, p. 1–4, dated 10 April 1908, via Malfuzat-10, page 270).
In 1908 (Oct), via BA5, MGA and his team of writers called the splitting of the moon as a type of lunar eclipse (see pages 106-107).
In 1917, Maulvi Muhammad Ali totally denied all the miracles of Solomon in his English commentary of the Quran. Finally, this story started from the Torah (see Proverbs), the Quran simply confirmed it like it confirmed the physical ascension of Idris (as) aka Enoch. Just like it confirmed that Esa (as) flew up to heaven and sat down at the right hand of God.
In the 1960’s, via Tafseer-e-Kabeer, Mirza Basheer ud din Mahmud Ahmad argued that “the ants” was a name of a human tribe, that the ant mentioned was their queen.
In 1988, via the Qadiani Quranic commentary of Malik Ghulam Farid, See under 19:22 (19:23 in the Kadiani Koran). And 3:47 (3:48 in the Kadiani Koran). They alleged that tumors can cause the creation of Male sperm through a process called arrhenblastoma. This argument was repeated in the online edition of 2025.
In 1996 (Sep-4), in a QNA session, Mirza Tahir Ahmad was asked about Musa’s (as) splitting of the sea and the Red Drops miracle of MGA. Mirza Tahir Ahmad suggested that it might have been an earthquake, he said “some scholars”. Mirza Tahir Ahmad alleges that the water was spread out and not able to drown Musa (as) and his people. However, there was an explosion in the Mediterranean Sea which caused a tidal wave which helped appeared like the sea had been split. Mirza Tahir Ahmad also suggested that the Nile river was flooded too. Mirza Tahir Ahmad said that the scientific explanation of what happened doesn’t take away from the Mojiza. Mirza Tahir Ahmad alleged that the red drops miracle is something that happens rarely and it is a sign of truth for the believers, not the non-believers. Mirza Tahir Ahmad even called it a freak of nature, these are never presented to the unbelievers. Mirza Tahir Ahmad said that the miracles of Eisa (as) were pointless, since it barely converted at the most 30 people (naozobillah). At the very end, Mirza Tahir Ahmad calls some miracles as “freak of nature” and they are in “apparent” breach of the laws of nature.
In the 2018, 5-volume Official Commentary of the Quran by Malik Ghulam Farid, it is argued that this verse does not mean the valley of ants as is generally misunderstood but the valley where a tribe named Naml lived. In Qamus under the word برق we have الابرقة من میاہ النملة i.e. Abriqah is one of the springs of Namlah. So Naml is the name of a tribe just as Mazin ( مازن ) which means the eggs of ants is the name of an Arab tribe. In Arabia it was not an uncommon practice that tribes were named after animals and beasts such as Banu Asad, Banu Taghlab, Banu Kalb, Banu Naml, etc. Moreover, the use of the words ادخلوا (enter) and مساکنکم (your habitations) in the verse lends powerful support to the view that Naml was a tribe, since the former word is used only for rational beings and the expression مساکنکم (your habitations) has been used in the Quran exclusively for human habitations (29:39; 32:27). Thus نملة means a person of the tribe of النمل ; a Namlite. The said Namlite was possibly their leader and had ordered the people to get out of the way of the army of Solomon and enter their houses.
Continue reading “Ahmadiyya and miracles, everything you need to know”
Intro
I bumped into someone on social media today and told me that I should file a privacy claim with OIPC vs. the Ahmadiyya Movement in the USA. OIPC is an organization that governs personal information and privacy in Canada. Through their services, you can get all information, emails or documents even mentioning your name or talking about you from any organization. All you have to do is send the Cult a request first. If they don’t comply within 30 business days you can forward the complaint to the OIPC and they will legally make the Jamaat comply.
It’s called a section 23 request. You have the right to any and all personal information they hold on you, have used of yours for decision making, for profiling etc. A section 24 request is where you dispute the information and they have to correct it. If they don’t correct it they have to annotate it permanently stating that it has been disputed with such and such. Even in America and the UK you can make requests for your information that they have. In Canada BC it’s the OIPC that governs this, rest of Canada a different organization, UK it’s ICO. So for example Mirza Nabeel Baig has filed a lawsuit and is asking for his information that they used and the judgments they made against him, he can make a request to the OIPC for this information. Eventually the Jamaat will get issued a court order to comply with the privacy and personal information rights and this will be made public by the government. See the AMJI global policy on privacy herein.
Continue reading “How do I file a privacy claim against the Ahmadiyya Movement via OIPC?”
