ahmadiyyafactcheckblog

Intro
In roughly 1883, MGA told the world that he was only “LIKE-Esa” and even though his revelations indicated something else, he was only “LIKE-Esa” or “maseel e Maseeh”. However, 7 years later, he totally contradicted himself and claimed to actually be Esa (as) (1890-1891).  MGA compared this confusion of 7 years to his confusion of over 20 years on prophethood.
In fact, as early as 1884, the Muslims of India were already at odds with MGA since he was claiming divine revelations, he was thus called a Kafir in 1884.

By 1885, one of the main leaders of the Ahle-e-Hadith ripped up the Braheen e Ahmadiyya and sent it to Qadian as such in this era.  They had previously read MGA’s nikah and had promoted MGA as a writer. Nevertheless, in 1890-1891, MGA claimed to be Esa (as) and was formally denounced as a Kafir by the majority of the Ulema in India. MGA responded to this by denying prophethood and only claiming to be a “Muhadas” or a “metaphoric” prophet, like the mujadids and other muhaddas’, in fact, MGA even went as far as to argue that even prostitutes, as they spend nights with their customers were eligible to receive good dreams. MGA then denied prophethood for 20 years and in every single book in this era.

Per the 2nd Khalifa in 1915, MGA formally claimed prophethood in Nov of 1901, with the publishing of his famous announcement, “Eik Ghalti Ka Izala” or “The result of an error”, or a “Correction of a mistake”. However, the Lahori-Ahmadi’s denied this altogether and said that MGA never claimed prophethood in 1901. The 2nd Khalifa also began twisting Chapter 2:4 of the Quran to support the idea that MGA was a prophet. The 2nd Khalifa then sparred with the famous Muhammad Ali over this topic over 10 books. In the below, I have posted Muhammad Ali’s translation which uses a few different words, the Qadiani-Ahmadi translation is watered down and softened, they are known for this type of editing. In conclusion, per the 2nd Khalifa, MGA found a new type of prophethood in 1901, which wasn’t given to any other prophet in any scripture.
Continue reading “MGA explains how he misunderstood his prophethood in 1880 and was confused for 20+ years” →

Intro

I wanted to post a reference from the writings of Mahmud Ahmad in 1915 as he argued that MGA was in fact a prophet, however, without law.

The reference

“At last that event did take place. In the year 1900, Maulavi ‘Abdul Karim, the preacher of the Friday sermon, gave a sermon in which he, used the words Nabi (Prophet) and Rasul (Messenger) for the Mirza. This caused great irritation to Maulavi Sayyid Muhammad Ahsan Amrohawi. When Maulavi ‘Abdul Karim came to know of this, he gave another Friday sermon in which be addressed the Mirza, requesting him to contradict his belief, if he was wrong in considering him to be a prophet and Messenger of God. After the Friday prayers were over, Maulavi ‘Abdul Karim caught hold of the skirt of the Mirza’s apparel and requested him to correct him in his beliefs if they were erroneous. The Mirza turned around and said that he, too, held the same belief. Meanwhile, Maulavi Muhammad Ahsan had been greatly agitated by the sermon and in anger was pacing the floor of the mosque. On Maulavi ‘Abdul Karim’s return, he began to quarrel with him. When their voices rose very high, the Mirza came out of his house and recited the Qur’anic verse: “O ye who believe! Don’t raise your Voice above the voice of the Prophet.”

(This event is based on the report of a speech of Sayyid Sarwar Shah Qadiani at an annual conference held in Qadian, and published in al- Fadhl, Vol. X, No. 51, dated january.4,1923)

(See also Haqiqat al- Nubuwat, p 124.[published in 1915])

Conclusion
MGA had multiple ghost-writers.  In this case, Maulvi Amrohi (who was the first payed Ahmadi-mullah), he didn’t know that MGA had finally claimed prophethood and Maulvi Abdul Kareem was ordered to pronounce it.  They proceeded to argue, then MGA quoted the Quran and thus claimed prophethood openly for the first time (summer 1900). However, he remained silent for an additional 1 1/2 years or roughly 14+ months.

