ahmadiyyafactcheckblog

Intro
My team and I have found an old edition of the Review of Religions (ROR) from August of 1932.  Malik Ghulam Farid was the editor in those days, he went on to write the 5-volume official commentary of the Quran, which can be found here.  Malik Ghulam Farid (1897–1977), was a notable Ahmadiyya scholar. He was deputed the task of preparing the 5 Volume The English Commentary of the Holy Quran,^[1] in 1942, by Mirza Mahmood Ahmad, the second Khalifa.^[2] He published the said Commentary in 1962. Later, in 1969, Malik published the Abridged Edition.^[3] Malik Ghulam Farid also produced a Dictionary of the Holy Quran, but it could not be published in his lifetime. He died in 1977.^[4]

The essay itself
Ahmadi’s claim that Mirza Basheer-uddin Mahmud Ahmad wrote this essay and many others, however, that’s a lie, he rarely wrote anything. Just like MGA, he had his resident mullahs write everything, he was simply their figure head. This is another case of exactly that. In fact, Mirza Basheer-uddin Mahmud Ahmad claims to have written a Tafsir of the Quran, however, that’s a lie, it was really written by his Mullahs.
Continue reading “Review of Religions, August of 1932, “Factors which contribute to the success of a new religion and their application to the Ahmadiyya Movement”” →

Intro
The mullahs aka employees of Ahmadiyya INC are working day and night to further their agenda, they are ordered by the Mirza family to find unique ways of marketing Ahmadiyya.  What Ahmadi’s don’t know or don’t want to know is that in 1979, General Zia Ul Haq awarded #DrAbdusSalam with Highest civilian award Nishan-e-Imtiaz in 1979.

Also read this: https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2016/12/26/dr-abdus-salaam-liked-white-women-alcohol-and-a-british-lifestyle/

The story

Intro
Ahmadiyya medicines are bogus. Going back to 1889. Nowadays, the Mirza family is still up to the same thing…selling fake medicines, specifically homeopathy. We have found some specifics about how the British Government had to step in and ban Ahmadiyya medicines in the 1899 era.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________Walter re-confirms that the British Govt banned Marham-i-Esa and other Ahmadiyya medicines

In Oct of 1899, Ahmadiyya medicines were banned, however, Ahmadiyya leadership seems to have filed an appeal, however, the appeal was rejected and the ban was held up in 1900.  

See page 42.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________Links and Related Essays

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2017/12/17/nooruddin-treated-mirza-ghulam-ahmad-for-impotency-and-many-others-with-opium/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2018/05/03/the-ahmadiya-movement-by-h-a-walter-religious-life-of-india-series-new-york-oxford-university-press-1918/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2018/02/08/mirza-basheer-uddin-mahmud-ahmad-was-poisoned-as-a-child-then-had-many-mental-issues/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2018/03/30/mga-and-his-team-mixed-sauternes-wine-with-his-foods-and-medicines-at-qadian/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2016/12/03/a-newspaper-the-lancet-calls-mga-a-blasphemous-idiot-1898/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2018/05/03/the-british-government-banned-ahmadiyya-medicines-in-1899/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2017/12/19/mirza-ghulam-ahmad-and-plommers-wine-shop/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2016/11/07/mgas-teachers-were-opium-addicts-2/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2016/11/14/mga-looked-like-an-opium-addict/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2016/12/03/mgas-tried-to-cure-plague-in-british-india-with-a-super-opium-medicine-that-didnt-work/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2017/05/07/mirza-tahir-ahmad-glosses-over-the-opium-issue/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2017/06/21/tiryaq-e-ilahi-never-worked-on-anyone-it-was-just-a-super-opium-drug/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2017/07/10/mirza-ghulam-ahmad-used-poison-opium-and-wine-in-his-medicines/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2017/09/14/mirza-ghulam-ahmad-was-high-in-opium-247/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2017/09/22/mirza-ghulam-ahmad-was-overdosing-on-opium-everyday/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2017/12/22/mirza-ghulam-ahmad-liked-his-opium-sprinkled-into-his-lassi/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2016/08/13/mga-lied-about-his-opium-use/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2016/11/21/ahmadiyya-homeopathy-is-an-obvious-fraud/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2017/08/16/ahmadiyya-leadership-was-selling-weird-medicines-in-1939-which-claimed-to-guarantee-a-son-to-any-man/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2017/04/25/was-mirza-ghulam-ahmads-wife-a-concubine-aka-laundi-of-noorudin/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2018/11/26/mirza-ghulam-loved-to-have-multiple-women-on-his-bed/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2017/07/25/mirza-ghulam-ahmad-was-addicted-to-paan-beetle-leef/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2017/11/16/mirza-ghulam-ahmad-suffered-from-hysteria-and-convulsions-and-his-wife-and-his-son-mirza-basheer-uddin-mahmud-ahmad-the-2nd-khalifa/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2017/08/19/mirza-ghulam-ahmad-prescribed-alcohol-for-ahmadis-to-take/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2017/07/30/what-is-zadham-e-ishq-aka-the-love-potion/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2016/12/03/a-newspaper-the-lancet-calls-mga-a-blasphemous-idiot-1898/

