I left Ahmadiyya mainly because of what I read about the Lahori-Qadiani split in the Ahmadiyya movement. I was disgusted by the behaviors of the Mirza family. In my research, I found an old debate by these two groups in 1915 and published in 1916. In this debate each party put forward its arguments before an impartial, non-Ahmadi Muslim arbitrator as to its interpretation of the claims of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. The arbitrator’s verdict, printed in this book, is presented to show that he ruled that the Qadiani explanation of his claim, that he claimed to be a prophet, was correct.
You can find it here also: http://wiki.qern.org/ahmadiyya/publications/mubahitha-shimla
This debate is the definitive reference on what the Qadiani group of the Ahmadiyya think about Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as a prophet, and how the Lahori groups deflect the issue.
This debate on the innovative and complicated theology of the Ahmadiyya groups was conducted at a conference held in Shimla that was called by the Ahmadis of Shimla. Shimla being a rich resort, these Ahmadis invited both parties and appointed Shaikh Muhammad Umar BA, LLB, as the arbitrator.
- Mirza Sahib is not a permanent (i.e. direct) prophet, nor is he a real prophet in the sense related to being legislative, but he is a indirect non-legislative prophet.
- According to Mirza Sahib, he is a real prophet in the sense that he attained the office of prophet via Muhammad (saw).
- According to Mirza Sahib, no other person has been bestowed this office in 1300 years Hijri.
- According to Mirza Sahib, he is entered into the group of prophets and between him and past prophets, the only difference is the means by which he became prophet, and not in the essence of being a prophet.
- According to Mirza Sahib, as he himself is a prophet, he has superiority, with all aspects of glory, over Jesus (as).