Intro
In Part-1 of the famous debate, Qadiani-Ahmadi’s have fully turned into “Lahori-Ahmadi’s” and denying MGA’s claim of being the literal 2nd coming of Muhammad (Saw) via Buruz and “The LAST PROPHET“. Instead, the Qadiani-Ahmadi’s are claiming that MGA was only speaking in a “metaphoric-spiritual” manner, however, that is the Lahori-Ahmadi position (See the writings of Maulvi Muhammad Ali).
As part of his opening statement, Bro Imtiaz mentioned how Ahmadi’s believe that looking at the face of MGA is like looking at the face of Muhammad (saw)(naozobillah)(See Al-Badr, Oct-25, 1906 and the Al-Fazl of Aug-13-1944, See also the 1974 NA proceedings page 785, pdf page 410). If you want to see Muhammad (Saw), look at MGA at Qadian (naozobillah).
Bro Imtiaz also mentioned how MGA argued that he would die in the grave of Muhammad (Saw). In 1909, MGA alleged that God Almighty has entered me in Muhammad’s (saw) being, in everything, without even letting it (from me) to have a different name or a different grave (See RK-18, page 381, Nuzul Maseeh)(See pages 297-298, online English Edition). MGA also argued that from the hadith, it is clearly derived that in the end times, Prophet Muhammad (saw) will also appear in the world (See RK-18, page 384)(See page 300, online English Edition).
Bro Imtiaz explained how in 1902, MGA said that the truth is that the spiritual power of the holy Prophet (SAW) at the end of the 6th thousand (13th century in Mirza Ghulam), i.e. these days, is MUCH STRONGER, MORE COMPLETE and STRONGER than in THOSE EARLY YEARS. Nay, it is like the fourteenth (moonlit) night (full moon)(Khutbah Ilhamiya RK 16:271). MGA also said, Islam was a crescent at the time of Muhammad (Saw), but now it is like a full moon (Khutbah Ilhamiya RK 16:275). In 1902, MGA said that the person who makes a difference between MGA and Muhammad (Saw) has neither seen me nor recognized MGA (See Khutba-e-Ilhamiah, RK, V16, P. 258 – 259). MGA also claimed to be the FINAL BRICK of the prophets (See RK-16, Pg 178, Khutba-e-Ilhamiah). MGA claimed that in the palace of prophets, one brick was left (See Rk-16, Pg 177, Khutba-e-Ilhamiah and via Bro Imtiaz). MGA also claimed that the time of the manifest victory of the era of the holy Prophet has expired, and the second victory which was to be much greater and clearer then the first one had yet to be achieved. It was ordained that its time should fall during the times of the promised Masih (See Khutba-e-Ilhamiah, pages 193-194, and via RK16, p.288).
Ibrahim Ikhlaf in a nutshell: “Your 2 mins = Our 8 mins… or debate over.” “Moderator issue? End the debate right now.” “Livestream issue? Comply or leave.” “Cross-examination? Absolutely not- debate is over.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Unrelated Notes, this is from the other parts of the debate
–In the recent debate (#qadianismontrial)(1:56:20 and 1:56:50), as part of his opening statement and in an attempt to reject all the references wherein MGA was called the Final prophet, last Adam, last Mahdi, final messiah, takfir was done vs. Muslims, Maulvi Razi denied the Al-Fazl newspaper (See the clip on TikTok and Twitter). However, it should be noted that Mirza Nasir Ahmad did the same in 1974 at the National Assembly, MGA also denied that Al-Hakam was an official newspaper in 1899. In 1954, the 2nd Qadiani-Ahmadi Khalifa also denied the Al-Fazl. Thus, this is normal Qadiani behavior.
–In 2026 (Apr), Maulvi Razi claims that Muhammad (Saw) disobeyed Allah when he prayed for Abdallah Ibn Ubayy (a munafiq)(naozobillah)(See the clip on TikTok and Twitter). However, this is not the case. In Quran 9:80-9:84, Allah offers him a choice and the prophet avails it. The prophet (saw) prays the hypocrite’s janaza, and AFTER that the prohibition verse was revealed. After the revelation (9:84) he never prayed for a hypocrite again (See Tafsir ibn Kathir, page 490). They lie upon rasoolAllah (saw) to dig Mirza out of the hole. Muhammad (saw) never disobeyed Allah. See the Qadiani-Ahmadi commentary on 9:84.
In 2026 (May), @UmarElhashmi watched the “great debate” (#qadianismontrial) and observed/adjudged that Ibrahim Ikhlaf has NO knowledge of the Arabic language (See the clip on TikTok and Twitter). Ibrahim Ikhlaf seems to have mixed up the words Istigraaqiyya, istishraq and ishtishraqiyya, this is something that an average person can never do, so how is he a scholar? @UmarElhashmi also pointed out that Ibrahim Ikhlaf was reading off of his laptop screen.
@UmarElhashmi watched the recent debate with the Qadiani’s and has given his comments herein. Umar El Hashmi pointed out mistakes in reading the Quran by Ibrahim Ikhlaf, he mis-pronounced 49:14 of the Quran, specifically, the verse says, “Yud Khu Lil”, however, Ikhlaf mispronounces it as “Yud Khee Lul” (See the clip on TikTok and Twitter and on the Twitter account of @UmarElhashmi). @UmarElhashmi also pointed out how Maulvi Raheel called the famous Musaylima and “Musaylima bin Khattab”, which is totally incorrect.
@UmarElhashmi also pointed out how Maulvi Raheel said “ba ta loo” instead of “ba ta la” (See the clip on Twitter). Maulvi Raheel wasn’t reading from the Quran or hadith, however, he seems to be reading a Legal Maxim in Fiqh. In summary: Every verb in Arabic, on a beginner level, has 3 root letters and must follow the verb form: 1. Fa ‘a la 2. Fa ‘u la 3. Fa ‘i la There is no such thing as: Fa ‘a loo So apply now the letters: baa taa and laam to the scale and you get: Ba ta la You can NEVER get: Ba Ta Loo And that is so long as it’s a verb, which is the case in that principle he tried to sound smart when quoting: إذا جاء الاحتمال، بَطَلَ الاستدلال Izaa jaa-al-ihtimaal, ba ta la-l-istidlaal. It can NEVER be ‘ba ta loo’ Ever. So when he says ba ta loo… it’s a huge facepalm moment, just like their “al-qawl al-sahaabi” which I called out in my YouTube video under the video sections “exposing their ignorance of Arabic” — as well as their saying “alif-laam istishraaqiyyah” and only realizing that’s wrong by reading it on screen— exposed that and called it out.
In the recent debate and in defense of MGA changing his position (tabdili-aqidah) on the alleged death of Eisa (as), Maulvi Razi alleged that Muhammad (Saw) denied the punishment of the grave (See 23:100, 23:101 in the Kadiani Koran)(azab-e-kabir)(also called barzakh), then changed later (See the clip on twitter). This is not true. There is no evidence of him denying it at any point. In fact, the opposite is true! He (saw) affirmed it from the very first time the matter was raised.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Links and Related Essay’s
Who is Maulvi Muhammad Ali in the history of Ahmadiyya? – ahmadiyyafactcheckblog
Is Muhammad (saw) the FINAL prophet or is MGA the FINAL prophet per Qadiani-Ahmadi’s?
@UmarElhashmi explains how Ibrahim Ikhlaf has NO knowledge of the Arabic language
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Tags
#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog #messiahhascome #ahmadiyyat #trueislam #mirzaghulamahmad #QadianismOnTrial
Leave a Reply