Intro
A few days ago, an Ahmadi on TikTok allegedly named Nur (@Ahmadi_muslim)(from Kababir, Israel), spoke to Brother Omar, Arise and Warn, Sher-e-Khuda and Ibn Hajar. Full review in the below.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
In the first discussion
At 1:00, Nur asks what would be the fate of the person who denies Eisa (as) upon his second return in Islam.
At 2:20, Brother Omar explains how it doesn’t say anywhere in hadith that Eisa (as) will ask people to accept him.
At 3:14, Sher-e-Khuda asked Nur where and when he lied. Nur said that Sher-e-Khuda lied when he said that Mirza Basheer ud Din Mahmud Ahmad wrote in his Tafsir that it wasn’t a real fire, it was metaphoric (in terms of the fire and Ibrahim [as])(See 21:69, 21:70 in the Kadiani Koran).
At 6:15, Sher-e-Khuda says according to MGA, the fire was literal.
At 6:50, Nur admits that the 2nd Qadiani-Ahmadi Khalifa called it a metaphoric fire.
At 7:33, Nur says that he believes both, the fire (in 21:69) was metaphoric and literal.
At 9:18, Nur says that he believes both, the fire (in 21:69) was metaphoric and literal.
At 10:00, Nur alleges that Sher-e-Khuda lied and said that Mirza Basheer ud Din Mahmud Ahmad called it a metaphoric fire only.
At 11:35, Nur quoted Tafsir-e-Kabir, Jild-10, under Chapter 29 (al ankabut), verse 25 (29:24, 29:25 in the Kadiani Koran).
At 15:19, Nur admits that Mirza Basheer ud Din Mahmud Ahmad wrote that it was a “ruhani” (spiritual) fire.
At 16:13, Arise and Warns shows how Mirza Basheer ud Din Mahmud Ahmad wrote that the ruhani fire entered the physical fire and made it cool and Ibrahim (as) was put into the metaphoric fire.
At 18:17, Sher-e-Khuda proves that there was no physical fire.
At 19:45, Sher-e-Khuda reads how Mirza Basheer ud Din Mahmud Ahmad wrote that maybe rain extinguished the fire.
At 25:40, Arise and Warns shows how Mirza Basheer ud Din Mahmud Ahmad wrote that Ibrahim (as) was put into the ruhani fire.
At 28:40, Arise and Warns shows how Mirza Basheer ud Din Mahmud Ahmad wrote that physical fire was put out first. Then, Ibrahim (as) entered into the ruhani fire.
At 37:51, What is the difference between a liar and someone who has told a lie.
At 45:40, Nur makes up rules on Arabic grammar.
At 52:05, Ibn Hajr asks Nur about his recent comments vs. Barelvi’s in terms of Istigatha and “Wilayat-e-Takwini”. Ibn Hajr points out how Nur alleged that anyone who claims to use “Tasarruf”, which means to govern the affairs of the world and controls them by means of the Divine Names. He exercises free disposal throughout the world. This free disposal (tasarruf) is the knower’s power of bringing events to pass through directing his spiritual energy towards the sphere of possibilities.
At 52:30, Ibn Hajr asks Nur if someone does Istigatha, “Wilayat-e-Takwini” or uses “Tasarruf”, is this shirk?
At 53:30, Nur alleges that MGA didn’t do the same Istigatha, “Wilayat-e-Takwini” or uses “Tasarruf” like the Barelvi’s or the Shia. MGA did use these words, however, MGA meant only via the power Dua (however, MGA never said as such). He quoted Abdul Qadir Jilani too.
At 55:55, Ibn Hajr proves that Nur is lying since MGA wrote in 1893, via “Barakatud Du‘a” aka “Blessings of Prayer” (see online English edition, page 45)(Arabic edition, page 30), MGA argued that the same word (يتصرف) in the Arabic version of the book (Barakatud-Dua’) corresponds to (Exercise control) “Tasurruf”. Sheikh Abdul Qadir Jilani is mentioned in this book and MGA was arguing that Godly affairs are known only to godly persons (like the Sufi saints)(See page 25). In this book, MGA clearly stated more than once that it’s not just about du’a’ being answered. He even stated that besides du’a’, a Wali can control the world using his mind. He can disable the burning property of fire and walk on water.
