ahmadiyyafactcheckblog

Intro
In 2011, Maulvi Iftekhar Ahmed was contacted regarding this answer given by Mirza Masroor Ahmad. A critic said that this was wrong & the Prophet (saw) had said that one would stay in the grave (qabr) or barzakh after death and would go to Paradise/Hell only after the Day of Resurrection (yawm al-qiyāmah). (1/24) He said that according to “all” scholars one would stay in the grave & the destined dweller of Paradise/Hell would have a window to see his place in Paradise/Hell, and that what Ḥuḍūr (aba) had said would be contrary to the sources of Islam, i.e. the Qur’ān and Sunnah. (2/24).

In 2020, check out his comments vs. Naureen Ghaury vs. the German Ahmadiyya Jamaat.

In 2023, a Qadiani-Ahmadi Maulvi from Germany named Iftekhar Ahmed showed up to the stream with Dawah Wise and discussed and a shorter version on Dialogue with Imtiaz. He came on the stream and claimed that there isn’t ijma on anything in Islam. This directly contradicts MGA, who claimed that the first ever ijma happened on the alleged death of Eisa (as) when Muhammad (saw) died (see 3:144 of the quran). He was soooo unprepared, he claimed that Tuwuffa only has 2 meanings in the Quran. He also has no idea about the “Yuz Asaf Theory”.

In 2024 (Oct-Nov), Maulvi Iftekhar Ahmed alleged that Muhammad (Saw) used harsh words (naozobillah). He quotes Mishkat Al-Masabih and alleges that Muhammad (Saw) compared “”corrupt religious scholars to apes and swine”” and accused them of being “The Worst Creatures Under the Canopy of the Heavens”. Maulvi Iftekhar Ahmed also explained how this was a “statement of fact”. However, he didn’t even give a proper reference so that we can double check it, he seems to have presented 2 quotes into one. We have only found this one in terms of apes (from Sunnah.com) and “worst creatures”.

In 2026, I saw some statements by Maulvi Iftekhar Ahmed on twitter about MGA and the Chanda scam (Wasiyyat scam). In the course of this conversation, Maulvi Iftekhar Ahmed said that MGA said: “Prayer in a mosque built by a girl (Kanchani) is not valid” (See Al-Hakam, No. 19, Vol. 7, dated 24 April 1903, p. 11), MGA also said that in terms of Buildings, etc., made from bribery or other unlawful wealth, MGA said that “The ruling of the Sharia is that he should repent. Whoever has the right to that property should have it returned to him” (See Al-Badr, No. 10, Vol. 2, dated 27 March 1903, p. 76). I showed Maulvi Iftekhar how MGA said the opposite and he quickly disengaged, the topic was Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s fatwa on money from Prostitutes or Haraam means.

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).

In 2026 (Aug), Maulvi Ifetkhar Ahmad posted all over twitter and alleged that MGA only didn’t partial Takfir of Muslims. Maulvi Iftekhar Ahmad alleged that there was a 1941 edition of Kalimatul Fasl and 8 years later, in 1953 (See the tweets), Mirza Bashir Ahmad admitted that he made a mistake on Ahmadiyya Takfir in the 1915-1916 edition of Kalimatul Fasl. Maulvi Ifetkhar Ahmad also argued that the first edition had been taken to mean that the Jamāʿat had been “completely severed from the other Muslims”. His answer is unambiguous: “this was never the purport of my writing”. The 1941 edition was expanded specifically to remove that misunderstanding. Maulvi Ifetkhar Ahmad alleged that Mirza Bashir Ahmad said the passage did not mean Aḥmadīs and other Muslims had been completely cut off from one another, and explained that some expressions there were special terminology shaped by that particular polemical setting. Maulvi Ifetkhar Ahmad alleges that Mirza Bashir Ahmad then addresses the very category now being invoked: “We have never, in the millī sense, cut ourselves off from the other Muslims and declared ourselves a separate Ummah.” He also says Aḥmadīs and other Muslims are together in being included in the Ummah Muḥammadiyyah. Maulvi Ifetkhar Ahmad alleges that Mirza Bashir Ahmad said that his 14-year-old student-era comment rescue the argument. I refused to treat non-Aḥmadīs indiscriminately as kuffār bi-llāh, bi-rasūli llāh or bi-dīn al-Islām, while calling rejection of MGA is kufr in relation to him.

