August 2016

Ahmadis lie about Al-Khidr, it causes prominent Arab-Ahmadis to leave them

Just recently, an Arab-Ahmadi, who was a top scholar of Ahmadiyya, has publically left Ahmadiyya. His name is Hani Taher, and he worked with MTA as an Arab-Scholar. Many blogs have reported his apostacy from Ahmadiyya. In the past, he had even beefed with my sister site,, he was known for defending Ahmadiyya endlessly and getting to paid to do it.

Mr. Tahir seems to have quoted the Ahmadiyya inconsistency on 18:65 of the Quran, in other words the story of the famous Al-Khidr. There is no clear consensus of opinion in Sunni-Islamic thought, however, it is open to interpretation, and generally it could be agreed upon that Al-Khidr was either a prophet or some type of special servant. Sufis have a unique position and Shias have some unique positions on Al-Khidr. Obviously, this topic has been open to interpretation for many years.  

Nonetheless, the Ahmadi position on Al-Khidr is that he was actually Muhammad (saw) (nauzobillah) (see page 1522). This is per the official 5-volume commentary of the Quran by Ahmadis which seems to have been published in 1962 (see the preface) and was written and prepared by Malik Ghulam Fareed. It is interesting to note that Mirza Mahmud Ahmad was unable to write a commentary by himself and needed the help of his employees aka Ahmadi-Mullahs. Mahmud Ahmad claims to have written 2 commentaries on the Quran, a smaller one, and a bigger one. However, Mahmud Ahmad seems to have never written a complete commentary of the quran in urdu, which is odd, since his contemporary, Muhammad Ali, had finished his in 1917, in english and his urdu version was then published a few years later.  Nonetheless, Mahmud Ahmad seems to have written in his Smaller-Commentary on the Quran that Al-Khidr was actually Muhammad (saw) (nauzobillah).

So this is the current Ahmadi viewpoint on the topic of Al-Khidr. That much we know. So what was Hani Tahir’s issue then? His issue was that MGA’s writings on this topic were being purposely suppressed in an attempt to lie and promote the view of Mahmud Ahmad. However, this info wasnt made readily available to Hani Tahir. Since the books that held the view of MGA on Al-Khidr were Urdu-only books and they had never been translated into english, nor were they planned to be. However, in 2014, Ahmadiyya published Braheen-e-Ahmadiyya, volumes 1-3 and the Al-Khidr data became available to the english reading people of the world.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 1882

“””It is obvious that Khidr was not a Prophet, or else he would have been among his own people and not wandering about in forests and on riverbanks. God Himself does not refer to him as a Prophet or Messenger, and yet He labels the knowledge Khidr was given as certain and categorical, because ‘ilm according to the terminology of the Holy Quran refers to definite knowledge.””””(Braheen-e-Ahmadiyya, vol. 3, page 231).

Nuzul al-Masih

Click to access Ruhani-Khazain-Vol-18.pdf

Page 89, See Muhammad Ali’s “Prophethood in Islam”

“Similarly, Khidr was not a prophet but was endowed with divine knowledge. And if his inspiration was just conjectural (zanni) and not definite, why did he kill a child unjustly? And if the inspiration of the Holy Prophet’s companions that (the body of) the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), should be given a bath, was not absolute and definite, why did they act upon it… Thus, if a person, due to lack of insight, rejects my revelation, then if he claims to be a Muslim and is not an atheist in disguise, he should firmly believe that absolute and definite communication from God does exist. Since definite revelation from God was given to most of the men and women of previous nations, although they were not prophets, (likewise) in this ummah, too, the existence of absolute and definite revelation is essential so that this ummah being the best of the nations, may not become the worst of them.”

“””Furthermore, such revelations are a stain on Islam, for the People of Israel were given such
unequivocal revelations that the mother of Mosesas had no doubts about the truth and certainty of the revelation she received and cast her innocent child into the river. The Prophet Khidar even killed a child as a result of revelation. But this Ummah (may Allah have mercy on it) did not even attain the spiritual stature that was granted to Israelite women.”””


