Intro
On 1-11-25, Bro Imtiaz debated Saleem Meer (Qadiani) on the topic of the Finality of Prophethood. This is part of a 4 series debate. The first was on 1-4-25, today was Part-2 and Part-3 is next Saturday (1-18-25). The final debate is Amir Haq vs. Saleem Meer on the topic of Yuz Asaf, this was supposed to have been done 4 years ago, however, Saleem Meer ran off and refused.
Saleem Meer seems to have accidentally said that ALL types of prophethoods have ended (see the clip on twitter).
However, the first 2 hours were textbook Ahmadiyya back-peddling. They discussed the differences between Nabi and Rasul.
______________________________________________________________________________________________
https://www.youtube.com/live/2Zo3CWRIMfk?si=avFrjPkxXQrR6yAG
–At 2:18:15, Bro Imtiaz finally is able to start. Bro Imtiaz presented 33:40 of the Quran and the prophetic commentary of Muhammad (Saw), “La nabiya badi” (no prophet after).
–At 2:20:25, Saleem Meer starts, Meer asked Bro Imtiaz to read about the full verse first, then we will move forward. Meer alleges that there was a difference between Imtiaz’s Dawah (main argument) and Daleel (explanation).
–At 2:21:40, Bro Imtiaz starts and reads out the verse.
–At 2:23:38, Meer starts, Meer wants the context of 33:40. Saleem Meer says that a person should explain the Quran, from the Quran first (is this a Qadiani rule)?
–At 2:25:50, Bro Imtiaz starts and explains how Muhammad (saw) did the commentary. What else can anyone ask for? Bro Imtiaz implored Meer to object to the context however he wishes.
–At 2:27:50, Meer starts and alleges that he must here an explanation from the Quran first.
–At 2:29:50, Bro Imtiaz starts and explains how Meer didn’t talk about anything at all. Bro Imtiaz presents a hadith from Bukhari-3455 wherein Muhammad (Saw) told Muslims that there would NO prophets like Bani Israel, instead, there would be Khalifa’s.
–At 2:31:21, Meer starts, Meer complains about not hearing the context of 33:40 again.
–At 2:33:26, Bro Imtiaz starts, at 2:33:47, Meer interrupts! Meer says he doesn’t want to hear from Bro Imtiaz. Meer says he is the questioner and Bro Imtiaz must answer his questions.
–At 2:38:13, Meer starts and begins accusing Bro Imtiaz of wasting time. Meer complains about Bro Imtiaz quoting MGA. Meer says he wants Quran explaining Quran. Meer doesn’t want to hear any hadith either.
–At 2:40:35, Bro Imtiaz responds, Imtiaz explains how grammatically, Khatam means LAST. Then, in terms of the Mujadid’s, even they wrote that Khatam means LAST (akhree).
–At 2:42:35, Meer starts, he makes a snide remark about Imtiaz quoting MGA and alleges that Bro Imtiaz has nothing from the Quran. Meer quoted “Tadhir un Nas” by Qasim Nanotvi.
–At 2:45:30, Bro Imtiaz starts, Imtiaz explains how the questioner is now giving daleel (explanations), this is not in the debate. The rules of the debate are thus broken!
–At 2:47:08, Meer starts, Meer talks a bunch of nonsense, then asks if Bro Imtiaz considers Qasim Nanotvi a Muslim or not. Meer says that Qasim Nanotvi said that Muhammad (Saw) is the final prophet in time.
–At 2:49:08, Bro Imtiaz starts, Imtiaz asks Meer to answer if the commentary by Muhammad (SAW) “la nabiya badi” is sufficient or not? Why didn’t Meer answer this? Imtiaz points out Meer has NO Dawah (claim), only Daleel (explanation). Imtiaz points out how Meer forgot the rules of this debate, i.e., only Quran and hadith and “daleel-e-hasm”. Other than that, Meer isn’t supposed to quote anything outside of this.
