ahmadiyyafactcheckblog

Intro
In 1900-1902, via Tohfah Golarviah, RK, v-17, page 209, MGA and his team argued that MGA was the last Khalifa (akhree Khalifa) in the Muhammadi system. However, through my fathers lineage I am not from the Quraish (See Bro Imtiaz, 2:41:11)(See also RK, v. 17, p-333, Tohfa-e-Golarawiyah). MGA was claiming to be Muhammad (Saw)(astagfarullah), and thus, MGA was claiming to be the FINAL prophet.

In 1900-1902, MGA called Esa (as) as the promised messiah for the Jews and himself (MGA) as the promised messiah for the Muslims. However, a year earlier in Khutbah ilhamiya, MGA was also calling himself the Khatamul Khulafa (Khutbah ilhamiya, pages 69-70).

In 1902, MGA declared himself as greater than Esa (as)(nauzobillah) (See Noah’s Ark, page 29). In the very next sentence, he declared himself to be the Khatam-ul-Khulafa and compared his finality in the Islamic system of prophethood to Esa (as)’s finality in the Jewish prophethood (literally 123,999 prophets were Jewish, 99%, they were Muslim, not Jewish).

In 1906-1907, MGA was also claiming in Haqiqatul Wahy (1906-1907) that he was the only person in the entire Muslim ummah to be given the title of prophet.

In 1908 (Oct), after MGA died, Barahin-i-Ahmadiyya Vol. 5 was quietly published in October of 1908. In that book, MGA again made the claim of Khatam-ul Khulafa, essentially MGA’s team of writers (mostly Noorudin) were arguing that MGA was the final prophet, since in this context, Khalifa means prophet (which is also used for Adam [as]). They even argued that since Esa (As) was the Khatam ul Khulafa of the Jewish prophets, similarly MGA was the Khatam ul Khulafa of the Muslims prophets. Razi ullah Noman, with #Ahmadianswers claims that MGA meant as the BEST, thus, he was calling Eisa (As) as the best of the prophets after Moses (as) and MGA was the best of the ulema after Muhammad (saw), however, this is a farce. This was also discussed by Brother Imtiaz, Dr. Izhar Khan and the Dawah Wise team on 9-23-23 and on the Dawah Wise youtube channel.

See also the ROR of Oct-1943, which refers to Malfuzat.

In 2003, a few weeks before this death, Mirza Tahir Ahmad tells Ahmadi’s that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is the final prophet (see the clip on twitter and tik tok).
Continue reading “Why did Mirza Ghulam Ahmad claim to be the Khatam-ul-Khulafa?” →

Intro
In 1898, in MGA’s book, “Najm ul Huda”, MGA admitted that he was hated my his father and elder brother since he was lazy and ate opium all day and refused to work. Thus, MGA’s god caused MGA’s father (Mirza Ghulam Murtaza)(died at age 85) to die as well as MGA’s elder brother Mirza Ghulam Qadir (who died at roughly age 50). In fact, during MGA’s childhood, MGA’s father repeatedly called MGA a girlie-man. MGA’s father would not allow MGA to raise his own children. MGA was a momma’s boy, his mom would repeatedly save MGA and make sure that MGA never had to work.

In 1864, MGA was sent to pickup his father’s pension money and squandered it all. This was the worst thing that MGA had ever done, he was thus punished by being forced to work in Sialkot in the courts and specifically to never see his mother again (who was blamed or MGA’s being useless and lazy). MGA’s mother died in 1868, after she died, a messenger was sent to Sialkot to bring MGA home, thus MGA’s punishment was complete, MGA even missed the funeral.

Continue reading “MGA claimed that his father and older brother hated him and MGA’s god caused them to die, so that MGA could make his wild claims” →

Intro
In the Quran (3:45), the Messiah, the son of Mary (al-masih, ibn Maryam) is described as the name of the Messiah. The arabic phrase is I-S-M, it is also used in 61:6. Thus, the phrase ISM in 3:45 proves that in Islam, there is only one Messiah, Esa (as) the son of Mary. In fact, the famous islamic greeting is “bISM-illah, ir rahman, nir raheem” proves the meaning of ISM. Allah names Mary in 3:36, Allah named Yahya (as) in 19:7. In 22:78, Allah has named us as Muslims.

