ahmadiyyafactcheckblog

Intro
In Sep-2024, Bro Imtiaz showed (4:13:26 timestamp and at 20:55) how Ahmadi’s in 2025 are openly disagreeing with MGA on 3:81 of the Quran (3:82 in the Qadiani Quran)(see via Ibn Kathir). Modern day Ahmadi’s like Fathe Islam and Ansar Raza allege that MGA is the final “Musadiq-Rasul” and that MGA didn’t bring any new Kitab or Hikmah. They also didn’t mention the implications of a Jalali Nabi in the future, would this Jalali Nabi then be the last “Musadiq-Rasul”? Nevertheless, Qadiani’s also connect 33:7 (33:8 in the Kadiani Koran) and make non-sensical arguments and infer that Muhammad (Saw) also promised to follow a “Musadiq-Rasul” in the future, with MGA being the inference (naozobillah). At 26:30, Mirza Tahir Ahmad presents 33:7-8 of the Quran (33:8-9 in the Kadiani Koran). In 1989, (Time stamp 29:38) Mirza Tahir Ahmad questioned why the Muslim scholars never quoted 33:7-8 of the Quran (33:8-9 in the Kadiani Koran) and asked themselves as to why Muhammad (Saw) also took the covenant (this is a blasphemous question). It should be noted that on the night of the famous Miraj of Muhammad (saw), ALL the prophets were present and prayed behind Muhammad (saw) and thus agreed to the “Covenant of the Prophets” (See Sahih Muslim-172). Qadiani’s will totally avoid this fact, in fact, on the same night, Muhammad (Saw) met Eisa (As) and Eisa (as) said that he had some tasks remaining.

In the writings of MGA, in 1891 and via Al-Haq Mubahathah Dehli (published in 1905)(See RK-4, page 247) MGA quoted 3:81 of the Quran (see via Ibn Kathir)(3:82 in the Qadiani Quran) and argued that “ALL” prophets had made a promise to follow Muhammad (saw) and be his ummati‘s. MGA inferred that Muhammad (Saw) was the “Musadiq-Rasul”.

In 1890-91, in Izala Auham (see the refs in the below), MGA argued over and over again that a prophet could never be a follower of another prophet. MGA and his team of writers quoted the Quran, 4:64 (4:65 in the Ahmadi Quran) as evidence. In fact, in the same book, MGA claims that his God called him an Ummati and Nabi in the Barahin i Ahmadiyya (about 7-10 years earlier), however, he didn’t give the exact reference. In the same year (1891 in Delhi, see the announcement here), MGA published an announcement to the effect that anyone who claims to be a prophet is a Kafir, obviously, MGA only meant a prophet like all the prophets mentioned in the Quran (independent-prophets). In the same year, in the same book, via Izala Auham, MGA argued that Eisa (As) could never be an Ummati of Muhammad (Saw)(naozobillah), since Eisa (as) is a Rasul and a Rasul can never be an Ummati.

In 1898, via “Ayyam-e-Sulh”, RK-14, page 308, in Feb-2025, Bro Imtiaz quoted (49:28 time stamp) Bro Imtiaz explained how MGA alleges that Eisa (As) was the “Musadiq-Rasul”, and if someone says that Eisa (as) did “Tasdiq” (authentication) of the Torah and the second Messiah should thus do “Tasdiq” (authentication) of the Quran, this is wrong! MGA explains that Eisa (As) was a prophet and thus did so, but MGA is not and thus didn’t do so.

In 1901, 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.

In the ROR of May-1902 (English {183-184] and Urdu) editions, MGA wrote an essay entitled, “Sinlessness”, this was edited by Maulvi Muhammad Ali. In this article, which was part of a series and on the topic of sins (zanb) and crime (jurm), MGA and his team of writers quoted 3:81 of the Quran (3:82 in the Kadiani Koran) and argued that all the prophets are followers (Ummati’s) of Muhammad (Saw).

In 1902, MGA quoted 3:81 of the Quran (3:82 in the Kadiani Koran) and says that all the prophets were ordered to believe in all the prophets (See “Ismat-e-Anbiya”, Rk-18, page 275)(4:14:06 time stamp) and (46:26 from Feb-2025). MGA argued that 3:81 is a definitive proof (Nas-e-Saree) that this verse is about Muhammad (Saw).

In 1906-1907, via “Haqiqatul Wahi” (see page 157 and 221), MGA and his team of writers argued that the phrase “Musadiq-Rasul” refers to “the followers of all Prophets”. MGA also added words to this verse which simply never existed like “in the latter days” in 3:81 (3:81 in the Kadiani Koran)(See RK-22, pages 133,134 and 184, 21:10 time stamp)(See also 44:30, from Feb-2025).

In 1908, after MGA died, MGA argued that “ALL” prophets had made a promise to follow Muhammad (saw) and be his ummati‘s (see Barahin-i-Ahmadiyya V-5 (See page 396)(published in Oct-1908)(RK-21, page 200 in Urdu).

In 1915, via “Prophethood in Islam”, Maulvi Muhammad Ali quoted 3:81 (see pages 113 and 153) vs. the Qadiani’s.

In roughly 1916, Maulvi Muhammad Ali accused the Qadiani-Ahmadi’s of using 3:81 (3:82 in the Kadiani Koran) for MGA. In response, the Qadiani-Ahmadi’s (via Al Fazl of 19 Feb 1916 Page 5) denied the charge, however, it seems that they only denied exclusivity of MGA with 3:81 (3:82 in the Kadiani Koran), and in fact, the Qadiani-Ahmadi’s believe that every single prophet is a Musadiq Rasul.

In 1926, the 2nd Qadiani-Ahmadi Khalifa says that 3:81 (3:82 in the Kadiani Koran) is about Muhammad (Saw)(See Invitation to Ahmadiyyat, pages 11-12).

In the 1988, official 5-volume commentary of the Quran by Malik Ghulam Farid, it is stated that this verse is specifically about Muhammad (saw) and generally about All prophets. This verse has the famous “Covenant of the Prophets” (misakan nabiyeen).