In the 1870’s, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was fast friends with a Christian missionary named Padre Rajab Ali
Intro
In 1878, Pandit Kharak Singh, a member of the Arya Samaj, Amritsar, came to Qadian and wanted to hold a debate with MGA. MGA proposed that Rajab Ali, a Christian missionary, and Pandit Shiv Nara’in, a Brahmu Samajist, be appointed as judges of the debate so that it might draw the attention of the public and make it more interesting, useful and authoritative.
In publishing his paper, MGA addressed the following persons also; Pandit Kharak Singh, Pandit
Dayanand, Bawa Nara’in Singh, Munshi Jiwan Das, Munshi Kanahiya Lal, Munshi Bakhtawar Singh, Editor Arya Darpan, Babu Sarda Parsad, Munshi Sharampat of Qadian and Munshi Indarman. He also promised a prize of Rs. 500 (see Dard, pages 84-85).
In 1879, MGA would travel all alone to Amritsar to check the proofs and would return alone; no one—while coming or going—would even ask me who I was, nor was I acquainted with anyone, nor did I enjoy any dignified status of competence. Even the Aryas of Qadian are witness to these circumstances of mine. One of them, Sharampat by name, lives in Qadian to this day. He accompanied me a few times to Pastor Rajab Ali’s press in Amritsar where my book Barahin-e-Ahmadiyya was being printed. All the prophecies were transcribed by Rajab Ali’s scribe. Upon reading the prophecies, the pastor himself expressed his amazement stating, ‘How could it be possible that a whole world would turn towards such an ordinary man?’ But since those words were from God—they were not mine—they came to fruition in their own good time and continue to do so. At one time, human eyes marvelled at them [in disbelief], while at another time they actually beheld their fulfilment (See BA-5, page 104).
In 1880, MGA published “Barahin-i-Ahmadiyya V-1+2″ via the Safir-e-Hind Press in Amritsar. This press was owned by a Christian missionary named Padre Rajab Ali (aka Reverend Rajab Ali)(See 41:00 time stamp), he is also mentioned in MGA’s “Purani Tehreirin” (See page 3). MGA says that MGA had arranged with Rajab Ali in 1878 to have the book printed at his press, the Safir-e-Hind, Amritsar. Sh. Nur Ahmad says that the first part was printed there under his supervision and that after that he started press of his own, Riyad-e-Hind, and Rajab Ali entrusted the printing of the second and the third parts also to Sh. Nur Ahmad. When MGA came to know that the book was actually being printed at the Riyad-e-Hind Press he arranged the printing of the fourth part directly with Sh. Nur Ahmad. Sh. Nur Ahmad was employed by Rajab Ali in the Safir Hind Press, Amritsar, and made responsible for producing the first part of the Brahin-e-Ahmadiyya. Started a Press of his own, Riyad-e-Hind, in Hall Bazaar. Printed the 2nd and the 3rd parts of the book at his Press at Rajab Ali’s orders and the 4th at MGA’s direct order (see Dard, page 397).
In 1884, MGA won his postal case vs. the British Government and alleged that if you study the office record of the Summary Court, Amritsar, of the same date, you will find my deposition
there in the file of the lawsuit about one Rajab Ali, a Christian missionary. This Sign was manifested in the year 1884 CE. Under the same reference, the Postal Register can be examined and under the same reference, my deposition in the Summary Court, Amritsar can be traced. In case the Hindu witnesses refuse to testify, they may be obliged to speak the truth under oath. This prophecy is recorded on pages 469 and 470 of Barahin-e-Ahmadiyya and the names of these Aryas are referred to. If those people did not happen to be the eyewitnesses to this prophecy, it doesn’t stand to reason that they should have remained silent for so long despite being extremely hostile. Why did they remain silent from 1884 CE until now, 1906 CE, despite the knowledge that in my books and pronouncements I have repeatedly written their names as witnesses? (See Haqiqatul Wahi, online English edition, pages 356-357)(see Dard, page 83).
In 1907, via “Ahmadis and the Aryas of Qadian” (in Urdu as Qadian kei Arya aur Hamm)(See pages 12 and 27) MGA argued that Lala Shrampat that—since firstly, he has witnessed my time when he alone went to Amristsar with me, moreover, when Barahin-e-Ahmadiyya was being
published it was him who accompanied me to the house of the Priest Rajab Ali many a time; he knows well that at the time I was an unknown person and no one was acquainted with me, and he is fully aware that during the period when Barahin-e-Ahmadiyya was being published, meaning.