ISM appears in the Quran roughly 45 times. See 2:31 (3 times), 2:33 (twice), 2:114, 3:45, 3:36, 5:4, 6:118, 6:119, 6:121, 6:138, 7:71, 11:41, 12:40 (twice), 12:66, 13:33, 17:110 (twice), 19:7, 20:8, 22:28, 22:34, 22:36, 22:40, 22:78, 24:36, 27:30, 53:23, 53:27 (twice), 55:78, 56:74, 59:24, 61:6, 69:52, 73:8, 76:18, 76:25, 87:1, 87:15, 94:4, and 96:1.

MGA seems to have quoted 3:45 (3:46 in the Qadiani Quran) in 1902, however, he didnt address the issue of ISM (see page 2). This seems to be the only time MGA ever commented on this verse.
Continue reading “The arabic phrase ISM (his name) proves the physical return of Esa (as), via 3:45 of the Quran” →

Intro
In 1884, in the Barahin-i-Ahmadiyya Vol. 4, page 428 of the online english edition, MGA claims that his revelations to date (1884), are free from satanic interference. He goes a step further and claims that 22:52 of the Quran has an alternate reading (commentary by Ibn Abbas in Bukhari)(it’s actually in Fath-e-Bari, see full ref in below and my interaction with Musleh Shanboor) wherein the translation would be different. MGA’s new translation was as follows: “”Never sent We a Messenger or a Prophet or a Muhaddath before you…….””. 

Thus, MGA was asserting that a Muhaddath (a non-prophet like Hazrat Umar [ra])got the same type of revelations (ilham/wahi) as Messengers (Rasul’s) and Prophets (Nabi’s). This seems to be the main argument in BA-1 to 4, this is what Mirza Bashir Ahmad was referring to in Seeratul Mahdi (1923) when he said that MGA didn’t deliver the 300 arguments.

We have found this report (athar) in Ibn Hajar Asqalani’s famous “Fath-u-Bari”, the hadith is authentic (See the full report in the below). However, it should be noted that this hasn’t been found in Tafsir ibn Abbas. Nor did Tafsir Ibn Kathir talk about adding the word “Muhaddath” in 22:52. In conclusion, it seems that Ibn Abbas would read it as such, in terms of a commentary, not a recitation.

here is the translation from Tafsir Fathul Qadir -Imam Al-Shawkani-:

‘Abd ibn Humayd and Ibn al-Anbari in Al-Masahif narrated from ‘Amr ibn Dinar who said: Ibn ‘Abbas used to recite, “And We did not send before you any messenger, nor prophet, nor ‘muhaddath’”.

Ibn Abi Hatim narrated something similar from Sa’d ibn Ibrahim ibn ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn ‘Awf, adding that the term “muhaddath” was later abrogated.

He said:
“The ‘muhaddathoon’ (inspired ones) are: the Companion of Ya-Sin, Luqman, the Believer from the family of Pharaoh, and the Companion of Moses.” https://twitter.com/messages/media/1822012072823288202

Additional Notes:
as for adding words….it is not him who added….it is one of 2
1 – it is an abrogated qiraat, as quran was revealed in stages
2 – it is his own tafsir that when he explained, and one of the narrators used the word Ibn Abbas “recited” instead of Ibn Abbas “said”…other narrators recorded Ibn Abbas “said”…..this is not a problem for us as EVEN if it was a qiraat, it is not mutawatir and not acceptable, especially since we don’t have the complete qiraat….we cannot combine words from different Qiraat.

In 1892-1893, MGA and his team of writers quoted 22:52 of the Quran (22:53 in the Kadiani Koran), and argued that as a Muhaddath, MGA was actually a prophet in potential (See, “Ainah Kamalat-e-Islam”, pages 268-269, Online English Edition) and a Muhaddath is near to Allah like a prophet. On page 413 (See, “Ainah Kamalat-e-Islam”, Online English Edition), MGA and his team of writers argue that “satanic interference” is normal and can’t be avoided. MGA and his team quoted 22:52 of the Quran (22:53 in the Kadiani Koran) and alleged that it means that we have not sent any such Messenger or Prophet, whose condition should not have been such that when he wishes for something—meaning when he desired for something upon the prompting of his soul—that Satan would not mix something in it. In other words, when a Messenger or a Prophet seeks something by the promptings of his own soul, Satan mixes something in his desires as well, but then, wahye-matluw—which possesses glory, majesty, and perfect light—removes that interference and makes the Divine will manifest with full clarity. This is an indication to the fact that the thoughts that arise in the heart of a Prophet and whatever
thinking develops in his mind are really all revelations.

