In 1890-91, in Izala Auham (see the refs in the below), MGA argued over and over again that a prophet could never be a follower of another prophet. MGA and his team of writers quoted the Quran, 4:64 (4:65 in the Ahmadi Quran) as evidence. In fact, in the same book, MGA claims that his God called him an Ummati and Nabi in the Barahin i Ahmadiyya (about 7-10 years earlier), however, he didn’t give the exact reference. In the same year, MGA published an announcement to the effect that anyone who claims to be a prophet is a Kafir, obviously, MGA only meant a prophet like all the prophets mentioned in the Quran (independent-prophets). After the publishing of ‘Eik Ghalti Ka Izala”, Nov. 1901, MGA and his team totally abandoned this view. They claim that MGA discovered that an Ummati can become a Prophet (see Haqiqatun Nubuwwat by Mirza Mahmud Ahmad and Qaul al Fasl {1915}, see also Qazi Muhammad Nazeer, 1966, “Truth Prevails”), he also claimed to be greater and better than Esa (as) in this exact time frame. The other important fact to understand here is that all 124,000 prophets that were mentioned in the Quran were “independent” prophets, in others words, Allah made them prophets and they only followed the will of Allah and they all had the ability to create new laws and abrogate old ones. The prophethood that MGA discovered in 1901, never existed in the Quran, Torah or Bible, since all of those prophets were “independent”. By 1903, MGA said that only he was allowed this title of Nabi in the entire Ummah (See RK, v. 20, p. 45; starts at approximately middle of the page; Tadhkirah-tush-Shahaadatayn; published 1903). At the end of 1905, in “The Will”, MGA claims that some Muslims (he was only speaking about himself) have been able to become Ummati and Nabi (see English ROR of Jan. 1906). In 1906-07, in Haqiqatul Wahy, MGA again asserted that he was both an Ummati and a Nabi, and he was the only one the entire ummah of Muhammad to achieve this. After MGA died (Ocotober of 1908), in the Barahin-i-Ahmadiyya Vol. 5, Noorudin wrote that MGA was always an Ummati and had become a Nabi. After the split of March 1914, Muhammad Ali wrote “Prophethood in Islam” (March 1915) and ripped the Qadiani belief that MGA was an Ummati-Nabi.


Izala Auham
pp. 532-533 (See “Prophethood in Islam” by Muhammad Ali {1915}, Muhammad Ali referenced the original book in this case).

In this quotation, MGA claims that even in the Barahin-i-Ahmadiyya (1880-1884), his god called him a follower and a prophet:

“Truly the Messiah to come has also been spoken of as a prophet, but he has been called a follower too; rather the followers of the Holy Prophet have been foretold that ‘he shall be indeed from among you, and shall be your Imam,’ and his being a follower has been expressed not only in words, but it has also been shown that practically like other Muslims he shall only be a follower of the word of God and the sayings of the Messenger and shall solve the difficult and intricate questions of religion not by dint of his prophethood but ijtihad (exercise of judgement), and shall offer his prayers after others. Now all these clearly indicate that he shall not factually and in reality possess the characteristics of perfect prophethood, although partial and imperfect prophethood (nubuwwat-i naqisah) shall be found in him which, in other words, is called muhaddathiyyah and contains only one aspect of the perfect prophethood. So, the fact that he has been called a prophet as well as a follower indicates that he shall possess both these aspects i.e., followership (ummatiyyat) and prophethood, as it is necessary that both these aspects should be found in a muhaddath. But the possessor of perfect prophethood (nubuwwat-i tammah) has one aspect of prophethood only. In short, muhaddathiyyah is imbued with both the colours. That is why in Barahin-i Ahmadiyyah, too, God the Most High named this humble servant a follower as well as a prophet.”

And the reference to the antithetical statement

Izala Auham
pp. 575-579 (See “Prophethood in Islam” by Muhammad Ali {1915}, Muhammad Ali referenced the original book in this case).