In 1989, Mirza Tahir Ahmad commented on 3:81 (3:82 in the Kadiani Koran). At 0:14, Mirza Tahir Ahmad begins reciting 3:81 (3:82 in the Kadiani Koran). At 1:45, Mirza Tahir Ahmad gives the translation. At 4:10, Mirza Tahir Ahmad starts talking about the Ahmadiyya concept of Hell. At 11:30, Mirza Tahir Ahmad starts on 3:81 (3:82 in the Kadiani Koran). At 12:24, Mirza Tahir Ahmad says that the covenant of the prophets (as mentioned in 3:81 and 33:7) was taken before any of the prophets were even born. Mirza Tahir Ahmad says that this was an “in-born” teaching in nature. Mirza Tahir Ahmad infers that all the prophets agreed to this while they were subconscious. Mirza Tahir Ahmad says that prophets come from a class wherein it is in their nature to submit, to such a degree, that they will believe anyone sent from God, as long as they fulfil certain conditions. Mirza Tahir Ahmad scoffs at the scholars and says that they have said that this “Covenant of the Prophets” happened somewhere, like a physical location and time and Allah held them all as witnesses. At 14:57, Mirza Tahir Ahmad explains how the “Covenant of the Prophets” was made between God and the Prophets. At 21:54, Mirza Tahir Ahmad explains why every prophet has been included in the “Covenant of the Prophets”. Mirza Tahir Ahmad says that prophets aren’t against each other, they all believe in each other, they are bound by duty. At 24:41, Mirza Tahir Ahmad says that 3:81 (3:82 in the Kadiani Koran) means that prophets can’t call themselves as the last, this verse implies more (naozobillah). At 26:30, Mirza Tahir Ahmad presents 33:7-8 of the Quran (33:8-9 in the Kadiani Koran). At 29:38, Mirza Tahir Ahmad questions why the Muslim scholars never quoted 33:7-8 of the Quran (33:8-9 in the Kadiani Koran) and asked themselves as to why Muhammad (Saw) also took the covenant. At 31:35, Mirza Tahir Ahmad mentioned that the followers of all the prophets are “kept in mind” in terms of understanding this verse. At 33:12, Mirza Tahir Ahmad says that the prophets agreed to this covenant like the leaders of nations and their followers are all ultimately held responsible. Mirza Tahir Ahmad says that it is the responsibility of the Muslim Ummah to keep this covenant. At 35:00, Mirza Tahir Ahmad says that Muslim scholars were afraid to comment on 33:7-8 of the Quran (33:8-9 in the Kadiani Koran) because it would imply new prophets after Muhammad (Saw). At 35:31, Mirza Tahir Ahmad quotes Maudoodi, and alleges that Maudoodi wrote this “covenant” was taken by every single prophet. Mirza Tahir Ahmad alleges that Maudoodi denied the idea that Muhammad (Saw) also promised to follow a Rasul after him. At 38:28, Mirza Tahir Ahmad quotes “Allama Razi” (Fakhr al-Din al-Razi (1149–1209) and alleged that he wrote in favor of the Ahmadiyya position that “followers of prophets” were the real people who held the “Covenant of the Prophets”. At 42:25, Mirza Tahir Ahmad said that even Muhammad (saw) agreed that after him a Rasul would come. Mirza Tahir Ahmad argues that this verse 33:7-8 of the Quran (33:8-9 in the Kadiani Koran) proves the theory that a “subordinate-prophet” (Ummati Nabi) can be born. At 46:08, Mirza Tahir Ahmad argues that since Muhammad (saw) was mentioned as a “party” to 33:7-8 of the Quran (33:8-9 in the Kadiani Koran), this makes it mandatory that a Rasul come after Muhammad (saw). At 52:05 Mirza Tahir Ahmad again alleges that per (Fakhr al-Din al-Razi (1149–1209), 33:7-8 of the Quran (33:8-9 in the Kadiani Koran) and 3:81 (3:82 in the Kadiani Koran) is about the followers of prophets (just like MGA wrote in Haqiqatul Wahi). At 56:20, Mirza Tahir Ahmad alleges that some Pakistan scholar also said that Muhammad (Saw) was a party to “The Covenant of the Prophets”. At 58:17, Mirza Tahir Ahmad quoted Wherry’s comments on 3:81, Wherry accused Muhammad (Saw) of fabricating the entire story from the Talmud.

In the 1990’s, Mirza Tahir Ahmad said that the “Promised Messiah”, will be revealed the Quran again (See Bro Imtiaz explaining this at 3:36:40), this is per 3:81 of the Quran (3:82 in the Kadiani Koran). Mirza Tahir Ahmad says that the Quran will again descend (nazul) on the Messiah, and the Messiah has never heard of it. Mirza Tahir Ahmad also said that Messiah will become “Shareek” with Muhammad (Saw)(naozobillah) in this regard.

In Oct-2021, Ansar Raza debated Muhammad Shaikh (deviant) and Ansar Raza said that he considers MGA as the “Musadiq-Rasul” as mentioned in 3:81. Starts at 2:26, at 7:03, Ansar Raza says that MGA is the “Musadiq-Rasul”. At 4:52, Ansar Raza says that the Quran refers to Eisa (as) also as the “Musadiq-Rasul”, via 33:7-8 of the Quran (33:8-9 in the Kadiani Koran).