In 1892-1893, MGA says that every word of a prophet is wahi and he received wahi in every moment but sometimes Satan messes it up and makes him do an ijtihadi mistake which also counts as Wahi, and thus prophets make mistakes in Wahi (MGA). MGA claims that people see false dreams about him are because of their desires, but then you might ask, then why should we believe in dreams as sign? MGA then says that true dreams are pure and have holy qualities in them and glad tidings (Page 353 of A’ina-e-Kamalat-e-Islam)(See page 414, Online English Edition). On page 275, MGA mentions satanic interference for common Muslims who are doing
Istikharah.

In 1915, this entire line of argumentation was abrogated, since allegedly, MGA claimed prophethood in 1901 and discovered a new type of prophethood (the Ummati Nabi).

In 2024, I emailed Musleh Shanboor about 22:52 of the Quran (22:53 in the Kadiani Koran) and I asked about if MGA’s statements in terms of the qira’at of Ibn-e-‘Abbas’ of the verse was abrogated after 1901. MGA was accusing Ibn Abbas of adding the word “Muhaddath” and called this an accurate reading. Razi tweeted about this too and posted the English edition. The quote is from 1884, Barahin-i-Ahmadiyya Vol. 4, page 428 of the online english edition. Musleh Shanboor said that report that MGA was referring to was removed from the Bukhari, however, it did exist in previous editions and can be found in Fath-e-Bari. Musleh Shanboor didn’t even answer my question. However, the truth is, it is an abrogated qiraat, it is Ibn-e-‘Abbas’ own tafsir that when he explained, and one of the narrators used the word Ibn Abbas “recited” instead of Ibn Abbas “said”…other narrators recorded Ibn Abbas “said”…..this is not a problem for us as EVEN if it was a qiraat, it is not mutawatir and not acceptable, especially since we don’t have the complete qiraat….we cannot combine words from different Qiraat and make it a belief.

In 2026, Bro Imtiaz quoted MGA a saying that 400 prophets had revelations which had satanic interference (2:51:20) from a na-pak-ruh (dirty soul aka satan).

In 2026, Bro Imtiaz explained how MGA made Jihaad haraam for Muslims, however, this wasn’t for the British. MGA said that he was ready to die for the British Government, just like his father and elder brother.

Continue reading “Mirza Ghulam Ahmad on 22:52 (22:53 in the Qadiani Quran) in the Barahin (1884)” →

Intro
Per MGA, his claim of prophethood is tied to many verses of the Quran like 62:3, 61:6, 108:1, 1:6 and many others. In fact, in “Correction of an Error” (1901), MGA quoted 72:26 and 72:27 as he argued that he was not only a Nabi but also a Messenger (See pages 6, 8 and 11). MGA was also arguing that the Quranic word Rasul=Nabi and vice versa and this was how MGA was explaining why he was called a Rasul (Messenger). MGA knew that in Islam, this is not true, Rasul’s were just a few and hold a higher rank than the common Nabi. In the below, we have archived all instances of MGA quoting 72:26-27, interestingly, MGA was using this verse in 1898, in Anjam e Athim. MGA used 72:26-27 to argue that he was one of the chosen Messengers of Allah, which is ridiculous. After MGA died, his sons started using 2:4 and 7:35 as they argued that MGA’s prophethood was common. Thus, the concept of the Ummati-Nabi was born.

In Nov-2025, at 13:38, Hadi Ali Chaudhary starts barking, he presents MGA’s argument on May-23-1908, this was about MGA’s prophethood. See Maktubat V-5, pages 542-544. Hadi Ali Chaudhary quoted MGA wherein MGA complained about getting accused of claiming some type of law bearing prophethood. MGA claims to have been given ilm ul ghaib (knowledge of the unseen) more than anyone else (See 72:26).
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
72:26-27 from quran.com

72:26—[He is] Knower of the unseen, and He does not disclose His [knowledge of the] unseen to anyone

72:27–Except whom He has approved of messengers, and indeed, He sends before each messenger and behind him observers
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

1898

Anjam-e-Atham, Ruhani Khaza’in, vol. 11, p.303, footnote, Essence of Islam, online english edition, Vol. 3.

“””The nature of converse with the Divine is that God Almighty bestows the honour of such a dialogue upon one who is wholly devoted to the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) as He granted to earlier Prophets. In this dialogue, the Kalimullah [the servant who is blessed with converse with God] talks to Him like one man to another. He puts a question to God, Who responds to him; even though such question and answer may extend to fifty or more exchanges. Through such dialogue, God Almighty bestows three types of bounties upon His perfect servant:

1. Most of his supplications are granted and he is foretold about their acceptance.
   2. God Almighty discloses many matters of the unseen to him.
   3. The philosophy of many teachings of the Holy Qur’an is revealed to him through revelation.