______________________________________________________________________________________________
Tags

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

 

Intro
We have found an early and rare english translation and commentary of the Quran from 1915, published by the Qadiani branch of Ahmadis. In this commentary, they assert that the Messiah was promised in 1:7, which is a total lie. Later on, all Ahmadi commentaries wrote the same. In this english commentary of the Quran, the Khalifa connected 2:4 with 1:6 and 62:3, it was published in 1915.  english-translation-mirza-mahmood-1915.

After Nooruddin died in March of 1914, the argument on the nature of the prophethood of MGA intensified. The Lahori-Ahmadi’s and the Qadiani-Ahmadi’s differed on the exact nature of MGA’s prophethood. However, as soon as Khwaja Kamaluddin returned from England (Nov-1914) he gave a speech which was turned into an Urdu-only book, “Ikhtalayfaat-e-Silsilaa-e-Ahmadiyya kay Usbaab”. Khwaja Kamaluddin’s quotes “Tuhfatul-Muluk” (A Present to Kings) by the Khalifa, Mirza Basheer ud Din Mahmud Ahmad which seems to have been written in the summer of 1914. This book was published on Dec 24th, 1914, during the Qadiani Jalsa. It was the first ever book about the split in the Ahmadiyya Movement, in it, Khwaja Kamaluddin emphatically died the prophethood of MGA and takfir against non-Ahmadi’s.

The Khalifa, Mirza Basheer ud Din Mahmud Ahmad wrote Qaul al-Fasl in January of 1915 and Haqiqatun Nubuwwat in March of 1915, wherein he quoted 7:35, 4:69, 2:5 and 61:6 as verses from the Quran wherein MGA was explained as a prophet to come. MGA had never used these verse to argue pro-prophethood.

Nevertheless, Muhammad Ali responded in (December of 1915) and wrote “Prophethood in Islam” and ripped the Qadiani belief that MGA was an Ummati-Nabi. These conversations would continue uptil 1923, then they died off for about 10 years.

In Sep-2025, Ansar Raza debated a Shia person, #ShamsuddinShigri seems to be hosting this debate. In his opening statement, Ansar Raza used 1:6, 4:69 and 7:35 as his main arguments that prophethood has not end and never ends. At 19:03, Ansar Raza added 3:81 (3:82 in the Kadiani Koran) and alleged that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is inferred herein as that “Musadaq-Rasul” (See the clip on Tiktok and Twitter). Again, Ansar Raza says that per 3:81 (3:82 in the Kadiani Koran), a Rasul will come who will authenticate (tasdiq) the Kitab and Rasul which was given to a previous Nabi (Ansar Raza was indirectly referring to MGA). At 21:41, Ansar Raza says it is lazmi (mandatory) that a “Musadaq-Rasul” was to appear after Muhammad (Saw) and it is lazmi (mandatory) for Muslims to accept him (see my article on Ahmadiyya Takfir). In conclusion, Ansar Raza argued that 3:81 (3:82 in the Kadiani Koran) includes Eisa (as) and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad only as the “Musadaq-Rasuls”. However, in reality, Muslims believe that only Muhammad (Saw) is the “Musadaq-Rasul” as mentioned in 3:81 (3:82 in the Kadiani Koran). This is why Muhammad led the Prophets in prayer during the night of Isra’ when they gathered in Bayt Al-Maqdis (Jerusalem)(See Ibn Kathir).