–At 2:51:12, Meer starts, Meer says that Bro Imtiaz accepts that Qasim Nanotvi is true, that’s why it was presented, now Meer wants a Fatwa. Meer wastes time and repeats the argument that is the questioner.
–At 2:53:22, Bro Imtiaz starts, Imtiaz explains how he quoted Muhammad (saw) and MGA in terms of Khatam un Nabiyeen. Meer had NO daleel, instead, he quoted Qasim Nanotvi, which is against the rules of this debate. Bro Imtiaz explains how Qasim Nanotvi is not Hujjah on him or any Muslim. Bro Imtiaz explains how he presented Quran and hadith and Meer gave NO answer.
–At 2:55:08, Saleem Meer starts, he quotes Qasim Nanotvi again and argues that he disagrees with Bro Imtiaz and Muslims. Meer alleges that Nanotivi disagrees, is he Jewish? Meer name drops Ahmad Rida Khan, Ibn Arabi, Abdul Qadi Jilani and Mullah Ali Qari.
–At 2:57:12, Bro Imtiaz starts, Imtiaz reminds Saleem Meer that Muhammad (Saw) did the Tafsir of 33:40 as “La nabiya nabi”. Meer is silent on this! Imtiaz says that Meer must deny this Tafsir then, this is the implication. Imtiaz says that Saleem Meer needs to show a reference from the writings of Qasim Nanotvi wherien he said that “la nabiya badi” is NOT the tafsir of 33:40.
–At 2:59:14, Meer starts, Meer alleges that he has already quoted Nanotvi wherein Nanotvi argued that being LAST in time doesn’t imply greatness and thus, Muhammad (Saw) was not the last in time. Meer reads a quote wherein Nanotvi was talking about the hypothetical.
–At 3:01:30, Bro Imtiaz starts, Bro Imtiaz tells Meer that he took 2:20 seconds and thus, Imtiaz will also take it. Bro Imtiaz explains how Meer cannot deny that “La nabiya badi” is the commentary of 33:40 and via Muhammad (saw). Imtiaz explains how Meer misrepresented Nanotvi. Nanotvi wrote conclusively that there is NO other prophet after Muhammad (Saw), Nanotvi also said that any new claimant of prophethood is a Kafir. Nanotvi also said on this topic that if anyone does taweel, they are also a Kafir.
At 3:03:54, Meer starts, Meer complains about not knowing the reference to what Bro Imtiaz quoted from Nanotvi. Meer infers that Nanotvi disagrees with Imtiaz.
At 3:05:00, Saleem Meer is paused. At 3:05:46, he returns. He repeats that Nanotvi said that Muhammad (Saw) is not the last prophet in time and being the last prophet in time doesn’t mean advanced excellences.
At 3:06:02, Imtiaz starts, Imtiaz begins reading 2 references from Nanotvi. In this reference, Nanotvi said that Muhammad (Saw) is the final prophet in time (zamana) and everyone agrees on this and that Muhammad (Saw) is the best (musulum). Imtiaz then quotes Sahih Muslim-2287, this is the hadith wherein it is reported that Muhammad (Saw) is the final brick in the house of prophets. The final brick is Muhammad (Saw), who came and ended the bricks in the house.
At 3:08:03, Meer starts, he complains that he got a “perchee” from Imtiaz, it is insufficient, Meer requests a full page. Meer says that he will respond to the hadith’s that Imtiaz presented.
At 3:08:46, Meer is paused. At 3:09:06, Meer returns. Meer accuses Imtiaz of going into the background. Meer accuses Imtiaz of leaving out a sentence when Imtiaz presented hadith, that sentence had the word “Shariat” (law), Meer infers that only this type of prophethood has ended. Meer accuses Bro Imtiaz of believing that prophethood has continued and wahi. Meer asks what has ended then? Meer alleges that Muslims disagree on “Khatme Nubuwwat”. Meer alleges that Bro Imtiaz was quiet on “Tadhir e Nas” and those quotes.
