Search

ahmadiyyafactcheckblog

Search results

"48:29"

In 1884, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad claimed that the Quran 48:29 was also revealed to him

Intro
After the publishing of the 4th volume of Braheen e Ahmadiyya in late 1884, MGA was called a Kafir by the leaders of the Ahl-e-hadith sect, who had just helped MGA marry an Ahl-e-Hadith girl. MGA was so bold, he began claiming that many verses of the Quran had been also revealed onto himself. In this essay, we are writing about 48:29, which would be 48:30 in the Ahmadiyya Quran’s (interestingly, after MGA died, the Ahmadi’s who wrote commentary on the Quran never mention that this verse is about MGA, Lahori’s and Qadiani’s, see page 2953)). Per MGA,  “””I have been named ‘Muhammad’ as well as ‘Messenger'”””, (see “Eik Ghalti Ka Izala”, page 2, online english edition). MGA is essentially claiming HE WAS REFERRED TO AS MUHAMMAD in this verse.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

48:29
In Nov. of 1901, in MGA’s famous announcement/booklet, “Eik Ghalti Ka Izala”, MGA says:

“”””””””””””””””””””””In the same book, close upon the above Divine Communication, is this Divine revelation:  Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and those who are with him are
hard against the disbelievers, tender amongst themselves.“”””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

This is just the first sentence of the full verse from the Quran
The full verse is as follows:

“”””””””””””””””””””””””Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah. And those who are with him are hard against the disbelievers, tender among themselves. Thou seest them bowing and prostrating themselves in Prayer, seeking grace from Allah and His pleasure. Their mark is upon their faces, being the traces of prostrations. This is their description in the Torah. And their description in the Gospel is like unto a seed-produce that sends forth its sprout, then makes it strong; it then becomes thick, and stands firm on its stem, delighting the sowers — that He may cause the disbelievers to burn with rage at the sight of them. Allah has promised, unto those of them who believe and do good works, forgiveness and a great reward.“””””””””””””””””””””””””””
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

The verse is mentioned in Izala Auham (1890–1891) as MGA tried to explain his abusive language
As MGA worked on explaining as to why he had used abusive language, he quoted 48:29.
______________________________________________________________________________________________

This verse was on the cover page of Asmani Faisala (1891)
The verse was presented on the cover page of MGA’s famous book.

Other Quranic verses that MGA claimed for himself in 1884
——48:28, 61:09 and 9:32
——-21:107
——-10:16
——17:8
——18:83
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

1884

In Barahin-i-Ahmadiyya Vol. 4, online english edition, page 396
The original quote can be found in english.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Links and Related Essay’s
https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2020/01/27/in-1884-mirza-ghulam-ahmad-claimed-that-the-quran-21107-was-also-revealed-to-him/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2018/02/17/mirza-ghulam-ahmad-quoted-and-commented-on-178-in-1884-in-the-braheen-e-ahmadiyya-vol-4-he-then-connected-178-with-the-return-of-the-messiah/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2019/12/18/mirza-ghulam-ahmad-also-claimed-to-be-the-second-coming-of-dhul-qarnain-from-quran-1883/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2020/01/27/in-1884-mirza-ghulam-ahmad-claimed-that-the-quran-1016-was-also-revealed-to-him/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/?s=48%3A29

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2020/01/28/in-1884-mirza-ghulam-ahmad-claimed-that-the-quran-6109-4828-and-932-was-also-revealed-to-him/

 Misconception Removed

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2019/11/28/in-1884-mirza-ghulam-ahmad-was-indirectly-denying-quran-349-as-he-denied-the-miracles-of-esa-as/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2017/12/09/mirza-ghulam-ahmad-was-considered-a-kafir-in-1884-before-his-wild-claims/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2018/02/17/mirza-ghulam-ahmad-quoted-and-commented-on-178-in-1884-in-the-braheen-e-ahmadiyya-vol-4-he-then-connected-178-with-the-return-of-the-messiah/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2018/02/09/during-the-writing-of-braheen-e-ahmadiyya-mga-masked-his-beliefs-he-was-already-asserting-that-esa-as-died/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2016/11/14/what-is-maseel-e-maseeh-the-like-of-the-messiah/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2016/10/27/sir-syeds-view-on-esa-as/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2017/07/16/the-queen-of-the-princely-state-of-bhopal-invested-heavily-1878-into-mirza-ghulam-ahmad-and-his-braheen-they-were-disappointed-by-the-product/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2017/12/26/did-mirza-ghulam-ahmad-claim-to-be-the-messiah-in-1889/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2016/11/14/mga-confuses-all-of-his-readers-in-1891-as-he-claimed-to-be-the-promised-messiah/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2018/03/06/nusrat-jehan-begum-and-other-women-didnt-get-into-to-mgas-bait-in-1889-and-after-were-they-illiterate/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2017/07/17/ahmadiyya-leadership-lied-about-the-first-bait-ceremony-in-1889/

http://www.aaiil.org/text/articles/reviewofreligions/raw/reviewreligionsenglish1908.pdf

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2017/12/09/mirza-ghulam-ahmad-was-accused-of-claiming-prophethood-in-the-1879-1884-era/

Tags
#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyatrueislam #ahmadiapartheid #Ahmadiyyat #rabwah #qadian #meetthekhalifa #muslimsforpeace #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog #nolifewithoutkhalifa #AhmadiMosqueattack #AhmadiyyaPersecution #trueislam

 

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad claimed that the Quran, 77:11 (77:12 in the Qadiani Quran), was about his coming

Intro
MGA claimed many quranic verses were about his arrival, the list is getting long, 1:7, 2:4, 48:2961:09 and 9:32, 21:107, 10:16, 17:8, 18:83, 61:6, 62:3 and many others. We have also recently found 77:11. In “Shahadat ul Quran” (Testimony of the Quran)[1893], via the online english edition, on page 26, MGA clearly claims that this verse 77:11 (77:12) was revealed about his own coming. In this verse, MGA argued that RUSUL means MESSENGERS, and also encompasses the Muhaddatheen of the islamic ummah (he was referring to himself).
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
1893
The Quote

“”At one place it is stated: 

‘And when the messengers are brought at their appointed time’ (77:11 of the Quran)

This is, in fact, a reference to the coming of the Promised Messiah. And it means to say that he will come exactly on time. It should be remembered that in the word of God the term rusul is applied to the singular as well as to one who is not a messenger……………””””
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
1902
[Tohfah-e-Golarhviyyah, Ruhani Khaza’in, vol. 17, pp. 241-244].  (See also Essence of Islam, Vol. 4).

“””Among the arguments which prove that I am the Promised Messiah, there are some signs that are personal to the Promised Messiah. A major sign among them is that the Promised Messiah must appear in the latter days as set out in the Hadith:

It will be in the latter days when tribulations will abound and the age will be approaching its end.

There are two kinds of indications to prove that these are the last days in which the Messiah should appear.

The signs set out in the Qur’an and the Ahadith which indicate the approach of the Day of Judgement and which have been clearly fulfilled. As, for instance, the eclipse of the sun and the moon in the month of Ramadan which is indicated in the verse:

Al-Qiyamah, 75:10

Then there is the discarding of camels as a means of transportation, as is clearly indicated in the verse:

Al-Takwir, 81:5

And the multiplication of irrigation canals which is obvious from the verse:

Al-Infitar, 82:4

And the continuous falling of stars as indicated in:

Al-Infitar, 82:3

And the occurrence of famines and the spread of epidemics and the scarcity of rain as contained in:

Al-Infitar, 82:2

And a total eclipse of the sun; thus spreading darkness as stated in:

Al-Takwir, 81:2

And the moving of the mountains as is generally understood to be the meaning of the verse:

Al-Takwir, 81:4

And the rising of the fortunes of the people who are wild, lowly, and unacquainted with noble Islamic virtues, as is obvious from the verse:

Al- Takwir, 81:6

And the multiplication of the means of communication and travel, whereby it will become easy for people to meet one another, which is an accepted interpretation of the verse:

Al- Takwir, 81:8

And publication of books, pamphlets and letters in all countries, as indicated in:

Al- Takwir, 81:11

And the corruption of the inner condition of the divines, who are the stars of Islam, which is a clear purport of the verse:

Al- Takwir, 81:3

and the spread of innovations, errors, and all kinds of disobedience and vices, as indicated in the verse:

Al-Inshiqaq, 84:2

All these signs of the approach of the Day of Judgement have been manifested and the world is in the grip of a great revolution…

Then there is the verse in Surah Al-Mursalat which indicates that a great sign of the approach of the Day of Judgement is that someone should appear and with his coming the number of Messengers should be determined.

This means that the last Khalifah in the chain of successors in the Islamic dispensation, whose name is the Promised Messiah and the awaited Mahdi, shall make his appearance in the last days. The verse is:

Al-Mursalat 77:12

i.e., the time when number of the Messengers will be determined. This means that with the appearance of the last Khalifah, the number of Messengers which had been determined by Divine decree and had been hidden, shall become manifest. This verse also clearly shows that the Promised Messiah will be from among the Muslims.”””””
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
1917

In Muhammad Ali’s famous english commentary of the Quran, he didn’t connect MGA with this verse (77:11).

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
1988
5-volume commentary of the Quran by Malik Ghulam Farid

Malik Ghulam Farid also says that this verse 77:11 refers to MGA.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Links and Related Essay’s
https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2020/01/28/in-1884-mirza-ghulam-ahmad-claimed-that-the-quran-4829-was-also-revealed-to-him/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2020/01/27/in-1884-mirza-ghulam-ahmad-claimed-that-the-quran-21107-was-also-revealed-to-him/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2018/02/17/mirza-ghulam-ahmad-quoted-and-commented-on-178-in-1884-in-the-braheen-e-ahmadiyya-vol-4-he-then-connected-178-with-the-return-of-the-messiah/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2019/12/18/mirza-ghulam-ahmad-also-claimed-to-be-the-second-coming-of-dhul-qarnain-from-quran-1883/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2020/01/27/in-1884-mirza-ghulam-ahmad-claimed-that-the-quran-1016-was-also-revealed-to-him/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/?s=48%3A29

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2020/01/28/in-1884-mirza-ghulam-ahmad-claimed-that-the-quran-6109-4828-and-932-was-also-revealed-to-him/

 Misconception Removed

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2019/11/28/in-1884-mirza-ghulam-ahmad-was-indirectly-denying-quran-349-as-he-denied-the-miracles-of-esa-as/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2017/12/09/mirza-ghulam-ahmad-was-considered-a-kafir-in-1884-before-his-wild-claims/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2018/02/17/mirza-ghulam-ahmad-quoted-and-commented-on-178-in-1884-in-the-braheen-e-ahmadiyya-vol-4-he-then-connected-178-with-the-return-of-the-messiah/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2018/02/09/during-the-writing-of-braheen-e-ahmadiyya-mga-masked-his-beliefs-he-was-already-asserting-that-esa-as-died/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2016/11/14/what-is-maseel-e-maseeh-the-like-of-the-messiah/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2016/10/27/sir-syeds-view-on-esa-as/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2017/07/16/the-queen-of-the-princely-state-of-bhopal-invested-heavily-1878-into-mirza-ghulam-ahmad-and-his-braheen-they-were-disappointed-by-the-product/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2017/12/26/did-mirza-ghulam-ahmad-claim-to-be-the-messiah-in-1889/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2016/11/14/mga-confuses-all-of-his-readers-in-1891-as-he-claimed-to-be-the-promised-messiah/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2018/03/06/nusrat-jehan-begum-and-other-women-didnt-get-into-to-mgas-bait-in-1889-and-after-were-they-illiterate/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2017/07/17/ahmadiyya-leadership-lied-about-the-first-bait-ceremony-in-1889/

http://www.aaiil.org/text/articles/reviewofreligions/raw/reviewreligionsenglish1908.pdf

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2017/12/09/mirza-ghulam-ahmad-was-accused-of-claiming-prophethood-in-the-1879-1884-era/

Tags
#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyatrueislam #ahmadiapartheid #Ahmadiyyat #rabwah #qadian #meetthekhalifa #muslimsforpeace #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog #nolifewithoutkhalifa #AhmadiMosqueattack #AhmadiyyaPersecution #trueislam

Can Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s prophethood be proven from the Quran?