Later on, after “Correction of an Error” was published, Maulvi Amrohi wrote a rebuttal to an inquiring mind who accused MGA of claiming prophethood, however, Maulvi Amrohi very tactfully only denied independent prophethood, he never even mentioned the “The Ummati-Nabi”.  Fast forward to 1914, Maulvi Amrohi nominated Mahmud Ahmad as Khalifa and sided with him in his first year of his Khilafat.  He even read Mahmud Ahmad’s 2 books on the subject of prophethood, i.e. Qaul al Fasl and Haqiqatun Nubuwwat, however, in the summer of 1915, he seems to have had a change of heart and denounced MGA’s claim of prophethood and deposed Mahmud Ahmad as Khalifa.  He then sided with the Lahori-Ahmadis and died in 1919 in this state.

Links and Related Essays

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/?s=right+arm

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2016/09/06/lecture-ludhiana-was-not-a-lecture-it-was-a-riot/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2016/10/12/the-story-of-how-mga-hurt-his-right-arm-and-was-disabled-since-his-youth/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2017/07/16/mirza-ghulam-ahmad-needed-toilet-attendants-his-entire-life/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2018/12/15/who-is-mirza-ghulam-murtaza-1791-1876/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2017/01/13/mirza-sultan-ahmad-mgas-eldest-son/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2016/09/06/mga-used-scribes/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2017/07/10/ahmadiyya-leadership-admitted-that-mga-used-lots-of-editors-and-ghost-writers/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/?s=ghost+writers

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2018/05/04/ahmadiyya-mullahs-have-been-caught-editing-the-writings-of-mga-yet-again/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2018/10/04/maulvi-sher-ali-told-the-world-that-mirza-ghulam-ahmad-would-send-his-arabic-writings-to-noorudin-and-ahsan-amrohi-for-editing/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/?s=Noorudin

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/?s=Amrohi

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/?s=arabic

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2017/02/06/hani-tahir-exposes-ahmadiyya-lies-again-the-arabic-of-mga/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2016/09/06/was-noorudin-the-ghost-writer-of-mga/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2016/09/30/mgas-ghost-writers-argue-on-the-prophethood-of-mga-in-1900/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2018/09/18/mirza-ghulam-ahmad-and-muqamat-al-hariri/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2017/01/02/mufti-muhammad-sadiq-was-a-student-of-noorudin-pre-1891/

Tags

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

Intro
MGA did in-fact claim prophethood in Nov. of 1901, however, he was very sneaky about it. The proof of this is contained in an article which was published in Al-Hakam dated August 6, 1908, just two months after the death of MGA. In is a long article written by one Hakim Dr. Ahmad Husain of Lyallpur. The whole article is devoted towards the refutation of different allegations that Maulana Sana-ullah made against MGA. Continue reading “Maulvi Sanuallah acknowledges that MGA claimed prophethood in Nov 1901” →

Intro
MGA had multiple ghost writers and scribes. They didn’t all agree on MGA’s claims and it is obvious that they disagreed with each other on the prophethood of MGA. In fact, after “Correction of an Error” was published in 1901, Maulvi Amrohi wrote a detailed response to an inquiry that MGA may have claimed prophethood….The Maulvi refuted it.  He wrote that MGA had only denied independent prophethood, nothing else. However, after the split of 1914, Amrohi had initially sided with Mahmud Ahmad and the people at Qadian, in fact, he was the Maulvi who had nominated Mahmud Ahmad for Khalifa, however, after Mahmud Ahmad wrote “Qaul al Fasl” and “Haqiqatun Nubuwwat” (1915)...a few months later, Amrohi had a change of heart and claimed that even though his sons had read these books out to him, he hadnt understood them, he then proceeded to do a 180 degree switch and became a Lahori-Ahmadi, and that was how he was buried.,  

Further, in Aug of 1908, Maulvi Sanaullah accused MGA of only being a prophet for 6 1/2 years. Continue reading “Maulvi Abdul Karim claims Prophethood per MGA, Maulvi Amrohi disagrees” →

