Search results

"Braheen e Ahmadiyya vol 5"

Braheen-e-Ahmadiyya vol. 5 was mentioned in 1907 in Haqiqatul Wahy

MGA and his team had thought about writing BA-5 in 1907, this quotation seems to be the final word on the book-series. This was found by Hani Tahir and posted. Haqiqatul Wahy was written by MGA’s team in 1906 and published in 1907. By 1914, the Barahin i Ahmadiyya Vol. 5 must have sold out, either that or it needed to be edited, hence, in 1914, a second edition was published from Qadian. Further, we are sure that MGA never wrote the Barahin i Ahmadiyya vol. 5 (BA5), it was Noorudin, see here. The full english quote can be found online at, find the english edition of Haqiqatul Wahy, see pages 433-435).

The Scan

“””Is maslehat se khuda ne Quraan sharif ko 23 baras tak nazil kia ta k us muddat tak mouda nishanat bhi zahir ho jawen. So main yaqeen rakhta hoon k kitab baraheen e ahmadiya ki takhir par abhi 23 wan baras khatam nahi goga k is ka panchwan hissa mulk main shaiy ho jaiga aur khuda taala ne baraheen ahmadiya mein 23 baras ki taraf ishara bhi kia hai..”””

English translation, english edition of Haqiqatul Wahy, see pages 433-435
“””Due to this wisdom, God revealed the Holy Quran over a period of twenty-three years so that during that period the promised Signs would also become manifest. Therefore, I believe that before twenty-three years are completed for the delay in the book Barahin-e-Ahmadiyya, its fifth volume will be published in the country; and God Almighty has alluded to twenty-three years in Barahin-e-Ahmadiyya as well, for God says:

اْلمُجْرِمِيْنَ۔ قُلْ إنىِّْ أُمِرْتُ وَأَنا أوَّلُ اْلمُؤمِنِيْنَ۔
O Ahmad (this is the figurative name of this humble one)! God has infused you with blessing. The Gracious God has taught you the Holy Quran; meaning that, you are not indebted to any of
your contemporaries. God is your Teacher. God has taught you the Holy Quran so that you may warn those whose forefathers were not warned and so that God’s argument be completed and
the way of the sinners becomes manifest. Proclaim to them that I have been appointed by God and I am the foremost to believe in this matter.

And because the teaching of the Holy Quran to the Holy Prophet, may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, was completed in a twenty- three year period before this, it was therefore necessary in order to establish a resemblance, that now the period for teaching the Holy
Quran should also have been fixed at twenty-three so that all the Signs that were promised could be fulfilled.”””

Links and Related Essay’s

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

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad didn’t write Braheen-e-Ahmadiyya; vol. 5

The Ahmadi mullah team is vicious. They will do whatever it takes in terms of job security. They are ready to edit the books of MGA and they even published many with MGA’s name on it.
Braheen-e-Ahmadiyya vol. 5 is another case of MGA’s ghost writers in action.

When was Braheen-e-Ahmadiyya vol. 5 published?
It was published Posthumously on October 15, 1908 (See Muhammad Ali, “Prophethood in Islam [1915], the supplement, see for the years of 1908).  However, Qadiani sources are purposely vague.  In a new book wherein they summarize the books of MGA, they simply give the year of 1908 (see page 395), and they claim that the book was written in 1905. However, that is a lie.  A blatant lie.

MGA’s on the Braheen-e-Ahmadiyya series
In 1900, MGA and his team wrote: 

[RK, v 17, pp. 448-458; Arba`een Number 4]. The article is dated
December 1900. In this he censures his critics and claims that he has Divine support etc. Toward the end of the article is the following:

“””If I have received from you the payment for the price of Baraaheen-e-Ahmadiyya then I invoke the oath of God Almighty upon you, in Whose presence you will be made to appear, that [you should] return all those four parts of Baraaheen-e-Ahmadiyya to my custody and take your money back. Look, I make this open announcement that after this if you demand the price [refund] of Baraaheen-e-Ahmadiyya and, having shown [those parts] to some friend of mine, send [return] all four parts to me, as value payable, and if I, after receiving the four parts, do not pay their price, then [may] the curse of God [be] upon me. … And prior to this I have published three announcements, regarding the price [refund] of Baraaheen, which had the same content that I am prepared to return the price. [These people] should return all the four parts of my book and receive from me the few paltry coins that they are dying for. … [Dated] December 15, 1900 AD [RK, v 17, pp. 457-458; starts at last line of p. 457, above the marginal note; Arba`een Number 4].”””

MGA and his teams final words on the Braheen-e-Ahmadiyya series

In 1907, in Haqiqatul Wahy:



“””Is maslehat se khuda ne Quraan sharif ko 23 baras tak nazil kia ta k us muddat tak mouda nishanat bhi zahir ho jawen. So main yaqeen rakhta hoon k kitab baraheen e ahmadiya ki takhir par abhi 23 wan baras khatam nahi goga k is ka panchwan hissa mulk main shaiy ho jaiga aur khuda taala ne baraheen ahmadiya mein 23 baras ki taraf ishara bhi kia hai..”””

Rough translation
He means if Allah swt took 23 years to complete the revelation of Quraan then barheen ahmadiya will also be complete and published within 23 years and it part 5 will come in that period as this has been told to him by Allah swt.

Where do Ahmadis get the 1905 date from then?
Nooruddin and Muhammad Ali must have came across a book that MGA and his team were working on in 1905….they then called it Braheen-e-Ahmadiyya and decided to publish it. Ahmadis have already admitted that this book (BA-vol.5) was altogether a new book, it carried none of the themes of the Braheen-e-Ahmadiya series (See Treasures of Islam, page 395).  The Ahmadi mullah team have been notorious for writing books on behalf of MGA and his sons, in fact, Mahmud Ahmad admitted that he stopped writing essays for his newspaper (Tashishazul Adhan) as early as 1911 (see Truth about the split), however, the editors kept using his name in an attempt to get sales.

MGA’s team was very keen, they were all in on the con-job, the main characters were Mufti Muhammad Sadiq, Nooruddin, Maulvi Abdul Karim, Muhammad Ali and a few others.

Links and Related Essay’s

Miraj-ud-Din Umar in Ahmadiyya history

He seems to have known MGA since the 1870’s. In Braheen e Ahmadiyya Part-2, he seems to have written a short biography of MGA wherein he shared a filthy story of how MGA would carry sweets and rocks to clean his excrement, and most of the time, MGA would mix up the pockets and thus eat the sweets mixed in with excrement. This data was orginally found as a supplement to BA1+2, however, it was taken out and thus totally erased after the first edition of BA1+2.

