Intro
Check out Bro Imtiaz’s video on this topic herein. In 2025, Bro Imtiaz debated Maulvi Raheel Ahmad on TikTok (Feb) and the Maulvi lied and said that MGA was named “Ahmad” by his own parents (a blatant lie)(4:08:05 time stamp). Firstly, 61:6 of the Quran seems to refer to John 14:26 and thus authenticates a small part of that verse in the New Testament (aka Bible).
In BA-1 (MGA’s first book)(page 28)(1880), and via poetry, MGA calls himself “Ahmad of the latter Days” (MGA was speaking in the first person), then in the same poem, he says that the same person has “Khutam”(Urdu) the reign of the prophets (inferring that it’s about Muhammad [saw])(page 32) and on page 35, he says he is the brother of all the prophets. On page 36, MGA called himself the “Warner” and Adam (as) was the first and “Ahmad” the last. On page 43, “the light of the prophets has enveloped the world”. On page 44, “We are humble servants of all the Prophets”. On page 45, MGA proves that he was speaking in the “first person” and makes prayers to his God accordingly. 17 years later, in “Siraj-e-Munir” (1897) via a poem (see page 219), once again, MGA called himself as “Ahmad of the Latter Days”.
Historically, MGA alleged himself that in Izala Auham (1890-1891) and via Tohfa Golarvia (in a classic back-dating move) that he (MGA) had a share in the prophecy of Ismuhu Ahmad (61:6), Mussailma Kazzab was saying the exact same thing (see the clip on tik tok, twitter and youtube, 47:00 time stamp).
MGA quoted 61:6 (61:7 in the Ahmadi-Quranic numbering system) in his 1893 book, “A’ina-e-Kamalat-e-Islam”, MGA seems to have argued to the effect that in this verse, Esa (As) predicted the coming of Muhammad (Saw)(referred to as Ahmad in 61:6) as after him (as after Esa [as]), thus, Esa (as) must have already died.
In Sep-2025 (3:39:55), Bro Imtiaz explained how MGA alleged that Allah “Manuskhed” the “Jalalee-Color” (referring to Jihad with the sword) and wanted to show the “Jamalee-Color” (just preaching and etc, no conflict) of Jihad. MGA argued that the name Ahmad is the manifestation of Jamal, and—in contrast to this—the name Muhammad (saw) is the manifestation of Jalal (See pages 151-152). MGA then claims that Ismuhu Ahmad is via “Jamalee-Color” (just preaching and etc, no conflict) and this is MGA.
After this comment, MGA commented again in 1901, in his arabic only book, “Ijaz ul Masih” (see ROR of April-1941 also). In “Ijaz ul Masih” (1901), MGA clearly wrote that when Eisa (as) said “Ismuhu-Ahmad”, he meant the messenger of the latter days (MGA). In Malfuzat, MGA says he’s the Burooz of Ismay Ahmad.
In 1905, in the Badr, MGA did make a brief comment on this topic, but he was brief.
After the split of 1914, in January of 1915, the Khalifa emphatically declared that 61:6 (Surah Saff), was totally about MGA and no one else (in his book, Qaul ul Fasl and later in the year, Anwar i Khilafat).
The Lahori-Ahmadi’s immediately responded, they totally disagreed with their Qadiani brothers, Muhammad Ali responded in 1918 with his book about the Split. This argument and disagreement went on for 4-5 years. Muhammad Ali never addressed the quote from “Ijaz ul Masih“.
By 1953, while he was in court, he totally adopted a new position, that was that Muhammad (saw) was the true person that the prophecy was about, however, MGA was the zill of Muhammad (Saw) and it is also about MGA.
In 1966, after the Khalifa died, Mirza Nasir Ahmad ordered Qazi Muhammad Nazeer (QMZ) to refute the Lahori-Ahmadi’s and their new book about the split, ‘Truth Triumphs”, in this book, QMZ admits “”on the surface, there appears to be a slight difference more in words”” as he talks about the contradictions of his CEO aka Khalifa. However, he spins it and never fully admits to the contradiction.
Finally, in 1988, in the famous 5-volume commentary on the Quran, Malik Ghulam Farid wrote that 61:6 only applies to MGA as a corollary. However, he failed to address his Khalifa’s comments in Qaul al Fasl (see in the below) and Anwar-i-Khilafat and on the order of Mirza Tahir Ahmad.
One last point, Ahmadi’s really believed that MGA=Muhammad and believed as such until 1922. This is how the Khalifa was making the correlation back in 1915, they gave up both beliefs by 1922. Nowadays, these are silent beliefs (things that Ahmadi’s believe, but they don’t fully admit to, just like Takfir).
In 1998 (Nov), Mirza Tahir Ahmad alleges that 61:7 (61:8 in the Kadiani Koran) is about MGA, he also commented on 62:3 of the Quran (62:4 in the Kadiani Koran).
In 2024, –At 52:55, Maulvi Mahmood Kausar alleges that Jesus (as) said in the Quran (61:6) that he would return. Which means that someone would come in Jesus’ (as) name (per Maulvi Mahmood Kausar). Maulvi Mahmood Kausar mentions the “Ahmad” and confirms that this is about Muhammad (Saw), but it is also about MGA. Ahmadi’s believe that another prophet will be born in Islam. Maulvi Mahmood Kausar acknowledges 33:40 and explains how Muslim’s believe that no new prophets can come. Maulvi Mahmood Kausar says that Muslims believe that an old prophet will come and Ahmadi’s believe that a new prophet will come (See the clip on TikTok and Twitter).
In Dec-2025, Brother Ahmad from “Arise and Warn”, went onto an Ahmadi TikTok livestream wherein Musleh Shanboor was answering questions. Arise and Warn asked about 61:6, however, he specifically asked about the usage of a singular person in grammatic prose, i.e., “wa BiRasulin” (and Rasul). Interestingly, Musleh Shanboor asked “Arise and Warn” if he can read Arabic, “Arise and Warn” tried to respond by Musleh Shanboor misunderstood his response and said that he didn’t ask him to recite anything. This is an example of Musleh Shanboor misunderstand people whom he deems as hostile. This is a psychological condition. Musleh Shanboor says that this verse if firstly (1:09:05 time stamp) about Muhammad (saw). Musleh Shanboor says that in the first part of the verse, Eisa (as) is telling the Israelites that he is doing Tasdiq (as musadaqin) of (Muhammad, saaw)(1:11:40). Musleh Shanboor says that Muhammad (saw) can’t be directly applied to the second part of 61:6 (specifically “wa mubashirrun wa BiRasulin”), Shanboor translates it as “I am also giving you ‘new’ news” (wa mubashirrun)(1:16:00 time stamp)(see the clip on TikTok and Twitter). A few days later (Dec-10-2025), after being privately scolded by his supervisors (and Maulvi Razi), Musleh Shanboor was forced to retract his statements, he also admitted to making up his own argument which had nothing to do with MGA (see the clip on Twitter and TikTok).
