In 1891, MGA and company were lying about the true nature of MGA’s prophethood. They were arguing per 4:64 that Prophets and Messengers only followed Allah, they could never follow a prophet. However, after 1901, MGA changed his mind, his sons tells us that he discovered the opposite, i.e., that a follower could become a Nabi. By 1903, MGA said that only he was allowed this title of Nabi in the entire Ummah (See RK, v. 20, p. 45; starts at approximately middle of the page; Tadhkirah-tush-Shahaadatayn; published 1903). At the end of 1905, in “The Will”, MGA claims that some Muslims (he was only speaking about himself) have been able to become Ummati and Nabi (see English ROR of Jan. 1906, see pages 31-32). 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 1906-07, in Haqiqatul Wahy, MGA again asserted that he was both an Ummati and a Nabi, and he was the only one the entire ummah of Muhammad to achieve this. After MGA died (October of 1908), in the Barahin-i-Ahmadiyya Vol. 5, Noorudin wrote that MGA was always an Ummati and had become a Nabi. The Khalifa, Mirza Basheer ud Din Mahmud Ahmad wrote Qaul al-Fasl in January of 1915 and Haqiqatun Nubuwwat in March of 1915, wherein he quoted 7:35, 4:69, 2:5 and 61:6 as verses from the Quran wherein MGA was explained as a prophet to come. MGA had never used these verse to argue pro-prophethood. Nevertheless, Muhammad Ali responded in (December of 1915) and wrote “Prophethood in Islam” and ripped the Qadiani belief that MGA was an Ummati-Nabi. These conversations would continue uptil 1923, then they died off for about 10 years.
In the BA1&2, MGA was using 18:109 as evidence for his divine revelations (prophethood).
MGA quotes 18:109 (18:110, in the Ahmadi quran)(see also 31:27, the verse is identical) and says that “”Say, ‘If the ocean became ink for the words of my Lord, surely, the ocean would be exhausted before the words of my Lord came to an end, even though We brought the like thereof as further help.””. Thus, MGA was arguing from the Quran that Allah will continue talking to Muslims until the Day of Judgement. However, this argument was never used by MGA ever again. Nor was it used by the Qadiani’s in their famous commentaries of the Quran (via Malik Ghulam Farid).
In the Barahin-e-Ahmadiyya, vol. 3, 1882, MGA claimed that 9:32 was revealed to himself
In this era, MGA began faking revelations onto himself in great abundance. In fact, he applied 9:32 onto himself and without a commentary, later on in 1901, he would claim that the word Messenger in this verse and subsequently to the revelation of MGA in 1883, was an indication of MGA’s prophethood.
After the publishing of the 4th volume of Braheen e Ahmadiyya in late 1884, MGA was called a Kafir by the leaders of the Ahl-e-hadith sect, who had just helped MGA marry an Ahl-e-Hadith girl. MGA was so bold, he began claiming that many verses of the Quran had been also revealed onto himself. In this essay, we are writing about 48:29, which would be 48:30 in the Ahmadiyya Quran’s (interestingly, after MGA died, the Ahmadi’s who wrote commentary on the Quran never mention that this verse is about MGA, Lahori’s and Qadiani’s, see page 2953)). Per MGA, “””I have been named ‘Muhammad’ as well as ‘Messenger’”””, (see “Eik Ghalti Ka Izala”, page 2, online english edition). MGA is essentially claiming HE WAS REFERRED TO AS MUHAMMAD in this verse.
In Nov. of 1901, in MGA’s famous announcement/booklet, “Eik Ghalti Ka Izala”, MGA says:
“”””””””””””””””””””””In the same book, close upon the above Divine Communication, is this Divine revelation: Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and those who are with him are
hard against the disbelievers, tender amongst themselves.“”””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””
This is just the first sentence of the full verse from the Quran
The full verse is as follows:
“”””””””””””””””””””””””Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah. And those who are with him are hard against the disbelievers, tender among themselves. Thou seest them bowing and prostrating themselves in Prayer, seeking grace from Allah and His pleasure. Their mark is upon their faces, being the traces of prostrations. This is their description in the Torah. And their description in the Gospel is like unto a seed-produce that sends forth its sprout, then makes it strong; it then becomes thick, and stands firm on its stem, delighting the sowers — that He may cause the disbelievers to burn with rage at the sight of them. Allah has promised, unto those of them who believe and do good works, forgiveness and a great reward.“””””””””””””””””””””””””””
The verse is mentioned in Izala Auham (1890–1891) as MGA tried to explain his abusive language
As MGA worked on explaining as to why he had used abusive language, he quoted 48:29.
