Anwar-i Khilafat is a book which is the text of a speech delivered by the Khalifa, Mirza Basheer-ud Din Mahmud Ahmad at the December 1915 annual Jalsa at Qadian. It was published a few months later in 1916. In this book, the Khalifa argued most emphatically that the prophecy of Jesus about the coming Ahmad, referred to in the Quran in 61:6, does not apply to the Prophet Muhammad but to Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. He also continues to deal with the points of difference between his followers and the Lahore Ahmadis. The first issue that he raises in this connection is the interpretation of the prophecy about the coming Ahmad. This book is available online at the Qadiani website in the collection Anwar-ul-‘Uloom, v. 3, no. 5 from the link Anwar-i Khilafat was mentioned in the Jan-Feb-March-1923 edition of the ROR.


“The first issue is whether Ahmad was the name of the Promised Messiah or of the Holy Prophet Muhammad, and whether the verse of Sura Al-Saff which mentions the prophecy about a messenger whose name would be Ahmad, applies to the Holy Prophet Muhammad or to the Promised Messiah.

My belief is that this verse applies to the Promised Messiah, and he is the one who is Ahmad. … The more I ponder, the more my conviction grows, and I believe that the word Ahmad that occurs in the Holy Quran applies to the Promised Messiah. In proof of this, I have evidences by the grace of God which I am prepared to put before the scholars and learned ones of the whole world. So much so that I am prepared to offer a reward: if anyone can disprove my evidences and show from the Holy Quran and authentic Hadith that Ahmad was the name of the Holy Prophet Muhammad, and not his attribute, and that the signs about Ahmad given in the Holy Quran apply to the Holy Prophet, and that the Holy Prophet applied this prophecy to himself, I will pay that person a monetary penalty as mutually agreed between the two parties.”

— pages 18-19, original edition, Anwar-i Khilafat. See here for Urdu text.

“I have read out the verses of the Holy Quran giving the news about Ahmad, in which Ahmad is mentioned. Now I will explain by the grace of God that in these verses the real person meant by Ahmad is the Promised Messiah, and the Holy Prophet Muhammad only fulfils it because of his attribute of being Ahmad; otherwise, the man having the name Ahmad, to whom this news relates, is only the Promised Messiah.”

— pages 20, original edition, Anwar-i Khilafat. See here for Urdu text.

“Hence the messenger named Ahmad, whose news is given in this verse, cannot be the Holy Prophet Muhammad. Of course, if all those signs of this messenger called Ahmad were fulfilled in his time then we could undoubtedly say that since by the name Ahmad in this verse is meant the messenger having the attribute of Ahmad, why should we apply it to someone else? But even this is not the case, as I will prove later on.”

— pages 23, original edition, Anwar-i Khilafat. See here for Urdu text.

“This prophecy does not contain any word to show that it is about the Khatam-un-nabiyyin, nor any word to cause us to apply this prophecy necessarily to the Holy Prophet Muhammad.… There is no Hadith report of any kind, whether true or false, weak or strong, of whatever standard of authenticity, mentioning that the Holy Prophet Muhammad applied this verse to himself and declared himself as fulfilling this prophecy. When that also is not the case, why should we apply the prophecy to the Holy Prophet Muhammad, in contradiction to the subject-matter of the verse?”

— pages 23, original edition, Anwar-i Khilafat. See here for Urdu text.

“Why should the meaning of this verse be distorted to apply it to the Holy Prophet Muhammad just in order to prove that no messenger can come after him? Has the fear of Almighty God departed from the hearts of the people so much that they alter His word in this way and distort its meaning by misinterpreting it so blatantly? As long as truth had not come, people had no choice. But now that events have proved that by Ahmad is meant a servant of the Holy Prophet Muhammad, it is not the way of true believers to be stubborn.”

— pages 24, original edition, Anwar-i Khilafat. See here for Urdu text.


“To sum up, it is not proved in any way that the name of the Holy Prophet Muhammad was Ahmad. So this leaves only two choices. One is that this prophecy applies to some other man having the name Ahmad. The other is that the prophecy does not mean that his name would be Ahmad but rather that his attribute would be Ahmad, and as the Holy Prophet Muhammad had the attribute Ahmad hence this prophecy can be applied to him in this sense. However, this [second choice] does not work because the signs of the person having the name or the qualities of Ahmad that are given here are not fulfilled in the Holy Prophet Muhammad, as will be shown later. This leaves only one way, that the prophet whose name or whose attribute is Ahmad, as the case may be, shall be someone after the Holy Prophet Muhammad, from among his servants. Our claim is that it is the Promised Messiah who is that messenger, the prophecy about whom is given in this verse.”