In 2026, Bro Imtiaz engaged Qadiani-Ahmadi-Israeli TikToker Nur ul Haq (@Ahmadi_Muslim) aka Basel Khalifa (@basel.khalifa0) on 61:6 (61:7 in the Kadiani Koran). Nur ul Haq alleged that MGA was the only one specifically named “Ahmad”. However, Nur ul Haq also argued that MGA only became “Ahmad” via being the Buruz of Muhammad (Saw)(naozobillah). Nur ul Haq also argued that Muhammad (saw) was not singularly “Ahmad”, instead, he was “Muhammad and Ahmad”, whereas MGA was specifically “Ahmad”. Nur ul Haq also argued that “Ahmad” was only a power (sifat) of Muhammad (saw), not his name. Bro Imtiaz also pointed out that MGA’s name was actually “Ghulam-e-Ahmad” (the slave of Ahmad) and thus, he was not named “Ahmad”. Nur ul Haq also argued that since MGA named his sons as “Ahmad”, this also fulfills the prophecy of “Ismuhu Ahmad”. Nur ul Haq also denied (50:17 time stamp) being the son of the Indian Qadiani-Ahmadi Maulvi of Kababir, Shams ud Din Malabari, however, he told this to Bashir Ahmad (with AFCB) and many others a few years ago.
In 2026 (Feb), Bro Imtiaz sat with Maulvi Razi on a livestream and discussed the possibility of 12 debates with each other and settled on a few topics. However, Bro Imtiaz insisted on quoting Ahmadi murrabi’s like Ansar Raza, Saleem Meer, Hadi Ali Chaudhary, Maulvi Shahid Bhatti [2:55:43 time stamp] and all comments by Murrabi’s on the True Islam UK streams, like Maulvi Raheel Ahmad and Ibrahim Ikhlaf). To this, Maulvi Razi vehemently disagreed and argued that he is not here to defend Ahmadi murrabi’s (See the clip on TikTok and Twitter). In fact, all 12 debates were cancelled over this issue (4:48:12). Technically, Bro Imtiaz had given two options, either make the Quran the judge (Hakam), or every Murrabi will be quoted. The reason Bro Imtiaz wanted to quote Ahmadi murrabi’s is because there is a contradiction in terms of 61:6 (61:7 in the Kadiani Koran), between the statements of murrabi’s like Ansar Raza, Saleem Meer, Hadi Ali Chaudhary, Maulvi Shahid Bhatti, Murrabi’s on the True Islam UK streams, Maulvi Raheel Ahmad and Ibrahim Ikhlaf. Which person is accurately giving the position of the Ahmadiyya Jamaat in 2026? They all seem to differ. At 4:47:53, Maulvi Razi again said he is not here to defend Ansar Raza, Saleem Meer, Hadi Ali Chaudhary.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 1880
https://www.alislam.org/book/barahin-e-ahmadiyya-parts-ii/
In BA-1 (MGA’s first book)(page 28), and via poetry, MGA calls himself “Ahmad of the latter Days”, then in the same poem, he says that the same person has “Khutam”(Urdu) the reign of the prophets (inferring that it’s about Muhammad [saw])(page 32) and on page 35, he says he is the brother of all the prophets. On page 36, MGA called himself the “Warner” and Adam (as) was the first and “Ahmad” the last. On page 43, “the light of the prophets has enveloped the world”. On page 44, “We are humble servants of all the Prophets”. On page 45, MGA proves that he was speaking in the “first person” and makes prayers to his God accordingly.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
1882
[Barahin-e-Ahmadiyyah, part 1, pp. 517 sub-footnote,Ruhani Khaza’in, vol. 1, pp. 618 sub-footnote].
[Arabic] O Ahmad! Mercy flows from your lips.
______________________________________________________________________________________________
1890
Izala Auham, Part-1
Izala-e-Auham, pp. 186–187, Ruhani Khaza’in, vol. 3, p. 190, TAKEN FROM TADKHIRA, 2009 ONLINE EDITION
“””With regard to the death of a certain person, God the Almighty revealed to me through the value of the letters of the alphabet, namely: That is [Arabic] He is a dog and he will die according to the value of the letters in the word kalb [dog], which amounts to fifty-two. This means that his age will not exceed fifty-two years and that he will die within the course of his fifty second year.”””
[Izala-e-Auham, p. 185, Ruhani Khaza’in, vol. 3, pp. 189–190](via Tadhkirah).
“””A few days ago I was meditating whether a certain hadith:
“”The Signs will appear after two centuries.””
means that the Promised Messiah would appear towards the end of the thirteenth century of the Hijrah and whether this humble one is included within the meaning of that hadith. Then my attention was, in a vision, directed to the value of the letters of the name set out below as indicating that the Messiah would appear at the close of the thirteenth century. and this had been determined in advance by divine decree. The name is:
[Urdu] Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani.
The value of the letters comprised in this name is exactly 1300. In this village of Qadian there is no other person bearing the name Ghulam Ahmad. Indeed, it has been conveyed to me that there is no one else in the whole world who bears the name Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani. It has been the way of Allah with me that He, hallowed be His name, conveys some mysteries to me which are comprised in the value of the alphabet.
and
[Izala-e-Auham, p. 186, Ruhani Khaza’in, vol. 3, p. 190]
Scan
______________________________________________________________________________________________
1891
Roohani Khazian 17- Page 254, Tohfah Golarhviyyah
1902–Sep
“This is the same thing which I (Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani) have written in Izala Auham that I am Partner in Name Ahmad with Holy prophet peace be upon him. Some insane Mullahs have raised their voices upon it as per their habit on it .If it is denied then whole Prophecy becomes zero but it is the denial of Quran, and that God Forbid in Kuffar”.
MGA also says that Muhammad (Saw) only came into this world twice.