At 3:10:15, Bro Imtiaz starts, Imtiaz says that Meer must prove that in the hadith of the LAST brick, law-bearing prophethood was inferred only. Bro Imtiaz requested Meer to send him the ref via whatsapp. Bro Imtiaz quoted RK-20, page-213 (See Lecture Sialkot, pages 16-17, online English edition), in this quote, MGA said that Eisa (As) ended “Israeli” nubuwwat and Eisa (as) was the last brick. Thus, MGA explained that being the final brick means that nubuwwat has ended. Imtiaz gave some additional hadith about the ending of prophethood and Muslims being the last ummah
At 3:12:27, Meer starts, in response to the hadith about Muslims being the final Ummah, Meer responded to this and alleged that this only means that that NO prophet can come in the ummah who is disconnected from Muhammad (Saw)(a total lie). Meer argues that if Muhammad (saw) ended the prophets (khatam ul Anbiya), why is Eisa (as) still alive? Thus, argues Meer this is contradictory. Meer alleges that “la Nabiya badi” stops Eisa (as) from returning and thus this is a contradiction.
At 3:14:28, Bro Imtiaz starts, Bro Imtiaz points out how Saleem Meer did taweel. Bro Imtiaz points out how Saleem Meer defined “khatam tau” as death (maut) and asks for additional clarification. Bro Imtiaz reminds Meer that MGA said that Eisa (as) was the last brick and ended the Israeli nubuwwat cycle. Meer was totally silent on this. Bro Imtiaz points out how Saleem Meer said during his term that “La Nabiya Badi” ended all types of prophethood. Bro Imtiaz requests Saleem Meer to explain these types in his next turn.
At 3:15:57, Meer starts and alleges that he answered the hadith that was presented and gave Quran and even quoted Qasim Nanotvi. Meer says that he proved from Qasim Nanotvi that Muhammad (Saw) is not the last in time, anyone who thinks that Muhammad (Saw) is the last is ignorant (jahil). It is disrespectful to Allah also and the Rasul and the word of Allah. Meer asserts that any Muslim who calls Muhammad (Saw) the LAST (akhree) nabi is ignorant and Muslims are not ready to believe as such. Meer alleges that he proved from “La nabiya badi” that it means that Eisa (as) is dead if it is defined as LAST. Meer makes nonsensical arguments then argues is this “mutlaq” or “mushrut”? Or is it ghair-mushrut.
At 3:18:03, Bro Imtiaz starts, Bro Imtiaz asks Meer to give the types of prophethood, fully defined. Don’t hide your aqida (belief). After Meer explains the “types of prophethood”, then we will discuss “mutlaq” or “mushrut”.
At 3:20:00, Saleem Meer starts, Meer repeats his previous argument, i.e., “La Nabiya Badi” and alleges that it means that all prophets have died. Meer argues how could Eisa (As) come now? Meer alleges that if Eisa (As) appears, this hadith would be disproven and Quran. These are huge contradictions. On one hand you say no new prophets, on the other hand you say 1 prophet is coming. Is “La Nabiya Badi”, “mutlaq” or “ghair-mushrut”?
–At 3:22:10, Bro Imtiaz starts, Imtiaz says he keeps asking Meer to answer about the Tafsir of “Khatamun Nabiyeen”! Does it mean “La Nabiya badi”? Is this accurate or not? Stop doing taweel! Bro Imtiaz reminds Meer that he presented MGA’s calling himself the LAST BRICK and no answer was given. Where is Meer getting his commentary on “La Nabiya badi” meaning all prophets have died? Tell us the types of prophethoods first, then we can answer in better detail. Why does Meer keep bringing up “mutlaq” or “ghair-mushrut”? He must answer first. Write down your questions!
