Thorough research work on the Ahmadiyya Movement, #ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyat #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog #messiahhascome


August 2017

2 Ahmadis were held in jail for inciting a riot at the Rabwah train station in June-1974—See Pakistan Times

Ahmadis are terrorists. There is no doubt about it. As soon as their Khalifa gives them the order, they are ready to maim and kill any of their critics, including me and other Ex-Ahmadis. As my previous blogs confirmed, the Rabwah terrorist attacks of May-1974 were planned by Mirza Nasir Ahmad and Bhutto. Mirza Nasir Ahmad wanted to be declared Non-muslim, after 25 years of being a Muslim in Pakistan, which was a nation in ruins by the early 1970’s after multiple wars with India and the secession of Bangladesh.

On May 29th-1974, 400-500 Ahmadis were laying in wait at the Rabwah Train Station, they had calculated and planned a terrorist attack (see Charles Kennedy, pages 90-91), they were supposed to ambush a certain rail-car wherein there was 500+ teenagers from the Nishtar Medical College in Multan. The attack was a success, the train was stopped for 1-full hour as Ahmadis mercilessly beat teenagers to a bloody pulp, (this entire youtube channel seems to have been deleted, Ahmadiyya leadership may have gotten this entire channel banned).   however, they were careful not to kill anyone. The train station operator was an Ahmadi and he deliberately stopped the train until all the terrorist-Ahmadis had safely dispersed. This became a national incident, and as the train approached Faisalabad, Muslims had gathered to collect their injured brethren. The scene was shocking…..19 students were immediately hospitalized.

Rioting broke out almost immediately, all schools in the Punjab were closed on June 1st, 1974, this was the first national incident of terrorism under the new constitution of Pakistan. The average Pakistani was shaken to his/her core. The story of Ahmadis had been decided by the Govt in 1954, they were Muslims, per the Govt, they had every right to exist, in fact, from 1955-May 1974, it was the most peaceful era of Ahmadiyya history in Pakistan. There were barely any attacks on Ahmadis, the Chief Scientist was an Ahmadi, the Economic minister had been an Ahmadi…2 out of 3 military generals were Ahmadi, Pakistan was a pro-Ahmadi country in every single way and for 20+ years. In fact, in the 1971 elections, Ahmadis were ordered to vote for Bhutto and Bhutto even visited Rabwah during his campaigning.

We have collected the testimony of a few key eye-witnesses.


Pakistan Times, Wednesday, June 12th, 1974 reports
“The Punjab Crimes Branch police arrested Abdul Aziz Phamdri Mohtasib, Nazarat-i-Umoor-i-Aamma, and Bashir Ahmed, Sadar Ummomi, Nizamat-i-Intazamia, Rabwa, on charges of inciting and supervising the people on the Rabwa railway station on May 29. 

Both these persons are responsible for law and order and administrative affairs of the Ahmadiyya Jamaat at Rabwa.  

The Crimes Branch police also interrogated the editor, “Al-Fazal”, Masud Ahmed Dehlavi, in connection with the Rabwah railway station incident.—PPI””””

The scan work

I will continue to post more on this soon.  Obviously, Ahmadis were involved in the planning of this terorrist attack by Ahmadis.  And the Khalifa is totally missing.  It seems to me that the Khalifa ordered the attack and then threw his workers under the bus, they took the fall, and they made sure the Khalifa was left as innocent.  As we all know…Ahmadis want to die for Ahmadiyya…and would gladly serve in jail for their cult as needed.  That seems to be exactly what happened in this case.

Also see these essays for additional info

Also see this essay:


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


Who are Aziz Bhambri and Ibrahim Bhambri?? The gangsters of Rabwah (1974)

Abdul Aziz Bhambri is his full name. Most of this data comes from a personal interview that was conducted with AK Shaikh and his recent video on Naseem Mahdi. He tells me that Bambri was a terror to many youths in Rabwah during the reign of Mirza Nasir Ahmed (K3). In those days K3 was paranoid that youth might rebel and cause trouble. He gave Aziz Bhambri free reign to catch and torture anyone he suspected of deviating from the line. I personally know a couple of youths who were beaten blue by him and his gang. He literally broke limbs under investigation. In his final days he came to Canada and I think died here. His daughter is married to Naseem Mehdi now in USA (previously Amir and Missionary In-charge in Canada).