The quote 
“Ghulam Ahmad loved sugar-candy very much. He also suffered from urinary trouble. He stuffed his pocket with pieces of dry clay (which were used to clean excrement)presuming they were nuggets of sugar-candy. This shows how be relished the candy. Sometimes he gobbled clay-pieces taking them to be sugar”” (‘See Ahwal.ul-Ghulam, Compiled by Mirajuddin in the supplement to Baraheen-i-Ahmadiyya, Vol. I, p.67)(See also “Qadiyaniat, an Analytical Survey” by Ehsan Elahi Zaheer, 21st edition, 1984).

Tahir Abdur Razzaque quoted Miraj ud Din also
In his expose’ of Ahmadiyya, he mentions this very incident (see at the 2:42 mark).

Scans from the first edition of BA1+2

Links and Related Essay’s

Hazrat Mian Miraj-ud-Din Umar Sahib (RA)

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

Who is Syed Nazeer Hussain of Delhi (1805–13 October 1902) and his connection with Ahmadiyya

Syed Nazeer Hussain of Delhi (1805–1902), his name has many variations, it could also be Maulawi Nadhir Husain or Maulvi Nazeer Hussain of Delhi or Miyan Nadhir Husain Dehlvi and  Maulavi Sayyed Nadhir Husain Dehlvi. was a leading scholar of the reformist Ahl-i Hadith movement and one of its major proponents in India. Earning the appellation shaykh al-kull (teacher of all, or the shaykh of all knowledge) for his authority among early Ahl-i Hadith scholars, he is regarded, alongside Siddiq Hasan Khan (1832–1890), as the founder of the movement and has been described as “perhaps the single most influential figure in the spread of the Ahl-i-Ḥadīth”. Among Syed Nazeer Husain’s students were Imdadullah Muhajir ,Makki, Muhammad Qasim Nanotvi and Rashid Ahmad Gangohi,[29] the founding figures of the Deobandi movement. Although Mirza Ghulam Ahmad never studied under him. Prior to pledging his allegiance to Ghulam Ahmad and becoming his foremost disciple, Hakim Nur-ud-Din had also studied under Husain. Other students of Husain included the Afghan-Indian scholar Abdullah Ghaznavi; the two major Ahl-i Hadith proponents Muhammad Husain Batalvi and Sana’ullah Amritsari, both vociferous opponents of the early Ahmadiyya movement;[33] and the Indian hadith scholar Shams-ul-Haq Azimabadi.The modernist founder of the Aligarh Movement and Muslim University Syed Ahmad Khan, also studied under Husain in the 1850s.

Nazeer Husain advocated political quietism and was among a large number of Muslim ulema, from both the Sunni and Shia sects, who supported British rule and rejected calls for armed jihad against it.[13][14] He was also among a number of Muslim scholars, including the muftis of Mecca, who declared British India to be dar al-Islam (abode of peace) and not Dar al-harb (abode of war).[14] During the Indian Rebellion of 1857, he resisted pressure from the mutineers to call for a jihad and instead declared in favour of British rule, viewing the Muslim-British relationship as a legal contract which could not be broken unless their religious rights were breached.[15] Despite having denied any involvement in the rebellion in its aftermath and having strongly opposed the declaration of jihad as sinful and a faithless breach of covenant,[12] Husain was widely believed to have been among a group of Delhi ulema pressured into signing a jihad fatwa.[16] 

Because he was seen by the British as the only scholar of the Ahl-i Hadith who could allay the conflict between the movement and followers of the prevailing Hanafi school of thought, which often resulted in civil disturbances that the Government sought to prevent, and because he also knew English which was very rare among Indian Muslim scholars at the time, Husain’s turbulent relations with the British at Delhi had improved.[7] He was granted a letter of recommendation by the government to the British Vice Consul in Jedda when he travelled there in 1883 to perform the Hajj pilgrimage. However, he was already denounced as a Wahhabi by Indian Hanafis to the Ottoman governor of Jedda who had him arrested and imprisoned before he could present the letter. He was later released with the intervention of the British Vice Consul.[3]

He was arrested in 1868 by the British on suspicion of being the leader of the Wahhabi insurgents in Delhi and detained for six months but was eventually released without charge after it had emerged that he had not supported the rebels.[17][18] Husain consistently denied any links with the Wahhabis as well as any role in the Delhi uprising in 1857.[17]

Within a couple of years of his release from prison in 1868, Hussain, together with Siddiq Hasan Khan of Bhopal and Muhammad Husain Batalvi (c.1840–1920), two influential fellow alumni of the Madrasah-i Rahimiyah, formally founded the politico-religious organisation known as the Jamaat Ahl-i Hadith, the Party of the People of the Hadith.

He read out MGA’s nikkah (marriage ceremony) with a Nusrat Jehan, who’s family was also Ahl-e-Hadith. MGA gave him Rs. 5 and a prayer mat.

Siddiq Hassan Khan and other top Maulvi’s call MGA a Kafir and tear up the Braheen e Ahmadiyya and sent it to Qadian as such.

Maulvi Muhammad Hussain Batalvi was the one of the only remaining Ahl-e-Hadith leaders who still considered MGA a Muslim, however, in this year, MGA claimed to be the Messiah and Batalvi turned on him.

1891, Feb-March
MGA challenges Syed Nazeer Hussain of Delhi to a Mubahila in Amritsar, he also challenges Batalvi, Maulawi Abdul Jabbar and Maulawi Abdul Haq (see Dard).

1891, September 29th
MGA reached Delhi on September 29th, 1891, and stayed at Kothi Nawab Loharu, Ballimara.

MGA and his team publish a leaflet inviting Maulawi Muhammad Nadhir Husain or Maulawi Abu Muhammad Abdul Haq to a written debate. Maulawi Muhammad Nadhir Husain was roughly 88 years old. Maulawi Abu Muhammad Abdul Haq refused to have a written debate per Ahmadi sources (See Dard)

On October 6th, 1891, repeating his invitation to a debate as he published another announcement the Akhbar Khair Khah Hind Press, Delhi (see Dard). Maulawi Muhammad Nadhir Husain announced that a debate would be held with MGA on a certain date. MGA was invited to the place at the time of the meeting when his house was surrounded by hundreds of angry people who were hurling abuse upon MGA from the street. Thus, MGA didn’t show up to the debate.

Maulawi Muhammad Nadhir Husain seems to have published an announcement which said that his pupils, Abdul Majid and Muhammad Husain, would reply on his behalf and that MGA should address his pupils in the future (see Dard).

Simulataneously, MGA agrees to debate Maulvi Muhammad Bashir Bhopali (a disciple of Nadhir Husain). The debate is scheduled to be held at MGA’s house in Delhi on 10-23-1891.

