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 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.

In 2014, Hani Tahir must have read what MGA wrote:

“””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).

In 1902, MGA confirmed his belief, here is another quote:

“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.” (Nuzul al-Maslh, August 20, 1902).  


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!