See here— (this link isn’t working anymore, however, on the old forum, this was discussed in detail).
Continue reading “Who are Aziz Bhambri and Ibrahim Bhambri?? The gangsters of Rabwah (1974)”

“Batalvi ka Anjam” in english as “The end of Batalvi” by Mir Qasim Ali, 1931

This book is not on It is missing. I am only posting some quotes that I found. Syed Muhammad Hussain Batalvi (1840-1920) was a contemporary of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad in the Punjab. They were both born during the the last 8-9 years of Sikh rule and were under the Ramgharia Misl, which was annexed into the greater Sikh Empire in roughly 1816 by Ranjit Singh. They were both educated by the same teachers as British rule began in roughly 1850.  Their parents also knew each other, when MGA’s family went to Batala, they always stayed at the ancestoral home of Syed Muhammad Hussain Batalvi. They were both Ahl-e-Hadith Muslims aka Wahabis.  In 1878 Batalvi started the Ishaat us Sunnah magazine and gave MGA space to market his new book-series, the Braheen-e-Ahmadiyya. In 1881, Batalvi gave MGA an exhaustive review and supported MGA’s work via the Ahl-e-Hadith. In 1884, when MGA wanted to get married, Batalvi had a list of young girls with him and shared it with MGA, this is how they found out about the daughter of Mir Nasir Nawab. The Ahl-e-Hadith grew weary of MGA in late 1884 and some even called MGA a Kafir, since MGA was boasting about divine revelations in his book series (the Braheen), neverthless, Batalvi stuck up for MGA yet again. By 1889 they became enemies, since MGA claimed to be the second coming of Esa (as). They organized debates with each other and jousted from their magazines until 1899, when the British government stepped in and absolved MGA and forced Batalvi to never insult MGA ever again (by calling him kafir or otherwise). His disputes with Ahmadiyya seem to have ended here.  However, he did have a famous debate with a Quranist in 1902 and his sons were found at Qadian in 1910, later on they recanted and left Ahmadiyya.
Continue reading ““Batalvi ka Anjam” in english as “The end of Batalvi” by Mir Qasim Ali, 1931″

According to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad he manifested more than 10,000 miracles and the Prophet (saw) manifested only 3000.

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was eventually going to claim law-bearing prophethood, I estimate that he would have done this by 1911, however, he died in 1908. After 1901, he kept comparing himself to Muhammad (saw) (nauzobillah) and also calling himself as Muhammad (saw) (nauzobillah). This is just another piece of evidence which proves exactly where MGA and his team were going with these claims.

MGA claims that if a few of his prophecies fail…its not a big deal
If you read the whole paragraph, of these quotes, he was actually trying to cover up for his failed prophecy of muhammadi begum and said,

”I have shown more than 10,000 signs, so if 1 or 2 prophecies of mine, didn’t manifest themselves properly, then that shouldn’t be a problem.”

The scan work

However, previously, MGA wrote that the best way to judge him was analyze his prophecies
“To Judge my truthfulness or lies, there is no better test than my prophecies.”
(Roohany Khazaen, Vol. 19, P. 288). This quote corresponds to one of these books Kashti Nooh, Tuhfat-un-Nadwa, Ijaz-e-Ahmadi, Review Mubahasa Batalvi-Chakralwi, Muwahib-ur-Rehman, Naseem-e-Dawat, Sanatan Dharam.  (1902-era)

The scans, typed out
“all of these allegations put against me are based on their own whims and ignorance, for I have manifested more than 10,000 signs” RK, Vol. 20, page 43. This quote corresponds to the books Tadhkirat-ush-Shahadatain or Seerat-ul-Abdal.  (1903-era)

“3000 miracles were displayed by the Prophet Muhammad (saw)”.  RK, Vol. 17, page 153.  Which corresponds to Toufah-Golravea’ or Arbaeen and the 1900-era.

