Friday, October 01, 2004

Ahmadiyyat is Not the True Islam

In the Name of Allah: The Gracious, The Merciful
"Why I am Not an Ahmadi: The Top Ten Reasons Ahmadiyyat is Not the True Islam"
By Ahsen Malik: Grandson of Late Mufti Malik Saif-ur Rehman and Commodore (Retired) Syed Nasir Ahmed Shah, Son of Dr. Mujeeb Malik
10.2) Read if you are a Non-Muslim

The Ahmadiyya Movement in Islam(Jamaat) was founded by “Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad” (Mirza Sahib) in 1889 who was one of the many messiahs of the 19th Century claiming to be the 2nd coming of Christ. He also claimed that Jesus went to India after the incident of the Cross and lived there until the age of 120 and that his tomb is there. His followers call themselves “Ahmadis” or “Ahmadi Muslims.” They claim that “Ahmadiyyat” is the “True Islam.” However in 1974, Rabita Alame Islami(Muslim World League), which represents all religious scholars from every Muslim country of the world passed a unanimous resolution declaring them to be Non-Muslim, Kaffir(Disbelievers) and outside the fold of Islam. They are also known as “Qadianis.” A very small fraction of his followers belong to the Ahmadiyya Anjumaan Isha’at-e-Islam Lahore known as “Lahoris.”

A good(but not perfect) analogy is the following -
Ahmadis ARE TO Muslims AS Jehovah’s Witnesses ARE TO Christians.
10.1) An Introductory Note

Ahmadis have accused me of being very unoriginal in my arguments. After engaging in debate(informal) with a couple of the Top Ahmadi Missionaries(Maulana Mirza Afzal of Vancouver, Canada and Maulana Azhar Haneef of Philadelphia, USA) and an email exchange with retired Maulana Din Muhammad Shahed and continued discussion with other Ahmadis, I have made edits, changes, and updates to this list.

The purpose of this site is simply to provide an unbiased and fair perspective of the facts to anyone who is interested in learning the truth to prove that Ahmadiyyat is not what it claims to be. Nevertheless, Ahmadis have accused my site of being biased and filthy. I challenge any Ahmadi to point out to me specifically in words how this site is in anyway biased and filthy.

I’ve put some of the newer and more important arguments on the top, and the lesser important details on the bottom.
If you do not have much time, please at least read the below reasons from 4 downwards very carefully.
If you would like to read the Whole Thing from Start to Finish, then please click here... Beginning

Disclaimer: I am not affiliated nor partnered with any person, organization, or website that I use to support my arguments. Reader agrees not to file any lawsuits against me for any damage that this site might cause.
4) The Correct Interpretation of “4 Witnesses”

When confronted about the 28 Sworn Testimonies as published by Ansar-i-Ahmadiyya in

Tarikh-i-Mahmudiyyat Kay Chand Ahem Magir Posheeda Auraq-Hissa Awal (Few Hidden But Important Pages Of History Of Mahmudiyyat-Part One) Click for Partial English Translation

(Tarikh-i-Mahmudiyyat for short)

against Mirza Mahmud, a.k.a. “Hazrat Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmad”, “Khalifatul Masih Sani”(“2nd Caliph to the Messiah”), Ahmadis will point you to the Holy Quran and say to bring 4 witnesses.

There were 28 witnesses. That’s 4 X 4 + 4 + 4 + 4. One Ahmadi mentioned to me that they were not legitimate, since each of the 28 witnesses should have brought 4 witnesses to prove his/her claim. I cannot confirm whether this is true or not since there is a huge difference between someone publicly bringing a charge to a Justice System governed by Islamic Law against someone versus someone taking a Sworn Testimony against someone(who is a trusted leader of the community) during the Absence of Islamic Law. However, to clear up another misunderstanding let us assume that this Ahmadi might be right.

(By the way, one of the Missionaries of the Jamaat(Mirza Afzal of Vancouver, Canada) that I debated claims that he denied the allegations under a Sworn Oath on Holy Quran. Although it did not appear this way to me, another Ahmadi who was present sided with Mirza Afzal(and I have the written proof of that). Therefore, we will give Mirza Afzal the benefit of the doubt that he actually did take the Oath. Let’s all remember Mirza Afzal in our prayers. May AllahSWT curse him if he is lying and May AllahSWT protect him if he is telling the truth.)
"And those who launch a charge against chaste women and produce not 4 witnesses, Flog them with 80 stripes and reject their evidence ever after: for such men are wicked transgressors.”
- The Holy Quran, (24:4)

This is also applied to a “chaste man” for in order to prove any act of adultery, you have to prove that there is a man and a woman, and to prove that there is a woman, you have to have 4 witnesses.

However, this “4 witnesses” thing has been completely misinterpreted by some.

In The Trouble with Islam: A Muslim’s call for Reform in her Faith, Irshad Manji describes what happened in Pakistan when Zia installed Sharia...

“It was required that a rape be witnessed by four men before any offender could be charged.” (Manji 125)

This is ridiculously absurd! If you are an Ahmadi and you really believe this, make sure to point this out at your next Tabligh function. On one hand you accuse your opponents of being “fundamentalist” and other hand you are the biggest hypocrite subscribing to this “fundamentalist” interpretation. It’s so bogus that even many of the filthiest and worst Anti-Islam people will not use this example in their books and attribute it to the teachings of Islam.

Abu Huraira reported that a man from amongst the Muslims came to Allah’s Messenger(peace be upon him) while he was in the mosque. He called him saying, “Allah’s Messenger I have committed adultery.” The Holy Prophet(peace be upon him) turned away from him. He(again) came round facing him and said to him, “Allah’s Messenger, I have committed adultery.” The Holy Prophet(peace be upon him) turned away until he did that four times, and as he testified four times against his own self, Allah’s Messenger(peace be upon him) called him and said “Are you mad?” He said, “No.” “Are you married?” He said, “Yes.” Thereupon Allah’s Messenger(peace be upon him) said, “Take him and stone him.” (Sahih Muslim #1691R2, Kitab-ul-Hudud)

This incident most likely took place after the above verse was revealed because the man testified against himself 4 times before the Holy Prophet(peace be upon him) made any judgment. Now, did the Holy Prophet(peace be upon him) ask the man to bring 4 witnesses? No. Not at all.

The 4 Witnesses are required when the accuser is not part of the act.

If the accuser is raped(e.g. forced to commit adultery) or sexually molested, etc. then there is no need for 4 witnesses. Why would there need to be 4 witnesses, if the accuser is part of the act and committed the act against his/her will? That does not make any logical sense.

There is a huge difference between “doing” and “seeing.” “4 witnesses” applies to “seeing”, not “doing.”

In 26 of the 28 testimonies the accusers are either eye witnesses or people that had strong 2nd hand knowledge.

However, in 2 of the testimonies, the accusers are the actual victims.

“I often use to hear from my ’Sihalian’ (female friends of females) that Mian sahib [Mirza Mahmud] is adulterer. But I could not believe it. My father was a very sincere Ahmadi. Before making any decision he used to ask Hazrat sahib [Mirza Mahmud] permission. My father once asked me to deliver one letter to MMA (at that time he use to live in Kasre-Khilafat, {Palace of Caliph} Qadian), in that he asked for his permission…………. When I delivered letter to him [Mirza Mahmud], he asked me to wait here, and further said, ’I will be back, two men are waiting for me outside.’ He stepped outside the room and after few minutes after bolting all the rooms behind the room in which I was waiting, entered inside. He also shut and bolted the outside door of this room too. This room in which I was standing was the 4th room on the inside. When I saw this situation, I got scared and started wondering. Then, Mian sahib [Mirza Mahmud] started teasing me and asked me to do bad acts. I refused and resisted. He finally pushed me on the bed and raped me.” (Tarikh-i-Mahmudiyyat, Testimony #2)

“I make this statement with the knowledge that AllahSWT is present and is watching me. And to take false oath on the name of AllahSWT is a great sin. I state that I have seen with my own eyes MMA committing adultery. I also accept that he committed sodomy with me too. If I lie then may Allah’s curse fall on me.”
(Tarikh-i-Mahmudiyyat, Testimony #19)

In Truth Prevails, Qazi Nasir states the following as part of his response to the 28 Sworn Testimonies...

“Mr. Faruqi is treading the same paths wherein the dirty-minded among the Christians and Aryasamajists have always taken such keen and mean delights by leading such assaults against the Holy Prophet, Mohammad(peace be upon him) himself, and his dear ones. These dirty attacks have never been able to inflict any real harm on Islam, the Holy Prophet(peace be upon him), or his friends and companions.” (Truth Prevails, Chapter 5, Section 8)

The Holy Prophet(peace be upon him) was not accused of the Horrendous Testimonies of Tarikh-i-Mahmudiyyat!!!

There is a huge difference between Anti-Islam people writing filth against the Holy Prophet(peace be upon him) versus people that were his own associates(such as former Waqfs), people that truly believed in Mirza Sahib accused Mirza Mahmud during his lifetime.

Would any Ahmadi who believes in Mr. Nasir’s response care to name one companion/associate close to the Holy Prophet(peace be upon him) who took a Sworn Testimony accusing him of moral corruption?

“Whoever tells a lie against me intentionally then (surely) let him occupy his seat in Hell-Fire.”
(Sahih Bukhari #107 - 110)

Both Ahmadi Missionaries that I debated along with some other Ahmadis I have spoken with then bring up this example of Zainab, the divorced wife of the adopted son(Zaid) of Muhammad(peace be upon him) who enemies of Islam have accused of him of seeing her naked and that’s the reason he married her. I still to this day do not see how this is in anyway relevant to 28 people taking Sworn Testimonies against Mirza Mahmud accusing him of serious moral corruption.

Ahmadis will then cite the example of the Holy Prophet’s(peace be upon him) wife Ayesha being accused of adultery. She was accused on one specific occasion and she was acquitted. Mirza Mahmud was accused on multiple occasions and was never acquitted.

The publication Joe Chup Rahey Ghee Zaban-e-Khanjir, Lahoo Pukarey Gha Asteen Kah(If the tongue of dagger is mute, the blood of sleeve will shout), describes the scenario...

“Fakhar Ud Din Multani was a true Ahmadi. He left his city and settled in Qadian for Promised Messiah. He was companion of Promised Messiah and owner of Ahmadiyya book store in Qadian...

Fakhar Ud Din Multani sahib and their friends openly challenged Mirza Mahmud,
’We have heard you [Mirza Mahmud] mentioned about four witnesses to people. Although you did not mention it to us. If this is true, then you get ready for this. We will produce not only four rather many witnesses, other than this we will produce witnesses of women, girls, boys and your own self. If we are unable to produce proofs then you will be acquitted, and we will be humiliated in addition we are ready to accept every kind of punishment’...

In broad day light in presence of many people Fakhar Ud Din Multani was murdered. But all the eye witnesses of the incidence were intimidated and stopped from giving their testimony in the court of law. Just the way when any landlord in a village gets some one murdered and then intimidates all the villagers as a result of this every villagers shows no knowledge of the incidence to save his life. Dr. Ghor Baksh Singh M.B.B.S. clinic was in the bazaar where the murder took place. He did not get pressurized by the Jamaat’s pressure. Therefore his testimony sent the murderer to his death...

Today time is proving that neither Mirza Mahmud was acquitted from the charges of adultery nor blood of Fakhar Ud Din Multani was wasted. Today all those facts that were made secret, through the Internet are coming in front of the world.”

Mirza Mahmud never cleared his name. Nor did Khalifa 3 or 4.

In fact, Mirza Tahir, a.k.a. “Hazrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad”, “Khalifatul Masih Rabi”(“4th Caliph to the Messiah”) had the perfect opportunity to clear his father’s name when he sent out his 1988 Mubahala Challenge An Open Invitation to Mubahala. In it, he denied 62 false allegations made against the Jamaat from the enemies of Ahmadiyyat. Some of these are so laughably false that they do not even merit Mubahala. Below are a couple of them...

“That Hazrat Mirza Mahmud Ahmad(Khalifatul Masih II) the then Head of the Jamaat Ahmadiyya, had pledged to break up Pakistan” (An Open Invitation to Mubahala, Page 9)

“That Rabwah(the Headquarters of Jamaat Ahmadiyya) has an arsenal of Russian weapons”
(An Open Invitation to Mubahala, Page 10)

But in regards to the 28 Sworn Testimonies made by members of his own community, he made no mention whatsoever. Strange, isn’t it?

“That Hazrat Mirza Mahmud Ahmad(Khalifatul Masih II) the then Head of the Jamaat Ahmadiyya was an adulterer, rapist, and homosexual” (Left out of An Open Invitation to Mubahala)

I also do not recall a “4 Witnesses” requirement for murder.

