ahmadiyyafactcheckblog

Intro
In the below, we have created a page wherein we posted all the times that MGA referred to Ibn Arabi. We have also posted a document from alislam.org wherein MGA refers to Ibn Arabi in his books. It should be noted that his name is written as Ibn al-‘Arabi in some of MGA’s books.

In 1885-1886, via Surma Chashmay Arya (RK-2, pages 175-181, via Essence of Islam, V-2, page 35), MGA said that a Wali possessing the capacity for vision, using his mind, can appear to another person, at a distance of hundreds of miles in a state of complete wakefulness without his body moving from its place. MGA alleged that the author of Futuhat and Fusus (ibn Arabi)(and other great Sufi’s also experienced this, however, MGA alleges they he didn’t need their testimony, he has his own experience which taught him about this phenomenon.

In 1897-1898 (See Kitab ul Barriya), MGA and his team of writers, alleged that Ibn Arabi had written that Jesus will descend but in the sense that he will be associated with a different body (See page 19, Lahori-Ahmadi abridged translation), and that he died (see page 34, Lahori-Ahmadi abridged translation) MGA and his team referenced page 262 (see a document by the Qadiani’s) of a commentary written by Ibn Arabi, however, this seems to be Tafsir-i-Kashani by Abd al-Razzaq Kāshānī. Tafsir Kashani can also be found online at Al-Tafsir.com. Tafsir Kashani was also printed under the title “Tafseer ibn Arabi” (see online herein).

In 1902, MGA and his team quoted Nawab Siddiq Hassan Khan‘s book, “Hujaj al Kiramah” and alleged that that Ibn Arabi wrote that the Messiah would be called a Kafir (See Al-Hakam, vol. 6, no. 44, dated 10 December 1902, pp. 1-2, Via Malfuzat-4, online English edition, pages 143 and 145).

In Oct-1908, BA-5 (see page 386), after MGA died, MGA’s team of writers alleged that Ibn al-‘Arabi wrote in one of his books—which is his last book—that ‘Isa would indeed come but only in a new manifestation; that is, that some other person of this Ummah would appear in the spirit of ‘Isa. However, MGA didn’t give the name of the book.

Did Ibn Arabi believe Isa (As) to be a half human and half an angelic spirit, different from the four types of creations: 1) Adam 2) Eve 3) Bani Adam 4) Jesus (half spirit of Gabriel and half son of Mary).? Did Imam Al-Ghazzali do Takfir of Ibn Arabi? Watch Bro Haji’s explanation herein, he alleges that Ibn Arabi was a total deviant and shouldn’t be read for Islam, some Sufi’s might have quoted him without knowing his full Aqida.

“Buruz means that the nature of some saints resembles the nature of a particular prophet. Many saints are made to travel through the achievements of the great prophets and the saints are coloured with the colour of the prophets. In other words, the image of the achievements of the prophets is transferred to them. One could also say that the special qualities of the prophets are manifested and projected (buruz) through them. But after the journey is completed, each of them remains in their original position of natural belonging. For example, the saint who supports the cause of faith is referred to as one who has the nature of Noah(as) or who stands in the footsteps of Noah(as), or as one who manifests Noah(as), or as the buruz of Noah(as). The saint who accepts the will of God is called someone who has the nature of Moses(as), the one of sincerity and self-annihilation is called someone who has the nature of Jesus(as), and the one who is a perfect servant who combines all these qualities is called someone who has the nature of Muhammad(sa). Sometimes it is said that this or that saint is the buruz of this or that prophet, just as the moon is the buruz of the sun. In short, the Prophet is the original and the saint is his copy and the original of the Prophets is Muhammad(sa).” (Muhyi d-Din ibn ‘Arabi, Urdu translation of Fusus al-Hikam , ed./trans. Muhammad ‘Abd al-Qadir Siddiqi, Hyderabad, Dar at-Tab‘-i Jami ‘ah-i ‘Uthmaniyyah, 1942, p. 24).

In 1984, Mirza Tahir Ahmad called Ibn Arabi as no less than a prophet, i.e., the like of prophets, and via 4:69 (4:70 in the Kadiani Koran). 

