Saleem Meer vs. Bro Imtiaz-2025-Part-3 (2:13:25 til END)(1-4-25 debate)

Intro
A few days ago, a debate took place between Saleem Meer and Bro Imtiaz, check out Part-1 and Part 2. In the below, I give Part-3, 2:13:25 until the END (the official debate ended at 2:51:29). For 27 minutes, he argued nonsensically with Imtiaz about the wording of the 3 debates that he had agreed to. Saleem left at 3:18:28.

In this debate, Saleem Meer alleged that Muhammad (Saw) didn’t know how the prophecy of Eisa (as) would play out (2:43:12)(See on twitter and tiktok), just like what MGA said in 1891, a few months after he claimed to be the Messiah (see Part-2 of Izala Auham (RK-3, page 473).

At 2:47:01, Saleem Meer says that the event of Mir’aj was just a khaab (dream), and in a dream, you can meet whomever and say whatever (with the insinuation that it’s all meaningless)(see the clip on twitter and tiktok). *But did MGA call this a dream or a Roya/High-level-dream or Kashf?(See Izala Auham (1890), page 126).

*=notes by AFBC.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
At 2:13:25, Imtiaz starts, Imtiaz explains how in 19:57 there is a Qareena “makaa nan”, which indicates that this is not the physical body of Idris (as) and thus, this means only in rank. Imtiaz reminds Saleem that he said that even if in 4:158, “hoo kee zumeer” refers to both the physical body of Eisa (as) and his ruh (spirit), Ahmadi’s still won’t accept it. Imtiaz says it’s too late, he already gave this daleel. Imtiaz explains how Saleem Meer is confused on two things. Sometimes, Saleem explains how “hoo kee Zumeer” as “darjat kee bolandee” (a raising of rank) and sometimes, Saleem explains how “hoo kee Zumeer” means the soul going towards Allah. Imtiaz advises Saleem to first fix this confusion. Imtiaz then mentions how Saleem said that he knows the answers to all of these questions, well here is a question, how do Ahmadi’s pick in terms of “hoo kee Zumeer”, does it mean, “darjat kee bolandee” (a raising of rank) or only the ruh (spirit) goes towards Allah? Imtiaz says that Saleem said that only the ruh (spirit) can go towards Allah. Where are the heavens (asmaan)? Why does the ruh (spirit) go towards the heavens (asmaan). In closing, Imtiaz says that Saleem asked for tarteeb, however, Imtiaz asked for tarteeb and Saleem had no daleel. Imtiaz says it’s not tarteeb, it was 4 promises.

At 2:16:14, Saleem starts, he clarifies and says that he is asking if the 4 promises (*in 3:55) were completed and where is the tarteeb? Which promise has been fulfilled and which ones are left. And which promised was completed when? This is what I am asking! Saleem says did Allah even honor his promises? Did Allah complete these? These 4 promises? What about the promise of “Mutawafeeka”? Has it been completed? Or is it happening in the future? This is my exact question. Now give the answer! I’m gonna make it easy for you, you have a hard time understanding. The 4 promises, when people give these promises, there is Tarteeb! You said the WOW doesn’t have Tarteeb. But these promises have to completed by some type of Tarteeb. Let go of the WOW argument! Which came from your “copy” (paper). Let it go! It has to be completed via tarteeb. Or you don’t even know? When? When is the promise, “rafia-oka elayhaa” 3:55)? You said it was completed physically! What about the other promises? This is what you have to tell. When was it completed? Saleem mentions the other promises in 3:55 and asks when are they going to be completed. Saleem Meer repeats himself. If it is completed, then when was it completed? If there are any promises remaining then when will they be completed? Pay proper attention, I don’t know what you write on your copy (paper). You are again making false allegations on me, your attention seems to be on your whatsapp messages. You don’t listen to me properly, your mic is open! Saleem says that he never said that the ruh (spirit) goes towards the Asmaan (heavens). You’re just bent on saying what you have to say and not engaging me properly. When did I say the Ruh (spirit) goes towards the Asmaan (heavens)? I said the ruh (spirit) goes towards Allah.