“Qadiani Jamaat has a secret organization namely ’Fidayan-I-Ahmadiyyat’, that need to be exposed. This consists of masked, dangerous young men. Who are in favor of physical torture. They eliminate any one who discloses their secret. This organization has killed number of people.” (Tarikh-i-Mahmudiyyat, Testimony #27)

“That Hazrat Mirza Mahmud Ahmad(Khalifatul Masih II) the then Head of the Jamaat Ahmadiyya ordered murder” (Left out of An Open Invitation to Mubahala)

Al Hafiz B.A. Misri, a former Ahmadi and author of The Bane of Qadianiat eagerly accepted Mirza Tahir’s Mubahala challenge.

You can read his letter to Mirza Tahir that was published in the book Two In One.

Unfortunately, Mirza Tahir did not have the courage to accept.

You can read the pathetic response that Naeem Osman Memon wrote on his behalf in the 1994 book Three In One.

I hope most Islamic Scholars would agree with me that “4 Witnesses” does not apply to what Misri described in the The Bane of Qadianiat. “4 Witnesses” applies when a person is bringing the allegation against another person for committing the specific act, not when a man is accused of being in charge of and coordinating “Eyes Wide Shut.”

“I am an unshakable witness on the pervert and promiscuous character of MMA. I am a man with experience in life. All these orgies are done in a thought out organized scheme. There is no issue of chance or mistake.”
(Tarikh-i-Mahmudiyyat, Testimony #26)

“That Hazrat Mirza Mahmud Ahmad(Khalifatul Masih II) the then Head of the Jamaat Ahmadiyya was running a secret circle of adultery and fornication.” (Left out of An Open Invitation to Mubahala)

At the very least, Mirza Masroor, a.k.a. “Hazrat Mirza Masroor Ahmad”, “Khalifatul Masih Al-Khamas”(“5th Caliph to the Messiah”) owes a response to the above 4 Tarikh-i-Mahmudiyyat testimonies and the “Eyes Wide Shut” allegation.

Can he deny them under a Sworn Oath on the Holy Quran to AllahSWT to save the face of his Jamaat?

Or will he chicken out like his predecessor?
4E) Promised Reformer OR “Promised Embezzler”?

Mirza Tahir committed another blunder in An Open Invitation to Mubahala by leaving out another very important
“false allegation” against his father.

“I swear on the name of AllahSWT, with the full knowledge that He is present and is watching me...I am witness to
financial embezzlements, financial irregularities and dishonesty of this so called Caliph [MMA]. I am eye witness to
all this. Because this humble one has worked nine and half years in ’Tahreek-I-Jadeed’ [Branch of AMII that deals
with its foreign branches and collects money from those branches, and keeps its account in head quarter] other
departments of AMII, in the capacity of an accountant and junior auditor.” (Tarikh-i-Mahmudiyyat, Testimony #22)

“It was alleged:
That Mirza Mahmud used the funds of the Anjuman Ahmadiyya for his personal use and squandered the money
collected in the name of ’propagation of Islam’ He made large investments, purchased property in different parts of
Pakistan, bought shares of leading industrial concerns for his kith and kin and had built up a strong financial
empire for himself. He and a few old member of his large family owned most of the shares in foreign-based enterprises.
He legally owned all the properties of his community based in Rabwah.”
(Ahmadiyya Movement - British Jewish Connections, Chapter 18)

The name of the publication that the author Bashir Ahmad cites to support the allegation is Mirza Mahmud ki Mali
Badaitidalian(Misappropriation of Funds by Mirza Mahmud).

“That Hazrat Mirza Mahmud Ahmad(Khalifatul Masih II) the then Head of the Jamaat Ahmadiyya was an embezzler
of funds” (Left out of An Open Invitation to Mubahala)

“When I use to live in Rabwah, I use to have special relation with MMA. Together we use to have good time. Some
time we use to get to talk about poetry, some time we use to poke fun on the false sacredness of MMA.”
(Tarikh-i-Mahmudiyyat, Testimony #24)
3) Is Jesus really in India?

On <>, the Jamaat states in regards to Jesus in India, “Ninteenth century’s greatest thesis...”

Simply put, no it is not. Mirza Sahib is not the first person to come up with this theory of Jesus in India. This theory has been around centuries. In fact, his book is simply a thesis and nothing more. If you read it, you will see that to prove his claim he quotes many references from many books that have been around for centuries. Are these the signs of a true prophet? Do true prophets write “Research Papers”?

He is also not the first person to challenge the ascension. For example in the 18th century, Herman Reimarus believed that the body was removed by the disciples who then proclaimed the resurrection.

In fact, go to Amazon and type in “Jesus in India” as the search parameters, you will find Nicholas Notovitch’s The Unknown Life of Jesus Christ, originally published in 1894(before Mirza Sahib wrote his book in 1899) in the list of many books supporting this theory, but you will not find Mirza Sahib’s book.

I recently did a survey among some Ahmadis who are very sincere in their faith(some of who accuse me of going astray), asking them the following question...

“According to Ahmadiyyat, did Jesus go to India only after the incident of the cross or did he go before and after the incident of the cross?” Below are some of the responses I received.

A Qaid
“As far as I remember he went after he escaped.”
A Distant Relative of Mine who has held Jamaat Posts
“As far as I remember, he went after his escape from cross. Pretty sure.”
A Rebellious Ahmadi who believes in Mirza Sahib, but openly criticizes the Jamaat Organizational Structure
“I am also not sure if he had traveled to Kashmir before the incident of Cross.”
A Friend of my Grandfather
“Jesus went to India after the incident of crucifixion.”
An Ahmadi who used to challenge Muslims to debate(on Ahmadiyyat) while he was in college
“The Promised Messiah himself questioned the idea that Jesus may have also gone to India before the crucifixion. Whether he did or didn’t does not matter.”
An Ahmadi Woman who is active in serving the Jamaat
“He traveled to India after he escaped the cross, not before it.”
An “Islah-o-Irshad” (Tabligh)
“You should be soliciting the ’According to Ahmadiyyat’ view from a representative of the Jamaat, e.g. a missonary or books of the Jamaat. For what it’s worth, my recollection of reading the literature is after.”
A “Staunch Ahmadi”
“Jesus went to Kashmir after the incident of Cross and died there. He may have gone before Cross incident too but as it seems not that important for the historians of the time. This is not very clear.”

The problem is that many of the people that subscribe to the Jesus in India theory who have written books about it such as Nicholas Notovitch, Elizabeth Claire Prophet who wrote The Lost Years of Jesus(1984), Maury Lee who wrote Jesus of India(2000), and others present their case that he went before the event of the cross(ages 13 - 29), not after!

Holger Kersten, author of Jesus Lived in India(1994) agrees with Ahmadis that the tomb of Yuz Asaf is of Jesus but believes he went before and after.

“There is a certain obscurity over the period from his childhood to the time he was raised as a Prophet. We do not know much of this period of his life.” (The True Story of Jesus, Page 18)

Well, the above authors completely disagree! You(Ahmadis) are so sure that he spent 80+ years in India; something that has absolutely no basis in the Bible, Quran, or any reliable Ahadith, yet you cannot tell us where he was from ages 13 - 29!

Anwer Mahmood Khan Sahib is a very well respected Ahmadi. So well respected, he convinced Amir Sahib(the Late M.M. Ahmad Sahib) to cancel our Ijtema a few years ago so he could have a better turnout at his Messiah 2000 Conference.

Recently, he wrote an article in The Muslim Sunrise called Christian Theology and Modern Scholarship.

To support his thesis, he presents a quote from Dr. Paul Pappas’s book Jesus’ Tomb in India(1991) saying...

“Dr. Paul C. Pappas... reviewed Hadhrat Ahmad’s book Jesus in India and agreed with a number of arguments presented therein. Commenting on the Sign...” (The Muslim Sunrise, Issues 1-2, 2004, Pages 39-40)

For your convenience, if you do not subscribe to The Muslim Sunrise, I’ve scanned it for you so if you click above, you may view it.

He quotes Dr. Pappas again on Pages 74-75 and 80 of the same issue to support his arguments.

What was Khan thinking???!!! What Khan conveniently forgot to tell you(or deceptively tried to fool you) is that the same author who is a Professor of History, (Click here to read his Bio), concluded that the Ahmadi theory had serious flaws in the same book.

“Not only the works used by Ahmadis, but also their scholarship is questionable. They seem to have selected passages and to have presented them inaccurately and out of context in order to prove that Jesus went to Kashmir.”
(Pappas 97)

“The Ahmadi contention that Jesus was present with Thomas in India as Yuz Asaf is not in anyway supported by The Acts of Thomas. Therefore, the Ahmadi thesis can rest only on eastern legends recorded in oriental works, which for the most part are not reliable, not only because they were written long after the facts, but also because their stories of Yuz Asaf are different and in contradiction.” (Pappas 100)

This shows how many Ahmadis blindly put their faith in their leadership without ever reading the whole story.
3T) Sneaky Tricks of Ahmadi Missionaries

Based on my experiences with them I would like to expose their sneaky tricks.

1) When they cannot answer a legitimate question, they will try to confuse you by fraudulently indulging into the Holy Quran even though the prophecy of the 2nd coming of the Messiah is from the Gospel and Ahadith.

2) “On the whole the scholars of the Ahmadiyya Community make free and rather indiscriminate use of hadith in their works and lectures. They reject Traditions which stand against the Ahmadiyya dogma, irrespective of the grade of authenticity recognized by the scholars of hadith . On the other hand, Traditions which can be interpreted favourably to the Ahmadiyya dogma, are accepted even if they are universally regarded to be spurious.”
(Hadith in Ahmadiyya Theology, by Munir Ahmed)

This is so true. On one hand they make claims on unauthentic weak Ahadith and on the other hand when you try to use strong Ahadith to prove a point that they cannot answer they will sometimes change the subject and bring up irrelevant Ahadith and try to get you to explain it to them. I am not kidding. Mirza Afzal brought up the following hadith and wanted me to explain it to him, attempting to make me look incompetent when I was unable to give him a “satisfactory answer.”

“Moses(peace be upon him) was a very shy person and used to cover his body completely because of his extensive shyness. One of the people of Israel annoyed him by saying, ’He covers his body in this way only because of some defect in his skin, either leprosy or scrotal hernia, or he has some other defect.’ Allah wished to clear Moses(peace be upon him) of what they said about him, so one day while he was in seclusion, he took off his clothes and put them on a stone and started taking a bath. When he finished the bath, ... the stone took his clothes and fled; Moses(peace be upon him) picked up his stick and ran after the stone saying, ’O Stone, Give me my garment!’ Till he reached a group of Bani Israel who saw him naked then, and found him the best of what Allah had created, and Allah cleared him of what they had accused him of. The stone stopped there and Moses(peace be upon him) took and put his garment on and started hitting the stone with his stick. By Allah, the stone still has some traces of the hitting.”
(Sahih Bukhari #3404, Sahih Bukhari #278 with a slightly different narration)

How this hadith is relevant to the subject of the Truth of Ahmadiyyat, I am not exactly sure. Maybe you could figure that one out...
2.1) “Divine Revelation OR Plagiarism”?

The Jamaat claims that Mirza Sahib was a recipient of Divine Revelation. They have published a book on it called Tadhkirah.

Read about one of them.

The interesting thing to note in regards to the above “revelation” was that our beloved Prophet Muhammad(peace be upon him) also received the same revelation around 1400 years ago.

“Is Allah not enough for His servant?”
- The Holy Quran, (39:36), Yusuf Ali Translation

“Is Allah not sufficient for His servant?”
- The Holy Quran, (39:37), Ahmadi Translation

Is this a coincidence or what?
2B) What did Imam Bukhari believe?

“I have mentioned in earlier books that Imam Bukhari... held exactly this belief that Jesus, on whom be peace, has, in fact, died.” (An Account of Exoneration, Page 19; Kitab-ul-Bariyya; Roohani Khazain, Volume 13)

Would any Ahmadi care to prove this? If this really was Imam Bukhari’s belief(whose book Sahih Bukhari Sunni Muslim scholars for ages have considered to be #2 or #3 to the Holy Quran) why did these Sunni Muslim scholars not hold this same belief? Why did they go against the belief of Imam Bukhari?
2.14) Was the Promised Messiah supposed to come in the 14th Century?

“It is mentioned in the True Traditions that the Promised Messiah will appear at the beginning of a century and will be a renewer for the fourteenth century.” (Barahin-i-Ahmadiyya, Volume 5; Roohani Khazain, Volume 21, Page 359)

That is absolutely false! There is no hadith in any Sihah Sittah Book(Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Sunan Abu Dawood, Jami At-Tirmidhi, Sunan Ibn-i-Majah, Sunan An-Nasai) nor in any of the other accepted books of Ahadith(such as Musnad Ahmad Bin Hanbal, Al-Muwatta, Sunan Ad-Darimee) that mentions anything about the Promised Messiah coming in the 14th century.