— pages 31, original edition, Anwar-i Khilafat. See here for Urdu text.

“Now I present evidence from the Holy Quran that the one who fulfills this prophecy can only be the Promised Messiah and no one else.”

— pages 33, original edition, Anwar-i Khilafat. See here for Urdu text.


“Now another question remains, that is, as non-Ahmadis are deniers of the Promised Messiah, this is why funeral prayers for them must not be offered, but if a young child of a non-Ahmadi dies, why should not his funeral prayers be offered? He did not call the Promised Messiah as kafir. I ask those who raise this question, that if this argument is correct, then why are not funeral prayers offered for the children of Hindus and Christians, and how many people say their funeral prayers? The fact is that, according to the Shariah, the religion of the child is the same as the religion of the parents. So a non-Ahmadi’s child is also a non-Ahmadi, and his funeral prayers must not be said. Then I say that as the child cannot be a sinner he does not need the funeral prayers; the child’s funeral is a prayer for his relatives, and they do not belong to us but are non-Ahmadis. This is why even the child’s funeral prayers must not be said. This leaves the question that if a man who believes Hazrat Mirza sahib to be true but has not yet taken the bai‘at, or is still thinking about joining Ahmadiyyat, and he dies in this condition, it is possible that God may not punish him. But the decisions of the Shariah are based on what is outwardly visible. So we must do the same thing in his case, and not offer funeral prayers for him.”

— Anwar-i Khilafat, page 93 of original edition; underlining is ours.
See pages 150–151.

See original Urdu text below from the book Anwar-i Khilafat [Urdu 3].


“In Lucknow, I (Mir Mahmood Ahmad Qadiani) met a man who was a great scholar. He said: ‘Those are your enemies who make the propaganda that you condemn people as infidels. I can not believe that such broad minded people as you are can indulge in such things.’ The man was making this remark to Sheikh Yaqub Ali Qadiani. I asked him to tell the man that we really believe them as infidels. The man was astonished to hear this.”

(Anwar-e-Khilafat, Miyan Mahmood Ahmad Qadiani)

“It is incumbent upon us that we should not regard non-Ahmadis as Muslims, nor should we offer prayers behind them, because according to our belief they deny one of the messengers of Allah. This is a matter of faith. None has any discretion in this.”

(Anwar-e-Khilafat, P. 90, by Mirza Mahmood Ahmad Qadiani)

_____________________________________________________________________________________________Links and Related Essay’s

Mirza Mahmud Ahmad retreats from his belief about the “coming Ahmad” prophecy

Ahmadiyya Takfir in 1919

Ahmadiyya-Takfir and their cover-up job

Al-Fazl, September 1917, proves Ahmadiyya Takfir towards all Sunni’s/Shia’s

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

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

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

Mirza Mahmud Ahmad’s Speech In January 1913 Saying Only Those Are Kafir Who Brand Ahmadis As Kafir

Al-Fazl, September 1917, proves Ahmadiyya Takfir towards all Sunni’s/Shia’s

A fake Ahmadiyya response to our essays which expose Ahmadiyya Takfir from

In 1923, Mirza Basheer-uddin Mahmud Ahmad, the Ahmadi Khalifa, ordered Ahmadis to stop doing Takfir on Muslims

Mirza Mahmud Ahmad’s Speech In January 1913 Saying Only Those Are Kafir Who Brand Ahmadis As Kafir

Ali Rizvi mentions the lies of Qasim Rashid in his book, in terms of Takfir from Ahmadis to Muslims

Mirza Nasir Ahmad discussed his father’s and uncle’s statements on Takfir in 1974 at the National Assembly hearings

Kashif Chaudhry is at it again, he continues to accuse Muslims in America of Takfir and calls them terrorists

Ahmadiyya-Takfir and their cover-up job

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

2009 Tadhkirah vs. the 2004 Tadhkirah, in terms of Takfir

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

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad says that any Muslim who believes in abrogation, is a Kafir

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and 2:62, the “Salvation” or “status” of Non-Muslim’s in an islamic state?

The 1976, English edition of Tadhkirah, now available for free download

Mirza Bashir Ahmad did Takfir on all Muslims and Lahori-Ahmadis (1915)

Qasim Rashid keeps lying about his Messiahs Takfir


Al Hakam – 6 September 2019

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


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