So these are the wranglings of Ahmadiyya. They contradict themselves every single day.  In fact, they seem to have responded to Hani Tahir here. However, not in english yet, not even in Urdu.  It is obvious that Ahmadis are using propaganda tactics similar to Scientology. Obviously, MGA took a certain position on al-Khidr, and he had every right to develop his own unique theory on who Al-Khidr was. However, the issue here is the cover-up by Ahmadiyya. Ahmadiyya leadership knew that Mahmud Ahmad contradicted MGA on this topic and many many others. Nonetheless, they covered it up…or in Urdu, they threw “Mitteee” (dirt) on the topic and tried to bury it. In 1917, when the Lahoris had already split, they published their official commentary on the Quran and totally avoided the topic of whether was a prophet or not and they just left it at that.

Furthermore, the real criminals here are not the Ahmadis…no!!!! They are the victims of exploitation. In fact, it is the Ahmadi-Mullahs who should be arrested for knowingly lying to the masses and supporting a corrupt system of Peerism. These Ahmadi-Mullahs need to stand up, we dont care if you lose your job, the mirza family fraud has gone on tooo long. We know they hid money in Panama, we know that the Mirza family is only in it for the money and have been exploiting Ahmadis since 1889. Please stop!

Links and Related Essay’s

Click to access Ruhani-Khazain-Vol-18.pdf


#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog #messiahhascome #ahmadiyyat #trueislam #ahmadianswers #ahmadiyyamuslimcommunity #ahmadiyya_creatives #ahmadiyyatthetrueislam #ahmadiyyatzindabad #ahmadiyyatrueislam #ahmadiyyamuslim  #ahmadiyyatrueislam #mirzaghulamahmad #qadian #qadianism

Ahmadiyya and its violent past, the early 1930’s

I had recently mentioned in a FB posting that Ahmadiyya had a history of violence/eroticism. I wanted to briefly cover Ahmadiyya in the 1930’s, in terms of the sources and scenarios. So here goes:

In the late 1920’s, almost every British govt. official believed that Qadiani branch of Ahmadiyya would soon seek to create a state of their own (see “History of Ahmadiyya”, vol. 7, page 414). Mr. Obrein made his personal thoughts known to most of the British leaders of the Punjab (see page 169).  In fact, the Ahmadi khalifa met the Governor of the Punjab, Sir W.M. Hailey and told him about his ideas of globalization. Mahmud Ahmad was very bold in those days and felt like the British govt was his partner in crime.  The facts that I will play out in the next few paragraphs proves my point.

Even Spencer Lavan wrote as follows:

“These short articles written in the ROR of 1922, were but one example of the inconsistency which Qadiani-Ahmadi was to employ in its response to various issues that arose during the next 15 years…..” (see page 306)

As the early 1930’s approached, the governor of the Punjab was Herbert William Emerson (see page 268). He had many issues with the Ahmadiyya movement and their modus operandi. In those days, it was impossible to publically criticize the Ahmadiyya Movement. The Majlis Ahrar, which was a political movement, they had lots of beef with Ahmadis in this same era and had resolved to conduct a conference in Qadian during the winter of 1934. Governor Emerson approved of the Ahrar conference in the vicinity of Qadian in 1934 and stunned the Ahmadi Khalifa. The governor assured the Ahmadi Khalifa that he would take care of the security of Qadian, however, the Ahmadi Khalifa still sent out letters to the various branches of Ahmadiyya in British India and asked for young men to be sent to Qadian to patrol the streets, since there was no police department. This seems to have angered the governor. He ordered that all visitors of Qadian (see the 6th paragraph from the bottom) be recorded and that every Friday Khutbah of the Khalifa to be recorded and sent to him for review (see page 270). This is a very strange reaction by the Governor of the Punjab, his motives are unknown. However, the Ahrar conference took place and Ataullah Shah Bukhari delivered its keynote speech. Ataullah Shah Bukhari was then promptly arrested for anti-government speech. It should be noted that Muhammad Zafrullah Khan was a close friend of Governor Emerson and even had taken his mother to meet with Governor Emerson’s wife in an attempt to secure support for the Ahmadiyya movement. Bukhari was sentenced to 6 months. He did fight his case on appeal, wherein Justice Khosla reviewed the judgement of the high court and commented as such:

