In 1891, in “Elucidation of Objectives”, MGA began calling all the prophets/messengers that were mentioned in the Quran and Hadith as independent-prophets. MGA was also calling all 124,000 prophets/messengers that were mentioned in Hadith as independent. The reason for this was because all prophets/messengers that were mentioned in the Torah/Bible/Quran became prophets via the will of Allah, thus, they didn’t acquire their prophethood through another prophet. After 1901, MGA began calling himself an “Ummati-Nabi”, and claiming that he acquired this prophethood as a result of perfecting following Muhammad (saw), it was thus granted to MGA from his God. 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. In the below, we have many quotations wherein MGA rejects being an “independent-prophet” and explains how that type of prophethood ended via 33:40. All of these quotations are from Muhammad Ali’s, “Prophethood in Islam” (1915). Check out Mirza Tahir Ahmad trying to explain the differences between a Tashreei Nabi, Mustaqil Nabi and Gair Mushtaqil ya Zilli Nabi. _____________________________________________________________________________________________

Taudih Maram, (January 22, 1891), second edition,

p. 8

“The Last of the Prophets has drawn a line of distinction between the Israelite Messiah and the Promised Messiah by stating that the second Messiah will be a Muslim, will follow the Shari’ah of the Quran and, like common Muslims, shall abide by the Quranic commandments such as fasting, prayers…. He will be born from amongst the Muslims and will be their Imam (leader). He will neither bring a new religion nor claim an exclusive and independent prophethood.”


p. 74

“If it be argued that Jesus, who came for bearing testimony (tasdiq) to the Torah, was a prophet of God, how do you compare him in this respect? Again, a prophet ought to have come for vouching and reviving (tajdid) the religion. The reply is that, in Islam, the door of independent prophethood is closed as the Most High God says: wa la-kin rasulul lahi wa Khataman Nabivyin (but he is the Messenger of Allah and the Seal of the Prophets’) and in the Hadith we find: la nabiyya ba’di (there will be no prophet after me). Moreover, the Messiah’s natural death has been proved by conclusive arguments (nusus qat’iyyah); therefore, his coming to this world again is nothing but mere wishful thinking. And, if another prophet, new or old, does come, then how can our Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), be the Last of the Prophets. No doubt, the door of wahy-i wilayah (revelations granted to saints) and of divine communications is still open.

“Correction of an Error”

‘Whenever I have denied being a Prophet or Messenger, it has only been in the sense that I have not brought an independent law nor am I an independent Prophet.’

Kasht-i Nuh (October 15, 1902), p. 15

“There is now no book on the surface of this earth for the guidance of mankind other than the Quran and no messenger and intercessor (shafi’) for the children of Adam except Muhammad, the chosen one, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him.”

“What God expects from you is a belief that there is no god but He and that Muhammad, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, is His prophet and is the Last and most excellent of His prophets. No prophet shall now come after him but the one spiritually attired in his garb, for the servant is not apart from his master and the branch is not independent of its root. Thus, whosoever is completely lost in his master receives the title of prophet from God. He in no way breaks the seal of prophethood. It is just as one sees one’s reflection in a mirror. Although apparently there appear to be two persons but in fact the person is one. The difference lies only in the reflection and the real.”


Review on the debate between Muhammad Hussain of Batata and Abdullah Chakralwi (November 27, 1902), pp: 6, 7

” ‘Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but he is the Messenger of Allah and the Seal of the Prophets.’ It is obvious that the word la-kin in Arabic language is used for istidrak, i.e., for the removal of what has passed before. Thus in the first part of the verse the matter which has been considered as extinct or, in other words, the existence of which has been denied in the being of the Holy Prophet, is his being the father of any of the men in the physical sense. Thus with the word la-kin the doubt in the existence of such a relationship was denied by declaring the Holy Prophet as Khatam al-Anbiya (Last of the Prophets) which means that the blessings of prophethood have ended in him and the excellence of prophethood will now be bestowed only on the person whose deeds and acts bear the Seal of the Holy Prophet’s obedience. And that is how he is to be the Holy Prophet’s son and heir. The sum and substance of this verse is that prophethood, though it may be without law (Shari’ah), has been totally closed, and no person can now be raised as a prophet independent of the Holy Prophet inasmuch as the prophethood is now nurtured and illuminated by the lamp of the prophethood of Muhammad, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him. In other words, the possessor of such an excellence has to be a follower (ummati) from one aspect and from the other possesses prophetic excellence as a result of the acquisition of Muhammad’s light. Thus it now stands settled conclusively that the door of independent prophethood, which is obtained directly, has been closed for ever after the Holy Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings of Allah’ be upon him

Mawahib al-Rahman, (January 13, 1903), pp. 66, 67)

