ahmadiyyafactcheckblog

Intro
In 1890, MGA was publishing Izala Auham in some local newspaper, MGA said that only stupid people claim that he has claimed to be the “Promised Messiah”, MGA said his claim for the past 8-10 years was only that of Maseel-e-Maseeh (See RK V-3, pages 190-192).

In 1891, via Izala Auham, which was being published in small parts, MGA claimed to be the “Promised Messiah” and totally contradicted all of his previous writings from 1890. MGA also wrote a letter to Nur ud Din about making this claim and Nur ud Din approved it (See in the below).

In 1892, (See (see Nishan Asmani, online english edition, page 61), MGA alleged that he had been claiming for the last 11 years, he had been claiming to be the Mujaddid of the 14th century, the Maseel-e-Messiah, and Recipient of Divine Revelations. This is a lie! MGA never claimed so in any book before Izala Auham (1890). MGA always back dated his claims, in the Barahin-i-Ahmadiyya (vol. 1–4), MGA never straight forward claimed to be the “Maseel-e-Maseeh”.

In 1899-1902, MGA calls himself the Final Buruz of Adam (as). The last Adam (as), who also has the name “Promised Mahdi and Promised Messiah” (See RK, v-15, p. 481, Tiryaqul-Qulub).

In 1910, Ahmadiyya writers alleged that MGA is the end of all the prophets, the last Messiah, the Last Adam, the Last Mujadid, the Last Khalifa, the Last Imam, the last brick, the last way, the last nur (See Tashhiz-ul-Azhan, Page no 5 of vol.5).

In 1916, We also have references from 1916 wherein MGA is called: “””….the last prophet, the last Maseeh, last Adam, the last mujadid, the last musleh, the last Khalifa, the last Imam, the last brick…””” (See Tasheezul Adhan, Feb-16, Page-5)(See scan in the below).

In 1944, as the 2nd Khalifa claimed to be the “Musleh Maud”, he also announced himself as the “Masil-i-Masih” and as the “zilli” messiah, however, he meant like MGA, not like Jesus (as)(See ROR of March-1944).

In 2025, Amir Nazir explained how MGA stole the concept of “Maseel-e-Maseeh” from Bahaullah and Bahaism via the Kitab al Aqdis.
Continue reading “What is Maseel-e-Maseeh? The like of the Messiah?” →

Intro
As we all know, Opium abuse was rampant in British-India. Constricted pupils is dead give off of an opium addict. MGA could barely open his eyes, in fact, in the 1878-era, a person got the impression that MGA was an opium addict, he later became an Ahmadi, nonetheless, he confessed to thinking that MGA was on drugs as early as 1878. Later on, after 1900, Mirza Bashir Ahmad tells us that MGA could barely open his eyes and was always in this condition.
In fact, the laziness of MGA also proves that he was an opium addict. MGA simply laid around all day and did nothing with his life and lied about his opium use. He told the world that he would never take opium (even for his diabetes), however, behind the scenes he used opium regularly via his medicines. He lived the good-life, his dad was rich, his brother was accomplished and representing the family politically and his eldest son, Mirza Sultan Ahmad was working. MGA simply laid on his charpai all day and did nothing with his life.

The Quote
“When he (Mirza Ghulam) came for the first time to my press, he sat on a pillowed seat and I sat on one seat and he discussed with me about the book, looking at his dozy eyes, I thought that perhaps he uses opium, as is commonly the habit of rich people, but when I heard his talk or speech and thought about the articles of Braheen-e-Ahmadiyya, I was amazed at the condition of an Opium use is not like this, such man cannot write like this.  Then Hazrat Sahib went away…..Now I regretted my first mistake and repented it and know very well that it is the intoxication of divine knowledge and not that of opium as I first thought.”””

Statement of Qadiani Sahabi, Sheikh Noor Ahmad Sahib, Owner of Riaz Hind press, Al-Fazl, Newspaper, Qadian, vol. 34, No. 194, dated 20^th August 1940. 

Photoshoot from the 1902 era

______________________________________________________________________________________________
Continue reading “MGA looked like an Opium Addict” →

Intro
Ahmadis are all over the internet arguing that MGA loved Esa (As), they refuse to put all of MGA’s comments together and then decide, they only want to judge MGA on a few of the positive statements that he made in terms of Esa (As). This is yet another case of academic dishonesty. We have collected lots of quotes from Anjam-e-Athim and posted them here, the most shocking is wherein MGA calls the grandmothers of Lekh Ram as prostitutes.