Whoever rejects me and claims that he himself is blessed with Divine converse, I call upon him in the name of God to compete with me in respect of all these three criteria.  Both of us should write an exegesis on any seven verses of the Holy Qur’an to be agreed upon. My opponent should write on the basis of revelation vouchsafed to him and I shall write on the basis of mine. Each of us should set forth, in advance, some revelations received by him intimating acceptance of prayers and relating to matters beyond human capacity. He should also disclose in advance some hidden matter relating to the future and so should I. Both our statements should be published through posters. Thus truth and falsehood of each party will become evident.

But remember, my opponents will never be able to do this. The hearts of liars have been cursed by God. He will neither disclose to them the light of the Holy Qur’an, nor accept their supplications, nor inform them of such acceptance in advance, nor will He disclose anything of the unseen to them:

‘He reveals not His secrets to anyone, except to him who He chooses, namely a messenger of His.’—Al-Jinn, 72:27-28

Now that I have made this announcement, anyone who neither stands forth against me in the manner set out, nor restrains himself from denouncing me as an impostor, will be under the curse of God, the angels and all the righteous ones. And the only duty of a Messenger is to
convey the message.””””
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
1901

In fact, in “Correction of an Error” (1901), MGA quoted 72:26 and 72:27 as he argued that he was not only a Nabi but also a Messenger (See pages 6, 8 and 11).
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
1906–1907

Haqiqatul Wahy, online english edition, 72:26-27 (72:27-28) is quoted 5 times.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
1908

In Barahin i Ahmadiyya Vol. 5, MGA quotes this verse on page 111 of the online english edition.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
1917

In Muhammad Ali’s famous commentary of 1917, he didn’t address the issue of MGA’s divine revelations (prophethood) and this verse. Nor does he address how MGA could be a metaphoric messenger.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
1988

In Malik Ghulam Farid’s famous 5-volume commentary on the Quran, MGF doesn’t address MGA’s prophethood.
______________________________________________________________________________________________
2025

In Nov-2025, at 13:38, Hadi Ali Chaudhary starts barking, he presents MGA’s argument on May-23-1908, this was about MGA’s prophethood. See Maktubat V-5, pages 542-544. Hadi Ali Chaudhary quoted MGA wherein MGA complained about getting accused of claiming some type of law bearing prophethood. MGA claims to have been given ilm ul ghaib (knowledge of the unseen) more than anyone else (See 72:26).

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Links and Related Essay’s

A Misconception Removed

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad claimed that Quran, 108:1, was also revealed to himself

The concept of the Ummati-Nabi

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

Ahmadi’s claim that Surah Fatiha has a mention of MGA, specifically in the Quran 1:6 (1:7, in the Qadiani Quran)

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

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

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2020/01/27/in-1884-mirza-ghulam-ahmad-claimed-that-the-quran-21107-was-also-revealed-to-him/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2017/12/09/mirza-ghulam-ahmad-was-considered-a-kafir-in-1884-before-his-wild-claims/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2018/02/17/mirza-ghulam-ahmad-quoted-and-commented-on-178-in-1884-in-the-braheen-e-ahmadiyya-vol-4-he-then-connected-178-with-the-return-of-the-messiah/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2020/01/28/in-1884-mirza-ghulam-ahmad-claimed-that-the-quran-6109-4828-and-932-was-also-revealed-to-him/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2019/01/29/khutbah-ilhamia-quotes-the-revealed-sermon-april-11th-1901/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2020/01/27/in-1884-mirza-ghulam-ahmad-claimed-that-the-quran-1016-was-also-revealed-to-him/

A Misconception Removed

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2019/11/28/in-1884-mirza-ghulam-ahmad-was-indirectly-denying-quran-349-as-he-denied-the-miracles-of-esa-as/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2017/12/09/mirza-ghulam-ahmad-was-considered-a-kafir-in-1884-before-his-wild-claims/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2018/02/17/mirza-ghulam-ahmad-quoted-and-commented-on-178-in-1884-in-the-braheen-e-ahmadiyya-vol-4-he-then-connected-178-with-the-return-of-the-messiah/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2018/02/09/during-the-writing-of-braheen-e-ahmadiyya-mga-masked-his-beliefs-he-was-already-asserting-that-esa-as-died/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2016/11/14/what-is-maseel-e-maseeh-the-like-of-the-messiah/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2016/10/27/sir-syeds-view-on-esa-as/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2017/07/16/the-queen-of-the-princely-state-of-bhopal-invested-heavily-1878-into-mirza-ghulam-ahmad-and-his-braheen-they-were-disappointed-by-the-product/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2017/12/26/did-mirza-ghulam-ahmad-claim-to-be-the-messiah-in-1889/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2016/11/14/mga-confuses-all-of-his-readers-in-1891-as-he-claimed-to-be-the-promised-messiah/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2018/03/06/nusrat-jehan-begum-and-other-women-didnt-get-into-to-mgas-bait-in-1889-and-after-were-they-illiterate/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2017/07/17/ahmadiyya-leadership-lied-about-the-first-bait-ceremony-in-1889/