Intro
Before MGA claimed to be the Messiah (1891), he had written Barahin-i-Ahmadiyya Vol. 1-4 and was indirectly claiming prophethood and was thus declared a Kafir by his own sect, the ahl-e-hadith. In 1879, in the BA2, MGA quoted 18:109 (18:110, in the Ahmadi quran)(see also 31:27, the verse is identical) and says that “”Say, ‘If the ocean became ink for the words of my Lord, surely, the ocean would be exhausted before the words of my Lord came to an end, even though We brought the like thereof as further help.’. Thus, MGA was arguing from the Quran that Allah will continue talking (prophethood) to Muslims until the Day of Judgement and this Islam was superior to all other religions. In volume 3, MGA quoted 9:32, and essentially was claiming prophethood for himself. In fact, MGA’s first argument in the BA was that of the continuation of divine revelation, however, MGA wasn’t being clear. Even Nawab Siddiq Hassan Khan tore of the Barahin-i-Ahmadiyya and sent it back to Qadian in that condition, which enraged MGA. MGA was also accused of claiming prophethood by the Ahl-e-Hadith, only Batalvi defended him. I have written a full review of BA3 herein. By 1884, MGA was openly being called a Kafir by most of the Ahl-e-hadith Muslims of North India. MGA’s friend, Syed Muhammad Hussain Batalvi kept arguing that MGA was just using flowery language. For the next 6 years, MGA went silent on the topic of his prophethood. In 1891, as MGA made his wild claims, he quoted 4:64 (in Izala Auham) as he argued that he wasn’t claiming prophethood, only muhadassiyat (metaphoric prophethood). Chapter 4:64 of the Quran tells us that Messengers/Prophets only follow the words of Allah (and thus, we should obey them unquestionably), not other prophets, this verse also proves that all prophethood/messengership in the Quran is law-bearing (MGA believed this also). However, Dard disagrees in his “Life of Ahmad” (1947)(See online english edition of 2008, see page 824 onward. Dard argues that 4:64 doesn’t mean that all prophets are law-bearing. Dard goes on to mis-quote 3-4 verses of the Quran as he argues that Aaron (as) was a follower of Moses (as), which is not true, Aaron (as) was an independent prophet, Allah made him a prophet, no one else. Aaron (as) uniquely shared the same mission as Moses (as)(see 10:75).

Furthermore, prophethood is a gift, not something that can be earned (see 40:15 and 6:125). A few months later, MGA went to Delhi and began the process of having a written debate, MGA was cornered and published an announcement full of lies. Per Khwaja Kamaluddin, MGA was also forced to read his prayers behind an imam who had recently called him a Kafir. However, 10 years later, after the publishing of ‘Eik Ghalti Ka Izala”, Nov. 1901, MGA and his team totally abandoned this view. They claim that MGA discovered that an Ummati can become a Prophet (see Haqiqatun Nubuwwat by Mirza Mahmud Ahmad and Qaul al Fasl {1915}, see also Qazi Muhammad Nazeer, 1966, “Truth Prevails”), he also claimed to be greater and better than Esa (as) in this exact time frame. The other important fact to understand here is that all 124,000 prophets that were mentioned in the Quran were “independent” prophets, in others words, Allah made them prophets and they only followed the will of Allah and they all had the ability to create new laws and abrogate old ones. The prophethood that MGA discovered in 1901, never existed in the Quran, Torah or Bible, since all of those prophets were “independent”. By 1903, MGA said that only he was allowed this title of Nabi in the entire Ummah (See RK, v. 20, p. 45; starts at approximately middle of the page; Tadhkirah-tush-Shahaadatayn; published 1903). At the end of 1905, in “The Will”, MGA claims that some Muslims (he was only speaking about himself) have been able to become Ummati and Nabi (see English ROR of Jan. 1906, see pages 31-32). In 1906-07, in Haqiqatul Wahy, MGA again asserted that he was both an Ummati and a Nabi, and he was the only one the entire ummah of Muhammad to achieve this. After MGA died (October of 1908), in the Barahin-i-Ahmadiyya Vol. 5, Noorudin wrote that MGA was always an Ummati and had become a Nabi. The Khalifa, Mirza Basheer ud Din Mahmud Ahmad wrote Qaul al-Fasl in January of 1915 and Haqiqatun Nubuwwat in March of 1915, wherein he quoted 7:35, 4:69, 2:5, 62:3 and 61:6 as verses from the Quran wherein MGA was explained as a prophet to come. MGA had never used these verse to argue pro-prophethood. Nevertheless, Muhammad Ali responded in (December of 1915) and wrote “Prophethood in Islam”  and ripped the Qadiani belief that MGA was an Ummati-Nabi. These conversations would continue uptil 1923, then they died off for about 10 years. Ahmadi’s also quote 62:3, and call it a prophecy about the second coming of Muhammad (Saw)(nauzobillah) as the Promised Messiah.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
4:64 of the Quran (Suyuti)

“”We never sent any Messenger but that he should be obeyed in what he commands and judges by the leave by the command of God and not that he should be disobeyed or opposed. If when they had wronged themselves by seeking the judgement of the false idol they had come to you repentant and asked forgiveness from God and the Messenger had asked forgiveness for them there is a shift from the second to the third person in this address in deference to his the Prophet’s s status; they would have found God Relenting to them Merciful to them.””
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
1879–1880

In the BA1&2, MGA was using 18:109 as evidence for his divine revelations (prophethood)(see page 118).

MGA quotes 18:109 (18:110, in the Ahmadi quran)(see also 31:27, the verse is identical) and says that “”Say, ‘If the ocean became ink for the words of my Lord, surely, the ocean would be exhausted before the words of my Lord came to an end, even though We brought the like thereof as further help.””. Thus, MGA was arguing from the Quran that Allah will continue talking to Muslims until the Day of Judgement. However, this argument was never used by MGA ever again. Nor was it used by the Qadiani’s in their famous commentaries of the Quran (via Malik Ghulam Farid).

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
1882

In the Barahin-e-Ahmadiyya, vol. 3, 1882, MGA claimed that 9:32 was revealed to himself
In this era, MGA began faking revelations onto himself in great abundance. In fact, he applied 9:32 onto himself and without a commentary, later on in 1901, he would claim that the word Messenger in this verse and subsequently to the revelation of MGA in 1883, was an indication of MGA’s prophethood.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________1884

After the publishing of the 4th volume of Braheen e Ahmadiyya in late 1884, MGA was called a Kafir by the leaders of the Ahl-e-hadith sect, who had just helped MGA marry an Ahl-e-Hadith girl. MGA was so bold, he began claiming that many verses of the Quran had been also revealed onto himself. In this essay, we are writing about 48:29, which would be 48:30 in the Ahmadiyya Quran’s (interestingly, after MGA died, the Ahmadi’s who wrote commentary on the Quran never mention that this verse is about MGA, Lahori’s and Qadiani’s, see page 2953)). Per MGA,  “””I have been named ‘Muhammad’ as well as ‘Messenger'”””, (see “Eik Ghalti Ka Izala”, page 2, online english edition). MGA is essentially claiming HE WAS REFERRED TO AS MUHAMMAD in this verse.

48:29
In Nov. of 1901, in MGA’s famous announcement/booklet, “Eik Ghalti Ka Izala”, MGA says:

“”””””””””””””””””””””In the same book, close upon the above Divine Communication, is this Divine revelation:  Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and those who are with him are
hard against the disbelievers, tender amongst themselves.“”””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””

This is just the first sentence of the full verse from the Quran
The full verse is as follows:

“”””””””””””””””””””””””Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah. And those who are with him are hard against the disbelievers, tender among themselves. Thou seest them bowing and prostrating themselves in Prayer, seeking grace from Allah and His pleasure. Their mark is upon their faces, being the traces of prostrations. This is their description in the Torah. And their description in the Gospel is like unto a seed-produce that sends forth its sprout, then makes it strong; it then becomes thick, and stands firm on its stem, delighting the sowers — that He may cause the disbelievers to burn with rage at the sight of them. Allah has promised, unto those of them who believe and do good works, forgiveness and a great reward.“””””””””””””””””””””””””””

The verse is mentioned in Izala Auham (1890–1891) as MGA tried to explain his abusive language
As MGA worked on explaining as to why he had used abusive language, he quoted 48:29.  

This verse was on the cover page of Asmani Faisala (1891)
The verse was presented on the cover page of MGA’s famous book.

In Barahin-i-Ahmadiyya Vol. 4, online english edition, page 396
The original quote can be found in english.

Other Quranic verses that MGA claimed for himself in BA-4
——48:28, 61:09 and 9:32
——-21:107
——-10:16
——17:8
——18:83

And many more…………………………
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
1891 in Izalah-i Auham, page 569 (1st edition)

“The possessor of perfect prophethood (nubuwwat-i tammah) can never be a follower (ummati). And if one is called a perfect messenger of God, his becoming a complete follower of, and obedient (muti`) to another prophet is absolutely forbidden according to the clear and express teachings of the Quran and the Hadith. God says: And we sent no messenger but that he should be obeyed by Allah’s command (4:64). That is to say, every messenger is sent to be a master (muta`) and an imam. He is not sent for the object of becoming obedient and subordinate to another person. Of course, a muhaddath, who is from among the sent ones (mursalin), is a follower, too, and a prophet in an imperfect sense, as well. He is a follower, because he is totally obedient to the Shari`ah of Allah’s messenger and is the recipient of the light from the lamp of his messengership, and a prophet because God deals with him as He does with prophets. God has created a muhaddath as an intermediary (barzakh) between prophets and nations. Although he is a perfect follower, he is also a prophet in a sense.”


MGA was claiming to be a follower and a prophet (Muhaddas only) as early as 1884 in the BA-4

1890-1891
Izala Auham
pp. 532-533 (See “Prophethood in Islam” by Muhammad Ali {1915}, Muhammad Ali referenced the original book in this case).