In June of 2025, Ahmadi’s discussed Ibn Arabi on the True Islam Uk Urdu stream vs. Bro Imtiaz.

In 2026 (Jul), Sheikh Asrar Rashid accused Maulvi Razi of misquoting Ibn Arabi (14:46 timestamp), the Sheikh explains how in “Al-Futuhat al-Makkiyya”, Ibn Arabi took the mainstream position that Eisa (as) is alive in the heavens and will physically descend in the end times (15:28 time stamp).

Continue reading “Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and Ibn Arabi” →

Intro
Via Hashmi, Maulana Tosif Ahmad of Alamai Majlis Tahaffuze Khatme Nabuwwat has stated that Qadianis may be made to respect the constitution and law of the country. He said Jamaat Ahmadiyyah is allegedly about to encroach upon the four acres of land of Pakistan Railways in Rabwah. They have parked their Tractors here and tree plantation is going on by them. Neither Railways department nor any other government authorities know anything of such illegal activities by Jamaat. He said Jamaat occupy the land in the name of green belts and then get it registered to their names by courts of law. He said there were about 15 houses of Muslims by 2010 they were removed after an operation of by the authorities. Molana Tosif said government should take serious action against these illegal activities of Qadiani Jamaat. Ghulam Muhammad, the Station Master of Rabwah Railways may be included in the investigations.

It should be noted that Rabwah seems to be on a 99-year lease and was totally illegal.

Continue reading “In 2025, did the Ahmadiyya Movement in Rabwah steal land from the Pakistani Government?” →

Intro
On Aug-12, 1984, at the Fazl Mosque in London, Mirza Tahir Ahmad seems to have held a lengthy semi-open pre-planned Question and Answer session. It starts off with an Ahmadi questioner who is perplexed over the Ahmadiyya argument on the possibility of prophets after MGA (Hazrat Maseeh-e-Maud). The questioner says that many Ahmadi’s in his circle of friends are also perplexed. The questioner tells Mirza Tahir Ahmad that the Ahmadi argument is that prophethood is a “rahmat” (blessing) and this can’t be stopped. The questioner said that Ahmadi’s are feeling like this in 1984 too, i.e., that after MGA, there will be no prophets. On the same day, Mirza Tahir Ahmad said that Nabiyeena in 4:69 only promises the like-of-prophets.

Mirza Tahir Ahmad then answered by saying that the “like of prophets are NO less than prophets” (1:42 time stamp). Mirza Tahir Ahmad argued that this is an inferiority complex that Muslims are suffering from. Mirza Tahir Ahmad argues that Muslims are the best ummah and thus, their station is much higher than anyone who passed before (this includes prophets, nauozoillah). He argues that only Ahmadi’s know about the high status of Muhammad (Saw). He argued that Ibne Arabi, Shah Wali Ullah and Abdul Qadir Jilani were better than some of the prophets of Israel (naozobillah). He argued that even Bilal was no less than a prophet. Mirza Tahir Ahmad argues that these types of prophets Ibn Arabi, Shah Wali Ullah, Abdul Qadir Jilani and Abu Bakr (ra), Uthman (ra), Ali (ra) Umar (ra) Bilal (ra) will all continue to come (see this clip on TikTok and Twitter). Mirza Tahir Ahmad says that you pick any of the great saints of Islam, and truly and honestly, if you compare them with the prophets of Israel, the older (Israeli-prophets) they look like “pick-me’s” (did he say pygmy? 6:44 time stamp)(this is great disrespect of the previous prophets by Mirza Tahir).

At 11:38, Mirza Tahir Ahmad argues that NO ONE says that NO prophet can come, and a prophet in the fashion of Muhammad (Saw) can also come (like the Buruzi, Zilli and second coming of Muhammad [saw}), however, there is no prophecy about it (see on TikTok and twitter).