It should be noted that Lekh Ram got his arguments from The Satyartha Prakasha (1875), which was written by Maharishi Swami Dayanand Saraswati, who was assassinated soon thereafter. Dayanand seems to have gotten his arguments from Rahmatullah Kairanawi. Later on, in 1899, MGA wrote in Tiryaq ul Qulub that he only cursed the Christian missionaries in an attempt to protect. Thus, it is proven that MGA was working in-cahootz with the Christian missionaries in an attempt to smear Islam.
Continue reading “MGA used Lekh Ram’s arguments vs. Esa (as)” →

Intro
The Ahmadi-Mullahs have purposely deleted lots of data on Ahmadiyya.  They were ordered to do so from the Mirza family, and as loyal employees, these Mullahs delivered and deleted lots of controversial content.

The Quotes
Taken from here: http://www.anti-ahmadiyya.org/en/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=160

Letter of Pandit Lekhram to Mirza

On 24th June 1893, Pandit Lekhram wrote in his letter to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad:

“If writing a rebuttal of Braheen is ill-mannerism, then you are the first criminal, because according to Quran you had committed Kufr, you provoked us, because of which we wrote a reply. Had you not provoked us, then Permeshwar knows, that we had never thought of writings against religion of Islam. Thus if God forbid, divine punishment will descend then first its lightening will fall on your sitting room in Qadian. Then if self defense is a crime, then I too should be blamed.” (Weekly Satdharam Parcharak, Jallundher, dated 16th July 1897, mentioned in Raees-e-Qadian by Rafiq Dilawari p.133)

Intro
MGA hated Esa (as)…MGA spent his entire career belittling Esa (as) and finally claimed to be better than him in 1902. In this quote, MGA claims that Yahya (As) was better than Esa (as). Bro Imtiaz talks about Yahya (as) as Khusoorun (6:11:45 time stamp)(3:39, 3:40 in the Qadiani Quran) as he authenticated the biblical narrative that Eisa (as) drank alcohol/wine (astagfarullah). MGA was disrespecting Eisa (as) and saying that Yahya (as) was better than him based on the Quran (astagfarullah)(See also “Dafi-ul-Bala”, page-3, online english edition)(Check out MGA’s writings on Yahya [as]). Bro Imtiaz talks about Yahya (as) as Khusoorun (6:11:45 time stamp)(3:39, 3:40 in the Qadiani Quran) as he authenticated the biblical narrative that Eisa (as) drank alcohol/wine (astagfarullah). MGA was disrespecting Eisa (as) and saying that Yahya (as) was better than him based on the Quran (astagfarullah)(See also “Dafi-ul-Bala”, page-3, online english edition)(Check out MGA’s writings on Yahya [as]).
Continue reading “MGA’s tirade against Esa (As) was too much” →

Intro
In 1947 (via “Life of Ahmad”), A prominent Ahmadi cleric, by the name Abdul Rahim Dard tells us that in the 1880’s, MGA held: “””” the popular belief that Jesus (as) was alive in the heavens and that he would come again to this world (pages 351 and 499 margin on margin No. 3).“”””
Continue reading “Dard on MGA’s views on Esa (as) pre-1891” →

Intro
Watch my video explanation here (on periscope) and here on youtube. In roughly 1891, MGA started quoting a hadith from Ibn Abbas (ra) in Bukhari in terms of the death of Esa (As). It was as-if MGA had never read this hadith in 50 years of his life. Nevertheless, this is not part of the Sahih (authentic), it is a chapter heading, MGA never mentioned this important fact. Moreover, Ibn Abbas had thought that that this verse is out of sequence, and Ibn Abbas was referring to the eventual death of Esa (as) (in the future). Ibn Abbas believed that Eisa (as) was physically Raffa to Allah and someone else was crucified in his place. Check out the debate between Al-Yemeni and Razi herein, all of these sources are quoted.

Further, the chain of transmitters for this mumeetuka issue is Abi Haatim said: Ahmad Ibn Sinaan told us, that Abu Mu’aawiyah told us, on the authority of Al-A’mash, via the authority of Minhaal Ibn ‘Amr, via the authority of Sa’eed bin Jubayr, via the authority of Ibn ‘Abbaas. Check out Farid Responds as he goes through this entire situation. Farid responds explains how Bukhari didn’t even give the chain of transmitters.

