ahmadiyyafactcheckblog

Intro
In Part-1 of Izala Auham was written from 1889–1890, published between June 1891 and August 1891, MGA said that Eisa (as) was actually put on the cross (pure Kufr) and thus, totally copied Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, who had said the same thing about 10-15 years previously. A worker of Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, Chiragh Ali was the first Muslim ever to claim that Esa (as) was actually hung (salaboohoo)(1876). Check out Bro Imtiaz has he explains this issue on his youtube channel. Razi said all the mujadid’s and muffassir’s were wrong on Eisa (as) not being on the cross, they were united in misguidance for 1300 years (which is against a famous hadith). Ironically, in Anjam-e-Athim (see RK vol, 11, p. 143-144), MGA says that anyone who disagrees with the ijma of the sahaba will have the curse of Allah upon them. 

No Mufassir of Islam had ever written so. In fact, Ibn Hazm said that anyone who thinks that Eisa (as) was put on the cross is a Kafir. All Muslims before Sir Syed Ahmad Khan said that Eisa (as) was never on the cross. Qadiani’s quote modernist like Zakir Naik and others who have surmised that Eisa (as) was put on the cross and survived. However, all of these are Indian’s with connections to the Aligarh Movement and thus have scant beliefs.

Continue reading “In 1890, MGA copied Sir Syed and claimed that Eisa (as) was actually put on the cross” →

Intro
Brother Imtiaz has pointed out that MGA made up rules for interpreting the Quran in general and Tawuffa specifically. In 1891, via Izala Auham (part-1, written in 1890), MGA made up a rule which never existed in Islam (see also Tohfa Golarviya), MGA said:

“””wherever the expression Tawaffi is used for a human being, and the action is attributed to Allah the Glorious, Tawaffi invariably means death and taking possession of the soul. In this context, there is not a single instance, where this expression means anything other than taking possession of the soul.”””

However, this is contradicted by 2:281 (2:282 in the Qadiani Quran) of the Quran, which MGA never mentioned. In 2:281, the action is attributed to Allah and Waffa (is used for a human) doesn’t mean death. 3:185 is another case wherein Tawaffi is used for a human being, and the action is attributed to Allah, however, Waffa means “full reward”. In both of these verses, we have the verb coming from the same family of verbs which MGA was claiming was not possible.

In both of these ayats:

“Verbs share the same root letters and very often share commonality in meaning too. Zakkaa and tazakkaa share a very similar meaning. Same for ghafara and istaghfara. ‘Aana, a’aana and ista’aana. ‘Alima, ta’allama, ‘Allama. Da’ufa and istad’afa. Waffaa, tawaffaa and istawfaa. The examples are endless.

Therefore, variants of the same verb can be used to express variations loosely taken from the same root meaning. But with additional details. Such as:

–Seeking X meaning.
–Or doing to another X meaning.
–Or doing to oneself, X meaning.
–Or doing repetitively, X meaning.
–Or emphasising and stressing, X meaning.
–Each one of these share the same root letters but are written similarly, to give those details to the root meaning.”

Thus, Ghulaamists need to produce the proof from the Qur-aan and sunnah and the salaf, that the rule they invented (if God is the doer of tawaffaa and man is the object, then it can only mean taking the soul). No such proof exists.

If mutawaffeeka means to take (only) the soul in sleep, then the body is taken in raafi’uka.
“I will cause you to sleep, and then lift you up to me, and clear your name (purify you) from the ones that disbelieved.”

Furthermore, Soul is feminine in Arabic language and the Qur-aan. As our elder Ibn Hazm said, if Allaah was talking about the soul only, then he would’ve used the feminine pronoun for ‘it’, the way he did in other places “Allaah takes the souls when it (feminine)(the souls) die and it (feminine)(the souls) in their sleep, the ones that haven’t died.” But Allaah says mutawaffeeKA “you” (male)(Jesus). Not mutawaffeeKI (take you the female soul). Or mutawaffeeHAA (take it the feminine soul).

Tafseer of verses are based on Arabic language too, and the word tawaffaa is used in all the dictionaries to give the meaning as taking money, exacting payment, receiving payment. This Arabic definition is given in the books of tafseer and other places like Ibn Taymiyah’s fataawaa. None of the classical lexicons or tafaaseer gave the rule that the Qadiyaanis invented without proof.

Another derivative of the roots و ف ى is “istawfaa” and this is mentioned in the Qur-aan 83.2 and here it means ‘to take in full’. This word is mentioned in the lexicons in the same sentence as the word tawaffaa. “TAWAFFAYTU maalee min fulaanin WASTAWFAYTUHU”. Meaning “I took my money from X and exacted it in full”.

The bottom line is, Ghulaami clerics have now conceded that the word tawaffaa does not automatically mean death. Not in the Qur-aan or in the lexicons.

Even in the 2018 edition of the famous 5-volume commentary, Waffa is not translated as death. Check out my other essay on: Is there a difference between Tuwaffa and Tawaffa in the Quran? Or are they just diacritical marks?

