Intro
In Sep-2025, Ansar Raza debated a Shia person, #ShamsuddinShigri seems to be hosting this debate. In his opening statement, Ansar Raza used 1:6, 4:69 and 7:35 as his main arguments that prophethood has not end and never ends. At 19:03, Ansar Raza added 3:81 (3:82 in the Kadiani Koran) and alleged that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is inferred herein as that “Musadaq-Rasul” (See the clip on Tiktok and Twitter). Again, Ansar Raza says that per 3:81 (3:82 in the Kadiani Koran), a Rasul will come who will authenticate (tasdiq) the Kitab and Rasul which was given to a previous Nabi (Ansar Raza was indirectly referring to MGA). At 21:41, Ansar Raza says it is lazmi (mandatory) that a “Musadaq-Rasul” was to appear after Muhammad (Saw) and it is lazmi (mandatory) for Muslims to accept him (see my article on Ahmadiyya Takfir). In conclusion, Ansar Raza argued that 3:81 (3:82 in the Kadiani Koran) includes Eisa (as) and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad only as the “Musadaq-Rasuls”. However, in reality, Muslims believe that only Muhammad (Saw) is the “Musadaq-Rasul” as mentioned in 3:81 (3:82 in the Kadiani Koran). This is why Muhammad led the Prophets in prayer during the night of Isra’ when they gathered in Bayt Al-Maqdis (Jerusalem)(See Ibn Kathir).

Furthermore, Ansar Raza’s arguments seem to be at odds with the official Ahmadiyya position as stated in the 5-volume English Commentary of the Quran (1988) by Malik Ghulam Farid, which told the world that this verse is considered to apply to other Prophets in general and to the Holy Prophet in particular. Both applications are correct. However, Ansar Raza said that it only includes Eisa (as) and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. It should be noted that in the “short commentary” by Malik Ghulam Farid, it is stated that the expression Mithaqun-Nabiyyin may either signify the covenant of the Prophets with God or the covenant which God took from the people through their Prophets. The expression has been used here in the latter sense because another reading of the expression as supported by Ubayy bin Ka‘b and ‘Abdullah bin Mas‘ud is Mithaqalladhina ’utul-Kitab meaning, the covenant of those who were given the Book (Muhit). This rendering is also supported by the words that follow, i.e. and then there comes to you a Messenger fulfilling that which is with you, because it was to the people and not to their Prophets that the Messengers of God came.

In this debate, the Shia debater told Ansar Raza that all of the verses that Qadiani’s present are 1:6, 4:69 and 7:35 are abrogated by 33:40. To this, Ansar Raza said that the Quran has contradictions in it.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

–At 5:28, the Shia debater confirmed that both Sunni and Shia believe that Muhammad (Saw) is the final prophet (to be born).

–At 8:05, the Shia debater presented 2:7 as an example of what means in 33:40. At 8:50, he presented 36:65 (36:66 in the Kadiani Koran) as another example.

At 10:22, the Shia debater says that there are NO verses of the Quran which state that prophethood is continued forever. The Shia debater says if there were any, they are all abrogated by 33:40.

–At 16:40, Ansar Raza presented 4:82 of the Quran (4:83 in the Kadiani Koran) as a general rule. Ansar Raza used this verse vs. the theory of abrogation.

–At 17:38, Ansar Raza uses 1:6, 4:69 and 7:35 as his main arguments that prophethood has not end and never ends. At 19:03, Ansar Raza adds 3:81 (3:82 in the Kadiani Koran). Ansar Raza says that not only did Allah say that “a Nabi” would come in the future, but Allah also said it was “Lazmi” (mandatory). Further, Ansar Raza alleged that the Rasul who would come would be “musadaq” (confirming) and the “Kitab” and “Hikmah” that they were previously given (Ansar Raza repeated this twice). At 20:08, Ansar Raza alleged that there are 3 verses from the Quran wherein Eisa (as) said that he is confirming the Torah (however, he didn’t present them). Ansar Raza says that Aaron (as) wasn’t “musadaq” (confirming) and thus didn’t confirm the Torah. Ansar Raza says that the majority of the prophets of Bani Israel were not “musadaq” (confirming) and thus didn’t confirm the Torah. At 20:30, Ansar Raza says that they did give fatwa’s based on the Torah, however, they didn’t confirm “musadaq” it. At 20:39, Ansar Raza says that only Eisa (as) was “musadaq” (confirming) of the Torah (however, Eisa [as] also brough the Injeel). Ansar Raza says that in this verse there is a principle, that is, Allah is saying that whenever I give you Kitab or Hikmah, then, at some point, Allah will also send a “Musadaq-Rasul” who will confirm everything. Ansar Raza then starts talking about the plausibility of a Rasul confirming another Rasul and how Muslims don’t believe this (and Ahmadi’s do). Again, Ansar Raza says that per 3:81, a Rasul will come who will authenticate (tasdiq) the Kitab and Rasul which was given to a previous Nabi. At 21:41, Ansar Raza says it is lazmi (mandatory) that a “Musadaq-Rasul” was to appear after Muhammad (Saw) and it is lazmi (mandatory) for Muslims to accept him. Ansar Raza then presents some verses of the Quran and argued that Rasul’s will come.