On 1-27-25, Bro Imtiaz debated Qadiani-Ahmadi Fathe Islam herein. At 1:03, Fath-e-Islam (Qadiani guy) says that MGA is the “Musadiq-Rasul” of Muhammad (Saw)(naozobillah). At 12:00, Fathe Islam (Qadiani guy) says that wherever MGA mentioned 3:81 (3:82 in the Kadiani Koran), it was a “Tafseeri Tarjuma” (commentary). At 13:52, Bro Imtiaz pointed out how Fathe Islam’s 1st point is that ALL prophets are “Musadiq-Rasul” of a previous Nabi. His 2nd point is that Muhammad (Saw) is also “Musadiq-Rasul”. His 3rd point is that MGA is also “Musadaq Rasul”. At 16:05, Bro Imtiaz explains how Fathe Islam is contradicting MGA. At 21:48, Bro Imtiaz explains why Fathe Islam (Qadiani guy) refuses to quote MGA on 3:81. At 22:35, Bro Imtiaz says that anyone who believes that after Muhammad (saw), there will be another “Musadiq Rasul”, then that person is a Kafir. At 27:38, Bro Imtiaz reminds Fathe Islam (Qadiani guy) that he is contradicting MGA, MGA said that this verse is about Muhammad (Saw) being the “Musadiq-Rasul”. At 31:37, Fathe Islam (Qadiani guy) alleges that ALL prophets are “Musadiq” of Muhammad (saw) and Muhammad (Saw) is the “Musadiq” of ALL prophets (vice versa). At 37:19, Bro Imtiaz demanded that Fathe Islam (Qadiani guy) give the reference from MGA’s books, wherein MGA calls himself the “Musadiq-Rasul”. At 39:19, Fathe Islam refuses to answer as to why MGA is contradicting his own statements, instead, Fathe Islam summarized all the references in a nonsensical way. At 42:52, Bro Imtiaz reminds all the listeners that MGA never called himself the “Musadiq-Rasul”. At 49:38, Bro Imtiaz challenges Fathe Islam again to prove that MGA called himself “Musadiq-Rasul”. At 51:00, Fathe Islam (Qadiani guy) again says that MGA is the “Musadiq” of Muhammad (Saw)(naozobillah). At 1:00:25, Bro Imtiaz laughs at Fathe Islam (Qadiani guy)’s interpretation of 3:81 (3:82 in the Kadiani Koran), then explains how it is nonsensical. At 1:02:02, Bro Imtiaz plays a clip from a debate/discussion between Ansar Raza and (Muhammad Shaikh?), wherein Ansar Raza alleged that 3:81 (3:82 in the Kadiani Koran) is about MGA and how is that specific “Musadiq-Rasul”. Bro Imtiaz then explained how Ansar Raza alleged that Muhammad (saw) was given the Kitab and Hikmah and MGA came and did Tasdiq (confirmation)(naozobillah). At 1:06:23, Fathe Islam (Qadiani guy) keeps going in circles and being purposely difficult. At 1:09:00, Bro Imtiaz is asking Fathe Islam (Qadiani guy) to specifically answer about if any Muslim ever wrote that after Muhammad (saw), there would appear in a “Musadiq-Rasul”? Bro Imtiaz has asked this repeatedly, Fathe Islam (Qadiani guy) hasn’t care to answer. At 1:12:33, Fathe Islam (Qadiani guy) repeated himself. At 1:22:40, Bro Imtiaz reminds Fathe Islam (Qadiani guy) that the Qadiani belief is that Muhammad (Saw) brough the Kitab and Hikmah and MGA did Tasdiq (confirmation)(naozobillah). At 1:23:23, Fathe Islam (Qadiani guy) says that the Qadiani belief is that “Musadiq-Rasul” refers to Muhammad (Saw) in “khaas” way and to other Rasul’s in an “aam” way. At 1:28:25, Bro Imtiaz explains the Ahmadiyya position, which is that MGA is that “Musadiq Rasul” who is referred to in 3:81 (3:82 in the Kadiani Koran). At 1:30:30, Fathe Islam (Qadiani guy) reiterates the Qadiani position, i.e., that every single prophet is a “Musadiq-Rasul”, including MGA. At 1:32:44, Fathe Islam (Qadiani guy) repeats himself again on many things. At 1:42:12, Bro Imtiaz explains the implication of making MGA as the “Musadiq-Rasul”. Bro Imtiaz explains that if Ahmadi’s believe that MGA is the “Musadiq-Rasul”, then that would imply that all prophets before MGA (including Muhammad [saw]) would be forced to follow MGA. At 1:43:08, Fathe Islam (Qadiani guy) alleges that Bro Imtiaz believes that when Eisa (as) physically returns, he will be a “Musadiq-Rasul” and will do tasdiq of Muhammad (saw)(naozobillah). At 1:45:40, Fathe Islam (Qadiani guy) keeps misquoting Islamic scholars (Sialvi Sahib) and implying their beliefs onto Bro Imtiaz. At 1:49:09, Bro Imtiaz reiterates that NO Muslim ever said that after “Khatman Nabiyeen” (Muhammad, saw), there would be a “Musadiq Rasul”. At 1:56:06, Bro Imtiaz summarizes his points, he explain how MGA is allegedly the Hakam and adl for Ahmadi’s, however, in the case of 3:81, Ahmadi’s disagree with MGA. At 2:13:20, Fathe Islam (Qadiani guy) presents 33:7 and argues that even Muhammad (Saw) promised to follow a “Musadiq-Rasul” after himself. At 2:13:54, Fathe Islam (Qadiani guy) argues that MGA authenticated (tasdiq) the Quran and hadith. At 2:15:32, Fathe Islam (Qadiani guy) argues that Muhammad (saw) is the “Musadiq-Rasul”, however, in a “buruzi-sense”, MGA is also the “Musadiq Rasul”.

On 2-1-25, Bro Imtiaz streamed about this topic again.

In June of 2025, was discussed on the True Islam Uk Urdu stream vs. Bro Imtiaz.

In Sep-2025, Ansar Raza debated a Shia person, #ShamsuddinShigri seems to be hosting this debate. In his opening statement, Ansar Raza used 1:6, 4:69 and 7:35 as his main arguments that prophethood has not end and never ends. At 19:03, Ansar Raza added 3:81 (3:82 in the Kadiani Koran) and alleged that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is inferred herein as that “Musadiq-Rasul” (See the clip on Tiktok and Twitter). Again, Ansar Raza says that per 3:81 (3:82 in the Kadiani Koran), a Rasul will come who will authenticate (tasdiq) the Kitab and Rasul which was given to a previous Nabi (Ansar Raza was indirectly referring to MGA). At 21:41, Ansar Raza says it is lazmi (mandatory) that a “Musadiq-Rasul” was to appear after Muhammad (Saw) and it is lazmi (mandatory) for Muslims to accept him (see my article on Ahmadiyya Takfir). In conclusion, Ansar Raza argued that 3:81 (3:82 in the Kadiani Koran) includes Eisa (as) and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad only as the “Musadiq-Rasuls”. However, in reality, Muslims believe that only Muhammad (Saw) is the “Musadiq-Rasul” as mentioned in 3:81 (3:82 in the Kadiani Koran). This is why Muhammad led the Prophets in prayer during the night of Isra’ when they gathered in Bayt Al-Maqdis (Jerusalem)(See Ibn Kathir).