Scan
______________________________________________________________________________________________
1892-1893
A’ina-e-Kamalat-e-Islam, Ruhani Khaza’in, vol. 5, pp. 41-42
Essence of Islam, Vol. 3, pages 203-204
1:48:56
“””When the Muslims of our time affirm the death of the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and his burial on earth, and at the same time affirm that Jesus is still alive, they furnish the Christians with a written acknowledgement that Jesus possessed qualities different from those of the common man and also different from all the Prophets. If it were true that while the Best of Mankind (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), who appeared six hundred years after Jesus, died after a brief life thirteen hundred years ago, yet Jesus has not yet died, would it not prove that Jesus possesses qualities that are superhuman? Though the Muslim divines of these times formally reject every form of association of partners with God, yet they lend their full support to those who are guilty of such association. It is an outrage that while Allah the Glorious, in His Holy Word, proclaims the death of Jesus, these divines create countless
difficulties in the way of Islam by adhering to the notion that he is still alive. They acknowledge Jesus as ever living and self-subsisting in heaven, and affirm the death and burial upon earth of the Chief of the Prophets (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)! The Holy Qur’an records the testimony of Jesus to the effect:
Al-Saff, 61:7 [Publisher]
That is: ‘I give glad tidings of a Messenger who will come after me (i.e., after my death,) whose name will be Ahmad.’ Hence, if Jesus is still bodily alive, it follows that the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) has not yet appeared on earth.””””
Scans
______________________________________________________________________________________________
1897
In “Siraj-e-Munir” (1897) via a poem (see page 219), MGA called himself as “Ahmad of the Latter Days”.
______________________________________________________________________________________________
1897-1898
[Anjam-e-Atham, p. 181, Ruhani Khaza’in, vol. 11, p. 181]
“”O Ahmad, I shall accept all your supplications but not those in the matter of your collaterals””.
______________________________________________________________________________________________
1898
RK-14, Najmul-Huda, p. 3
https://www.youtube.com/live/Y7RT0_kCMWs?si=4lFYzZyKFz4QmiYL
MGA says that Muhammad (saw) has 2 names, Muhammad and Ahmad. These 2 names were given to Muhammad (Saw) in front of Adam (as).
Scan
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
1898
RK-14, Najmul-Huda, p. 4
https://www.youtube.com/live/Y7RT0_kCMWs?si=4lFYzZyKFz4QmiYL
MGA says that since Muhammad (saw) has 2 names (Muhammad [saw} and Ahmad [saw}), he is above all other prophets/messengers.
Scan
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
1898
RK-14, Najmul-Huda, p. 7
https://www.youtube.com/live/Y7RT0_kCMWs?si=4lFYzZyKFz4QmiYL
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad called Muhammad (saw) as “the perfect Mahdi” – ahmadiyyafactcheckblog
MGA says that his is why NO prophet/Messenger was named as “Ahmad”.
and
There is no person who is the perfect Ahmad or the perfect Mahdi.
Scan
______________________________________________________________________________________________
1898
Kitab-ul-Bariyyah, Ruhani Khaza’in, vol. 13, page 258
https://www.youtube.com/live/Y7RT0_kCMWs?si=0lxnzBYHJqMedqUK
Why did MGA claim that per the Quran, the Messiah and Mahdi would arrive in the 14th century? – ahmadiyyafactcheckblog
MGA claimed that his GOD named him Mirza Ghulam Qadiani – ahmadiyyafactcheckblog
“”Allah has given me the name, Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani”, which equals 1300, and indicated that the Messiah would come in the 14th century””.
Scans
______________________________________________________________________________________________
1900
https://files.alislam.cloud/pdf/Arbain-Forty-Announcements.pdf
In Sep-2025 (3:39:55), Bro Imtiaz explained how MGA alleged that Allah “Manuskhed” the “Jalalee-Color” (referring to Jihad with the sword) and wanted to show the “Jamalee-Color” (just preaching and etc, no conflict) of Jihad. MGA argued that the name Ahmad is the manifestation of Jamal, and—in contrast to this—the name Muhammad (saw) is the manifestation of Jalal (See pages 151-152). MGA then claims that Ismuhu Ahmad is via “Jamalee-Color” (just preaching and etc, no conflict) and this is MGA.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
1901
April 1941
In MGA’s arabic only book, Ijaz-ul-Masih (1901), he claims that the phrase “Ismuhu-Ahmad” (61:6 of the Quran). This was quoted in the ROR of April-1941 (see pages 127-128).
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
1901
Malfuzat-3, English edition, pages 63-86
Malfuzat-2, Urdu edition, page 71
Al-Hakam, vol. 5, no. 3, dated 24 January 1901, pp. 1-5
Al-Hakam, vol. 5, no. 2, dated 17 January 1901, pp. 2-4
and
Malfuzat-2, Urdu edition, page 88
Al-Hakam, vol. 5, no. 6, dated 31 January 1901, p. 11
Malfuzat-3, English edition, pages 101-102
Muhammad and Ahmad are 2 names of Muhammad (saw).
and
Why did MGA name his community as “Ahmadi”?
and
These are two names that represent 2 qualities.
and
On page 73, MGA says he’s the Barooz of Ismay Ahmad.
Scans
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
1902
In the July 1902 edition of the Urdu-ROR there is a lengthy article (p. 275 – 292) entitled Farqleet. It tries to prove the standard Muslim belief that Jesus prophesied about the Holy Prophet Muhammad in his prophecy of the coming of a “comforter”, the Greek for which is Paraclete (Arabic: Farqleet). Muslims have always claimed that this is Jesus’ prophecy about ismu-hu Ahmad. This seems to be the first time that MGA and his team of writers began asserting that MGA was the “Ahmad” that was mentioned in 61:6 (61:7 in Ahmadi Quran’s).
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ In the original article of July 1902 it is stated:
“”“Muslims have always claimed that the word paraclete in the Greek gospels is originally periclutos … which means one who is praised magnificently and who is renowned. These meanings are very close to the words Muhammad and Ahmad.” (p. 279)”””
So this is the claim, the claim always made by Muslims, which this article of ROR is trying to prove!