MGA challenged Nadhir Husain to a decisive debate. MGA suggested October 18th, 19th or 20th for the debate and offered a reward of Rs. 25 for each Quranic verse or authentic tradition quoted by his opponents which showed that Jesus (as) was still alive in the flesh in the heavens (see Dard). MGA said that at the end of this debate, he (MGA) would pray for a decisive judgment, and he believed that the wrath of God would overtake Nadhir Husain within one year on account of his transgression in misleading the people (see Tadhkirah, and The Announcement of October 17, 1891, Majmu‘ah Ishtiharat, vol. 1, p. 249). Per Ahmadiyya sources, Nadhir Husain agreed to the debate to be held on October 20th in the Juma‘ Masjid, Delhi (See Dard).

Per Ahmadiyya sources, more than 5,000 people gathered on that day in the Mosque. The
European Superintendent of the city police was himself present there with an Inspector and a police force adequate for the occasion. There was great agitation in the city. Feelings ran high and there was great tension. The 12 disciples of MGA gathered round him. Ch. Sher Muhammad, uncle to Maulawi Sher Ali, was left at the house with another friend. The 12 disciples of MGA accompanied him to the cathedral Mosque in horsedriven carriages, and there the party walked through the angry crowd straight to the mihrab and took their
seats. A little later Nadhir Husain also arrived with Muhammad Husain Batalvi and Abdul Majid.
They were seated in the adjoining veranda. It was the time of ‘Asr, all Muslims in the mosque prayed together. MGA and his disciples had did not join the prayers. Nadhir Husain declared that MGA was a Kafir, thus, a debate with him was invalid, MGA was a Kafir since he claimed prophethood and denied miracles. MGA and his team immediately denied their claim to prophethood and claimed that they believed in miracles (both lies). MGA even claimed that he believed in the Miraaj, however, he had just recently denied it in Izala Auham. MGA even had a British official make the announcement a second time. There was an uproar. The British official ordered all Muslims to leave the mosque. MGA and his group of 12 Ahmadi’s were the only ones allowed to stay. MGA and his disciples exited the mosque via the north gate, however, the carriage and driver that they had rented was gone. The superintendant of the local police also showed up. A mob scene erupted. MGA’s disciples found another carriage for hire, they escaped via British escort, Maulvi Abdul Karim traveled with MGA in the carriage and a few others, all the others walked, they were Sayyid Amir Ali Shah, Ghulam Qadir Fasih,
Muhammad Khan of Kapurthala, Hakim Fadl Din of Bhera, Pir Sirajul Haq, and six others (see Dard).

10-21-1891 and 10-22-1891
MGA wrote three letters to Maulawi Muhammad Bashir on October 21st, 22nd and 23rd
and the following points were further laid down: The debate should begin after the Friday prayers in MGA’s house. (2) Maulawi Muhammad Bashir would write the first paper. (3) Maulawi Muhammad Bashir would bring only 10 men with him. (4) Maulawi Muhammad Husain Batalvi and Maulawi Abdul Majid would not be allowed to take part. (5) Not more than five papers would be exchanged. It should be noted that it was not agreed that the papers would be
written in the meeting (See Dard).

On October 23rd, 1891, MGA had another announcement published wherein he desperately tried to explain himself foe what happened at the Jama Masjid, Delhi and the lack of a proper debate, which was printed at the Iftikhar Press, Delhi. A detailed report of everything that happened was published in a supplement to the Punjab Gazette, dated November 14th (see Dard). On the same day, MGA had another debate with Maulvi Muhammad Bashir Bhopali, who was another disciple of Nadhir Husain on a Friday (see Dard).

MGA abruptly leaves the debate. MGA breaks his own contract, which is a serious crime per the Quran. Only 3 arguments had been put forward by Maulvi Muhammad Bashir Bhopali and no response had been given by MGA and his team. MGA flees to Patiala wherein his father-in-law was ill, however, Mir Nasir Nawab hadn’t accepted Ahmadiyya yet. Patiala was 157 miles to the west, about halfway home towards Qadian (see Dard).

On roughly this day, MGA arrives with his team in Patiala at the house of Sh. Fadl Karim (see Dard). Per Ahmadiyya sources, a local imam, Muhammad Ishaq, came to see MGA and had a talk with him on the subject of the death of Jesus.The imam destroyed MGA and spread the news in the town with the comment that MGA had been defeated. In defense, MGA issue a leaflet on October 31st in which he asked the imam to have a debate with him. He waited there till November 2nd, but the mullah did not come forward. Then MGA returned to Qadian.

MGA returns to Qadian safe and sound.

The first annual Jalsa in Ahmadiyya history is held at Qadian, MGA and his team had already pre-written out “Nishan Asmani” which is read out to the less than 100 Ahmadi’s who are present. In this book, MGA talks about Batalvi and Nazeer Hussain. MGA calls him Miyan Nadhir Husain (See Asmani Faisalah, page-1, online english edition). MGA mentions Miyan Nadhir Husain 22 times, he mentions, and Muhammad Husain Batalawi 29 times. Per Ahmadiyya sources, the book itself was published in the early part of 1892, by May at the latest (see Hidden Treasures).

MGA and his team publish “Nishan Asmani”, Mian Nadhir Hussain is mentioned 9 times.

MGA mentions Nadhir Hussain in his book “The Truth Revealed”, “Sachai Ka Izhar”.

MGA claims that he has Nadhir Hussain sign a edict of Kufr vs. his own disciple, Syed Muhammad Hussain Batalvi.

MGA publishes “”Dafi‘ul-Bala’ Wa Mi‘yaro Ahlil-Istifa”””,  English Version “””Defence Against the Plague and a Criterion for the Elect of God”””, wherein he mentions his debate with Nadhir in 1891 as well as the fact that Nadhir was the first cleric to sign his stamp of approval of MGA’s apostacy.

1902–Sep 1st
‘Tofha Golarviyyah is published. MGA mentions Nadhir Hussain.

Syed Nazeer Husain died on 13 October 1902 in Delhi. MGA is happy about this and in classic fashion backdates a fake revelation. As can be seen, this wasn’t published uyntil 2 weeks after Nadhir Hussain died, however, 20 years later Mufti Muhammad Sadiq claims that MGA got the revelation on August 15th, 1902 (See Zikr-e-Habib), Mirza Bashir Ahmad also commented that the words of this ilham also point to the year* of his death (See Tadhkirah). The reference is to the al-Hakam, vol. 6, no. 39, October 31, 1902, p. 7–10:

[Arabic] The leading ones will be driven to their graves.

[Arabic] One who was in error has died a rebel.

In Haqiqatul Wahy, Nadhir Hussain is mentioned 11 times. MGA claims that he published a sign in the early versions of the Braheen e Ahmadiyya wherein Maulawi Nadhir Husain of Delhi would issue a verdict proclaiming me (MGA) a disbeliever, however, on closer research, the sign doesn’t seem to exist. In fact, the word Nadhir doesn’t exist in the first 4 volumes of the Braheen.