–At 34:43, the Shia debater probed Ansar Raza on his arguments via 3:81 (3:82 in the Kadiani Koran).

–At 36:24, the Shia debater asked Ansar Raza that the plural word was used “Nabiyeen”, which prophets were there? Were they the Rasul’s who were only given “Kitab and Hikmah”, or does it include others who were prophets, but who weren’t given “Kitab and Hikmah”. At 37:00, the Shia debater asks if Yahya (as) is included in the nabiyeen as mentioned in 3:81.

–At 48:50, Ansar Raza refused to answer as to which prophets were included in 3:81 (3:82 in the Kadiani Koran). Ansar Raza argued again, that whenever a Rasul appeared, after him was a “Musadaq-Rasul”.

–At 51:23, #ShamsuddinShigri interjected and asked to learn more about the prophethood of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad in this context.

–At 58:10, the Shia debater got Ansar Raza to accidentally confess that there has been abrogation in the Quran.

–At the 1:00:00 mark, the Shia guy says that Ansar Raza is using 4:69 incorrectly.

–At 1:01:15, the Shia guy asks again if Yahya (as) is included in “Nabiyeen” in 3:81 (3:82 in the Kadiani Koran).

–At 1:01:37, the Shia guy quoted 45:16 (45:17 in the Kadiani Koran) and alleged that all prophets in Bani Israil were given “Kitab and Hikmah”. This Shia guy says that if there was any other person to come after Muhammad (saw) then they would be outside of Islam.

–At 1:06:00, the conversation changes to “Khataman Nabiyeen”, 33:40.

–At 1:08:40, Ansar Raza argued that Yahya (as) wasn’t given any book, instead, he re-iterated the Torah.

–At 1:10:00, Ansar Raza says that he can’t understand why a Muslim can’t be a “Musadaq Rasul”. Ansar Raza says that the “Musadaq Rasul” must be in the same ummah.

–At 1:12:37, Ansar Raza says that Khatam Nabiyeen means a “Stamp” (mohr), not something that finishes. Ansar Raza says it means “the stamp of the prophets”. Ansar Raza says that 33:40 is a stamp of authentication (tasdiq), not a seal that permanently closes.

–At 1:22:50, the Shia guy told Ansar Raza that in the time of Muhammad (saw) there were no stamps.

–At 1:28:15, Ansar Raza refuses to answer as to which prophets are included in 3:81 (3:82 in the Kadiani Koran).

–At 1:30:10, Ansar Raza says that if one Prophet is given a book, then others use it, like Yahya (as) and Eisa (as). However, Eisa (as) was given injeel. Ansar Raza then acknowledge the Shia guys argument that if another prophet comes, he must have “Kitab and Hikmah” and this would be outside of Islam. However, Ansar Raza asserts that the same books will be given again (inferring that MGA would be given the Quran and Hikmah).

–At 1:30:29, Ansar Raza says per these Muslims (the shia guy), Eisa (as) was a Rasul for Bani Israel and was given “Kitab and Hikmah” per Muslims. Thus, if Eisa (as) was given “Kitab and Hikmah” and still was “Musadaq Rasul”, it doesn’t mean that after Muhammad (saw), if a Rasul appears he have “Kitab and Hikmah” and still be a “Musadaq Rasul”. Ansar Raza alleges that even without “Kitab and Hikmah”, this person can still be “Musadaq Rasul” (Raza is inferring that MGA is without “Kitab and Hikmah” and is still “Musadaq Rasul”).