Instead of being able to provide a solid hadith to back their claim, the Jamaat provides a laundry list of Ahadith trying to appear “smart and scholarly” knowing that their most of their brainwashed followers(who do not have a good understanding of Islam) will fall for anything. (The Muslim Sunrise, Issues 3-4, 2000, Pages 25-27)

In fact, the 1st Messiah(peace be upon him) specifically left it as a mystery...

“The Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.”
- The Holy Bible, (Matthew 24:44, Luke 12:40), New International Version
2W) Welcome to Ahmadiyyat, The True Islam OR “Welcome to Qadianism, A Fraud Against Islam”?

“Non-Ahmadi Muslim’s Concept of the Advent of the Messiah....The first objective will be the destruction of the cross. Not figuratively, but literally!... There will not remain a single cross to be seen...extermination of swine of every variety - domestic as well as wild!” (Welcome to Ahmadiyyat, The True Islam, Page 276)

Syed Abul Ala Maududi(1903 - 1979) was a staunch opponent of Ahmadiyyat. In his 1962 book Finality of Prophethood, he explains the general Muslim belief. If one of the staunchest opponents of Ahmadiyyat in Pakistan did not believe the above, then who does???
The implication of "breaking the Cross" and "killing of the swine" is that Christianity will become defunct as a religion. The whole edifice of the Christian religion is based on the belief that God crucified His only son (i.e. Hadrat Isa (PBUH) on the Cross and caused him to suffer this 'accursed' death so that he might thus expiate for the sins of man. Among the followers of God's Prophets, the Christians are unique in having rejected the entire Shariah of God and retaining this belief only.
The swine has been declared unlawful by all the Prophets, but the Christians have gone as far as to make it lawful. Hence when Jesus(PBUH) will proclaim on his appearance, "I am not the son of God; I did not die on the Cross, nor did I expiate for the sins of anyone," the whole basis of Christian belief will be demolished. Similarly, the second distinctive charactertistic of Christianity will vanish when Jesus(PBUH) will say: "I never declared the swine lawful for my followers nor did I proclaim them free from the restraints of Divine Law."
(Finality of Prophethood, Page 49) or (Finality of Prophethood, Footnote 5)

Muslims do not take “Breaking the Cross” and “Killing the Swine” literally as the Jamaat would like its gullible and brainwashed Ahmadis to believe.

Naeem Osman Memon even references Maududi’s book in his 1989 book Ahmadiyyat or Qadianism! Islam or Apostasy? and in his 1994 book Three In One.

I brought this point up in my debate with Mirza Afzal. I asked him to provide credible references to back the Jamaat’s claim about the Muslim belief. I sent him multiple emails asking him to back it up and it has been over a month now. He has refused to respond and not been able to produce one credible reference to support the Jamaat’s claim.
2.3) “Divine Revelation OR Plagiarism” Continued

“When it is said to them: Believe as other people have believed, they say: Shall we believe as the foolish have believed? Beware! It is surely they that are foolish but they do not know... Say: O ye disbelievers, I worship not that which you worship.” (Tadhkirah, Page 54)

Once again, Hazrat Muhammad Mustafa(peace be upon him) also received these same revelations around 1400 years ago.

“When it is said to them: Believe as other people have believed, they say: Shall we believe as the foolish have believed? Verily, it is surely they that are foolish but they do not know.”
- The Holy Quran, (2:13)

“Say: O ye disbelievers, I worship not that which you worship.”
- The Holy Quran, (109:1,2)

Funny how that works, isn’t it?
2M) Is Mirza Sahib the Promised Messiah?

One case the Jamaat makes that you might be thinking about is that the Jews did not accept Jesus(peace be upon him) as the 1st Messiah since he wasn’t literally what they expected and similarly the Muslims of the time don’t accept Mirza Sahib as the 2nd Messiah because he’s not literally what they expected.

This argument is completely invalid because every false messiah of the 19th century could use this argument.

Then they will say to look at what Mirza Sahib has accomplished and look what the other false messiahs have accomplished and see the difference.

No, Mirza Sahib has not really accomplished much at all. All he has done is created a “new religious movement.” There have been many “new religious movements” since the 19th century such as Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Bahais, 7th Day Adventists, Hare Krishnas, Nation of Islam, etc. many of whom still exist just like the one Mirza Sahib created.

The 1st Messiah(peace be upon him) specifically warned us...

“For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect - if that were possible. See, I have told you ahead of time. So if anyone tells you, ’There he is, out in the desert,’ do not go out; or, ’Here he is, in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will the coming of the Son of Man.”
- The Holy Bible, (Matthew 24:24-27), New International Version

The Holy Prophet(peace be upon him) also warned us...

“In My Ummah there shall be born 30 Grand Liars, each of who will claim to be prophet, But I am the Last Prophet; there is No Prophet after Me.” (Abu Dawood Volume 2, Page 228; Tirmidhi Volume 2, Page 45)

I think above the above two quotations need no further explanation. However, if you are still need more convincing, let us take a look at the signs...
2C) Did Mirza Sahib “Break the Cross”?

“The Hour will not be established until the Son of Mary(Jesus, peace be upon him) descends amongst you and will judge mankind justly by the Law of the Quran(as a just ruler); he will break the cross...” (Sahih Bukhari #2476)

While it is true that Mirza Sahib during the early part of his career when he merely claimed to be Mujaddid(Reformer) did indeed “defend Islam from the Cross”, in the end he did not “Break the Cross.” There is huge difference between defending and breaking. One connotates defense, the other offense.

“He will defeat the Christian faith with strong reasoning and powerful arguments. The destruction of the cross, therefore, stands for the ideological rout of Christianity.” (Welcome to Ahmadiyyat, The True Islam, Page 277)

After his (in)famous 1893 debate with Abdullah Atham(a Christian) recorded in his book Jang-i-Muqaddas(The Sacred Battle), some of his own followers became Christians. (Anwar-ul-Islam; Roohani Khazain, Volume 9, Page 28)

For example, Yusuf Khan was his follower but later claimed “I do not like Mirza Sahib’s teachings.”
(An Account of Exoneration, Pages 197- 198; Kitab-ul-Bariyya; Roohani Khazain, Volume 13)

Instead of “Breaking the Cross”, Hindus and Muslims “United with the Cross” against him in the attempted murder case of Dr. Clark. (Ahmad The Guided One, Page 181) or (Tadhkirah, Page 42)

“This prophesy was interpreted to mean that all Christians shall convert to Islam and Christianity as a separate religion shall cease to exist.”
(Who is the Promised Messiah, The Institute for Islamic Education and Information, Brochure 30)

From 1891 to 1911 in his own district of Gordaspur, while he was supposed to be “Breaking the Cross”, Christianity grew from 2,400 to 23,000!!!

In Pakistan, today there are at least an estimated 1 million or so Christians. In India, the number is at least 20 million. These numbers have gradually increased throughout the 20th century.

I brought up this point in my debate with Mirza Afzal. Checkmated, he fraudulently indulged into the Holy Quran.
He tried to somehow show from a verse of the Holy Quran that the Christian religion will always be around until the Day of Judgment. I sent him multiple emails asking him for the reference of this verse so it could show it to you. It has been over a month now and he has been very uncooperative and refused to respond. Obviously, he himself knows that he is running a fraud against Islam. Since he is a very good speaker and public debater watch out for him; he is very active in setting up debates, Interfaith symposiums, and even had his own radio show. If you ever attend one of them or meet him, make sure to expose the fraud.
2.5) Even More “Divine Revelation OR Plagiarism”?

“They plan and Allah plans and Allah is the Best of planners...” (Tadhkirah, Page 216)

“They plot and plan and Allah too plans and Allah is the Best of planners.”
- The Holy Quran, (8:30)
2P) Did Mirza Sahib “Kill the Swine”?

“By Him(Allah) in Whose Hands my soul is, surely the Son of Mary will shortly descend amongst you people and will judge mankind justly by the Law of the Quran(as a just ruler) and will break the cross and kill the swine... ”
(Sahih Bukhari #3448)

“The word ’swine’ is not to be taken in the literal sense. It connotates the cultural filth of the Western World which turns men into beastly beings. The word swine stands for the so called sexual anarchy sweeping across America and Europe. It stands for the disgusting debauchery which claim even innocent children as its victims.”
(Welcome to Ahmadiyyat, The True Islam, Page 278)

Their own interpretation of swine proves the falsehood of their movement. For example, around the time of the death of Mirza Sahib, if you read the history of America it was a very conservative country compared to today. There were no porn magazines and sex outside of marriage was considered haraam(forbidden). Yet, study the society history and look what gradually happened(generation by generation) after he died! The exact opposite happened. Unless Mirza Masroor has the courage to take the Sworn Oath on the Holy Quran from Reason Number 4, the sad and ironic conclusion is that people who actually accepted “The Promised Messiah” became “victims of the swine.”
2.7) Can’t get enough of “Divine Revelation OR Plagiarism”

“We have bestowed upon thee abundance of every kind of good. So observe Prayer to thy Lord and offer Him sacrifice. Surely, it is thine enemy whose line will be cut off. If anyone from among the pagans should seek asylum with thee, grant him asylum. It is the same for them, whether you warn them or warn them not, they will not believe.” (Tadhkirah, Page 343)

“Surely, We have bestowed upon thee abundance of good. So pray to thy Lord and offer sacrifice. Surely, it is thy enemy who will be cut off.”
- The Holy Quran, (108)

Mirza Saheb even had the audacity to plagiarize an entire Surah(Al Kawthar) of the Quran and claim it as his own revelation!!!!

“If anyone from among the pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him.”
- The Holy Quran, (9:6)

The above verse was revealed to the Holy Prophet(peace be upon him) when the Muslims were at war with the Pagans. It being revealed to Mirza Saheb makes absolutely no sense at all.

“It is the same for them, whether you warn them or warn them not, they will not believe.”
- The Holy Quran, (2:6)

Unfortunately, this is the state of many Ahmadis today.
2.2) What Two Maladies?

“It was foretold that the Promised One would suffer from two maladies, one in the upper part of his body, and the other in the lower...” (Ahmadiyyat or the True Islam, Page 13)

Yeah Right!!!! By who???? Would any Ahmadi care to provide an authentic hadith supporting this? At the very least, would any Ahmadi care to even provide some sort of credible reference to prove this?
2S) What signs did Mirza Sahib fulfill?

One trick Mirza Afzal tried to pull was giving the example of the following verses of the Holy Quran...

“They say: ’Why is not a Sign sent down to him from his Lord?’ Say: ’Allah hath certainly power to send down a Sign:’ But most of them understand not.”
- The Holy Quran, (6:37)

“But (now) when the Truth has come to them from Ourselves, They say, ’Why are not (Signs) sent to him, like those that were sent to Moses?’ Do they not then reject (The Signs) which were formerly sent to Moses? They say: ’Two kinds of sorcery, each assisting the other?’ And they say: ’For us we reject all (such things)!’ ”
- The Holy Quran, (28:48)

The Holy Prophet(peace be upon him) specifically told us about the signs of the Promised Messiah that we should look for. How can we accept someone who not only has not accomplished any of the signs, but since his arrival the trend has gone the other way?! On one hand they try to claim that the signs have been fulfilled using metaphorical analogies, and on the other hand when you prove them wrong they deceptively indulge into the Holy Quran! Beware!

Another thing Ahmadis will say is that it is going to take 300 years according to Mirza Sahib. So we are supposed to believe Mirza Sahib, yet completely reject the sayings of the Holy Prophet(peace be upon him)? Subhanallah! What logic!

Let’s take a look at some other important signs...

“By Him(Allah) in Whose Hands my soul is, surely the Son of Mary will shortly descend amongst you people and will judge mankind justly by the Law of the Quran(as a just ruler) and will break the cross and kill the swine and abolish the Jizyah. Then there will be an abundance of money and nobody will accept charitable gifts.” (Sahih Bukhari #2222)

“The Hour will not come until the Son of Mary descends as a just judge and just ruler. He would break the cross, slaughter the swine, withdraw Jizyah and until the riches will flow so much so that none would accept them (because of properity).” (Sunan Ibn-i-Majah #4078)

In 1950, the World Population was around 2.5 Billion. Today this number is around 6.5 Billion. Most of this increase is in the developing countries in the world.

1) Today, around 3 Billion (500 Million more than the total world population in 1950) people live on less than $2 a day.

2) Approximately 790 million people in the developing world are still chronically undernourished, almost two-thirds of whom reside in Asia and the Pacific.