This “chapter heading” for-sure doesn’t mean that Esa (as) lived an additional 90 years and died of old age in Kashmir. Moreover, there is a commentary of the Quran that has been ascribed to Ibn Abbas and is even quoted by Todd Lawson and his famous book, “The Crucifixion and the Quran” (2009). In fact, Ibn Abbas’ Tafsir is the first one that he quotes in his book. Why do Ahmadi’s avoid this? In this Tafsir, Ibn Abbas supports the “substitution-theory” and defines “Mutawafeeka” in 3:55 as “”I am gathering thee and causing thee to ascend unto Me””. Ibn Abbas’ Tafsir is called Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafsir Ibn Abbas, this is a historical document explaining the Quran. Andrew Rippin, Todd Lawson and a few other academic people have claimed that this Tafsir might be an abridgment by Al-Dinawari of perhaps, Muhammad Al-Kalbi’s Tafsir. Imam Malik is quoted in a Shia book of hadith as also believing that Esa (as) died and was then lifted to heaven and will physically descend.
Continue reading “MGA lied about the context of the Ibn Abbas hadith on Esa (as) from Bukhari” →

Intro
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad used the cursing phraseology “Zarrayatul Baghaya” (children of prostitutes) for Muslims as well as non-Muslims (See A’ina-e-Kamalat-e-Islam, At-Tabligh). In 1892, MGA told the Arab world that all Muslims had accepted his claims in British-India except the sons of prostitutes.

Again in 1898 he used Ibn Bagha (son of a prostitute) for Maulvi Sa’dullah and in the same year he accused Maulavi ‘Abdul Haq Ghaznavi of dancing like a prostitute (Baghiyya).

In Feb-1907, After Sa‘dullah of Ludhiana died (he died in Jan-1907), MGA mentioned him in the Al-Hakam, vol. 11, no. 7, p. 12, dated 24 February 1907 (See also Malfuzat-9, online English edition, pages 146-148). MGA and his team of writers quoted MGA’s poem from Anjam e Athim wherein Sa‘dullah of Ludhiana was referred to as “ibn bagha” (son of zina). In this utterance, MGA alleges that Sa‘dullah of Ludhiana had indirectly entered a Mubahila with MGA which caused Sa‘dullah of Ludhiana to die 10 years later. In Dec-2025, Maulvi Razi alleged (24:20 time stamp) that MGA wrote that when he used “ibn bagha” for Sa‘dullah of Ludhiana in 1898, MGA meant “sarkash insan”. In 2023, here razi claims mga translated “ibn e baghay” as “sarkash insan” (9:33 timestamp).

As Haqiqatul Wahi was published (May-1907), MGA claimed that Sa’dullah died of plague and mubahila. MGA also purposely left out his poetry wherein he called Sa’dullah as the son of prostitutes (ibn Bagha)(See page 446 and 450 of the Appendix of Haqeeqat-ul-Wahi (RK- 22, Urdu) and see pages, 554, 559 and 564 of the English edition). Mirza Bashir Ahmad claims that Muhammad Ali advised MGA to leave this out, in fear of legal recourse, i.e. the son of Sa’dullah might have sued for defamation. Dard tells us it was Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din and not Muhammad Ali however (See the al-Hakam, volume 38, number 7, February 28, 1935, pages 3–4, narrating the eye-witness accounts of Maulavi Muhammad Ibrahim Baqapuri, via the 2009 online edition of Tadhkirah and via Seeratul Mehdi, page 31 part 1).

Adnan Rashid discussed this also (Check out Part-2 herein [“Zarrayatul baghaya” and “Waladul Haraam” are discussed] and on the Dawah wise channel).
Continue reading “The “Zarrayatul baghaya” insult by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was meant for Muslims” →

Intro
Lekh Ram and MGA had traded death prophecies sometime in the mid-1880’s.  MGA’s prophecies from that era vs. Lekh Ram were supressed by MGA himself as he admitted in 1888, he was working on a book, Siraj Munir, however, he claimed to have written it in 1886-1887 and delayed its publication.

What happened next was that Lekh Ram wrote in Takzeeb-Braheen-e-Ahmadiyya, Vol.-1 as follows:

“””This person will die of diarrhea within three years and none of his offspring will survive.””” (see the offical website of Ahmadiyya, retrieved on 11-9-16, https://www.alislam.org/library/history/ahmadiyya/19.html)