ahmadiyyafactcheckblog

Intro
In the early 1880’s (via BA-3, page 231), MGA stated that the person mentioned in Ayah 18:65 is Khidr ﷺ, that damaging the ship, killing the boy, and repairing the wall were actual events and that Al-Khidr was not a prophet. In 1884 (via BA-4, page 428), MGA alleged that Al-Khidr was a recipients of revelation from Allah and was apprised of the secrets of the unseen through wahy-e-i‘lam” (revelation of knowledge). On page 429 of the same book, MGA alleged that it also goes without saying that if the revelations of Khidr and the mother of Musa were certain and equivocal.

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, thecult.info, 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 under verse 18:66). This is per the official 5-volume commentary of the Quran by Ahmadis which seems to have been published in 1988 (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).

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 wasn’t 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).

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
1909
Nuzul al-Masih

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.”
______________________________________________________________________________________________
1922
https://www.alislam.org/library/books/DivineManifestations.pdf

“””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.”””

______________________________________________________________________________________________
Conclusions

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Links and Related Essay’s

Click to access DivineManifestations.pdf

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

https://aaiil.org/text/acus/mga/261ref.shtml

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Tags

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