http://www.aaiil.org/text/articles/reviewofreligions/raw/reviewreligionsenglish1908.pdf

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2017/12/09/mirza-ghulam-ahmad-was-accused-of-claiming-prophethood-in-the-1879-1884-era/

______________________________________________________________________________________________
Tags

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

Intro
62:3 (“And [to] others of them who have not yet joined them. And He is the Exalted in Might, the Wise.”— Saheeh International, وَءَاخَرِينَ مِنْهُمْ لَمَّا يَلْحَقُوا۟ بِهِمْ وَهُوَ ٱلْعَزِيزُ ٱلْحَكِيمُ ٣) of the Quran only means that the Muhammad’s message is universal (See Tafsir ibn Kathir) and thus all people of Earth can become Muslims. Ibn Kathir’s famous Quranic commentary even quotes the famous hadith (which Ahmadi’s also quote) and explains how it refers to all non-Arabs who will eventually believe in the truth of the Prophet, nothing more and nothing less. The non-Arabs would even be able to reach the heights of islamic, even if it was as far as the Ath-Thurayya (Pleiades). Further, there is a famous hadith from Bukhari wherein Muhammad (Saw) explains this hadith and says had faith reached the Pleiades, even non arabs could reach it, however, MGA purposely mis-translated this hadith to mean, “bring it down”. Akber Choudhry as fully explained it here in this video. Akber explains how the word “Lau na La who” means, “can reach it”, he also explains how MGA changed it to mean, “bring it down”.

In 1880-1881, MGA argued in Barahin-i-Ahmadiyya V-3 (see page 213) that NO prophet could ever equal Muhammad (saw) in holy excellences.

In 1882, in the Barahin-i-Ahmadiyya Vol. 3, MGA asserted to have been given a divine revelation wherein his God told him, “”Had faith ascended to the Pleiades he would have reached there and brought it down.”” (See page 212, online english edition), thus, MGA was laying the groundwork for his all of his claims.

In 1884, in the BA-4 (see page 373), MGA gets revelations about if faith ascended to the pleiades, he would bring it down.

In 1891, in MGA’s book, Fath-e-Islam (Victory of Islam), however, in all of these instances MGA was only using this verse and hadith to assert that he was a reformer.

By 1891, MGA and his team of writers were asserting that this hadith should be translated as: “will descend with it to the earth”. It should also be noted that Ibn Kathir quotes a Hadith about the prophet SAW mentioning all the men and women from his ummah entering Jannah without being questioned, then quoting the verse “wa aakhareena…” (62:3) and the Hadith explains that this refers to all the remaining ones from among the ummah that will enter into Jannah (see full scan in the below). Even Qurtubi has several Sahaba and Tabi’in telling us that the Aakhareen refer to all Muslims from the non Arabs and the Ta.

In 1893, in Hamamatul Bushra.

In 1893, MGA addresses the issue that Muslims say “Akhireena Minhum is plural” in terms of 62:3 (62:4 in the Kadiani Koran). MGA then falsely argues that Muhammad (Saw) applied it to only one person (this is a lie), Salman Farsi. MGA then argues that this “one person” will be born in an era wherein there are philosophical differences. People would be in a state of extreme weakness. MGA then argues that the Quran called “Abraham” (as) as ummah (many people), however, Abraham (as) was only one person. Razi says further that a great Ummah will be raised, not just one person (See A’ina-e-Kamalat-e-Islam, RK5, page 220-Urdu)(See also Bro Imtiaz, 23:15 timestamp).

In 1898, MGA and his team of writers asserted that MGA being the Promised Messiah had support from the Quran (See Kitab ul Barriya, in the below). Before 1898, MGA and his team don’t seem to have ever used this argument. In the same year, in Ayyam-us-Sulh (written in 1898 and published in 1899), MGA and his team of writers argued that this verse also meant that the followers of the Messiah were just like the early sahaba of Muhammad (saw)(nauzobillah), they received true dreams and divine revelation.

