Search results


Nusrat Jehan Begum and other women didn’t get into to MGA’s bait in 1889 and after–were they illiterate?

It seems that women weren’t allowed to take MGA’s bait?  Either that or they were illiterate and unable to sign their names on a paper.  Its most likely both.  In 1896, MGA published a list of 313 sahabis, there are no women listed, however, some men are listed as with wife, for example, Noorudin is listed (with wife), and thus moves the number to 314, and that upsets what MGA and his team were working on, i.e. a parallel to the amount of Muslims that Muhammad (saw) had early on, if they would have added the women, the number would have swelled to 400+.  Further Nusrat Jehan says that since she was with MGA, i.e. married to him, she was always in his bait.

In the below, we present a reference from Seeratul Mahdi, wherein Nusrat Jehan Begum admits that she never came under MGA’s bait, nor did any other women it seems.  We are not sure when the Ahmadiyya Khalifa’s began accepting bait from women.

The quote
pdf page 22 of 296
Narration no. 20

“My mother narrated to me that mgaq took his first bai’t (oath of allegience) at Ludhiana. First day 40 men took bai’t and when He came back some women took bai’t. First of all Molvi Noordin took bait. Humble one asked WHEN DID YOU TAKE BAI’T? MOTHER SAID, IT IS KNOWN THAT I DELAYED MY BAI’T AND TOOK IT AFTER MANY YERAS. THIS IS WRONG….RATHER I NEVER SEPARATED FROM HIM (mgaq) AND ALWAYS STAYED WITH HIM AND RIGHT FROM THE START, I CONSIDERED MYSELF IN THE BAI’T AND NEVER FELT THE NEED FOR SEPARATE BAIT”

“A Discourse with the imaginary Messiah Mirza of Qadiyan” 1889, Ishaat us Sunnah (Khayali masih Mirza Qadiyani se guft o gu)

My team and I have found a rare essay vs. MGA and his team.  This is surprising since Ahmadiyya leadership tells us that MGA claimed to be “The Messiah” (See Dard) in 1891, and this refutation is from 1889.

Read it here:

But Mirza Ghulam Ahmad claimed to be the Messiah in 1889!!! And Ahmadiyya leadership lied!!!


Ahmadiyya leadership is fond of lying and editing the writings of MGA.  My team and I have found a interesting situation wherein it seems that MGA made his claims in 1889.

Friedman quotes the Ishaat us Sunnah of 1889 and 1890 vs. MGA
On page 6, of the 2003 edition, in a footnote, Friedman quotes as follows:

“Isha’at al-Sunnah 12 (1889): 353-388; 13(1890): 1-100, under the titles, “A Discourse with the imaginary Messiah Mirza of Qadiyan”  (Khayali masih Mirza Qadiyani se guft o gu) and “A discourse with the fictitious apostle” (farazi hawari se guft o gu).  An account of the debate itself was published in the same journal, 13(1890): 115–326.”

Why is this strange?
Ahmadiyya leadership tells us that MGA claimed to be the Messiah in 1891, however, this data seems to disprove that.

The PDF file of Ishaat us Sunnah
FB Masih Maoud Claim

What’s in this PDF?
Ishaat Sunna No 12 (december) vol 12, printed in 1889, a discourse with the fictitious apostle, also i have uploaded related pages from Fateh Islam, which were mentioned in Ishaat Sunna, so at least Urdu readers can read the letters exchanged between Mohammad Hussain batalwi and Mirza Ghulam ahmad of qadian. Reading all that i am convinced that Mirza ghulam claimed the title of Masih Maoud in 1889. I have also circled the printing of first edition fateh Islam as 1308 Hijri. Please see the letter in Ashaat sunna where MGA says “yes” to batalwi query.

Ahmadiyya leadership lied about the First Bait ceremony in 1889

Ahmadiyya mullahs have been lying on behalf of the Mirza family for over 100 years.  In this specific case, they themselves cant figure out the exact date for the first ever Bait ceremony in 1889.  The reference is to the Muslim Herald magazine, which was an Ahmadiyya magazine. Its from Aug–1971.  Obviously, Ahmadis made many errors in their writings, and then attempted a clean up for the next 50 years.  And they continue to do so…Ahmadis engage in cleanup work all over social media as they defend the Mirza family and live their lives simply for the betterment of the Mirza family.

First-Initiation   —–Muslim Herald Magazine 1971

Some interesting points to note
1.  MGA had a toilet attendant by the name of Shaikh Hamid Ali (see page 9).  It seems that Sanoori was also there and MGA had a few toilet attendants in those days.