In Dec-2025 (13:27 time stamp)(and 28:40), Maulvi Razi alleged that that Muhammad (Saw) said that the Messiah will do tasdiq of Muhammad (Saw) by being his musadiq (via 3:81, 3:82 in the Kadiani Koran). 33:7 of the Quran (33:8 in the Kadiani Koran) is also discussed.

Check out Brother Omar explaining how Ahmadi’s translate of “Al-Rusul” in 3:144 is different from “Al-Rusul” in 5:75 (See the clip on TikTok and Twitter), in fact, Zafrullah Khan gave the same translation in his version of the Quran.

In 2026, Ansar Raza debated TikToker Knight Rider (on tiktok as @muhammadakif3093), on 3:81 of the Quran [3:82 of the Kadiani Koran].

______________________________________________________________________________________________1891
Al-Haq Mubahathah Dehli, p. 247, Ruhani Khaza’in, vol. 4
Bro Imtiaz gave this ref at 20:55

In Sep-2024, Bro Imtiaz showed how MGA argued that per this verse, all prophets promised to follow Muhammad (Saw)(4:13:26 timestamp)(See Al-Haq Mubahathah Dehli, p. 247, Ruhani Khaza’in, vol. 4).

Scan

______________________________________________________________________________________________
1891
RK 3, Izala Auham, Part-2, page 410
LIVESTREAM – CASE OF AHMADIAT IN THE COURT OF ITS OWN PEOPLE – ختم نبوت پر قادیانیت کا مقدمہ – YouTube

MGA argues that a Rasul can never be an ummati.

Scan

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
1898

49:28 time stamp

In 1898, via “Ayyam-e-Sulh”, RK-14, page 308, in Feb-2025, Bro Imtiaz quoted (49:28 time stamp) Bro Imtiaz explained how MGA alleges that Eisa (As) was the “Musadiq-Rasul”, and if someone says that Eisa (as) did “Tasdiq” (authentication) of the Torah and the second Messiah should thus do “Tasdiq” (authentication) of the Quran, this is wrong! MGA explains that Eisa (As) was a prophet and thus did so, but MGA is not and thus didn’t do so.

Scan

______________________________________________________________________________________________1902
‘Ismat-e-Anbiya’, Rk-18, page 675
What is ‘ISMAT-E-ANBIYA’? The Sinlessness of Prophets? by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad? – ahmadiyyafactcheckblog
LIVESTREAM – CASE OF AHMADIAT IN THE COURT OF ITS OWN PEOPLE – ختم نبوت پر قادیانیت کا مقدمہ – YouTube

See also 46:s6

In 1902, MGA quoted 3:81 of the Quran (3:82 in the Kadiani Koran) and says that all the prophets were ordered to believe in all the prophets (See “Ismat-e-Anbiya”, Rk-18, page 675)(4:14:06 time stamp) and (46:26). MGA argued that 3:81 is a definitive proof (Nas-e-Saree) that this verse is about Muhammad (Saw).

Scan

______________________________________________________________________________________________
1902
May
ROR, English and Urdu editions
See pages 183-184
RR190205.pdf
https://www.reviewofreligions.org/wp-content/uploads/pdf/RR190205.pdf#page=2

In the ROR of May-1902 (English {183-184] and Urdu) editions, MGA wrote an essay entitled, “Sinlessness”, this was edited by Maulvi Muhammad Ali. In this article, which was part of a series and on the topic of sins (zanb) and crime (jurm), MGA and his team of writers quoted 3:81 of the Quran (3:82 in the Kadiani Koran) and argued that all the prophets are followers (Ummati’s) of Muhammad (Saw).
______________________________________________________________________________________________
1906-1907

See RK-22, pages 133,134 and 184, 21:10 time stamp
Bro Imtiaz mentioned this ref at 21:00


In 1906-1907, via “Haqiqatul Wahi” (see page 157), MGA and his team of writers argued that the phrase “Musadiq-Rasul” refers to “the followers of all Prophets”. MGA also argued that the “Musadiq-Rasul” would appear in the “akhree din” (latter days) and was referring to himself.

Scans

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
1908–Oct
Barahin-i-Ahmadiyya, V-5, page 396, online english edition
Rk-21, Page 200–Urdu

All prophets follow Muhammad and are his ummati’s.

Scan

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
1915

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Molvi-Muhammad-Ali.pdf

In 1915, via “Prophethood in Islam”, Maulvi Muhammad Ali quoted 3:81 (see pages 113 and 153) vs. the Qadiani’s.
______________________________________________________________________________________________
1916
Misdaaq Kon Ayat Misaaq Ka

Click to access Misdaaq-Kon-Ayat-Misaaq-Ka.pdf

Al Fazal Akhbar 19 Feb 1916 Page 5

*Title*
We consider the Musaddiq of Misaaq An Nabiyyeen as Prophet Muhammad (Saw)

The Answer to the message of 6 Feb

Molvi Muhammad Ali Sahib has accused us that in Tarjumatul Quran, Ayah Regarding the Misaaq An Nabiyyeen, we have considered it for Mirza Sahib, and that we have denied it for Prophet (SAW). This is a Buhtaan Azeem. This is why we have mentioned this contradiction in Al Fazal very clearly.

In roughly 1916, Maulvi Muhammad Ali accused the Qadiani-Ahmadi’s of using 3:81 (3:82 in the Kadiani Koran) for MGA. In response, the Qadiani-Ahmadi’s (via Al Fazl of 19 Feb 1916 Page 5) denied the charge, however, it seems that they only denied exclusivity of MGA with 3:81 (3:82 in the Kadiani Koran), and in fact, the Qadiani-Ahmadi’s believe that every single prophet is a Musadiq Rasul.

