Before MGA claimed to be the Messiah (1891), he had written Barahin-i-Ahmadiyya Vol. 1-4 and was indirectly claiming prophethood and was thus declared a Kafir by his own sect, the ahl-e-hadith. In 1879, in the BA2, MGA quoted 18:109 (18:110, in the Ahmadi quran)(see also 31:27, the verse is identical) and says that “”Say, ‘If the ocean became ink for the words of my Lord, surely, the ocean would be exhausted before the words of my Lord came to an end, even though We brought the like thereof as further help.’. Thus, MGA was arguing from the Quran that Allah will continue talking (prophethood) to Muslims until the Day of Judgement and this Islam was superior to all other religions. In volume 3, MGA quoted 9:32, and essentially was claiming prophethood for himself. In fact, MGA’s first argument in the BA was that of the continuation of divine revelation, however, MGA wasn’t being clear. Even Nawab Siddiq Hassan Khan tore of the Barahin-i-Ahmadiyya and sent it back to Qadian in that condition, which enraged MGA. MGA was also accused of claiming prophethood by the Ahl-e-Hadith, only Batalvi defended him. I have written a full review of BA3 herein. By 1884, MGA was openly being called a Kafir by most of the Ahl-e-hadith Muslims of North India. MGA’s friend, Syed Muhammad Hussain Batalvi kept arguing that MGA was just using flowery language. For the next 6 years, MGA went silent on the topic of his prophethood. In 1891, as MGA made his wild claims, he quoted 4:64 (in Izala Auham) as he argued that he wasn’t claiming prophethood, only muhadassiyat (metaphoric prophethood). Chapter 4:64 of the Quran tells us that Messengers/Prophets only follow the words of Allah (and thus, we should obey them unquestionably), not other prophets, this verse also proves that all prophethood/messengership in the Quran is law-bearing (MGA believed this also). However, Dard disagrees in his “Life of Ahmad” (1947)(See online english edition of 2008, see page 824 onward. Dard argues that 4:64 doesn’t mean that all prophets are law-bearing. Dard goes on to mis-quote 3-4 verses of the Quran as he argues that Aaron (as) was a follower of Moses (as), which is not true, Aaron (as) was an independent prophet, Allah made him a prophet, no one else. Aaron (as) uniquely shared the same mission as Moses (as)(see 10:75).

Furthermore, prophethood is a gift, not something that can be earned (see 40:15 and 6:125). A few months later, MGA went to Delhi and began the process of having a written debate, MGA was cornered and published an announcement full of lies. Per Khwaja Kamaluddin, MGA was also forced to read his prayers behind an imam who had recently called him a Kafir. However, 10 years later, 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, see pages 31-32). 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 (October of 1908), in the Barahin-i-Ahmadiyya Vol. 5, Noorudin wrote that MGA was always an Ummati and had become a Nabi. 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, 62:3 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. Ahmadi’s also quote 62:3, and call it a prophecy about the second coming of Muhammad (Saw)(nauzobillah) as the Promised Messiah.
4:64 of the Quran (Suyuti)

“”We never sent any Messenger but that he should be obeyed in what he commands and judges by the leave by the command of God and not that he should be disobeyed or opposed. If when they had wronged themselves by seeking the judgement of the false idol they had come to you repentant and asked forgiveness from God and the Messenger had asked forgiveness for them there is a shift from the second to the third person in this address in deference to his the Prophet’s s status; they would have found God Relenting to them Merciful to them.””

In the BA1&2, MGA was using 18:109 as evidence for his divine revelations (prophethood)(see page 118).

MGA quotes 18:109 (18:110, in the Ahmadi quran)(see also 31:27, the verse is identical) and says that “”Say, ‘If the ocean became ink for the words of my Lord, surely, the ocean would be exhausted before the words of my Lord came to an end, even though We brought the like thereof as further help.””. Thus, MGA was arguing from the Quran that Allah will continue talking to Muslims until the Day of Judgement. However, this argument was never used by MGA ever again. Nor was it used by the Qadiani’s in their famous commentaries of the Quran (via Malik Ghulam Farid).


In the Barahin-e-Ahmadiyya, vol. 3, 1882, MGA claimed that 9:32 was revealed to himself
In this era, MGA began faking revelations onto himself in great abundance. In fact, he applied 9:32 onto himself and without a commentary, later on in 1901, he would claim that the word Messenger in this verse and subsequently to the revelation of MGA in 1883, was an indication of MGA’s prophethood.

After the publishing of the 4th volume of Braheen e Ahmadiyya in late 1884, MGA was called a Kafir by the leaders of the Ahl-e-hadith sect, who had just helped MGA marry an Ahl-e-Hadith girl. MGA was so bold, he began claiming that many verses of the Quran had been also revealed onto himself. In this essay, we are writing about 48:29, which would be 48:30 in the Ahmadiyya Quran’s (interestingly, after MGA died, the Ahmadi’s who wrote commentary on the Quran never mention that this verse is about MGA, Lahori’s and Qadiani’s, see page 2953)). Per MGA,  “””I have been named ‘Muhammad’ as well as ‘Messenger'”””, (see “Eik Ghalti Ka Izala”, page 2, online english edition). MGA is essentially claiming HE WAS REFERRED TO AS MUHAMMAD in this verse.