Continue reading “Ahmadi rule: The word Tawaffi, when applied to a human being, God being the subject, means anything other than taking possession of the soul —DEBUNKED by Imtiaz” →

Intro
In “Itmamul-Hujjah”, MGA claims to have evidence that the tomb of Jesus is in Syria (modern day Lebanon), MGA claims that a man named Maulvi Mohammad Al-Saeedi Trablisi, who is a resident of Tripoli, Syria (modern day Lebanon) has written a letter to MGA, which is posted in the book. However, in the letter, Maulvi Mohammad Al-Saeedi Trablisi, who is a resident of Tripoli says that the grave of Eisa (as) is in the Country of Quds (modern day Jerusalem), and is present till now, and there is a Church built on it, and that church is the largest church of all churches, and inside it is the Grave of Hazrat Eisa and in the same church is the Grave of Maryam, the truthful. And both graves are separate. This contradicted MGA prior comments on the topic, MGA had previously alleged in Izala Auham (1891) that the grave was in Galilee (Al-Khaleeli). Molvi Mohammad Al-Saeedi Trablisi, who is a resident of Tripoli was never heard of ever again in the history of Ahmadiyya, nor was he mentioned in the famous list of 313 Ahmadi’s in 1896, which would have been 2 years after “Itmamul-Hujjah” means “The Final Argument” was published.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Links and Related Essay’s

“”Itmamul-Hujjah”” quotes and background information – ahmadiyyafactcheckblog

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Tags

#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog #messiahhascome #ahmadiyyat #trueislam #ahmadianswers #ahmadiyyamuslimcommunity #ahmadiyya_creatives #ahmadiyyatthetrueislam #ahmadiyyatzindabad #ahmadiyyatrueislam #ahmadiyyamuslim #mirzaghulamahmad #qadiani #qadianism

Intro
In Izala Auham, Part-1, MGA claimed that he got “special inspiration” (khas ilham) that Eisa (as) was dead and thus he unraveled this via ilham, not studying books and etc. MGA seems to be arguing about the techniques that should be employed vs. the Christian’s and their missionaries. MGA was urging his followers and the general public that they shouldn’t engage in any other argument, just stick to the alleged death of Eisa (as). MGA also said that he knew as early as 1879 that he was the 2nd coming of the Messiah. Thus, MGA lied and claimed to be Maseel-e-Maseeh for 11 years.

4 years laters, in “Itmamul-Hujjah”, MGA again claims (see the full ref in the below) that he was told the secret by his God about the death of Eisa (as).

Continue reading “MGA said that he got “Special Inspiration”, which led him to believe that Eisa (As) was dead” →

Intro
In the recent debate between Al-Yemeni and Razi (1:01:45 timestamp), Al-Yemeni showed how Razi used a false Lahori-Ahmadi translation (published from Trinidad and Tobago, about 30 years ago) of Izala Auham, wherein MGA was translating 2:36 (2:37 in the Qadiani Quran). This is part-2 of Izala Auham, and MGA is presenting his 30 verses which allegedly prove the death of Eisa (as).

Via Izala Auham, page 429, MGA is using 2:36 and arguing that humans were banished to Earth and were never allowed to return until their death and thus, this proves that Eisa (as) cannot return. MGA says the phrase lakum in 2:36 is clearly indicating that the body cannot go to the empty heaven, but it came out of the earth and will remain in the earth. It will enter the earth itself. However, this is in total contradiction of the Arabic, the arabic clearly states that humans were banished from Jannah, and sent down to the Earth, wherein they would have many enemies (even kin folk), and in the Earth they would find provisions (food and clothing).

In the official 2018, 5 volume english commentary of the Quran by the Qadiani’s, they didn’t even mention the significance of lakum in 2:36, however, they did mention it as an argument that proves the alleged death of Eisa (As). Tafseer-e-Sagheer and Tafseer-e-Kabeer remain undiscovered. In Muhammad Ali’s famous english commentary on the Quran from 1917, he didn’t even mention the significance of lakum in 2:36, nor did he mention how MGA used this verse to prove the alleged death of Eisa (As).

Continue reading “2:36 (2:37 in the Qadiani Quran) and the famous rookie mistake from Razi, the famous typo” →

Intro
MGA was already discreetly denying the miracles of Eisa (as) in the Barahin series (1–4)(1880)(MGA argued that flies can be brought back to life with salt). Some of Ahl-e-Hadith ulema immediately took notice and some called MGA a Kafir (1884). 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.

In 1886, MGA called the miracle of the splitting of the moon a rare natural phenomenon like male humans/goats that give milk (a lie).

In 1891 (see Izala Auham), MGA took it a step further and straight up accused Eisa (as) of mesmerism and slight of hand and thus, was accusing Eisa (as) of using magic, or being a magician. He also denied the miracle of the snake of Musa (as). #Ahmadis deny 26:63 (26:64 in the Qadiani Quran) of the Quran and claim that Musa (as) never split the sea, it was a low tide phenomenon. Watch Bro Imtiaz explain this whole thing herein. MGA also denied the miracle of Ibrahim (as) and 4 birds in 2:260.