“It is very important to consider whether Farqleet came into this world for a special mission, and whether any claimant has come into the world who claimed to do the work which was described as the work of the Farqleet. (p. 281). …
“It is clear from this that the man about whom the prophecy was made was only the Holy Prophet Muhammad.” (p. 282)
“It is also worth considering that it is written about the promised Farqleet that he will abide forever” (p. 283) “The blessings of the Holy Prophet have not come to an end … He is always with his umma. The Promised Messiah has come as a slave of this Ahmad, and is a living proof of the everlasting life of the great Farqleet.” (p. 285)
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ 1902
Review of Religions (ROR), Aug-1902, English, pages 306-336
RR190208.pdf (reviewofreligions.org)
A letter by Maulvi Abdul Karim is reproduced by the editor (Maulvi Muhammad Ali) of the ROR-Aug-1902 (see pages 306-336). The title/heading of the letter is given as “Muslim Resuscitation and The Means By Which It Can Be Brought Out”. This is a letter, which was written to the “Nudwat ul Ulema”, this was in response to their invitation to MGA to attend their annual Jalsa at Calcutta (Dec-1902). Maulvi Abdul Karim starts off with saying that he is looking out for Muslims and their welfare and yearns for Islam to dominate once again. Maulvi Abdul Karim gives a long speech and then finally says Muhammad (saw) is the best example of morals. He then presents MGA as the second coming of Muhammad (Saw)(naozobillah) and as a unifier for the Muslims in India. Maulvi Abdul Karim was critical of the Mutazalite‘s, and Sir Syed and his Aligarh College and that entire thrust of modernism and mixing it with Islam. Maulvi Abdul Karim then poses a question to the “Nudwat ul Ulema”, he asks as to who is the “perfect manifestation of the glory and attributes” of Muhammad (saw), Maulvi Abdul Karim then poses another question: “Who is it that claims to be Baruz? (representing the spiritual appearance) of the Great Arabian Prophet” (this is implying that MGA is the Baruz)(note by AFCB). Maulvi Abdul Karim then asks the “Nudwat ul Ulema” to point to anyone else that they had in mind who could fit as the 2nd coming of Muhammad (saw)(nauzobillah)(see page 321). Maulvi Abdul Karim then gives a long speech on the objectives of the “Nudwat ul Ulema”. On page 328, Maulvi Abdul Karim tells how (and laments) all Muslims, from the Ahl-e-Hadith to the “Naichri” (the English word ‘nature’ pronounced like a desi)(Sir Syed type of Muslims) believe that prophethood has finished. Maulvi Abdul Karim does describe other means of communication by Allah and he could mean the good dreams (which are 1/46th of prophethood) and seems to be implying MGA’s prophethood. Maulvi Abdul Karim criticizes the “Nudwat ul Ulema” and says that they keep trying to unite Muslims and will never achieve that. Maulvi Abdul Karim mentions Dowie and calls him a crazy old man. On page 330, Maulvi Abdul Karim presents the common Ahmadi argument that since Islam is a living religion, and thus, that must also mean that Allah is still speaking and via miracles and signs. Maulvi Abdul Karim then argues that any religion that is devoid of Allah’s speech should be laughed at. Maulvi Abdul Karim then argues that it’s sad that the Jews were blessed with so many prophets, but not in Islam. On page 332, Maulvi Abdul Karim argued that the previous Jalsa failed. Maulvi Abdul Karim the quotes 62:3 and presents MGA as someone who fulfills this so-called prophecy and as the second coming of Muhammad (saw)(naozobillah). On page 333, Maulvi Abdul Karim writes:
“””In other words, the wise and knowing God has raised Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian with the same spirit and power, the same blessings and favors and the same miracles, with which he raised the Holy Prophet. Since the same and even greater evils and corruption had appeared in the world, and the same teachings, the same sanctifying power, the same heavenly blessings, the same miracles, supernatural signs and grand prophecies were needed as at the time of the Holy Prophet, therefore, the God of jealousy and power has sent his true representative and perfect manifestation who has annihilated his own self in obedience to his Holy Master and tries day and night to re-establish his honor, glory and greatness, and he has given the same power and magnetism that the whole world may be replenished…..”
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ 1902–Sep
Roohani Khazian 17- Page 254, Tohfah Golarhviyyah
“This is the same thing which I (Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani) have written in Izala Auham that I am Partner in Name Ahmad with Holy prophet peace be upon him. Some insane Mullahs have raised their voices upon it as per their habit on it. If it is denied then whole Prophecy becomes zero but it is the denial of Quran, and that God Forbid in Kuffar”.
MGA also says that Muhammad (Saw) only came into this world twice.
Scan
______________________________________________________________________________________________
1902
Badr, 21 November 1902 (See also Malfuzat, vol. 4, pages 197-198)
There is a report about this article in Badr, 21 November 1902 (See also Malfuzat, vol. 4, pages 197-198). It is headed: Farqleet and Ahmad, and runs as follows:
“After the prayer Maulvi Muhammad Ali sahib, M.A., said that a man had raised the objection about Farqleet that as its meaning in the magazine [Review of Religions] is given as one who distinguishes between truth and falsehood, how can this meaning apply to the word Ahmad. How can Ahmad be meant by Farqleet? Where is the prophecy using the word Ahmad in previous scriptures?”
MGA replied:
“It is not our responsibility to show this word in the present scriptures like the Torah etc. When the Holy Quran has declared these books to have been corrupted, where can we find this word? When the word Farqleet itself is the result of corruption, it is possible that there was another word which meant Ahmad. …
Farqleet is composed of farq and leet, farq meaning he who separates and leet meaning the devil. It means one who separates the devil. The name of our Holy Prophet is Farqleetbecause he received the Furqan. … Ahmad means one who praises God greatly. Who can be greater than him, who removes every kind of devliishness by means of Tauhid? To become Farqleet it is essential to be Ahmad. … The meaning of Farqleet is in other words Ahmad.“
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
1901-1902
Quotes from Tofha Golarvia and Ijaz ul Masih
“This is the same thing which I (Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani) have written in Izala Auham that I am Partner in Name Ahmad with Holy prophet peace be upon him. Some insane Mullahs have raised their voices upon it as per their habit on it. If it is denied then whole Prophecy becomes zero but it is the denial of Quran, and that God Forbid in Kuffar”.
Scan
Qazi Muhammad Nazir in his famous “Truth Prevails” quotes a few lines, however, MGA didn’t seem to make any substantial statements on 61:6 and Ismuhu Ahmad.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
1902
Defence-Against-Plague.pdf, page 22
“””God gave the name Ghulam-e Ahmad saw [the Servant of Ahmad saw] to this Messiah, in order to point out to the Christians that their Messiah who they deem to be ‘God’ cannot compare to even a lowly servant of Ahmad saw”””.