In this quotation, MGA claims that even in the Barahin-i-Ahmadiyya (1880-1884), his god called him a follower and a prophet:

“Truly the Messiah to come has also been spoken of as a prophet, but he has been called a follower too; rather the followers of the Holy Prophet have been foretold that ‘he shall be indeed from among you, and shall be your Imam,’ and his being a follower has been expressed not only in words, but it has also been shown that practically like other Muslims he shall only be a follower of the word of God and the sayings of the Messenger and shall solve the difficult and intricate questions of religion not by dint of his prophethood but ijtihad (exercise of judgement), and shall offer his prayers after others. Now all these clearly indicate that he shall not factually and in reality possess the characteristics of perfect prophethood, although partial and imperfect prophethood (nubuwwat-i naqisah) shall be found in him which, in other words, is called muhaddathiyyah and contains only one aspect of the perfect prophethood. So, the fact that he has been called a prophet as well as a follower indicates that he shall possess both these aspects i.e., followership (ummatiyyat) and prophethood, as it is necessary that both these aspects should be found in a muhaddath. But the possessor of perfect prophethood (nubuwwat-i tammah) has one aspect of prophethood only. In short, muhaddathiyyah is imbued with both the colours. That is why in Barahin-i Ahmadiyyah, too, God the Most High named this humble servant a follower as well as a prophet.”
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
1891 in Delhi

In this famous announcement, MGA denied his own claim of being Esa (As) the son of Mary, denied that he rejected the physicality of the Miraaj, denied his own prophethood, call any claimant of prophethood as liar and kafir, and claimed that he believed in the same beliefs as the “Ahl-e-Sunnah-wa-Jamaa”. However, these were all lies, just a few weeks before this announcement (summer of 1891), Izala Auham part-2 was published wherein MGA forcefully denied the physicality of the Miraaj, he had already rejected the miracles of Esa (as) in 1884, he rejected that Adam (as) was the first human and was made in heaven, and etc etc. MGA was so scared, he even read his prayers behind a Sunni imam who had called him Kafir. MGA thus escaped Delhi under British-military police protection.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

1901

“Eik Ghalti Ka Izala” was published, wherein MGA claimed prophethood. MGA even admits that Allah only reveals secrets (divine revelation) to Messengers of his (see 72:26-27). MGA does not quote 4:64 however.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
1903

RK, v. 20, p. 45; starts at approximately middle of the page; Tadhkirah-tush-Shahaadatayn; published 1903, via Nuzhat Haneef

By 1903, MGA said that only he was allowed this title of Nabi in the entire Ummah: 

“””On one occasion I had explained to him [Saahibzaadah Abdul Lateef] the answer to an objection, which had pleased him very greatly. And [the objection was] that: [Given] the situation that His Holiness [Muhammad], blessings of Allaah and peace be upon him, is the analogue of Moosa [Moses] and his khaleefahs are the analogs of the Banee Israa-eel [Israelite] prophets, then why is it that Maseeh Mau`ood has been referred to as a prophet in the hadeeths but all other khaleefahs have not been referred to by this title[?] So, I gave him the reply that: Given that His Holiness [Muhammad], blessings of Allaah and peace be upon him, was ‘khaatam-ul anbiyaa’ [Seal of the Prophets or Last Prophet] and there was no prophet after him, therefore, if all the khaleefahs had been referred to by the title prophet then the matter of ‘khatme-
nabuwwat’ [seal-status or finality of prophethood] would have become doubtful. And if not even one person had been referred to by the title of prophet, the objection would remain as to the lack of similarity, since the khaleefahs of Moses are prophets. Therefore Divine wisdom demanded that, initially, many khaleefahs be sent having regard for ‘khatm-e-nabuwwat’ [seal-status or finality of prophethood] and they not be referred to as prophets and not be given this rank so that this would be a sign of ‘khatm-e-nabuwwat’ [seal-status or finality of prophethood]. Then the final khaleefah, that is, Maseeh Mau`ood, be referred to as a prophet so that in the matter of ‘khilaafat’ [the caliphate] the similarity of the two systems [Mosaic and Muhammadan] comes to be proven [or established].”””
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Al Hakam Oct 17 1905 page 10, Via Tahir Ijaz’s online debate with Zahid Aziz

http://198.23.49.155/qadis/ti/ti-nov16.htm

“These people inquire again and again where in the Holy Quran has the name been mentioned. They do not seem to be aware that Allah named me Ahmad. The pledge of Bai-at is taken in the name of Ahmad.  Is not this name found in Quran?” 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
1906

At the end of 1905, in “The Will”, MGA claims that some Muslims (he was only speaking about himself) have been able to become Ummati and Nabi (he was only speaking about himself) (see English ROR of Jan. 1906 also). He even quotes a famous hadith that he had been quoting for 20 years, “your leader from among you” (See Bukhari, “imam o kum minhum”).
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
1906
Chashma Masihi

We have also recently found MGA (and his team of writers) arguing in 1906, via MGA’s book, “Chashma-Masihi”, that in a famous verse of Surah Fatiha wherein Muslims pray to Allah to be guided, they are actually asking Allah to be guided like the prophets and siddiqin (which is a direct inference to 4:69)(See pages 62-65). Thus, MGA would always connect the ability to achieve prophethood with the daily prayer, which is ridiculous, since prophethood is a gift, not something achieved (see 40:15)(See Muhammad Ali, Prophethood in Islam also). However, in Chashma Masihi, MGA doesn’t quote 4:69, nor have we found this quote in any other book after 1903.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
1906-07
See Haqiqatul Wahy, online english edition, page 37

“””At this point, the question can naturally arise that, as there appeared many Prophets among the ummah of Hadrat Musa, in this situation, it necessarily implies that Hadrat Musa is superior. The answer is that all of these Prophets were directly chosen by God, and Hadrat Musa had no part in it whatsoever. However, in this ummah there have been thousands of saints through the blessing of following the Holy Prophet, may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, and there has even appeared one who is both an ummatī and a Prophet. There is no other instance of such bounteous grace in the case of any other Prophet. Among the ummah of Musa, with the exception of the Israelite Prophets, the majority of the people are found [spiritually] wanting. In regard to the [Israelite] Prophets, as I have already stated, they did not receive anything from Musa; rather, they were made Prophets directly. But from Ummat-e-Muhammadiyyah [the followers of the Muhammad sa], thousands were bestowed sainthood solely because they were followers [of the Holy Prophet sa]. (Author)”””

On Page 152, MGA quotes 4:64 (4:65 in the Qadiani Quran)
MGA doesn’t reflect as to why he changed his position on this verse.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
1908
October
See Barahin-i-Ahmadiyya Vol. 5, online english edition, pages 403-404

“””The answer to this is that all this unfortunate deduction is the outcome of a misunderstanding arising from the fact that they have not reflected on the true meaning of the term Nabi [Prophet]. The term Nabi only means one who receives knowledge from God through revelation and is honoured with converse and discourse with Allah. It is not necessary that he should be the bearer of a new law, nor is it necessary that he should not be the follower of a law-bearing Prophet. Thus, no harm is done if an ummati [follower] is said to be such a Prophet, particularly when such an ummati derives spiritual bounty from the Prophet whom he obeys. What is most perverse is to declare that, after the Holy Prophet, may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, this
Ummah is unworthy of enjoying converse with God until the Day of Judgment.””

and

“Our Prophet, peace be on him, is a Prophet of such eminence and rank, that even a follower of this Prophet can become a Prophet himself; and he can come to be called Isa, even though he is an Ummati .” (Zamima Barahin-i-Ahmadiyya, Part V, page 184)

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
1915

Haqiqat-un-Nubuwwat, p. 233, Taken from a Lahori-Ahmadi website on 3-31-2020, http://198.23.49.155/qadis/khilafat-speech-may2005-letter.htm

“Another question is asked, whether in this Umma there has been another prophet apart from the Promised Messiah or not. The short answer is No. … The Holy Prophet refuses to verify the prophethood of any person in the Umma before the Messiah. Therefore, we are also bound to deny that before the Promised Messiah there was anyone in this Umma who was an ummati nabi.”

And

Muhammad Ali publishes his famous book, “Prophethood in Islam” as a response to the Khalifa at Qadian.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
1917

Interestingly, Muhammad Ali totally avoided these verses (4:64-67) in his famous commentary of the Quran.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
1974
The concept of the “Ummati-Nabi” was also put to the Khalifa, Mirza Nasir Ahmad in the NA of 1974.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
1988

In Malik Ghulam Farid’s commentary of 4:64-66, he indirectly claims that MGA was wrong in his view of these verses before 1901. MGA was not mentioned by MGF.

______________________________________________________________________________________________
Links and Related Essay’s

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2019/12/13/mirza-ghulam-ahmads-debate-with-syed-nazeer-hussain-of-delhi-in-1891/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2020/09/12/ahmadis-believe-that-623-of-the-quran-announces-that-mirza-ghulam-ahmad-is-the-second-coming-of-muhammad-sawnauzobillah/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2018/05/01/ahmadiyya-leadership-began-twisting-the-quranic-verse-in-24-in-1915/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2017/12/09/mirza-ghulam-ahmad-was-considered-a-kafir-in-1884-before-his-wild-claims/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2016/09/26/ahmadiyya-and-469-everything-you-need-to-know/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2020/09/02/in-1891-in-delhi-and-in-1892-mirza-ghulam-ahmad-read-his-prayers-behind-muslims-who-called-him-kafir/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2020/09/06/mirza-ghulam-ahmads-famous-announcement-of-10-2-1891-from-delhi-british-india/

https://books.google.com/books?id=3QjPDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA686&lpg=PA686&dq=Ummati+Nabi&source=bl&ots=fk0uRPujFk&sig=ACfU3U1SDQymXhEopA2JDlz3j068ocTtWA&hl=en&ppis=_e&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiUpsO58ODoAhVFsp4KHZOuDvI4ChDoATAEegQIDBA3#v=onepage&q=Ummati%20Nabi&f=false