–At 1:31:15, Ansar Raza says that Muhammad (saw) was given “Kitab and Hikmah” and still was “Musadaq Rasul”, thus even after Muhammad (Saw), it doesn’t mean the same will happen. Ansar Raza seems to be arguing that even though a pattern was established by Eisa (as) and Muhammad (saw), i.e., that both of them brought “Kitab and Hikmah” and were still “Musadaq Rasul”, nevertheless, per Ansar Raza, MGA didn’t and it doesn’t anything. Ansar Raza says that the “Musadaq Rasul” (MGA) will not get “Kitab or Hikmah” and this is because of 5:3 of the Quran (allah completing his favor).

–At 1:31:44, Ansar Raza says that the “Musadaq Rasul” who is to come will not be given “Kitab” or “Hikmah” and will follow the Quran. Raza says that if the next “Musadaq Rasul” was given “Kitab or “Hikmah”, then, this will turn into a never-ending loop.

–At 1:32:10, Ansar Raza argues that the “Musadaq Rasul” who is to come (inferring MGA) will do “tasdiq” (authentication” of the “Kitab and Hikmah” that was given to Muhammad (saw)(naozobillah). Ansar Raza then argues that Muhammad (Saw) is mentioned in the “nabiyeen” which is used in 3:81 (3:82 in the Kadiani Koran).

–At 1:33:00, in response to the Shia guy asking if MGA brought Kitab, Ansar Raza said NO. Ansar Raza also argued that most of the Bani Israel prophets didn’t bring Kitab. Instead, they followed the Torah. At 1:33:30, Ansar Raza responded to the issue about Khatam=stamp. Again, Ansar Raza argues that Khatam=stamp, or a ring.

–At 1:34:00, Ansar Raza argued that Khatim means the person who attaches the stamp (mohr) and Khatam means stamp (mohr).

–At 1:41:04, the Shia debater catches Ansar Raza is a quagmire. The Shia debater says that ALL prophets were given “Hikmah”, this can’t be denied. Ansar Raza is caught out. The Shia debater than points out how every prophet was given “Kitab” also. Where is Ansar Raza getting this from that the next “Musadaq Rasul” will not have ‘Kitab” or “Hikmah”? What is the reference point? Is it Quran? The Shia debater says again, that per the arguments of Ansar Raza, the next “Musadaq Rasul” cannot be in the ummah of Muhammad (saw). The Shia debater mentioned 19:12 (19:13 in the Kadiani Koran) and pointed out how Yahya (as) was given “Kitab and Hikmah”, and this destroys Ansar Raza’s argument.

–At 1:44:40, the Shia debater asks if MGA ever presented any verses of the Quran in favor of prophethood? The Shia debater also pointed out that MGA never presented 3:81 in favor on his own prophethood, nor did MGA ever present the other verses.

–At 1:46:10, the Shia debater says that he has 10 references from MGA, wherein MGA says that prophethood has ended, just like Sunni’s and Shia’s.

–At 1:46:50, Ansar Raza says that we are going in circles and wishes to disengage. Ansar Raza says that ever prophet does get Kitab and Hikmah, however, that is only in the sense that they follow the previous Kitab and previous hikmah. Ansar Raza says that Yahya (as) was not given a separate book, instead, Yahya (as) was told to grab the Torah with power.

–At 1:49:20, Ansar Raza argues that Muhammad (Saw) was the “Musadaq Rasul” mentioned in 3:81.

–At 1:52:20, Ansar Raza admits that MGA never presented 3:81, 1:6, 4:69 and 7:35 and proofs for his prophethood, however, Ahmadi’s are doing it now.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Links and Related Essay’s

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad on 7:35 of the Quran (7:36 in the Kadiani Koran) – ahmadiyyafactcheckblog

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad on 7:35 of the Quran (7:36 in the Kadiani Koran)

Ahmadiyya and 4:69, everything you need to know – ahmadiyyafactcheckblog

Ahmadiyya and 4:69, everything you need to know

https://x.com/Ahmadiyyafacts/status/1968863185026367962

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8SH8qxx/

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8SH8qxx/

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Tags

#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog #messiahhascome #ahmadiyyat #trueislam #mirzaghulamahmad