“In order to enforce their argument and further their cause they called into play weapons weapons which would ordinarily be termed highly undesirable.  They not only intimidated the person who refused to come with their fold with boycott and ex-communication and occasionally threats of something worse, but they frequently fortified the process of proselytizing by actually carrying out these threats.  A volunteer corps was established at Qadian with the object, probably of giving sanction to these decrees”

“To propagate their ideas and to expand the number of their community, those people (the Mureeds of Mirza Mahmud Ahmad) started using such weapons and methods which are generally considered objectionable.  So that those persons who refused to tow their line, were subjected to (social and economic) boycott and expulsion (from the town or community), and at times, they were threatened by dire and ghastly consequences.”  (see PDF 593/623).
Controversy with Allama Iqbal

In 1934, while Ahmadiyya was beefing with the Ahrar, they were also beefing with Allama Iqbal, most of the controversy was over how Mahmud Ahmad was using his involvement with the Islamic struggle in Kashmir to get converts to Ahmadiyya. The Ahmadiyya Movement was involved in politics and even got Muhammad Zafrullah khan added to the Viceroy’s Executive Council in 1935.  


Ahmadiyya is violent and aggressive. Its also a family business with many splinter sects. They are always looking to make their past-history disappear, they have edited their books and try to make it look like they are peaceful, however, as we all know, this is simply not the case. Ahmadis are just as violent as the normal segment of the population of Pakistan, or India, Indonesia and etc etc etc.

Links and Related Essay’s


Misri Mubahila


#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyatrueislam #ahmadiapartheid #Ahmadiyyat #rabwah #qadian #meetthekhalifa #muslimsforpeace #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog #nolifewithoutkhalifa #AhmadiyyaPersecution #trueislam

MGA lied about his Opium use

MGA only mentioned Opium once in all his and his team’s writings. That reference occurred in 1903, as MGA was addressing a Hindu mela in Qadian (see page 347). MGA was addressing the Hindus of Qadian and totally denied using Opium for any reason, and in fact, he spoke ill of Jesus Christ (the god of the Christians) as well as Esa (as) (a special messenger/prophet in Islam). This type of criticism is shunned in Islam and Muslims are ordered to never belittle the Gods of other religions. Nevertheless, here is the only reference from MGA and his teams writings that specifically address opium use :

    • “I remember an incident and which is that I have Diabetes for several years. I urinate 15-20 times daily and sometimes I urinate 100 times per day. Due to sugar in urine, I also get infection in urine and due to excessive urination I become very weak. Once a friend suggested that Opium is beneficial in Diabetes, therefore there is no harm if I use it as medicine. I answered: ‘It is very nice of you to have sympathise with me but if I form a habit of taking Opium than I am afraid that people will joke that THE FIRST MESSIAH WAS AN ALCOHOLIC AND THE SECOND ONE AN OPIUM ADDICT.'”

Naseem Da’awat, Roohani Khazain vol.19 p.434-435, by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani (this book is not in english). 


MGA claims that he wont take Opium for medicinal purposes, he never said Diabetes only, even though it might be OK in islamic thought, and since many Muslims had taken pure-opium for Diabetes treatment, nonetheless, MGA insisted on publically denying the use of such a drug, and simply for the reason that the general public might then poke fun and say that the first Messiah was an alcoholic and the second an opium addict. The irony here is that MGA was also a person that joked and called the first messiah as a drunkard and etc and he stole these writings from Lekh Ram and his polemics vs. Christianity (see page 183). Obviously, when MGA addressed Hindus, he loved to revile the God of Christians.


Ahmadis have written many alibis in terms of this statement, however, they always add a disclaimer which states that its unofficial.Their rebuttals are filled with academic dishonesty, in fact, they refuse to acknowledge the fact that 20 years after the above reference (In Seeratul Mahi, 1923 edition and the Al-Fazl of 1929), the sons of MGA’s seem to have told the world that MGA was in fact taking opium for medicinal purposes as early as 1884, Mirza Bashir Ahmad was the same son who claimed that the Ahmadi-Khilafat wouldnt last til the day of judgement, he also told the world that MGA was irresponsible with his fathers pension money and squandered it with his cousin/brother. Mirza Bashir Ahmad seems like a disgruntled son who spilled the beans on the family business and his brothers Khilafat.