At 3:24:13, Meer starts and says that his questions weren’t answers. Meer argues that if he takes Imtiaz’s position on “La Nabiya badi” being the prophetic commentary of “Khatam un Nabiyeen” (33:40), then by implication that would mean that all prophets have died and NO prophet of any sort would come. The death of Eisa (As) is also confirmed, Meer argues. Meer argues that Muslims must do taweel to explain the physical second coming of Eisa (as). There is no proper daleel now. Meer repeats himself.
At 3:26:14, Bro Imtiaz starts, Imtiaz points out how Meer is avoiding the obvious, that is explaining the types of prophethood. Imtiaz says that if Meer does this, then we can come to a conclusion. Saleem Meer has admitted that “La Nabiya badi” is the prophetic commentary of “Khatam un Nabiyeen” (33:40). This has been fully admitted. This aqida is now established. Now lets talk about your second aqida, which you havent admitted to yet. Will Eisa (as) be a Nabi-ullah? He will physically descend, is this proper or not? Is this via the kitab and sunnah?
At 3:27:53, Meer starts, Meer says that he is the questioner, he doesn’t have to answer anything. Imtiaz must answer, but he isn’t. Meer says that he asked is it “ghair-mushrut” or “Mushrut”. Meer repeats himself. Meer alleges that “La Nabiya Badi” means that ALL prophets have died. Meer says that Muslims must pick what this means? Meer asserts that Muslims have contradictory beliefs. Muslims have these contradictions in 70+ sects, Qasim Nanotvi and Ahmad Rida Khan hated each other and did Takfir of each other and why did Zubair Ali Zai do takfir. Some say those who deny wahi and ilham are deniers of khatme nubuwat.,
At 3:29:58, Bro Imtiaz starts, Imtiaz points out how sometimes Meer is the questioner and sometimes he is the respondent. Sometimes Meer gives daleel, sometimes meer says “If” he accepts that “La Nabiya badi” is the prophetic commentary of “Khatam un Nabiyeen” (33:40). Imtiaz says why did Meer neglect to explain the different types of prophetood and is now hiding under being the questioner? Bro Imtiaz explains that Muslims have 2 relevant aqida’s wherein, one that “La Nabiya badi” is the prophetic commentary of “Khatam un Nabiyeen” (33:40) and two, that Eisa (As) will physically return in the end times. Imtiaz asks Meer as to which of these 2 aqida’s are against the Quran? Meer is alleging that in the Quran there is a contradiction, which is totally against Islam. If Meer answers this, the position of the Qadiani religion will end today. Saleem needs to answer this, don’t become the “questioner” again.
At 3:31:49, Saleem meer starts and speaks like a woman. Meer argues about who is the questioner and who is the respondent. Meer says that “La Nabiya badi” is the prophetic commentary of “Khatam un Nabiyeen” (33:40) and two, that Eisa (As) will physically return in the end times is a contradictory position. Meer says that Imtiaz is trying to get Meer to admit that “La Nabiya badi” means that NO prophet of any type can appear. Meer alleges that in the same breath, Imtiaz is alleging that Eisa (As) will physically return in the end times. Meer says that these 2 aqidas are contradictory (mutazad). Meer argues that one of these aqidas is a lie (jhoot). Meer argues that either “La Nabiya badi” doesn’t mean that NO prophet can come, or Eisa (as) physically descending is a lie and he has died and the dead cannot return. Meer repeats himself. Meer says that Qasim Nanotvi wrote that someone who thinks that Muhammad (Saw) is the last prophet in time is ignorant. Ahmad Rida Khan said that this person is a Kafir and etc. Meer alleges that Zubair Ali Zai did takfir of Ahmad Rida Khan and Nanotvi.
At 3:33:56, Bro Imtiaz starts and says that Meer keeps contradicting himself, is Meer is the questioner or the respondent. Imtiaz says that as soon as he asked about the types of prophethood, Meer panics and become the “questioner” again. Again, Bro Imtiaz repeats himself, “La Nabiya badi” is the prophetic commentary of “Khatam un Nabiyeen” (33:40) and two, that Eisa (As) will physically return in the end times. Bro Imtiaz wants an answer on this. Which of these are contradictory?