“A few words about my beliefs: I am a Muslim and I believe the Quran to be the book of Allah and our master Hazrat Muhammad, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, the Prophet and Messenger of Allah and his religion the best of all the religions. I also believe that he (the Holy Prophet) is last of the Prophets, and there is no prophet after him but the one nurtured by his benignity and blessings who appears as has been prophesied by him. Allah communicates with His friends (auliya) in this ummah who bear the colour of the prophets, though in reality they are not prophets, because the Quran has perfected the Shari’ah, and the world does not stand in need of any other Shari’ah. They are gifted with the knowledge of the Quran but they neither add nor subtract anything from the Holy Book. Anyone who dares so is a wrong-doer and a devil. The term Khatm-i-Nubuwwat denotes that all the excellences of prophethood have been completed in the person of our Messenger, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, who ranks superior to all other prophets. I further believe that there is no prophet after him except the one from among his ummah and is benefited spiritually with his blessings. Such a prophethood is neither independent of the Holy Prophet nor in any way in opposition to his prophethood.”
Chashmah Masihi 
Page 40 (Footnote)

“And finally it should be remembered that if a follower receives the status of revelation, inspiration and prophethood, merely by following the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), and is honoured with the title of ‘prophet’, it does not break the seal of prophethood because he is after all a follower and does not have an independent entity of his own. His excellence is the excellence of his Master-prophet. And he is not called a ‘prophet’ only but ‘a prophet as well as a follower’. The advent of a prophet who is not a follower is, in fact, against the Finality of Prophethood.”
Chapter II (

“””By saying `some people’, if Mr. Faruqi is referring to us, the Ahmadies of the Qadian, now Rabwah, Section, we may be, allowed to point out that we do not take Hazrat Harun as a Prophet with a new Law; but we do take him to be a Prophet, in an unconditional unqualified sense; we take him as a mustaqil Nabi. In fact the view that he was a mustaqil Nabi is accepted even by our brothers of the Lahore Section. We might also add here it appears Mr. Faruqi seems rather inclined to accept him even as a Prophet with a new Law. We, therefore, humbly beg of him to stop for a while, and think clearly what are these things he is writing, under an impression that he is writing them against us. For the plain fact of the matter is that he is demolishing the basis of his own stand. When he takes Hazrat Harun for a tashri’i and a mustaqil Nabi ; and for this reason he is prepared to feel the need for using such an expression as La Nabia Ba’di for a similar reason, when we hold that he was a mustaqil Nabi, we realise the need of using this expression, lest some one, on seeing Hazrat Ali likened to Hazrat Harun, should tend to run away with the impression that he was, likewise, also a Prophet, considering the fact that he had been described as being in the same position as Harun had been before him, at a certain juncture taking him as a Prophet with a Sharia of his own dispensation, according to the view favoured by Mr. Faruqi, and a mustaqil Nabi, according to our view about Harun. Thus, in the words of this Hadith “annahu la Nabia ba’di ” the negation is in regard to the advent of a Prophet with a new Sharia, or the advent of a mustaqil Nabi . Hazrat Harun was not an Ummati Nabi, in any sense of the term, that a misapprehension could have arisen in the case of Hazrat Ali, that he was perhaps a Nabi as Harun had been in his time, to whom Ali had been likened by the Holy Prophet. This situation could have given rise to a question, alone, that Hazrat Ali was a mustaqil Nabi, like Harun; and that possibility had been guarded against, and the mistake corrected, before it had arisen.

Third Hadith

The third Hadith quoted by Mr. Faruqi is the following:

“Abu Horaira related that the Apostle of Allah said: `My example and of those Prophets who have gone before me, is like a person who builds a house, both well designed and beautiful to look at, but in one corner space for one brick has been left vacant. Then people started circumambulating the house; but wondered as to why the brick was missing. I am that brick (said the Apostle) and I am the last and final of the Prophets.’”

In this Hadith the Holy Prophet has likened himself to the prophets who were earlier than his time. All these Prophets, from Adam, right up to his own self, were Prophets, independently, each in his own place; and this is a point which we accept, that the Holy Prophet is the last among Prophets spoken of here as mustaqil, independent Prophets, of which number the Holy Prophet is the last. Therefore, the sense and meaning of there being a bar against the advent of any other Prophet, has been clearly, graphically, precisely fixed, namely, that the Holy Prophet was the last mustaqil Nabi ; after him, there was going to be no other Prophet, right up to the Qiyama . But, of course, zilli Prophets, and Ummati Prophets could come, the Hadith in question being no obstacle in the path of the advent of such Prophets. This is the reason why the Promised Messiah has declared himself as a Zilli and Ummati Prophet.”””

_______________________________________________________________________________________________Links and Related Essay’s

The concept of the Ummati-Nabi

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