Intro
4:69 of the Quran only means that Allah will allow Muslims to be in the company of prophets in the Jannah, not on Earth (ardh)(see Suyuti and Ibn Kathir, see the story of Asbab e Nuzul). As early as 1892, MGA was using 4:69 to argue that Allah still talks and that this was in terms of Muhaddas, or metaphorical prophethood (See the refs in the below). The 3rd reference is from Tiryaq-ul-Qulub (which was published in 1902, written in 1899), again, for the 3rd time, MGA used 4:69 to argue against prophethood, and for Muhaddasiyyat (Muslims becoming the like of prophets, per hadith). I had written in a previous essay that MGA never wrote about 4:69 after Nov 1901, however, the AMJ has recently published “Kishti-nuh” aka Noahs Ark (1902)(see page 44) into English for the first time ever and a new reference has been found. Nevertheless, in both of these books, MGA claims that 4:69 asserts that Muslims can become LIKE-PROPHETS, not full prophets. After MGA died, the Qadiani newspaper again asserted that 4:69 meant that Allah can make anyone a prophet. Ahmadis also use 7:35 to argue that prophethood will never end. They also claim that MGA was mentioned in 48:29 of the Quran. They also use 2:4, as they argue that prophethood will not end. All of these arguments were developed in 1915 by the 2nd Khalifa, Mirza Basheer ud Din Mahmud Ahmad, he defined MGA’s prophethood thoroughly in 1915 (see Haqiqatun Nubuwwat). We have also recently found MGA (and his team of writers) arguing in 1906, via MGA’s book, “Chashma-Masihi”, that in a famous verse of Surah Fatiha wherein Muslims pray to Allah to be guided,they are actually asking Allah to be guided like the prophets and siddiqin (which is a direct inference to 4:69)(See pages 62-65). Thus, MGA would always connect the ability to achieve prophethood with the daily prayer, which is ridiculous, since prophethood is a gift, not something achieved (see 40:15)(See Muhammad Ali, Prophethood in Islam also). However, in Chashma Masihi, MGA doesn’t quote 4:69, nor have we found this quote in any other book after 1903.

In Aug-1984, after Mirza Tahir Ahmad moved to the UK on asylum, he held a pseudo question and answer session wherein he said that 4:69 only meant that Muslims could be like prophets.
On the same day, Mirza Tahir Ahmad argued that NO ONE says that NO prophet can come, and a prophet in the fashion of Muhammad (Saw) can also come.

In the late 1980’s, Mirza Tahir Ahmad quoted 4:69 (4:70 in the Kadiani Koran) and alleged that subordinate prophets can come. At 2:22, he quotes the famous hadith about Muslims being “the like of prophets”. Mirza Tahir Ahmad says that Muslims are not less than any prophets of Israel (naozobillah) and can reach that status. However, they won’t be called prophets. Mirza Tahir Ahmad says that the prophets of Israel were not for the whole world, they were limited in their approach. Mirza Tahir Ahmad says that “the like of prophets” can come in large numbers and they are not prophets at all. Mirza Tahir Ahmad says that a prophet “Like Muhammad (saw)” isn’t covered in 4:69 (4:70 in the Kadiani Koran), since this is a prophet for the entire world. Mirza Tahir Ahmad says that only prophet will come who is “Like Muhammad (saw)” and that is MGA. Mirza Tahir Ahmad then quotes the famous hadith from Sahih-Muslim Hadith 2937a, The Book of Tribulations and Portents of the Last Hour wherein Eisa (as) was called “Nabi-Ullah” 4 times.

It seems that on 3-12-1996, Mirza Tahir Ahmad had some type of discussion with an Arab-Egyptian on the famous Ahmadiyya program, “Liqaa Ma’al Arab”. The famous translator from the Odeh family is also in this video. Nevertheless, Mirza Tahir Ahmad used 4:69 to allege that anyone can become a prophet, which contradicts his utterances from 1984.