Moreover, Mirza Bashir Ahmad tells us that in 1884, MGA invented a medicine called ZADHAM-E-ISHQ (or the love potion) (see page 1010, 2009 online english edition of Tadhkirah) and attributed it to his God and thus prescribed himself. However, it is interesting to note that Noorudin had already been prescribing the same medicine to his patients before he ever met MGA (see page 50). It seems that Noorudin may have been the person who introduced MGA to opium laced medicine. We all know that many people accused him of being MGA’s chief ghost writer.

Further, in 1898, the plague was rampant in India, MGA and his team seem to have invented a medicine that would prevent plague, it was called Tiryaq-i-ilahi (see page 449). Its main ingredient was Opium.
Here is what Mahmud Ahmad said in 1929:

    Hazrat Maseeh Mow’ood prepared a medicine ‘TIRYAQ-e-ILAHI’ under instructions from God and its one of the main constituent was OPIUM and Huzoor (Mirza Ghulam) gave this medicine, with a little more addition of Opium, to Hazrat Khalifa Awwal (Hakeem Nuruddin, the 1st Successor of Mirza Ghulam) for more than 6 months and off and on, and he used it himself as well during the attacks of various illnesses.”

Article of Mian Mahmood Ahmad Saheb, Khalifa Qadian, Akhbar Al-Fazl vol.17 No.6 p.2 Dated 19th July 1929.


    “During my childhood, he (Mirza Ghulam) gave me OPIUM for sickness. Gave it to me for six months continuously.”

Statement of Mirza Basheeruddin Mahmood, Khalifa Qadian, Minhaj-ul-Talibeen, p.73.



It should be noted that the British Govt stepped in and banned MGA’s cure for the plague, since it was nothing short of a quack remedy that was concocted by Noorudin.

Obviously, MGA was using Opium-laced-medicine since at least 1884 and giving it out to everyone and anyone, even his infant son, however, he lied about it to the masses. This is the issue that Ahmadis seem to misunderstand. They also try to act like MGA simply didnt take it because of its habitual nature, however, in Islam it was OK to take opium as a consequence of Diabetes, however, your salaat would be in question.  Since the Quran bans prayers whilst intoxicated.

Secondly, if MGA was on opium for his entire life, or at least since 1884, are prayers allowed by such a patient? Is this the reason why MGA never led salaat? Is this the reason why MGA never gave a public speech? Was Opium the reason that MGA was tempted to make these audacious claims? MGA never smoked Opium, he simply took it as a mixture with his Lassi (see page 1034, of the 2009 online english edition of Tadhkirah). Is this the reason that no one witnessed MGA taking opium? Since it was so hard to detect in those days? We all know that it was reported by the Al-Fazl that MGA’s teachers were opium addicts. It seems that this is where MGA developed the same habit.

Whatever the motivations of MGA were….it is clear that he was addicted to taking opium as soon as Noorudin showed up onto the Ahmadiyya scene. Is this the prophet that Ahmadis admire so much? Is this the religion that most Ahmadis are totting all over the internet as they attempt to defraud every single government on the planet?

Links and Related Essays

#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyatrueislam #ahmadiapartheid #Ahmadiyyat #rabwah #qadian #meetthekhalifa #muslimsforpeace #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog #nolifewithoutkhalifa #AhmadiMosqueattack #AhmadiyyaPersecution #Mosqueattack #trueislam #atifmian


Wonder why we call them Qadiani?

Personally, I call all Ahmadis as Ahmadis, I try not to differentiate between them, however, I understand that there are many sects of Ahmadiyya and that they all have separate names and run separate non-profit organizations. In fact, we consider Ahmadiyya to be a fraud comparable to Lance Armstrong or the tobacco cover-up.