“Many doubts arise if the Messiah, son of Mary, would be a perfect follower (ummati) at the time of his descent; because being a follower he can not in any way be a messenger (rasul), for the significance of a rasul and ummati is antithetical. Moreover, the finality of our Holy Prophet precludes the coming of any other prophet. This restriction in fact does not apply to an apostle who receives his light from the lamp of the prophethood of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), and lacks perfect prophethood. In other words, he too is a muhaddath because on account of discipleship and annihilation in the Messenger (fana fir-Rasul) he is included in the person of Khatam al-Mursalin (Seal of the Messengers) as a part is never outside the whole. But Messiah, son of Mary, the recipient of Evangel, for which the descent of Gabriel was an essential requisite, cannot become a follower in any way because he would be bound to follow the revelation that would descend on him from time, to time.

If it be argued that the Messiah will receive only this much revelation, “follow the Quran” and the divine revelation will be cut off thereafter and Gabriel will never descend on him and he would become like followers after being totally deprived of prophethood, then all this is a child’s play. It is quite obvious that should revelation be permitted but for once, and should Gabriel bring a single sentence only and become silent thereafter still this much is contrary to the finality of prophethood; for, when the seal of finality is broken and the apostolic revelation starts to come down again, it matters little whether the revelations are few or many. Every wise man can understand well that if God is true to His word, the promise given in the verse Khatam al-Nabiyyin and more explicitly in the Traditions — that after the death of the Holy Prophet, Gabriel is to bring no more prophetic revelations — are true and correct, then no one can ever come in the capacity of a messenger after our Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). If, for the sake of argument it were assumed that the Messiah, son of Mary, would resurrect and appear in the world, then how would his being a messenger be denied and the descending of Gabriel and resumption of the divine communication. As it is not possible that there should be no light with the rising of the sun, similarly, it is quite impossible that a messenger should come for the reformation of mankind devoid of divine communication and visits of Gabriel.”


(Izala Auham, p. 569), (See “Prophethood in Islam” by Muhammad Ali {1915}, Muhammad Ali referenced the original book in this case).

“The possessor of full prophethood can never be a follower (ummati), and it is absolutely prohibited by the Quran and Hadith that the man who is called messenger (rasul) of God in the fullest sense could be a complete sub-ordinate and disciple of another prophet. Almighty God says [in the Holy Quran]: ‘We did not send any messenger but that he should be obeyed by God’s permission.’ That is, every messenger is sent to be a master and leader, not to be a disciple and sub-ordinate of someone else.”
Announcement from 1891
(Majmuha-Estaharet, P. 230-231; Tabligh-i-Risalat, Vol 2, Page 20 –
Also appeared in a Qadiani poster dated Oct 2, 1891; 20 Shaaban, 1313 A.H.)

“I believe in all the items of faith as prescribed by the Sunni School of Islam and I accept everything that is according to the Quran and Hadith. I fully subscribe to the doctrine that Muhammad is the last of all Prophets, and that any claimant to Prophethood after him is an impostor and a Kafir. It is my belief that the revelations of Prophethood started with Adam and closed with the prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him)”.

“Eik Ghalti Ka Izala” was published, wherein MGA claimed propehthood. MGA even admits that Allah only reveals secrets (divine revelation) to Messengers of his (see 72:26-27).

RK, v. 20, p. 45; starts at approximately middle of the page; Tadhkirah-tush-Shahaadatayn; published 1903, via Nuzhat Haneef

By 1903, MGA said that only he was allowed this title of Nabi in the entire Ummah: 