Braheen e Ahmadiyya volume 5 is published, Nadhir Hussain is mentioned once.

Links and Related Essays

His works

Syed Nazeer Husain’s Fatwas were collected posthumously by some of his students into two large volumes called fatawa Naziriyya. Other written works by him include the following:

  • Mi’yar al-haq (Criterion for Truth; Urdu)
  • Waqi’at al-fatwa wa dafi’at al-balawi (Event of the Fatwa and Defence Against the Affliction; Urdu)
  • Thabut al-haq al-haqeeq (Proof of the Veritable Truth; Urdu)
  • Risalah fi tahli al-nisa bi al-dhahab (Treatise on the Adornment of Women with Gold; Urdu)
  • Al-masa’il al-arba’a (The Four Issues; Urdu)
  • Falah al-wali ba ‘itiba’ al-nabi (Felicity for the Saint in Following the Prophet; Persian)
  • Risalah fi ibtal ‘amal al-mawlid (Treatise on the Erroneousness of the Practice of Mawlid; Arabic)

“”Takzib Brahin i Ahmadiyya”” by Lekh Ram (1887)

Lekh Ram wrote a book vs. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad in 1887 entitled, “Takzib Barahin-i-Ahmadiyya”, in english it would be “Accusing as False the Proofs of Ahmadiya”. Noorudin responded with his 1890 publication, “Tasdiq-i-Barahin i Ahmadiyya” in english as “Verifying the Proofs of Ahmadiyya” (see Kenneth Jones).

Links and Related Essays

A Murder in British Lahore – Closing the Case of Lekh Ram

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and 4:159 (4:160 in the Ahmadiyya Quran’s), before the death of Jesus (as)

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad stole many arguments from Sir Syed about the death of Jesus. Sir Syed seems to have been the first Muslim ever in history to change the translation of 4:159 in 1880 in his famous Tafsir.  Sir Syed totally changed the translation of this verse, since he was looking to disprove that idea that Esa (as) hadn’t died yet. Sir Syed knew that 4:159 proved that Esa (as) hadn’t died yet, thus, he purposely mistranslated it to sound preposterous. MGA followed his lead, and in 1890, in Izala Auham, MGA used the exact same translation that Sir Syed used. In 1891, MGA’s first few debates after his wild claims also discussed 4:159, see his famous Delhi debate with Bashir Bhopali. From 1892 to 1901, MGA seems to have went quiet on the topic of 4:159. However, in the 1901-1902 era, (See Ijaz-i-Ahmadi, page 31, online english edition, Ahmadiyya editors have purposely mistranslated the word Ghabi herein) it came to MGA’s attention that Abu Hurairah had supported the idea that Esa (as) hadn’t died yet, via Tafsir Thana’i, in fact, Tafsir Thana’i was written by Maulvi Sanaullah, in his Tafsir he quoted Abu Hurairah via a super authentic Sahih Bukhari hadith.  MGA and his team of writers were thus forced to discredit the scholarship of Abu Hurairah and called him stupid (GHABI in Arabic) or lacking understanding. MGA then commented on 4:159 in 1906/1907 via Haqiqatul Wahy (see page 44, online english edition, which is purposely mis-translated in this case), wherein he presented the same belief as Sir Syed again. Again, he called Abu Hurairah as stupid, which the Ahmadi editors have changed to flowery language. Furthermore, MGA presented 5:64 (5:65 in the Ahmadi’s Quran’s) in Haqiqatul Wahy as evidence that Jews and Christians will not ALL be converted to Islam before the death of Esa (as)(see page 45 and page 855). Ahmadi’s have continued to use this verse in the same way in 2019. Interestingly enough, the official 5-volume commentary of the Quran by Ahmadiyya scholars doesn’t mention how 5:64 (5:65 in the Ahmadiyya Quran’s) means that the Messiah won’t convert all Christians and Jews to Islam before his own death.

What does 4:159 (4:160) really mean?
This verse has to be read together with 4:157 and 4:158. Ahmadi’s like to isolate these verses and then change the meanings. When they are read together, 4:157–159, it is clear that Esa (as) hasn’t died yet and upon his physical return to this world, all Christians and Jews who will be alive in that era will convert to Islam (See Tafsir Ibn Kathir also). As we all know, MGA failed in this 2019, Christians are in majority on this planet, and Jews have their own technologically advanced country with nuclear weapons and America backing them up. However, Al-Tabari did admit that 4;159 could have some alternate meanings, however, this is only because the Quran is a rythmn and less words were used and in ungrammatical fashion.

1880, Sir Syed on 4:159

(Tafsir Ahmadi by Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, vol. ii, p.48)

ii. Referring to the expression ‘in this’ (Arabic: bi-hi) in the verse: ‘And there is none of the People of the Book but will believe in this before his death’ (4:159), which is generally taken to mean in him (i.e. in Jesus) Sir Syed writes:

“This points to the words ‘And their saying: we have killed the Messiah’ [4:157], and to their saying, and not to the Messiah. So this means: ‘All the People of the Book, before their death, will believe that Jesus was killed’. After this it is said: ‘And on the day of Judgment he, i.e. Jesus, will be a witness against them’. The word ‘ala [‘against’] is used to indicate loss or harm. So the meaning is that on the day of Judgment Jesus will be a witness against their belief.”

1870 to 1890, MGA on 4:159 from 
MGA published lots of data in this era, specifically, BA 1–4 were published in this era.  MGA never even commented on 4:159.

1890 in Izala Auham, on 4:159 
The Lahori-Ahmadi have translated portions of Izala Auham, specifically, wherein MGA claims that there were 30 verses of the Quran that prove that Esa (As) had died.  Per MGA and his team of writers, one of those verses is 4:159.  They wrote:

“And there is none among the People of the Book but will believe in it (the crucifixion of Jesus) before his death; and on the Day of Resurrection, he (Jesus) shall be a witness among them.”

1891, MGA’s debate with Maulvi Muhammad Bashir Sehsavani (who worked in Bhopal at the time) in Delhi
4:159 seems to have been brought up in one of MGA’s first debate as a Messiah (See Life of Ahmad).  Maulvi Muhammad Bashir took great pride in being a grammarian with a specialty
in the use of the Arabic letters laam and nuun sakeelah. His repeated contention was that whenever a verb has laam or nuun sakeelah on it, the verb always denotes the future tense (See Mujadid e Azim, abridged english edition, pages 402-410).  It seems that MGA and his team counter-argued that  many different Quranic verses that despite the presence of laam and nuun sakeelah on a verb, it could denote the present tense only. In such cases it cannot be interpreted in the future tense. He also presented other verses where the verb with laam and nuun sakeelah denoted the present continuous tense so that both the present and the future were included. The detailed discussion is available in the book Al-Haq Delhi for the interested reader.