In 2026 (Aug), per Maulvi Iftekhar Ahmad (See his tweets), MGA and his team of writers argued that to confine God’s perfect power within bounded laws would therefore make the unlimited limited (See BA, RK-1, pages 480-481-Urdu)(page 230, online English edition).

Continue reading “Who is Maulvi Iftekhar Ahmed, an Ahmadi Maulvi working in Germany” →

Intro
In Part-1 of Izala Auham was written from 1889–1890, published between June 1891 and August 1891, MGA said that Eisa (as) was actually put on the cross (pure Kufr) and thus, totally copied Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, who had said the same thing about 10-15 years previously. A worker of Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, Chiragh Ali was the first Muslim ever to claim that Esa (as) was actually hung (salaboohoo)(1876). Check out Bro Imtiaz has he explains this issue on his youtube channel. Razi said all the mujadid’s and muffassir’s were wrong on Eisa (as) not being on the cross, they were united in misguidance for 1300 years (which is against a famous hadith). Ironically, in Anjam-e-Athim (see RK vol, 11, p. 143-144), MGA says that anyone who disagrees with the ijma of the sahaba will have the curse of Allah upon them. 

No Mufassir of Islam had ever written so. In fact, Ibn Hazm said that anyone who thinks that Eisa (as) was put on the cross is a Kafir. All Muslims before Sir Syed Ahmad Khan said that Eisa (as) was never on the cross. Qadiani’s quote modernist like Zakir Naik and others who have surmised that Eisa (as) was put on the cross and survived. However, all of these are Indian’s with connections to the Aligarh Movement and thus have scant beliefs.

Continue reading “In 1890, MGA copied Sir Syed and claimed that Eisa (as) was actually put on the cross” →

Intro
On yesterday’s livestream, Imtiaz proved that no Muslim (before Sir Syed in the 1870’s) ever wrote that Eisa (as) was on the cross. Razi was cornered and immediately lied about a Muslim scholar from the past, this time he chose Abdul Majid Dariyabadi, who was a modernist and thus didn’t even fall into the category that Razi was being pressed on. The truth is that Abdul Majid Dariyabadi was an Atheist in 1918-1920 (he was barely 28 years old) and he read the English commentary (1917) of the Quran by a Lahori-Ahmadi (Maulvi Muhammad Ali) and was impressed. Thus, it is proven, that Abdul Majid Dariyabadi praised the Lahori-Ahmadi Maulvi Muhammad Ali and his version of who MGA was, not the Qadiani version. Nevertheless, he called Lahori-Ahmadi’s as “Qadiani’s”.

Nevertheless, Razi to argue that in the early-to-mid 1900’s, Abdul Majid Dariyabadi also said that Eisa (as) was on the cross. However, as Al-Yemeni, Adnan and Imtiaz saw the scan work, they quickly realized how Razi was lying. Al-Yemeni, Adnan and Imtiaz pointed out how in the commentary of 4:157 (that Razi showed), Abdul Majid Dariyabadi said that Eisa (as) was never even “sent to be on the cross” (1:46:00 time stamp). In fact, Abdul Majid Dariyabadi even quoted Shah Wali Ullah and Abdul Qadir Jilani and Ghulam Athanvi who also believed that Eisa (as) was never on the cross.

Razi was proved to be a liar, it was so bad that he admitted that he made a mistake, which he has never done in his life. Razi was quoting a different page wherein Abdul Majid Dariyabadi was explaining how crucifixtion is done by death on the cross. However, Abdul Majid Dariyabadi was only explaining what crucifixiton is. Where did Razi learn this level of lying?? From MGA!!!  MGA lied on Bukhari, Ibn Taymiyyah, Imam Malik, Ibn Qayyim and many others.