3) An analysis of long-term trends shows the distance between the richest and poorest countries was about:
11 to 1 in 1913
72 to 1 in 1992

4) The top fifth of the world’s people in the richest countries enjoy 82% of the expanding export trade and 68% of foreign direct investment -- the bottom fifth, barely more than 1%.

(Reference: <>)

Look at the statistics and learn that once again the trend went in the opposite direction.

“He will break the cross, kill swine, and abolish Jizyah. Allah will perish all religions except Islam.”
(Sunan Abu Dawood #4310)

Even Mirza Mahmud agreed with the above.

“In short he was the Promised Prophet of every nation and was appointed to collect all mankind under the banner of one faith.” (Ahmadiyyat or the True Islam, Page 11)

Once again, the exact opposite happened. Instead of uniting everyone under the banner of Islam, many new religious movements of all types formed around Mirza Sahib’s time. Read Mystics and Messiahs: Cults and New Religions in America by Phillip Jenkins and you’ll see what I’m talking about.
2O) Conclusions on the Signs

In conclusion, Mirza Sahib did not “Break the Cross”, but rather “the Cross got bigger.”
He did not “Kill the Swine”, instead “the Swine increased.”
Instead of uniting everyone under Islam, many new religious movements formed.
He did not generate wealth(except for his own family), rather poverty and hunger increased.

Everything that was supposed to happen, the exact opposite happened!
In light of this, how can any reasonable person accept Mirza Sahib to be the Promised Messiah?
2.9) An Unbiased and Fair Analysis of “Divine Revelation OR Plagiarism”

In Prophecy Continuous: Aspects of Ahmadi Religious Thought and Its Medieval Background, Yohanan Friedmann states...

“Numerous passages that Ghulam Ahmad claimed to have received by way of revelation are identical, in part or full, with verses from the Quran. Sometimes the Quranic verse appears in the revelation in its original form. Other passages consist of Quranic verses mixed with non-Quranic material... Sometimes a revelation is slightly different from a Quranic verse.” (Friedmann 136)
2.4) Does the Quran imply that more prophets will come?

“All who obey Allah and the Messenger are in the Company of those on whom is the Grace of Allah - Of the Prophets(who teach), the Sincere(lovers of Truth), the Witnesses(who testify), and the Righteous(who do good): Ah! what a beautiful Fellowship.”
- The Holy Quran, (4:69), Yusuf Ali Translation

“And whose obeys Allah and this Messenger of His shall be among those on whom Allah has bestowed His blessings, namely, the Prophets, the Truthful, the Martyrs, and the Righteous. And excellent companions are these.”
- The Holy Quran, (4:70), Ahmadi Translation

From these verses it is clear that there are 4 spiritual ranks that one(meaning for all times) can achieve. These are 4 groups of people on who AllahSWT has bestowed his Grace and Blessings, and if you follow the Messenger, you will be rewarded like these people are. It does not imply that there will necessarily be more or no more prophets(or any type of rank for that matter) in the future. It just says if you obey the Messenger, then you will be in the company of those that are rewarded with Grace and Blessings, and that company includes the Prophets(Noah, Jonah, Moses, etc., peace be upon them).

What’s really sad is how the Ahmadi Translation tries to take advantage of a very minor difference in words to make another blatantly false claim.

“And those who believe in Allah and His Messengers they are the Sincere(Lovers of Truth) and the Witnesses(who testify), in the eyes of their Lord: they shall have their Reward and their Light. But those who reject Allah and deny Our Signs - they are the Companions of the Hell-Fire.”
- The Holy Quran, (57:19), Yusuf Ali Translation

“And those who believe in Allah and His Messengers and they are the truthful and the Witnesses in the sight of their lord, they will have their reward and their light. But as for those who disbelieve and reject Our Signs, these are the inmates of Hell.”
- The Holy Quran, (57:20), Ahmadi Translation

“When read together these two verses purport to mean that whereas the followers of other Prophets could only rise to the rank of the Truthful and the Martyrs, and no higher, the followers of the Holy Prophet(peace be upon him) can achieve even higher ranks; they can rise to the rank of Prophet also.”
- Ahmadi Commentary (Volume 2 of 5, Page 537; Short Commentary Pages 203-204)

That is absolutely false!

In fact, the exact opposite is true.

Followers of Prophet Moses(peace be upon him) did attain the rank of Prophet.

“The Israelites were ruled and guided by prophets. When a prophet passed away, another prophet succeeded him. There will be no prophet after me, but there will be caliphs who will increase in number.” (Sahih Bukhari #3455)
2) Who is the last prophet?

Muhammad(peace be upon him)

“I am Muhammad, I am Ahmad, I am the effacer and infidelity shall be erased through me; I am the assembler. People shall be assembled on Doomsday after my time. And I am the last after whom there will be no prophet.”
(Sahih Bukhari #3532; Sahih Muslim #2354, Kitab Al-Fadail)

Ahmadi Missionaries might try to point you to verses of the Holy Quran saying that all prophets were rejected and somehow show that this is a sign of Mirza Sahib’s truthfulness.

1) This is why Muhammad(peace be upon him) specifically told us multiple times in Ahadith “There is no prophet after me” to avoid all confusion.

2) Every false prophet of the 19th century could use this argument so it is completely invalid.
Many men(and even some women such as Joanna Southcott) have claimed to be prophet in the 19th century. Read Mystics and Messiahs: Cults and New Religions in America by Phillip Jenkins and you’ll see what I’m talking about. Out of all the centuries he could have come in, he had to come in the one century which was overloaded with false prophets.

If you still firmly believe in Mirza Sahib’s Prophethood, please do at least one thing.
Get an in depth knowledge on 2 other religious groups.
a) The Jesus Christ Church of Latter Day Saints(Mormons) who believe in the prophet Joseph Smith
b) The Bahais who believe in the prophet Mirza Husayn Ali, a.k.a. Bahaullah.

According to the Ahmadi interpretation of “Seal of the Prophets”, since these prophets do not have Muhammad’s(peace be upon him) “Stamp”, they must be false prophets.

What makes Mirza Sahib a true prophet and these 2 prophets false prophets?

They might try to divert your attention to a couple of fulfilled prophecies.
Sure, Mirza Sahib did have some prophecies that ended up coming true.
However, Joseph Smith also made prophecies that came true.

To give you some background on him...

“In 1823 a young man named Joseph Smith had an encounter with an angel who led him to a cache of golden plates purporting to be the history of the lost tribes of Israel.” (No Man Knows My History, Back Cover)

In 1832 he stated, “Verily, thus saith the Lord, concerning the wars that will shortly come to pass... which will eventually terminate in the death and misery of many souls... the Southern States shall be divided against the Northern States.” (No Man Knows My History, Page 124)

Almost 30 years later this prophecy was fulfilled when the Civil War broke out.

Then there was a prophecy in 1841 regarding the death of one of his enemies.
“Rumor got about that he had predicted that the hated Boggs would meet a violent death within a year...”
Boggs was shot to death in 1842. (No Man Knows My History, Page 323)

Coincidently, just like Mirza Sahib he also predicted his own death.
“Joseph feared an assassin would cut his days short before he saw the age of forty. On April 14, 1844, when he met with the apostles in one of their last meetings before they left on a campaign tour, he rushed through instructions...” (No Man Knows My History, Page 382)

On June 27, 1844 he was murdered. He did not live to celebrate his 39th birthday.

Similarly, Joseph Smith also had “Revelations.” (No Man Knows My History, Pages 57, 166, 263)

So are you now going to accept Joseph Smith as a true prophet?

Some of you might be thinking about the following hadith...

“I am the last of the prophets and my mosque is the last of the mosques.” In Invitation to Ahmadiyyat, Mirza Mahmud argues that it would be unreasonable to believe that the Holy Prophet(peace be upon him) literally meant that his mosque in Medina was the last of all mosques meaning there should be no more mosques built after his death. Therefore, he could not have literally meant that he was the last of the prophets. This would imply that in any of the other multiple Ahadith in which the Holy Prophet(peace be upon him) claims to be the last prophet, he did not literally mean it. This seems far-fetched.

The correct interpretation of this hadith is done by Dr. Ahmad Shafaat in The Last of the Prophets and also in Imam Abdul Hamid Siddiqi’s commentary of Sahih Muslim.

Let us view the hadith from the beginning...

Abu Huraira used to say that one prayer performed in the Allah’s Messengers Mosque (in Medina) is more blessed than a thousand prayers performed in other mosques except Masjid Al-Haram(Sacred Mosque in Makkah). Allah’s Messenger is the last of the prophets and his mosque is the last of the mosques... “I am the last of the prophets and my mosque is the last of the mosques.” (Sahih Muslim #1394R2, Kitab-ul-Hajj)

Therefore, the correct way to interpret the Holy Prophet(peace be upon him) is, “I am the last of the prophets and my mosque is the last of the mosques(built by prophets).”

Dr. Shafaat further states, “The tradition has in view three mosques: the Sacred Mosque in Makkah (connected with Abraham), the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem (connected with the Israelite figures), the Prophet’s Mosque in Medina. The third of these mosques is the last because the Prophet is the last prophet. Ahmadis, followers of one of the claimants of prophethood, say that just as ’the last mosque’ does not mean that there were no mosques built after the mosque of Medina, similarly ’the last prophet’ does not mean that there will be no prophet after Muhammad. But then what does the word ’last’ mean? It is said that the word means something like ’most excellent’. But this meaning will not apply to ’the last mosque’ because the Prophet’s mosque in Medina is not the most excellent, the sacred mosque in Makkah is.”

“Do not set out on a journey except for three mosques i.e. Masjid Al-Haram(in Makkah), Masjid Ar-Rasul(in Medina) and Masjid Al-Aqsa(in Jerusalem).” (Sahih Bukhari #1189)

By “last of the mosques” he meant last of the three special mosques that were built by prophets.

“One prayer in my mosque is better than one thousand prayers in any other mosque except Masjid Al-Haram.”
(Sahih Bukhari #1190)
2F) Mirza Sahib’s “Fatality”!

Mirza Sahib’s “Fatality” was trying to reinterpret the meaning of “Khataman-Nabawut”(“Seal of the Prophets”).

One way the Jamaat will try to advance their claim of Mirza Sahib being a prophet after Muhammad(peace be upon him) is that the rest of the Muslim World is awaiting Jesus(peace be upon him). When he returns, that would mean that a prophet has appeared after Muhammad(peace be upon him).

“But the Descent of Isa(Jesus), on whom be peace, will definitely violate it(“Seal of the Prophets”) ... Isa, on whom be peace, cannot come without breaking the Seal.”
(Ek Ghalati ka Izala; Roohani Khazain, Volume 18, Pages 207-209; The Memorandum, Pages 85-86)

However, the general Muslim World for a long time has interpreted “Seal of the Prophets” to mean “Last in Line of the Prophets.”

Noah ---- Moses ---- Jesus ---- Muhmmad(Seal or Last in Line)

Muhammad(peace be upon him) is “Last in Line.” Therefore, when Jesus(peace be upon him) returns, he is not violating “Seal of the Prophets.” All Mirza Sahib had to argue(which he would have argued was the true Messiah) is that in the same way he was the 2nd coming of Jesus(peace be upon him). He was a prophet and taking that spot of the person that was supposed to come in place of Jesus(peace be upon him). Since the 1st Messiah was a prophet, it makes sense that the 2nd Messiah is also a prophet. Even though Mirza Sahib arrives at a chronological date after Muhammad(peace be upon him) he is not violating “Last in Line”, just as when Jesus(peace be upon him) descends from heaven in the views of the general Muslim World, he is not violating “Last in Line.”

But alas, he did not argue this. He tried to reinterpret the meaning of “Seal of the Prophets.”

“When a seal is stamped on a paper the paper is attested as authentic. Thus a prophethood not bearing the seal and attestation of the Holy Prophet, peace be upon him, is not valid.”
(Al Hakam, 17 October 1902; Ahmadiyyat The Renaissance of Islam, Page 50)

Hence, the “Seal” is the “Stamp.” Every prophet after him has to have Muhammad’s(peace be upon him) “Stamp.”

This interpretation clearly implies that Mirza Sahib is not the only one, but there can be more prophets after him. The door to prophethood is open.

In Anwar-i-Khilafat, Mirza Mahmud states...

“As for me, I say that not only one prophet may appear but thousands.”
(Anwar-i-Khilafat; Anwarul Uloom, Volume 3, Page 124)

“If a man sharpened swords close by my neck threateningly asking me to say that no prophet will appear after Muhammad(peace be upon him) I would say to him, you are a liar, it is right, there must be prophets after him.”
(Anwar-i-Khilafat; Anwarul Uloom, Volume 3, Page 127)

Ironically, this actually came true when some of his own followers claimed to be prophet.