Scan
______________________________________________________________________________________________
1903
[Tadhkiratush-Shahadatain, p. 43, Ruhani Khaza’in, vol. 20, pp. 45–46; Review of Religions, vol. 2, no. 11, 12, November, December, 1903, p. 441]
“””[Arabic] O Ahmad, you have been made a Messenger.
This means that as I have deserved the name Ahmad as a manifestation and reflection of Ahmad, though my name is Ghulam Ahmad; in the same way, as a manifestation and a reflection, I deserve the title Prophet, for Ahmad was a Prophet and Prophethood cannot be severed from him”””.
______________________________________________________________________________________________
1905
Al-Hakam, October 17, 1905, page 10, Quoted by Qazi Muhammad Nazeer in Truth Prevails
“These people inquire again and again where, in the Holy Quran, has the name been mentioned. They do not seem to be aware that Allah named me Ahmad. The pledge of bai’at is taken in the name of Ahmad. Is not this name found in the Quran?”
Scan of Al-Hakam, October 17, 1905, page 10
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
1906
In 1906, in the English-Review of Religions, MGA seems to have written that his God named his “Mirza Ghulam Qadiani”, he also said that he was named as such since this name equals 1300 when the Arabic letters are all counted together. It is an ancient system of writing any amount without ‘Arabic’ numerals in the Arabic language. It is more like Roman Numerals where alphabet denotes count, like XXIV is 24 in Roman numerals. It is memorized as abjad hawwaz huttee kaliman sa’fas qurshat sakhaz dadhagh! MGA mentions this in many places with many connotations. The problem is that he could include ‘Mirza’ in his name or not, depending on whatever whim he had at that time.
______________________________________________________________________________________________
1908
Oct
BA-5, online English edition, page 483
BA-5, Urdu edition, page 360
“”Similarly, I received two titles from God Almighty: One I was named ummati [follower of the Holy Prophet sas], as is indicated by my name Ghulam Ahmad sas [i.e. the Servant of Ahmad sa s]; second, I was named, by way of reflection, Nabi [‘Prophet’], as God Almighty named me ‘Ahmad’ in the earlier parts of Barahin-e-Ahmadiyya and addressed me repeatedly by this very name.”””
Scan
_____________________________________________________________________________________________1913
The Review of Religions, Urdu, Vol. 12, No. 7, page 236
Quoted by Qazi Muhammad Nazeer in Truth Prevails
While in Qadian, Maulvi Mohammad Ali, himself wrote in The Review of Religions:
“Who is Mirza Ghulam Ahmad? In words of the Holy Quran we make reply, ‘He will come after me, his name will be Ahmad.’”
______________________________________________________________________________________________1915–January
The Khalifa publishes his famous book, “Qaul al Fasl”, from page 27 to 32, he discussed the prophecy concerning Ahmad. A few extracts from this discussion are now quoted:
“””””””””””””””The Promised Messiah has called himself Ahmad, and said that it was he who
was the real object of the prophecy, because he said that in this passage (the verse Ismuhu Ahmad in Chapter Al-Saff of the Holy Quran), there is a prophecy concerning Ahmad, alone, whereas the Holy Prophet was both Ahmad and Muhammad.” (Al- Qaulul Fasl, page 27).
Again, I wrote on page 31:
“The person who is referred to in Ismuhu Ahmad is the Promised Messiah.”
In short, in six pages of the book I proved by quotations from the writings of the Promised Messiah and the testimony of Khalifatul Masih Ira, that the Promised Messiah was the real
object of the Quranic prophecy concerning Ahmad.”””””””””””””””””(see Truth about the Split, online english edition, (2007), pages 197-198).
______________________________________________________________________________________________1915–December
In his book Anwar-i Khilafat, published in 1916, which is the text of a speech delivered by him at the December 1915 annual gathering of his followers, Mirza Mahmud Ahmad has argued most emphatically that the prophecy of Jesus about the coming Ahmad, referred to in the Quran in 61:6, does not apply to the Prophet Muhammad but to Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. In this book, he deals with the points of difference between his followers and the Lahore Ahmadis. The first issue that he raises in this connection is the interpretation of the prophecy about the coming Ahmad. We quote below some of his statements on this issue from Anwar-i Khilafat.
“The first issue is whether Ahmad was the name of the Promised Messiah or of the Holy Prophet Muhammad, and whether the verse of Sura Al-Saff which mentions the prophecy about a messenger whose name would be Ahmad, applies to the Holy Prophet Muhammad or to the Promised Messiah.
My belief is that this verse applies to the Promised Messiah, and he is the one who is Ahmad. … The more I ponder, the more my conviction grows, and I believe that the word Ahmad that occurs in the Holy Quran applies to the Promised Messiah. In proof of this, I have evidences by the grace of God which I am prepared to put before the scholars and learned ones of the whole world. So much so that I am prepared to offer a reward: if anyone can disprove my evidences and show from the Holy Quran and authentic Hadith that Ahmad was the name of the Holy Prophet Muhammad, and not his attribute, and that the signs about Ahmad given in the Holy Quran apply to the Holy Prophet, and that the Holy Prophet applied this prophecy to himself, I will pay that person a monetary penalty as mutually agreed between the two parties.”
— pages 18-19, original edition, Anwar-i Khilafat. See here for Urdu text.
Quotation 2:
“I have read out the verses of the Holy Quran giving the news about Ahmad, in which Ahmad is mentioned. Now I will explain by the grace of God that in these verses the real person meant by Ahmad is the Promised Messiah, and the Holy Prophet Muhammad only fulfils it because of his attribute of being Ahmad; otherwise, the man having the name Ahmad, to whom this news relates, is only the Promised Messiah.”
— pages 20, original edition, Anwar-i Khilafat. See here for Urdu text.
Quotation 3:
“Hence the messenger named Ahmad, whose news is given in this verse, cannot be the Holy Prophet Muhammad. Of course, if all those signs of this messenger called Ahmad were fulfilled in his time then we could undoubtedly say that since by the name Ahmad in this verse is meant the messenger having the attribute of Ahmad, why should we apply it to someone else? But even this is not the case, as I will prove later on.”
— pages 23, original edition, Anwar-i Khilafat. See here for Urdu text.
Quotation 4:
“This prophecy does not contain any word to show that it is about the Khatam-un-nabiyyin, nor any word to cause us to apply this prophecy necessarily to the Holy Prophet Muhammad.… There is no Hadith report of any kind, whether true or false, weak or strong, of whatever standard of authenticity, mentioning that the Holy Prophet Muhammad applied this verse to himself and declared himself as fulfilling this prophecy. When that also is not the case, why should we apply the prophecy to the Holy Prophet Muhammad, in contradiction to the subject-matter of the verse?”