It seems that Maulvi Syed Ahsan Amrohi was working as an undercover Ahmadi in this time frame in Bhopal, he hadn’t publically converted to Ahmadiyya.  Per Mujadid e Azim,  Hazrat Mirza had received a letter from Ahsan Amrohi on the day of the debate same. In this letter, Maulana Amrohi had written, among other things, that:

“Maulvi Muhammad Bashir has been working on his statement for six months. The fruit of his exertion is confined to the written statement he is bringing with him. He has no other material.”  (See Mujadid e Azim, english online abridged version).

We didn’t find any references by MGA or his team of writers to 4:159 in this 10 year period.

1901-1902 era and the Ijaz-i-Ahmadi book
(See Ijaz-i-Ahmadi, page 31, online english edition, Ahmadiyya editors have purposely mistranslated the word Ghabi herein)
It came to MGA’s attention that Abu Hurairah had supported the idea that Esa (as) hadn’t died yet, via Tafsir Thana’i, in fact, Tafsir Thana’i was written by Maulvi Sanaullah, in his Tafsir he quoted Abu Hurairah via a super authentic Sahih Bukhari hadith.  MGA and his team of writers were thus forced to discredit the scholarship of Abu Hurairah and called him stupid (GHABI in Arabic) or lacking understanding.

Maulvi Sanaullah’s Tafsir of the Quran was published in this era.  He quoted a super-authentic hadith from Sahih Bukhari wherein Abu Hurairah related that Esa (As) would physically descend and he referred to 4:159.  The hadith is as follows:

(((Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 55, Number 657)))

Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah’s Apostle ﷺ said, “By Him in Whose Hands my soul is, surely (Jesus,) the son of Mary will soon descend amongst you and will judge mankind justly (as a Just Ruler),
he will break the Cross and kill the pigs and there will be no Jizya (i.e. taxation taken from non Muslims). Money will be in abundance so that nobody will accept it, and a single prostration to Allah (in prayer) will be better than the whole world and whatever is in it.” Abu Huraira added “If you wish, you can recite (this verse of the Holy Book): — ‘And there is none Of the people of the Scriptures (Jews and Christians) But must believe in him (i.e Jesus as an Apostle of Allah and a human being) Before his death. And on the Day of Judgment He will be a witness Against them.” (4.159) (See Fateh Al Bari, Page 302 Vol 7).

MGA was thus forced to discredit Abu Hurairah, he even called him as stupid and lacking understanding.

This is another dead era in terms of 4:159.  No Ahmadi sources wrote about it in this era.

MGA on 4:159 in 1906/1907 via Haqiqatul Wahy (in the online english edition)
MGA calls Abu Hurairah as wrong and possessing weak intellect on pages 44-45 of Haqiqatul Wahy, since Abu Hurarya claimed that Esa (as) would physically return based on 4:159.  MGA wrote disparaging comments about Abu Hurairah in BA vol. 5 and Ijaz i Ahmadi.

On page 700 of Haqiqatul Wahy, MGA says about 4:159: 
“””Meaning that, there is no one out of the People of the Book who, before his death, fails to believe in the Holy Prophet sa or Hadrat ‘Isa [Jesus]. It is recorded in the books of exegesis that the People of the Book receive this revelation when they are going through the agonies of death or are at death’s door. Evidently, they happen to believe only when God reveals to them that a particular Prophet is true. But this revelation does not make them the Elect of God. However, this indeed is the divine practice that when death is imminent, most people tend to see a dream or receive a revelation. It is not exclusive to any particular religion nor is there the requirement that one be righteous and a doer of good.””””

Historically, Al-Tabari tells us
It is narrated from Sa’id bin Jubair from Ibn Abbas [about]; “No one will remain from among the People of the Book but will certainly believe in him before he dies.” He said; “Before the death of Eisa ibn Maryam.” (Tafsir Al-Tabari 9/380 Narration 10794-5 under Qur’an 4:159. Classified as Sahih by Hafiz Ibn Hajr in Fath Al-Bari 10/250, Kitab Ahadith Al-Anbiya, Chapter on the Descent of Eisa ibn Maryam).

Pickthall on 4:159
“””There is not one of the People of the Scripture but will believe in him before his death, and on the Day of Resurrection he will be a witness against them “””

Muhammad Ibn Al-Hanafiyyah (15 – 81 AH)
Muhammad ibn ‘Ali Abi Talib (also known as Ibn Hanafiyya, the son of Hazrat Ali (RA)), explained Qur’an 4:159 in these terms: “He will descend before the Day of Judgment. All Jews and Christians will believe in him.” (Al-Suyuti, Durr al-Manthur, 2 :241.)

Abd Allah Ibn Abbas (618 CE – 687 CE)
About the verse Qur’an 4:159: “This verse is proof that Jesus (AS), son of Mary, will appear… All of the People of the Book will believe in him before his death.” (Al-Hakim, Al-Mustadrak, 2:309.) He also said referring to the Holy Qur’an 43:61, “God indicates that Jesus (AS) will appear before the Day of Judgment.” (Khasmiri, al-Tasrih, 289-90).

Ibn Abbas (RA) said, “When Allah intended to raise Jesus (AS) to the heavens, he went to his companions… and Jesus (AS) ascended to the heavens through an opening in the top of the house”. (Ibn Abi Hatim 4/431 Hadith 6266, Ibn Kathir 2/449. Ibn Kathir called it Sahih).

Al-Hasan Al-Basri (642 CE – 729/110 CE/AH)
“I swear to God that Jesus (AS) is at this moment alive in God’s presence, and that everyone will believe in him when he returns.” With regard to the Holy Qur’an 4:159, he said: “God raised Jesus (AS) to His presence. He will send him before the Day of Judgment as a holder of rank. Good and bad, all will believe in him.” (Al-Suyuti, Durr al-Manthur, 2:284) He also made a similar comment regarding the Holy Qur’an 43:61, saying that the meaning of the verse was that Jesus (AS) would return to earth. (Al-Suyuti, Durr al-Manthur, 2:220).

Muhammad Hijaab on 4:159
In this video, Imam Muhammad Hijaab explains the true meanings of 4:159 (at about the 10 min mark).

Some Additional Commentary that I found from here–

Yusuf Ali’s english translation is as follows:

“””And there is none of the People of the Book but must believe in him before his death; and on the Day of Judgment he will be a witness against them”””

Yusuf Ali gives this interpretation in his commentary note 665:

Before his death: Interpreters are not agreed as to the exact meaning. Those who hold that Jesus did not die refer the pronoun “his” to Jesus. They say that Jesus is still living in the body and that he will appear just before the Final Day, after the coming of the Mahdi, when the world will be purified of sin and unbelief. There will be a final death before the final Resurrection, but all will have believed before that final death. Others think that “his” is better referred to “none of the People of the Book”, and that the emphatic form “must believe” (la-yu` minanna) denotes more a question of duty than of fact.

