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. Finally, in 1921, in the Khalifa;’s book, an Urdu book A’inah-i Sadaqat, the english appeared in 1924 as “Truth About the Split”, the Khalifa began to waffle on this topic. 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 1884, MGA applied many verses of the Quran onto himself, later he claimed to be Muhammad (saw) in 1901
It should be noted that in 1884, in BA4, MGA ascribed many quranic verses onto himself, but he never mentioned 61:6.
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)
Al -Badr also
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?”
“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.“
Quotes from Tofha Golarvia and Ijaz ul Masih
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.
“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?” (Al-Hakam, October 17, 1905, page 10)(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.’” (The Review of Religions, Urdu, Vol. 12, No. 7, page 236)(Quoted by Qazi Muhammad Nazeer in Truth Prevails).
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 Messiahas 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 Messiahas.”
In short, in six pages of the book I proved by quotations from the writings of the Promised Messiahas and the testimony of Khalifatul Masih Ira, that the Promised Messiahas was the real
object of the Quranic prophecy concerning Ahmad.”””””””””””””””””(see Truth about the Split, online english edition, (2007), pages 197-198).
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.
“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.
“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.
“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.
“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.
“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.
“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.
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 Movementhas 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).
The Khalifa;’s book, an Urdu book “A’inah-i Sadaqat”, 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).
1953, 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.”
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).
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.)
#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyatrueislam #ahmadiapartheid #Ahmadiyyat #rabwah #qadian #meetthekhalifa #muslimsforpeace #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog #nolifewithoutkhalifa #AhmadiMosqueattack #AhmadiyyaPersecution #Mosqueattack #trueislam #atifmian