At 1:01:00, Ibn Hajr proves that MGA wrote that for a saint (auliya) to perform supernatural feats like walking on water and the fire not burning them is done by simply focusing his attention on it (no dua)(1893, via “Barakatud Du‘a” aka “Blessings of Prayer” (see online English edition, page 45)(Arabic edition, page 30) and thus Allah manifests his power through the Saint.
At 1:04:21, Nur is desperately trying to argue that MGA was using metaphoric language, like the hands of Allah.
At 1:06:57, Ibn Hajr explains how MGA did say that Istigatha/Wilayat-e-Takwini can be done by auliya via dua. But MGA also said that there was another way, via “Tasarruf” and this is exactly what the Shias do with their Imam’s. Some Shias like, Mohammad-Baqer Majlesi or Nobuktee, both of them say that they have “Tasarruf” via dua. Ibn Hajar explains that some of the shia sects which are closer to the Ghulat, they say that dua isn’t even needed. Thus, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad agrees with the shia position on “Tasarruf”. This is the exact belief of the Rafida.
At 1:08:19, Ibn Hajr quotes Tadhkirarul Shahadatain (1903), page 169 (Arabic edition?). MGA says that the auliya will be informed of every single great news, and the news of the unseen from the generous decree, this is from the qadir of Allah. This is exactly the belief that the Shia hold for their imams. Shias say that their imams have “Tasarruf”.
At 1:09:07, Ibn Hajr says that since he has proved that MGA believes in shirk, Nur has to admit to it and also declare that MGA did shirk, just like the Barelvi’s that he hates so much.
At 1:09:30, Nur insists that MGA only meant via dua.
At 1:10:57, Nur argues that Kul (all in arabic) doesn’t mean “ALL”, which contradicts his entire position of 3:144. Nur alleges that Ahmad Rida Khan used similar language.
At 1:13:40, Sher-e-Khuda accused Nur of not considering all the writings of Ahmad Rida Khan and others.
At 1:14:45, Ibn Hajar explains how it is the belief of the majority of Shias that their imam have “Tasarruf”.
At 1:17:08, Nur admits that MGA had some beliefs which match the Shias (see on TikTok and Twitter). Nur alleges that this is also the belief of Abdul Qadir Jilani. Nur then back tracks and says that he meant Ahle-bait (the family of Muhammad, saw) when he said shia.
At 1:18:24, Omar asks Nur if those specific shias who believe in “Tasarruf”, are they part of “ma ana aelai wa sahabee” (what me and my companions are upon)(this is the famous hadith about firqa). Nur said no, these sects of shia are not Muslim. Nur admitted that a Muslim can be on “ma ana aelai wa sahabee” (what me and my companions are upon) on some beliefs and not on other beliefs.
At 1:21:50, Ibn Hajar gives a summary.
At 1:34:00, Omar explains how Nur scored an own goal in a few ways on this stream.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Tafsir-e-Kabir, Jild-10, under Chapter 29 (al ankabut), verse 25 (29:24, 29:25 in the Kadiani Koran).
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
In the 2nd discussion
At 1:48, Nur asks what is the huqum on someone who rejects Eisa (as)?
At 2:10, Brother Omar explains to Nur that the hadith doesn’t say that Eisa (as) will ask people to accept him.
At 4:32, Brother Arise and Warn clarifies the answer of Brother Omar, i.e., Eisa (as) will not ask people to accept him.
At 7:02, Nur asks about how the Jizya would end. Nur alleges that Eisa (as) will kill people upon his second return. 7:37.
At 7:51, Brother Omar demands to see the hadith wherein it is alleged that Eisa (as) will kill those who don’t accept him.