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2017/05/01/muhammad-saw-is-prophet-124000-esa-as-is-prophet-number-123999/

http://198.23.49.155/qadis/ti/ti-nov16.htm

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2016/09/30/maulvi-sanuallah-acknowledges-that-mga-claimed-prophethood-in-nov-1901/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2016/09/30/mga-explains-how-he-misunderstood-his-prophethood-in-1880-and-realized-it-later-on/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2016/09/26/ahmadiyya-and-469-everything-you-need-to-know/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2017/08/03/ahmadiyya-scholars-wrote-about-469-in-1908/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2016/09/30/maulvi-sanuallah-acknowledges-that-mga-claimed-prophethood-in-nov-1901/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.wordpress.com/2016/10/16/the-causes-of-internal-dissensions-in-the-ahmadiyya-movement-by-kwaja-kamaluddin-1914/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2018/08/01/prophethood-among-the-followers-of-muhammad-by-maulana-sayyid-muhammad-ahsan-of-amroha-oct-1913-in-tashhizul-azhan/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2017/05/20/an-ahmadi-claimed-prophethood-in-late-1901-or-early-1902-and-was-boycotted-by-ahmadis-chiragh-din-of-jammu-jamooni/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2016/09/30/maulvi-abdul-kareem-claims-prophethood-per-mga-maulvi-amrohi-disagrees/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2019/01/13/what-is-arbain-a-book-by-mga-and-his-team-of-writers/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2018/04/23/in-1891-when-mga-made-his-big-claims-he-denied-prophethood-mufti-sadiq-was-heavily-involved/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2017/12/09/mirza-ghulam-ahmad-was-accused-of-claiming-prophethood-in-the-1879-1884-era/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2017/12/09/mirza-ghulam-ahmad-was-considered-a-kafir-in-1884-before-his-wild-claims/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2017/12/26/some-rare-books-from-the-1901-1902-era-which-refute-mgas-claim-to-prophethood/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2016/09/30/maulvi-sanuallah-acknowledges-that-mga-claimed-prophethood-in-nov-1901/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2017/10/12/mirza-sultan-ahmad-son-of-hazrat-mirza-ghulam-ahmad-on-finality-of-prophethood/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2016/12/11/eik-ghalti-ka-izala-aka-correction-of-an-error-was-re-published-on-march-1-1914/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2017/01/16/hani-tahir-explains-mirza-ghulam-ahmads-prophethood-and-pre-1901-vs-post-1901/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2017/11/21/a-few-months-after-becoming-khalifa-mirza-mahmud-ahmad-waffled-on-his-fathers-prophethood/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2016/06/27/do-ahmadis-believe-in-the-same-kalima-as-muslims/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2016/09/30/mga-explains-how-he-misunderstood-his-prophethood-in-1880-and-realized-it-later-on/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2017/02/23/noorudin-didnt-care-if-mirza-ghulam-ahmad-claimed-even-law-bearing-prophethood/

Tags
#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyatrueislam #ahmadiapartheid #Ahmadiyyat #rabwah #qadian #meetthekhalifa #muslimsforpeace #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog #nolifewithoutkhalifa #AhmadiMosqueattack #AhmadiyyaPersecution #trueislam

 

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s famous announcement of 10-2-1891 from Delhi, British-India

Intro
On 10-2-1891, MGA was in Delhi and was cornered. He seems to have published an announcement full of lies from the house wherein he was staying. It is unknown as to what newspaper this announcement was published. Nevertheless, MGA had already denied prophethood in 4 books, Victory of Islam, Elucidation of Objectives, Izala Auham Part-1&2. However, MGA denied the physicality of the Miraaj in Izala Auham Part-2 and denied it via this announcement. MGA also claimed to believe in all of the creed of Ahl-e-Sunnah-wa-Jamaa, which was a lie, since MGA denied the physical descent of Esa (as), MGA also denied a claim of being Esa (as) the son of Mary. 10 years later, MGA claimed to be a prophet, in a sneaky way. MGA quoted 48:29 and claimed that this verse was about him. Later on, MGA would claim that an ummati can be a nabi, thus, contradicting himself and inventing the Ummati Nabi.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

The announcement in Urdu
Ishtaharaat-Vol 1 p 230-231
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

A brief summary of the announcement in english
“I AM NOT CLAIMENT OF NABWAT, AM NOT DENIER OF EXISTANCE OF MIRACLES,
ANGELS, AND LAILA TUL QADAR. I AM BELIEVER OF ALL THOSE BELIEFS WHICH ARE
INCLUDED (PART OF) ISLAMIC AQAIADS. SAME AS I BELIEVE ALL THOSE BELIEFS WHICH
ARE OF JAMAAT ALHL SUNAT WAL JAMAAT. I EXCEPT ALL THOSE THINGS WHICH ARE
PROVEN BY QURAN AND HADITH. AFTER SYEDNA WA MAOULANA HAZRAT MUHAMMAD
MUSTAFAA SAW, KHATAM A MURSALEEN, ANY CLAIMENT OF NABWAT AND RISALAT, IS A
LIER AND KAFIR. MY FAITH IS THAT WAHI STARTED WITH HAZRAT ADAM SAFEE ULLAH,
AND FINISHED AT MUHAMMAD SAW.”

There is para of Arabic after this. Some Arabic words are of Islamic shahada, I am not sure that
ALL are part of Quran?

After Arabic para, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad goes on to say “ALL be witness to this declaration (my
declaration above) , Allah is all knowing and all hearing and is first witness, that I have faith in all those beliefs, having faith and accepting those beliefs, a kafir can be accepted as muslim. A
person (ghair Mazhabi) can be announced a Muslim straightaway, after accepting these beliefs
(above mentioned). I have faith (imaan) in all those articles along with what are mentioned in the Holy Quran and Authentic Hadiths. I DO NOT CLAIM TO BE EISA IBN MARYAM AND I AM NOT BELEIVER OF TRANSMIGRATION OF SOULS (tanasukh).
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Links and Related Essay’s

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2019/01/14/who-is-syed-muhammad-hussain-batalvi-1840-1920/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2020/04/12/the-concept-of-the-ummati-nabi/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2020/08/30/why-do-ahmadis-use-the-quran1793-to-disprove-the-physicality-of-the-miraaj/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2020/01/28/in-1884-mirza-ghulam-ahmad-claimed-that-the-quran-4829-was-also-revealed-to-him/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2017/07/22/mirza-ghulam-ahmad-denied-the-physicality-of-the-miraaj-in-1890-in-izala-auham/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2019/12/13/mirza-ghulam-ahmads-debate-with-syed-nazeer-hussain-of-delhi-in-1891/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2016/10/16/the-causes-of-internal-dissensions-in-the-ahmadiyya-movement-by-kwaja-kamaluddin-1914/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2019/02/06/zikr-e-habib-by-mufti-muhammad-sadiq-1936/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2018/12/25/mirza-ghulam-ahmad-vs-molana-muhammad-hussain-batalvi-and-muslims-leaders-in-british-india-in-august-of-1891/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2018/03/19/mga-lost-the-debate-with-molvi-muhammad-bashir-bhopali-1891/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syed_Nazeer_Husain

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2017/07/16/the-queen-of-the-princely-state-of-bhopal-invested-heavily-1878-into-mirza-ghulam-ahmad-and-his-braheen-they-were-disappointed-by-the-product/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2019/07/03/mirza-ghulam-ahmads-mubahila-in-1889-with-syed-muhammad-hussain-batalvi/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2016/09/06/mirza-ghulams-ahmad-lecture-in-amritsar-nov-1905-was-not-a-lecture-it-was-a-riot/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2017/10/15/mirza-ghulam-ahmads-debate-with-batalvi-summer-of-1891-was-stopped-by-the-british-govt-on-mgas-behalf/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2017/06/27/mirza-ghulam-ahmad-spoke-with-a-terrible-stutter-and-ahmadiyya-leadership-lied-about-it-they-called-it-a-stammer/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2016/12/08/mir-nasir-nawab-the-father-in-law-of-mirza-ghulam-ahmad/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2018/03/19/mga-lost-the-debate-with-molvi-muhammad-bashir-bhopali-1891/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2018/03/19/mirza-ghulam-ahmad-had-5-written-debates-no-oral-debates/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2018/04/23/in-1891-when-mga-made-his-big-claims-he-denied-prophethood-mufti-sadiq-was-heavily-involved/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/?s=ghos

thttps://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2017/11/05/mirza-ghulam-ahmad-embarrassed-noorudin-in-1891/

Tags
#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyatrueislam #ahmadiapartheid #Ahmadiyyat #rabwah #qadian #meetthekhalifa #muslimsforpeace #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog #nolifewithoutkhalifa #AhmadiMosqueattack #AhmadiyyaPersecution #trueislam

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad claimed that Quran,108:1, was also revealed to himself

Intro
In the 1882-1884 era, MGA claimed that many verses of the Quran were also revealed onto to him. In the Barahin-i-Ahmadiyya, Vol. 4, MGA gave over 20 verses of the Quran and claimed that they had also been revealed to him (MGA). MGA was immediately called a Kafir by the leaders of the Ahl-e-Hadith sect, only Syed Muhammad Hussain Batalvi took MGA’s side as he tried to reassure the Ahl-e-Hadith Muslims that MGA was not claiming prophethood. As MGA claimed to be equal to Muhammad (saw)(nauzobillah), in 1901, he quoted this verse in “Correction of an Error” as he argued that this appearance was the second coming of Muhammad (saw)(nauzobillah) via Baruz.

In 1904, in MGA’s personal notebook of revelations, MGA claimed that the Quran, 108:1 (108:2 in the Ahmadi quran) was also revealed to himself. One last point, this notebook of revelations was never published during MGA’s life, it only appears in Tadhkirah.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

The revelation from the 2009 online english edition of Tadhkirah, page 683
December 8, 1904
Friday, the Day of ‘Id [Festival].

[Arabic] Surely, We have given you abundance of good. (surah al-Kauthar, 108:2)

[Notebook of the Revelations of the Promised Messiah, p. 33]
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Other Quranic verses that MGA claimed for himself in 1884
——48:28, 61:09 and 9:32
——-21:107
——-10:16
——17:8
——18:83

After the publishing of the 4th volume of Braheen e Ahmadiyya in late 1884, MGA was called a Kafir by the leaders of the Ahl-e-hadith sect, who had just helped MGA marry an Ahl-e-Hadith girl. MGA was so bold, he began claiming that many verses of the Quran had been also revealed onto himself.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

48:28, 61:09 and 9:32 in “Eik Ghalti Ka Izala” 1901
On the second page, MGA quotes a revelation of his which is similar to three verses of the Quran, 48:28, 61:09 and 9:32 (that would 48:29, 61:10 and 9:33 in Ahmadiyya Quran’s). MGA never specified the verse number, we have to assume all 3 were revealed to him.