— pages 23, original edition, Anwar-i Khilafat. See here for Urdu text.
Quotation 5:
“Why should the meaning of this verse be distorted to apply it to the Holy Prophet Muhammad just in order to prove that no messenger can come after him? Has the fear of Almighty God departed from the hearts of the people so much that they alter His word in this way and distort its meaning by misinterpreting it so blatantly? As long as truth had not come, people had no choice. But now that events have proved that by Ahmad is meant a servant of the Holy Prophet Muhammad, it is not the way of true believers to be stubborn.”
— pages 24, original edition, Anwar-i Khilafat. See here for Urdu text.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
(pages 25-27)
Dr. Tahir Ijaz vs. Dr. Zahid Aziz, the famous debate from 2003-2004, Lahori-Ahmadi vs. Qadiani-Ahmadi – ahmadiyyafactcheckblog
“Another argument which our opponents use against us is that they try to prove the ‘Ahmad’ prophecy from the prophecy of the Paraclete given in the Gospels and say that the word Paraclete shows the name ‘Ahmad’ …
In short, the ‘Ahmad’ prophecy has no connection with the Paraclete prophecy, which in any case is about the Holy Prophet”
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Quotation 6:
“To sum up, it is not proved in any way that the name of the Holy Prophet Muhammad was Ahmad. So this leaves only two choices. One is that this prophecy applies to some other man having the name Ahmad. The other is that the prophecy does not mean that his name would be Ahmad but rather that his attribute would be Ahmad, and as the Holy Prophet Muhammad had the attribute Ahmad hence this prophecy can be applied to him in this sense. However, this [second choice] does not work because the signs of the person having the name or the qualities of Ahmad that are given here are not fulfilled in the Holy Prophet Muhammad, as will be shown later. This leaves only one way, that the prophet whose name or whose attribute is Ahmad, as the case may be, shall be someone after the Holy Prophet Muhammad, from among his servants. Our claim is that it is the Promised Messiah who is that messenger, the prophecy about whom is given in this verse.”
— pages 31, original edition, Anwar-i Khilafat. See here for Urdu text.
Quotation 7:
“Now I present evidence from the Holy Quran that the one who fulfills this prophecy can only be the Promised Messiah and no one else.”
— pages 33, original edition, Anwar-i Khilafat. See here for Urdu text.
Page 40
Dr. Tahir Ijaz vs. Dr. Zahid Aziz, the famous debate from 2003-2004, Lahori-Ahmadi vs. Qadiani-Ahmadi – ahmadiyyafactcheckblog
“The mention of the word rasul in the prophecy in the Quran clearly points to the fact
that it contains a reference to the prophecy of Paraclete, and not to the second advent of
Jesus (page 40).”
______________________________________________________________________________________________
1916
Kalimatul Fasl by Mirza Bashir Ahmad
“Kalimatal Fasl” by Mirza Bashir Ahmad (1916) quotes and background info – ahmadiyyafactcheckblog
It is “Yaqeenee and Quttay” that MGA is Ahmad Rasul as mentioned in 61:6.
Scan
______________________________________________________________________________________________
1917, Muhammad Ali refutes this
Muhammad Ali refuted these ideas and arguments most forcefully in his Urdu book of some 90 pages entitled Ahmad Mujtaba,published in December 1917. He also covered the same subject in English in his book Split in the Ahmadiyya Movement, published in January 1918. Both these books are available online:
Maulana Muhammad Ali in his book Split in the Ahmadiyya Movement has treated this as the first issue of difference, as he writes:
“I shall now take the three doctrines which M. Mahmud is promulgating and which are opposed to the teachings of the Promised Messiah. I take first the question whether Ahmad was not a name of the Holy Prophet Muhammad and whether the prophecy of Jesus relating to the appearance of a messenger named Ahmad was not fulfilled by the advent of the Holy Prophet. I give it precedence over the other questions, both because the idea that the prophecy of the advent of the messenger named Ahmad was fulfilled by the appearance of the Promised Messiah seems to have been the nucleus about which the doctrine of his prophethood was formed, this being the first question brought into prominence by M. Mahmud after the dissension of 1914, and because it illustrates how it was after the death of the Promised Messiah that these doctrines grew up.” (p. 18 of the reprinted edition of 1994).
______________________________________________________________________________________________
1917
Al-Fazl, May-15th-19th
https://www.youtube.com/live/Y7RT0_kCMWs?si=jdy2dsyzYGcC6Hmy
Mirza Bashir Ahmad writes that yes, his name was Ghulam Ahmad, but just forget about the Ghulam part and just call him Ahmad. Mirza Bashir Ahmad was trying to prove that MGA was named Ahmad, not on the basis of MGA’s revelations. Mirza Bashir Ahmad argues that history and authentic narrations prove that Muhammad (Saw) was never called Ahmad before his prophethood. Furthermore, any name after the claim of prophethood cannot be used. MBA says that if someone does this, we can’t trust anything else he says. MBA gives an example of someone pretending to be someone else. Moreover, Muhammad (saw) never called himself “Ahmad”, even after his claim of prophethood.
Scans
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ 1921
The Khalifa;’s book, an Urdu book “A’inah-i Sadaqat” (1921), the english appeared in 1924 as “Truth About the Split”, the Khalifa said:
“””Regarding the prophecy Ismuhu Ahmad contained in the Holy Quran (Al-Saff, 61:6), my opinion is that the passage contains a double prophecy, relating to two persons, one a counter-type and the other his prototype. The counter-type of course is the Promised Messiahas, while the prototype is the Holy Prophetsa. The passage under reference speaks directly about the
counter-type. A reference to the prototype of course comes in, but only indirectly inasmuch as the countertype of a Prophet necessarily presumes the existence of his original. Thus the verse does furnish a prophecy regarding the original Prophet from whom the immediate subject of the prophecy derived his dignity. The prophethood of the Holy Prophetsa was not a derived one. He was an original Prophet who was not indebted to any human teacher for the grace of prophethood, but was himself a dispenser of grace to others. To consider him as a recipient of spiritual grace from any human teacher is in my view a detraction from his proper dignity. For these reasons and on certain other grounds, I hold the opinion that the subject of this prophecy is primarily the Promised Messiahas who is the reflex of the Holy Prophetsa and the counter-type of Jesus Christ. But the whole question is one regarding which no decision on the
basis of revealed authority has been left by any of the Prophets. Any discussion of the question therefore has little more than mere academic interest. If any person holds a different view regarding the interpretation of the verse, all that I shall say is that he is mistaken, but
I shall never deem him, on that account, any the less an Ahmadi and much less shall I deem him a sinner. In short, the question as to who is the proper subject of this Quranic prophecy is not at all of such moment as to make it a problem of any great religious importance.””” (see Truth about the Split, online english edition, (2007), pages 58-59).