This verse was on the cover page of Asmani Faisala (1891)
The verse was presented on the cover page of MGA’s famous book.
In Barahin-i-Ahmadiyya Vol. 4, online english edition, page 396
The original quote can be found in english.
Other Quranic verses that MGA claimed for himself in BA-4
——48:28, 61:09 and 9:32
And many more…………………………
Ref: ‘Izala Auham’ Page 407, http://www.alislam.org/urdu/rk/rk-3-8.pdf, PDF 307
“But alas the late Mulvi Sahib did not understand that a claimant of a real Prophet Hood can never be an Ummati (subordinate of a Prophet). It is categorically forbidden according to the teachings of Quran and Ahadith that the person, who attains a real status of a Prophet of God, becomes an Ummati and subordinate of another Prophet. God Almighty says in the verse (Quran 4:64) that every Prophet we appoint fulfils the purpose to lead and become Amam. Not for the purpose to become a subordinate and obedient to another Prophet. Only a Mohadas of this Umah may be an Ummati as well as an inferior sense Prophet.”
Announcement from 1891
(Majmuha-Estaharet, P. 230-231; Tabligh-i-Risalat, Vol 2, Page 20 –
Also appeared in a Qadiani poster dated Oct 2, 1891; 20 Shaaban, 1313 A.H.)
“I believe in all the items of faith as prescribed by the Sunni School of Islam and I accept everything that is according to the Quran and Hadith. I fully subscribe to the doctrine that Muhammad is the last of all Prophets, and that any claimant to Prophethood after him is an impostor and a Kafir. It is my belief that the revelations of Prophethood started with Adam and closed with the prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him)”.
“Eik Ghalti Ka Izala” was published, wherein MGA claimed prophethood. MGA even admits that Allah only reveals secrets (divine revelation) to Messengers of his (see 72:26-27). MGA does not quote 4:64 however.
RK, v. 20, p. 45; starts at approximately middle of the page; Tadhkirah-tush-Shahaadatayn; published 1903, via Nuzhat Haneef
By 1903, MGA said that only he was allowed this title of Nabi in the entire Ummah:
“””On one occasion I had explained to him [Saahibzaadah Abdul Lateef] the answer to an objection, which had pleased him very greatly. And [the objection was] that: [Given] the situation that His Holiness [Muhammad], blessings of Allaah and peace be upon him, is the analogue of Moosa [Moses] and his khaleefahs are the analogs of the Banee Israa-eel [Israelite] prophets, then why is it that Maseeh Mau`ood has been referred to as a prophet in the hadeeths but all other khaleefahs have not been referred to by this title[?] So, I gave him the reply that: Given that His Holiness [Muhammad], blessings of Allaah and peace be upon him, was ‘khaatam-ul anbiyaa’ [Seal of the Prophets or Last Prophet] and there was no prophet after him, therefore, if all the khaleefahs had been referred to by the title prophet then the matter of ‘khatme-
nabuwwat’ [seal-status or finality of prophethood] would have become doubtful. And if not even one person had been referred to by the title of prophet, the objection would remain as to the lack of similarity, since the khaleefahs of Moses are prophets. Therefore Divine wisdom demanded that, initially, many khaleefahs be sent having regard for ‘khatm-e-nabuwwat’ [seal-status or finality of prophethood] and they not be referred to as prophets and not be given this rank so that this would be a sign of ‘khatm-e-nabuwwat’ [seal-status or finality of prophethood]. Then the final khaleefah, that is, Maseeh Mau`ood, be referred to as a prophet so that in the matter of ‘khilaafat’ [the caliphate] the similarity of the two systems [Mosaic and Muhammadan] comes to be proven [or established].”””