Intro
In 2026, an Albanian Ahmadi (on TikTok as @feko836 aka Pasha) asked me if I had read this specific book and wrote anything about it. See my review…
In the 1970’s, Andreas Faber Kaiser (he was editor of the UFO and occult magazine) wrote
“Jesus died in Kashmir: Jesus, Moses and the ten lost tribes of Israel”. Andreas Faber Kaiser was basically a conspiracy theorist looking for sales. He was a proponent of the gnostic view that Jesus survived his crucifixion, was hidden by Essenes and travelled to India. Fabier-Kaiser cited discredited apocrypha forgeries such as William Dennes Mahan‘s A Correct Transcript of Pilate’s Court.
In this book, Andreas Faber Kaiser argued that “there is evidence that Jesus visited Kashmir during his youth, of which the Bible says virtually nothing more than that he visited Jerusalem when he was twelve”. Clearly, the Ahmadiyya theory is at odds with this conclusion.
Per Beskow in The Blackwell Companion to Jesus Delbert Burkett – 2011 “Its main propagandist in the West was Andreas Faber-Kaiser with his book Jesus Died in Kashmir (1978), where he … This claim, however,was severely refuted by the famous orientalist Max Müller (1894), who had himself visited Himis and had …”
Additional quotes:
“After seven years of investigations concerning the shroud that covered (Christ’s) body, many
scientists have come to the conclusion that Jesus was buried alive. The experts affirm that the
Holy Shroud preserved in Turin lay on a crucified body that suffered exactly the same passion
as Jesus, but state that this person did not die on the cross, but was buried while still alive. The
twenty-eight bloodstains on the shroud prove this. The investigators assure us that a corpse
wrapped in a shroud certainly could not bleed in that manner. Jesus was buried alive, unless a
second Jesus existed and he was mad to suffer the same agony” (Faber-Kaiser, p. 28).
“He discovered on the shroud tiny grains of fossilized pollen that, after detailed tests, turned out to be from plants existing only in Palestine twenty centuries ago. After this he had no doubt at all about the authenticity of the shroud, which was also found to carry traces of pollen from
plants in the area of Constantinople and the Mediterraneans. Pollens from fifteen different
plants were discovered: six Palestinian, one from Constantinople, and eight Mediterranean”
(Faber-Kaiser, 28).
“Death eventually came through hunger and thirst, the inclemency of the weather, or attacks by birds of prey or other beasts. On some occasions it was speeded up by breaking the criminal’s legs, and at other times the ordeal of hanging on the cross was considered sufficient punishment and the victim was taken down after a day or so and allowed to live. If the crucifixion wounds were carefully treated, it was possible to recover” (Faber-Kaiser, p. 26).
“Later my secretary told me that he had never read in the works of philosophers anything that
could be compared with the teachings of Jesus, and that he was neither leading people astray
nor an agitator. That is why we decided to protect him. He was free to act, to talk, and to call a
gathering of the people. This unlimited liberty provoked the Jews, who were indignant; it did not
upset the poor but it irritated the rich and powerful. Later I wrote a letter to Jesus asking for an
interview at the Forum. He came. When the Nazarene appeared I was taking my morning
stroll, and, looking at him, I was transfixed. My feet seemed fettered with iron chains to the
marble floor; I was trembling all over as a guilty person would, although he was calm. Without
moving, I appraised this exceptional man for some time. There was nothing unpleasant about
his appearance or character. In his presence I felt a profound respect for him. I told him that he
had an aura around him and his personality had an infectious simplicity that set him above the
present-day philosophers and masters. He made a deep impression on all of us, owing to his
pleasant manner, simplicity, humility, and love. These, worthy sovereign, are the deeds that
concern Jesus of Nazareth, and I have taken time to inform you in detail about this affair. My
opinion is that a man who is capable of turning water into wine, who heals the sick, who
resuscitates the dead and calms rough seas is not guilty of a criminal act” (Faber-Kaiser, p.
24).
“Jesus’s head and hands were placed higher than the rest of his body. Had Jesus been
dead when wrapped in the shroud, this would have meant that no fresh blood could have
flowed from these parts and left traces on the cloth. However,…the cloth shows traces
of blood running from the wounds caused by the crown of thorns that the Romans
wound round Jesus’s head, mocking him as “King of the Jews, and that once the body
was lowered from the cross and the “crown” removed, the wounds caused by the throrns
started to bleed” (Faber-Kaiser, p. 34).