Scan
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
1941
see pages 127-128
https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/April-1941.pdf
The ROR of Feb-1941 has an essay on Muhammad (Saw) being mentioned in the Gospels. The Comforter and Parcletos.
In MGA’s arabic only book, Ijaz-ul-Masih (1901), he claims that the phrase “Ismuhu-Ahmad” (61:6 of the Quran). This was quoted in the ROR of April-1941 (see pages 127-128).
______________________________________________________________________________________________1948
Dard (Life of Ahmad, 1948), sequences this data as from the 1890-1891 era, and he writes on pg. 235-236:
Ahmad (as) also explained that his advent was foretold in the Holy Quran (Al-Fatihah 1:7; Al-Nur 24:56, Al-Muzzammil 73:16).
The following verse of the Holy Book refers clearly to Ahmad (as): ‘And remember when Jesus, son of Mary, said, O children of Israel, I am Allah’s messenger unto you, fulfilling that which is before me of the Torah, and giving glad tidings of a Messenger who will come after me. His name will be Ahmad (as). And when he will come to them with clear proofs, they will say “This is a clear fraud”‘ (61:7).
______________________________________________________________________________________________
1954, while in court explaining Ahmadiyya beliefs
Per Truth Prevails, see 70, the Khalifa said in court:
“As we think, this prophecy, primarily and properly speaking applies to the Holy Prophet Mohammad. But in a zilli manner, it is also fully applicable to Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.”
Scan from Imtiaz
______________________________________________________________________________________________
1957
Tafsir-e-Sagheer
https://www.youtube.com/live/Y7RT0_kCMWs?si=uOcCY-ulQ-Gba_y6
The 2nd Qadiani-Ahmadi Khalifa says that 61:6 is about Muhammad (Saw).
Scan
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
1965
After Mirza Basheer ud Din Mahmud Ahmad died, his son Mirza Nasir Ahmad ordered Qazi Muhammad Nazeer to write his famous book, “Truth Prevails” (published on 10-4-1966). This was in response to the Lahori-Ahmadi’s, who had written “Truth Triumphs” in 1965 (published on 9-1-1965, the Khalifa died on 11-7-1965), as Mirza Basheer ud Din Mahmud Ahmad was about to die.
Qazi Muhammad Nazeer says:
“””Between this passage and the statement before the Inquiry Commission, on the surface, there appears to be a slight difference more in words, than in the meaning and sense. There is no real difference between the two. In the passage quoted above there is not the slightest hint of denial that the Holy Prophet, primarily, was the Prophet, in the first instance, to whom the prophecy applied. “”””(Quoted by Qazi Muhammad Nazeer in Truth Prevails, page 70 of the PDF).
______________________________________________________________________________________________
1988
Holy Quran: Chapter 61: As-Saff
https://alislam.org/quran/app/61:6
The final Qadiani Jama‘at retreat on this point came in their translations of the Quran some thirty years later. The 2nd Khalifa didn’t comment on Chapter 61 in his famous Tafsir-i-Kabeer. This was written by Malik Ghulam Farid, who had died in 1977.
They have published a 5-volume English translation of the Quran with commentary by Mirza Mahmud Ahmad or taken from his writings. His commentary on the verse about the Ahmad prophecy consists of a total of 129 lines of print, out of which 122 lines are devoted to showing that the Ahmad of this prophecy is the Holy Prophet Muhammad. Having exhaustively argued that the Holy Prophet Muhammad fulfilled this prophecy, he writes in this footnote:
“Thus the prophecy mentioned in the verse under comment applies to the Holy Prophet, but as a corollary it may also apply to the Promised Messiah, Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement…”
— continuation of footnote 4226 on page 2622. (This work is available online at this link on the Qadiani Jama‘at website).
______________________________________________________________________________________________
1915
Urdu quotations: Mirza Mahmud Ahmad retreats from his belief about the “coming Ahmad” prophecy
Urdu quotations
in connection with the article
Mirza Mahmud Ahmad retreats from his belief about the “coming Ahmad” prophecy
Given below are the Urdu texts of the quotations from Mirza Mahmud Ahmad’s book Anwar-i Khilafat that appear in the above article. This book is available for reading on the Qadiani Jama‘at website within the volumes of a collection entitled Anwar-ul-‘ulum at the link: http://www.alislam.org/urdu/au/. This book is volume 3, book number 5, of that collection. The Urdu text below has been scanned in from this online edition. We give below page numbers from the Anwar-ul-‘ulum online edition (abbreviated to AU) as well as from the original edition of Anwar-i Khilafat.
Each quotation below is cross-linked to its translation in the main article, and vice versa.
Quotation 1: AU, p. 83–84; original ed., p. 18–19. See translation here.
Quotation 2: AU, p. 85; original ed., p. 20. See translation here.
Quotation 3: AU, p. 87–88; original ed., p. 23. See translation here.
Quotation 4: AU, p. 88; original ed., p. 23. See translation here.
Quotation 5: AU, p. 89; original ed., p. 24. See translation here.
Quotation 6: AU, p. 96; original ed., p. 31. See translation here.
Quotation 7: AU, p. 97; original ed., p. 33. See translation here.
______________________________________________________________________________________________
1998
Nov-10
https://youtu.be/HUaQdS6ncDU?si=IOPSvKXaS_YKcVp1
In 1998 (Nov), Mirza Tahir Ahmad alleges that 61:7 (61:8 in the Kadiani Koran) is about MGA, he also commented on 62:3 of the Quran (62:4 in the Kadiani Koran).