2. Seeratul-Mahdi, the 1st edition, was published on Dec 10th-1923, the second edition was published on November 14th, 1935.

3.  Maulvi Abdul Karim Sialkoti took MGA’s bait in 1889 (se page 13), later Ahmadiyya records lied about this (mirza bashir ahmad lied), most likely because Maulvi Abdul Karim Sialkoti was a ghost writer and speech giver, in place of MGA, or on MGA’s behalf.  Ahmadiyya leadership seems to have tried to cover up this fact.  (see page 13 of the Muslim herald–1971)

MGA’s first bait ceremony has been lied about (1889)

Ahmadis lie about everything, in this specific case, they lied about the dates of the first bait in Ludhiana.  Below is the data

The reference

The British Government banned Ahmadiyya medicines in 1899

Ahmadiyya medicines are bogus.  Going back to 1889.  Nowadays, the Mirza family is still up to the same thing…selling fake medicines, specifically homeopathy.  We have found some specifics about how the British Government had to step in and ban Ahmadiyya medicines in the 1899 era.  Read this essay here:

Walter re-confirms that the British Govt banned Marham-i-Esa and other Ahmadiyya medicines
In Oct of 1899, Ahmadiyya medicines were banned, however, Ahmadiyya leadership seems to have filed an appeal, however, the appeal was rejected and the ban was held up in 1900.

See page 42.

#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyatrueislam #ahmadiapartheid #Ahmadiyyat #rabwah #qadian #meetthekhalifa #ahmadiyyat #muslimsforpeace #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog


The Ahmadiyya in the Gold Coast Muslim Cosmopolitans in the British Empire John H. Hanson

We are always reading and presenting new research on Ahmadiyya.  We have found a new book on Ahmadiyya and have presented in the below.

See all of our research on Ahmadiyya in Africa here:

The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, a global movement with more than half a million Ghanaian members, runs an extensive network of English-language schools and medical facilities in Ghana today. Founded in South Asia in 1889, the Ahmadiyya arrived in Ghana when a small coastal community invited an Ahmadiyya missionary to visit in 1921. Why did this invitation arise and how did the Ahmadiyya become such a vibrant religious community? John H. Hanson places the early history of the Ahmadiyya into the religious and cultural transformations of the British Gold Coast (colonial Ghana). Beginning with accounts of the visions of the African Methodist Binyameen Sam, Hanson reveals how Sam established a Muslim community in a coastal context dominated by indigenous expressions and Christian missions. Hanson also illuminates the Islamic networks that connected this small Muslim community through London to British India. African Ahmadi Muslims, working with a few South Asian Ahmadiyya missionaries, spread the Ahmadiyya’s theological message and educational ethos with zeal and effectiveness. This is a global story of religious engagement, modernity, and cultural transformations arising at the dawn of independence.

Author bio
John H. Hanson is Associate Professor of History at Indiana University, where he is also Director of the Africa Studies Program. He is author of Migration, Jihad, and Muslim Authority in West Africa: The Futanke Colonies in Karta and editor (with Maria Grosz-Ngaté and Patrick O’Meara) of Africa. He is also an editor of History in Africa: A Journal of Method.


“A nuanced argument for the unusual development of a South Asian Muslim reform movement, born in the complex religious environment of British colonialism, taking root in a completely different setting in Gold Coast, today’s Ghana. It will have considerable appeal for African, world and imperial history, for religious studies, and for those dealing with questions of modernity.”
— David Robinson, author of Muslim Societies in African History

“A significant history of the Ahmadiyya Muslim community in what is now Ghana that reconstructs its history and also places it in the context of wider geographical movements by people and ideas, including the history of religious change in British India, the role of travel with the empire in disseminating new ideas and practices, and the trans-national and trans-regional history of a religious movement.”
— Sandra E. Greene, author of Slave Owners of West Africa

Table of Contents

Preface and Acknowledgements
Note on Terminology and Spelling
List of Abbreviations
Section 1: Preparing the Way in the Gold Coast
1. The Hausa Force and the Religious Marketplace in the Fante States
2. Binyameen Sam’s Fante Muslim Community
Section 2: Ahmadiyya Genesis and Expansion to London and Lagos
3. The Genesis of the Ahmadiyya in British India
4. Ahmadiyya Expansion to London and Lagos
Section 3: Ahmadiyya Arrival and Consolidation in the Gold Coast
5. Ahmadiyya Arrival in the Gold Coast
6. Ahmadiyya Consolidation in the Gold Coast
7. Ahmadiyya Expansion to Asante
8. Ahmadiyya Expansion to Wa