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
1901

Even MGA was connecting 1:6 (1:7 in the Qadiani Quran), with 4:69 and the continuation of prophethood (see “Correction of an Error” [1901]).

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

The scan work

Download it here—https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/english-translation-mirza-mahmood-1.pdf

english-translation-mirza-mahmood-1915

Tafsir Ibn Kathir on 1:7
http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=63&Itemid=35
_____________________________________________________________________________________________2025
Sep

Ansar Raza vs. Shia’s in Sep-2025, Ansar Raza used 1:6, 4:69 and 7:35, then used 3:81 and alleged that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is inferred herein as that “Musadaq-Rasul”

In Sep-2025, Ansar Raza debated a Shia person, #ShamsuddinShigri seems to be hosting this debate. In his opening statement, Ansar Raza used 1:6, 4:69 and 7:35 as his main arguments that prophethood has not end and never ends. At 19:03, Ansar Raza added 3:81 (3:82 in the Kadiani Koran) and alleged that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is inferred herein as that “Musadaq-Rasul” (See the clip on Tiktok and Twitter). Again, Ansar Raza says that per 3:81 (3:82 in the Kadiani Koran), a Rasul will come who will authenticate (tasdiq) the Kitab and Rasul which was given to a previous Nabi (Ansar Raza was indirectly referring to MGA). At 21:41, Ansar Raza says it is lazmi (mandatory) that a “Musadaq-Rasul” was to appear after Muhammad (Saw) and it is lazmi (mandatory) for Muslims to accept him (see my article on Ahmadiyya Takfir). In conclusion, Ansar Raza argued that 3:81 (3:82 in the Kadiani Koran) includes Eisa (as) and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad only as the “Musadaq-Rasuls”. However, in reality, Muslims believe that only Muhammad (Saw) is the “Musadaq-Rasul” as mentioned in 3:81 (3:82 in the Kadiani Koran). This is why Muhammad led the Prophets in prayer during the night of Isra’ when they gathered in Bayt Al-Maqdis (Jerusalem)(See Ibn Kathir).

Furthermore, Ansar Raza’s arguments seem to be at odds with the official Ahmadiyya position as stated in the 5-volume English Commentary of the Quran (1988) by Malik Ghulam Farid, which told the world that this verse is considered to apply to other Prophets in general and to the Holy Prophet in particular. Both applications are correct. However, Ansar Raza said that it only includes Eisa (as) and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. It should be noted that in the “short commentary” by Malik Ghulam Farid, it is stated that the expression Mithaqun-Nabiyyin may either signify the covenant of the Prophets with God or the covenant which God took from the people through their Prophets. The expression has been used here in the latter sense because another reading of the expression as supported by Ubayy bin Ka‘b and ‘Abdullah bin Mas‘ud is Mithaqalladhina ’utul-Kitab meaning, the covenant of those who were given the Book (Muhit). This rendering is also supported by the words that follow, i.e. and then there comes to you a Messenger fulfilling that which is with you, because it was to the people and not to their Prophets that the Messengers of God came.

In this debate, the Shia debater told Ansar Raza that all of the verses that Qadiani’s present are 1:6, 4:69 and 7:35 are abrogated by 33:40. To this, Ansar Raza said that the Quran has contradictions in it.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Links and Related Essay’s

In 1914, Mirza Bashir Ahmad simply called MGA a Mujadid, not a Prophet—Review of Religions of June 1914

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

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad on 7:35 of the Quran (7:36 in the Kadiani Koran)

The concept of the Ummati-Nabi

MGA’s age-prophecy discussed in the ROR of March-1914

The Pagham-e-Sulh of July 1914 proves that even the Qadiani-Ahmadi’s were unsure how to categorize MGA’s prophethood immediately after the split

Who is Fateh Muhammad Sial?

Who is Mirza Bashir Ahmad?