Note 664 on Surah 4:158 is maybe a helpful background to the above note, since in 665 he only talks on the basis of what he just stated is the generally accepted Muslim view:

There is difference of opinion as to the exact interpretation of this verse. The words are: The Jews did not kill Jesus, but Allah raised him up (rafa`u) to Himself. One school holds that Jesus did not die the usual human death, but still lives in the body in heaven, which is the generally accepted Muslim view.

In a mailing list discussion, one Muslim claimed this clearly states that all People of the Book will believe in Jesus before his (future) death. This seems to be grammatically possible. Several translators seem to follow this understanding and their translations say something to the effect that “everyone from the People of the Book will (certainly) believe in him …”. However, why would Jesus be a “witness against them” when they believe in him? Should he not be a witness against those who do NOT believe in him?

Rashad Khalifa is the odd one out who transfers this into the past tense (was required to believe), while all others see this either present or future. Khalifa circumvents the problem by inserting the word “required” which is not in the Arabic.

The main question so far seems to be whether the emphatic form means “certainty of fact in the future” (will believe) or “duty for everyone” (required, must believe). But there are more opinions on the meaning of this verse…

In response to Yusuf Ali’s translation of this verse, an Ahmadiyya gave me the following explanation regarding their interpretation of this verse:

Everybody will believe in whom? The verse you quoted does not give a name anyway. Why not? And whose death is being referred to? I mean, many *People of the Book* die everyday without believing in Jesus a.s. anyway. i.e. the Jews, whilst the Christians already believe in him as the Messiah anyway. And if you mean to say that they will all believe in him as a Prophet of God after his hypothetical return to earth and subsequent death, then there would be no need for Jesus a.s. to be a witness against them on the Day of Judgement anyway. So, your proposed construction of the verse becomes untenable.

Besides the Arabic pronoun used does not here mean *him* but *it*, because the incident being referred to in the preceeding verse is to Jesus’s a.s. alleged death on the cross, so the correct translation (with my explanation in brackets) will be:

“And there is none among the People of the Book but will (continue to) believe in IT (i.e. the death of Jesus a.s. on the cross) before his (own) death (i.e. the death of the Jew or Christian himself); and on the Day of Judgement he (Jesus a.s.) will be a witness against them … [4:159].

This Ahmadiyya interpretation gets rid of some problems but substitutes it for others.

The way this is now translated and interpreted by the Ahmadiyya, it says that ALL the people of the Book, Jews and Christians, will continue to believe the death of Jesus on the Cross. But Muslims tell us that there have been thousands (or even millions) of Jews and Christians who converted to Islam, and consequently they do no longer believe in this death on the Cross. Does that not mean the Qur’an is wrong, according to the interpretation given above? Isn’t the Ahmadiyya translation only removing one problem by substituting it with another interpretation, equally wrong on the factual level?

Is there any interpretation of this verse that is consistent with the rest of Islamic theology (whether the Sunni or the Ahmadiyya version) and the facts of life that some Christians and Christians do convert to orthodox Islam, some to Ahmadiyya Islam and believe exactly as these movments tell, and most of them continue to believe in the revelation given by God in the Bible?

Whatever this verse means, the facts will contradict any theory which understands it in a way such that all of them will continue not to believe, or all of them will believe. This is certainly a challenge to the “none … but” construction in the aya which makes a statement that supposedly holds without exception.

At the following link you will find a number of further articles examining the Qur’anic passage and Muslim traditions on the Crucifixion which we would like to recommend reading as well. Based on the above and those further articles…

Conclusion: The one and only passage in the Qur’an dealing with the issue of the Crucifixion is extremely vague and riddled with problems of its own. How then can it be the bases for rejection of the very clear meaning of the passion narratives in the Gospels?

However, the above are not yet all the different versions of Sura 4:159.

A video in Hindi, explaining how the Ahmadi translation of 4:159 is total nonsense
Fast forward the video to the 1 hour 34 minutes mark.

Mirza Tahir Ahmad’s urdu Tafsir on 4:159

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s quotations, which were built into a Tafsir

Links and Related Essays

Quran Discussion Group

Stamford, CT
863 Quran Seekers

Quran is the holy book of Muslims. And this group is for all mankind (Muslims and Non-Muslims) who want to know about Quran.We will read Quran and try to understand, interpre…

Check out this Meetup Group →


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

“Ahmad’s Place Among The Prophets”–Review of Religions, Part 1 thru 4, October -1914 to February 1915

Dear readers, we have found another interesting series of articles from the English version of the ROR of 1914, this comes from an essay series entitled, “Ahmad and Jesus as Prophets”, which seems to go back to 1911.  We had published an entry referring to an essay of 1913 which had a similar title. In April of 1913, they changed the title to simply “Ahmad as a Prophet” Part-1.   By February of 1914, “Ahmad as a Prophet* came out Part-2).  Muhammad Ali added an asterisks and claimed that MGA was only a prophet in the Arabic sense of the word, thus laying the foundation for the split that happened just a month later.  In March of 1914, Part-3 of the series was published, this was specifically covering the age prophecy of MGA which had failed.  In April of 1914, “Ahmad as a Prophet Part-4” was published.  In September of 1914, “Ahmad as a Prophet Part-4” was published, this edition covered MGA’s prophecies about his sons, namely the Musleh Maud Prophecy, of Feb 20th, 1886, which is quoted herein, for this entire series of essays, no author is names, Maulvi Sher Ali was the main editor, since Muhammad Ali had moved to Lahore.