Continue reading “In Aug-1984, Mirza Tahir Ahmad argued that NO ONE says that NO prophet can come, and a prophet in the fashion of Muhammad (Saw) can also come” →

Intro
On Aug-12-1984, Mirza Tahir Ahmad held a Question/Answer session at the Fazl Mosque in London. The Ahmadi questioner said that Allah revealed that prophets would come. Mirza Tahir Ahmad immediately said NO! At 1:28, Mirza Tahir Ahmad says that MGA claimed to be that prophet who was predicted by Muhammad (Saw) and addressed as Nabi by Muhammad (saw) (only). On the same day, Mirza Tahir Ahmad argued that NO ONE says that NO prophet can come, and a prophet in the fashion of Muhammad (Saw) can also come.

At 1:53, Mirza Tahir Ahmad says that if anyone repeats the claim of MGA, it would be their duty to prove where Muhammad (Saw) has referred to another one and gave this other prediction of a “prophet”.

Mirza Tahir Ahmad eventually discussed 4:69 (4:70 in the Kadiani Koran) and alleged that the verse says “nabiyeen”, which doesn’t mean plural would come, it’s a way of expression, instead, they would become the “the like of prophets”.

At 12:06, Mirza Tahir Ahmad defended Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as the last prophet, and alleged it was accidental and etc. And someone has to be last, it doesn’t mean superiority. More often then not, the last are the not the best (See the clip on TikTok and Twitter).

At 12:44, Mirza Tahir Ahmad argues that being Last is not a matter of pride at all, Mirza Tahir Ahmad suggests that Non-Ahmadi’s believe in this as a matter of pride. Mirza Tahir Ahmad argues that they don’t say that Maseeh e Maud (MGA) is the Last prophet and thus the greatest.  Mirza Tahir Ahmad argues that each chain of prophets, always had someone who was last, and that person was never the Best. This is wrong! The best came before him (referring to Muhammad, saw, coming before MGA). Mirza Tahir Ahmad then clarifies that not never “the best”, but, more often than not, they were never “the best”. Mirza Tahir Ahmad argued that maybe accidentally a few of them were the better than previous people (prophets). Mirza Tahir Ahmad says it’s not a rule, it’s pure chance.

Continue reading “In 1984, Mirza Tahir Ahmad said that Nabiyeena in 4:69 only promises the like-of-prophets” →

Intro
The AMJI (aka Mirza family) knows that the Ahmadiyya chanda is running out. Thus, they are begging for asylum from Bangladesh. They can be seen begging Mr. Jamie Staley, Foreign Aff. Officer, Intern’l Religious Freedom, U.S State Dept., Mr. Metthew Beh, Dty. Political/Economic Counselor and Mr. Hermanoschy Bernard, Human Rights Officer, US Embassy, Dhaka at the Ahmadiyya Nat’l HQ. On the Qadiani-Ahmadi side, Ahmad Tabshir Choudhury (Director External & Public Affairs, Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama’at, Bangladesh) and Maulana Abdul Awwal Khan Chaudhry (wokring as missionary-in-charge since 1988) can be noticed (not sure of the other two).

Just recently, in Germany, the Ahmadiyya Movement has met with 124 government officials and begged for asylum. Thus we see a trend and uptick in the Ahmadiyya Movement begging for more asylum.

Continue reading “Bengali Ahmadi’s are begging the USA to take Ahmadi asylee’s from Bangladesh” →

Intro
Maulana Abdul Awwal Khan Chaudhry has been the missionary-in-charge for Ahmadiyya in Bangladesh since 1988. He participates in Shotter Shondhane, a bi-monthly live phone-in program on Muslim Television Ahmadiyya (MTA) International. A vocal activist against religious fanaticism, he has represented the Ahmadiyya community in numerous international conferences and has visited the United States under the International Visitors Leadership Program. During the anti-Ahmadiyya uprising in Bangladesh, he spoke out boldly and persuasively against radicalism using love, logic, and prayer.

Maulana Abdul Awwal Khan Chaudhry received a Shahid degree in 1988 from Jamia Ahmadiyya International University of Theology and Modern Languages in Rabwah, Pakistan. He has also served as head of local missionary training courses and as the chief editor and producer of MTA. Along with numerous translations, he has authored two books aimed at countering radicalism in Bangladeshi society: Under the Garb of Religious Edicts and Challenging the Utter Lies of Mufti Noorani.

