ahmadiyyafactcheckblog

Intro
MGA made many strange predictions about sons for his followers, in this case, he promised a son to some eager followers, but the prediction ailed miserably. In the below, we have posted a quote from 1923, via Seeratul Mahdi wherein MGA claims that if a person ate mulberries, they will have a son. The person relating the story is from Mian Ghulam Nabi Sethi (also spelled Seth Ghulam Nabi), and about his wife and she climbed up onto a difficult mulberry tree and picked the finest mulberries for MGA to eat, as a reward, MGA claims that he will have a son, which he did, however, the son died after 18 months. This also reminds us of the failed son prediction for Mian Pir Manzur Muhammad.

Ahmadiyya leadership was selling weird medicines in 1939 which claimed to guarantee a son to any man. In the 1960’s, via Tafsir-i-Kabir, the 2nd Khalifa claimed that a lunar eclipse causes miscarriage. In 2022, Mirza Masroor Ahmad said it was OK to get an abortion if a child was to be born with disabilities.
Continue reading “Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s strange predictions about sons for his followers” →

Intro
In March of 1904, Maulvi Noorudin wrote a book entitled Nur-ul-Din. It is currently online as Nur ul Din on the Qadiani-Ahmadi website. The Al-Badr of March-1904 announced its publishing. It was written in response to a book Tark-i Islam by a former Muslim who joined the Hindu Arya Samaj and had explained the reasons why he had left the religion of Islam. Interestingly enough, even Noorudin wrote that MGA was born in 1839 (see page 251)(See scan in the below). In fact, all Ahmadiyya sources up to July 1908 wrote that MGA was born in 1839. Zafrullah Khan quoted this book extensively in his biography about Noorudin. Abrogation was also discussed in this book, see MGA’s comments here. The second edition was published in 8-1-1923, the one on their website is not dated. In 1912, another biography was published about the life of Nur-u-Din entitled “Mirqatul yaqeen fi hayat e Nooruddin”(published in 1912, press info is not given) by Akbar Shah Khan of Najibabad. This was followed later on with Hyat-e-Nur.
Continue reading “Maulana Nur-ud-Din wrote a book entitled “Nur-ul-Din” (1904)–MGA was born in 1839″ →

Intro
Ahmadis are sick people.  Ahmadiyya doesnt change people for the good.  Ahmadiyya is a business, big business.

See here for the full story
https://www.yorkregion.com/news-story/7207702-vaughan-man-charged-with-luring-a-child-making-child-pornography/

The newspaper report doesnt mention that he is an Ahmadi
However, we have insider reports which prove that he is an Ahmadi.

Intro
Ahmadis refuse to us basic ethical standards when reviewing islamic literature. As we all know, Ibn Kathir believed in the physical return of Esa (As)…as well as the substitution theory, he also believed that the Mahdi and Esa (as) are to be two separate people. Ahmadis misquote Ibn Kathir in other ways too.
Continue reading “Ahmadis cherry-pick Tafsir Ibn Kathir, and try to say he believed that Esa (as) is dead–WRONG” →

Ahmadis are divided into so many groups that the main group has to be called ‘Qadiani’ and that is the name their prophet used with his name all his life. Lahoris and Janbis and other Ahmadis want to be called Ahmadis as well.

1) If someone is quoting strange ‘ahadith’ and misquoting Islamic scholars, and talking about outlandish theories about homeopathy and opium potions for impotency, and Kashmir, he is Qadiani

2) If someone hates most Muslims around him, all Muslim rulers, and all Muslim scholars without even reading their works, he is Qadiani

3) If you see a woman wearing a unique style of tight-fitting burqa that you have not see before with a niqab that is neither here nor there — not really niqab but looks like one — don’t be perplexed, the woman is probably Qadiani

4) Most Qadianis will swear and froth in the mouth at the mention of Bhutto, Zia, Maududi, King Faisal etc.

5) If someone is saying that Muslims suffering in various parts of the world deserve it, and rarely condemn the persecution of Muslims in Palestine, Kashmir, etc., they are probably Qadiani

6) If someone disappears to Chenab Nagar or to Canada with your money, or promises to get you refugee status in Germany or Canada, or wants to go to their local ‘Qaza’ instead of court, they are probably Qadiani.

7) If someone claims to have the most knowledge in the world about everything but hasn’t written a book or given a lecture before a proper audience, he is probably Qadiani. If a person boasts about their community’s literacy, but very few in their community have read the ‘books’ of their religious leader, he is probably Qadiani.

Remember, Qadianis are an offshoot of Islam, and believe in Muhammad(saw) as a previous prophet like Christians believe in Moses (as) and will celebrate Eid just like Christians celebrate Jewish holidays — or Sikhs celebrate Hindu Diwali. They have their new prophet and their new festival and new holy places.