Scans

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
1917-1920
The English Translation and Commentary of the Holy Quran [1917 Edition] — www.aaiil.org

Maulvi Muhammad Ali doesn’t connect MGA to 3:81. 
______________________________________________________________________________________________
1926
Invitation to Ahmadiyyat
See pages 11-12

The 2nd Qadiani-Ahmadi Khalifa says that 3:81 (3:82 in the Kadiani Koran) is about Muhammad (Saw)(See Invitation to Ahmadiyyat, pages 11-12).
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
1960’s, Tafseer-e-Sagheer on 3:82 and 33:8

Tafseer 3 82

Click to access Tafseer-3-82.pdf

Tafseer 33 8 and 9

Click to access Tafseer-33-8-and-9.pdf

In Tafseer e Sagheer, Mirza Bashiruddin mentions that the Previous Prophet will give Basharah of the Coming Prophet and that everyone brings Iman on him once he arrives. In terms of 33: 8 and 9 he is saying that every prophet is given the basharah of the coming prophet.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
1988

In the 1988, official 5-volume commentary of the Quran by Malik Ghulam Farid, it is stated that this verse is specifically about Muhammad (saw) and generally about All prophets. This verse has the famous “Covenant of the Prophets” (misakan nabiyeen).

Important Words:

میثاق النبیین (covenant from the people through the Prophets) literally means, Covenant of the Prophets. According to Arabic usage, the expression اخذ الله میثاق النبیین (lit. Allah took the covenant of the Prophets) may refer either to a covenant which the Prophets of God entered into with Him, or to a covenant which God took from the people through their Prophets. In this verse, the words are used in the latter sense, which is supported by another reading of میثاق النبیین as reported by Ubayy bin Ka‘b and ‘Abdullah bin Mas‘ud, i.e. میثاق الذین اوتوا الکتاب meaning, the covenant of those who were given the Book (Muhit). This rendering is supported by the words that follow, i.e. and then there comes to you a Messenger fulfilling what is with you, because it was to the people and not to their Prophets that the Messenger of God came. The meaning given above gains further support from the fact that as other Prophets were dead at the time of the Holy Prophet, they could naturally render him no help and there was thus no sense in taking any covenant from them to this effect.

Commentary:

This verse is considered to apply to other Prophets in general and to the Holy Prophet in particular. Both applications are correct. The verse lays down a general rule. The advent of every Prophet takes place in fulfilment of certain prophecies made by a previous Prophet in which he enjoins his followers to accept the next Prophet when he makes his appearance. If the Prophet comes in fulfilment of the prophecies contained in the scriptures of one people only, as was the case with Jesus and other Israelite Prophets, then only that people are bound to accept and help him; but if the scriptures of all religions predict the coming of a Prophet, as in the case of the Holy Prophet, then all nations are bound to accept him.

The Holy Prophet appeared in fulfilment of the prophecies not only of the Israelite Prophets (Isa. 21:‍13-15. Deut. 18:‍18; 33:‍2. John 14:‍25, 26; 16:‍7-13) but also of the Aryan seers and Buddhist and Zoroastrian sages. We have the following prophecy in Dasatir, the sacred Scripture of the Parsis: “When the people of Iran will begin to do such, (i.e. evil) deeds, there shall appear from among the Arabs a man whose followers shall abolish the crown, the throne, the kingdom, and the religion of Iran. The headstrong shall become humble and a house without idols shall take the place of idol-houses and fire-temples, and to it shall they turn their faces in worship” (Safrang Dasatir, p. 188, Siraji Press, Delhi). The words are too clear to need comment. A similar prophecy is found in Jamaspi, a work of Jamaspi, the first successor of Zoroaster (Jamaspi, published by Nizamul-Masha’ikh, Delhi, 1330 A.H.).

The word مصدقا (fulfilling; for the meaning of which see 3:42) has been used here to denote the criterion by which a true claimant to prophethood is distinguished from a false one. But if the word is taken in the sense of “verifying or confirming or declaring to be true” as is sometimes done, this verification or confirmation can be no test of knowing a true Prophet from an impostor, for even an impostor can declare the previous scriptures to be true. The word has, therefore, been rightly translated here as “fulfilling” for it is only by “fulfilling” in his person the prophecies contained in the previous scriptures that a claimant can prove his truth, it being beyond the power of an impostor to fulfil the previous prophecies in his person.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
1989
https://youtu.be/3cWTqCmGj4I?si=tXYQRGFE0qoHf82i

In 1989, Mirza Tahir Ahmad commented on 3:81 (3:82 in the Kadiani Koran).
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
1990’s

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2024/09/08/mirza-ghulam-ahmad-and-381-of-the-quran-382-in-the-qadiani-quran/

In the 1990’s, Mirza Tahir Ahmad said that the “Promised Messiah”, will be revealed the Quran again (See Bro Imtiaz explaining this at 3:36:40), this is per 3:81 of the Quran (3:82 in the Kadiani Koran). Mirza Tahir Ahmad says that the Quran will again descend (nazul) on the Messiah, and the Messiah has never heard of it. Mirza Tahir Ahmad also said that Messiah will become “Shareek” with Muhammad (Saw)(naozobillah) in this regard.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
2021

In Oct-2021, Ansar Raza debated Muhammad Shaikh (deviant) and Ansar Raza said that he considers MGA as the “Musadiq-Rasul” as mentioned in 3:81. Starts at 2:26, at 7:03, Ansar Raza says that MGA is the “Musadiq-Rasul”. At 4:52, Ansar Raza says that the Quran refers to Eisa (as) also as the “Musadiq-Rasul”, via 33:7-8 of the Quran (33:8-9 in the Kadiani Koran).
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
2022
Mirza Tahir Ahmad – Khalifatul Masih IV. ‘Introduction to the Surahs of The Noble Quran: With Brief Explanatory Notes to Some Verses’, 2002

There are two Covenants mentioned in The Noble Quran that is the Covenant with the Children of Israel and the Covenant of the Prophets which was also taken from the Holy Prophetﷺ (Surah al-Ahzab: 7).