In the past, Qadiani-Ahmadi’s have also tried to quote Abdul Majid Dariyabadi in terms of Muslims who refrained from calling Ahmadi’s as Kafir‘s.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
1925
Are Ahmadis Not True Muslims (alislam.org)
(Al-Fazl, 21 March 1925, p. 7, no. 104, vol. 12)

“”The type of prophethood that the late Mirza Sahib ascribes towards himself is the same as every Muslim’s belief about the expected Messiah. This is clearly a belief which is not
against the concept of Khatm-e-Nubuwwat. Thus, if Ahmadiyyat is the same as is evident from the writings of the late Mirza Sahib, the Founder of the Community, then to declare them apostates would be a great wrong.””
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
1934
Chapter 3: Later Translations: Abdul Majid Daryabadi rescued from agnosticism – Islam Ahmadiyya – alahmadiyya.org
1934, in the Urdu newspaper, Such (‘Truth’)
Newspaper Such, Lucknow, 25 June 1934; see Paigham Sulh, 3 August 1934, p. 3, col. 2. 

“To deny the excellence of Maulvi Muhammad Ali’s trans­lation, the influence it has exercised and its prosely­tising utility, would be to deny the light of the sun. The translation certainly helped in bringing thousands of non-Muslims to the Muslim fold and hundreds of thousands of unbelievers much nearer Islam. Speaking of my own self, I gladly admit that this translation was one of the few books which brought me towards Islam fifteen or sixteen years ago when I was groping in darkness, atheism and scepticism. Even Maulana Muhammad Ali [Jauhar] of the Comrade was greatly enthralled by this translation and had nothing but praise for it.”
______________________________________________________________________________________________
1952
ahmadiyya-case.pdf

“Recently, by co-incidence, I found an example of it in the poetry of Maulana Rumi. And that too, not in some apocryphal work, but in the renowned and famous, authentic book Masnawi. Regarding the status and excellence of the spiritual guide it is written:

‘When you give your hand into the hand of a spiritual guide, you seek to imbibe wisdom as the mentor is the knowing and discerning. O disciple, he is a prophet of his time, as his person radiates the light of the Prophet.’

“It is clearly stated here that the perfect spiritual guide is the prophet of the time because he reflects the light of prophethood. Great theologians, philosophers, and spiritual men have written commentaries on the Masnawi, but none of them took exception to this form of expression. Rumi’s own son, Sultan Walad, has made the following comment:

‘The exaggeration in likening a saint to a prophet refers to the penetrating effect of his guidance; otherwise, at no time was prophethood thinkable after the Holy Prophet Muhammad.’ — Masnawi, vol. v, p. 67, footnote 13, printed at Kanpur.

“Obviously we will still call it lacking in due caution, but it is equally obvious that instances of such lack of caution are to be found in the writings of the great religious leaders of classical times.” (Newspaper Sidq Jadeed, 8 August 1952).
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
1975

Ahmadiyya authors quote him in the Muslim Sunrise of Jan-1975. They then repost a letter from Daryabadi’s newspaper, “Sidqe Jadid” on 10-25-74. This writing seems to be a response to a 3-page letter that he got (from what seems to be an Ahmadi) and has to do with Qadiani’s and Lahori’s Ahmadi’s getting declared Non-Muslim. The quote seems to be incomplete.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
1979
Aap Beti, Shadab Book Centre, Lahore, 1979, pp. 254 – 255
Chapter 3: Later Translations: Abdul Majid Daryabadi rescued from agnosticism – Islam Ahmadiyya – alahmadiyya.org

“By these gradual inner changes, I was slowly returning to Islam. In fact, I had become more than fifty percent Muslim when in October 1920 during a journey to the Deccan I had occasion to stay with a relative Nazir Yar Jang, a judge, at Orangabad. In his English library my eye fell on the English translation and commentary of the Holy Quran by Muhammad Ali of Lahore, the Ahmadi (Qadiani in common parlance). Feeling restless, I took it from the cupboard and started to read it. As I read through it, praise be to Allah, my faith kept on increasing. The necessary result of the Westernised mentality which dominated over my mind at that time was that the very same explanations which, when expressed in Urdu, had no effect on me and seemed uninspiring, in English garb they became effective and life-giving. Whether this be self-delusion or not, in my case it was a reality.