Nowadays, Ahmadis are trained by their Ahmadi-Mullahs to never speak to Muslims about their faith. The Ahmadi-mullahs have trained every single Ahmadi that “Qadiani” is a derogatory term and anyone that uses it is some type of extremist and should be shunned altogether. However, this is not true, the fact is, in 1914, there was a split in the Ahmadiyya movement and two opposing ideologies were created.
Here is an importance reference from a neutral source of information, Maulana Abu Kalamazad eventually became India’s first Minister of Education from 1947 to 1958, here is how he explained the split in Ahmadiyya:

“For some time, there had been two parties in this Movement over the question of takfir. One party believed that non-Ahmadis are Muslims even though they may not believe in Mirza sahib’s claims. The other party, however, declared openly and clearly that those people who do not believe in Mirza sahib are kafir absolutely — inna li-llahi wa inna ilai-hi raji‘un. The head of the latter party is Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad, and this faction has now made him khalifa but the first group does not accept this. The writing published in this connection by Maulana Muhammad Ali, and the wonderful and admirable courage he has shown in expressing these views while staying in Qadian, where the heads of the other party live, is truly an event which shall always be regarded as a memorable event of this year.”  (See Al-Hilal, dated 25 March 1914, edited by Maulana Abul Kalam Azad) (Also See “A Mighty Striving” by Mumtaz Ahmad Faruqi, page 111, online edition).

As we all know, Ahmadis were debating the claims of MGA, Takfeer, his successorship, and the future of Ahmadiyya from 1909–1914. This was the era of the Khilafat of Noorudin, who’s sons were later ex-communicated and publically shunned. In fact, Noorudin even blurted out that Mahmud Ahmad hadnt understood the topic of Takfeer (1913) and had ordered Muhammad Ali to write a conclusive essay on the matter and thus put the matter to rest (1913). However, Noorudin died before any formal policy was introduced, and thus Ahmadis created different and competing ideologies in terms of MGA. Ironically, after 1923, the Qadiani branch adopted the Lahori-Ahmadi position on Takfeer and thus complicated their beliefs, similar to how Mormons dropped Polygamy for statehood with America.

What was the Al-Hilal Magazine?
The Al-Hilal (Urdu: هلال ‘The Crescent’) was a weekly Urdu language newspaper established by the Indian leader Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and used as a medium for criticism of the British Raj in India. The first issue came out on 13 July 1912. The newspaper also espoused the cause of the Indian independence movement and exhorted Indian Muslims to join the movement. The newspaper was shut down under the Press Act of 1914. “Al-Hilal (The Crescent), published in Calcutta, ushered in a new chapter in Urdu journalism and immediately appealed to Muslims in the city”.

The Al- Hilal covered a range of issues related with theology, politics, wars and scientific advancement besides its critical coverage of the Raj in India and it went on to become a very popular newspaper, reaching a peak circulation of over 25,000, a new record for Urdu journalism in those days. The paper played a catalytic role in shaping Muslim opinion against the Raj, a fact acknowledged by many stalwarts of India’s freedom struggleMahatma Gandhi, in 1920, wrote in his publication, Young India, about how Azad used Al-Hilal as a medium for critiquing the British Raj.[2] One online source, ‘Oxford Scholarship Online’ says,”Maulana Abul Kalam Azad was a scholar, intellectual, and nationalist who fought against British imperialists by drawing inspiration from the Koran”.[3]

In his Discovery of IndiaJawaharlal Nehru describes Azad and his contribution through the Al-Hilal this way: “Abul Kalam Azad spoke in a new language to them in his weekly Al- Hilal. It was not only a new language in thought and approach, even its texture was different, for Azad’s style was tense and virile, though a little difficult because of its Persian background. He used new phrases for new ideas and was a definite influence in giving shape to the Urdu language, as it is today. The older conservative leaders among the Muslims did not react favourably to all this and criticized Azad’s opinions and approach. Yet not even the most learned of them could easily meet Azad in debate and argument, even on the basis of scripture and old tradition, for Azad’s knowledge of the happened to be greater than theirs”.[4]:381

The British colonial government disapproved of the Al Hilal and demanded securities from it under the Press Act before finally confiscating its press in 1914. The Al Hilal thus ceased to exist after being in operation for only two years. Azad, in turn, started another Urdu weekly, the Al-Balagh in 1914, which too came to an end in 1916 following Azad’s internment at Ranchi.[4]:382