The fundamental point in this is that whenever any Messengers come to you saying what you said then promise never to reject them but would accept and obey them. Here it is important to clarify that Messengers are not sent to the Prophets, Messengers come to their nations. So, it only means that they should constantly admonish their people that whenever a Messenger comes to them verifying me (and my claim) then they should not reject him and should always help him.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
2025
Jan

On 1-27-25, Bro Imtiaz debated Qadiani-Ahmadi Fathe Islam herein. At 1:03, Fath-e-Islam (Qadiani guy) says that MGA is the “Musadiq-Rasul” of Muhammad (Saw)(naozobillah). At 12:00, Fathe Islam (Qadiani guy) says that wherever MGA mentioned 3:81 (3:82 in the Kadiani Koran), it was a “Tafseeri Tarjuma” (commentary). At 13:52, Bro Imtiaz pointed out how Fathe Islam’s 1st point is that ALL prophets are “Musadiq-Rasul” of a previous Nabi. His 2nd point is that Muhammad (Saw) is also “Musadiq-Rasul”. His 3rd point is that MGA is also “Musadiq-Rasul”. At 16:05, Bro Imtiaz explains how Fathe Islam is contradicting MGA. At 21:48, Bro Imtiaz explains why Fathe Islam (Qadiani guy) refuses to quote MGA on 3:81. At 22:35, Bro Imtiaz says that anyone who believes that after Muhammad (saw), there will be another “Musadiq-Rasul”, then that person is a Kafir. At 27:38, Bro Imtiaz reminds Fathe Islam (Qadiani guy) that he is contradicting MGA, MGA said that this verse is about Muhammad (Saw) being the “Musadiq-Rasul”. At 31:37, Fathe Islam (Qadiani guy) alleges that ALL prophets are “Musadiq” of Muhammad (saw) and Muhammad (Saw) is the “Musadiq” of ALL prophets (vice versa). At 37:19, Bro Imtiaz demanded that Fathe Islam (Qadiani guy) give the reference from MGA’s books, wherein MGA calls himself the “Musadiq-Rasul”. At 39:19, Fathe Islam refuses to answer as to why MGA is contradicting his own statements, instead, Fathe Islam summarized all the references in a nonsensical way. At 42:52, Bro Imtiaz reminds all the listeners that MGA never called himself the “Musadiq-Rasul”. At 49:38, Bro Imtiaz challenges Fathe Islam again to prove that MGA called himself “Musadiq-Rasul”. At 51:00, Fathe Islam (Qadiani guy) again says that MGA is the “Musadaq” of Muhammad (Saw)(naozobillah). At 1:00:25, Bro Imtiaz laughs at Fathe Islam (Qadiani guy)’s interpretation of 3:81 (3:82 in the Kadiani Koran), then explains how it is nonsensical. At 1:02:02, Bro Imtiaz plays a clip from a debate/discussion between Ansar Raza and (Muhammad Shaikh?), wherein Ansar Raza alleged that 3:81 (3:82 in the Kadiani Koran) is about MGA and how is that specific “Musadiq-Rasul”. Bro Imtiaz then explained how Ansar Raza alleged that Muhammad (saw) was given the Kitab and Hikmah and MGA came and did Tasdiq (confirmation)(naozobillah). At 1:06:23, Fathe Islam (Qadiani guy) keeps going in circles and being purposely difficult. At 1:09:00, Bro Imtiaz is asking Fathe Islam (Qadiani guy) to specifically answer about if any Muslim ever wrote that after Muhammad (saw), there would appear in a “Musadiq-Rasul”? Bro Imtiaz has asked this repeatedly, Fathe Islam (Qadiani guy) hasn’t care to answer. At 1:12:33, Fathe Islam (Qadiani guy) repeated himself. At 1:22:40, Bro Imtiaz reminds Fathe Islam (Qadiani guy) that the Qadiani belief is that Muhammad (Saw) brough the Kitab and Hikmah and MGA did Tasdiq (confirmation)(naozobillah). At 1:23:23, Fathe Islam (Qadiani guy) says that the Qadiani belief is that “Musadiq-Rasul” refers to Muhammad (Saw) in “khas” way and to other Rasul’s in an “aam” way. At 1:28:25, Bro Imtiaz explains the Ahmadiyya position, which is that MGA is that “Musadiq-Rasul” who is referred to in 3:81 (3:82 in the Kadiani Koran). At 1:30:30, Fathe Islam (Qadiani guy) reiterates the Qadiani position, i.e., that every single prophet is a “Musadiq-Rasul”, including MGA. At 1:32:44, Fathe Islam (Qadiani guy) repeats himself again on many things. At 1:42:12, Bro Imtiaz explains the implication of making MGA as the “Musadiq-Rasul”. Bro Imtiaz explains that if Ahmadi’s believe that MGA is the “Musadiq-Rasul”, then that would imply that all prophets before MGA (including Muhammad [saw]) would be forced to follow MGA. At 1:43:08, Fathe Islam (Qadiani guy) alleges that Bro Imtiaz believes that when Eisa (as) physically returns, he will be a “Musadiq-Rasul” and will do tasdiq of Muhammad (saw)(naozobillah). At 1:45:40, Fathe Islam (Qadiani guy) keeps misquoting Islamic scholars (Sialvi Sahib) and implying their beliefs onto Bro Imtiaz. At 1:49:09, Bro Imtiaz reiterates that NO Muslim ever said that after “Khatman Nabiyeen” (Muhammad, saw), there would be a “Musadiq-Rasul”. At 1:56:06, Bro Imtiaz summarizes his points, he explain how MGA is allegedly the Hakam and adl for Ahmadi’s, however, in the case of 3:81, Ahmadi’s disagree with MGA. At 2:13:20, Fathe Islam (Qadiani guy) presents 33:7 and argues that even Muhammad (Saw) promised to follow a “Musadiq-Rasul” after himself. At 2:13:54, Fathe Islam (Qadiani guy) argues that MGA authenticated (tasdiq) the Quran and hadith. At 2:15:32, Fathe Islam (Qadiani guy) argues that Muhammad (saw) is the “Musadiq-Rasul”, however, in a “buruzi-sense”, MGA is also the “Musadiq-Rasul”.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
2025
Feb
https://www.youtube.com/live/YIvq_MiiXz0?si=fUQ1h98cgJ-GpSNt

On 2-1-25, Bro Imtiaz streamed about this topic again.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
2025
June

In June of 2025, was discussed on the True Islam Uk Urdu stream vs. Bro Imtiaz.