Also read this: https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2016/08/10/wonder-why-we-call-them-qadiani/

This was taken from the Lahori-Ahmadi website..: http://www.ahmadiyya.org/qadis/mm/pahmad.htm

Stand-point abandoned after Maulana Muhammad Ali disproves it

Introduction

In this article we raise an interesting episode that has been lost sight of in the course of time. It fell out of view because, on this particular new-fangled doctrine of theirs, the Qadiani Jama‘at capitulated several decades ago after the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement refuted their stand-point.

The Holy Quran makes mention of a prophecy which, it says, was made by Jesus who foretold that a prophet would come after him “his name being Ahmad” (Ch. 61, v. 6). This prophecy was fulfilled by the appearance of the Holy Prophet Muhammad — may peace and the blessings of Allah be upon him.

However, at the time of the Split in the Ahmadiyya Movement around the year 1914, Mirza Mahmud Ahmad (2nd Head of the Qadiani Jama‘at) loudly proclaimed that this prophecy was, in fact, fulfilled by the coming of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, and did not apply to the Holy Prophet Muhammad. This heretical interpretation was strongly refuted by Maulana Muhammad Ali in his writings.

Then Mirza Mahmud Ahmad, in a response published in 1921, performed one retreat from his previous stand by writing that this prophecy applies “directly” to Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and “indirectly” to the Holy Prophet Muhammad. Some thirty years later he performed a complete retreat by writing in his commentary on the Quran that “This verse contains a prophecy about the Holy Prophet Muhammad” (Urdu commentary) and “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” (English commentary).

Details are discussed below.

Mirza Mahmud Ahmad’s view at time of Split

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.

Quotation 1:

“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.

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.

Maulana Muhammad Ali refutes this wrong interpretation

Maulana 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:

• Ahmad Mujtaba
• Split in the Ahmadiyya Movement

In Anwar-i Khilafat Mirza Mahmud Ahmad had referred to the issue of who is the prophesied Ahmad as “the first issue” (see quotation 1 above). So 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)

First stage of retreat

In response to the above book Split in the Ahmadiyya Movement by Maulana Muhammad Ali, an Urdu book A’inah-i Sadaqat by Mirza Mahmud Ahmad was published in December 1921. It was translated into English as The Truth about the Split, published in 1924 and later reprinted from Rabwah in 1965. Replying to Maulana Muhammad Ali, Mirza Mahmud Ahmad now expressed his belief as follows:

“Regarding the prophecy Ismuhu Ahmad contained in the Holy Quran (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 Messiah, while the prototype is the Holy Prophet. The passage under reference speaks directly about the counter-type. A reference to the prototype of course comes in, but only indirectly in as much as the counter-type of a prophet necessarily presumes the existence of his original.”

— pages 57–58 of the 3rd edition. Available online at the Qadiani Jama‘at website: http://www.alislam.org/library/split/

Here he admits at least that the prophecy applies “indirectly” to the Holy Prophet Muhammad, while applying “directly” to the Promised Messiah. But he goes on to say:

“For these reasons and on certain other grounds, I hold the opinion that the subject of this prophecy is primarily the Promised Messiah who is the reflex of the Holy Prophet 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.”

In Anwar-i Khilafat he had claimed that he had evidences which he was “prepared to put before the scholars and learned ones of the whole world” and to offer a reward to those who could disprove them and show that the signs about Ahmad apply to the Holy Prophet (see quotation 1 above). He had questioned why the fear of Almighty God had departed so much from the hearts of the people that they distorted the meaning of this verse in order “to apply it to the Holy Prophet Muhammad”. But now, in A’inah-i Sadaqat, he describes this issue of who is Ahmad as merely academic and unimportant, and allows even his own followers to hold that it was the Prophet Muhammad.

Final retreat

The final Qadiani Jama‘at retreat on this point came in their translations of the Quran some thirty years later. They have published a 5-volumed 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.)

Almost the same comment is found in their 1-volume English Translation of the Quran with Short Commentary. We have copied the image of the page from this short commentary on which this entire footnote occurs and display it at this link. It can be seen that almost 90% of the content of the footnote establishes that this prophecy applies to the Holy Prophet Muhammad.

The statement that this prophecy applies to Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as a “corollary” is the exact opposite of what Mirza Mahmud Ahmad wrote in his book The Truth about the Split at his first stage of retreat. Let us compare the two side by side:

In the first statement above, the prophecy is said to apply directly to Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and indirectly or consequently to the Holy Prophet Muhammad. In the second one, the same prophecy is said to apply to the Holy Prophet Muhammad in the first place and then consequently or as a corollary to Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.

In his Urdu Quran commentary Tafsir-i Sagheer the footnote under this verse is clear and brief:

“This verse contains a prophecy about the Holy Prophet Muhammad. … Hence in this verse there is news directlyabout the Holy Prophet Muhammad and indirectly about a spiritual image of his who is mentioned in the next Sura.”