When I finished reading this English Quran, on searching my soul I found myself to be a Muslim. Now I was able to recite the Kalima unhesitatingly, without deceiving my conscience. May Allah grant this Muhammad Ali paradise in every way! I am not concerned with the question whether his belief about Mirza [Ghulam Ahmad] sahib was right or wrong. Whatever the case, what should I do about my personal experience? He was the one who put the last nail in the coffin of my unbelief and apostasy.””
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
2024
https://youtu.be/iDj07T7j4mY?si=pRhAk5m9CMDYrhCM

Razi quotes some random person (doesn’t give his name) and alleges that he Daryabadi said that MGA’s face had Noor in it.

Scans

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Links and Related Essay’s

Did some Deobandi Scholars refuse to call MGA a Kafir?? – ahmadiyyafactcheckblog

Sir Syed Ahmad Khan and the Ahmadiyya Movement – ahmadiyyafactcheckblog

Did some Deobandi Scholars refuse to call MGA a Kafir?? – ahmadiyyafactcheckblog

(2) #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog on X: “Razi caught lying!! #ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog #messiahhascome #ahmadiyyat #trueislam #ahmadianswers #ahmadiyyamuslimcommunity #ahmadiyya_creatives #ahmadiyyatthetrueislam #ahmadiyyatzindabad #ahmadiyyatrueislam #ahmadiyyamuslim #mirzaghulamahmad #qadiani #qadianism https://t.co/FkHPfMxtkA” / X (twitter.com)

Chapter 3: Later Translations: Abdul Majid Daryabadi rescued from agnosticism – Islam Ahmadiyya – alahmadiyya.org

aaiil.org/Files/Literatures/Books/101/muhammadalienglishholyquran1917.pdf

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Tags

#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog #messiahhascome #ahmadiyyat #trueislam #ahmadianswers #ahmadiyyamuslimcommunity #ahmadiyya_creatives #ahmadiyyatthetrueislam #ahmadiyyatzindabad #ahmadiyyatrueislam #ahmadiyyamuslim #mirzaghulamahmad #qadiani #qadianism

Intro
In 1882, via Barahin-i-Ahmadiyya (Vol. 3)(see page 199), MGA claimed that a few years earlier (late 1870’s), he was short on money for the Barahin project (300 arguments) and abruptly received a revelation which is identical to 19:25 of the Quran (see the full quote in the below). It should be noted that in 19:25 (19:26 in the Kadiani Koran) Maryam was referred as feminine, but in MGA’s version of 19:25 (19:26 in the Kadiani Koran), Maryam is referred to in the masculine way. See also my essay about MGA and 66:12.

In 1884, via a letter to Mir Abbas Ali (See 2018-2019 edition of tadhkirah, page 87), MGA claimed that 66:12 of the Quran was about him, and not Maryam.

By 1900, MGA was addressing his lost revelations about having menses (menstruation).

In 1902, via Noah’s Ark (see pages 82-83), MGA said that he was named Maryam in this very same revelation 20 years earlier, and he argues that he has suffered like Maryam (see the full quote in the below).

In 1909, via Nuzul ul Maseeh, MGA said: “the only difference being that Mary was then suffering from physical exhaustion and I was suffering from lack of financial means”.

In 1988, Malik Ghulam Farid connected MGA to 21:92 directly (see the 2018 edition).