—At 1:31:25 Bro Imtiaz starts again. Bro Imtiaz explains how ALL prophets have already agreed to follow Muhammad (saw) and his mission, see 3:81 of the Quran (3:82 in the Qadiani Quran). Bro Imtiaz then argued that prophets following Muhammad (Saw) is not against the Quran.

—At 1:34:00, Hadi Ali Chaudhary begins talking. Hadi Ali Chaudhary quotes how Bro Imtiaz said that these 2 types of prophethood have ended, “Tashree Nubuwwat” and “Ghair Tashree” (aka mustaqil). Hadi Ali Chaudhary agrees that these are closed. He also adds that a “Bara-e-Rast” (persian) Nabi means “directly” a prophet, cannot come either. Hadi Ali Chaudhary mentions 3:81 of the Quran (3:82 in the Qadiani Quran). He then makes some nonsensical arguments. He also mentioned 33:7 (33:8 in the Kadiani Koran).

—At 2:06:54, Bro Imtiaz begins speaking, at 2:07:22, Bro Imtiaz reminds Maulvi Razi that in “Eik Ghalti Ka Izala” (1901), MGA called himself the “Khatam un Nabiyeen” (naozobillah), via Buruz. Hadi Ali Chaudhary had accused Bro Imtiaz of believing that the prophethood of Eisa (As) will continue, Bro Imtiaz objects to this and said that he never said as such. Bro Imtiaz reiterates that after the appointment (maboos)of prophethood of Muhammad (saw), only this prophethood is continuous until the Day of Judgement and this is the Islamic belief. Bro Imtiaz reiterates that Eisa (As) is returning to work under and support the prophethood of Muhammad (saw). Bro Imtiaz pointed out how Hadi Ali Chaudhary argued that this person or that person (flahn)(it was Ibn Arabi) had even said that a different person would return, i.e., not Eisa (As), but Hadi Ali Chaudhary doesn’t realize that by this statement, he turns MGA into a liar. Bro Imtiaz says that he has 10 references from MGA’s works wherein MGA argued that Eisa (as) had died and that someone else would come in-place of Eisa (As) was a secret that no person ever in the world knew before MGA. Bro Imtiaz explains how Hadi Ali Chaudhary falsely argued that some of the sahaba would be alive to see Eisa (As), this is a total lie! Hadi Ali Chaudhary purposely did a mistranslation. Bro Imtiaz explains how Hadi Ali Chaudhary falsely argued that an old prophet can come but a new one can’t, Bro Imtiaz never said this. Bro Imtiaz explains how Ibrahim (as) and Musa (as) are old prophets, it is not our belief that they will physically reappear, Muslim’s are only told about the physical return of Eisa (as), no one else and we only believe this since Muhammad (saw) said so. Bro Imtiaz explained how Ahmadi’s don’t even follow MGA’s comments on 3:81 of the Quran (3:82 in the Qadiani Quran). Bro Imtiaz explains how Muslims aren’t going to borrow a prophet from anyone, this is a ridiculous thing to say. In the end, MGA called himself the “Khatam un Nabiyeen” (naozobillah).

—At 2:10:33, Maulvi Razi starts to speak and accuses Bro Imtiaz of not answering the question. Maulvi Razi admitted that MGA called himself “Khatam un Nabiyeen” (naozobillah), via Buruz in
“Eik Ghalti Ka Izala” (1901)(see page 12). Maulvi Razi then challenges Bro Imtiaz to put a fatwa on anyone who calls himself the “Khatam un Nabiyeen” (naozobillah), via Buruz. Maulvi Razi argues that MGA didn’t mean in reality (haqiqat), thus, only metaphoric. Maulvi Razi argues that many Islamic scholars have claimed the same in the past. Maulvi Razi then accuses of Shah Wali Ullah of claiming to be “Khatam un Nabiyeen” (naozobillah), via Buruz. Maulvi Razi then accuses Sheikh Abdul Qadir Jilani of the same crime. Maulvi Razi then quotes “Tafheemat Ilaheyyah” by Shah Wali Ullah, (In a recent livestream (2024), Maulvi Razi argued that Shah Wali Ullah had called himself the Khatam-un-Nabiyeen. However, Adnan Rashid disproved it quickly, this was a from a book called “Anfas-ul-Arifeen”, Razi was reading the Urdu translation, not the original Persian) and alleges that MGA did the same. Maulvi Razi then calls Bro Imtiaz a liar and says that he accused MGA of called “Nuzul-e-Maseeh” (as) a secret (raaz). Maulvi Razi alleges that MGA wrote in almost every single book that it is the ijma of the sahaba that Eisa (as) died, and this was also the belief of Muhammad (Saw)(this is a lie). Maulvi Razi then accused Bro Imtiaz of not knowing Arabic. Maulvi Razi alleged that Hadi Ali Chaudhary quoted Muhammad (Saw) and it was called a mistranslation or a misrepresentation or a lie. However, Maulvi Razi is purposely misunderstanding with Bro Imtiaz said, which was that Hadi Ali Chaudhary misrepresented Muhammad (Saw), this was in terms of the sahaba being alive when Eisa (As) returns. Maulvi Razi then says that in terms of 3:81 of the Quran (3:82 in the Qadiani Quran), Ahmadi’s also believe that this is about Muhammad (Saw). Maulvi Razi then accused Bro Imtiaz of saying that if anyone says that 3:81 of the Quran (3:82 in the Qadiani Quran) is not about Muhammad (Saw) then they are the friend of Satan. Bro Imtiaz immediately waved his finger NO. Maulvi Razi quoted Maulvi Abdul Karim Sialkoti from 1902 and made some unintelligible argument.