“During the life time of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and Mirza Mahmud, many Qadianis laid claim to ’Messiahship’, ’Prophethood’ and ’Risalat’. There are over 30 such claimants. One amongst them was Khawaja Muhammad Ismail. He studied in Qadian in 1916, did his graduation from Islamia College, Lahore, and worked in a private firm. In 1933, he finally settled in Qadian and was a devotee and bodyguard of Mirza Mahmud. He wrote some booklets Asmani Badshahat, Ithad-ul-Almin etc and finally claimed to be the Mahdi, Messiah and the Prophet of the age. He was expelled from Qadian and finally settled down at 8 Bodwood, London S.W.II. He threw up numerous challenges of Mobahila to Mirza Bashir Ahmad and Mirza Mahmud, condemned Qadiani papacy and launched a crusade against Rabwah. He put out some prophecies, revelationary utterances, predicting a humiliating death for Mirza Mahmud, alleged to be a ’Wicked fellow’ a ’Pharoah’ and an ’Impostor.’ He boasted a lot when Mirza Mahmud died in 1965, and on the pattern set by Mirza Qadiani, he published tracts to prove the veracity of his claims. He used all weapons of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s arsenal to silence Rabwah. It caused a lot of embarrassment to Qadiani elders but they had to pocket the insult.” (Ahmadiyya Movement - British Jewish Connections, Chapter 19)

Hilarious, isn’t it????!!!!

This Ahmadi interpretation just does not fit well at all with the following Ahadith...

“There is no prophet between me(Muhammad, peace be upon him) and him(Jesus, peace be upon him).”
(Sunan Abu Dawood #4310)

Huthaifa Ghifari narrates that the descent of Jesus(peace be upon him) is one of the ten signs of the Last Hour.
(Sahih Muslim #2901, Kitab-al-Fitan)

Not the “Latter Days” which is what the Ahmadis claim!

His return is a sign of the nearness of the Day of Judgment. Therefore, technically speaking, there is only 1 prophet that arrives at a chronological date after Muhammad(peace be upon him). Only 1! No more, and no less.

They(the Ahmadis) say, “He meant no new law-bearing prophets can come afterwards.”

Then you refer to the following hadith...

“The Israelites were ruled and guided by prophets. When a prophet passed away, another prophet succeeded him. There will be no prophet after me, but there will be caliphs who will increase in number.” (Sahih Bukhari #3455)

Not every Israelite prophet brought law.
Moses(peace be upon him) brought the law(Torah). David(peace be upon him) brought a book(Psalms), but did not bring law. There were many other Israelite prophets such as Aaron(peace be upon him), who did not bring a law nor a book.

Therefore, it is clear cut that he was referring to all types of prophets, not just law-bearing prophets. Therefore, this no new law-bearing prophets argument is also defeated.

And in case they try to pull the following alleged saying of Ayesha...

“Certainly say he is Seal of the Prophets. But do not say that there is no prophet after him.” (Takmala Majma-ul Bahar)

One way to look at it is to simply compare books.

Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim vs. Takmala Majma-ul Bahar

Who are you going to believe?

I’m going to have to agree with Mirza Sahib on this one...

“Of the other books that are accepted by us the Sahih of Bokhari ranks as the first. All its ahadeeth which are not opposed to the Holy Quran in our view are authoritative. Next comes the Sahih of Muslim.”
(The Essence of Islam, Volume II, Page 104)

But for simplicities sake, even if we do assume that the saying is 100% authentic, there’s another thing.
Who’s word do you go with?
The person that is a prophet, or the person that is not a prophet?

The Prophet Muhammad(peace be upon him) said, “There is no prophet after me.”
The person that was not a prophet, Ayesha said, “Do not say that there is no prophet after him.”

Simply put, ladies and gentlemen we have what’s called a clear cut contradiction. It’s just not possible for both of these statements to be true. People do make mistakes. Isn’t it possible that she could have just made a simple honest mistake at the time? I am going to believe the person that is a prophet.

The following are other ways in which Ahmadis interpret “Seal of the Prophets.”

“Superior in rank to all the prophets” (The Memorandum, Page 107)
“Spiritual father of the prophets; the best and greatest of all prophets”
(The Promised Messiah and Mahdi, Page 40)

While it is true that Muhammad(peace be upon him) has a special status as the “Universal Messenger” meaning that his message was for all of mankind, and he did have some special favors that other prophets did not, could any Ahmadi please show me where the above is stated or implied in Quran and/or Ahadith?

Where do these conclusions arise from?

He stated multiple times in Ahadith that he is the “Last Prophet.”

But did he ever say or imply any of the above?

“Do not give a Prophet superiority over another...” (Sahih Bukhari #2412)

In fact, if you read the Ahmadi Translation of the Quran, they seem to contradict their own interpretation of “Seal of the Prophets.”

One one hand they refer to the Muhammad(peace be upon him) being the greatest of all the prophets implying that sub-ordinate prophets who will have his “Stamp” can come after him.

Yet in their Commentary of Surah Al-Jumuah they refer to him as having “Two Advents.”

Could an Ahmadi please show me one hadith in which Muhammad(peace be upon him) said he was going to have a “Second Advent”?

Where does this conclusion arise from?
Did he ever state that the “Son of Mary” would actually be a “Second Advent” of himself?
Doesn’t him having a “Second Advent” imply that Mirza Sahib is equal in rank to Muhammad(peace be upon him)?

“Whoever tells a lie against me intentionally then (surely) let him occupy his seat in Hell-Fire.”
(Sahih Bukhari #107 - 110)

Actually, it appears that Mirza Sahib himself contradicted his own theory.
“It is to be observed that Jesus(peace be upon him), Son of Mary, was the last Khalifah of Moses(peace be upon him) and I am the last Khalifah of the Holy Prophet(peace be upon him)...”
(Haqeeqatul Wahi, Page 149; Ahmadiyyat The Renaissance of Islam, Page 134)

If he was the last Khalifa, then what about the other sub-ordinate prophets that can come?
If he is a sub-ordinate prophet and a Khalifa, then should not the other sub-ordinate prophets be Khalifas?
What makes Mirza Sahib a Khalifa, but the other sub-ordinate prophets, not Khalifas?
Is Mirza Sahib superior to the other sub-ordinate prophets?

In conclusion, we examine another hadith which in my view sums everything up and leaves no doubt...

“My example and the example of the other Prophets before me, is that of a man who has built a house nicely and beautifully, except for a place of one brick in a corner. The people go round about it and wonder at its beauty, but say: ’Would that this brick be put in its place!’ So I am that brick, and I am the end(last) of all prophets.”
(Sahih Bukhari #3534 & 3535; Sahih Muslim #2286, Kitab-ul-Fadail)

Now if the Ahmadi interpretation of “Seal of the Prophets” is correct, why is he just another brick to complete the house?

Shouldn’t he be a “golden brick”?
Shouldn’t he be the “door” of the house?
Shouldn’t he be the “rooftop” of the house?
He is no different than any other brick, except for the fact that he is the last brick which completes the building.

Therefore, Muhammad(peace be upon him) is last in line of the prophets.
1) What happened to the Son of Mary?

Christian Belief
Quranic Response
Pork is Legal
Death on Cross
Son of God

“Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise”
- The Holy Quran, (4:158)

“And remember We took your Covenant and We raised you(The towering height of) Mount (Sinai)...”
- The Holy Quran, (2:63)

“And he raised his parents high on the throne(of dignity)...”
- The Holy Quran, (12:100)

The Quran flat out rejects many of the fundamental Christian doctrines, but in regards to the ascension, not only does it not reject it, the language used by the Quran confirms it. The word “raised” can have multiple interpretations. But it is very clear that the word “raised” in this context of Jesus(peace be upon him) means “raised to heaven” because this was the belief of the Christians and if it was truly false, then it would have been rejected like the other incorrect beliefs of the Christians.

“Oh Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself and clear thee(of the falsehoods) of those who blaspheme; I will make those who follow thee superior to those who reject faith...”
- The Holy Quran, (3:55), Yusuf Ali Translation

“O Jesus! Lo! I am gathering thee and causing thee to ascend unto Me, and am cleansing thee of those who disbelieve and am setting those who follow thee above those who disbelieve...”
- The Holy Quran, (3:55), Marmaduke Pickthall Translation

“Jesus, I will take you unto Myself, and I will elevate you to Me, and clear you of those who scoff and will place those who follow you above those who scoff...”
- The Holy Quran, (3:55), Thomas Cleary Translation

“Oh Jesus, I shall cause thee to die and exalt thee in My presence and clear thee of those who disbelieve and make those who follow thee above those who disbelieve...”
- The Holy Quran, (3:54), Muhammad Ali(Lahori) Translation

“Oh Jesus, I will cause thee to die a natural death and will raise thee to Myself and will clear thee of the charges of those who disbelieve, and will exalt those who follow thee above those who disbelieve...”
- The Holy Quran, (3:56), Ahmadi Translation

Tawaffa - to die.
Mutawaffika - I will cause you to die.

“Not one single instance from the Holy Quran, or the sayings of the Holy Prophet(peace be upon him) can provide an argument that this expression can be used in a sense other than to cause anyone to die by taking away his soul.”
(Dictionary of the Holy Quran, Pages 615 - 616, by Abdul Mannan Omar)

There are two ways to interpret the above verse. Which one is correct, I am not 100% sure but am leaning towards the the 2nd.

1) The word “die” does not literally mean to die a natural death as the Ahmadi translation suggests. The word “die” is referring to the way Jesus(peace be upon him) was going to “die” or have his “soul taken away (from the earth)” which was going to be by being “raised” as indicated in the same verse; that is he would have an unusual “death” or “departure from the Earth” compared to all other human beings. Yusuf Ali and others have translated its meaning and not translated it literally. But that does not mean that is to be interpreted the way Ahmadis do.

2) The word “die” actually does mean to die a natural death; when he returns that is.

“He will destroy the Antichrist and will live on the earth for forty years and then he will die.”
(Sunan Abu Dawood #4310)

If you very carefully look at the three clauses separated by the two “and” statements which are specially related because in each of them Jesus(peace be upon him) is the object and AllahSWT is the subject and they refer to specific one-time events; one being the death, one being the raising, and one being the clearing of the charges, one can see how they are put in reverse order chronologically. The next clause is not related because in it Jesus(peace be upon him) is not the object and it is not referring to a specific event, but instead is a general statement for all times to come. So AllahSWT 1st cleared Jesus(peace be upon him) of the charges against him, then (2nd) He raised him(to heaven), and then (3rd) He will cause him to die. Otherwise it does not make any sense, for Jesus(peace be upon him) to die first, and then be acquitted. That would mean he died a guilty man. In this case, Yusuf Ali and others have made a mistake.

Therefore, it is my belief that Jesus Christ(peace be upon him) was indeed raised to heaven.

Therefore, the Promised Messiah is none other than the Son of Mary. There is no metaphor here as Ahmadis claim.

Now why didn’t the companions bring this example up when the Holy Prophet(peace be upon him) passed away? This is because he never specifically told them that Jesus(peace be upon him) was raised to heaven. He never gave any commentary on the verses. All he told them were the verses that was revealed to him, along with the sayings of the 2nd coming. The actual interpretation and conclusion(“connecting the dots”) was to be done by Muslim Scholars after his death and might not have been known to his companions. Therefore, this argument that since his companions did not raise this objection is defeated.

“He will descend at the white minaret in the eastern side of Damascus...”
(Sahih Muslim #2137, Kitab-al-Fitan)

His method of arrival is also something that is subject to great ridicule by Ahmadis.

Even though I got C’s in Physics, I do know something.

“For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.”
- Newton

What goes up, must come down.
0.200) A Man of God OR “A Man of Fraud”?

During the Khilafat(Caliphate) of Mirza Tahir, the Jamaat supposedly achieved phenomenal gains.

1989: Approximately 10,000,000 Ahmadis in the world.
2004: Approximately 200,000,000 Ahmadis in the world.

In 1989, the number of Ahmadis was around 5% of what it was in 2004.

In conclusion, in 15 years the Jamaat has grown by 1,900 Percent!!!
0.1988) Did Mirza Tahir “Strike Out”?

Let's briefly examine Mirza Tahir’s actions by using an analogy to baseball.

Strike 1 - An Open Invitation to Mubahala
By issuing An Open Invitation to Mubahala (Dated June 10, 1988), Mirza Tahir incited Syed Abdul Hafeez Shah to officially start the “Anti Ahmadiyya Movement in Islam.” This movement has proven to be a pain for the Jamaat.