At 2:18:19, Bro Imtiaz starts, Saleem you going into a difficulty. You said…now in your turn you must answer this. If someone says that the Ruh (spirit) goes towards the Asmaan (heavens), is this aqida right or wrong? Note it down! Give some answers! You said that the 4 promises have already been completed. The first promise was “mutawafeeka”, this means Allah completely took Eisa (as)(body and ruh). Then, “rafia-oka elayhaa”, he was lifted completely towards Allah. After that, when Allah had fully lifted Eisa (as) towards himself. Allah purified Eisa (as) from the Kafirs. And after that, those who believe in Eisa (As) will remain in power until the Day of Judgement. This promise has always been there, it is being completed in today’s age and the previous ages and in the future and will remain. Now I have answered the question of the 4 promises. And now since I have full answered your questions. Now, you have to write down a question, and write down the answer. Whoever says that the Ruh (spirit) goes towards the Asmaan (heavens) at death, is this wrong or right? As soon as you answer this, it will solve everything. It will end everything. And now, the next daleel, Muhammad (saw) said, it is in Bukhari (hadith #2222), he swore on his life (the famous hadith), the son of Mary will come to you (nazal). Now think about this, how can someone allege that a fully grown man, who lived his life already and died, per the Ahmadiyya belief that is, and now he is saying that he will return? How can someone say like this?

At 2:20:26, Saleem starts, the main issue here is that you keep forgetting that I am the questioner (sahil) and you are the respondent (mujeeb). *He repeats it! Saleem alleges that Imtiaz is making a false allegation on him. Saleem says that he never said that the ruh (spirit) goes towards Asmaan (heavens)(*however, Saleem did, see 2:08:28, he must have forgot). This is only because you have a strategy to add the word Asmaan (heavens) herein. Go ahead and read off your letter, this is what you want anyways. Go ahead! The thing I am asking you, you need to answer, instead, you read off of your script. *He repeats everything again! This is not even the topic, i.e., if someone says the ruh (spirit) goes towards Asmaan (heavens). You keep quoting from the 23 volumes of Ruhani Khuzain, or other stuff like Maktubat, this is because you are reading off of your script. There is no benefit in that! You allege that “mutawafeeka” means Allah completely took Eisa (as)(body and ruh). Now where did you get this interpretation from? Was this promise completed in 5:117 (5:118 in the Kadiani Koran). Are these promises even mentioned? Fallama Tawafaytani is the phrase! Is there any indication that these 4 promises were completed in 5:117? *He repeats the same argument. Saleem asks for more info on 5:117.

At 2:22:34, Bro Imtiaz starts, everyone should make a note that Saleem Meer is alleging that he said “towards Allah” (elay-haa), not “towards asmaan (heavens)”. I then asked Meer sahib a logical question. Is going towards Allah and the Asmaan (heavens) the same thing? However, Saleem didn’t answer. Because you know that if you answer this, i.e., going towards the Asmaan, you will be caught out, since Ahmadi’s have been asking Muslims to show the word “Asmaan” in terms of Eisa (as) for over 125 years. *Saleem Meer forget to start the timer. In Saleem’s turn, he must explain this. Now you are accusing me of putting this word (asmaan) into your mouth? You avoided my previous question also, which was about a contradiction you gave, you had said that even if the Ruh and physical body (jism) of Eisa (as) went towards Allah, then it still can’t mean as such. I asked you to check this…you didn’t! You are alleging that you never said (“towards asmaan”), instead you are alleging that you said elay-hee (towards Allah). Imtiaz asks again about the Tashree of elay-hee, is it wrong to say this means going into the Asmaan? Yes or no? Imtiaz then addresses Saleem’s quotation of 5:117, and explains how Eisa (as) will say, “as long as i was among them, I was a watcher over them”, what does this mean? But Allah, once you did my Tawafee, in other words, once you lifted me towards you, after that, you are their watcher.