In 1899, MGA argued that anyone could be a prophet, it was easy.

The year 1900 and early 1901 was a transitional phase in MGA’s prophethood (see Haqiqatun Nubuwat, 1915). In the Khutbah ilhamiya, MGA quoted 62:3 and claimed to be the second coming of Muhammad (saw)(nauzobillah), however, this book wasn’t published until 1902
When MGA finally claimed prophethood via the announcement of Nov. 1901 (Correction of an Error), he quoted 62:3 (62:4 in the Qadiani Quran) and emphatically declared himself as the second coming of Muhammad (saw)(Nauzobillah). A few sentences later, MGA called him the perfect reflection (zill)/baruz of Muhammad (saw)(nauzobillah). MGA claims that he was named Muhammad and Ahmad 20 years ago in the Barahin, and was also named “The Holy Prophet” in that era. Thus, MGA was asserting that he had been a prophet/messenger already for 20 years, he was also claiming to have been the second coming of Muhammad (Saw)(nauzobillah) for 20 years. Also in 1901 (see “Eikh Ghalti Ka Izala”), MGA argues that Chapter 108:1 of the Quran was revealed about himself (MGA), however, the verse really applies to Muhammad (saw).

In 1902, in Tohfa-Golarvia, MGA and his team of writers again asserted that MGA=Muhammad (saw)(nauzobillah). After MGA died, these arguments seem to have died off. However, in 1915, the Qadiani-Ahmadi’s revived them, specifically the sons of MGA began to aggressively assert that MGA=Muhammad (saw)(nauzobillah), whereas the Lahori-Ahmadi’s never mentioned this concept ever again. In fact, in Muhammad Ali’s famous commentary of 1917 on 62:3, he refused to mention how MGA wrote that Muhammad (Saw) (nauzobillah)=MGA. However, after 1919, even the Qadiani jamaat stopped making this argument, i.e., Muhammad (saw)(naozobillah)=MGA. In the famous 5-volume commentary of Malik Ghulam Farid (MGF), which was published in 1988. MGF admits that this verse only means, that the message of Muhammad (Saw) wasn’t only for the Arabs, it was universal, however, he again asserted that MGA was the second coming of Muhammad (Saw)(nauzobillah).

in 1901, in “Correction of an Error”, MGA quoted 1:6 and was claiming that Muslims pray daily to be given the same blessings as the prophets, a few years later, he would connect 4:69 with 1:6. In 1915, after the split in the Ahmadiyya movement, the sons of MGA connected 2:4 (2:5 in the Qadiani numbering system, with 1:6 and 4:69, they also added 7:35 and 61:6, as they argued emphatically that MGA was a prophet and had sanction from the Quran. They also argued that MGA had initially believed per 4:64 that prophets didn’t follow other prophets, they only followed Allah, however, after 1901, MGA discovered a new type of prophethood, that had never existed in the Quran and a nabi could be a follower. MGA also began to claim to be greater than Esa (as)(nauzobillah) in this era.

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) 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 pages 62-65).

In 1915 (Jun-29), Maulvi Rajecki made the argument that it was disrespectful to simply call MGA as an “Ummati-Nabi”. Maulvi Rajecki argued that it was like calling Muhammad (Saw) an “Ummati-Nabi”. He went on to argue that MGA=Muhammad (saw)(astagfarullah)(See the al Fazl June 29, 1915, p. 7) via 62:3 (akhireena minhum) and his denial was kufr. The title of the article is “Akhiri zamanay mein ek Rasul ka maboos hona zahir hotha hai aur wo masih mawood hai”. Roughly 60 years later, and during the 1974 NA hearings, Mirza Nasir Ahmad was questioned about this quotation from 1915. He lied and said that this doesn’t exist in any edition and will never be found. In 2026 (May-21), Amir Haq quoted (59:29 timestamp) this exact reference and explained how Maulvi Rajecki had argued that MGA is not simply “ghulam-e-Ahmad”, he is “Ahmad”. Amir Haq also explained how there are other statements of the Maulvi Rajecki wherein he said that only MGA was the second coming of Muhammad (Saw)(naozobillah).