Continue reading “Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and 19:25 of the Quran and how he got pregnant as pseudo Maryam (19:26 in the Kadiani Koran)” →

Intro
In 1896, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad offering to spy for the colonial government against freedom fighters (who wishes to expel the colonial rule). He asked for a holiday on Friday so that rebels are forced to pray jummah for us to catch them. Not much has changed, even in 2023, the Ahmadiyya Movement is working on the side of the British and accusing Muslims of lip service.

In the below, you will see MGA offering to spy on Muslims to prove that they aren’t really loyal to the British (See MAJMOO`AH, v. 2, pp. 227-228)(See also Nuzhat Haneef, pages 243-246).

The Requesters
The People of Islaam, Loyal Subjects of the Government of British India
Who do Not Consider This Country to be Daar-ul-Harb
January 1, 1896 AD

____________________________________________________________________________________________
Links and Related Essay’s

Microsoft Word – Haneef_Ahmadiyya_turquoise_09-23-04.doc (ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com)

Adnan Rashid on X: “Razi do you even read what you post? You just posted a crucial piece of evidence that shows Mirza was advising the colonial government how to catch freedom fighters. He asked for a holiday on Friday so that rebels are forced to pray jummah for us to catch them. He was a traitor.” / X (twitter.com)

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Tags

#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog #messiahhascome #ahmadiyyat #trueislam #ahmadianswers #ahmadiyyamuslimcommunity #ahmadiyya_creatives #ahmadiyyatthetrueislam #ahmadiyyatzindabad #ahmadiyyatrueislam #ahmadiyyamuslim #mirzaghulamahmad #qadiani #qadianism

Intro
Imam Bayhaqi tells us that when Tabarani said that Eisa (as) will live up til the age of 120, he meant on his second coming (See Dala’il al-Nubuwwah [The Signs of Prophethood], page 166)(See the scan in the below). Thus, the Qadianis are caught again red-handed telling lies and misrepresenting authors.

In 1891, when MGA made his wild claims, he was also asserting that Esa (As) died at roughly age 33 and was buried somewhere. About a year later, in 1892, MGA began to say that Esa (As) lived to age 120 and indirectly quoted the saying of Aisha, which was also recorded in Kanzul Ummul (See Nishan Asmani, page 19)(MGA was quoting Tabrani [spelled as Tibrani] and Al-Hakam). In 1895, via Satt Bachan (we don’t have the original edition), MGA quotes Tabarani and claims that Eisa (as) was the travelling prophet and lived 87 years after the event of crucifixtion (up to age 120-125).

Continue reading “Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was academically dishonest, since he quoted Tabarani, and said that Eisa (as) already died at 120-125” →

Intro
Wahb ibn Munabbih is called a liar in the ROR of March-1924.

Some scholars like Imam Malik and Ibn Hazm seem to have sided with the view that Eisa (as) died for a few hours and then was physically raised (Rafa’a) towards Allah. However, all of the scholars also believed in the physical return of Eisa (as) and all the verses of the Quran that speak about this, as well as the miracles of Eisa (as). We have also quoted Qurtubi in the below, since he talks about Wahb ibn Munabbih.

Nevertheless, this tradition goes back to Wahb ibn Munabbih, who was well known among the Tabi‘in and a narrator of Isra’iliyat (and thus unreliable). Ibn Ishaq narrates this story in his history book. This story is also quoted by Imam Tabari (ibn Jarir). Imam Tabari in his Tafsir has recorded the various interpretations of متوفيك. One of those is that it means death. Under this category Tabari records three narrations. The first is the one of Ibn Abbas, the second is of Ibn Ishaq narrating from Wahb ibn Munabbih that Jesus was dead for some time and then resurrected, and the third is of Ibn Ishaq saying that the Christians claim that he was dead for a certain period and then returned to life. ibb.co/djvGWxC

Wahb’s father, Munabbih ibn Kamil, had been a convert to Islam and a companion of Muhammad. Wahb himself had turned from Judaism to Islam, according to Al-Tibr al-Masluk (ed. 1306 A.H., p. 41). Other biographers such as Al-Nawawi and Ibn Khallikan, did not write that he was Jewish. The fact that he was well versed in the Isra’iliyyat, on which he wrote much, probably gave rise to the statement that he was Jewish, although he might have acquired his knowledge from his teacher Ibn ‘Abbas.