The AMJI (aka Mirza family) knows that the Ahmadiyya chanda is running out. Thus, they are begging for asylum from Bangladesh. They can be seen begging Mr. Jamie Staley, Foreign Aff. Officer, Intern’l Religious Freedom, U.S State Dept., Mr. Metthew Beh, Dty. Political/Economic Counselor and Mr. Hermanoschy Bernard, Human Rights Officer, US Embassy, Dhaka at the Ahmadiyya Nat’l HQ. On the Qadiani-Ahmadi side, Ahmad Tabshir Choudhury (Director External & Public Affairs, Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama’at, Bangladesh) and Maulana Abdul Awwal Khan Chaudhry (wokring as missionary-in-charge since 1988) can be noticed (not sure of the other two).

Continue reading “Who is Maulana Abdul Awwal Khan Chaudhry?” →

Intro
In June of 2025, Maulvi Razi and his team of paid Maulvi’s got caught lying by Adnan Rashid (2:44:40 timestamp) and Bro Imtiaz about many things (see the clips on TikTok and twitter). Maulvi Razi got caught mispresenting Ahmad Reza Khan, Shah Wali Ullah and many others. Bro Imtiaz made Maulvi Razi confess that Ahmadi’s never argue that scholars like Qurtubi, Shah Wali Ullah, Mujadid Suyuti and anyone else (See on TikTok and Twitter) said that the second coming of Muhammad (Saw) would happen via 62:3 (62:4 in the Kadiani Koran). Bro Imtiaz reviewed this entire debate herein and tweeted about it and made a shorter video. Bro Imtiaz proved how all the arguments that the Ahmadiyya clergy made in this video were also denied by Razi when he was cornered by Bro Imtiaz.

Firstly, Ibrahim Ikhtalaf lied about a quote from Qurtubi (10:26 time stamp)(Read other quotes to from Qurtubi from Ahmadi’s herein). The book is Al-Jami’ li Ahkam al-Qur’an (The General Judgments of the Qur’an) aka Tafsir al-Qurtubi. Ibrahim Ikhtalaf alleged that Qurtubi quoted 62:3 and argued that Qurtubi meant that Muhammad (saw) will be raised twice (naozobillah)(this is a total misinterpretation of Qurtubi).

Secondly, Ibrahim Ikhtalaf lied about a quote from Shah Wali Ullah wherein he alleged that Shah Wali Ullah supported the concept of Buruz in the form of a second coming of Muhammad (Saw)(naozobillah). However, this is not a book by Shah Wali Ullah, it is a commentary via Mufti Muhammad Amin Palanpuri (from the Deoband school). Furthermore, the book is in either Urdu or Persian, which Ibrahim Ikhtalaf can’t read, nor has he had read this book from cover to cover.
Ibrahim Ikhtalaf seems to be reading an Arabic translation, he didn’t give his source. Ibrahim Ikhtalaf noticed that the word “Khatim” was used. Ibrahim Ikhtalaf then accused Shah Wali Ullah via Mufti Muhammad Amin Palanpuri (from the Deoband school) of arguing that the Buruz (clear copy, like a clone)) of Muhammad (Saw) would come again as Eisa (As)(Naozobillah). These are all lies! However, Ibrahim Ikhtalaf makes a huge blunder and reveals that this quote is about Eisa (as) the son of Mary (as) and how his physical return as a prophet doesn’t contradict Khatme Nubuwwat. In conclusion, Mansoor Ahmad Clarke argued that Shah Wali Ullah and Qurtubi promoted the concept of Buruz and the second coming of Muhammad (Saw)(naozobillah).

After that, Maulvi Razi used 47:38 (47:39 in the Kadiani Koran) and argued that this has the same meanings as 62:3 (62:4 in the Kadiani Koran). Razi then quoted A’ina-e-Kamalat-e-Islam, Ruhani Khaza’in, vol. 5, page 220 and explained how MGA addressed the issue that Muslims say “Akhireena Minhum is plural” in terms of 62:3 (62:4 in the Kadiani Koran). MGA then falsely argues that Muhammad (Saw) applied it to only one person (this is a lie), Salman Farsi. MGA then argues that this “one person” will be born in an era wherein there are philosophical differences. People would be in a state of extreme weakness. MGA then argues that the Quran called “Abraham” (as) as ummah (many people), however, Abraham (as) was only one person. Razi says further that a great Ummah will be raised, not just one person.