Barahin-e- Ahmadiyyah volume 5, was re-published in 1914, it was the second edition

“Eik Ghalti Ka Izala” aka “Correction of an Error” was re-published on March-1-1914

Muhammad Ali, the eventual Lahori-Ahmadi was always against Takfir, whereas the family of MGA was not (1914)

Are Ahmadis the fastest growing Islamic sect? The World Christian Encyclopedia opened and evaluated

In 1914, Mirza Bashir Ahmad simply called MGA a Mujadid, not a Prophet—Review of Religions of June 1914

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fateh_Muhammad_Sial

Who is Qazi Muhammad Zahuruddin Akmal? (1881–1967)

Qadian in August of 1947 during partition, the invasion of Sikhs and Ahmadi’s were issued tanks by the British

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2016/10/20/tasheeshazul-adhan-was-a-magazine-founded-by-mahmud-ahmad-in-1913/

In June-July of 1908, Mirza Mahmud Ahmad wrote that the ‘Promised Son’ would not be actual son of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad

“My beliefs about non-Ahmadi Muslims”, dated 18 August 1911 by Khwaja Kamal-uddin

Professor Muhammad Ilyas (Elias) Burney: Exhaustive Contemporary Study on the Ahmadiyya Sect from a highly respected academic

http://alhafeez.org/rashid/abuse/abuse.htm

Khwaja Kamal-Ud-Din Prevents MGA From Being Jailed (1904)

When Khwaja Kamaluddin arrived in England (1912)

“Haqiqat Un Nubuwwat” (1915) by Mirza Basheer-uddin Mahmud Ahmad, some quotes and data

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad lost his court case vs. Karam din 1904, but won on appeal

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad vs. Maulvi Karam Din–Court Case 1903–1905, references from the 2009 edition of Tadhkirah and some other sources

“My beliefs about non-Ahmadi Muslims”, dated 18 August 1911 by Khwaja Kamal-uddin

Tashhiz al-Azhan was a Magazine founded by Mahmud Ahmad in 1906, quotes and background info

“A Muslim is only he who accepts all those appointed by God” by Mirza Bashir-uddin Mahmud Ahmad, April 1911

The Causes of Internal Dissensions in the Ahmadiyya Movement, By Khwaja Kamaluddin, 1914

“”Prophethood among the Followers of Muhammad”” by Maulana Sayyid Muhammad Ahsan of Amroha, Oct-1913, in Tashhizul Azhan

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2017/08/03/some-quotes-from-mirza-basheer-uddin-mahmud-ahmads-magazine-tashhiz-al-ahzan/

Tashhiz al-Azhan was a Magazine founded by Mahmud Ahmad in 1906, quotes and background info

“”Prophethood among the Followers of Muhammad”” by Maulana Sayyid Muhammad Ahsan of Amroha, Oct-1913, in Tashhizul Azhan

Mirza Basheer-uddin Mahmud Ahmad had 20+ children with 7 wives

Click to access A-Misconception-Removed.pdf

https://books.google.com/books?id=3QjPDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA686&lpg=PA686&dq=Ummati+Nabi&source=bl&ots=fk0uRPujFk&sig=ACfU3U1SDQymXhEopA2JDlz3j068ocTtWA&hl=en&ppis=_e&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiUpsO58ODoAhVFsp4KHZOuDvI4ChDoATAEegQIDBA3#v=onepage&q=Ummati%20Nabi&f=false

Muhammad (saw) is prophet #124,000, Esa (as) is prophet number #123,999

“Haqiqat Un Nubuwwat” (1915) by Mirza Basheer-uddin Mahmud Ahmad, some quotes and data

“Al-Qaul-ul-Fasl” by the Khalifa, Mirza Basheer-uddin Mahmud Ahmad–early-1915

Maulvi Sanuallah acknowledges that MGA claimed prophethood in Nov 1901

MGA explains how he misunderstood his prophethood in 1880 and was confused for 20+ years

Ahmadiyya and 4:69, everything you need to know

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2017/08/03/ahmadiyya-scholars-wrote-about-469-in-1908/

Maulvi Sanuallah acknowledges that MGA claimed prophethood in Nov 1901

The Causes of Internal Dissensions in the Ahmadiyya Movement, By Khwaja Kamaluddin, 1914

“”Prophethood among the Followers of Muhammad”” by Maulana Sayyid Muhammad Ahsan of Amroha, Oct-1913, in Tashhizul Azhan

An Ahmadi claimed prophethood in late-1901 or early 1902, and was boycotted by Ahmadis–Charagh Din of Jammu (Jamooni)