— page 743 of Tafsir-i Sagheer; bolding is ours. (This book is available online at this link on the Qadiani Jama‘at website.)

This may be compared with his following statement in A’inah-i Sadaqat(which has already been quoted above from the English translation of this book The Truth about the Split):

“For these reasons and on certain other grounds, I hold the opinion that the subject of this prophecy is primarily the Promised Messiah”

— A’inah-i Sadaqat, p. 36

Answers own challenge!

Perhaps the most bizarre aspect of this complete about-turn is that in his original book of 1916, Anwar-i Khilafat, Mirza Mahmud Ahmad had thrown a challenge, as already quoted above:

“I am prepared to offer a reward: if anyone can disprove my evidences and show from the Holy Quran and authentic Hadith 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.”

Thirty years or so later, Mirza Mahmud Ahmad in effect answered his own challenge by proving that the prophecy in this verse applies to the Holy Prophet Muhammad directly!

This represents a triumph of the Lahore Ahmadiyya Jama‘at and Maulana Muhammad Ali. The issue of who is the Ahmad in this prophecy was considered as the “first issue” of the difference about prophethood between the two groups of the Ahmadiyya Movement. On this very first issue, the Qadiani Jama‘at was forced to recant on its belief.

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“.

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 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.

Continue reading “The Qadiani-Ahmadi’s declared that MGA was “Ismuhu-Ahmad” in Quran 61:6, not Muhammad (Saw), then changed it later” →

Intro
After claiming to be the Promised Messiah in 1891-1892 and alleging that to the best of his knowledge, he had not used even one word which can be called abusive (Izala Auham, pages 13–14; see Ruhani Khaza’in, v. 3, p. 109). Interestingly, MGA and his team of writers quoted 68:13 (68:14 in the Kadiani Koran) and translated “zaneem” as “the one who is a fornicator and bastard”. In 1891, MGA also said that “A momin isn’t someone who (frequently) curses (at people)” (See Izala Auham, Rk-3, page 456 and Bro Imtiaz’s explanation, 39:48 time stamp).

In 1892-1893, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad famously said:

“Every Muslim will accept me and will confirm my claim except the zurrayatul baghaya whose hearts will have been sealed up by God Almighty.” (See Aina-e-Kamalat-e-Islam, Roohani Khazain vol.5 p.547, At-tabligh, Urdu, Online English edition, page 524). In the 2025-English edition, “zurrayatul baghaya” is translated as the “progeny of the rebellious”.

In 1894, via an Arabic only book (with a translation in Urdu), Nurul-Haq (Part-1)(See page 263 Online English Edition). MGA wrote out the word “curse” 1000 times in psychopath style.

In 1898, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad accused Maryam of meeting and “hanging-around” (pirhna) with Joseph before her marriage with him.

In 1894, MGA said Muslims who are saying that the Christians won the debate are eager to be considered a bastard and is not legitimate (born out of wedlock)(See Anwarul Islam, p. 30).

In 1894, MGA said:

“””It should be known that each person who is ‘wald-ul-halaal’ [of legitimate birth] and is not from ‘dhurriyat-ul-baghaayaa’ [the progeny of prostitutes, stated in the Urdu text as ‘kharaab aurtoan … kee nasl’, meaning, the progeny of bad women] and [the] progeny of dajjaal, he will definitely accept one of the two things. Either he will abstain from lying and false accusations after this or [he will] produce a publication like this publication of mine.”” [RK, v. 8, p. 163; approximately middle of the page; Noor-ul-Haq](See Nur-ul-Haq (1894), volume 8 of Roohani Khazain, Part-1, Pg. 163).

In 1898, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad disputed the status of Esa (as)’s mother as “Siqqidah” in english as “truthful”. In this era, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad cursed at his critics, even calling them pigs, bitches and sons of prostitutes. Check out our detailed essay on MGA and how he called his deniers as “children of prostitutes”.

In 1902, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad claimed that Jesus’ example of morals was quite worthless and misleading (See English-ROR February-1902, page-43).

In 1908, MGA said that disrespecting a prophet of Allah is Kufr (see Chashma-e-Ma‘rifat, Ruhani Khaza’in, Vol. 23, page 389 and 26:28 time stamp).

Continue reading “Mirza Ghulam Ahmad wrote that the Quran used harsh words…thus it’s ok to do so (1890-1891 era)” →

Intro
Ahmadis are scrambling to clean up the indiscretions of MGA and his team.  In this recent adventure, they have tried to assert that Piggot repented in 1905 and thus MGA’s prophecy came true. However, its a total lie. Piggot never repented, and Ahmadis know this. However, this is the common Ahmadiyya tactic. All of MGA’s death predictions failed, and as part of the cover-up job, Ahmadis pivot to the idea that all prophecies are conditional on repentance.

You can view all the scans in terms of Piggot vs. MGA herein.
Continue reading “Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s initial writings to Piggot in 1902” →