“Ahmad’s Place Among The Prophets”–Review of Religions, Part 1 thru 4, October -1914 to February 1915
Another similar series of essays was started in Oct-1914.  The writer is M. Ata-Ur-Rahman Rajshahi (Bengal), he is relatively unknown in the history of Ahmadiyya scholars, the Ahmadiyya Jamaat in Bengal was also very small at that time, it would be amazing for a Bengali to have learned so much about Ahmadiyya by 1914.  This was a 4-part series entitled, “Ahmad’s Place Among The Prophets”, it was started in October of 1914 with Part-1.  Part-1 briefly discusses that publishing of Braheen e Ahmadiyya in 1880, however, it doesn’t mention that the BA1 and 2 were the only 2 published in that year and they were mostly announcements, and not a book of knowledge, the 1889 Bait is also mentioned.  It goes on to claim that there are 400,000 Ahmadi’s currently in the world (In October of 1914).  Part-2 came out in November of 1914.  Remember, arguments were raging back and forth between the Qadiani and Lahori-Ahmadi’s about the prophethood of MGA.  Obviously, the Lahori-Ahmadi’s were claiming that MGA was not a prophet, whereas the Qadiani’s were asserting that MGA was in fact a Prophet without a law.  Part-2 quotes Khutbah Ilhamiya and Braheen e Ahmadiyya Vol. 5.  They go on two claim that MGA is equal to Muhammad, MGA had entered into Muhammad, and thus there was no difference between the two, per Qadiani-Ahmadi theory.  Part-3 came out in December of 1914, just before the annual Jalsa it seems.  This was the first Jalsa of Mirza Basheer ud Deen Mahmud Ahmad’s Khilafat.  Braheen e Ahmadiyya Vol. 5 is quoted as well as Haqiqatul Wahy.  MGA is forcefully introduced as a Prophet in his own right, however, without law.  Nuzul ul Masih and Chashma i Marifat.  They assert that Ahmadi’s still believe Muhammad to be the last of the prophets, however, only in the sense of a law-giver.  They also argue that Khatim was not used in 33:40, instead Khatam was used, which mostly means seal, had Khatim had been used, then it would have meant that Muhammad (Saw) was the last prophet altogether.  In February of 1915, “Ahmad’s Place Among The Prophets”–Part 4 was published.  This is the same time-frame wherein the Khalifa’s first book vs. the Lahori-Ahmadi’s was published, “Qaul al Fasl”.  “Haqiqat un Nubuwaat” was published by the Khalifa a few months later.  It also mentions how the Jalsa at Qadian was held on Dec 25th–27th of 1914, which was Christmas weekend.  It was the first time that women were invited to the Jalsa, the women seem to have had their own Jalsa area and held all sessions independently of men.  It goes on to argue how Ahmadiyya has been a major influencer in the politics of British-India.  Ahmadiyya is described as friendly to the extreme in its love of the British government.  Ahmadis have an utmost loyalty to the British throne.  Nevertheless, the series seems to end here.

Full PDF
Ahmad’s Place Among Prophets Part 1—4

Links and Related Essays

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


A friend of mine has written a review of Maktubat e Ahmad, which is a compilation of MGA’s letters to his friends.

The review

Maktoobat e Ahmad Vol-2 is currently under reading This is a compilation of the letters of Mirza sb, sent to 4 of his prominent Mureeds, namely Molvi Nuruddin, Nawab Muhammad Ali Khan,Seth Allah Rakha Abdul Rehman Madrasi and Munshi Rustam Ali. Here is an overview stating Numbers of letters sent to each addresses and duration of correspondence.

Addresses No. Of Letters Duration
Molvi Nuruddin 94 March 1885 to Aug 1892
Nawab Muhammad Ali Khan 100 Aug 1889 to Feb 1908
Haji AR Abdul Rehman 96 Aug 1894-to Aug 1905
Ch. Rustam Ali 277 May 1884 to May 1902
The contents of letters that Mirza sb wrote are mostly
chanda demands, expression of gratitude to Mureeds for sending Chanda besides Mirza sb,s demand for Search of girls for Marriage of few of his colleagues, Mirzsb,s Ilham for third marriage, condolence on death, Medicines and its impacts demand to send certain commodities etc etc. Now lets have a look on the contents of letters:-

Summary of Letters To Molvi Nuruddin:-
Condolence on son,s death, expenses on publication of Siraj Munir,demand for Purchase of 100 copies, 50 Rs received send rest 50, send 87 Rs on a/c of Siraj Munir, Munshi Abdul Haq,s debt of Rs500/- spent on publication of SM, needs to be paid back, sex medicine you sent has benefitted to me a lot. Mentions sex disease of losing erectile at the time of sexual intercourse, advise of using same medicine. Appreciation of Molvi sb for being generous and pious, mentions his dream and then demands Rs1400/- in instalments first to be of Rs.500/- my doughter is sick send certain medicinal components, intention of setting up a printing press at Qadian, received half note of Rs 500/- send rest half. Rest half also received, Lekhram,s book Takzib Baraheen, demand to write a rebuttal to it. Requests for employment of Abdullah Khan in Jammu,Received Rs. 240/- you sent. Your Salam conveyed to newly born Bashir the promised son who responded with smile. Medicine you sent thru Fateh Muhammad is received and being used, No medicine received thru Peeran Ditta. Pleased to know that you have made the rebuttle to Takzib Baraheen of Lekhram, sent proposals for your second marriage to a number of girls. One positive response with condition of being a Hanafi sect. Kuchla mudabbir sent by yousuf Baig is good for sex paower. Can be sent to you if you like, Reply reg proposal for second marriage sent to Mir sb, but girl should be pretty not ugly, this has to be confirmed before fixing it. Expression of concern on ill health and stresses the need for second marriage. Request for sale of horse of Cousin Imamuddin to a rich man of Kashmir, your second marriage propsal sent to sister of Sahibzada Iftikhar. Informs of ill health of Bashir the promised son. Informs of death of Bashir the promised son. Calls for second marriage. Congratulates on second marriage advise of living with love and affection and ignore opposition by first wife. I took Rs 900/- from you which will be 1000/- after you send Rs 100/-, Rs 100 received. Plz send Kushta Marjan for Mir Abbas sb. Rejects advise of claiming Maseel Masih per Damishki hadiths. Plz take care of bread of Muhammad Baig he has problems in Langar.. plz do something for employment of Shahabuddin. Abdul Haq Ghznavi announced ilham that myself is liar, discusses opposition of Batalvi, Dr. Jaggan Nath,s challenge not accepted, Molvi Nazir Hussain,s challenge in Dehli shall be accepted. Plz send original musk to me.

Summary of Letters To Nawab Muhammad Ali Khan sb:
Baraheen 5 not published yet. Price of Publshed volume is from Rs25 to Rs. 100/- Aims and objectives of Baiyat, Received ilham of your well being. This humble-self do not deny to enter into Mubahila with Abdul Haq Ghaznavi, Rs 281/- sent by you has been received.Requests to come to Qadian. Informs of his various ilhams,explains of why Athem survived of death, Asks for time limit of payment of debt of Rs500/-, Received Rs 200/- First floor constructiion would cost Rs.900/-, i am advising Molvi sb to go for another marriage points to a girl, plz tell a girl for Nuruddin,s marriage at your place. Plz send Rs, 200/- for constructions at Qadian. Advises Nawab sb to celeberate Golden Jubilee of Queen victoria by lighting on the buildings ansd lanes of Malir Kotla,it is permissible in Islam, plz Send Rs 200/- and tell a girl for Molvi sb ,s marriage, construction will be closed if Rs 200/- not received.English and urdu memorial is published and being distributed. Rs 200/- received. Congratulation on new marriage, i will send medicine for you. Shocked to know of death of your wife.
Don,t publish ishtihar of Rs.5000/- congratulation on newly born baby. Wife, Nusrat Jehan is sick, risk of abortion,Plz bring pomegranate seeds for Re 1/- when you come. Happy to know of Measles it is a good disease it prevents plague. Molvi Nuruddin and Mirza Khuda Baksh are my witness in a case of income tax against me. Build a ladies house in Qadian for few months visit once a while.
Sending pils for prevention of leprosy. Using musk for fits, do use henna water. Sending Tiryaq ilahi good for sex power. Rs.575/- Received. Gift cloths Jewellery received, Refuses proposal of Nawab for daughter Mubaraka, Okays this proposal for dower of Rs.50,000/-