“If Jesus had been dead for some time, all the blood would have congealed in the lower
part of his body. It is nature’s law that provided the heart continues to pump, the blood
will continue to circulate, even in a vacuum…Thus, as fresh blood could not have flowed from Jesus’s head wounds if his heart had stopped beating, there is medical evidence
that Jesus was not dead when he was wrapped in the shroud. He may have stopped
breathing, and so appeared to be dead; but, provided the heart is still beating, it is
possible, in such circumstances, to revive the person by intensive medical treatment”
(Faber-Kaiser, p. 34).
“The shroud also provides evidence of where the lance that the Roman soldier used to
test that Jesus was dead entered and left the body. Bloodstains show that the lance
pierced the right side of the chest, between the fifth and sixth ribs, and emerged on the
upper left-hand side, making an angle of 29 degrees. Since this means that the lance
passed close to the heart, but did not damage it, the “blood and water” that John (19:34)
tells us flowed from the wound could not have been drawn from the heart. The shows
that the heart was still beating, however faintly, and that Jesus was still alive” (Faber
Kaiser, p. 35).
“The exaltation or glorification in heaven is an inherent part of this article of faith. The entry of
Christ’s body into the glory of the eschatological realm effectively represents the first fruits, the
promise, and even the cause of our own glorification, and hence, our final salvation…It is not
enough that the body of Christ should emerge victorious from the sepulcher: it must also enter
into the divine world, into which it introduces us all…But this entry into glory is absolutely
supernatural, and thus cannot be experienced by the senses — for which reason the New
Testament writers, including Luke, decline to describe it…As soon as the body of Jesus leaves
the sepulcher, through the power of the Holy Spirit, it belongs to the eschatological world of
glory and enters it with full rights. This is how it is expressed in most of the relevant New
Testament texts, in which Christ’s resurrection and his taking place at the right hand of God are
presented as two, inseparable aspects of one and the same glorious triumph…The visible
manifestation on the Mount of Olives is thus in no way a contradiction of this first and decisive
triumph, which had to take place on Easter day” (Faber-Kaiser, 44-46). But how can a human
being affirm it as certain when it is not perceptible to human senses. The only proof of Jesus’
resurrection, a core teaching in Christianity, is found only in Christian sources. As the Bibel
Lexicon says, “the four gospels refer not to the actual resurrection, which we are told took place
without earthly eye-witnesses, but to the discovery of the empty tomb…These stories present
problems, showing little uniformity and containing numerous apparent discrepancies of detail”
(Faber-Kaiser, p. 48).
His first stop was Damascus and it is evident that it was on the road to Damascus, Jesus
confronted Saul of Tarsus, a prominent persecutor of Christians, who later became the apostle
Paul. In addition, there’s a place, two miles from the city, called ‘Maqam-I-Isa’ meaning, “the
place where Jesus stayed” (Faber-Kaiser, p. 76).
Jesus then traveled to Iran. Agha Mustafai in Ahwali Ahalian-I- Paras, tells us that Yus Asaf
came from a country in the west, preached and converted many. From there he traveled to
Afghanistan and then to Taxila in Pakistan. Actae Thomae (Acts of Thomas) places Thomas
and Mary with Jesus in Taxila, and not with the disciples in Jerusalem. According to this
tradition, Thomas accompanied Jesus to Kashmir, via Damascus and Nisbis; Thomas was in
Kashmir with Jesus at the latter’s death; and then, after retracing his steps to Taxila, travelled to
Kerala, in southern India, and died and was cremated at Milapore, Madras” (Faber-Kaiser, p.
81).
So after leaving Taxila, Jesus, Mary, and Thomas travelled to Kashmir, but Mary died en route,
in the small town of ‘Murree,’ named in her honor. She is buried at ‘Pindi Point’ and the
sepulcher is called ‘Mai Maree da Asthan,’ meaning the ‘resting place of Mother Mary.’ And
according to Jewish custom, the tomb is oriented east-west (Faber-Kaiser, p. 82).
There are two tombstones in the inner chamber. The larger one belongs to Jesus and the
smaller one, lying near the entrance, is of a Muslim saint of the 15th century, Syed Nasir-ud-Din,
known for his devotion to Jesus. The two tombstones are oriented north-south according to
Muslim tradition, but the real tomb of Jesus lies in a crypt underneath, and is oriented east-west, according to the Jewish tradition. In the north-east corner are the carved footprints, which bear crucifixion wounds. The people of Kashmir who visit the tomb know it as the tomb of Hazrat Yuz Asaf or of Nabi Sahib (‘the prophet’), or Hazrat Isa Sahib, or Jesus (Faber-Kaiser, p. 100-103).