“””On one occasion I had explained to him [Saahibzaadah Abdul Lateef] the answer to an objection, which had pleased him very greatly. And [the objection was] that: [Given] the situation that His Holiness [Muhammad], blessings of Allaah and peace be upon him, is the analogue of Moosa [Moses] and his khaleefahs are the analogs of the Banee Israa-eel [Israelite] prophets, then why is it that Maseeh Mau`ood has been referred to as a prophet in the hadeeths but all other khaleefahs have not been referred to by this title[?] So, I gave him the reply that: Given that His Holiness [Muhammad], blessings of Allaah and peace be upon him, was ‘khaatam-ul anbiyaa’ [Seal of the Prophets or Last Prophet] and there was no prophet after him, therefore, if all the khaleefahs had been referred to by the title prophet then the matter of ‘khatme-
nabuwwat’ [seal-status or finality of prophethood] would have become doubtful. And if not even one person had been referred to by the title of prophet, the objection would remain as to the lack of similarity, since the khaleefahs of Moses are prophets. Therefore Divine wisdom demanded that, initially, many khaleefahs be sent having regard for ‘khatm-e-nabuwwat’ [seal-status or finality of prophethood] and they not be referred to as prophets and not be given this rank so that this would be a sign of ‘khatm-e-nabuwwat’ [seal-status or finality of prophethood]. Then the final khaleefah, that is, Maseeh Mau`ood, be referred to as a prophet so that in the matter of ‘khilaafat’ [the caliphate] the similarity of the two systems [Mosaic and Muhammadan] comes to be proven [or established].”””

At the end of 1905, in “The Will”, MGA claims that some Muslims (he was only speaking about himself) have been able to become Ummati and Nabi (he was only speaking about himself) (see English ROR of Jan. 1906). He even quotes a famous hadith that he had been quoting for 20 years, “your leader from among you”.
See Haqiqatul Wahy, online english edition, page 37

“””At this point, the question can naturally arise that, as there appeared many Prophets among the ummah of Hadrat Musa, in this situation, it necessarily implies that Hadrat Musa is superior. The answer is that all of these Prophets were directly chosen by God, and Hadrat Musa had no part in it whatsoever. However, in this ummah there have been thousands of saints through the blessing of following the Holy Prophet, may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, and there has even appeared one who is both an ummatī and a Prophet. There is no other instance of such bounteous grace in the case of any other Prophet. Among the ummah of Musa, with the exception of the Israelite Prophets, the majority of the people are found [spiritually] wanting. In regard to the [Israelite] Prophets, as I have already stated, they did not receive anything from Musa; rather, they were made Prophets directly. But from Ummat-e-Muhammadiyyah [the followers of the Muhammad sa], thousands were bestowed sainthood solely because they were followers [of the Holy Prophet sa]. (Author)”””
See Barahin-i-Ahmadiyya Vol. 5, online english edition, pages 403-404

“””The answer to this is that all this unfortunate deduction is the outcome of a misunderstanding arising from the fact that they have not reflected on the true meaning of the term Nabi [Prophet]. The term Nabi only means one who receives knowledge from God through revelation and is honoured with converse and discourse with Allah. It is not necessary that he should be the bearer of a new law, nor is it necessary that he should not be the follower of a law-bearing Prophet. Thus, no harm is done if an ummati [follower] is said to be such a Prophet, particularly when such an ummati derives spiritual bounty from the Prophet whom he obeys. What is most perverse is to declare that, after the Holy Prophet, may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, this
Ummah is unworthy of enjoying converse with God until the Day of Judgment.””


Haqiqat-un-Nubuwwat, p. 233, Taken from a Lahori-Ahmadi website on 3-31-2020,

“Another question is asked, whether in this Umma there has been another prophet apart from the Promised Messiah or not. The short answer is No. … The Holy Prophet refuses to verify the prophethood of any person in the Umma before the Messiah. Therefore, we are also bound to deny that before the Promised Messiah there was anyone in this Umma who was an ummati nabi.”


Muhammad Ali publishes his famous book, “Prophethood in Islam” as a response to the Khalifa at Qadian.


Interestingly, Muhammad Ali totally avoided these verses (4:64-67) in his famous commentary of the Quran.

The concept of the “Ummati-Nabi” was also put to the Khalifa, Mirza Nasir Ahmad in the NA of 1974.

In Malik Ghulam Farid’s commentary of 4:64-66, he indirectly claims that MGA was wrong in his view of these verses before 1901. MGA was not mentioned by MGF.

Links and Related Essay’s

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