“My dear Mr. Mirza Tahir Ahmad! When we could not convince you in any way to sit together for Mubahila, we decided to create an awareness campaign by the name of Anti-Ahmadiyya Movement(started in 1991). The purpose was to put Muslims in every corner of the earth on their guard against the pious fraud of Ahmadiyya Movement in the name of Islam and to show Qadianis the real face of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. Today by the Grace of AllahSWT Anti-Ahmadiyya literature is available in more than 13 languages. I am sure, Mirza Tahir, you are fully aware of the impact of our work. No wonder you remembered me with names like BAD ZAAT (wicked), KHABEES, and MANHOOS in your Jalsa Salana address of 1994. No doubt I am proving very very Manhoos for your Movement.”
- Dr. Syed Rashid Ali, Official Spokesman for the “Anti Ahmadiyya Movement in Islam” in his 1997 letter.

“They(Hypocrites) will not fight you (even) together, except in fortified townships, or from behind walls. Strong is their fighting (spirit) amongst themselves: thou wouldst think they were united, but their hearts are divided: that is because they are a people devoid of wisdom.”
- The Holy Quran, (59:14), Yusuf Ali Translation

In addition to Syed Abdul Hafeez Shah and Al Hafiz B.A. Misri, Maulana Muhammad Yusuf Ludhianvi also accepted the challenge.

“If you are serious in your ’Mubahala’ challenge with this dervish, then get going in the name of Allah. Come outside your house like a man, into the ground of ’Mubahala’ and move forward. Announce the time, date and place for holding the ’Mubahala’; then bring along your wife, children and family members in the ground at the appointed time.”
- Maulana Muhammad Yusuf Ludhianvi in Reply to Mirza Tahir’s Challenge of Mubahala (Dated September 1, 1988)

“They(Hypocrites) will not fight you in a body except in fortified towns or from behind walls. Their fighting among themselves is severe. Thou thinkest them to be united, but their hearts are divided. That is because they are a people who have no sense.”
- The Holy Quran, (59:15), Ahmadi Translation

“Mirza Tahir Qadiani played a trick on his Jama’at recently. He produced for them a stunt which he named ’Mubahala’... Since my rejoinder had bound down Mirza Tahir for a response and knowing it would be no easy matter, I allowed him a comfortably long period of four months, i.e. till January 1, 1989. Despite my let-up, he failed to meet the date because he stood in a quagmire. Confused, non-pulsed and check-mated he had no ground to move backward or forward and no room to wheel about... At last, the Qadiani Secretary managed to muster himself up to write out some sort of reply. Actually, this was a work of hardly five minutes for the Qadiani secretary, but Allah, the Exalted wanted to expose Qadiani infamy and effrontery and therefore a five minute work took more then four months... In my humble opinion, Mirza Tahir will not dare take up this renewed call-out of mine. Rather, he would not have the grace to respond even... Because you are a run-away from Pakistan, therefore as a fugitive, I do see your point in hesitating to return. All right, I make a change. Go ahead and announce a date, place and time in London itself. This humble faqir will, Insha Allah, present himself over there along with his associates. But in case you are afraid to go to London and don’t want to step outside your Caliphate parameter, I concede further; All right, let us meet in your ’London Islamabad’ precincts.”
- Maulana Muhammad Yusuf Ludhianvi in A Final Redjoiner to Mirza Tahir (Dated January 10, 1989)

Unfortunately, Mirza Tahir chickened out on his own Mubahala challenge!

Yup, this is exactly the kind of leader I want to look up to and give my unconditional allegiance to!!! Go Hazoor!!!

One pathetic excuse an Ahmadi gave me is that they did not accept “our conditions” (the Jamaat’s conditions) for Mubahala. He showed me towards the back of the Challenge and bragged how Mirza Tahir’s signature was there on the “FIRST PARTY” Section and asked me to produce one opponent of Ahmadiyyat or “SECOND PARTY” who signed this Challenge. I feel sorry for this Ahmadi who has been tricked into what Al Hafiz B.A. Misri referred to as a “cheap con game.”

Mubahala is done on the disputed facts. If both sides agree on something, then what’s the point of Mubahala? Why would any reasonable person accept a Mubahala when many of the allegations are known to be false by both sides? It doesn’t make any sense.

An Open Invitation to Mubahala was completely worthless!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why, you ask???

Mirza Tahir was very clever in his wording of the Mubahala. He broke it up into to 2 Parts: A & B. Part A quotes Mirza Sahib’s 1906 book Haqeeqatul Wahi(The Nature of Revelation) inviting anyone who does not accept Mirza Sahib’s claims to Mubahala. Part B is a laundry list of false allegations made against the Jamaat.

The most important “false allegation” or “disputed fact”

“That Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was a liar in his claims to Messiahship, Mahdihood, and Prophethood.”

was left out of Part B of the Mubahala!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Instead of including the above statement in a simple clear cut language, Mirza Tahir “beat around the bush” and worded it very cleverly...

“That having studied the history of all the false claimants, he willfully proclaimed himself to be a prophet whereas God had never commissioned him for anything.” (An Open Invitation to Mubahala, Page 3)

Let us remember those dreaded test questions from Grade School: True/False Questions.

A statement is False if any one part of the statement is False.

A statement is True if and only if the whole statement is True.

The above statement from An Open Invitation to Mubahala is false, regardless of whether Mirza Sahib is a true prophet or not. Any person who does not accept Mirza Sahib’s claim still believes that that statement is a false statement. It is simply impossible to study the history of all the false claimants.

Sadly, Mirza Tahir did not even himself believe that his grandfather was a true prophet.

Fortunately, the Holy Quran repeatedly warns us about people like Mirza Tahir...

“When the Hypocrites come to thee and say, ’We bear witness that thou art the Messenger of Allah.’ Yea, Allah knoweth that thou art indeed His Messenger, and Allah beareth witness that the Hypocrites are indeed deceitful.”
- The Holy Quran, (63:1)

Strike 2 - Falsely Claiming victory to Mubahala
Imagine you and your friend are both football fans. You like Team A, and your friend does not. All throughout the regular season your friend bashes Team A, uses abusive language against their players, etc. Nevertheless, Team A makes the playoffs. You offer you friend to make a bet for X number of dollars that Team A will win the Super Bowl and if any other team wins, then he wins the bet. Your friend ignores your request. The playoffs continue and even though your Team A keeps on winning, your friend still abuses your Team A while ignoring your request to participate in your proposed bet. As time goes on, Team A is now in the Super Bowl. You now tell your friend that due to his actions, he is now included in this bet whether he chooses to be or not. Then, when Team A wins the Super Bowl you demand payment from your friend for X number of dollars due to him “losing the bet.” Does this make any sense?

“Come, let us gather together - our sons and your sons, our women and your women, ourselves and yourselves: then let us earnestly pray and invoke the curse of Allah on those who lie.”
- The Holy Quran, (3:61), Yusuf Ali Translation

“Come, let us call our sons and your sons, and our women and your women and our people and your people; then let us pray fervently and invoke the curse of Allah on those who lie.”
- The Holy Quran, (3:62), Ahmadi Translation

Mubahala is a Two Way Street. Both Parties have to Accept.

Simply put, Zia-ul Haq did not accept.

How could Zia’s death be the result of a Mubahala which he never accepted?

Another question you really need to ask yourself very carefully is whether there is any truth in the following statement...

“... this pir from Gujjo(Syed Abdul Hafeez Shah), despite his numerous allegations against the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community has not the courage to accept the fourth Caliph, Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad’s straightforward Mubahala invitation.” (Three In One, Page 190)

Would any Ahmadi care to define the word “straightforward?”
Would any Ahmadi care to explain in words how Mirza Tahir’s challenge was “straightforward?”

One Ahmadi recently mentioned to me, “Mubahala is not a joke.” I agree with him completely!

If anything, read this letter addressed to Mirza Tahir very carefully.

Become familiar with the Jamaat’s literature and sermons regarding Mubahala over the last 15 years.

“The Qadiani leadership boasts that they have been challenging Muslims to Mubahala for years and that no Muslim has dared to come forth and accept their challenge! Since they have verbally extended the challenge of Mubahala to all Muslims and Islamic countries, they are quick to claim any death or calamity befalling a Muslim to be the result of their Mubahala and an indication of divine judgment in their favor!... The Qadiani leadership would like everyone to believe they are eager to participate in a Mubahala, when in reality they have been avoiding every challenge made to them for decades. Their pretentious and cunning strategy of challenging everyone and everything to Mubahala, while refusing to actually participate in such a venue is a testimony to their utter disregard of Quranic instructions: they are cunning in their attempt to avoid Quranic Mubahala to spare their dynasty from the curse of Allah(SWT)”
- Idara Dawat-o-Irshad

“They(Hypocrites) have made their oaths a screen (for their misdeeds): thus they obstruct(men) from the Path of Allah: truly evil are their deeds.”
- The Holy Quran, (63:2)

Come to your own unbiased conclusion on who has turned Mubahala into a joke?
0.1999) Who won the Mubahala when Both Sides Actually Agreed to it?

For 11 years, Mirza Tahir ran away from Mubahala. Constantly people challenged him, but he ignored it.

However, it is a fact that in 1999 a Mubahala was officially accepted by two parties:

Mirza Tahir, the Head of the Ahmadiyya Movement in Islam


Illias Sattar, the “Karachi ka Jaahil” and “Lalloo Panjoo”

“In Karachi a JAAHIL (illiterate) has dared to do Mubahila...I am the Head of all the Jamaats worldwide and this is not my job that any Tom, Dick and Harry who challenges for Mubahila,...I HAVE ACCEPTED THIS CHALLENGE OF MUBAHILA ...... I AM SAYING THIS THING OPENLY IN FRONT OF YOU THAT ONLY THIS ONE YEAR THE PERSON WHO IS DOING MUBAHILA WILL BE PROVEN A LIAR.”
- Mirza Tahir in 1999 U.K. Jalsa Salana speech

I only wish that the arrogant and cocky Mirza Tahir was alive today so I could ask him for his definition of a “Tom, Dick, and Harry” versus a legitimate candidate for Mubahala.

If someone that has probably read many of Mirza Sahib’s books(probably multiple times if he was able to pick out such a specific technicality in the Main Article of Can Ahmadis Answer) and does not believe in Mirza Sahib’s claims is just a “Tom, Dick, and Harry”, then what is the profile of a legitimate candidate for Mubahala?

Do some investigative research to find out who won this Mubahala.

Who was cursed?
Who was proven to be the liar?

A good place to start is by investigating whether Mirza Tahir suffered an attack of paralysis less than 30 days after accepting the Mubahala. Otherwise, what happened to Mirza Tahir when he was giving a speech in Norway in August of 1999 and “all of a sudden got sick”? How coincidental was it that he “all of a sudden got sick” right after accepting a Mubahala challenge!

You can also read the various commentaries of this Mubahala by others.

However, to be fair you have to read the Jamaat’s side of the story regarding this Mubahala.

Oh wait a minute. There’s just one problem I forgot to tell you about...

Good luck finding anything!!!!
0) Khilafat Ahmadiyya: A Seat to ... ?

Keeping in mind that the Mubahala with Illias became operative in 1999 compare the Jamaat’s cumulative numbers and conversion statistics in 1999 versus 2004. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out Strike 3.

Sure, I guess you can say that the Ahmadi Khalifa is “divinely guided.”

But to where????
I hope that you do not want to end up in the same place.

“Verily Allah has cursed the Unbelievers and prepared for them a Blazing Fire - to dwell therein forever: no protector will they find, nor helper. The Day that their faces will be turned upside down in the Fire, they will say: ’Woe to us! would that we had obeyed Allah and obeyed the Messenger!’ And they would say: ’Our Lord! We obeyed our chiefs and our great ones, and they misled us as to the (right) path.’ ”
- The Holy Quran, (33:64-67)
-1) Conclusion, Contact Info, and Notes

In 1934, a young man named Malik Saif-ur Rehman of age 22 set out on a journey to Qadian to destroy Ahmadiyyat. Unfortunately, for some reason which I will never know, like my great(+) grandfathers, he ended up accepting Ahmadiyyat as he believed in Mirza Sahib(was probably tricked) to be the Messiah after looking at the evidence available to him. 70 years later time has told that Mirza Sahib is definitely not the Messiah. It gives me great pleasure being his 22 year old grandson to serve Islam and resume the original mission of my grandfather and provide my “two cents” towards the eventual destruction of this Qadiani Fraud in the Name of Islam.

One arrogant Ahmadi boasted to me that “don’t try to oppose us, you will never be successful. Everyone who has tried to oppose us, they have failed.”