In June of 2025, 4:69 was brought up on the True Islam Uk Urdu stream vs. Bro Imtiaz. –At 1:50:50, Hadi Ali Chaudhary starts speaking and accuses Bro Imtiaz of not answering the question. Hadi Ali Chaudhary acknowledges that Bro Imtiaz said that Eisa (as) was already a prophet and thus doesn’t need to be made a prophet again. Hadi Ali Chaudhary accidentally said that the person who comes at the end (akhr), he will be the last (akhree). Hadi Ali Chaudhary says in terms of the statement by Bro Imtiaz that the Ahmadiyya movement has created a 3rd category of prophets, is a lie! Hadi Ali Chaudhary says since in the Quran it says that now only the prophethood of Muhammad (saw) will continue. Hadi Ali Chaudhary then argues via 4:69 (4:70 in the Kadiani Koran), Muslims are promised 4 levels, of which being a Nabi is one. Hadi Ali Chaudhary then quotes Ibn Arabi and says that the person to come (the messiah) is not the one who has died. A different person (a different Messiah) would come (this is a total lie). Hadi Ali Chaudhary then says that Muslims have always believed that Eisa (as) who had died will not be coming back. He said forget about Eisa (as), he is dead and never coming back. Hadi Ali Chaudhary again argues that Muhammad (Saw) said that some of the sahaba will see Eisa (as), and this meant that MGA’s friends are the sahaba in question. Hadi Ali Chaudhary says that the Quran said that Eisa (as) died, the sahaba had ijma on this too, Muhammad (Saw) said that Eisa (as) also died. This hadith is metaphoric. Hadi Ali Chaudhary says that if Eisa (as) returns physically, Muslims will have to remove many verses of the Quran.

—At 2:27:50, Hadi Ali Chaudhary begins to speak. Hadi Ali Chaudhary accidentally confesses that Muhammad (Saw) said that at the end will come the Messiah, Eisa (as) ibn Maryam. Hadi Ali Chaudhary says that being LAST doesn’t mean anything, it doesn’t mean the best or something. In other words, there is no value in being last. Hadi Ali Chaudhary says that Muslims believe that Muhammad (saw) is the best because he was the LAST. There is no value in any of this. Hadi Ali Chaudhary emphatically argues that there is NO benefit in being LAST. Hadi Ali Chaudhary alleges that Qasim Nanotvi said the same. Hadi Ali Chaudhary alleges that other ulema have also said this. Hadi Ali Chaudhary mentioned 4:69 (4:70 in the Kadiani Koran). Hadi Ali Chaudhary argues that being LAST in time means nothing. Hadi Ali Chaudhary then accuses Muslims of borrowing Eisa (as) for Islam (naozobillah).

—At 2:49:16, Hadi Ali Chaudhary begins speaking and alleges that Bro Imtiaz is now speaking emotionally. Hadi Ali Chaudhary says that MGA never said that being the LAST is Fazeelat (worthy of merit). Hadi Ali Chaudhary says that it was Muhammad (Saw) who said the Messiah would be the Akhr (Last). This is the prophecy by Muhammad (Saw). Hadi Ali Chaudhary said that the dead Messiah of Islam who would become alive again, would be the akhr (last). Hadi Ali Chaudhary emphatically says that Muhammad (saw) said that the Messiah would come in the end (akhr). Hadi Ali Chaudhary argues that the Quran has kept prophethood open forever (via 7:35). Hadi Ali Chaudhary mentions some verses of the Quran without giving a proper reference. He says it’s up to Allah to send them or not. Hadi Ali Chaudhary says that the Ahmadiyya jamaat doesn’t close to the door to prophethood after MGA at all. There was a prophecy about one, and that one has come. Hadi Ali Chaudhary says that if someone comes after MGA, they will have to make their arguments. Hadi Ali Chaudhary specifically quoted 7:35 (7:36 in the Kadiani Koran) and says prophets can come. He then quotes “minan nabiyeen”, which seems to be from 4:69 (4:70 in the Kadiani Koran). Hadi Ali Chaudhary then started crying about persecution. He said the lands of Ahmadi’s keep growing and the lands of Muslims are decreasing.

In Aug-2025, Ansar Raza says, per 4:69 of the Quran, anyone can be a prophet.