Maulvi Abdul Karim claims Prophethood per MGA, Maulvi Amrohi disagrees

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2019/01/13/what-is-arbain-a-book-by-mga-and-his-team-of-writers/

In 1891, when MGA made his big claims, he denied prophethood–Mufti Sadiq was heavily involved

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

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was considered a Kafir in 1884, before his wildest claims

Some rare books from the 1901-1902 era, which refute MGA’s claim to prophethood

Maulvi Sanuallah acknowledges that MGA claimed prophethood in Nov 1901

Mirza Sultan Ahmad, Son Of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, On Finality Of Prophethood

“Eik Ghalti Ka Izala” aka “Correction of an Error” was re-published on March-1-1914

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2017/01/16/hani-tahir-explains-mirza-ghulam-ahmads-prophethood-and-pre-1901-vs-post-1901/

A few months after becoming Khalifa, Mirza Mahmud Ahmad waffled on his father’s prophethood

Do Ahmadis believe in the same Kalima as Muslims?

MGA explains how he misunderstood his prophethood in 1880 and was confused for 20+ years

Noorudin didn’t care if Mirza Ghulam Ahmad claimed even law-bearing prophethood

______________________________________________________________________________________________Tags

#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyatrueislam #ahmadiapartheid #Ahmadiyyat #rabwah #qadian #meetthekhalifa #ahmadiyyat #muslimsforpeace #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog

Intro
Dear readers, as we all know, Ahmadiyya leadership and specifically Mirza Basheer-uddin Mahmud Ahmad began twisting additional verses of the Quran after the split of 1914. These verses had to do with the continuation of prophethood. It should be noted that MGA quoted Chapter 2:1–7 in the Barahin-i-Ahmadiyya Vol. 3, however, he didn’t comment specifically on 2:4 (2:5 in the Ahmadi Quran).

It was in 1915, with the publishing of the Khalifa’s 2 books, “Qaul al-Fasl” and “Haqiqatun Nubuwat” wherein additional verses of the Quran were used to argue for the prophethood of MGA. In these books, they used 1:6 and connected it with 4:69 (4:70 in the Qadiani Quran)(as MGA did in 1906), as they argued that any Muslim could become a prophet. They were indirectly arguing that prophethood in the Muslim ummah could be achieved, which is against the quran. They also presented 7:35, 62:3 2:4, and 61:6. We have collected all the instances of the phrase Unzila herein, feel free to read it. The Qadiani Jamaat even concocted a story which attributed this explanation to MGA. Read it here on the Qadiani Jamaat website, starting at the words: “Aaj meray dil mein yeh khiyal paida hua” (“Today it occurred to me …”).

They even published an english commentary of the Quran in 1915, wherein they translated and commentated on 1:6 and 2:4 and presented MGA’s prophethood as inevitable (see scans in the below). Watch a video where by Imam Noman Ali Khan, wherein he briefly discusses the #ahmadiya deception on 2:4.

In 1947, the Qadiani-Ahmadi seem to have re-published an updated version of their 1915 English Commentary of the Quran (the 1915 edition was barely Chapters 1-2). They translated “Akhirat” as “what is yet to come”.

By the 1950’s, Qadiani commentators on the Quran like Maulvi Sher Ali wrote the same. This was followed by the 2nd Qadiani-Khalifa’s famous “Tafseer-e-Sagheer”, which translated “Akhirat” as “”those who have firm belief in those promised words”, he also indicated that this verse was about MGA.

In 1988, in Malik Ghulam Farid’s famous official English commentary, he translated “Akhirat” as
“what is yet to come”. 

By 1994, in Mirza Tahir Ahmad’s time, he published an Urdu translation of the Quran, there is a preface by the publishers stating that people have raised objections to certain places in the translation and therefore they are restoring the literal translation in such places, and moving the previous translation to a footnote. They have done this for 2:5 and changed the translation of “Akhirat” to “the hereafter”, and moved the earlier translation to a footnote.

In 2002, in Malik Ghulam Farid’s short commentary of the Quran, he writes that this verse has secondary meanings, and connects it to 62:3, and the second coming of Muhammad (Saw)(nauzobillah).

Malik Ghulam Farid’s famous 1988 official English Commentary is re-published in 2018, he translated “Akhirat” as “what is yet to come”.