At 3:35:30, Meer starts, Meer cries about who is the questioner and who is the respondent. Meer says that the “questioner” also has the right to give daleel (arguments). Meer accuses Bro Imtiaz of being a “crazy-mullah” and afraid for his life as well as “la-ilm” (NO knowledge). Thus, Imtiaz doesn’t know that the “questioner” also has the right to give daleel (arguments). Meer quotes Ahmad Rida Khan vs. the Deobandis again. Meer also accused Ahmad Rida Khan of takfeering the grandson of Shah Wali ullah.
At 3:37:41, Imtiaz starts, Imtiaz explains how Meer is the “questioner”, however, he refuses to give additional and clarifying information in terms of his questions, it’s quite ironic. Imtiaz implores Meer to learn the proper position of the “questioner” (sahil). Imtiaz asks, it isn’t proper for a questioner to ask for additional clarification of their questions before answering? Hasn’t Meer read this anywhere? Firstly, Meer is unable to give any other explanation to “La Nabiya Badi” being the prophetic commentary of “Khatam un Nabiyeen” (33:40). Secondly, Eisa (As) will physically return, both of these are loudly presented. Meer was supposed to state as to which of these are contradictory, he didn’t! Why doesn’t Meer (Mr. Questioner!) give an answer?
At 3:39:42, Meer starts, Meer alleges that Imtiaz is trying to get out of answering questions and has confused the position of “questioner” vs. “respondent”. Meer says that Muslims hold a contradictory position on the end of prophets and the physical return of Eisa (as)(wherein he will get 40 years of wahi). Meer says that in the past 90 minutes, Imtiaz gave no proper explanations (daleel). Meer says the entire Muslim world differs on “Khatme Nubuwwat” and they do takfir on each other over it, shias vs. wahabi’s vs. Deobandi’s vs. Barelvi’s. Meer quotes “Fatawa Rizviyya” by Ahmad Rida Khan and shows he did Takfir of Deobandi’s, Shia’s and Ahle-e-Hadeeth”. Ahmad Rida Khan even takfeered the grandson of Shah Wali Ullah.
At 3:42:06, Bro Imtiaz asked about how much time is life. 18 mins are left. Imtiaz will have the final word, even though Meer tried to get it. Imtiaz explains that Muslims have 1 aqida, that is “Khatam un Nabiyeen” (via 33:40) and it has the tafsir of “La Nabiya Badi”. The other aqida is that Eisa (as)(nabi ullah) will physically return. Meer should show some strength and tell us which of these 2 are against the Quran. Meer alleges that there is a contradiction, he must show it, which one is it? Meer knows that both of these positions are per the Quran and sunnah and is stuck in quandry. Meer needs to tell us, where did he read this?
At 3:45:00, Meer starts, Meer says that Imtiaz has a lack of knowledge and doesn’t know the role of a questioner vs. a respondent. Meer alleges that Imtiaz knows that there is a contradiction with the 2 beliefs as posed by Imtiaz. Meer says that Eisa (as) has died and can never return. Meer says that it is against his “aql” (intellect) to believe in both of these aqida’s as presented by Imtiaz. Meer alleges that Muslims like Bro Imtiaz don’t believe in “la nabiya badi” as “mushrut”, instead, Imtiaz believes it to be “ghair-musrut”. Either way, there is a contradiction. Meer says that Imtiaz threw his aql into the ocean.
At 3:47:50, Bro Imtiaz starts, Imtiaz says that Saleem meer was too emotional and has lost the plot. Again, Bro Imtiaz explains how he stumped Meer by asking him which of these two aqidas are incorrect. Imtiaz explains how there is NO contradiction between the two, however, Ahmadi’s think there is. Imtiaz points out how Meer has now confessed that the Tafsir of “Khatam un Nabiyyeen” is “La Nabiya Badi”. Imtiaz points how Ahmadi’s tried to solve this “alleged” contradiction by creating new types of prophethood which are outside of Islam, zilli, buruzi and others. This is a denial of “khatme Nubuwwat”. Ahmadi’s have denied the Quran and Sunnah via their silly beliefs. Imtiaz repeats this. Imtiaz says that Saleem Meer has denied that Eisa (as) bin Maryam is actually Eisa (as) bin Maryam.