In 1915 (July-15), according to Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmad (the sitting Khalifa), Mirza Ghulam Ahmad referred to Muhammad (ﷺ)‎ as “hilal” and to himself as “badr” (See the Al-Fazl, July-15-1915). Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmad (the sitting Khalifa) alleged that it’s compulsory that the person who denies the second coming (i.e. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad) is a GREATER disbeliever than the one who denies the first coming (i.e. Muhammad ﷺ). Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmad (the sitting Khalifa) said that per the decree of Minhum (per Quran 62:3), it has been established that similar to the followers of previous prophets being Naaji (heavenly group), all others are Naari (hellfire group), Kuffar and outside the realm of Islam. And, to include the deniers of the first coming of Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ)‎ within the fold of Islam is an insult to him and a mockery of the Quranic verses. MGA drew a comparison between the first and second coming, likening them to Hilal and Badr in his Khutbah Ilhamia. This makes it mandatory to acknowledge that the Kuffar of the second coming have surpassed in their kufr those kuffar who rejected the first coming.

In 1998 (Nov), Mirza Tahir Ahmad alleges that 61:7 (61:8 in the Kadiani Koran) is about MGA, he also commented on 62:3 of the Quran (62:4 in the Kadiani Koran).

In 2023, @FikranYusufzai engaged a qadiani-Ahmadi @TahirNasser in terms of the grammar of 62:3. @TahirNasser invented some new arguments that we had never seen before, nevertheless, @FikranYusufzai quickly explained the errors of @TahirNasser. Bro Imtiaz has an excellent stream on this too.

In June of 2025, Maulvi Razi and his team of paid Maulvi’s got caught lying by Adnan Rashid (2:44:40 timestamp) and Bro Imtiaz about many things (see the clips on TikTok and twitter). Maulvi Razi got caught mispresenting Ahmad Reza Khan and Shah Wali Ullah.

In 2026 (Jun), Maulvi Iftekhar Ahmed wrote an article on “When grammar became dangerous: Ibn ‘Ashur, Quran 62:4 and the two inherited readings of ‘wa-akharina minhum’“. In this article, he accused Ibn Ashur in terms of his Quranic exegesis at-Tahrir wa-t-tanwir, at this very verse, he made a move earlier exegetes had not made. He said, in the strongest grammatical language, that the genitive reading is “not permissible” (la yajuz). He did not adopt the inherited accusative reading in its old form either. Instead, as the survey below will show, he rerouted the syntax through “unto them” (‘alayhim) and through an “object accompanying the action” (maf‘ul ma‘ah). The inherited field of possibilities was no longer left open. Maulvi Iftekhar Ahmed also quoted the Tafsir Kitab Allah al-‘Aziz by Hud b. Muhakkam al-Huwwari, an early Ibaadi exegete of the third Hijri century and accused Hud b. Muhakkam al-Huwwari of supporting the Ahmadiyya concept of the 2nd coming of Muhammad (Saw)(naozobillah) and via 62:3 of the Quran (62:4 in the Kadiani Koran).
Continue reading “#Ahmadis believe that 62:3 of the Quran announces that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is the second coming of Muhammad (saw)(Nauzobillah)” →

Intro
There are currently roughly 400k Muslims in Switzerland, of which barely 800 are Ahmadi. We have found an academic essay on #ahmadiwomen in Switzerland from 2012. The Community was founded on October 13, 1946, during the late period of the Second Caliphate, when the caliph directed Shaikh Nasir Ahmad to establish a mission in the country. Today there are two Ahmadi mosques and 14 local branches, representing an estimated 800 Ahmadi Muslims. In 1960, the Swiss government was forced to give the Ahmadiyya community a huge parcel of land for pennies, the local Christian community was outraged.

There are 14 local chapters and an estimated 800 Ahmadis in Switzerland, many of which are descendants of immigrants from Pakistan. There are two Ahmadi Muslim mosques in the country, the Mahmud Mosque, in Zurich and the Nuur Mosque, in Wigoltingen, which is due to undergo construction. Both mosques lie in the German-speaking part of the country. The current national president is Walid Tariq Tarnutzer and the national missionary in-charge is Sadaqat Ahmed (Ahmadiyya Muslim Mosques Around The World – A Pictorical Presentation. Ahmadiyya Muslim Community; Khilafat Centenary Edition. 2008. ISBN 978-1882494514). By 1979, the Ahmadiyya Movement was claiming to have only 1 mission house and 1 mosque in the country.

AK Shaikh claims that the Mirza family kept their money in Swiss banks and thus used Naseem Mahdi in the early 1980’s in this regard (see at the 7:50 mark).

In what seems to be July of 1946, in London, 14 Qadiani-Ahmadi Maulvi’s took a picture together (see Rashid Ahmad’s, “Perseverance”, page 44). The Al-Hakam alleges that 9 of them were sent from Qadian.