—At 2:16:50, Hadi Ali Chaudhary says that Maulvi Razi has answered everything. Hadi Ali Chaudhary is confused if Bro Imtiaz denied that hadith about the sahaba meeting Eisa (as) and is making unintelligible comments. Hadi Ali Chaudhary mentions 3:81 of the Quran (3:82 in the Qadiani Quran) and 33:7 (33:8 in the Kadiani Koran). Hadi Ali Chaudhary then alleges that Muhammad (Saw) died just like Eisa (as) and mentions “Tawaffa” (5:116). Hadi Ali Chaudhary then alleges that Abu Bakr said the same in the famous hadith at the time of death of Muhammad (Saw), 3:144 is also mentioned, “Qad Khalat”. Hadi Ali Chaudhary then lied and said none of the sahaba objected to this. Hadi Ali Chaudhary says that Muslims have no defense to any of this.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________2025
Sep
https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2025/09/19/ansar-raza-vs-shias-in-sep-2025-ansar-raza-used-16-469-and-735-then-used-381-and-alleged-that-mirza-ghulam-ahmad-is-inferred-herein-as-that-musadaq-rasul/

In Sep-2025, Ansar Raza debated a Shia person, #ShamsuddinShigri seems to be hosting this debate. In his opening statement, Ansar Raza used 1:6, 4:69 and 7:35 as his main arguments that prophethood has not end and never ends. At 19:03, Ansar Raza added 3:81 (3:82 in the Kadiani Koran) and alleged that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is inferred herein as that “Musadiq-Rasul” (See the clip on Tiktok and Twitter). Again, Ansar Raza says that per 3:81 (3:82 in the Kadiani Koran), a Rasul will come who will authenticate (tasdiq) the Kitab and Rasul which was given to a previous Nabi (Ansar Raza was indirectly referring to MGA). At 21:41, Ansar Raza says it is lazmi (mandatory) that a “Musadiq-Rasul” was to appear after Muhammad (Saw) and it is lazmi (mandatory) for Muslims to accept him (see my article on Ahmadiyya Takfir). In conclusion, Ansar Raza argued that 3:81 (3:82 in the Kadiani Koran) includes Eisa (as) and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad only as the “Musadaq-Rasuls”. However, in reality, Muslims believe that only Muhammad (Saw) is the “Musadiq-Rasul” as mentioned in 3:81 (3:82 in the Kadiani Koran). This is why Muhammad led the Prophets in prayer during the night of Isra’ when they gathered in Bayt Al-Maqdis (Jerusalem)(See Ibn Kathir).

Furthermore, Ansar Raza’s arguments seem to be at odds with the official Ahmadiyya position as stated in the 5-volume English Commentary of the Quran (1988) by Malik Ghulam Farid, which told the world that this verse is considered to apply to other Prophets in general and to the Holy Prophet in particular. Both applications are correct. However, Ansar Raza said that it only includes Eisa (as) and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. It should be noted that in the “short commentary” by Malik Ghulam Farid, it is stated that the expression Mithaqun-Nabiyyin may either signify the covenant of the Prophets with God or the covenant which God took from the people through their Prophets. The expression has been used here in the latter sense because another reading of the expression as supported by Ubayy bin Ka‘b and ‘Abdullah bin Mas‘ud is Mithaqalladhina ’utul-Kitab meaning, the covenant of those who were given the Book (Muhit). This rendering is also supported by the words that follow, i.e. and then there comes to you a Messenger fulfilling that which is with you, because it was to the people and not to their Prophets that the Messengers of God came.

In this debate, the Shia debater told Ansar Raza that all of the verses that Qadiani’s present are 1:6, 4:69 and 7:35 are abrogated by 33:40. To this, Ansar Raza said that the Quran has contradictions in it.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
2026
https://youtu.be/sTDPPF-cyEA?si=2BmrTAOiLj5SU214

In 2026, Ansar Raza debated TikToker Knight Rider (on tiktok as @muhammadakif3093), on 3:81 of the Quran [3:82 of the Kadiani Koran].
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Tafsir Ibn Kathir
QTafsir | Taking a Pledge From the Proph—
http://m.qtafsir.com/Surah-Aal-e-Imran/Taking-a-Pledge-From-the-Proph—

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
30:7 of the Quran (30:8 in the Kadiani Koran)
http://m.qtafsir.com/Surah-Al-Ahzab/The-Covenant-of-the-Prophets

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Ibn Taymiyya on 3:81

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Links and Related Essay’s

Al-Haq Mubahathah Dehli (1891), Quotes and background info – ahmadiyyafactcheckblog

Who is Fathe Islam? An anonymous Qadiani-Ahmadi – ahmadiyyafactcheckblog

Who is Fathe Islam? An anonymous Qadiani-Ahmadi

The concept of the Ummati-Nabi – ahmadiyyafactcheckblog

The concept of the Ummati-Nabi

Esa (as) told Muhammad (Saw) that he has some tasks from Allah to complete before the FINAL HOUR – ahmadiyyafactcheckblog

Esa (as) told Muhammad (Saw) that he has some tasks from Allah to complete before the FINAL HOUR

33:7 in the Quran and the Qadiani-Ahmadi position (33:8 in the Kadiani Koran) – ahmadiyyafactcheckblog

33:7 in the Quran and the Qadiani-Ahmadi position (33:8 in the Kadiani Koran)

In 1907, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad changed his position on 3:81 (3:82 in the Kadiani Koran) and called himself the “Musadiq Rasul” – ahmadiyyafactcheckblog

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2025/09/23/in-1907-mirza-ghulam-ahmad-changed-his-position-on-381-382-in-the-kadiani-koran-and-called-himself-the-musadiq-rasul/
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Tags

#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog #messiahhascome #ahmadiyyat #trueislam #ahmadianswers #mirzaghulamahmad #qadiani #qadianism