Intro
In Aug-2025, Maulvi Ansar Raza agreed to debate using only the Quran vs. TikTok-er, Knight Rider (@muhammadakif3093). This debate was limited to the Quranic verse of 3:81 (3:82 in the Kadiani Koran). You can listen to Bro Imtiaz talking about this debate herein.
However, per the conditions of the debate, Ansar Raza strongly insisted on just limiting the conversation to the Qur’an. No other reference for any argument was permissible. But when he himself then used hadith to support his objection to the meaning of thumma, the Muslim pointed out that Ansar Raza had violated the terms he himself had strongly insisted on. That, with the established rules, the Ahmadi side had lost the debate, but he was willing to overlook it, but reserved his right to do likewise and also use references outside the Qur’an to make a point.
After the debate, #Ahmadis are cussing at Ansar Raza since he lost the debate.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Review by CR
The main question they are talking about is whom the words thumma jaakum rasoolun musaddiqun in the verse are referring to.
The Muslim position is that this title is being given to the prophet Muhammad. Which is also in line with 1400 years of Muslim scholarship and understanding of shabas The Ahmadi position is, that it is not referring to a single person but a general rule is being established by this verse. That IF someone is part of the covenant that’s being made with the prophets there has to be NESSECERILY COME ANOTHER PROPHET to affirm the covenant. Since Muhammad is part of the prophets in this part”Allah made a covenant with the prophets”.
For them there has to necessarily come a messenger after Muhammad to affirm that covenant. (Which is obviously MGA for them but he excludes the specific identity and only wants to talk about IF the verse establishes this necessity for another messenger.)
Notable moments and points of contention:
1) Ansar Raza sb keeps insisting that he is ONLY using the words of the Qur’an to establish his point. That he is neither using an external source NOR any interpretation.
The muslim obviously disagrees with that. His point is ONLY THE ARABIC WORDS of the Qur’an is the actual Qur’an and even a translation necessarily adds an interpretation and point of view that has to be justified. He keeps asking the murrabi to name the source of his view OR concede the murrabie is interpreting only based on his own personal understanding. Ansar Raza sb never addresses this in a straightforward way but keeps asserting that his position is just based on word by word plain reading without any addition or interpretation and therefore as a matter of fact the “true reading”.
He also says that he doesn’t care about any Islamic scholarship or whoever agrees or disagrees with him. 2) The Muslim keeps asking Ansar Raza, S.B., to clarify the understanding of the word “min” in the verse and why he is saying that the affirmation only needs to be of the revealed books and not the prophets (latter would lead to an infinite loop of prophets).
In the muslim understanding BOTH things are included in the affirmation (by Muhammad) and its not plausible to take one part out and build a general principle just for that one part and claim the necessity for reaffirmation of the Qur’an by another messenger that then has to come after muhammad.
Ansar Raza never addresses the question about his specific reading of “min” 3).
There is a lengthy debate about the word “thumma.”
It’s part of the Muslims’ argument to rebut the notion that a general, continuous principle is being established with this verse. His point is that the “then” here creates a temporal order and a conclusion between the first part of the covenant with the prophets and the one who comes as the ending point to reaffirm them, establishing that it’s one specific person, the Prophet Muhammad, that’s being talked about. Ansar Raza sb. objects, citing a bunch of references where “thumma” is used in the Qur’an and also hadith, apparently in a non-temporal, non-concluding way. But after some back and forth, concedes that it could be read that way, and Prophet Muhammad also could be meant here as one person who is being labeled with this word, but at the same time still insists that it also establishes that another messenger must come.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Links and Related Essay’s
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and 3:81 of the Quran (3:82 in the Qadiani Quran) – ahmadiyyafactcheckblog
Who is Ansar Raza?? – ahmadiyyafactcheckblog
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and 3:81 of the Quran (3:82 in the Qadiani Quran)
@muhammadakif3093
https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8BHgjr6/
#Ahmadis are cussing at Ansar Raza after he lost his debate – ahmadiyyafactcheckblog
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Tags
#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog #messiahhascome #ahmadiyyat #trueislam #mirzaghulamahmad
1 Pingback