Intro
In 2026 (Jul), the strange Qadiani-Ahmadi Mirza Nabeel Baig posted these scans on his facebook and alleges that he is suing the AMJ in Canada for 27k worth of Chanda money. He should file a privacy claim against the Ahmadiyya Movement via OIPC. In the last sentence, Mirza Nabeel Baig is asking for 44 million in compensation.
Continue reading “In Canada, Mirza Nabeel Baig is suing the Ahmadiyya Movement for 27k+ (Jul-2026)”
Intro
As of July-2026, we haven’t found any Ibaadi Tafsir work and thus can’t pinpoint the origin of their beliefs on Eisa (as). Nevertheless, Ibadism rose after the Portuguese invasion and thus, the Portuguese tampered with local Islam, as of 2024, 95% of Oman’s population is Muslim, with 45% Sunni-Shafi’i since the time of Amr ibn al-As, 45% Ibadi, and 5% Shia. The Ibadis of North Africa and Oman sometimes have sharp differences in their approaches to the subject, and with modernity, their views have become more similar. The notion of mi’râj (the heavenly journey of Prophet Muhammad) is yet another non-homogenous topic, although it is not often handled in the Ibadi intellectual tradition (See Re-Evaluating the Notion of Isrâ and Mi’râj in Ibadi Tradition: With Special References to the Modern Sirah Readings by Ismail Albayrak and Sulaiman Al Shueily.
In 2024, I found the Mufti of Oman, the Islamic Scholar Shaykh Ahmed Al Khalili’s statements on the emergence of Gog and Magog and the so-called second coming of Jesus (as). Shaykh Ahmed Al Khalili’s said that in In the Ibadi school, Juj (Gog) and Majuj (Magog) have already come. Jesus (as) has died, and he will not come back. Interestingly, Shaykh Ahmed Al Khalili didn’t quote any hadith.
In 2025, the Assistant Grand Mufti of Oman says No coming of Mahdi and Jesus is dead and will not return. They denied the sahih hadith on the return of Eisa (as). They seem to be Quranist.
In 2026, some unknown author Ibaadi author argued that 4:158 was a raising in rank just like for Idris (as) in 19:57. There is another article herein.
In 2026 (Jun), Maulvi Iftekhar Ahmed wrote an article on “When grammar became dangerous: Ibn ‘Ashur, Quran 62:4 and the two inherited readings of ‘wa-akharina minhum’“. In this article, he accused Ibn Ashur in terms of his Quranic exegesis at-Tahrir wa-t-tanwir, at this very verse, he made a move earlier exegetes had not made. He said, in the strongest grammatical language, that the genitive reading is “not permissible” (la yajuz). He did not adopt the inherited accusative reading in its old form either. Instead, as the survey below will show, he rerouted the syntax through “unto them” (‘alayhim) and through an “object accompanying the action” (maf‘ul ma‘ah). The inherited field of possibilities was no longer left open. Maulvi Iftekhar Ahmed also quoted the Tafsir Kitab Allah al-‘Aziz by Hud b. Muhakkam al-Huwwari, an early Ibaadi exegete of the third Hijri century and accused Hud b. Muhakkam al-Huwwari of supporting the Ahmadiyya concept of the 2nd coming of Muhammad (Saw)(naozobillah) and via 62:3 of the Quran (62:4 in the Kadiani Koran).
Continue reading “Why do the Ibaadi’s believe that Eisa (as) died and will never return?”
Intro
In 2026 (Jul), Maulvi Razi streamed and alleged that 29:50 of the Quran (29:51 in the Kadiani Koran) this denial of a sign was specific to this single incident and shouldn’t be taken as a general rule. Maulvi Razi alleges that the people specifically wanted “punishment” (MGA made the same argument)(See “3 Questions by a Christian”, pages 11-12). Maulvi Razi alleges that Muhammad (Saw) completed 1000+ miracles (MGA said 3000). Maulvi Razi than attacks Jesus Christ of the Bible and alleges that he completed no miracles (just like MGA).
In 1891, MGA argued that in terms of 29:50 of the Quran, the people specifically wanted “punishment” (See “3 Questions by a Christian”, pages 11-12)(See also Dard, page 220).
In 1905 (Feb), MGA and his team of writers alleged that prophets are not magicians and do tricks for people, 29:50 was quoted (See Al-Badr, vol. 4, no. 6, p. 3,4, dated 18 February 1905; al-Hakam, vol. 9, no. 7, p. 2,3, dated 24 February 1905, via Malfuzat-7, online English edition, pages 122-123).