Maulvi Razi alleges that the famous Mujadid Suyuti said that 62:3 (62:4 in the Kadiani Koran) is about Imam Abu Hanifa. However, Razi hides the fact that Suyuti didn’t say ONLY Imam Abu Hanifa, he simply included him in this verse, as one among others. Furthermore, Razi hid the fact that Imam Suyuti believed in the physical second coming of Eisa (as).

Maulvi Razi then alleges that Imam Ibn Abidin said in Radd al Muhtar that 62:3 (62:4 in the Kadiani Koran) is about Imam Abu Hanifa. However, Razi hides the fact that Ahmad Raza Khan did Takfir on Ahmadi’s.

Maulvi Raheel Ahmad said that denial of MGA (the promised messiah) is Kufr (see on Tiktok and Twitter).

Bro Imtiaz came on at 3:08:19 and discussed the fact that MGA said that Muhammad (Saw) didn’t finish his mission and MGA was here to complete it.

Continue reading “LIVESTREAM: Q&A – Prophethood in Islam – Part 4–Review by Dr. Shah” →

Intro
It should be noted that in 1891 (Izala Auham), MGA wrote that any Muslims who believes in the abrogation of even a single verse of the Quran is a Kafir. As we all know, Shah-Wali-Ullah believed that at least 5 verses of the Quran were in-fact abrogated. Thus, per MGA, Shah-Wali-Ullah was not a Muslim. In fact, per MGA, since all the mujadids believed in the substitution theory and abrogation, none were Muslim (naozobillah).

In 1898, in Kitab-ul-Barriya, pages 91-92, Shah Wali ullah was a mujadid and a high ranking Muslim.

In 1905 (Oct), while MGA was in Delhi, he wished to visit the grave of Shah Wali Ullah (See Malfuzat-8, online English edition, page 22 and 39, via al-Badr, vol. 1, no. 31, p. 1–3, dated 31 October 1905 and al-Badr, vol. 1, no. 32, p. 2–4, dated 3 November 1905).

In 1905 (Oct-26), while MGA was in Delhi, he visited the grave of Shah Wali Ullah (See Malfuzat-8, online English edition, page 44-45, via al-Badr, vol. 1, no. 32, p. 4, dated 3 November 1905 and Badr, vol. 1, no. 33, p. 1–2, dated 6 November 1905).

On Oct-29-1905, MGA and his team of writers alleged that Thَe same is also written in Shah Waliullah’s Fauzul-Kabir that مُُمتََتوََوفيِّْْيِّكََك مُُممِِمیْْیتُُتكَك [mutawaffika means mumituka—‘I shall give you
death’](See Malfuzat-8, online English edition, page 83, via al-Badr, vol. 1, no. 33, p. 4, dated 6 November 1905).

In 1906 (June), MGA and his team of writers alleged that Aisha (ra) said that anyone who said that Muhammad (saw) went to the heavens (via Mi‘raj) with his physical body is slandering him. In the same way, the Imams and Noble Companions also believed that the Holy Prophet went to the heavens with a luminous body and not with a physical body. Similarly, Shah Waliullah also had the same belief, and Shah ‘Abdul-‘Aziz also wrote the same thing, that one does not go to the heavens with this physical body. Instead, another luminous body is bestowed through which a person goes to the heavens (See Malfuzat-8, online English edition, page 389, via al-Badr, vol. 2, no. 23, p. 4, 5, dated 7 June, 1906).

We have already written an essay which proves that Shah Wali Ullah believed in the finality of prophethood and the physical return of Esa (as). We have also proved that Shah Wali Ullah believed that Esa (as) was alive in heaven, would physically return on his second coming, he also believed that Adam (as) was the first man, and was sent physically to Earth, from heaven. He also believed in the physicality of the Miraaj and the physical RAFFA of Idris (As). Shah Wali Ullah also supported the substitution theory” and the physical acsension (raffa) of Esa (as) to Jannah (heaven).

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.