Book data


Hakeem Mufti Fazl ur Rehman was suspended by the Ahmadiyya Anjuman, and re-instated by MGA based on corruption

As we continue to dig into the early history of Ahmadiyya, we continue to find new facts that support the idea that the majority of MGA’s team of writers, mullahs and speakers were fast friends, and in this case relatives of Noorudin.  In this specific case, we cover Hakeem Mufti Fazl ur Rehman, he was listed amongst the first 313 companions of MGA (although 313 is only men, the women push the number past 313, perhaps at Badr only men were also counted).  See Dard, page 846, online edition.  Interestingly enough, there is another companion of MGA with almost the same name, its #246–“”Mufti Fadlur Rahman (withwife), Bhera.””(See Dard, page 851).  We are calling the first entry as the true descriptor, based on the title “Hakim”, however, this could be a double entry by the Qadiani-mullah team.

Furthermore, Nooruddin’s first wife is mentioned here, she isn’t mentioned much in Ahmadiyya literature.  Noorudin had 9 sons and 5 daughters with his first wife, Noorudin doesn’t seem to have spent much time with his family.  In 1889, he married again, we have to assume that his young wife immediately moved in with him in Jammu or wherever he was working in 1889.

Noorudin’s children from his first marriage seem to have totally rejected Ahmadiyya, within Noorudin’s lifetime even.  His children from his second wife also have left Ahmadiyya, the one daughter that married into the MGA family, her children are unaccounted for in the history of Ahmadiyya.  1. Amatul Qayyum, daughter, 2. Amatul Rashid, daughter, 3. Mirza Khalil Ahmad, son, they were born from 1914 to 1924.

The reference

The Quote
“””Hakeem Mufti Fazl ur Rehman, when he was a teacher in the Talimul Islam School, went on leave to his native town Bhera. He sta
yed there beyond the leave period. Anjuman (the governing body), issued a notice to him to resume his duties but he did not turn up to his duty, despite receipt of notice. The Anjuman placed him under suspension.
When he returned to Qadian, his maternal aunt, who happened to be his mother in law and whose name was Fatima Bibi, was with him. Fatima Bibi who was first wife of Khalifa Awwal Hakim Nuruddin, went to Hazrat Masih e Moud (MGQ) and complained that the Anjuman has dismissed her son in law from the service. Hazrat Sahib immediately wrote a letter to the Secretary of Anjuman and got him restored on the job.”””

Related essays




In 1891, when MGA made his big claims, he denied prophethood–Mufti Sadiq was heavily involved

MGA denied prophethood as early as 1884, some ulema of India had already issued a Fatwa of Kufr.  As we have recently learned, MGA was already claiming to be the Messiah in 1889, Ahmadiyya leadership has always suppressed this data, the Ahmadi-mullahs lie about almost everything in their pursuit of gainful employment.  We can come across some additional data about MGA’s denial of prophethood in 1891, it is posted in the below.  This is a longer story…MGA and his team denied prophethood until November of 1901, and even a bit earlier to the summer of 1900.  A reader would have to be very well versed in the dynamic of the split to fully understand the brevity of this data.  Finally, it should be noted that MGA and his team vehemently denied prophethood using the argument that the word prophet should be replaces in all of MGA’s books and revelations to muhaddas.


In 1891 Mirza Qadiani had to flee from Ludhiana to Amritsar after a complaint was lodged against him for creating Law and order situation.From Ludhiana he came to Amritsar. Peoples of this city were against him too.

Mirza was so petrified that he sent Mufti Sadiq to offer prayer in the Masjid of Ghaznavi Scholars, Where Mufti Sadiq managed to have a meeting of Mirza Qadiani with Ahle Hadis Scholar Molvi Ahmadullah.

Mufti Sadiq a, close disciple of Mirza Qadiani writes in his book ZIKR E HABIB (screen shot attached), that:-

“During meeting Molvi Ahmadullah said to Mirza Qadiani that some of your writings reveal that you are a claimant of prophethood that is why peoples have turned against you. Hazrat SAHIB (MGQ) explained the actual meaning of his claim (ie he do not at all means actual prophethood). Molvi Ahmadullah sahib said ok you give us in writing that wherever the word nabuwwat appears in your writings, it does not mean Nabuwwat it means MOHADDISIYAT AND IN NO WAY IT IS AGAINST THE FAITH OF KHATM E NABUWWAT. Hazrat sahib immediately wrote this on a piece of paper and handed it over to Molvi Ahmadullah Sahib which was kept by Molvi sahib for showing to ulema who were to excommunicate MGQ because of his claims.”



Up ↑