At 3:49:50, Meer starts and says that Imtiaz has eaten something (did drugs) before he came here and says that I have denied that Eisa (as) bin Maryam is actually Eisa (as) bin Maryam. Meer says that Imtiaz accuses him of creating some new types of prophethood, however, Meer says that Imtiaz seems to have not read “Tadhir un Nas” (page 17) by Qasim Nanotvi. Meer blames Qasim Nanotvi for creating different types of prophethood like “nubuwwat bil arz” and “nubuwwat bil zaat”. Meer asks does anyone other than Nanotvi believe in these? NO! However, Muslims call him a Kafir for saying things like this. If they do, tell me. Meer does firqa-firqa. Meer says that some Muslims like Ghulami, Pervezi, Ghamidi, Jamaat ul muslimeen, they all believe that Eisa (as) has died. Qasim Nanotvi said that even if a prophet is born, it has no effect on the “Khatme Nubuwwat” of Muhammad (Saw). Meer repeats his comments on firqa-firqa and takfeer.
At 3:51:56, Bro Imtiaz starts, Imtiaz points how “Mr. Questioner” is full of emotion and has forgot to explain the different types of prophethood (which is non-islamic). Imtiaz points out how Saleem Meer is presenting “Tadhir un Nas” (page 17) by Qasim Nanotvi as his proof of these different types of prophethoods. Imtiaz points out how ironic it is, since Ahmadi’s allege to only use the Quran first in their discussions. Imtiaz points out that when called the explanation of prophethood by Saleem Meer as “unislamic”, Saleem Meer ran to “Tadhir un Nas” (page 17) by Qasim Nanotvi. Imtiaz asks as to why Saleem Meer is refusing to give the Ahmadiyya answer in terms of “different types of prophethood”? Muslims heard that “La Nabiya Badi” was the prophetic commentary on “Khatam un Nabiyeen” and unanimously accepted it. Muhammad (Saw) told us that Eisa (as) would physically return, and Muslims accepted him. However, Ahmadi’s denied “Khatam un Nabuwwat” and gave prophethood an “unislamic” coloring. Then, Ahmadi’s denied the physical return of Eisa (as) and allege that MGA fulfilled all of the predictions. Imtiaz points out how Saleem Meer is a denier of both positions and Muslims accept both beliefs and Saleem Meer doesn’t have the strength to say that this specific aqida is wrong or the other aqida is wrong. Saleem Meer’s silence has proven all of this. Saleem admitted that both are Islamic aqida’s (kitab and sunnah) and that he denies both.
At 3:54:06, Meer starts, Meer complains that Imtiaz said that ALL muslim’s believe in this (who are all of these Muslims), however, Ghamidi doesn’t (believes that Eisa has died), Ghulam Ahmad Pervez (believes that Eisa has died), Sir Syed, Allama Iqbal, Jamaat ul Muslimeen, which Muslims is Imtiaz referring to? The interpretation that Imtiaz gave of “Khatam un Nabiyeen”, Qasim Nanotvi differs, Ahmad Rida Khandiffers, Nazeer Hussain Delvhi differs and Maulvi Sanaullah differs, so what is Imtiaz presenting? Meer says that Ahmad Rida Khan did Takfeer of Qasim Nanotvi. Meer says that Nanotvi wrote that even if a prophet is born, it doesn’t effect the “Khatme Nubuwwat” of Muhammad (saw). Meer repeats his arguments on firqa-firqa. Meer emotionally barks that Eisa (As) has died and will never return.