“So know that, a true religion always manifests with itself extraordinary signs, another name for those (signs) are marvels and miracles.”  RK, Vol. 21, page 63

A better scan can be found here

71 Ahmadis were arrested on 29th May, 1974 for terrorism—new research data, Aug–2017


Ahmadis are terrorist also.  Qasim Rashid, Kashif Chaudrhy and all other Ahmadis are totally unaware of the Rabwah incident, either that or they choose to deny it altogether.  In fact, Zafrullah Khan totally lied about the incident in his famous book on Ahmadiyya, entitled, “Ahmadiyya the Renaissance of Islam” (1978), this was just four years after the “Rabwah-terrorist-attacks”.  Zafrullah Khan knew many leaders of countries and etc etc etc….he lied for them for many years and in 1978 he lied for Ahmadiyya, which he had also been doing for 60+ years.  In fact, his comments on the Rabwah-terrorist-attacks are a shame.  He basically denied all association to the attack and Ahmadis.  He claimed that Sunni’s secretly infiltrated Rabwah and launched this attack.  This is obviously a lie.  However, by 1978, most of the face were unknown.  

Zafrullah khan writes on page 347:

“””In the middle of 1974 they devised a plan which was aimed at provoking anger and rancour against the Ahmadiyya Cominunity which unfortunately succeeded only too well in its immediate purpose. An incident was staged at the Rabwah railway station, which was so managed that a party of students who belonged to an organization bitterly hostile to the Movement succeeded in provoking a number of Ahmadis, who happened to be present at the railway station when the train carrying the students arrived, into a conflict in which slight injuries were inflicted on some of the students in the party. At the next stop of the train preparations had already been made to receive the students as heroes who had suffered grievous injuries in the cause of Islam at the hands of the members of the Movement. Fiery speeches were made and the incident was painted in lurid colours. The utterly false and misleading accounts of the incident were further embroidered in the press next morning, with the addition of such false, fictitious and horrifying details as that the students had been cruelly maimed, that some of them had their tongues cut out and that others had their genitals cut off.”””

See here:

Zafrullah Khan lied
He totally failed to mention the first stop of the Nishter Medical College teenage students, which occurred on May 22, 1974.  I have covered it many times on my blog, see these essays:

Further, it was a fact, that on May 22nd, 1974, which was a Wednesday, there was an inicident at the Rabwah train station, the Ahmadiyya marketing team was in full effect, they were always at the train station and handing out marketing material, aka tabligh pamphlets, or “dawah-pamphlets.  Nonetheless, the students from the college were upset, a war of words ensued. The Nishter college kids then threatened the ahmadis as they told them about their return in 7 days.

See here:

The Khalifa was notified immediately
From 1948 to Sept. 1974, Rabwah was the only piece of land that fully belonged to Pakistan, but was on some weird 99-year lease plan to the Mirza family, and thus the govt. was never allowed access, only the train station belonged to the govt., there was no police department or any other normal services like a Govt. Fire department and etc.  Zafrullah Khan most likely negotiated on this deal for Rabwah on behalf of the Mirza family, this tract of land was sold for pennies to Mirza Mahmud Ahmad, on his name, and legally.  He then leased out space to Ahmadis, and made millions.  In fact, in 2048, the lease is up.  However, the Khalifa was immediately notified and his Friday Khutbah for that day is archived.

Justice Samdani admitted that Rogue Ahmadis planned the attack
Read about it here:

and here:

Zafrullah khan contradicts Justice Samdani
Obviously, there is a difference, all ahmadis sources on the Rabwah terrorist attacks deny the attack altogether, they deny planning and etc, however, many facts about this incident prove that Mirza Nasir Ahmad directly ordered it and it was carried out per his orders and that’s why he was missing that day, him and the vicious Mullah, Mirza Tahir Ahmad.

The Pakistan Times scans from 1974 that we just got
This is new data, we now have the newpaper articles from 1974, wherein the fresh news reports can be found.

I will slowly release these newspaper clippings, they speak for themselves.  The very next, some police officials came to Rabwah and seem to have rounded up 70 suspects.  This is new research data, this was never made known to the public in any english writings on this topic. Many new questions emerge.  Where was Mirza Nasir Ahmad when this happened…and how was the police able to find 70 Ahmadi suspects?  Did someone give the names out?  More to come… the meantime…check out this blog entry in the below…

See here:

Links and Related Essay’s


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


Mirza Ghulam Ahmad quotes Ibn Arabi in the 1900-1903 era and some weird comments on prophethood..