______________________________________________________________________________________________
2024
Gen Z podcast review, Syed Ibrahim Ahmad and Maulvi Mahmood Kausar-review by Dr. Shah – ahmadiyyafactcheckblog
https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2026/01/02/gen-z-podcast-review-syed-ibrahim-ahmad-and-maulvi-mahmood-kausar/
In 2024, –At 52:55, Maulvi Mahmood Kausar alleges that Jesus (as) said in the Quran (61:6) that he would return. Which means that someone would come in Jesus’ (as) name (per Maulvi Mahmood Kausar). Maulvi Mahmood Kausar mentions the “Ahmad” and confirms that this is about Muhammad (Saw), but it is also about MGA. Ahmadi’s believe that another prophet will be born in Islam. Maulvi Mahmood Kausar acknowledges 33:40 and explains how Muslim’s believe that no new prophets can come. Maulvi Mahmood Kausar says that Muslims believe that an old prophet will come and Ahmadi’s believe that a new prophet will come (See the clip on TikTok and Twitter).
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
2025
https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8Upotfq/
https://x.com/Ahmadiyyafacts/status/1997511690267791661
Maulvi Musleh Shanboor made a huge blunder on 61:6 (Ismuhu Ahmad) and is forced to repent by Maulvi Razi – ahmadiyyafactcheckblog
In Dec-2025, Brother Ahmad from “Arise and Warn”, went onto an Ahmadi TikTok livestream wherein Musleh Shanboor was answering questions. Arise and Warn asked about 61:6, however, he specifically asked about the usage of a singular person in grammatic prose, i.e., “wa BiRasulin” (and Rasul).
Interestingly, Musleh Shanboor asked “Arise and Warn” if he can read Arabic, “Arise and Warn” tried to respond by Musleh Shanboor misunderstood his response and said that he didn’t ask him to recite anything. This is an example of Musleh Shanboor misunderstand people whom he deems as hostile. This is a psychological condition.
Musleh Shanboor says that this verse if firstly (1:09:05 time stamp) about Muhammad (saw). Musleh Shanboor says that in the first part of the verse, Eisa (as) is telling the Israelites that he is doing Tasdiq (as musadaqin) of (Muhammad, saaw)(1:11:40). Musleh Shanboor says that Muhammad (saw) can’t be directly applied to the second part of 61:6 (specifically “wa mubashirrun wa BiRasulin”), Shanboor translates it as “I am also giving you ‘new’ news” (wa mubashirrun)(1:16:00 time stamp)(see the clip on TikTok and Twitter). A few days later (Dec-10-2025), after being privately scolded by his supervisors (and Maulvi Razi), Musleh Shanboor was forced to retract his statements, he also admitted to making up his own argument which had nothing to do with MGA (see the clip on Twitter and TikTok).
______________________________________________________________________________________________
2026
https://youtu.be/v7FZkVgs4pU?si=vg9v0exdJDOY3wp0
In 2026, Bro Imtiaz engaged Qadiani-Ahmadi-Israeli TikToker Nur ul Haq (@Ahmadi_Muslim) aka Basel Khalifa (@basel.khalifa0) on 61:6 (61:7 in the Kadiani Koran). Nur ul Haq alleged that MGA was the only one specifically named “Ahmad”. However, Nur ul Haq also argued that MGA only became “Ahmad” via being the Buruz of Muhammad (Saw)(naozobillah). Nur ul Haq also argued that Muhammad (saw) was not singularly “Ahmad”, instead, he was “Muhammad and Ahmad”, whereas MGA was specifically “Ahmad”. Nur ul Haq also argued that “Ahmad” was only a power (sifat) of Muhammad (saw), not his name. Bro Imtiaz also pointed out that MGA’s name was actually “Ghulam-e-Ahmad” (the slave of Ahmad) and thus, he was not named “Ahmad”. Nur ul Haq also argued that since MGA named his sons as “Ahmad”, this also fulfills the prophecy of “Ismuhu Ahmad”. Nur ul Haq also denied (50:17 time stamp) being the son of the Indian Qadiani-Ahmadi Maulvi of Kababir, Shams ud Din Malabari, however, he told this to Bashir Ahmad (with AFCB) and many others a few years ago.
In 2026 (Feb), Bro Imtiaz sat with Maulvi Razi on a livestream and discussed the possibility of 12 debates with each other and settled on a few topics. However, Bro Imtiaz insisted on quoting Ahmadi murrabi’s like Ansar Raza, Saleem Meer, Hadi Ali Chaudhary, Maulvi Shahid Bhatti [2:55:43 time stamp] and all comments by Murrabi’s on the True Islam UK streams, like Maulvi Raheel Ahmad and Ibrahim Ikhlaf). To this, Maulvi Razi vehemently disagreed and argued that he is not here to defend Ahmadi murrabi’s (See the clip on TikTok and Twitter). In fact, all 12 debates were cancelled over this issue (4:48:12). Technically, Bro Imtiaz had given two options, either make the Quran the judge (Hakam), or every Murrabi will be quoted. The reason Bro Imtiaz wanted to quote Ahmadi murrabi’s is because there is a contradiction in terms of 61:6 (61:7 in the Kadiani Koran), between the statements of murrabi’s like Ansar Raza, Saleem Meer, Hadi Ali Chaudhary, Maulvi Shahid Bhatti, Murrabi’s on the True Islam UK streams, Maulvi Raheel Ahmad and Ibrahim Ikhlaf. Which person is accurately giving the position of the Ahmadiyya Jamaat in 2026? They all seem to differ. At 4:47:53, Maulvi Razi again said he is not here to defend Ansar Raza, Saleem Meer, Hadi Ali Chaudhary.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Links and Related Essay’s
“Al-Qaul-ul-Fasl” by the Khalifa, Mirza Basheer-uddin Mahmud Ahmad–early-1915
Urdu quotations: Mirza Mahmud Ahmad retreats from his belief about the “coming Ahmad” prophecy
John 14:26 is about Muhammad (saw) “the Paraclete” – ahmadiyyafactcheckblog
http://www.ahmadiyya.org/qadis/mm/pahmad.htm
Some important facts to know about the official 5-volume Commentary of the Quran by Ahmadiyya INC
https://www.alislam.org/library/profile/malik-ghulam-farid/
https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2019/01/13/what-is-arbain-a-book-by-mga-and-his-team-of-writers/
https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2016/06/27/do-ahmadis-believe-in-the-same-kalima-as-muslims/
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Tags
#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyatrueislam #ahmadiapartheid #Ahmadiyyat #rabwah #qadian #meetthekhalifa #muslimsforpeace #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog #nolifewithoutkhalifa #AhmadiMosqueattack #AhmadiyyaPersecution #Mosqueattack #trueislam #atifmian
35 Pingback