To this arrogant Ahmadi I respond…

They have not failed. They’ve actually been successful. It took 70+ years, but it eventually happened. I fully respect the unanimous resolution of the Muslim World League in 1974 to declare Ahmadis Non-Muslim. Muslims have shut you Ahmadis up. You are not allowed to openly preach your Kaffir faith in any Muslim country. The only reason many Muslims might still consider you Muslim is because they are ignorant of your true beliefs. Your biggest function: the Rabwah Jalsa which used to get 200,000 – 300,000 attendance has been shut down. And is Ahmadiyyat expanding? No. Not at all. MTA is all an illusion. The fact is, in Pakistan people have either been leaving Ahmadiyyat, or leaving for the West. Professor Munawwar Malik who left the Jamaat in 1999 wrote a very good article about this. There is no evidence that your Jalsas these days even come close to the size of the Rabwah Jalsas. Even in Africa(where there are supposedly millions and millions of converts) Jalsas there is no evidence that they even come close to the Rabwah Jalsas. For example, in Benin in 2002, the Jalsa attendance was only 50,000. Where were the other 1 Million + Ahmadis in Benin?

“Beware of telling a lie, for telling lies lead to obscenity and obscenity leads to Hell-Fire, and the man who keeps telling lies and endeavors to tell a lie is recorded a liar with Allah.”
(Sahih Muslim #2607R2, Kitab-al-Birr)

Ahmadiyyat is a religion that is based on lies, lies, and more lies.

“Whoever tells a lie against me intentionally then (surely) let him occupy his seat in Hell-Fire.”
(Sahih Bukhari #107 - 110)

Ahmadiyyat is a Kaffir Religious Cult which is a Disease to Islam because it has been leading Muslims astray.

“Of all the conspiracies hatched against Islam in modern times, the most dangerous is a false claim to Prophethood made in the beginning of this century. This claim has been the main cause of wide spread mental chaos amongst the Ummah for the last sixty years.” (Finality of Prophethood, Foreword)

I invite all Ahmadis and their mosques to renounce Ahmadiyyat and embrace Islam.

The doctrinal arguments of Ahmadiyyat have been proven to be absolutely false. I have the Jamaat in Checkmate. Thanks to technological advancements such as the internet, the fact that many Ahmadis are now living in the West, and that many Ahmadi youth are sick and tired of the Jamaat’s dictatorial attitude, it is not long before this cult collapses.

Don’t be on the “Titanic” when it sinks.


Ahsen Malik


(1) If you wish to print this page onto paper, use the Landscape option on Printer Properties, otherwise parts will get cut out.

(2) The website references and hypertext links were accurate as of 10/1/2004. No guarantees can be made about their validity in the future.

(3) In the interest of spreading the truth, please feel free to add a link of this website onto your website.

10) Did the “King” receive a “Blessing”?

At the beginning of Mirza Nasir’s, a.k.a. “Hazrat Mirza Nasir Ahmad”, “Khalifatul Masih Al-Salis”(“3rd Caliph to the Messiah”) Khilafat(Caliphate), the Ahmadiyya Movement in Islam(Jamaat) claimed that a prophecy of “Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad” (Mirza Sahib) had been fulfilled. Read about it.

Then read the opposing view.

You will agree that in all matters it is usually good practice to read Both Sides of the Story before making any conclusions.

Now come to your own unbiased conclusion and ask yourself did the “King” receive a “Blessing”?
9.8) Are you really a “True Ahmadi Muslim”?

Have you read Invitation to Ahmadiyyat, by Mirza Mahmud, a.k.a. “Hazrat Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmad”, “Khalifatul Masih Sani”(“2nd Caliph to the Messiah”), the eldest son of Mirza Sahib from his 2nd wife?

This book was originally published in 1926 under the Urdu title Dawat-ul-Amir.

If you have not, then I highly suggest you read it. It’s an excellent book in the sense that it contains a very good detailed explanation of the core doctrines and beliefs of Ahmadiyyat.

Make sure you agree with everything in that book.

If you do not agree with it, then are you a really a “True Ahmadi Muslim”?
Can a “True Ahmadi Muslim” disagree with the “Divinely Guided Khalifa”?
9.6) Can “Hundreds of other examples” really be “cited”?

In Argument 7 of Invitation to Ahmadiyyat, Mirza Mahmud states…

“Often an enemy met his end through a malady or misfortune he wished on the Promised Messiah. If someone maliciously accused him of suffering from leprosy, then leprosy seized the accuser. If someone gave out that the Promised Messiah had died or was destined to die of plague, then plague claimed the author of the wishful lie. Dr Abdul Hakim Khan of Patiala claimed to prophesy that Hazrat Mirza Sahib would die of lung-disease. The doctor himself died of protracted lung-disease. Hundreds of other examples can be cited. Whatever lie was invented against Hazrat Mirza Sahib claimed the inventor as its victim.” (Invitation to Ahmadiyyat, Page 207)

What are these “Hundreds of other examples” that “can be cited”?

How many of these “Hundreds of other examples” can you personally cite?

How many of these “Hundreds of other examples” are “cited” in Iain Adamson’s biographies Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian and Ahmad The Guided One or in Dr. Aziz Chaudhry’s The Promised Messiah and Mahdi?

Since I initially started “The Top Ten Reasons Ahmadiyyat is Not the True Islam” over three months ago, not one Ahmadi has even been able to cite even 5 examples.
9.4) What is the true Ahmadi meaning of the Kalima?

“But, after the mission of the Promised Messiah, one more messenger has entered into the meaning of ’Muhammad Rasulullah.’ Therefore, on account of the incarnation of the Promised Messiah, the Kalimah ’La Ilaha Ellallah, Muhammad Rasulullah’ does not become abolished; it rather shines more brightly. In short, the same Kalimah is effective even now for embracing Islam, with the only difference that the incarnation of the Promised Messiah (Mirza Sahib) has added one more messenger to the meaning of ’Muhammad Rasulullah’ ”
(Kalimat-ul-Fasl, Page 158)

The author, Mirza Bashir, a.k.a. “Hazrat Mirza Bashir Ahmad” was Mirza Sahib’s 2nd son from his 2nd wife and the younger brother of Mirza Mahmud.

One excuse an Ahmadi might give you was that he was not the Khalifa so he does not speak for the Jamaat. Yes, but he was not an ordinary “Joe Shmoe” of the Jamaat either. This was “Hazrat Mirza Bashir Ahmad razillah anho.”

On <>, the Jamaat states that he was a “lifetime advisor” to Mirza Mahmud.

Therefore, the Jamaat must have agreed with his belief, otherwise they should not have given him such a praise and respected status. And if they did not, did they ever issue an official statement or publication correcting the belief?

Who wants to be part of a movement that respects and honors someone who has misinterpreted the meaning of the Kalima, something we as Muslims hold so dear and fundamental?

One Ahmadi trying to defend the book accused me of “not understanding the essence” of the message?

What essence? This is pretty binary. The charge is that when Ahmadis recite the Kalima, they include Mirza Sahib in the meaning of their Kalima.

Either they do, or they do not. If they do, then my point is made. If they do not include him in the meaning of their Kalima then they are going against the teachings of “Hazrat Mirza Bashir Ahmad razillah anho” the lifetime advisor of the “2nd Khalifa.”

To this day, Kalimat-ul-Fasl has not been translated in English and has been discontinued from publication.

Which leads me to my next point…
9.2) Has the Jamaat been hiding evidence?

“His (Mirza Sahib’s) life has been veiled by thick covers... Just study the life of Mirza Sahib, look at his books, read his sayings, look at the writings of his companions, look at the writings of his sons. Not those writings which they show, but those writings which they had published but now they hide them from you. Then, like me, you will also reach the same conclusion that Mirza Sahib can be anything but a prophet.”
- Shaikh Raheal Ahmad, Former Ahmadi from Germany (2003)

In addition to Kalimat-ul-Fasl, Mirza Bashir also did the Jamaat a great service by putting lots of hard work into his publication Seerat-ul-Mahdi(Life of the Mahdi).

Why are these books not available on the Alislam Online Library, Alislam Bookstore, or on the BookonIslam(Canada) Bookstore ???

See if you can locate the above 2 books written by Mirza Bashir.

Seerat-ul-Mahdi is a 3 volume biography on Mirza Sahib, “The Promised Messiah and Imam Mahdi.”

Years later, not only has probably the most fair and original biography on Mirza Sahib(it was written by his own son) not been translated into English, you probably can’t even find an Urdu version of it as just like Kalimat-ul-Fasl, it has also been discontinued.

It contains some pretty interesting “Did You Know” Facts that for some reason were left out of your “Sunday School Curriculum.”

Did you know that “Imam Mahdi”... ???

1) Avoided leading the congregational prayer (Seerat-ul-Mahdi, Volume 3, Page 111)
2) Was reluctant to pay Zakat (Seerat-ul-Mahdi, Volume 3, Page 119)
3) Couldn’t even differentiate the left shoe from the right shoe! (Seerat-ul-Mahdi, Volume 1, Page 67)

In 1983, Naseem Suffi wrote Introducing the Books of the Promised Messiah.
In 1994, Naeem Osman Memon wrote Three In One as a response to Syed Abdul Hafeez Shah’s 1990 book Two in One available online.

It seems that the paper versions have been discontinued as they are not available on the Alislam Bookstore, BooksonIslam(Canada) Bookstore, nor have I seen them in most Ahmadi Libraries. See if you can locate them.

Then compare them with the online version of the books available via
<> and

You will notice that parts have been cut out. Why were parts cut out?
It takes more effort to go in and cut parts out before you put it online than to just honestly put the whole thing online!

Sadly, we can conclude that there must be some truth to the following...

“They(Ahmadis) have even resorted to removing some of most controversial writings of Qadiani leadership -- which had become a source of embarrasssmment to them -- from circulation.”
- Idara Dawat-o-Irshad (A Non-Profit Organization Registered in America)
9) Ahmadiyya Movement in Islam OR “Ahmadiyya & Mirza Inc. in the Name of Islam”?

Maulana Al-Hajj Nooruddin, a.k.a. “Hazrat Al-Hajj Hakim Nooruddin”, “Khalifatul Masih Awal”(“1st Caliph to the Messiah”) who was Mirza Sahib’s best friend wrote more than 10 books. View his list.

Why is there no “scholarly work” of the “1st Khalifa” available on the Alislam Online Library?
Why do “Mirza Khalifas” and Mirza Sahib get their own private sections on the Alislam Online Library while Maulana Al-Hajj Nooruddin does not?

Sir Muhammad Zafrullah Khan gets his own private section on the Alislam Online Library, but not the “1st Khalifa”!
Is Sir Muhammad Zafrullah Khan more important than the “1st Khalifa”?

Roohani Khazain is a 23 volume compilation of Mirza Sahib’s 80+ books in order by date of publication. Volume 1 starts with his books in the 1880’s. Volume 23 ends with his books in the late 1900’s.

Majmooa Ishtharat is a 3 volume collection of advertisements and proclamations by Mirza Sahib.

Malfoozat is a 10 volume composition of notes and sayings recorded by his companions based on his speeches, lectures, and conversations.

Anwarul Uloom is either an 11 or 12 volume compilation of Mirza Mahmud’s essays and books.
According to the Alislam BookStore it is 11 Volumes and according to the BookonIslam(Canada) Bookstore it is
12 Volumes.

Tafseer-e-Kabeer is a 10 volume commentary on the Holy Quran attributed to Mirza Mahmud.

The above sets are readily available either for purchase or download.

Did the Jamaat ever care to compile Maulana Al-Hajj Nooruddin’s books into a collection like it did with Mirza Sahib and Mirza Mahmud?

Did the Jamaat ever care to put any effort into adding any of the “1st Khalifa’s” books to the Alislam Online Library like it did with the “4th Khalifa”?

As of 10/1/2004 only 1 of his books is available on the Urdu/Arabic Section of the Alislam Bookstore (Khutbat-e-Noor), and only 2 of them are available on the Urdu Section of BooksonIslam(Canada) Bookstore (Mirqat-Al-Yaqeen and Khutbat-e-Noor).

None of his books have been translated in English whereas some of Mirza Mahmud’s and Mirza Sahib’s books have been translated in English. If you look at an old edition of The Muslim Sunrise you will see that many of Mirza Mahmud’s books were even available in English back in the 1950’s. Therefore, there is no excuse for not having any of Maulana Al-Hajj Nooruddin’s books available in English 50 years later.
9.73) or 9.74) Was the prophecy “literally fulfilled”?