It is alleged that MGA said: 

”Ibn e Arabi has written that Law Bearing Prophethood has ended but Non Law bearing is still open, but I believe that all kinds of Prophet hoods have come to an end, except the one which is attained by being the resemblance of Prophet Muhammad (saw)”
(Malfuzat Vol.2 Pg.254)

However, Malufzaat was published almost 50 years MGA died
MGA never taught his followers anything, in a public setting or behind closed doors. All MGA ever did was give instructions to his closest ghost writers, and behind closed doors.

Data on Malfuzat
Malfuzaat vol. 2 was Published in Rabwah, 1960, in Urdu, covering the period from 1900 to 1901. See “Hidden Treasures of Islam“. This book gives summaries of all of MGA and his teams writings and etc.

They correspond this Malfuzat entry with the Al-Badr magazine (1st April 1903)
”Once a woman claimed Prophethood. When she was shown the hadith of the Prophet Muhammad (saw), where he said ”There is no Prophet after me”, she replied ”Only Prophethood for men has come to an end, women can still become Prophets”

Scan work

Links and Related Essay’s

Finality of Prophethood

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

Wahhabi or National Hero? Siddiq Hasan Khan

Hardly is any historical Indian Muslim figure of the 19t h century as controversial as Sayyid Siddiq Hasan Khan al-Qannauji al-Bukhari (1832–1890). The reason
for all the contrasting assessments of his personality
was his astonishing career: he rose from an impoverished
scholar to the son-in-law of the Prime Minister
at the court of Bhopal.1 In 1871, the widowed ruler of
this principality, Shah Jahan Begum (r. 1868–1901)
chose him as her second husband. After his marriage,
Siddiq Hasan Khan established the reformist movement
Ahl-e Hadith (people of the prophetic traditions),
which soon became a dominant Muslim group
in Bhopal. But as soon as Siddiq Hasan’s career had
started, it came to a sudden end.