MGA says:

“””Even in Brahin-e-Ahmadiyya, which was published some 22 years ago, these words appear in no small number. For instance, one of the Revelations found in Brahine- Ahmadiyya reads:

“”””””””””””””””””””””””””””””He it is Who has sent His Messenger, with guidance and the Religion of truth, that He may make it prevail over all other religions.”””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””

(See Brahin-e-Ahmadiyya, p. 498)(See also “Eik Ghalti Ka Izala”, online english edition)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

48:28, 61:09 and 9:32 in Braheen e Ahmadiyya Vol. 4
The exact same reference is on page 374. The Ahmadiyya editor’s erroneously listed it as verse 61:10, it would be 61:09 in the non-Ahmadi Quranic numbering system. 9:32 is another similar verse. In fact, 61:09, 48:28 and 9:32 are all almost identical to each other. MGA even claimed that these verses were prophecies about his own coming. See page 379 also, the first part of the 3 verses is quoted by MGA.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

The reference from the 2009 online english edition of Tadhkirah
See page 92.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

61:09 (61:10 in the Ahmadiyya Quran’s) is quoted in Khutbah Ilhamiya
Interestingly enough, the same verse is quoted by MGA in Khutbah Ilhamiya.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Other Quranic verses that MGA claimed for himself in 1884
——48:28, 61:09 and 9:32
——-21:107
——-10:16
——17:8
——18:83
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
108:1 in Correction of an Error, online english edition

After quoting 62:3, MGA says:

“””There is a beautiful subtlety of expression in this verse. While it clearly mentions the people who will be counted among the Companionsra, it does not expressly mention the person who was to come as the Buruz, i.e., the Promised Messiah, and through whom those people would come to be counted among the Companions of the Holy Prophetsa and considered to be under his guidance. This deliberate omission is intended to signify that the Buruz in his own right would be a non-entity, therefore, his Prophethood or Messengership in the form of Buruz would not break the Seal of Finality. This is why the verse treats him as a non-entity and presents the Holy Prophetsa in his place. The appearance of a Buruz has similarly been promised in the verse:

Surely We have given thee abundance of good.—Al-Kauthar, 108:2

It means that in his time Kauthar would be manifested, i.e., springs of spiritual blessings will flow freely and a great number of people will become true adherents of Islam. This verse looks with disdain at the need of physical progeny and promises, instead, progeny by way of Buruz. Although God Almighty has blessed me with the honour that I am both an Israelite and a Fatimite, and I partake of both bloods, I still give precedence to the spiritual relationship, which is that of Buruz.”””
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
1917

In Muhammad Ali’s famous commentary of 1917, he didn’t connect MGA to 108:1. Muhammad Ali was a honest and decent man, and he knew it was wrong to do so.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
1988

Malik Ghulam Farid’s 5-volume commentary also connects MGA to this verse.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
2018

Malik Ghulam Farid’s 5-volume commentary also connects MGA to this verse.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Links and Related Essay’s
https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2020/01/27/in-1884-mirza-ghulam-ahmad-claimed-that-the-quran-21107-was-also-revealed-to-him/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2017/12/09/mirza-ghulam-ahmad-was-considered-a-kafir-in-1884-before-his-wild-claims/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2018/02/17/mirza-ghulam-ahmad-quoted-and-commented-on-178-in-1884-in-the-braheen-e-ahmadiyya-vol-4-he-then-connected-178-with-the-return-of-the-messiah/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2020/01/28/in-1884-mirza-ghulam-ahmad-claimed-that-the-quran-6109-4828-and-932-was-also-revealed-to-him/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2019/01/29/khutbah-ilhamia-quotes-the-revealed-sermon-april-11th-1901/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2020/01/27/in-1884-mirza-ghulam-ahmad-claimed-that-the-quran-1016-was-also-revealed-to-him/

A Misconception Removed

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2019/11/28/in-1884-mirza-ghulam-ahmad-was-indirectly-denying-quran-349-as-he-denied-the-miracles-of-esa-as/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2017/12/09/mirza-ghulam-ahmad-was-considered-a-kafir-in-1884-before-his-wild-claims/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2018/02/17/mirza-ghulam-ahmad-quoted-and-commented-on-178-in-1884-in-the-braheen-e-ahmadiyya-vol-4-he-then-connected-178-with-the-return-of-the-messiah/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2018/02/09/during-the-writing-of-braheen-e-ahmadiyya-mga-masked-his-beliefs-he-was-already-asserting-that-esa-as-died/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2016/11/14/what-is-maseel-e-maseeh-the-like-of-the-messiah/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2016/10/27/sir-syeds-view-on-esa-as/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2017/07/16/the-queen-of-the-princely-state-of-bhopal-invested-heavily-1878-into-mirza-ghulam-ahmad-and-his-braheen-they-were-disappointed-by-the-product/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2017/12/26/did-mirza-ghulam-ahmad-claim-to-be-the-messiah-in-1889/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2016/11/14/mga-confuses-all-of-his-readers-in-1891-as-he-claimed-to-be-the-promised-messiah/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2018/03/06/nusrat-jehan-begum-and-other-women-didnt-get-into-to-mgas-bait-in-1889-and-after-were-they-illiterate/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2017/07/17/ahmadiyya-leadership-lied-about-the-first-bait-ceremony-in-1889/

http://www.aaiil.org/text/articles/reviewofreligions/raw/reviewreligionsenglish1908.pdf

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2017/12/09/mirza-ghulam-ahmad-was-accused-of-claiming-prophethood-in-the-1879-1884-era/

Tags
#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyatrueislam #ahmadiapartheid #Ahmadiyyat #rabwah #qadian #meetthekhalifa #muslimsforpeace #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog #nolifewithoutkhalifa #AhmadiMosqueattack #AhmadiyyaPersecution #trueislam

Ahmadi’s love blaming Muhammad (saw), every time a prophecy of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad failed

Intro
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad failed in his attempts to marry his triple niece, Muhammadi Begum. Over the years, many different Ahmadi’s have come up with creative responses. However, a new response has been seen by a fire-brand-Ahmadi-ex-president says that Muhammad (Saw) had predicted that he would do the Hajj/Umra in Year 6, and failed, and thus MGA also misunderstood his prediction, i.e., Muhammadi Begum. However, this Ahmadi isn’t capable of giving references, since he never went to college. Nevertheless, he blamed Muhammad (saw) and ridiculed him, just to support MGA. This is what Ahmadi’s get in trouble over, blaming Muhammad, then they cry persecution, its sooo ironic. Further, after conducting basic research on this topic, it is obvious that Muhammad (saw) never predicted doing Hajj/Umra in Year 6, in fact, the quran never mentions any dream/vision that failed. Chapter 48 of the Quran mentions the entire incident. Tafsir Ibn Kathir tells us that the Prophet never said his dream would happen immediately, he said it would eventually happen. In contrast, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad claimed that his marriage with Muhammadi Begum was TAQDIR E MUBRAM, that can not be avoided,(meaning Taqdir e Mubram Haqiqi). Muhammad (Saw) never said anything close to this.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

The Treaty of Hudaybiyyah
Chapter 48 of the Quran covers the entire incident of the the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah. MGA was totally silent on this event, MGA never used it when his prophecies failed. However, in the famous 5-volume commentary of the Quran, Malik Ghulam Farid asserted that Muhammad (saw) had a vision/dream and it didn’t come to fruition. He quotes Ibn Hisham, which isn’t an authentic source of information on Islam (see page 2937).
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
MGA claimed that 48:28 (48:29 in the Qadiani Quran) was revealed to himself

In 1884, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad claimed that the Quran 61:09, 48:28 and 9:32 was also revealed to him. 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Links and Related Essay’s
http://m.qtafsir.com/Surah-Al-Fath

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2018/02/14/in-terms-of-muhammadi-begum-mirza-ghulam-ahmad-was-guaranteeing-that-she-would-eventually-taqdir-e-mubra-be-married-to-him/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2019/02/16/who-is-muhammadi-begum-1875-1965/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Hudaybiyyah

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2020/01/28/in-1884-mirza-ghulam-ahmad-claimed-that-the-quran-6109-4828-and-932-was-also-revealed-to-him/

https://www.alislam.org/quran/view/?page=2938&region=E55

https://www.alislam.org/book/miracle-of-ahmad/

http://alhafeez.org/rashid/mohammadi.htm

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2018/05/24/mirza-sultan-muhammad-and-wife-muhammadi-begum-lived-and-died-as-muslim-had-5-sons-and-two-doughters/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2017/01/10/new-data-on-muhammadi-begum-found-2017/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2018/12/17/who-is-mirza-ghulam-hussain/

https://www.alislam.org/library/book/barahin-e-ahmadiyya-part-v/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2019/02/03/mirza-ghulam-ahmads-famous-announcement-of-20-february-1886/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2019/01/22/in-1893-mirza-ghulam-ahmad-made-6-predictions-about-muhammadi-begum/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2017/07/08/even-in-1907-mirza-ghulam-ahmad-was-still-lusting-for-his-niece-muhammadi-begum/

https://www.alislam.org/library/book/haqiqatul-wahi/

http://aaiil.org/text/books/mga/testimonyholyquran/proofpromisedmessiah.shtml#sst

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2018/12/17/who-is-mirza-ghulam-haidar/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2018/12/15/who-is-mirza-ghulam-murtaza-1791-1876/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2018/12/17/who-is-mirza-ghulam-hussain/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2018/12/09/who-is-mirza-ghulam-muhi-ud-din-mirza-ghulam-ahmads-paternal-uncle-died-in-1866/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2018/12/11/who-is-mirza-nizam-ud-din-1845-the-first-cousin-of-mirza-ghulam-ahmad/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2016/11/24/mirza-imam-ud-din-the-cousin-of-mirza-ghulam-ahmad/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2017/07/08/even-in-1907-mirza-ghulam-ahmad-was-still-lusting-for-his-niece-muhammadi-begum/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2017/07/16/the-punjab-chiefs-by-lepel-griffin-1890-edition-doesnt-even-mention-mirza-ghulam-ahmad/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/?s=muhammadi

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2018/12/16/who-is-murad-bibi/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nawab_ud_din_Ramdasi

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2019/01/22/in-1885-mirza-ghulam-ahmad-published-a-31-month-prophecy-vs-his-own-extended-family/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2019/02/03/who-is-mirza-ahmad-baig-hoshiarpuri/

https://www.alislam.org/library/book/barahin-e-ahmadiyya-part-v/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2019/02/03/mirza-ghulam-ahmads-famous-announcement-of-20-february-1886/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2019/01/22/in-1893-mirza-ghulam-ahmad-made-6-predictions-about-muhammadi-begum/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2017/07/08/even-in-1907-mirza-ghulam-ahmad-was-still-lusting-for-his-niece-muhammadi-begum/

https://www.alislam.org/library/book/haqiqatul-wahi/

http://aaiil.org/text/books/mga/testimonyholyquran/proofpromisedmessiah.shtml#sst

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2018/12/17/who-is-mirza-ghulam-haidar/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2018/12/15/who-is-mirza-ghulam-murtaza-1791-1876/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2018/12/17/who-is-mirza-ghulam-hussain/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2018/12/09/who-is-mirza-ghulam-muhi-ud-din-mirza-ghulam-ahmads-paternal-uncle-died-in-1866/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2018/12/11/who-is-mirza-nizam-ud-din-1845-the-first-cousin-of-mirza-ghulam-ahmad/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2016/11/24/mirza-imam-ud-din-the-cousin-of-mirza-ghulam-ahmad/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2017/07/08/even-in-1907-mirza-ghulam-ahmad-was-still-lusting-for-his-niece-muhammadi-begum/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2017/07/16/the-punjab-chiefs-by-lepel-griffin-1890-edition-doesnt-even-mention-mirza-ghulam-ahmad/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/?s=muhammadi

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2018/12/16/who-is-murad-bibi/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nawab_ud_din_Ramdasi

Tags
#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyatrueislam #ahmadiapartheid #Ahmadiyyat #rabwah #qadian #meetthekhalifa #muslimsforpeace #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog #nolifewithoutkhalifa #AhmadiMosqueattack #AhmadiyyaPersecution #Mosqueattack #trueislam #atifmian

Tags
#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyat #trueislam #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog

The concept of the Ummati-Nabi

Intro
In 1890-91, in Izala Auham (see the refs in the below), MGA argued over and over again that a prophet could never be a follower of another prophet. MGA and his team of writers quoted the Quran, 4:64 (4:65 in the Ahmadi Quran) as evidence. In fact, in the same book, MGA claims that his God called him an Ummati and Nabi in the Barahin i Ahmadiyya (about 7-10 years earlier), however, he didn’t give the exact reference. In the same year (1891 in Delhi, see the announcement here), MGA published an announcement to the effect that anyone who claims to be a prophet is a Kafir, obviously, MGA only meant a prophet like all the prophets mentioned in the Quran (independent-prophets). However, 10 years later, after the publishing of ‘Eik Ghalti Ka Izala”, Nov. 1901, MGA and his team totally abandoned this view. They claim that MGA discovered that an Ummati can become a Prophet (see Haqiqatun Nubuwwat by Mirza Mahmud Ahmad and Qaul al Fasl {1915}, see also Qazi Muhammad Nazeer, 1966, “Truth Prevails”), he also claimed to be greater and better than Esa (as) in this exact time frame. The other important fact to understand here is that all 124,000 prophets that were mentioned in the Quran were “independent” prophets, in others words, Allah made them prophets and they only followed the will of Allah and they all had the ability to create new laws and abrogate old ones. The prophethood that MGA discovered in 1901, never existed in the Quran, Torah or Bible, since all of those prophets were “independent”. By 1903, MGA said that only he was allowed this title of Nabi in the entire Ummah (See RK, v. 20, p. 45; starts at approximately middle of the page; Tadhkirah-tush-Shahaadatayn; published 1903). At the end of 1905, in “The Will”, MGA claims that some Muslims (he was only speaking about himself) have been able to become Ummati and Nabi (see English ROR of Jan. 1906, see pages 31-32). In 1906-07, in Haqiqatul Wahy, MGA again asserted that he was both an Ummati and a Nabi, and he was the only one the entire ummah of Muhammad to achieve this. After MGA died (October of 1908), in the Barahin-i-Ahmadiyya Vol. 5, Noorudin wrote that MGA was always an Ummati and had become a Nabi. However, as soon as Khwaja Kamaluddin returned from England he gave a speech which was turned into the an urdu-only book, “Ikhtalayfaat-e-Silsilaa-e-Ahmadiyya kay Usbaab”. Khwaja Kamaluddin’s quotes “Tuhfatul-Muluk” (A Present to Kings) by the Khalifa, Mirza Basheer ud Din Mahmud Ahmad which seems to have been written in the summer of 1914. This book was published on Dec 24th, 1914, during the Qadiani Jalsa. It was the first ever book about the split in the Ahmadiyya Movement, in it, Kwaja Kamaluddin emphatically died the prophethood of MGA and takfir against non-Ahmadi’s. The Khalifa, Mirza Basheer ud Din Mahmud Ahmad wrote Qaul al-Fasl in January of 1915 and Haqiqatun Nubuwwat in March of 1915, wherein he quoted 7:35, 4:69, 2:5 and 61:6 as verses from the Quran wherein MGA was explained as a prophet to come. MGA had never used these verse to argue pro-prophethood. Nevertheless, Muhammad Ali responded in (December of 1915) and wrote “Prophethood in Islam”  and ripped the Qadiani belief that MGA was an Ummati-Nabi. These conversations would continue uptil 1923, then they died off for about 10 years.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

1879–1880

In the BA1&2, MGA was using 18:109 as evidence for his divine revelations (prophethood).

MGA quotes 18:109 (18:110, in the Ahmadi quran)(see also 31:27, the verse is identical) and says that “”Say, ‘If the ocean became ink for the words of my Lord, surely, the ocean would be exhausted before the words of my Lord came to an end, even though We brought the like thereof as further help.””. Thus, MGA was arguing from the Quran that Allah will continue talking to Muslims until the Day of Judgement. However, this argument was never used by MGA ever again. Nor was it used by the Qadiani’s in their famous commentaries of the Quran (via Malik Ghulam Farid).

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
1882

In the Barahin-e-Ahmadiyya, vol. 3, 1882, MGA claimed that 9:32 was revealed to himself
In this era, MGA began faking revelations onto himself in great abundance. In fact, he applied 9:32 onto himself and without a commentary, later on in 1901, he would claim that the word Messenger in this verse and subsequently to the revelation of MGA in 1883, was an indication of MGA’s prophethood.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________1884

After the publishing of the 4th volume of Braheen e Ahmadiyya in late 1884, MGA was called a Kafir by the leaders of the Ahl-e-hadith sect, who had just helped MGA marry an Ahl-e-Hadith girl. MGA was so bold, he began claiming that many verses of the Quran had been also revealed onto himself. In this essay, we are writing about 48:29, which would be 48:30 in the Ahmadiyya Quran’s (interestingly, after MGA died, the Ahmadi’s who wrote commentary on the Quran never mention that this verse is about MGA, Lahori’s and Qadiani’s, see page 2953)). Per MGA,  “””I have been named ‘Muhammad’ as well as ‘Messenger'”””, (see “Eik Ghalti Ka Izala”, page 2, online english edition). MGA is essentially claiming HE WAS REFERRED TO AS MUHAMMAD in this verse.

48:29
In Nov. of 1901, in MGA’s famous announcement/booklet, “Eik Ghalti Ka Izala”, MGA says:

“”””””””””””””””””””””In the same book, close upon the above Divine Communication, is this Divine revelation:  Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and those who are with him are
hard against the disbelievers, tender amongst themselves.“”””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””

This is just the first sentence of the full verse from the Quran
The full verse is as follows:

“”””””””””””””””””””””””Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah. And those who are with him are hard against the disbelievers, tender among themselves. Thou seest them bowing and prostrating themselves in Prayer, seeking grace from Allah and His pleasure. Their mark is upon their faces, being the traces of prostrations. This is their description in the Torah. And their description in the Gospel is like unto a seed-produce that sends forth its sprout, then makes it strong; it then becomes thick, and stands firm on its stem, delighting the sowers — that He may cause the disbelievers to burn with rage at the sight of them. Allah has promised, unto those of them who believe and do good works, forgiveness and a great reward.“””””””””””””””””””””””””””

The verse is mentioned in Izala Auham (1890–1891) as MGA tried to explain his abusive language
As MGA worked on explaining as to why he had used abusive language, he quoted 48:29.  

This verse was on the cover page of Asmani Faisala (1891)
The verse was presented on the cover page of MGA’s famous book.

In Barahin-i-Ahmadiyya Vol. 4, online english edition, page 396
The original quote can be found in english.

Other Quranic verses that MGA claimed for himself in BA-4
——48:28, 61:09 and 9:32
——-21:107
——-10:16
——17:8
——18:83

And many more…………………………

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

1890-1891
Izala Auham
pp. 532-533 (See “Prophethood in Islam” by Muhammad Ali {1915}, Muhammad Ali referenced the original book in this case).

In this quotation, MGA claims that even in the Barahin-i-Ahmadiyya (1880-1884), his god called him a follower and a prophet:

“Truly the Messiah to come has also been spoken of as a prophet, but he has been called a follower too; rather the followers of the Holy Prophet have been foretold that ‘he shall be indeed from among you, and shall be your Imam,’ and his being a follower has been expressed not only in words, but it has also been shown that practically like other Muslims he shall only be a follower of the word of God and the sayings of the Messenger and shall solve the difficult and intricate questions of religion not by dint of his prophethood but ijtihad (exercise of judgement), and shall offer his prayers after others. Now all these clearly indicate that he shall not factually and in reality possess the characteristics of perfect prophethood, although partial and imperfect prophethood (nubuwwat-i naqisah) shall be found in him which, in other words, is called muhaddathiyyah and contains only one aspect of the perfect prophethood. So, the fact that he has been called a prophet as well as a follower indicates that he shall possess both these aspects i.e., followership (ummatiyyat) and prophethood, as it is necessary that both these aspects should be found in a muhaddath. But the possessor of perfect prophethood (nubuwwat-i tammah) has one aspect of prophethood only. In short, muhaddathiyyah is imbued with both the colours. That is why in Barahin-i Ahmadiyyah, too, God the Most High named this humble servant a follower as well as a prophet.”
_______________________________________________________________________________________________

1891 in Izalah-i Auham, page 569 (1st edition)
MGA claims that prophets aren’t followers

“The possessor of perfect prophethood (nubuwwat-i tammah) can never be a follower (ummati). And if one is called a perfect messenger of God, his becoming a complete follower of, and obedient (muti`) to another prophet is absolutely forbidden according to the clear and express teachings of the Quran and the Hadith. God says: And we sent no messenger but that he should be obeyed by Allah’s command (4:64). That is to say, every messenger is sent to be a master (muta`) and an imam. He is not sent for the object of becoming obedient and subordinate to another person. Of course, a muhaddath, who is from among the sent ones (mursalin), is a follower, too, and a prophet in an imperfect sense, as well. He is a follower, because he is totally obedient to the Shari`ah of Allah’s messenger and is the recipient of the light from the lamp of his messengership, and a prophet because God deals with him as He does with prophets. God has created a muhaddath as an intermediary (barzakh) between prophets and nations. Although he is a perfect follower, he is also a prophet in a sense.”

And the reference to the antithetical statement
Izala Auham
pp. 575-579 (See “Prophethood in Islam” by Muhammad Ali {1915}, Muhammad Ali referenced the original book in this case).

“Many doubts arise if the Messiah, son of Mary, would be a perfect follower (ummati) at the time of his descent; because being a follower he can not in any way be a messenger (rasul), for the significance of a rasul and ummati is antithetical. Moreover, the finality of our Holy Prophet precludes the coming of any other prophet. This restriction in fact does not apply to an apostle who receives his light from the lamp of the prophethood of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), and lacks perfect prophethood. In other words, he too is a muhaddath because on account of discipleship and annihilation in the Messenger (fana fir-Rasul) he is included in the person of Khatam al-Mursalin (Seal of the Messengers) as a part is never outside the whole. But Messiah, son of Mary, the recipient of Evangel, for which the descent of Gabriel was an essential requisite, cannot become a follower in any way because he would be bound to follow the revelation that would descend on him from time, to time.

If it be argued that the Messiah will receive only this much revelation, “follow the Quran” and the divine revelation will be cut off thereafter and Gabriel will never descend on him and he would become like followers after being totally deprived of prophethood, then all this is a child’s play. It is quite obvious that should revelation be permitted but for once, and should Gabriel bring a single sentence only and become silent thereafter still this much is contrary to the finality of prophethood; for, when the seal of finality is broken and the apostolic revelation starts to come down again, it matters little whether the revelations are few or many. Every wise man can understand well that if God is true to His word, the promise given in the verse Khatam al-Nabiyyin and more explicitly in the Traditions — that after the death of the Holy Prophet, Gabriel is to bring no more prophetic revelations — are true and correct, then no one can ever come in the capacity of a messenger after our Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). If, for the sake of argument it were assumed that the Messiah, son of Mary, would resurrect and appear in the world, then how would his being a messenger be denied and the descending of Gabriel and resumption of the divine communication. As it is not possible that there should be no light with the rising of the sun, similarly, it is quite impossible that a messenger should come for the reformation of mankind devoid of divine communication and visits of Gabriel.”