The press that printed the Al Hilal was later bought by Mufti Shaukat Ali Fehmi, to start his Urdu monthly ‘Din Dunia‘. The press continued to be in use for almost five decades, publishing Urdu books and magazines till the 1990s when lithographic printing became obsolete. The Fehmi family then contacted universities, Urdu academies, museums and even the then President Shankar Dayal Sharma to ensure the preservation of Azad’s legacy. Finding no success, the press ultimately ended up being sold for scrap.[2


Obviously, there is no malice when a person calls an “Ahmadi” a “Qadiani” or a “Lahori”. In fact, the Qadiani branch called the “Lahori-Ahmadis” as “Paghamis” for over 30 years and the Lahoris returned the favor by calling them “Qadiani” since 1914. It seems that Ahmadis dont have a problem calling each other names, however, they complain to the world about a nonsense issue and create additional nonsense issues that will somehow show them as a persecuted community.

Despite the strategies of the Ahmadi-Mullah. We will continue educating Ahmadis in terms of Ahmadiyya and Islam.

Links and Related Essay’s

#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog


Blasphemy in Islam and the Ahmadiyya cover-up

As an avid reader of global politics, business, economics, religion and sports, I felt the need to properly explain what is Blasphemy in general and what is it per Islam and the Abrahamic religions, and finally, what is its application in 2016.  This essay will also briefly cover the Ahmadiyya approach to blasphemy and its wider significance in Ahmadiyya polemics vs. the known universe.

Firstly, blasphemy was a crime in almost every organized community of humans dating back to at least Greek culture and Socrates.  Socrates was put on trial for blasphemy and impiety, and promoting Atheism and other anti-govt ideas.  In that era of our species, simply speaking against your government aka the King was always against the law and death is a common penalty, in fact, see the life of Esa (as).  Can you imagine if your King was Muslim or Christian? Obviously, if any King made Islam or Christianity as state religion, then, they would surely enforce blasphemy.  If a government did arise that refused to recognize religion, then blasphemy laws would surely die out.  However, anti government behavior would be watched and evaluated.

Just like every other government in the world, Islamic governments also had laws vs. blasphemy and they come from the Quran.  Nonetheless, the Quran appears to be vague on the matter of blasphemy, however, the hadith tell us as follows:

The Prophet said, “Who is ready to kill Ka’b ibn al-Ashraf who has really hurt Allah and His Apostle?” Muhammad bin Maslama said, “O Allah’s Apostle! Do you like me to kill him?” He replied in the affirmative. So, Muhammad bin Maslama went to him (i.e. Ka’b) and said, “This person (i.e. the Prophet) has put us to task and asked us for charity.” Ka’b replied, “By Allah, you will get tired of him.” Muhammad said to him, “We have followed him, so we dislike to leave him till we see the end of his affair.” Muhammad bin Maslama went on talking to him in this way till he got the chance to kill him. Narrated Jabir bin ‘Abdullah

Further, all 4 of the schools of Islamic thought (sunni) also believe that blasphemy should be punishable by death.  As well as Shia schools of thought.  However, even Judaism has a similar practice as well as Christianity.  So Islam is not unique in this regard, in fact all of the Abrahamic religions and random governments have had the same practice.

The Ahmadiyya approach has been to lie.  They refuse to both acknowledge the hadith on blasphemy, or even call them totally false.  Moreover, it is unclear whether MGA ever wrote on blasphemy, however, MGA was always quick to pray for anyone to die if he suspected that they blasphemed Muhammad (saw), which is equivalent to the ruling by the 4 schools of thought.   So Ahmadis are now tasked to show us what MGA actually wrote on the topic.


Blasphemy only changed upon the inception of the US government, however, it remained in smaller forms or in political forms.  Nowadays the United Nations is working on eliminating blasphemy, however, that is an impossible task.

So what should Muslims around the world in terms of blasphemy?  Well, there are many laws in the Quran that most Muslim countries simply dont follow, or have added many exemptions and etc, however, this is nothing new, in terms of theft, the Quran is clear that the thieves hand should be cut off and this was the law in Arabia before Islam had arrived, however, hadith reports tell us that additional rules can also be applied to this injunction, such as setting limits on the value of the stolen goods and etc.

I have presented many facts in the case of blasphemy, I now ask the reader to judge for themselves.


Up ↑