Summary of Letters to Seth Abdul Rehman Madrasi
Mirza sb in almost every letter has acknowledged with thanks to have received Rs 100/- to Rs 1000/- total amount calculated about Rs 5000/-. Besides he sent demands from time to time,
Could you plz all friends jointly lend me Rs,1000/-
Plz send Upto Rs. 5000/- for reward Ishtihar for Athem.
I received Musk, Amber and other gift from you, thanks. Sad to know death of your wife. I am making dua for you,

Summary of Letters to Munshi Rustam Ali

Sad to know of death of your father, Plz send Rs 200/- , plz send 25 rupees, recover rest money of sale proceed of Siraj munir, I would be obliged if you send me few bottles of Soda water. Rs 75 from sale proceed have received from you. Rs 15/- are in balance. Making vigorous dua for Sheikh Maher Ali,plz send Rs 150/- from sale proceed account. Plz send Sheer Mal for Rs 2/- to me duly packed in a basket. Sheer Mal of 5/- rupees value received. I have to pay for Shahna Haq plz send Rs 20/- to me. Plz confirm the news of Nikah of daughter of Ahmad Baig as no body talks of this in Qadian. You settle all land issues with Sultan ahmad so that a settlement is reached. Come to a jalso with Paan worth Four annas. Pllz bring Two big desks and one carpet. Plz get the luggage of Mir Nasir Nawab to him at Patiala. Your chanda of Rs.10 for Molvi Ahsan has been appreciated etc

Links and Related Essays

A Murder in British Lahore – Closing the Case of Lekh Ram


The first Bait form in Ahmadiyya included an oath of loyalty to the British Government (1889 to 1906)

Its no secret, MGA and his family enjoyed British support, since MGA’s father, brother and uncles helped them put down the great mutiny of 1857. In fact, after MGA died, the British government funded and built a huge building for Ahmadiyya in Qadian and for free!!!! In today’s money it would be half a million US dollars. At the time, this was the biggest building in Qadian, nowadays it is home to the Sikh College. In 1915, the Review of Religions published an article about MGA and his place among the prophets, they also declared that ALL Ahmadi’s must have loyalty to the British, or they will be kicked out of Ahmadiyya (see page 45).

Ahmadi’s abandoned this college as they left in 1947, it was re-established at Qadian in March of 1948 by the Sikhs. Nevertheless, MGA began accepting Bait’s in March of 1889, however, his own wife didn’t accept nor did any of his children. In 1906, Muhammad Ali wrote a famous essay in the ROR of May-1906 wherein he listed the 10 conditions of Bait. However, by 1948, Dard in his famous book about the life of MGA denied that this 4th condition ever existed in a different format.  Furthermore, the first Bait form is totally tampered with by the Mirza family and thus totally missing.

On January 12th, 1889, MGA published an announcement with the 10 conditions of Bait
This announcement is totally missing.  However, 8-9 years later he admitted that loyalty to the British was the 4th condition (see the scan in the below).  We are unsure when it was taken out and deleted. Dard tells us that this was the same day that MGA’s son, Mirza Basheer-uddin Mahmud Ahmad was born (see Dard, pages 201-208).

By 1906, the 4th condition was totally edited
In 1906, Muhammad Ali wrote a famous essay in the ROR of May-1906 wherein he listed the 10 conditions of Bait.  The 4th condition was not loyalty to the British, instead it was “””Fourthly, that he shall in no way harm God’s creatures in general and Muslims in particular under the influence of his passions— neither with his hands, nor with his tongue, nor by any other means.””””

1948, Dard writes that the 4th condition is 
“””Fourthly, that he shall in no way harm God’s creatures in general and Muslims in particular under the influence of his passions— neither with his hands, nor with his tongue, nor by any other means.””””

Dard seems to quote the announcement of January 1889
This is very odd.  Dard totally ignores what MGA wrote in Kitab ul Barriyya and seems to quote the announcement of Jan 1889.  This is a total lie by Dard, he knew that this wasn’t the first list of conditions, however, he was most likely pressured to cover this up, since the headquarters of Ahmadiyya had just moved to the semi-independent-puppet-state called Pakistan.

Dr. Basharat Ahmad in Mujadid-e-Azim skips the entire topic of any Bait form
Interestingly enough, the Lahori-Ahmadi’s don’t ever mention any Bait Form at all.

In 1897, MGA published conditions for bait form in Kitab ul Barriya

In this book, MGA goes into detail about when he was born (1839 or 1840) and the services that his family rendered to the British Government, especially in 1857.  We have archived many of the court statements that were recorded in that book herein.

Quotes from Kitab ul Barriyah
“”””It has been proven from my continuous seventeen year long speeches that I am faithful and sincere to the English Empire from the core of my heart and soul. I am the son of a father who was also a friend to this Government. My faith is to obey this Government and love the people; These are the conditions set for my devotees and followers who take the oath of allegiance to me. I have stressed this clause under the fourth item of my pamphlet Shuroo-al-Baiat (oath of faith) which has been distributed among my devotees and followers.””””
(Kitab-ul-Barriah, Roohany Khazaen, Vol. 13, P. 10; Kitab-ul-Barriha, P. 9, Supplement)

The scans

The Lahori-Ahmadi’s have published an abridged english translation of Kitab ul Barriya, but left out the bait form
In an interesting development, the Lahori-Ahmadi’s, led by Zahid Aziz have published an abridged english translation of this book, however, they left out the bait form.  This isn’t the first time they have done this, they did the same with Khutbah Ilhamiya and Braheen-e-Ahmadiyya.

The review of Religions, 1915, on loyalty to the British, or you can’t be an Ahmadi

The flattery towards the British government last all of MGA’s life, and in fact, it was Ahmadiyya policy until they moved to Pakistan in 1947
Another example is that of MGA’s book, Roohani Khazyian 15- page 114 – Chapter Sitara Qaisera, which translates into english as: “The Star of Victoria” and is a 16 page pamphlet published in 1899.  In this book, MGA says:


The scan work

Links and Related Essays

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

Up ↑