In Nov. of 1901, in MGA’s famous announcement/booklet, “Eik Ghalti Ka Izala”, MGA says:

“”””””””””””””””””””””In the same book, close upon the above Divine Communication, is this Divine revelation:  Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and those who are with him are
hard against the disbelievers, tender amongst themselves.“”””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””

This is just the first sentence of the full verse from the Quran
The full verse is as follows:

“”””””””””””””””””””””””Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah. And those who are with him are hard against the disbelievers, tender among themselves. Thou seest them bowing and prostrating themselves in Prayer, seeking grace from Allah and His pleasure. Their mark is upon their faces, being the traces of prostrations. This is their description in the Torah. And their description in the Gospel is like unto a seed-produce that sends forth its sprout, then makes it strong; it then becomes thick, and stands firm on its stem, delighting the sowers — that He may cause the disbelievers to burn with rage at the sight of them. Allah has promised, unto those of them who believe and do good works, forgiveness and a great reward.“””””””””””””””””””””””””””

The verse is mentioned in Izala Auham (1890–1891) as MGA tried to explain his abusive language
As MGA worked on explaining as to why he had used abusive language, he quoted 48:29.  

This verse was on the cover page of Asmani Faisala (1891)
The verse was presented on the cover page of MGA’s famous book.

In Barahin-i-Ahmadiyya Vol. 4, online english edition, page 396
The original quote can be found in english.

Other Quranic verses that MGA claimed for himself in BA-4
——48:28, 61:09 and 9:32

And many more…………………………
1891 in Izalah-i Auham, page 569 (1st edition)

“The possessor of perfect prophethood (nubuwwat-i tammah) can never be a follower (ummati). And if one is called a perfect messenger of God, his becoming a complete follower of, and obedient (muti`) to another prophet is absolutely forbidden according to the clear and express teachings of the Quran and the Hadith. God says: And we sent no messenger but that he should be obeyed by Allah’s command (4:64). That is to say, every messenger is sent to be a master (muta`) and an imam. He is not sent for the object of becoming obedient and subordinate to another person. Of course, a muhaddath, who is from among the sent ones (mursalin), is a follower, too, and a prophet in an imperfect sense, as well. He is a follower, because he is totally obedient to the Shari`ah of Allah’s messenger and is the recipient of the light from the lamp of his messengership, and a prophet because God deals with him as He does with prophets. God has created a muhaddath as an intermediary (barzakh) between prophets and nations. Although he is a perfect follower, he is also a prophet in a sense.”

MGA was claiming to be a follower and a prophet (Muhaddas only) as early as 1884 in the BA-4

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.”
1891 in Delhi

In this famous announcement, MGA denied his own claim of being Esa (As) the son of Mary, denied that he rejected the physicality of the Miraaj, denied his own prophethood, call any claimant of prophethood as liar and kafir, and claimed that he believed in the same beliefs as the “Ahl-e-Sunnah-wa-Jamaa”. However, these were all lies, just a few weeks before this announcement (summer of 1891), Izala Auham part-2 was published wherein MGA forcefully denied the physicality of the Miraaj, he had already rejected the miracles of Esa (as) in 1884, he rejected that Adam (as) was the first human and was made in heaven, and etc etc. MGA was so scared, he even read his prayers behind a Sunni imam who had called him Kafir. MGA thus escaped Delhi under British-military police protection.


“Eik Ghalti Ka Izala” was published, wherein MGA claimed prophethood. MGA even admits that Allah only reveals secrets (divine revelation) to Messengers of his (see 72:26-27). MGA does not quote 4:64 however.

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].”””
Al Hakam Oct 17 1905 page 10, Via Tahir Ijaz’s online debate with Zahid Aziz

“These people inquire again and again where in the Holy Quran has the name been mentioned. They do not seem to be aware that Allah named me Ahmad. The pledge of Bai-at is taken in the name of Ahmad.  Is not this name found in Quran?” 


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 also). He even quotes a famous hadith that he had been quoting for 20 years, “your leader from among you” (See Bukhari, “imam o kum minhum”).
Chashma Masihi

We have also recently found MGA (and his team of writers) arguing in 1906, via MGA’s book, “Chashma-Masihi”, that in a famous verse of Surah Fatiha wherein Muslims pray to Allah to be guided, they are actually asking Allah to be guided like the prophets and siddiqin (which is a direct inference to 4:69)(See pages 62-65). Thus, MGA would always connect the ability to achieve prophethood with the daily prayer, which is ridiculous, since prophethood is a gift, not something achieved (see 40:15)(See Muhammad Ali, Prophethood in Islam also). However, in Chashma Masihi, MGA doesn’t quote 4:69, nor have we found this quote in any other book after 1903.

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)”””

On Page 152, MGA quotes 4:64 (4:65 in the Qadiani Quran)
MGA doesn’t reflect as to why he changed his position on this verse.

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.””


“Our Prophet, peace be on him, is a Prophet of such eminence and rank, that even a follower of this Prophet can become a Prophet himself; and he can come to be called Isa, even though he is an Ummati .” (Zamima Barahin-i-Ahmadiyya, Part V, page 184)


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

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s debate with Syed Nazeer Hussain of Delhi in 1891

#Ahmadis believe that 62:3 of the Quran announces that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is the second coming of Muhammad (saw)(Nauzobillah)

Ahmadiyya leadership began twisting the Quranic verse in 2:4 in 1915

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

Ahmadiyya and 4:69, everything you need to know

In 1891 in Delhi and in 1892, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad read his prayers behind Muslims who called him Kafir

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


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