In June of 2025, Maulvi Razi and his team of paid Maulvi’s got caught lying by Adnan Rashid (2:44:40 timestamp) and Bro Imtiaz about many things (see the clips on TikTok and twitter). Maulvi Razi got caught mispresenting Ahmad Reza Khan and Shah Wali Ullah.

In June of 2025, Maulvi Razi discussed Shah Wali Ullah on the True Islam Uk Urdu stream vs. Bro Imtiaz. —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 1:07:05, Maulvi Razi begins to respond and says that Ahmadi’s accept both Qiraat and the that the 2nd Qadiani-Ahmadi Khalifa had also commented on this topic. Maulvi Razi then quoted Shah Wali Ullah and alleged that he argued that only a “Sharia-prophet” was prohibited in Islam.

On June-27-2025 (3:22:18), Maulvi Razi misquoted Shah Wali Ullah’s “Futuh al-Haramayn” Page 120)(also spelled as “Fioz Ul Haramain”) and alleged that Shah Wali Ullah argued that the reality of “Muhammadiya” as explained by the Sufi’s when saints get the names of prophets and the books (qutb) in the form of Buruz (this is a misrepresentation of the text). Maulvi Razi argued that MGA only claimed to be the second coming of Muhammad (Saw) in the spiritual sense and alleges that Shah Wali Ullah was using it the same way. Maulvi Razi then alleges that Shah Wali Ullah wrote that the Imam Mahdi will be the Buruz of Muhammad (Saw)(naozobillah). Maulvi Razi quotes “Al-Tafhimat al-Ilahiyyah” by Shah Wali Ullah and alleges that he said that there are 2 Buruz’s, one is “haqiqi” (real) and the one that will happen with Muhammad (Saw)(this is another misrepresentation). At 3:32:01, Adnan Rashid says that Shah Wali Ullah would have been the first person to do Takfir of MGA, how dare they quote him!

Also in June of 2025, in a desperate attempt to defend the dream of MGA in “Ainah Kamalate Islam” (See RK-5, p. 564), wherein MGA saw himself as God and created the world. Razi accused Shah Wali Ullah  (via Fuyood-ul Haramain) of having the same dream (a total lie)(34:31 time stamp). However, what Shah Wali Ullah meant by using the phrase “Qa’im al-Zaman” (“Master of Time” or “Lord of the Ages.”), is explained in the same sentence, and he explains that this phrase doesn’t mean God, it means that Allah used him as a means to establish good in the world. Shah Wali Ullah is explaining the system of good and how he is like a surgeon (someone who fixes the body). Moreover, Ahmadi’s like MaulvI Razi and Raheel have argued in the past that a writer should be allowed to explain how he used a word in his writings, however, when it comes to Islamic scholars, these Ahmadi’s forget this rule. Nevertheless, Razi quoted Abd al-Ghani al-Nabulsi and his book “Ta‘tir al-anam fi tafsir al-ahlam”, which is a book about dreams (34:38 time stamp, Razi made this argument in other videos too) and alleged that the interpretation of Abd al-Ghani al-Nabulsi is binding upon on Muslims, what a silly argument! Furthermore, we checked “Ta‘tir al-anam fi tafsir al-ahlam” and found that the author wrote “As if” they had become Allah, Maulvi Razi left out this important fact which makes his entire argument crumble.

Continue reading “Shah Wali Ullah, Ahmadiyya literature, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and how they misquote Shah Wali Ullah” →

Intro
Ahmadiyya sources allege that in 1904, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad met Pastor William Scott at the Wazirabad railway station (See Malfuzat-7, Online English edition, page 39-45, Al-Hakam, vol. 8, no. 43, 44, p. 5, 6, dated 17 & 24 December 1904, Malfuzat-7, Urdu, page 27, Edition 2022, Edition 1984 May 2, 1904 to August 31, 1905 V-7 Pg. 241).

This interaction was recorded by Sheikh Yacub Ali Irfani in the official Ahmadiyya newspaper, the Al-Hakam. Pastor William Scott seems to have been working out of Daska (just south of Sialkot). Pastor William Scott was upset that MGA had stole of his converts to Christianity, a man named Sheikh ‘Abdul-Haqq.

Continue reading “Pastor William Scott and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad” →