At 2:25:00, Saleem starts, at first you (Imtiaz) gave the interpretation of Waffa as “taking in full”, now you are saying that Tawafaytani (*in 5:117) means “lifting towards Allah”. What science is this? Saleem accuses Imtiaz of contradiction. *Saleem repeats this! But Eisa (as) is supposed to return, he will live amongst the people, he will see the reality around him. If Eisa (as) is supposed to return, live 40 years, get married, have children, and kill Kafirs with his breath, will kill the Dajjal, he says so many things to do! Where is all of that? Even if you take Tawafaytani (*in 5:117) to mean that he went to the asmaan, and Allah is the watcher thereafter? Allah will ask Eisa (as) did he say something (an-nas)! Allah won’t ask if you said anything to the people (insaano) of sham, philistine or Bani Israel, Allah meant amongst “insaan” (an-nas). Saleem highlights the word Tawafaytani (*in 5:117) and says that this doesn’t mean “going towards Allah”. Saleem then presents the famous hadith on 5:117 in Bukhari and says that the same wordings were used. Now what interpretation will you do? Did Allah also raised Muhammad (Saw) body and soul? Once you agree that Muhammad (saw) died in this scenario, then you will also accept that Eisa (as) died too!

At 2:27:04, Bro Imtiaz starts and tells Saleem to listen to the answer. As I explained in 3:55, mutawafeeka and raffay-oka-elay-haa. When we combine both statements together, when this promise was completed in 4:158, Allah said, raffa-hoo-ullah elay. This is in the book of Allah. I have been telling you from the beginning! In 3:55, there were both, mutawafeeka and raffay-oka-elay-haa, however, in 4:158, there is no mutawafeeka, it was not repeated. Technically, they were both combined, and it was explained as “lifted towards Allah”. Then you said that An-nas was used (*to infer that Eisa [as] was part of humans, until Allah took him). However, in Chapter 3, there are other cases of An-nas. In this other case, was it the whole world? To take An-Nas to mean that Eisa (as) was amongst the humans of Earth is wrong and against the Quran. In this case, the An-Nas are only those who Eisa (as) was responsible for (*the 12 disciples?). Imtiaz repeats the same hadith on 4:159 wherein Muhammad (Saw) swore to Allah that Eisa (as) the son of Mary (as) would return. Again, if Eisa (as) was dead, why would Muhammad (saw) be swearing God that he would physically return!

At 2:29:05, Saleem starts, again, he repeats his previous argument on the famous hadith about 5:117. Saleem says that the Ahl-e-Hadith school takes everything in Bukhari as Wahi. Saleem repeats this hadith! Saleem then presents the Ahmadi argument on 5:117.

At 2:30:47, Bro Imtiaz starts, Imtiaz presents 4:159 (4:160 in the Kadiani Koran). Imtiaz reminds Saleem that Abu Hurraira related the famous hadith in the above that has been discussed. In response, MGA called Abu Hurraira a Ghabi. Do you think Imam Bukhari believed that Eisa (as) had died? In response to the hadith Saleem posted about 5:117, Imtiaz says that Muhammad (Saw) isn’t responsible for anything after he left his people, the same story is with Eisa (As)(*and all other prophets, they will all be asked this, and they will all respond the same way).

At 2:32:56, Saleem continues, He accuses Muslims of disobeying the Muhammad (saw). Why? Because the aqida that Muslims have developed must continue. Saleem says that MGA wasn’t the first person to call Abu Hurraira a Ghabi, there have been so many! Saleem alleges that Syed Muhammad Hussain Batalvi in response to the Deobandi’s called Abu Hurraira a Ghabi (*however, Saleem didn’t give any ref). Saleem goes back to the famous hadith on 5:117. Saleem then repeats his previous arguments on 5:117. This is called reading your aqida into the Quran! You are doing Tahreef! Since Muhammad (saw) gave you commentary and you refused to accept it.

At 2:35:06, Imtiaz continues and says that he is having fun now! When we mentioned how MGA called Abu Hurraira a Ghabi. You said that so and so also said it! Is this an answer? Imtiaz says that anyone who has spoke ill of Abu Hurraira is wrong! What are you talking about? Two wrongs don’t make a right! You made a big deal about Muhammad (saw) said this (*in 5:117), OK, let’s make Muhammad (Saw) the judge between us. Imtiaz presents the famous hadith again about 4:159. Imtiaz repeats previous arguments! In closing, why don’t you take the book of Bukhari and his meanings?

At 2:37:10, Saleem continues, he talks about the 4 arguments again. Saleem says that he takes Waffa to mean death, again, he presents the hadith from Bukhari on 5:117. Saleem repeats previous arguments.