And 

(Izala Auham, p. 569), (See “Prophethood in Islam” by Muhammad Ali {1915}, Muhammad Ali referenced the original book in this case).

“The possessor of full prophethood can never be a follower (ummati), and it is absolutely prohibited by the Quran and Hadith that the man who is called messenger (rasul) of God in the fullest sense could be a complete sub-ordinate and disciple of another prophet. Almighty God says [in the Holy Quran]: ‘We did not send any messenger but that he should be obeyed by God’s permission.’ That is, every messenger is sent to be a master and leader, not to be a disciple and sub-ordinate of someone else.”
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Announcement from 1891
(Majmuha-Estaharet, P. 230-231; Tabligh-i-Risalat, Vol 2, Page 20 –
Also appeared in a Qadiani poster dated Oct 2, 1891; 20 Shaaban, 1313 A.H.)

“I believe in all the items of faith as prescribed by the Sunni School of Islam and I accept everything that is according to the Quran and Hadith. I fully subscribe to the doctrine that Muhammad is the last of all Prophets, and that any claimant to Prophethood after him is an impostor and a Kafir. It is my belief that the revelations of Prophethood started with Adam and closed with the prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him)”.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
1901

“Eik Ghalti Ka Izala” was published, wherein MGA claimed prophethood. MGA even admits that Allah only reveals secrets (divine revelation) to Messengers of his (see 72:26-27). MGA does not quote 4:64 however.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
1903

RK, v. 20, p. 45; starts at approximately middle of the page; Tadhkirah-tush-Shahaadatayn; published 1903, via Nuzhat Haneef

By 1903, MGA said that only he was allowed this title of Nabi in the entire Ummah: 

“””On one occasion I had explained to him [Saahibzaadah Abdul Lateef] the answer to an objection, which had pleased him very greatly. And [the objection was] that: [Given] the situation that His Holiness [Muhammad], blessings of Allaah and peace be upon him, is the analogue of Moosa [Moses] and his khaleefahs are the analogs of the Banee Israa-eel [Israelite] prophets, then why is it that Maseeh Mau`ood has been referred to as a prophet in the hadeeths but all other khaleefahs have not been referred to by this title[?] So, I gave him the reply that: Given that His Holiness [Muhammad], blessings of Allaah and peace be upon him, was ‘khaatam-ul anbiyaa’ [Seal of the Prophets or Last Prophet] and there was no prophet after him, therefore, if all the khaleefahs had been referred to by the title prophet then the matter of ‘khatme-
nabuwwat’ [seal-status or finality of prophethood] would have become doubtful. And if not even one person had been referred to by the title of prophet, the objection would remain as to the lack of similarity, since the khaleefahs of Moses are prophets. Therefore Divine wisdom demanded that, initially, many khaleefahs be sent having regard for ‘khatm-e-nabuwwat’ [seal-status or finality of prophethood] and they not be referred to as prophets and not be given this rank so that this would be a sign of ‘khatm-e-nabuwwat’ [seal-status or finality of prophethood]. Then the final khaleefah, that is, Maseeh Mau`ood, be referred to as a prophet so that in the matter of ‘khilaafat’ [the caliphate] the similarity of the two systems [Mosaic and Muhammadan] comes to be proven [or established].”””
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
1906

At the end of 1905, in “The Will”, MGA claims that some Muslims (he was only speaking about himself) have been able to become Ummati and Nabi (he was only speaking about himself) (see English ROR of Jan. 1906 also). He even quotes a famous hadith that he had been quoting for 20 years, “your leader from among you” (See Bukhari, “imam o kum minhum”.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
1906-07
See Haqiqatul Wahy, online english edition, page 37

“””At this point, the question can naturally arise that, as there appeared many Prophets among the ummah of Hadrat Musa, in this situation, it necessarily implies that Hadrat Musa is superior. The answer is that all of these Prophets were directly chosen by God, and Hadrat Musa had no part in it whatsoever. However, in this ummah there have been thousands of saints through the blessing of following the Holy Prophet, may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, and there has even appeared one who is both an ummatī and a Prophet. There is no other instance of such bounteous grace in the case of any other Prophet. Among the ummah of Musa, with the exception of the Israelite Prophets, the majority of the people are found [spiritually] wanting. In regard to the [Israelite] Prophets, as I have already stated, they did not receive anything from Musa; rather, they were made Prophets directly. But from Ummat-e-Muhammadiyyah [the followers of the Muhammad sa], thousands were bestowed sainthood solely because they were followers [of the Holy Prophet sa]. (Author)”””

On Page 152, MGA quotes 4:64 (4:65 in the Qadiani Quran)
MGA doesn’t reflect as to why he changed his position on this verse.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
1908
October
See Barahin-i-Ahmadiyya Vol. 5, online english edition, pages 403-404

“””The answer to this is that all this unfortunate deduction is the outcome of a misunderstanding arising from the fact that they have not reflected on the true meaning of the term Nabi [Prophet]. The term Nabi only means one who receives knowledge from God through revelation and is honoured with converse and discourse with Allah. It is not necessary that he should be the bearer of a new law, nor is it necessary that he should not be the follower of a law-bearing Prophet. Thus, no harm is done if an ummati [follower] is said to be such a Prophet, particularly when such an ummati derives spiritual bounty from the Prophet whom he obeys. What is most perverse is to declare that, after the Holy Prophet, may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, this
Ummah is unworthy of enjoying converse with God until the Day of Judgment.””

and

“Our Prophet, peace be on him, is a Prophet of such eminence and rank, that even a follower of this Prophet can become a Prophet himself; and he can come to be called Isa, even though he is an Ummati .” (Zamima Barahin-i-Ahmadiyya, Part V, page 184)

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
1915

Haqiqat-un-Nubuwwat, p. 233, Taken from a Lahori-Ahmadi website on 3-31-2020, http://198.23.49.155/qadis/khilafat-speech-may2005-letter.htm

“Another question is asked, whether in this Umma there has been another prophet apart from the Promised Messiah or not. The short answer is No. … The Holy Prophet refuses to verify the prophethood of any person in the Umma before the Messiah. Therefore, we are also bound to deny that before the Promised Messiah there was anyone in this Umma who was an ummati nabi.”

And

Muhammad Ali publishes his famous book, “Prophethood in Islam” as a response to the Khalifa at Qadian.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
1917

Interestingly, Muhammad Ali totally avoided these verses (4:64-67) in his famous commentary of the Quran.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
1974
The concept of the “Ummati-Nabi” was also put to the Khalifa, Mirza Nasir Ahmad in the NA of 1974.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
1988

In Malik Ghulam Farid’s commentary of 4:64-66, he indirectly claims that MGA was wrong in his view of these verses before 1901. MGA was not mentioned by MGF.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Links and Related Essay’s
https://www.alislam.org/library/books/A-Misconception-Removed.pdf

https://books.google.com/books?id=3QjPDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA686&lpg=PA686&dq=Ummati+Nabi&source=bl&ots=fk0uRPujFk&sig=ACfU3U1SDQymXhEopA2JDlz3j068ocTtWA&hl=en&ppis=_e&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiUpsO58ODoAhVFsp4KHZOuDvI4ChDoATAEegQIDBA3#v=onepage&q=Ummati%20Nabi&f=false

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2017/05/01/muhammad-saw-is-prophet-124000-esa-as-is-prophet-number-123999/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2019/01/30/haqiqat-un-nubuwwat-1915-by-mirza-basheer-uddin-mahmud-ahmad-some-quotes-and-data/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2017/09/25/al-qaulul-fasl-by-the-khalifa-mirza-basheer-uddin-mahmud-ahmad-early-1915/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2016/09/30/maulvi-sanuallah-acknowledges-that-mga-claimed-prophethood-in-nov-1901/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2016/09/30/mga-explains-how-he-misunderstood-his-prophethood-in-1880-and-realized-it-later-on/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2016/09/26/ahmadiyya-and-469-everything-you-need-to-know/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2017/08/03/ahmadiyya-scholars-wrote-about-469-in-1908/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2016/09/30/maulvi-sanuallah-acknowledges-that-mga-claimed-prophethood-in-nov-1901/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.wordpress.com/2016/10/16/the-causes-of-internal-dissensions-in-the-ahmadiyya-movement-by-kwaja-kamaluddin-1914/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2018/08/01/prophethood-among-the-followers-of-muhammad-by-maulana-sayyid-muhammad-ahsan-of-amroha-oct-1913-in-tashhizul-azhan/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2017/05/20/an-ahmadi-claimed-prophethood-in-late-1901-or-early-1902-and-was-boycotted-by-ahmadis-chiragh-din-of-jammu-jamooni/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2016/09/30/maulvi-abdul-kareem-claims-prophethood-per-mga-maulvi-amrohi-disagrees/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2019/01/13/what-is-arbain-a-book-by-mga-and-his-team-of-writers/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2018/04/23/in-1891-when-mga-made-his-big-claims-he-denied-prophethood-mufti-sadiq-was-heavily-involved/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2017/12/09/mirza-ghulam-ahmad-was-accused-of-claiming-prophethood-in-the-1879-1884-era/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2017/12/09/mirza-ghulam-ahmad-was-considered-a-kafir-in-1884-before-his-wild-claims/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2017/12/26/some-rare-books-from-the-1901-1902-era-which-refute-mgas-claim-to-prophethood/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2016/09/30/maulvi-sanuallah-acknowledges-that-mga-claimed-prophethood-in-nov-1901/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2017/10/12/mirza-sultan-ahmad-son-of-hazrat-mirza-ghulam-ahmad-on-finality-of-prophethood/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2016/12/11/eik-ghalti-ka-izala-aka-correction-of-an-error-was-re-published-on-march-1-1914/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2017/01/16/hani-tahir-explains-mirza-ghulam-ahmads-prophethood-and-pre-1901-vs-post-1901/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2017/11/21/a-few-months-after-becoming-khalifa-mirza-mahmud-ahmad-waffled-on-his-fathers-prophethood/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2016/06/27/do-ahmadis-believe-in-the-same-kalima-as-muslims/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2016/09/30/mga-explains-how-he-misunderstood-his-prophethood-in-1880-and-realized-it-later-on/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2017/02/23/noorudin-didnt-care-if-mirza-ghulam-ahmad-claimed-even-law-bearing-prophethood/

Tags
#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyatrueislam #ahmadiapartheid #Ahmadiyyat #rabwah #qadian #meetthekhalifa #muslimsforpeace #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog #nolifewithoutkhalifa #AhmadiMosqueattack #AhmadiyyaPersecution #trueislam

In 1884, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad claimed that the Quran 61:09, 48:28 and 9:32 was also revealed to him

Intro
After the publishing of the 4th volume of Braheen e Ahmadiyya in late 1884, MGA was called a Kafir by the leaders of the Ahl-e-hadith sect, who had just helped MGA marry an Ahl-e-Hadith girl. MGA was so bold, he began claiming that many verses of the Quran had been also revealed onto himself.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

48:28, 61:09 and 9:32 in “Eik Ghalti Ka Izala” 1901
On the second page, MGA quotes a revelation of his which is similar to three verses of the Quran, 48:28, 61:09 and 9:32 (that would 48:29, 61:10 and 9:33 in Ahmadiyya Quran’s). MGA never specified the verse number, we have to assume all 3 were revealed to him.

