Some new and interesting information has dug up in terms of MGA and his claim to prophethood. As we all know, the Qadiani branch believes that MGA was a prophet from 1879 up til his death in 1908, whereas the Lahori branch denies this prophethood altogether. Some new information, dug up by Upal (2017) proves that MGA was accused of claiming prophethood in the era of the Braheen-e-Ahmadiyya, i.e. 1879–1884, and his had to do with the divine revelations that MGA was claiming for himself.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________Later on, in 1901, MGA officially claimed prophethood for himself

“Eik Ghalti Ka Izala” aka “Correction of an Error” was re-published on March-1-1914
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ In 1884, Batalvi defends MGA to the Muslims of India and assures Muslims that MGA is not claiming prophethood

See Upal (2017) page 127 and onwards:

“””Over and over again, Batalavi insists throughout his review that Mirza Ghulam
Ahmad had not made any prophetic claims (pages 175; 191; 260; 268; 269; 273; 275;
278; 279). Muslim leaders who insist that he has, are mistaken argues Batalavi. Mirza
Ghulam Ahmad is a Muslim and not a kafir, argues Batalavi. In one paragraph where
Batalavi not only foresees the group-name of Ahmadi that Ahmad was to assign to
his movement seventeen years later but also the pejorative group name of Mirzai that
their opponents were to call them by, Batalavi writes:

“””What does he [Mirza Ghulam Ahmad] conclude from his revelations and miracles? Does he use them to prove his prophethood or the prophethood of Muhammad? What religion does he invite people (including many top padres, pundits, Brahmo Arya rajas, and sardars of other religions) with such bravery and boldness? Is it the Islamic religion or Ahmadi religion or Mirzai religion?

Unless you are a person whose heart has been darkened with prejudice, these arguments and
reasoning would have convinced you that he absolutely makes no claim whatsoever to his
own prophethood [emphasis in the original]. The true purpose of all of each and every one of
his claims is the proof of prophethood of Muhammad. (Batalavi, 1884: 278-279)
Links and Related Essays

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad quoted and commented on 17:8 in 1884 in the Braheen-e-Ahmadiyya, vol. 4, he then connected 17:8 with the return of the Messiah

During the writing of Braheen-e-Ahmadiyya, MGA masked his beliefs, he was already asserting that Esa (as) died

What is Maseel-e-Maseeh? The like of the Messiah?

Sir Syed’s view on Esa (as)–1882

The Queen of the Princely state of Bhopal invested heavily (1878) into Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and his Braheen–they were disappointed by the product

Friedman errs on Ishaat us Sunnah volume numbers and the corresponding year

Nusrat Jehan Begum and other women didn’t get into to MGA’s bait in 1889 and after–were they illiterate?

Ahmadiyya leadership lied about the First Bait ceremony in 1889

Click to access reviewreligionsenglish1908.pdf

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was accused of claiming prophethood in the 1879–1884 era


#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyatrueislam #ahmadiapartheid #Ahmadiyyat #rabwah #qadian #meetthekhalifa #muslimsforpeace #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog #nolifewithoutkhalifa #AhmadiMosqueattack #AhmadiyyaPersecution #trueislam