At 2:39:15, Imtiaz continues, a few turns about, Saleem Meer emotionally said that we must listen to the words of Muhammad (saw), however, in the famous hadith of 4:159, Ahmadi’s don’t take the words of Muhammad (saw). Imtiaz says that he asked Saleem to make Muhammad (saw) the Hakam, and he refused. Imtiaz repeats the famous hadith! Imtiaz repeats another argument, the combining of Waffa and Raffa in 3:55.

At 2:41:24, Saleem continues, he says that he has presented a verse of the Quran (*5:117) and Imtiaz isn’t willing to accept it. Saleem says a dead person can never come back to life, per the Quran and hadith (*this is a blatant lie, in fact, all humans will be brought back to life on the Day of Judgement). Saleem repeats the story of the sahaba who wanted to return to the Dunya and die again and Allah said NO, once you enter Jannah, you can’t leave (*he said this before in a previous debate). Saleem discusses the differences in “Tahqiqi Jawab” and “ilzami jawab”. Saleem argues that this verse (*5:117) means that Allah gave Eisa (as) death. Saleem says that no one know how prophecies play out, even Umar (ra) said that Ibn Sayad was the Dajjal and wouldn’t stop. Saleem inferred that Muhammad (saw)(2:43:12) didn’t know that this prophecy about Eisa (as) would be completed by someone else (naozobillah).

At 2:43:33, Imtiaz starts, Saleem was trying to make Muhammad (Saw) the Hakam! Imtiaz explains how Saleem accused Muhammad (saw) didn’t know that this prophecy about Eisa (as) would be completed by someone else (naozobillah). When we made Muhammad (saw) the Hakam, you accused him of not understanding. By saying what you said, you made it clear that Ahmadi’s believe that Muhammad (saw) was unclear about his own prophecy. Imtiaz presents a hadith from Ibn Maja (4081), wherein Muhammad (saw) met Eisa (as), and Eisa (as) said that he had some tasks left.

At 2:45:49, Saleem starts, he says he is the questioner! Saleem demands an answer to the famous hadith on 5:117. He presents An-Nas again and repeats himself. At 2:47:01, Saleem Meer says that the event of Mir’aj was just a khaab (dream), and in a dream, you can meet whomever and say whatever (with the insinuation that it’s all meaningless). *However, he forgets that the 5 daily prayers and many others events happened which are more than just whatever. When Muhammad (saw) had the famous dream which led to the Treaty of Hudaibya, and he thought it was Hajj! He was stopped while enroute. Saleem mentions Ibn Sayad again. Saleem says that Umar (ra) also swore to Allah (*and was wrong). Saleem says that prophets don’t know how prophecies will play out.

At 2:47:51, Imtiaz starts, if you want to understand the Haq, look at how Saleem made Muhammad (Saw) the Hakam, and Saleem responded by saying that Muhammad (saw) didn’t understand the prophecy. Saleem Meer forgot that even the dreams of the prophets are a form of Wahi. Nevertheless, Saleem alleged that when Muhammad (saw) met Eisa (as), it was a dream and it wasn’t literal. Saleem mentioned the issue of Ibn Sayad, however, he didn’t give the whole hadith. In this same hadith, Muhammad (saw) said that Eisa (as) will kill the Dajjal, not Umar (ra).

At 2:50:00, Saleem responds, he talks about the time.

At 2:51:29, the debate ended and Saleem started wasting time again, talking about the wording of the next two debates.

At 3:18:28, Saleem left.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Links and Related Essay’s

Saleem Meer vs. Bro Imtiaz-2025-Part-1 (uptil the 1:32:35 mark)(1-4-25 debate) – ahmadiyyafactcheckblog

https://sunnah.com/bukhari:4625

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8FmS9yB/

https://x.com/ahmadiyyafacts/status/1879028395478286469?s=46&t=HTqZKquoOvKbgoBAF2aQcg

https://sunnah.com/muslim:2929

Saf ibn Sayyad – Wikipedia

https://sunnah.com/ibnmajah/36

https://x.com/ahmadiyyafacts/status/1879032381061148720?s=46&t=HTqZKquoOvKbgoBAF2aQcg