Wahb was made a judge during the reign of Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz.

He died at the age of ninety, in a year variously given by Arabic authorities as 725, 728, 732, and 737 CE, sources placing for instance his death in San’aa in 110 AH (728/8 CE) at the beginning of the reign of Hisham ibn Abd al-Malik, or in 114 AH (732/3 CE). Yaqut agreed with the latter in his book, Mu’jamul-Udabaa.

His full name is given as “Abu ‘Abd Allah al-Ṣana’ani al-Dhimari”, or Wahb ibn Munabbih ibn Kamil ibn Sirajud-Din Dhee Kibaar Abu-Abdullah al-Yamani al-San’ani.

In 2026 (Jul-4), Sheikh Asrar Rashid streamed with Bro Imtiaz and explained how Wahb ibn Munabbih (24:01 time stamp) mentioned that Eisa (as) died for a few hours and this is from Al-Tabari. Sheikh Asrar Rashid explains how a Mutazilite person named al-Jubba’i said that Eisa (as) was raised physically.

Continue reading “Wahb ibn Munabbih said that Jesus was dead for some time (a few hours) and then Rafa’a” →

Intro
Nowadays, #Ahmadis are on social media lying and telling people that MGA never claimed to be the reincarnation of Eisa (as), Muhammad (Saw) and many others. However, MGA straight up claimed it in 1900, via “The British Government and Jihad”(see pages 32-34). You can also listen to Amir Haq explaining it herein.

In 1903, via “Sanatan Dharam”, MGA clearly said that the word autar [avatar] is used for Prophets and Messengers on whom descends the light of Parmeshwar (see page 16).

Moreover, MGA even claimed that Muhammad (Saw) is the baruz of Musa (as) (astagfarullah).

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 1899
Sitarah Qaisariyyah, Ruhani Khaza’in, vol. 15, pp. 120-121
2:13:00 time stamp

MGA says his spirit is the “Baruz” of Jesus, and he wants to present this to the Queen (2:13:00 time stamp).

Scan
______________________________________________________________________________________________
1900
Government Angrezi Aur Jihad, RK-17, page 26
“The British Government and Jihad”(see pages 32-34)

2:14:00

MGA claims to be the “avatar” of Eisa (as)(2:14:00).

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
1903
The Sanatan Faith (alislam.cloud)

“””As far as the Avatars are concerned, in Sanskrit, the word autar [avatar] is used for Prophets and Messengers on whom descends the light of Parmeshwar.””

In 1903, via “Sanatan Dharam”, MGA clearly said that the word autar [avatar] is used for Prophets and Messengers on whom descends the light of Parmeshwar (see page 16).
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Links and Related Essay’s

The British Government and Jihad (alislam.org)

MGA even claimed that Muhammad (Saw) is the baruz of Musa (as) (astagfarullah) – ahmadiyyafactcheckblog

The Sanatan Faith (alislam.cloud)

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Tags

#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog #messiahhascome #ahmadiyyat #trueislam #ahmadianswers #ahmadiyyamuslimcommunity #ahmadiyya_creatives #ahmadiyyatthetrueislam #ahmadiyyatzindabad #ahmadiyyatrueislam #ahmadiyyamuslim #mirzaghulamahmad #qadiani #qadianism

Intro
Ibn Ḥazm, famously a maverick, declares in his Muḥallā that a Muslim who believes that Jesus was crucified, “is an infidel apostate whose blood may be shed and wealth seized, for he disbelieves the Qurʾan and contravenes consensus.”

Continue reading “Ibn Hazm considered #Ahmadis as Kafirs (Wajib ul Qatl), since they believe that Eisa (as) was partially crucified” →