Intro
MGA never used “ilzami Jawab” against Muslims, this is a myth and lie spread by the Qadiani-Ahmadi Mullahs like Razi.
In 1891, MGA used “Christian beliefs” against Muslims (See Bro Imtiaz, timestamp-2:57:43), one example is how MGA accused Eisa (as) of learning mesmerism. Also, check out @IslaamWins explaining ilzaami jawab vs. the #Qadianis.
In 1892-1893 (See A’ina-e-Kamalat-e-Islam, page 598, online English edition), MGA and his team of writers wrote vs. Batalvi. They alleged that Batalvi was making wild allegations against MGA just like how true prophets like Musa (as) and Eisa (as) were accused. MGA alleged that these allegations were good behavior, however, it was reported as vile behavior. MGA and his team of writers gave the example of Eisa (as) going into a home of an adulteress and allowing her to use perfume on his body, however, this perfume, she had not earned lawfully and Eisa (as) never stopped her too. MGA and his team of writers argued that these were good behaviors in the shape of words and deeds, which are considered utterly absurd and disgraceful in the view of men like Batalvi.
In 1895, MGA alleged that via the Bible, a beautiful prostitute is sitting so close to Jesus as though she is embracing him. Sometimes she massages his head with perfume or holds his feet, and sometimes she lays her beautiful black hair on his feet and plays in his lap. In this situation Mr. Messiah is sitting in ecstasy. If someone rises to object he is scolded. Besides his young age, the habit of alcoholism and being a bachelor, a beautiful prostitute is lying in front of him touching her body with his. Is this the behavior of a virtuous person? And what evidence or proof is there that Jesus did not get sexually aroused by the touch of the prostitute? Alas! Jesus could not even have the facility of sexual intercourse with a wife of his own after passing his glance upon that adulteress. What sexual excitement would have been provoked by the touching of that wretched adulteress and her playfulness! The sexual excitement and arousal would have done its work to the extreme. This is the reason why Jesus could not even open his mouth to say, ‘Oh adulteress! Keep away from me’. It is well established in the Bible that that woman was one of the prostitutes, notorious for adultery in the entire city (See Nur-ul-Quran, Roohani Khazain vol 9 p.449).
In 1897-1898, MGA alleged that Jesus had an inclination for prostitutes, perhaps due to his ancestral relationship with them, otherwise no pious man could allow a young prostitute to touch his head with her filthy hands and massage his head with the unclean perfume purchased with the earnings of adultery and rub his feet with her hair. Let the intelligent judge what sort of character such a person must possess (See Zamimah Anjam Atham, Roohani Khazain Vol 11 p.291).
In the 1899-1902 era (See RK-15, p. 461, Tiryaqul-Qulub), “”in the same way, the enemies of Hadhrat Eisa (As) have objected that he was not bound by piety. so a wicked woman had a perfume on and she brought with the wealth of immorality on his head and her hair on his feet and a young and prostitute touching their bodies and putting forbidden oil on their heads and using their limbs to make their own. It is an act that a pious person can never commit. Also the Messiah allowing his disciples to eat the grain of a strangers field without the owner’s permission indicates that God forbid, Jesus did not care for trust and honesty. These are the objections that the Jews have raised against the Messiah”” (See also Bro Imtiaz, 2:18:51 on 2-3-24 and 1:28:11 on 4-11-26).
In 1902, after alleging that Eisa (as) was fond of prostitutes in many books (See A’ina-e-Kamalat-e-Islam, RK, v5, p597-Urdu)(See Nur-ul-Quran, RK-v9 p.449-Urdu)(Zamimah Anjam Atham, RK, V-11 p.291)(2016 edition of Malfuzat, Volume-3, Page 279-Urdu, Initially Published in Rabwah, 1961, in Urdu, covering the period from November 1901 to October 14, 1902), MGA added the argument that Eisa (as) was getting oil massages from prostitutes while Allah was revealing the injil to him (See Malfuzat, Vol. 3, page 289-Urdu,1903, via Al hakam Jild 6 number 40. 10 Nov 1902 pg 3).