At 3:56:08, Imtiaz starts, Imtiaz says that Saleem Meer needs to admit that the re-appearance of Eisa (as) contradicts the Quran, he hasn’t said this clearly. Saleem Meer needs to muster the courage to say this! Meer needs to say it! Meer is using Qasim Nanotvi, if he says that there is a contradiction in Islam, watch who we will present to him! Imtiaz dares Saleem Meer to quote a verse of the Quran to support the zilli-buruzi prophethood of MGA! Now Meer remembers Qasim Nanotvi and hides behind him! Are these his “musalamat”? Again, Meer needs to say that the return of Eisa (as) is against the Quran and Sunnah!
At 3:58:04, Meer starts his final turn, Meer alleges that in 3 hours, Imtiaz failed to present any arguments to prove his case. Meer repeats many arguments. Meer says that Imtiaz proved that the Quran has contradictions in it. Meer says that Imtiaz believes in two contradictory positions. The reason is, Imtiaz doesn’t care about his “aql” (intellect). Meer alleges that Muslims take their scholars (baabbay) as Gods and have blind faith and they are not ready to give this up, instead, these Muslims believe in contradiction. Saleem meer says that these are those people who don’t change themselves and instead try to change the Quran. Meer says that these people (muslims) will change the Quran first and do tahreef, but will not quit their aqida.
At 4:00:10, Imtiaz starts, Imtiaz quotes MGA and how MGA said that if you use your “aql” “intellect” vs. the Quran and Sunnah, then your “aql” has lost (See RK-3-pg552, Izala Auham). Imtiaz explains how Muhammad (saw) gave us both positions. Imtiaz points how Saleem Meer was unable to prove that “La Nabiya Badi” is NOT the tafsir of 33:40 (Khatam un Nabiyeen), Meer was also not able to deny that Eisa (as) would appear (nazal). Imtiaz points out how Saleem Meer falsely accused Imtiaz of believing that there is contradiction in the Quran. Imtiaz points out how he showed that anyone who believes in new prophets is a Kafir per Qasim Nanotvi. In closing, Imtiaz states that by creating a new type of prophethood, which can’t be proven from the Quran and Sunnah, Ahmadi’s have denied “Khatme Nubuwwat” and have even denied that Eisa (as) bin Maryam is actually Eisa (as) bin Maryam.
At 4:02:11, Saleem Meer and Bro Imtiaz exchange pleasantries.
At 4:04:40, the debate ends.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
RK-20, page-213
See Lecture Sialkot, pages 16-17, online English edition
via Bro Imtiaz vs. Saleem Meer, 3:10:15
In 1904, MGA called himself the final brick of the prophets, just like Eisa (as) was also the Final brick of the Israeli chain of prophets (See RK-20, page-213, Lecture Sialkot, pages 16-17, online English edition, via Bro Imtiaz vs. Saleem Meer, 3:10:15).
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad said to deny your aql (intellect) in religion – ahmadiyyafactcheckblog
https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2025/02/17/mirza-ghulam-ahmad-said-to-deny-your-aql-intellect-in-religion/
In Feb-2025, via a Bro Imtiaz stream, he showed how MGA told people to deny their aql (intellect) if anything was against the Quran and hadith (See RK-3-pg552, Izala Auham).
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Links and Related Essay’s
Who is Yuz Asaf? – ahmadiyyafactcheckblog
Who is Saleem Meer? Aka Mindroaster Mir? – ahmadiyyafactcheckblog
https://x.com/sakhinyc123/status/1878467989650931817?s=46&t=HTqZKquoOvKbgoBAF2aQcg
What is the difference between Prophets and Messengers in Islam? Why did MGA claim to be both?
Saleem Meer vs. Bro Imtiaz-2025-Part-3 (2:13:25 til END)(1-4-25 debate) – ahmadiyyafactcheckblog
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Tags
#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog #messiahhascome #ahmadiyyat #trueislam #ahmadianswers #mirzaghulamahmad #qadiani #qadianism
Leave a Reply