Intro
Before 1907, MGA had argued in 1898-1899 that since he wasn’t a prophet (RK-14, p-308), he could not be the “Musadiq Rasul” (Rasul who is Musadiq), which was mentioned in 3:81 (3:82 in the Kadiani Koran){See also 33:7-8 of the Quran (33:8-9 in the Kadiani Koran)}.

In 1906-1907, via “Haqiqatul Wahi” (see page 157 and 221), MGA and his team of writers argued that the phrase “Musadiq-Rasul” refers to himself and “the followers of all Prophets” are ordered to believe in prophets forever (this isn’t really a covenant of prophets, but a covenant between humans and Allah, naozobillah). MGA also added words to this verse which simply never existed like “in the latter days” in 3:81 (3:82 in the Kadiani Koran)(See RK-22, pages 133,134 and 184, 21:10 time stamp)(See also 44:30, from Feb-2025).

See Bro Imtiaz (4:13:26 timestamp and at 20:55). For additional occurrences of “Musadiq” in the Quran for Eisa (as), see 61:6, 3:50, 5:46.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
1898-1899

In 1898, via “Ayyam-e-Sulh”, RK-14, page 308, in Feb-2025, Bro Imtiaz quoted (49:28 time stamp) Bro Imtiaz explained how MGA alleges that Eisa (As) was the “Musadiq Rasul”, and if someone says that Eisa (as) did “Tasdiq” (authentication) of the Torah and the second Messiah should thus do “Tasdiq” (authentication) of the Quran, this is wrong! MGA explains that Eisa (As) was a prophet and thus did so, but MGA is not and thus didn’t do so.

Scan

______________________________________________________________________________________________
1902

In the ROR of May-1902 (English {183-184] and Urdu) editions, MGA wrote an essay entitled, “Sinlessness”, this was edited by Maulvi Muhammad Ali. In this article, which was part of a series and on the topic of sins (zanb) and crime (jurm), MGA and his team of writers quoted 3:81 of the Quran (3:82 in the Kadiani Koran) and argued that all the prophets are followers (Ummati’s) of Muhammad (Saw).
______________________________________________________________________________________________1916
Misdaaq Kon Ayat Misaaq Ka

Click to access Misdaaq-Kon-Ayat-Misaaq-Ka.pdf

Al Fazal Akhbar 19 Feb 1916 Page 5

*Title*
We consider the Musaddiq of Misaaq An Nabiyyeen as Prophet Muhammad (Saw)

The Answer to the message of 6 Feb

Molvi Muhammad Ali Sahib has accused us that in Tarjumatul Quran, Ayah Regarding the Misaaq An Nabiyyeen, we have considered it for Mirza Sahib, and that we have denied it for Prophet (SAW). This is a Buhtaan Azeem. This is why we have mentioned this contradiction in Al Fazal very clearly.

In roughly 1916, Maulvi Muhammad Ali accused the Qadiani-Ahmadi’s of using 3:81 (3:82 in the Kadiani Koran) for MGA. In response, the Qadiani-Ahmadi’s (via Al Fazl of 19 Feb 1916 Page 5) denied the charge, however, it seems that they only denied exclusivity of MGA with 3:81 (3:82 in the Kadiani Koran), and in fact, the Qadiani-Ahmadi’s believe that every single prophet is a Musadiq Rasul.

Scans

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Links and Related Essay’s

The Qadiani-Ahmadi’s declared that MGA was “Ismuhu-Ahmad” in Quran 61:6, not Muhammad (Saw), then changed it later – ahmadiyyafactcheckblog

The Qadiani-Ahmadi’s declared that MGA was “Ismuhu-Ahmad” in Quran 61:6, not Muhammad (Saw), then changed it later

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and 3:81 of the Quran (3:82 in the Kadiani Koran)

Click to access Haqiqatul-Wahi.pdf

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Tags

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