In 1902, MGA alleged that Maseeh (Jesus) was not more pious than the righteous people of that period. Rather the Prophet Yahya (John) is superior to Maseeh because he did not drink alcohol and it was never heard that an unchaste woman came and anointed him with perfume of her unchaste earning or touched his body with her hands and hair. Or some non-mahram young women came to his service. That is the reason God called Yahya in Quran as Husoor (chaste) but He did not use such a name for Maseeh as such stories were prohibitive to name him so. Further, Hazrat Isa (AS) repented for his sins at the hands of Yahya who is called John by Christians and was made Elijah later on (See RK-18, page-220, page 3 of the online English edition.
In 1906-1907, via Haqiqatul Wahi (RK-22, page 537)(page 675, online English edition), MGA and his team of writers allege that they came across a book wherein a learned Jew made accusations about Eisa (As), like an illegitimate birth, bad character and prostitutes serving him in an unbecoming manner (See Razi presenting this on Dawah Wise on 2-3-24, 2:19:00 time stamp and Bro Imtiaz on 4-11-26, 1:28:46 time stamp).
In 1908, MGA encouraged Ahmadi’s to use “ilzami-jawab” vs. Christians when they disrespect the prophet Muhammad (Saw)(See Chashma-e-Ma‘rifat, Ruhani Khaza’in, Vol. 23, page 389, via bro Imtiaz, 26:28 time stamp)(See also Malfuzat, Vol. 9, page 479, 1984 edition-Urdu).
In 1923, Dr. Mir Muhammad Isma‘il (MGA’s brother-in-law), reported to Mirza Bashir Ahmad that Mawlawi Nur ad-Din, the First Caliph, had this special characteristic that he could silence an objector or opponent in just one or two sentences, and he often gave ilzami responses. However, the method of MGA was that when someone raised an objection, he would always give a detailed and demonstrative (tahqiqi) response, clarifying the issue from multiple angles. His aim was not merely to silence the objector, but rather to ensure that the truth would somehow become firmly established in their mind (See Mirza Bashir Ahmad, 1923, Sirat al-Mahdi, Rabwah: Nizarat-e Isha‘at, Vol. 2., p. 20)(See also Ilzam as dialectical refutation in Islamic thought: Aristotelian origins and the argumentum ex concessis tradition).
“Dr. Mir Muhammad Isma‘il related to me that Mawlawi Nur ad-Din, the First Caliph, had this special characteristic that he could silence an objector or opponent in just one or two sentences, and he often gave ilzami responses. However, the method of MGA was that when someone raised an objection, he would always give a detailed and demonstrative (tahqiqi) response, clarifying the issue from multiple angles. His aim was not merely to silence the objector, but rather to ensure that the truth would somehow become firmly established in their mind.”
In 2023 (Dec), Bro Adnan (1:38:19 time stamp) explained how Muslims used “ilzami-jawab” vs. Christians. Bro Adnan further explained how Muslims used the beliefs of Christians as “ilzami jawab” as they broke the cross (see the case of Rahmatullah Kairanwi).
In 2024 (Feb-3), Bro Imtiaz streamed on Dawah Wise (30:10 time stamp) and explained how MGA made the argument that Eisa (as) was getting oil massages from prostitutes while Allah was revealing the injil to him (See Malfuzat, Vol. 3, page 289-Urdu,1903, via Al hakam Jild 6 number 40. 10 Nov 1902 pg 3).
In 2026 (38:24 timestamp), in response to this, in March-2026, Maulvi Razi alleged that MGA wasn’t quoting the Bible word-for-word when he alleged that “Eisa (as) was getting oil massages from prostitutes while Allah was revealing the injil to him”. Maulvi Razi also called it “ilzami jawab”. However, in all of Razi’s references, there wasn’t a single example of anyone else alleging that “Eisa (as) was getting oil massages from prostitutes while Allah was revealing the injil to him”, that remains unique to MGA. Maulvi Razi also called it “Istadlaal” (Reasoning) via ilzami jawab. Maulvi Razi even blamed Muslim ulema in some commentaries for adding stories (See the clip on Tiktok and Twitter). As far as going into the house of a prostitute, MGA wrote this in A’ina-e-Kamalat-e-Islam, page 598, online English edition, however, that is not the case in Luke 7:36-50. In Luke 7:36-50, Jesus was invited to the house of the Pharisees, not some adulteress.
In 2026 (46:50), Bro Imtiaz mentioned how MGA accused Eisa (as) of getting oil massages whilst simultaneously getting the injil revealed by angels, via Allah.