At the end of 1905, in “The Will”, MGA claims that some Muslims (he was only speaking about himself) have been able to become Ummati and Nabi (he was only speaking about himself) (see English ROR of Jan. 1906 also). He even quotes a famous hadith that he had been quoting for 20 years, “your leader from among you” (See Bukhari, “imam o kum minhum”.
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.
See Haqiqatul Wahy, online english edition, page 37
“””At this point, the question can naturally arise that, as there appeared many Prophets among the ummah of Hadrat Musa, in this situation, it necessarily implies that Hadrat Musa is superior. The answer is that all of these Prophets were directly chosen by God, and Hadrat Musa had no part in it whatsoever. However, in this ummah there have been thousands of saints through the blessing of following the Holy Prophet, may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, and there has even appeared one who is both an ummatī and a Prophet. There is no other instance of such bounteous grace in the case of any other Prophet. Among the ummah of Musa, with the exception of the Israelite Prophets, the majority of the people are found [spiritually] wanting. In regard to the [Israelite] Prophets, as I have already stated, they did not receive anything from Musa; rather, they were made Prophets directly. But from Ummat-e-Muhammadiyyah [the followers of the Muhammad sa], thousands were bestowed sainthood solely because they were followers [of the Holy Prophet sa]. (Author)”””
On Page 152, MGA quotes 4:64 (4:65 in the Qadiani Quran)
MGA doesn’t reflect as to why he changed his position on this verse.
See Barahin-i-Ahmadiyya Vol. 5, online english edition, pages 403-404
“””The answer to this is that all this unfortunate deduction is the outcome of a misunderstanding arising from the fact that they have not reflected on the true meaning of the term Nabi [Prophet]. The term Nabi only means one who receives knowledge from God through revelation and is honoured with converse and discourse with Allah. It is not necessary that he should be the bearer of a new law, nor is it necessary that he should not be the follower of a law-bearing Prophet. Thus, no harm is done if an ummati [follower] is said to be such a Prophet, particularly when such an ummati derives spiritual bounty from the Prophet whom he obeys. What is most perverse is to declare that, after the Holy Prophet, may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, this
Ummah is unworthy of enjoying converse with God until the Day of Judgment.””
“Our Prophet, peace be on him, is a Prophet of such eminence and rank, that even a follower of this Prophet can become a Prophet himself; and he can come to be called Isa, even though he is an Ummati .” (Zamima Barahin-i-Ahmadiyya, Part V, page 184)
Haqiqat-un-Nubuwwat, p. 233, Taken from a Lahori-Ahmadi website on 3-31-2020, http://126.96.36.199/qadis/khilafat-speech-may2005-letter.htm
“Another question is asked, whether in this Umma there has been another prophet apart from the Promised Messiah or not. The short answer is No. … The Holy Prophet refuses to verify the prophethood of any person in the Umma before the Messiah. Therefore, we are also bound to deny that before the Promised Messiah there was anyone in this Umma who was an ummati nabi.”
Muhammad Ali publishes his famous book, “Prophethood in Islam” as a response to the Khalifa at Qadian.
Interestingly, Muhammad Ali totally avoided these verses (4:64-67) in his famous commentary of the Quran.
The concept of the “Ummati-Nabi” was also put to the Khalifa, Mirza Nasir Ahmad in the NA of 1974.
In Malik Ghulam Farid’s commentary of 4:64-66, he indirectly claims that MGA was wrong in his view of these verses before 1901. MGA was not mentioned by MGF.
The Quran only mentions independent prophethood
Per 4:64, and all other verses in the quran in terms of prophethood and messengership, a Prophet or messenger only follow Allah and can never be an “Ummati-Nabi”…they can only be metaphoric-prophets, or like the prophets per hadith.
Links and Related Essay’s
#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyatrueislam #ahmadiapartheid #Ahmadiyyat #rabwah #qadian #meetthekhalifa #muslimsforpeace #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog #nolifewithoutkhalifa #AhmadiMosqueattack #AhmadiyyaPersecution #trueislam