MGA kept going, in 1893, via his written debate with Athim, MGA denied the miraculous birth of Eisa (as)(See Ruhani Khazain volume 6 Jang-e-Muqadas page 280-281) and later on Qadiani-Ahmadi’s began to call Maryam a Hermaphrodite (astagfarullah) and argued that all miracles happened via science. In 2023, they have backtracked and only call it a possibility, however, to consider this a possibility is to cede and reject the signs of Allah.

MGA also denied the miracle of the splitting of the moon after 1891 and called it an eclipse.

Continue reading “In 1891, MGA denied all miracles and accused Eisa (as) of mesmerism and slight of hand, Musa (as) also and Ibrahim (as) and the birds” →

Intro
In 1891, MGA denied that he was a recipient of “Wahy Nubuwwat”, in fact, in Izala Auham (page 614, Part-2), he even said that “Wahy Risalat” had been cut off forever. Thus, MGA only claimed to receive “Wahy-i Wilayat” (revelation granted to saints). MGA claimed prophethood in 1901, a year later, in Tofha Golarvia, MGA again claimed that it was impossible for anyone to get Wahy Nubuwwat. 

Most of these quotes are from Muhammad Ali’s famous 300 references that he wrote as an appendix to “Prophethood in Islam” (1915).

Continue reading “Did MGA get Wahy Nubuwwat or Wahy Nubuwwat or Wahy-i-Wilayat?” →

Intro
Qadiani-Ahmadi’s aren’t expecting any additional prophets in the future (see Abu Daqqa admit to this fact), they see their Khilafat as an eternal promise that will last until the day of judgement. When cornered on this, Qadiani-Ahmadi’s will say, only the Khalifa can claim prophethood. All of this goes back to MGA. Before 1901, MGA was claiming that anyone could become a prophet and it was a matter of prayer. In fact, from 1891 to 1900, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad denied his own prophethood 50-100 times.

However, in 1901, MGA abruptly claimed prophethood, and a year later, MGA called himself as the Khatamul-Khulafa and claimed to be mentioned in 1:6 of the Quran, and he claimed to be the FINAL BRICK. MGA was claiming to be an Ummati-Nabi, this contradicted all of his previous comments, i.e., that a prophet could never be a follower. Remember, In 1890-91, in Izala Auham, 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.

5-6 years later, MGA was claiming in Haqiqatul Wahy (1906-1907) that he was the only person in the entire Muslim ummah to be given the title of prophet. MGA was claiming to be Muhammad (Saw)(astagfarullah), and thus, MGA was claiming to be the FINAL prophet. After MGA died, in 1911, an Ahmadi, Muhammad Zahir Al-Din wrote a book wherein he discussed the prophethood of MGA and its implications of Kufr upon the Muslims of the world. Muhammad Zahir Al-Din was promoting MGA as a law-bearing prophethood and wasn’t immediately kicked out of Ahmadiyya by the 1st Khalifa. In fact, the 1st Khalifa (Nur ud Din) didn’t care if MGA claimed law-bearing prophethood.

However, in theory, Qadiani-Ahmadi’s won’t stop saying that prophethood is open. They lie and bring 4:69 and 7:35 and will argue for hours and hours that prophethood is still open. The 2nd 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. The 2nd Khalifa claimed that 1000’s of prophets could come. The 2nd Khalifa even twisted 2:4 of the Quran and claimed that there were additional revelations that Muslims must believe in after the Quran. Further, in 1915, Ahmadi’s claim that Surah Fatiha has a mention of MGA, specifically in the Quran 1:6 (1:7, in the Qadiani Quran). Also in 1915, an Ahmadi scholar said that it was disrespectful to call MGA an Ummati-Nabi, since he was Muhammad (Saw)(astagfarullah)(see the scans in the below).

In this same era, MGA was called the Messenger of the latter days. The ROR of Dec-1915 has an article, “Ahmad, the Messenger of the Latter Days”. The Jan-1917 edition of the ROR has an article, “Ahmad, the Messenger of the Latter Days” (Part-1). The ROR of Feb-March-1917 has an article, “Ahmad, the Messenger of the Latter Days” (Part-2) translated into english by Abul Hashem Khan (M.A.). The ROR of June-1917 has an article, “Ahmad, the Messenger of the Latter Days” (Part-3) translated into english by Abul Hashem Khan (M.A.). In 1924, a book by the 2nd Khalifa was published, “Ahmad, the Messenger of the Latter Days”.

In Aenas Sadaqat (1921, Truth about the Split, see page 18), the son of MGA used the phraseology “Khatam-ul-Khulafa” as he argued that MGA was like Esa (as) and was the FINAL prophet of that dispensation.

Continue reading “Is Muhammad (saw) the FINAL prophet or is MGA the FINAL prophet per Qadiani-Ahmadi’s?” →

Intro
In this video, Uncle Jamal ud Din explains how MGA was not present when Muhammad (saw) went for Miraaj, and thus cannot be a prophet. This is from Speakers Corner in the UK and from a few weeks ago. Uncle Jamal ud Din then explains how MGA became a woman and was pregnant.

Continue reading “Uncle Jamal ud Din vs. that weirdo Qadiani at Speakers Corner” →