At 8:24, Nur admits that this is the understanding of Ibn Kathir and not hadith.
At 9:48, Brother Omar says this stream is a monologue. Nur was caught lying.
At 10:50, Nur admits that it is the Tafsir, not hadith.
At 11:09, Nur is kicked out.
At 12:24, Brother Arise and Warn explains how Muslims don’t take everything from the scholar’s, they are not our Gods or prophets.
At 16:04, Brother Omar explains that when Jizya ends, this means that everyone he become Muslim. Jiyza only exists when Non-Muslim’s exist.
At 17:51, Brother Arise and Warn explains how in Sahih Muslim-3535 (it’s actually Sahih Muslim 2937a), Muhammad (Saw) told us that the smell of Eisa (as) will make many unbelievers die.
At 19:44, the commentary of Ibn Kathir is not binding upon Muslims.
At 25:11, Brother Omar explains shows the hadith about lying on the name of Muhammad (Saw). This is what Nur was doing.
At 32:50, Ibn Hajar explains how a few days ago, Nur admitted that none of the scholars like Ibn Kathir share the same position as Ahmadi’s.
At 33:18, Brother Omar recalls the famous debate between Adnan and Maulvi Razi in Canada and how Maulvi Razi tried to quote from Fakhr al-Din al-Razi. Fakhr al-Din al-Razi naturally puts all the views together and supports the view that Eisa (as) was raised up to Allah alive (4:158, Rafaa-hoo). Body and soul (See Tafsir al-Razi, Vol 8 and vol 11).
At 36:04, Ibn Hajar explains how Ibn Qutaybah wrote in “Ta’wīl Mukhtalif al-Hadīth”, (The Interpretation of Conflicting Narrations), defence of hadiths against Mu’tazilite critics that Eisa (as)’s physical return doesn’t break the seal of the prophets. al-Shahrastani says the same as well as Al-Saffarini Al-Hanbali.
At 38:07, Ibn Hajar explains how a few days ago, Nur alleged to him that Al-Tabari agreed with the Qadiani view on 5:75 and 3:144, and ALL Messengers being included. Ibn Hajr explains how Tabari made Eisa (as) an exception to many rules of the Quran via 4:159, 43:61.
At 40:34, Ibn Hajar explains how Al-Tabari was clear that the time of Eisa (as) hasn’t come yet and that Eisa (as) will die in the future. This is under Chapter 3, Verse 1 of Tabari’s Tafsir.
At 46:45, Ansar Raza says that MGA doesn’t have to give any references.
At 47:14, Ibn Hajr explains the famous hadith from Ibn Maja-4081, wherein Eisa (as) said that he had some tasks remaining. Ibn Hajr explains how the Ahmadi’s cherry pick a position from Albani on this hadith and call it weak.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Links and Related Essay’s
https://www.youtube.com/live/6J3wSV—ww?si=K1x3ZXl73xqQ4Xom
Who are the top Qadiani-Ahmadi Maulvi’s in Kababir, Haifa, Israel?
@ahmadi_muslim
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad on Quran 21:69-70, and how Abraham (as) wasn’t burned per Ahmadiyya theory
Did Mirza Basheer ud Din Mahmud Ahmad write “Tafseer-e-Kabeer” or even “Tafseer-e-Sagheer”?
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and Istighatha – ahmadiyyafactcheckblog
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and Wilayat e Takwini – ahmadiyyafactcheckblog
Mohammad-Baqer Majlesi – Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad-Baqer_Majlesi
https://sunnah.com/muslim:2937a
Fakhr al-Din al-Razi on 4:158 (raffa-hoo) – ahmadiyyafactcheckblog
Tabari on 5:75 and 3:144 – ahmadiyyafactcheckblog
https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2025/01/18/tabari-on-575-and-3144/
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Tags
#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog #messiahhascome #ahmadiyyat #trueislam #mirzaghulamahmad
6 Pingback