MGA says:

“””Even in Brahin-e-Ahmadiyya, which was published some 22 years ago, these words appear in no small number. For instance, one of the Revelations found in Brahine- Ahmadiyya reads:

“”””””””””””””””””””””””””””””He it is Who has sent His Messenger, with guidance and the Religion of truth, that He may make it prevail over all other religions.”””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””

(See Brahin-e-Ahmadiyya, p. 498)(See also “Eik Ghalti Ka Izala”, online english edition)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

48:28, 61:09 and 9:32 in Braheen e Ahmadiyya Vol. 4
The exact same reference is on page 374. The Ahmadiyya editor’s erroneously listed it as verse 61:10, it would be 61:09 in the non-Ahmadi Quranic numbering system. 9:32 is another similar verse. In fact, 61:09, 48:28 and 9:32 are all almost identical to each other. MGA even claimed that these verses were prophecies about his own coming. See page 379 also, the first part of the 3 verses is quoted by MGA.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

The reference from the 2009 online english edition of Tadhkirah
See page 92.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

61:09 (61:10 in the Ahmadiyya Quran’s) is quoted in Khutbah Ilhamiya
Interestingly enough, the same verse is quoted by MGA in Khutbah Ilhamiya.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Other Quranic verses that MGA claimed for himself in 1884
——48:28, 61:09 and 9:32
——-21:107
——-10:16
——17:8
——18:83
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Links and Related Essay’s
https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2020/01/27/in-1884-mirza-ghulam-ahmad-claimed-that-the-quran-21107-was-also-revealed-to-him/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2018/02/17/mirza-ghulam-ahmad-quoted-and-commented-on-178-in-1884-in-the-braheen-e-ahmadiyya-vol-4-he-then-connected-178-with-the-return-of-the-messiah/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2019/01/29/khutbah-ilhamia-quotes-the-revealed-sermon-april-11th-1901/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2020/01/27/in-1884-mirza-ghulam-ahmad-claimed-that-the-quran-1016-was-also-revealed-to-him/

A Misconception Removed

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2019/11/28/in-1884-mirza-ghulam-ahmad-was-indirectly-denying-quran-349-as-he-denied-the-miracles-of-esa-as/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2017/12/09/mirza-ghulam-ahmad-was-considered-a-kafir-in-1884-before-his-wild-claims/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2018/02/17/mirza-ghulam-ahmad-quoted-and-commented-on-178-in-1884-in-the-braheen-e-ahmadiyya-vol-4-he-then-connected-178-with-the-return-of-the-messiah/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2018/02/09/during-the-writing-of-braheen-e-ahmadiyya-mga-masked-his-beliefs-he-was-already-asserting-that-esa-as-died/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2016/11/14/what-is-maseel-e-maseeh-the-like-of-the-messiah/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2016/10/27/sir-syeds-view-on-esa-as/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2017/07/16/the-queen-of-the-princely-state-of-bhopal-invested-heavily-1878-into-mirza-ghulam-ahmad-and-his-braheen-they-were-disappointed-by-the-product/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2017/12/26/did-mirza-ghulam-ahmad-claim-to-be-the-messiah-in-1889/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2016/11/14/mga-confuses-all-of-his-readers-in-1891-as-he-claimed-to-be-the-promised-messiah/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2018/03/06/nusrat-jehan-begum-and-other-women-didnt-get-into-to-mgas-bait-in-1889-and-after-were-they-illiterate/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2017/07/17/ahmadiyya-leadership-lied-about-the-first-bait-ceremony-in-1889/

http://www.aaiil.org/text/articles/reviewofreligions/raw/reviewreligionsenglish1908.pdf

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2017/12/09/mirza-ghulam-ahmad-was-accused-of-claiming-prophethood-in-the-1879-1884-era/
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Tags
#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyatrueislam #ahmadiapartheid #Ahmadiyyat #rabwah #qadian #meetthekhalifa #muslimsforpeace #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog #nolifewithoutkhalifa #AhmadiMosqueattack #AhmadiyyaPersecution #trueislam

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad wrote that the Quran used harsh words…thus it’s ok to do so (1890-1891 era)

Intro
I will bump into Ahmadis on social media who will eventually claim that their critics use harsh words towards them and etc.  However, most of these hard-core-robot-Ahmadis don’t know that MGA blamed his “foul-language” explicitly on the Quran.  These quotes came from the Lahori-Ahmad website, see here.

The quotes

“How openly the Holy Quran uses harsh language cannot remain unknown even to the most unintelligent and ignorant of people. For example, the civilized people of today consider it the height of abuse to curse someone. But the Holy Quran pointedly curses the unbelievers. It says: “These it is on whom is the curse of Allah and the angels and men, of all of them, abiding therein” [2:162-163], and: “These it is whom Allah curses, and those who curse, curse them too” [2:160]. Similarly, it is obvious that to liken a human being to a beast is a form of abuse. However, the Holy Quran not only calls them beasts but declares that the unbelievers and deniers are worse than all the creatures on the face of the earth, as it says: “Surely the vilest of beasts in Allah’s sight are those who disbelieve” [8:55]. In the same way, it is clear that it is against the manners of present day culture to make a particular person a target of abuse by taking his name or by referring to him, but in the Holy Quran God the Most High has applied to some the name Abu Lahab, and to some the titles dog and swine. Then Abu Jahal is well known as such.

Similarly, regarding Walid Mughira the harshest possible words are used which apparently are terms of filthy abuse, as it says: […Here the Quran 68:9–17 is quoted in Arabic…]. In other words, do not follow what these unbelievers say, who wish from the bottom of their hearts that you abstain from abusing their gods and disgracing their religion, so that then they shall also apparently approve your religion. Do not be misled by the slickness of their tongues. This man who has appealed for compromise is a man who takes false oaths, is of weak opinion, and a degraded individual. He indulges in fault-finding in others and causes division among people by back biting. He hinders from the path of goodness, is guilty of illicit sexual acts, in his character he is a man of the worst morals, and besides all that he is of illegitimate birth. Very soon We shall brand his snout, which has grown long like that of swine. By a long snout is meant adherence to the customs and codes of honour of society which are a hindrance to the acceptance of the truth.”

(Izala Auham Pages 25-29 Ruhani Khazain Volume 3 pages 115-117)
______________________________________________________________________________________________
“”””“I say truly, absolutely truly, that I have not, to the best of my knowledge, used even one word which can be called abusive. A misconception arises because most people fail to differentiate between hurling abuse and narrating the truth, and consider them to be the same. They regard what is the relating of a fact in its proper place to be abuse, solely because of a degree of harshness in it which is unavoidable when speaking the truth. Actually, the definition of abuse and offensive language is that it is something which is against facts and false, and used merely to cause hurt. If we label every harsh and hurtful statement as abuse solely because of its bitterness, unpleasantness and hurtfulness, then we shall have to admit that the entire Holy Quran is filled with foul language. The harsh words used in the Holy Quran to degrade the idols and to disgrace the idol-worshippers, and to curse and condemn them, are not such as would please the idol-worshippers. On the contrary, they would undoubtedly further spark off their rage. When God the Most High addresses the unbelievers of Makka and says:

“Surely you and what you worship besides Allah are fuel of hell” [21:98],

is it not included in abusive language according to the criteria coined by the critic? Likewise, is it not abuse in the opinion of the critic when in the Holy Quran God the Most High calls the unbelievers “the worst of creatures” [98:6], and says that they are even worse than the most disgraced and filthy of creations. Has not God the Most High said in the Holy Quran: “be firm against them” [9:73]? Has it not been stated to be a sign of the believers that they are “hard against the disbelievers” [48:29]?””””

(Izala Auham, pages 13–14; see Ruhani Khaza’in, v. 3, p. 109)
______________________________________________________________________________________________
“”””When Jesus calls the respectable religious lawyers and Pharisees of the Jews as swine and dogs, and their most honourable leader Herod a fox, and compares their respectable priests and jurists to whores, and as regards the revered leaders, who were accorded the highest respect by the Roman rulers and made to sit with honour in the Roman courts, he speaks of them in these offensive, very hurtful and uncivil words, calling them illegitimate, adulterous, evil, dishonourable, faithless, fools, hypocrites, satanic, doomed to hell, serpents and brood of vipers — are not these words very serious, filthy abuse in the opinion of the critic? From this it becomes evident that the objection of the critic does not only apply to me and my books but in reality he has attacked all the Divine scriptures and prophets with a burning heart.””””

(pages 14–15; Ruhani Khaza’in, v. 3, p. 109–110)
______________________________________________________________________________________________

“””””There is another wisdom in the use of harsh language, that it awakens dormant hearts and rouses those people who like to nod in agreement. … If the truth is declared to them bluntly, with all its bitterness and unpleasantness, the good result of this is that their pretense to agreement is at once removed and they openly express their unbelief and ill-will, as if their suppressed ailment now manifests itself as burning temperature. So this incitement which severely provokes the minds, although it may be highly objectionable in the view of an unwise person, but an astute man can well understand that it is this arousal which provides the first step towards the acceptance of truth. …

The strong language used by the prophets was really for the same purpose of arousal, so that a stirring be created in the people, they awaken from slumber by this jolt and start pondering and thinking about religion, they make a movement for this purpose even if it is in opposition, they establish a connection with those who are proclaiming the truth even if it is a connection of hostility. It is to this that Allah the Glorious refers in the words: ‘In their hearts is a disease, so Allah increased their disease’ [2:10].”””””

(pages 29–31; Ruhani Khaza’in, v. 3, p. 117–118)

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Links and Related Essays
https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2017/09/14/mirza-ghulam-ahmad-cursed-at-his-critics-even-calling-them-pigs-and-bitches/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2018/04/27/mirza-ghulam-ahmad-wanted-all-humans-who-reject-him-to-die/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2017/12/01/mirza-ghulam-ahmad-vs-batalvi-1891-1892-era-mga-sent-10-lanats-on-batalvi/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2019/03/29/mirza-ghulam-ahmad-wrote-1000-curses-for-this-opponents/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2019/05/26/mirza-ghulam-ahmad-wrote-vulgarities-in-arabic-also-new-research-from-arab-ex-ahmadis/

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2017/09/26/mirza-ghulam-ahmad-wrote-that-the-quran-used-harsh-words-thus-its-ok-to-do-so/

http://www.muslim.org/allegs/abuse.htm

Tags
#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyatrueislam #ahmadiapartheid #Ahmadiyyat #rabwah #qadian #meetthekhalifa #muslimsforpeace #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog #nolifewithoutkhalifa #AhmadiMosqueattack #AhmadiyyaPersecution #trueislam

 

 

Up ↑