In 1885, Siddiq Hasan was deprived of all his
posts and titles by the British, thus forcing
him into privacy. For a period of more than
one year, he had to retire in his own palace,
Nur Mahall, completely isolated from his
wife and his supporters. Due to this sudden
end of his career, in the Indian nationalist
views prevalent since 1918 Siddiq Hasan is
described as one of the first heroes of the
anti-colonial struggle.
This nationalist paradigm is overshadowed
by another perspective about the historical
figure of Siddiq Hasan: several Muslim
sources describe him as a puritan and a
Wahhabi, closely linked to the reformist
movement of Muhammad cA b d a l – W a h h a b
(d. 1762) in today’s Saudi Arabia. Besides
these contrasting views, the sources lack an
assessment of the ‘real’ Siddiq Hasan. As a
consequence, it is necessary to apply changing
research methods in order ‘to avoid
common pitfalls of historiography, like projecting
modern nationalist paradigms …
back into the past’.2 Consequently, the social
network analysis, originally developed
by the Manchester school of anthropologists
in the 1950s, seems to be a suitable research
method. Taken the premise that
every individual (ego) is embedded into a
network of personal relationships, it is interesting
to observe which parts of his/her
ego-network a person activates in order to
achieve his/her aims. Hence, it may be interesting
to show which personal relations
were really important in Siddiq Hasan’s career
– and which connections became crucial
only to the eyes of posterity. The following
gives an analysis of Siddiq Hasan’s personal
networks, trying to avoid the categories
of ‘Wahhabi’ or ‘nationalist hero’,
which have determined the characterization
of Siddiq Hasan for more than 100
Born into a Sayyid family, strongly connected
to the Tariqa-ye Muhammadiya reform
movement of Sayyid Ahmad Barelwi (d.
1832), Siddiq Hasan made the first steps of
his personal career as the secretary of the
Prime Minister at the court of the Islamic
principality of Bhopal. Since 1818 this Central
Indian princely state was ruled by strong
female rulers, the Begums. Sikander Begum
(r. 1844–1868) followed her mother Qudsiya
Begum (r. 1818–1837) to the throne (m a sn
a d) and secured the succession of her
daughter, Shah Jahan Begum (r. 1868–1901).
Sikander Begum, on the one hand, needed
support from the British to protect Bhopal’s
territory from the invasions of the Marathas
and Pindaris. On the other hand, she wanted
to have her reign legitimated by a group of
Islamic scholars. Thus, she invited several
ulama of reformist background to Bhopal.
Among them was Sayyid Jamal ud-Din Dihlawi
(d. 1881) who had been, like Siddiq
Hasan’s father, an active member of the
Tariqa-ye Muhammadiya.
The ‘Yemen connection’
When young Siddiq Hasan approached
Bhopal, Jamal ud-Din took him under his
wing. Due to the fact that from now on he
lived in financially secure conditions, he
could continue his personal studies, which
he had had to interrupt before. In Bhopal he
came to know two Yemenite brothers who
had been living in Bhopal for several years,
namely the brothers Zain al-cA b i d i n ( d .
1880) and Husain b. Muhsin al-Hudaidi (d.
1910). Sikander Begum had met the Yeminite
family in Hudaida during her pilgrimage
to Mecca in 1863. She invited Zain alcA
b i d i n to Bhopal, because she was looking
for a new qadi al-qudat (chief judge) for her
Although Zain al- cA b i d i n did not know
Persian or Urdu, nor did he belong to the
Hanafi school of law prevailing among the
Indian Muslims (he was a S h a f ic
i), he soon
became acquainted with the situation in
Bhopal. After a short time, he knew all relevant
manuals of Hanafi law in India and
wrote his legal decrees (f a t a w a) according
to that school. Later, he invited his younger
brother Husain to join him in Bhopal. Husain
decided to undertake the long journey to
Bhopal, where the Begum cordially welcomed
him. She employed him as a teacher
of the local dar ul-hadith (house of the
teaching of the prophetic traditions). It was
around 1856, that Husain taught h a d i t h t o
Siddiq Hasan. This close teacher-pupil relation
made a deep impression on Siddiq
Hasan and caused a significant change in his
intellectual orientation. The reason for this
change can be seen in his studies of various
famous books by the reputed Yemenite
scholar and q a d i Muhammad b. cA l i a s h –
Shaukani (d. 1834), who gained fame mainly
for his legal theories of rejecting the t a q l i d,
i.e. the strict adherence to one school of law.
Shaukani insisted on the i j t i h a d, i.e. to find
the proof (d a l i l, pl. a d i l l a) of a legal opinion
in the Qur’an and s u n n a. Shaukani applied
the method of i j t i h a d in his own f a t a w a, collected
in his voluminous Nail al-autar.
Shaukani’s works, all of them containing
heavy criticism on t a q l i d, spread all over
India starting from the late 1850s. The
Yemenite brothers in Bhopal as well as Siddiq
Hasan were responsible for this ‘Shaukani
boom’. Siddiq Hasan, formerly influenced
by the teachings of Shah Waliullah (d.
1762) and Sayyid Ahmad Barelwi, shifted to
the Yemenite tradition of Shaukani and Husain
b. Muhsin. Husain wrote several i j a z a t
(teaching permissions) to him, which allowed
him to teach several works of this
Yemenite tradition (e.g. by the Ahdal family,
the Mizjajis, and mainly Shaukani).
At this time, around 1857, Siddiq Hasan
was a young scholar with limited influence.
He even lost his job as a secretary to the
Prime Minister and had to leave Bhopal.
Later on, in 1859, he was allowed to return
to Bhopal and was appointed Head of the
Bhopal State Archives by Sikander Begum.
His career gained further impetus when he
married the widowed daughter of the Prime
Minister Jamal ud-Din Khan. From that time
onwards, Siddiq Hasan was one of the most
influential scholars in Bhopal. His career
reached its climax when the widowed ruler
Shah Jahan Begum made him her Nawwabconsort
in 1871. Siddiq Hasan started extensive
propagation of the theories of Shaukani,
Ibn Taimiya, and to a lesser extent the
opinions of Sayyid Ahmad Barelwi. This mixture
of Indian and Yemenite religious reformist
teachings became fundamental to
the Ahl-e Hadith movement, of which Siddiq
Hasan was one of the most active members.
He wrote almost 300 works in Arabic,
Persian, and Urdu dealing with the elimination
of unlawful innovations (b i dca), the upcoming
approach of the Day of Judgement
(yaum al-qiyama) and the need for reform of
the Indian society according to the model of
the early Islamic community in Medina. It
was mainly the insistence on i j t i h a d t h a t
caused conflicts among all Indian Muslim
groups of that time, e.g. the Deobandis and
the movement of Ahmad Riza Khan Barelwi
(d. 1921), who were all strict followers of the
Siddiq Hasan’s enemies in Bhopal’s as well
as in other Muslim circles chose the easy
way to get rid of him: they denounced him
as a ‘Wahhabi’, which was synonymous with
‘anti-British’, ‘fanatic’, and ‘puritan’. At first,
the British did not believe these rumours,
mainly because the Begums proved to be
loyal supporters of the British in several critical
situations. Later, the British began to examine
Siddiq Hasan’s books critically and
discovered some writings in which the theory
of jihad was explained at length. When
the British further detected that 17 ‘Wahhabi’
scholars from Najd had come to study
in Bhopal, they began to think of an international
network of anti-British agitators,
reaching from Bhopal to Egypt, Istanbul,
and the Mahdist Sudan. The British Resident
Lepel Griffin immediately reacted and deposed
Siddiq Hasan. Other prominent leaders
of the Ahl-e Hadith like Husain b. Muhsin
and Muhammad Bashir Sahsawani (d. 1908)
further propagated the objectives of the
movement. This points to the fact that some
people at the court of Bhopal only wanted
to eradicate Siddiq Hasan’s dominant influence
on the Begum. Nationalist circles, however,
had labelled their hero as ‘a victim of
the British imperialism’. At first, the British
were proud to have caught ‘one of the leading
figures of the Indian Wahhabis’. Later
they had to admit that they had overreacted
to intrigues and rumours circulating at the
Every group mentioned above neglected
completely that Siddiq Hasan in his works
had always denied Muhammad b. cA b d a l –
Wahhab’s influence on the Indian reformists.
Rather, he had accused the Najdi of
religious fanaticism and bloodshed among
fellow Muslims. Siddiq Hasan himself was
far away from being an anti-British agitator:
he did not support the Mahdist revolt in
Sudan and did not even justify Islamic jihad
against the British in India. He opted for a
close cooperation of Muslim rulers and the
British authorities within the framework of
Islamic s h a r ica.
All in all, Siddiq Hasan was a reformer who
gained most of his religious knowledge
from his Yemenite teachers. His link to
Yemenite scholarship even overshadowed
his connection to Indian reformist circles
into which he was born. The combination of
the analysis of Siddiq Hasan’s oeuvre and
that of his social network is the objective of
the further  research concerning this subject.