In 2025, Qasim Rashid quoted 2:4 of the Quran (2:5 of the Kadiani Koran)? However, this seems to be a mistake, he seems to be quoting 62:3 (62:4 in the Kadiani Koran).

Continue reading “Ahmadiyya leadership began twisting the Quranic verse in 2:4 in 1915” →

Intro
In December of 1915 (See ROR of Nov and Dec-1915), the Qadiani-Ahmadi’s published a short commentary of the first 2 chapters of the Quran in english. They covered 2:4 (2:5 in the Qadiani Quran) and claimed that the last sentence was translated as, “the revelations to come”. This would become the basis of the Qadiani belief that the revelations of MGA were mentioned in the Quran. Even the Muslim World , vol . 6,no. 2 (1916), p. 174; Khan, “English Translations”, p. 89 posted an entry on the Qadiani Quran by R. F. McNeile, “The Koran According to Ahmad”.
This commentary was created to counteract the Lahori-Ahmadi’s. Muhammad Ali and the Lahori-Ahmadi’s published their famous commentary in 1917 and from London, England, the Nation of Islam used this commentary to create their kufr. The Feb-1918 edition of the ROR reports that Mufti Muhammad Sadiq helped in preparing this english translation, of 30 parts (only 1 part had been published by then)(this was published in a newspaper in Ventnor). The ROR of May-1918 reports that the Anjuman Tarraqi Islam published this english translation of the Quran. In 1915, at the very onset of his Khilafat, he published the English translation and brief commentary of the first part of the Holy Quran. He arranged for this publication to be sent to universities and libraries in the Western world. It was the first attempt of its kind as it came from the pen of a Muslim himself and thus, attracted the attention of orientalists. Worth mentioning are reviews by RF McNeile in The Muslim World (April, 1916) and Charles C Torey in the Harvard Theological Review (October, 1917).

Per Ahmadiyya sources 25 years later, in 1942, the 2nd Khalifa ordered Malik Ghulam Farid to create urdu and english commentaries which would be ascribed to the Khalifa. They begun to be published in early 1947, the Khalifa signed off on the introduction on 2-28-1947, thus it was published in late February from Qadian, British-India. An english commentary also appeared in 1947.

The introduction of these commentaries are now a book called, “Introduction to the study of the Holy Quran”. This was the first instance of the Ahmadiyya movement (Lahori or Qadiani) arguing that there were humans on Earth before Adam (as) of the Quran arrived and were Jinn. Ahmadiyya sources claim that “Tafseer-e-Kabeer” was split into two parts. The first volume of “Tafseer-e-Kabeer”, which was nine chapters along with an introduction appeared in February of 1947 and from Qadian, British-India. Volume 1 part I, containing the introduction & the first two chapters (now Vol. 1), was reprinted in 1964, and volume 1 part II, dealing with the next seven chapters (now Vol. 2) was reprinted in 1965 in Pakistan. These Tafseer’s were most likely written by the paid Mullahs who worked directly for the Khalifa. The Khalifa didn’t have a full commentary written on the Quran, only about half, per the introduction of the 1988 edition of the 5 volume commentary by Malik Ghulam Farid (died in 1977), Mirza Basheer ud Din’s “Tafsir-e-Kabir” only covered Chapters 1, 2, 10-29 and 78–114, he missed Chapters 3-9 and 30-77, he missed 53 chapters and purposely, since most of the controversial verses about Jesus and prophethood were contained therein, as well as the famous verse of Ismuhu Ahmad and the famous verse of Chapter 62:3 that #ahmadis quotes as they claim that MGA was the second coming of Muhammad (saw)(nauzobillah).

The first edition of “Tafseer-e-Sagheer” was printed in Dec 1957. The final volume was published in 1979. Ahmadiyya sources claim that the first ever 5-volume english commentary was published in 1962 and an abridged version showed up in 1969, however, these are missing from the records.

In 1988, a new 5-volume commentary of the Holy Quran was published with Malik Ghulam Farid‘s name on it. He had died in 1977, thus, this was dubious. Nevertheless, this became the official commentary that all Ahmadi’s in the west read. In 2018, another 5-volume commentary was published and can be found on alislam.org.

Continue reading “The Qadiani branch of Ahmadi’s published an english translation and commentary of the Quran in 1915” →