In Sep-2025, Ansar Raza debated a Shia person, #ShamsuddinShigri seems to be hosting this debate. In his opening statement, Ansar Raza used 1:6, 4:69 and 7:35 as his main arguments that prophethood has not end and never ends. At 19:03, Ansar Raza added 3:81 (3:82 in the Kadiani Koran) and alleged that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is inferred herein as that “Musadaq-Rasul” (See the clip on Tiktok and Twitter). Again, Ansar Raza says that per 3:81 (3:82 in the Kadiani Koran), a Rasul will come who will authenticate (tasdiq) the Kitab and Rasul which was given to a previous Nabi (Ansar Raza was indirectly referring to MGA). At 21:41, Ansar Raza says it is lazmi (mandatory) that a “Musadaq-Rasul” was to appear after Muhammad (Saw) and it is lazmi (mandatory) for Muslims to accept him (see my article on Ahmadiyya Takfir). In conclusion, Ansar Raza argued that 3:81 (3:82 in the Kadiani Koran) includes Eisa (as) and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad only as the “Musadaq-Rasuls”. However, in reality, Muslims believe that only Muhammad (Saw) is the “Musadaq-Rasul” as mentioned in 3:81 (3:82 in the Kadiani Koran). This is why Muhammad (saw) led the Prophets in prayer during the night of Isra’ when they gathered in Bayt Al-Maqdis (Jerusalem)(See Ibn Kathir).

All the scans in PDF form.

Continue reading “Ahmadiyya and 4:69, everything you need to know” →

Introduction
Factually, the Quran proves that prophets had been killed, see 2:61, 2:87, 2:91, 3;21, 3:112, 3:144, 3:181, 3:183, 4:155, 5:70 (that’s 10 verses) in fact, 3;144 of the Quran tells us that even if Muhammad (saw) was killed, it wouldn’t mean Islam is false.

In 1880-1882, via Barahin-i-Ahmadiyya (Vol. 3, see pages 157-158)(See also Farid Responds, prophecy #4, 6:38 time stamp), MGA said that since the Jews killed the prophets, they are forever cursed and will never have a homeland. Watch my video explanation here.

In 1897, MGA began using this argument, in Anjam e Athim (Anjam-e-Atham, Ruhani Khaza’in, vol. 11, pp. 49-51](Essence of Islam, online english edition, Vol. 2).

In 1900 (via Arba’in), MGA invented the idea that via 69:44-46 in terms of his new theory that a false prophet never lives 23-years, whilst claiming to receive communications from Allah. MGA alleges that Maulawi Rahmatullah (aka Rahmatullah Kairanawi) and the late Maulawi Syed Al-e-Hasan had presented 69:44 and the 23-year rule to the Reverend Pfander (3 times) in their books “Izala-e-Auham” (see pages 71 and 72) and “Istifsar” (1850’s). MGA mentioned Hafiz Muhammad Yusuf (17 times)(See Arab’ain, online English edition, pages 71-72). Technically, the Bahai’s believe the same and use the same verse for Bahaullah (See ROR of August-1938).

In 1901, via the Al-Hakam of July 24. On page 6, MGA says that some opponents say that Akbar the king created his own religion and lived for 23 years but MGA says you need to show me a place where he said this is the revelation of God to me and lived for 23 years. On page 7, MGA claims that no person can claim prophethood and live for 23 years (see in the below).

In 1902, MGA contradicted himself and said (See Tohfa Golarvia, RK volume 17 page 103), he says death by killing of a prophet is no proof that the prophet is not a true prophet and then on same page later he says if Esa did not die on cross then Yahya (as) also did not get killed but was lifted up to heaven alive.

In 1904, an Ahmadi asked the editors of the Al-Hakam to explain why Bahaullah was allowed to live over 23 years after his claim of being the Messiah.

In 1905, MGA and his team of writers quoted 69:44 of the Quran (69:45 in the Kadiani Koran) and argued that that a person who makes a false claim to being a tax collector or even a peon in a man-made kingdom, he is apprehended and punished. Then can there be such disorder in the Kingdom of God? So, while this is the prescribed method, why is it avoided? I stand before the people, and if I am acting deceitfully, then God Almighty will destroy me with such a punishment that people will learn a lesson from it, whereas if it is from God— and indeed it is from God—then the other people will be destroyed (See Malfuzat-7, online English edition, pages 123-124, via Al-Badr, vol. 4, no. 6, p. 3,4, dated 18 February 1905 and al-Hakam, vol. 9, no. 7, p. 2,3, dated 24 February 1905).

Allegedly, in 1907, via Malfuzat-9 (published in 2024)(this is undated and might not be in the Urdu editions), MGA called Yahya (as) as a shaheed and even compared his qatal with the qatal of Syed Ahmad in Kashmir by the Sikhs.