In 2025, a woman who was working in Geneva, Switzerland as the ambassador of Tanzania (Koyce Temu?), arrived in the UK on an all expenses paid trip to the UK for the 2025 UK Jalsa and even met with the Khalifa.

In 2026, on an episode of “This Week With Huzoor” (4:25 time stamp), a Swiss convert is seen conversing with the Khalifa. His name is Ataul Haq and he is working as “Qaid Tabligh”. Mirza Masroor Ahmad asks him if he knows Urdu? To this, Ataul Haq winked and gave a signal, at which point Mirza Masroor Ahmad accused him of simply memorizing a few words in Urdu and pretending to know (See the clip on TikTok and Twitter). Ataul Haq alleges that he worked with the Ahmadiyya Movement and held exhibitions in several cities. Only 200 people came, this number was criticized by the Khalifa. The Khalifa admitted that most members of Ahmadiyya in Switzerland are Ansar and it’s a small jamaat. Mirza Masroor Ahmad also spoke to Tahir Mahmood, who is working as “Qaid Maal” (leader of finance). Mirza Masroor Ahmad asked him as to how many Ahmadi’s were making money in Switzerland (Ansarullah)? Tahir Mahmood said that roughly 90% of the males were working. Mirza Masroor Ahmad criticized Tahir Mahmood and urged him to be more accurate in his work. Mirza Masroor Ahmad even said that anyone working in the position of “Qaid Maal” (leader of finance) should know how much money each and every member was making and if they were then paying chanda at the proper rate (See the clip on TikTok and Twitter).

Mirza Masroor Ahmad criticized the members of the Ansarullah Majlis Amila of the Switzerland jamaat for not doing “Waqfe Arzi” (additional volunteer work). Mirza Masroor Ahmad demanded that all of these Ahmadi’s on the Amila of Ansarullah should be forced to do “Waqfe Arzi” (additional volunteer work).
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Standing (Right to Left)
Chaudhry Allah Ditta (Ataullah), Syed Safirud Din (stayed in London), Muhammad Usman Siddique (Sierra Leone), Maulvi Karim ilahi, Maulvi Ghulam Ahmad Bashir (first he went to Switzerland, then the Netherlands), Chaudhary Abdul Latif (first he went to Switzerland, then the Netherlands, then Germany), Hafiz Qudratullah (Netherlands), Chaudhry Zahoor Ahmad Bajwa, M. Ihsaq Saqi (Spain and then Trinidad and Tobago).

Sitting (Right to Left)
Master Muhammad Ibrahim Khalil (Italy and later Sierra Leone), Malik Abdur Rahman, Maulana Jalal ud Din Shams (London), Mushtaq A. Bajwa and Sh. Nasir Ahmad (Zurich, Switzerland).

Continue reading “The history of Ahmadiyya in Switzerland” →

Intro
The arabic phrase “wa ma bayna hum”, in english as “all that is between them” (roughly)(See 21:16, 38:66, 26:24, 26:28, 19:65, 30:8, 15:85). As science has recently proven, dark matter is holding the universe together. Without it, everything would fall apart and universe would end.
Allah tells us in the Quran that there are currently 9 worlds of Allah. The first is heaven (Jannah) of which allah doesn’t give a creation story (thus inferring that it has always existed). The next 7 are the cosmos, in fact the cosmos (samawatay) are 7 parallel universes (see Quran-2:29). Heaven is more expansive then the samawatay and the ardh. In fact, Chapter 3:133 and 57:21, explain how heaven (janaa) is bigger than the Samaa (Cosmos) and the universe wherein the Earth is located (see Suyuti). #Ahmadis also denied the the fact that Adam (as) was created by Allah in heaven, and Eve. Allah then physically sent them both from heaven (janna) through the cosmos (samaa) and finally to Earth.
Continue reading “Dark Matter is discussed by Allah in the Quran” →

Intro
#Ahmadis are always working backwards. Since they need to create arguments that support the family business of the Mirza family, they are constantly searching for new arguments. In 1947, Dard argued that Aaron (as) was subordinate to Musa (as). Dard was trying to make a parallel between MGA and Harun (as), and thus twisted 2:133, 20:30, 7:151, 7:143, 20:95, 20:94, and a few others. Nevertheless, Harun (as) was an independent nabi from Allah. He followed his own Kitab (revelations), not much is known of them however, nor were they written down. Aaron (as) had the same mission as Moses (as) they were both sent together (see 10:75). Remember, in the Quran, we are told that a Prophet only follows Allah (see 4:64), not other prophets.
Continue reading “Hazrat Harun (as) was an independent prophet, not an Ummati-Nabi” →