N o t e s
1 . Claudia Preckel, The Begums of Bhopal (New Delhi,
2000); Shaharyar Muhammad Khan, The Begums of
B h o p a l (London, 2000).
2 . Thomas Eich, ‘Quest for a Phantom: Investigating
Abu l-Huda al-Sayyadi’, I S I MN e w s l e t t e r 7 (2001):
2 4 .
Claudia Preckel, M.A., is currently working on her
Ph.D. dissertation on Siddiq Hasan Khan and the
emergence of the Ahl-e Hadith in Bhopal. She is
member of the Junior Research Group ‘Islamic
Networks in Local and Transnational Contexts,
1 8t h– 2 0t hCenturies’ at the Ruhr-University Bochum,
G e r m a n y .

An Ahmadiyya splinter sect held a Jalsa in Sweden, 1st Jalsa Salana Sweden

Ahmadis always talk about having one leader and being united and etc and blah blah blah. However, the reality is that Ahmadiyya has many splinter sects.  This specific sect has been challenging Ahmadis for debates for years and years, however, Mirza Masroor Ahmad has ignored them over and over again…

Check out the video—urdu only

In 1891, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and his team argued that a Prophet could never be a follower of another prophet 4:64

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…………………………

The Quote
Ref: ‘Izala Auham’ Page 407,, PDF 307

English translation:

“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,

“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

Up ↑