In 1907, MGA and his team of writers quoted 69:44 of the Quran (69:45 in the Kadiani Koran) and argued that that a person who makes a false claim to being a tax collector or even a peon in a man-made kingdom, he is apprehended and punished. Then can there be such disorder in the Kingdom of God? This verse is clearly stating that a fabricator of any wahi or ilham from God is apprehended promptly and dies in failure (See Malfuzat-9, online English edition, page 169, via Al-Hakam, vol. 11, no. 9, p. 10, dated 17 March 1907).

In 1908 (March), MGA and his team of writers quoted 69:44 of the Quran (69:45 in the Kadiani Koran) and argue that if anyone alleges to get diving revelations from God and is lying will be killed by Allah. MGA doesn’t understand why Muslims only apply this verse upon Muhammad (saw)(MGA is inferring that it applies on him as well)(See Malfuzat-10, online English Edition, pages 197-204, via Al-Hakam, vol. 12, no. 18, p. 4–5, dated 10 March 1908). In 1908 (July), after MGA died, MGA and his team alleged that on May-17-1908, MGA quoted 69:44 of the Quran (69:45 in the Kadiani Koran) and argued that anyone could have killed MGA with a knife. (See Malfuzat-10, online English Edition, page 544, via Al-Hakam, vol. 12, no. 41, p. 2–13, dated 14 July 1908).

In 1943, the ROR of Oct. discusses 69:44 and an opponent of MGA, Hafiz Muhammad Yusuf. It explains how Hafiz Muhammad Yusuf counter-argued with MGA and said that 69:44 is not a valid argument the way that MGA was using it. MGA was using it to prove that since he was still alive, he must be a true prophet. Hafiz Muhammad Yusuf counter argued that this verse was only about Muhammad (Saw) and not all the prophets, since prophets have been killed in the past (See Dard)(See Arba’in).

However, in 2000, Mirza Tahir Ahmad (MTA) denied that Yahya (as) was killed and even asserted that he escaped and lived in Greece and died, however, MTA didn’t give any references (See on tiktok and twitter).

In 2021, in shameful way, Mirza Masroor Ahmad alleged that prophets had been killed and this rule only applies to the first or last prophet in a system or if Allah gave them a wahi about protection.

In 2025, Bro Imtiaz highlighted all of this in this video.
Continue reading “MGA invented the 23-year theory for Prophets, and his opinion on 69:44” →

Intro
MGA never wrote anything. He was helped his entire life, he even had toilet attendants, many servants and other people to massage him all day. Moreover, he broke his right hand in his youth, and thus was never able to have full function of his right hand. In fact, MGA’s right hand was so weak, he couldn’t lift a simple cup of tea with it, he was thus forced to drink and eat with his left hand, which is unislamic and nasty. In Barahin-i-Ahmadiyya Vol. 4, MGA mentions that he used a hindu scribe named Sham Lal, a Pundit’s son who could write in both Devanagari and Persian (seem page 361, online english edition). After Lekh Ram came to Qadian, Sham Lal seems to have grown weary of MGA and told his secrets, MGA immediately himself expelled him from the job and then employed another Hindu Barahman, namely Kalia Bawa Das for this task.

There was also Mirza Khuda Bakhsh and Maulvi Abdul Karim. Another one bears the name of scribe as Pir Sirajul Haq, these names are given in Maktubat. Abdullah Sanauri was another. After 1905, Mufti Muhammad Sadiq became the main ghost writer/scribe.
Continue reading “Mirza Ghulam Ahmad used scribes” →

Intro
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was unable to do anything with his right arm. All the refs are posted in the below.
Continue reading “MGA’s right arm was disabled, he cant be Sultan-ul-Qalam” →

Intro
This is a quick essay and referencing post that I wanted to create. Here is the reference:

“””Many people used to say that his holiness, the Promised Messiah, did not know even Urdu and someone else wrote the books which were attributed to him. The others held even a worse opinion about his writing potentialities. They believed that Shaikh Nuruddin was the person who wrote the books for him.” (Al-Fadl, February 5, 1929; by Mirza Mahmood Ahmad Qadiani)””””
Continue reading “Was Noorudin the Ghost-writer of MGA?” →