In 2026, (12:29 time stamp) Mirza Masroor Ahmad encouraged German Ahmadi’s to do “ilzami-jawab” in politics, specifically vs. Israel and the USA.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 1908
Chashma-e-Ma‘rifat, Ruhani Khaza’in, Vol. 23, page 389
26:28 time stamp
“””..it is obvious that how much respect and reverence Muslims have for Hazrat Eisa (as) and him as God’s beloved messenger and chosen one, but when a bigoted priest does not stop disrespecting the Prophet Muhammad (saw), and if his foul language goes beyond the limit, only then a Muslim, who has been hurt by the priest’s words, gives a reply that the priest finds harsh, it is an accusatory answer, but still their method (of answering) does not go beyond the boundaries of respect, rather (Muslims) still keeps good intentions in his heart. Because in Islam, disrespecting a prophet is disbelief, and it is obligatory to believe in all the prophets. So Muslims face great difficulties because they have loved ones on both sides, but it is better to be patient with the ignorant ones. It is because it is severe disobedience to even hint an insult to any prophet and it is the cause of divine wrath…”
Scans
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Majmua Ishtiharat, Vol. 3, Page 544, 1989 edition
“”Some ignorant Muslims say some harsh words against Prophet Jesus (as), when responding to the foul language of a Christian against Prophet Muhammad (saw)…”.
Scan
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Malfuzat, Vol. 9, page 479, 1984 edition
“””…When we are deeply hurt and unjustified attacks of all kinds are made on our Holy Prophet (Saw), only then, as a warning, we retaliate in kind on the basis of their (Christians) own authentic books….they aught to poiunt out in my writings anything which I have written as a retaliatory response and it is not found in the gospels…after all, it is not possible for me that on hearing the insult of the Holy Prophet (saw), I remain silent..”””
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Malfuzat, Vol. , pages 335-336
“””…It remains clear that sometimes harsh words are used when replying to the Christians, so it is quite clear that when our feelings are hurt and all kinds of unjustified attacks are made on our Prophet (Saw), only for the sake of warning, ilzami jawab (accusative answer), from their authentic books, which are binding on them, are given. These people should point out anything that we have written as an accusative answer about Hazrat Eisa (as) and that is not found in the Gospel….”””
Scan
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Malfuzat Vol. 6, page 282, 1984 edition
“….But when having argumentation with the Christians, they are not content until Jesus (as) is called God or son of God. Therefore, what their book contains has to be shown to them, in order to defeat this great disbelief (that Jesus is God)…”””
Scan
_____________________________________________________________________________________________1903, Malfuzat, Vol. 3, page 289
“”…in a discussion, there is nothing for the Christians, except humiliation and regret. Before attacking others, clean your own house! If they object over Moses (as) killing a man, then that incident is before the revelation of the Torah. But what happened to the Messiah that he was getting an oil massage from a prostitute, and while Gospel was being revealed to him..”
Scan
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
1923
(Mirza Bashir Ahmad, 2008, Sirat al-Mahdi, Rabwah: Nizarat-e Isha‘at, Vol. 2., p. 20)
Ilzam as dialectical refutation in Islamic thought: Aristotelian origins and the argumentum ex concessis tradition
“Dr. Mir Muhammad Isma‘il related to me that Mawlawi Nur ad-Din, the First Caliph, had this special characteristic that he could silence an objector or opponent in just one or two sentences, and he often gave ilzami responses. However, the method of MGA was that when someone raised an objection, he would always give a detailed and demonstrative (tahqiqi) response, clarifying the issue from multiple angles. His aim was not merely to silence the objector, but rather to ensure that the truth would somehow become firmly established in their mind.”
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
1931
July-30
Al-Fazl
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Links and Related Essay’s
Rahmatullah Kairanawi in Ahmadiyya literature – ahmadiyyafactcheckblog
Chashma’-e-Ma‘rifat (May-1908) quotes and background information – ahmadiyyafactcheckblog
https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2020/03/17/chashma-e-marifat-quotes-and-background-information/
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Tags
#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog #messiahhascome #ahmadiyyat #trueislam #ahmadianswers #ahmadiyyamuslimcommunity #ahmadiyya_creatives #ahmadiyyatthetrueislam #ahmadiyyatzindabad #ahmadiyyatrueislam #ahmadiyyamuslim #mirzaghulamahmad #qadiani #qadianism
8 Pingback