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 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.

In 1879-1880, in BA-1 (MGA’s first book)(page 28), 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”.

In 1890-1891, in Izala Auham (1890-1891) and via Tohfa Golarvia (in a classic back-dating move) that he (MGA) had a share (shareek) 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).

In 1893, MGA quoted 61:6 (61:7 in the Ahmadi-Quranic numbering system), “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 1894 (Jul-4)(muharram 1312), MGA and his team of writers argued that per the famous hadith in Abu Dawod, i.e., even if there was only one day left in the world, Allah would extend it until He has sent someone from me or from my progeny. His name shall be like mine, and
the name of his father shall be like my father’s. MGA argues that this he fulfills this hadith spiritually (See “Sirrul Khalifa, online English edition, pages 89-90). MGA also argues that sometimes, two persons can have the same names, such as ‘Ahmad’ and ‘Ahmad’ (this indirectly refers to 61:6, Ismuhu Ahmad). MGA quoted 2:31 (2:32 in the Kadiani Koran) and alleged to have been taught like Adam (as)(Naozobillah). MGA also argued that per this specific hadith his father (Mirza Ghulam Murtaza) was like the father of Muhammad (Saw)(naozobillah), because both of them were ready to receive the light of faith but left this world before they were able to do so and died in obscurity (See page 91).

In 1897, in “Siraj-e-Munir” via a poem (see page 219), once again, MGA called himself as “Ahmad of the Latter Days”.

In 1897-1898, MGA alleged to have received the revelation, O Ahmad, I shall accept all your supplications but not those in the matter of your collateral (See Anjam-e-Atham, p. 181, Ruhani Khaza’in, vol. 11, p. 181).

In 1898, MGA says that Muhammad (saw) has 2 names, Muhammad and Ahmad. These 2 names were given to Muhammad (Saw) in front of Adam (as)(See RK-14, Najmul-Huda, p. 3)(See Bro Imtiaz). MGA says that since Muhammad (saw) has 2 names (Muhammad [saw} and Ahmad [saw}), he is above all other prophets/messengers (See RK-14, Najmul-Huda, p. 4)(See Bro Imtiaz).

In 1898, MGA alleged that Allah has given me the name, Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani, which equals 1300, and indicated that the Messiah would come in the 14th century (See Kitab-ul-Bariyyah, RK13, page 258)(See Bro Imtiaz).

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 1902, MGA alleged that 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 (See Defence-Against-Plague.pdf, page 22)(See Bro Imtiaz).

In 1902 (Jul), 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 1902 (Aug), 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…..”

In 1902 (Sep), MGA and his team of writers argued that this is the same thing which I (Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani) have written in Izala Auham that I am partner (shareek) 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 (See RK17- Page 254, Tohfah Golarhviyyah).

In 1902 (Nov-21), 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” (See Badr, 21 November 1902, See also Malfuzat, vol. 4, pages 197-198).

In 1903, MGA alleged to receive a revelation wherein Allah called MGA “O Ahmad” and that he was “made a Rasul”. MGA and his team of writers then argue that 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 [See Tadhkiratush-Shahadatain, p. 43, RK20, pp. 45–46; Review of Religions, vol. 2, no. 11, 12, November, December, 1903, p. 441].

In 1905, in the Badr, MGA did make a brief comment on this topic, but he was brief.

In 1905 (Oct-17), MGA and his team of writers argued that these people inquire again and again where, in the Holy Quran, has thy 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).

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. 

In 1908 (Oct), MGA and his team of writers alleged that 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 (See BA-5, online English edition, page 483 and BA-5, Urdu edition, page 360).

In 1913, while in Qadian, Maulvi Mohammad Ali 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” (See The Review of Religions, Urdu, Vol. 12, No. 7, page 236
Quoted by Qazi Muhammad Nazeer in Truth Prevails).

In 1915 (Jan), after the split of 1914, 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).

In 1915-1916, in Kalimatul Fasl by Mirza Bashir Ahmad, he argued that it is “Yaqeenee and Quttay” that MGA is Ahmad Rasul as mentioned in 61:6 (See also Bro Imtiaz). 

In 1917, via Al-Fazl dated: 15-19 May, 1917, also referenced as 1913, page No. 17-20, via Mirza Bashir Ahmad, it is written that after giving lengthy argument on the names of Holy prophet Muhammad Sallallaho Alaihi wa sallam and his father, states that Ahmad is not the name of Syedna Muhammad Sallallaho Alaihi WaSallam. Then he gives detail of the names of Mirza family, and draws the conclusion that his father’s name was Ahmad and hence he is meant to be the prophet whose arrival has been mentioned in the verse. Nauzubillahi Min Zalik (Via Mazameen e Bashir)(See also Tafseer Ibne Kaseer (translation and commentary of the verse by Ibne Kaseer). 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 (See Bro Imtiaz).

In 1918, 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“.

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. One last point, Ahmadi’s really believed that MGA=Muhammad and believed as such until 1922.

In 1941, 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).

In 1948, via “Life of Ahmad” by Dard (See pages 235-236). Dard alleges that MGA also explained that his advent was foretold in the Holy Quran (Al-Fatihah 1:7; Al-Nur 24:56, Al-Muzzammil 73:16 and 61:6).

In 1954, 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 (See Truth Prevails, see 70)(See also Bro Imtiaz).

In 1957, The 2nd Qadiani-Ahmadi Khalifa says that 61:6 is about Muhammad (Saw)(See Tafsir-e-Sagheer)(See also Bro Imtiaz).

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.

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).

In 2026 (Jun-10), Bro Imtiaz streamed on TikTok and discussed MGA’s disrespect of Eisa (as), Asif Basit is quoted as arguing that MGA did in-fact use harsh language, however, it was like a father uses to teach his family (1:45:35 time stamp). Bro Imtiaz also quoted wherein MGA alleged that Eisa (as) was getting the Injil revealed to him while he was getting oil massages from prostitutes (1:38:26 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” →