Abdullah bin Amar relates that the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) said, “... Verily the Israelites were divided into 72 sections but my people will be divided into 73 sections, all of them will be in the fire except one.” The companions asked, “Who are they O Messenger of Allah,” Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) said, “They are those who will be like me and my companions.” <>

The Jamaat further states, “Having said that we have to understand that there ought to be a way to separate one Jamaat from 72. Thus there should be some method by which two sets of sections among Muslim Ummah will be formed and in one set there will be only one Jamaat (to which Holy Prophet, peace be upon him, referred to as resembling him and his companions) while the other set will contain 72 sects which will resemble Jews. To go any further we have to establish here three things. Firstly that there were at one time 73 sections of Muslims. Secondly they formed two sets on containing one Jamaat and the other one containing 72 sects. Thirdly the set containing one Jamaat consisted of the followers of a claimant of Messiahship ... Although they all had fatwas declaring one another to be kafirs, when it came to the question of Ahmadi Muslims they were all united so that there remains no doubt as to the identity of 72 and one making a total of 73.” <>

It all seems good. It looks like the Ahmadis have won a victory.
However due to a minor technicality, once again, AllahSWT spoiled the Jamaat’s plans!

Simply put, when Ahmadis were declared Non-Muslims, it was not 72 against 1, although it might seem that way to most people. It was actually 72 against 2 because there is also the Lahori Ahmadi sect(who were also declared Non-Muslims). If you asked a bunch of Sunnis which one of the 72 sects they belonged to, most of them would probably would have no idea. However, if you asked a bunch of Ahmadis if they were Lahori or Qadiani, they would most definitely be able to tell you. Therefore, Lahoris(Ahmadiyya Anjumaan Isha’at-e-Islam Lahore) and Qadianis(Ahmadiyya Movement in Islam) do not count as 1 sect, but 2. So technically, there were 74 sects not 73. At the time, there were 72 sects of “Non-Ahmadi Muslims” and 2 sects of “Ahmadi Muslims.” You cannot count the 2 sects of “Ahmadi Muslims”(because they are followers of the “Promised Messiah”) as 1, otherwise by that logic you have to count the 72 sects of “Non-Ahmadi Muslims”(people that do not follow the “Promised Messiah”) all as 1 sect, and in that case there are only 2 sects. Therefore, this prophecy was not literally fulfilled as they claim it was.

A really funny response I got from an Ahmadi trying to refute my argument is “You take everything too literally.” It is kind of ironic because the fact is that it says on their website “Literal Fulfillment of Prophecy.” How else is a reasonable person supposed to interpret this?

Actually, I do not take this hadith literally at all.
Which will be explained in my next point...
9.72) or 9.71) Ahmadiyya Movement in Islam OR “Ahmadiyya Fraud Against Islam”?

You just might be one of those poor innocent brainwashed Ahmadis who just listens and agrees with everything the Jamaat tells you. In that case, I’m pretty sure that when this prophecy was claimed that you did not check the Jamaat’s references. Why would you? You’re a loyal servant and slave to Ahmadiyyat. Why would even think about questioning the lies that the Jamaat has been feeding you?

Well, let’s find out why...

The Jamaat states, “Other than Tirmidhi, Ibne Maja [3] gives three independent narrations of the same hadith.”

Let’s take a closer look at these “three independent narrations of the same hadith.”

Abu Huraira reported that Allah’s Messenger(peace be upon him) said, “The Jews were divided into 71 sections and my umma will be divided into 73 sections.” (Sunan Ibn-i-Majah #3991)

Auf b. Malik reported that Allah’s Messenger(peace be upon him) said, “The Jews were divided into 71 parts but only one part will be in the Paradise and 70 parts will be in the Fire; the Christians were divided into 72 parts (out of which) 71 parts will (enter) in Fire and only one part(will be admitted) in the Heaven. By Him whose Hand Muhammad’s life (lies), my umma will certainly be divided into 73 section. Only one section will be (admitted) in the Heaven and 72 sections will be in the Fire.” He was asked, “Allah’s Messenger, who of them are in the Heaven.” He said, “Al - Jamaa” (Equivalent to “They are those who will be like me and my Companions”) (Sunan Ibn-i-Majah #3992)

Anas B. Malik reported that Allah’s Messenger(peace be upon him) said, “Verily the Israelites were divided in 71 sections and my umma will certainly be divided into 72 sections. All of them will be in the fire with the exclusion of one and that is Al-Jamaa.” (Sunan Ibn-i-Majah #3993)

There are certain Ahadith in which the narrations vary slightly, but it is pretty obvious that each narration points to the same incident, so even though the narrations might vary slightly, it is “the same hadith.” There are other Ahadith which show up multiple times and whereas all of the narrations may not be from the same incident, they are “the same hadith” because their message is identical. It is very clear that #3991 and #3992 do not point to the same incident nor is their message identical, therefore you cannot call them “the same hadith.” #3991 simply states that the Jews and Muslims will be divided whereas #3992 includes Christians and goes into the details of who out of each group will enter paradise.

Two other things are of important note...

1) In each of the three Ahadith of Sunan Ibn-i-Majah he refers to the Jews being divided into 71 sects, not 72(which was the actual number of tribes that the Jews were divided into according to the Jamaat.)

2) In #3991 and #3992, the Muslims will be divided into 73 sects, whereas in #3993, the Muslims will be divided in 72 sects.

So why did the Holy Prophet(peace be upon him) give different numbers?
Or did some of the narrators misquote him?
We will never really know.

Anyway you look at it; the specific number: 71, 72, or 73 cannot be taken literally.

Maybe what the Holy Prophet(peace be upon him) meant when he said this was that while the 71 or 72 sects that would “be in the fire” was a metaphor to depict the general state of the Muslim world and analogous to the 71 or 72 sects of Jews at the time of Jesus(peace be upon him), and that 72rd or 73rd sect was a metaphor to imply the combination of all the good and righteous people from all of the sects. “Al-Jamaa” or “They are those who will be like me and my companions.”
9E) There’s Something About Eclipses

I’m not an expert in science, so I’ll let you decide the verdict on this one...

One of the prophecies the Jamaat claims was fulfilled has something to do with eclipses.
Read about The Advent of the Promised Mahdi and the lunar and solar eclipses.

Then, following the usual good practice that a rational unbiased person seeking the truth does, read the opposing side of the story The Fraud of Eclipses.
8) Will the “Promised Messiah’s” 80+ books ever be COMPLETELY translated in English?

96 years after his death, why do most of Mirza Sahib’s books still remain Untranslated?

With all the “Chanda this” and “Chanda that”, how about a “Chanda: Let’s translate our prophet’s books so we can share the Whole Truth with the world?”

In his 1989 book Ahmadiyyat or Qadianism! Islam or Apostasy? and 1990 book Some Prophecies of Hazrat Ahmad A Critical Study, Naeem Osman Memon responds to the questions of Muhammadi Begum, Maulvi Sanaullah of Amritsar, Dr. Abdul Hakim Khan, Abdullah Atham, and the alleged abusive language against Jesus(peace be upon him). The problem is that the most interested individual who does not understand Urdu is stuck in a “quote war.” Traditional opponents of Ahmadiyyat will only show part of the story, and then the Ahmadi response will once again only show part of the story. How is a “confused person” supposed to make up his/her mind?

As of today, only 11 or 12 of his 80+ have been completely translated in English. That’s about 15%.

His 1898 book Najmul Huda(The Star of Guidance) was first translated in English in 1933, then in 1960.
His 1899 book Masih Hindustan Mein(Jesus in India) was translated in English in 1944.
His 1879 book Aik Isa i Ki Tin Sawalun ka Jawab(Response to Three Questions of a Christian) was translated in 1972.

His 1891 book Taudih-i-Maram(Objectives Explained or Elucidation of Objectives) was translated in 1972.
His 1891 book Fatah Islam(Victory of Islam) was translated in 1973.
(The above 2 books along with his 1891 book Izala-i-Auham(Removal of Doubts) go together and complete a set that was published when he made his claim of being the Messiah. The 3 are sold together as 1. Why was Izala-i-Auham not translated, yet the other two were completely translated over 30 years ago? One excuse they might give is the length of Izala-i-Auham is much greater than the other 2 books. Ironically, many quotes which opponents of Ahmadiyyat use to allegedly “deceive Ahmadis” come from Izala-i-Auham. Strange, isn’t it?)

His 1897 book Islam Usul ki Philosophy(The Philosophy of the Teachings of Islam) was first translated in 1953. Sir Muhammad Zafrullah Khan translated the current edition in the 1970’s. This book has actually been translated in 50+ languages. (This does not make any sense. Even though the above book might be a good book on Islam, if you read it, it in no way proves him to be the Messiah. The most important book of Ahmadiyyat, the one you should read very carefully if you have not read any of them, that should have been the one to be translated in 50+ languages is none other than Izala-i-Auham. That is the book that lays down his claim on why he is the Messiah.)

His 1900 book Government Angraizi Aur Jihad(British Government and Jihad) was translated in 2003.
His 1901 book Ek Ghalati Ka Izala(The Removal of a Misunderstanding) was translated before or in 1974.
His 1905 book Lecture Ludhiana(The Ludhiana Lecture) was translated in 2003.
His 1905 book Al-Wasiyyat(The Will) was translated in 1997.
His 1908 book Paigham-i-Sulah(A Message of Peace) was first translated in 1968. The current edition was translated in 1996.

Contact me if I have left anything out...

Do you see any logical pattern?

You can view the list of books that the Lahoris have translated.

You can also view the Mirza Sahib’s complete list of books.

The “time and resources” argument that the Jamaat gives is very weak.
Why does the Lahori Ahmadi sect seem to be on an even playing field with the Qadiani Ahmadi sect in regards to translations of Mirza Sahib’s books? The Qadiani sect is much bigger and stronger then the Lahoris, yet the job the Lahoris have done in regards to the translation of Mirza Sahib’s books is equal to the Qadiani effort.

Why is the 1958 book Our Teaching only a partial translation of his 1902 book Kashti-Nooh(Noah’s Ark)?
What’s in the rest of the book that we can’t share with the English speaking world?
46 years later, has there been any effort made to make this book a complete translation?

The Essence of Islam (Volume 1) was published in 1978. Volume 2 was published in 1981. Volume 3 and Volume 4 are soon to be released.

Why did Sir Muhammad Zafrullah Khan translate Islam Usul ki Philosphy completely, yet the rest of the books he only took extracts and put them into The Essence of Islam? Imagine how many complete books he could have translated in the time and effort he spent to “pick and choose” pieces and put them together.

What’s easier, more efficient, and makes more sense...
Starting from the beginning and translating page by page?
Or wasting time scanning through the material and looking for specific parts to translate?

Another thing an Ahmadi might brag to you about is how the prophecy “I shall cause thy message to reach the corners of the earth” has been fulfilled by MTA and people all around the world such as in Africa are hearing his message. First of all, anyone with the proper financing can get a Satellite TV channel. It’s nothing special, but rather just the advancement in technology. More importantly though, most of “his message” is not going around the world. “His message” is the 20,000 pages of Roohani Khazain, Majmooa Ishtaharat, and Malfoozat. “His message” for the most part has not gone anywhere. Most of “his message” is still only known to those that can read and understand Urdu, Arabic, and Persian. How many people in this world know all 3 languages?

Could a Murabbi who has converted Kings in Africa please inform us how much(what percent) of what was really “his message” was given to these Kings?

In his 1983 book Introducing the Books of the Promised Messiah, Naseem Suffi attempts to briefly summarize(in English) each book of the “Promised Messiah.” After reading this one would think that the content of his books could convincingly prove the truth of Ahmadiyyat; especially to the Western World.

“The Promised Messiah and Mahdi, Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, peace be upon him, wrote mostly in Urdu, Arabic and Persian. Only a few of his books have been translated into the English Language. The demand for English translations is increasing day by day and every effort is being made to meet this demand at the earliest time.”
(Foreword, Introducing the Books of the Promised Messiah, September 1983)

21 Years later, how many of these books are completely available in English?
Have you witnessed any effort that has been made to make complete translations?

His 1903 book Tadhkratush Shahadatain(A Narration of Two Martyrdoms) was translated in 1984.
However, at the time the Arabic part of the book was not translated.
Could the Jamaat please verify if the Arabic part was ever translated to make the English book a complete translation?

In 1988, Islam International Publications published Selections from the Writings of the Promised Messiah. Why only “selections from the writings”? If they were able to go in and specifically pick and choose certain pieces from 20 books 16 years ago, then they most easily could have translated many complete books by now.

You have the time and resources to run a Satellite TV Channel, to start foreign missions all around the world, yet you don’t have the time and resources to make complete English translations of Mirza Sahib’s books.

You have the time and resources to put certain books into Audio, yet you don’t have the time and resources to make complete English translations of Mirza Sahib’s books.

You have the time and resources to translate Islam Usul ki Philosophy in 50+ languages, yet you don’t have the time and resources to make complete English translations of Mirza Sahib’s other books.

Don’t you see something a little bit odd?

Regrettably, we can conclude that there must be some truth to the following...

“Qadianis (Ahmadis) have refused to make a complete translation of their books available in other languages. While they boast about having distributed their false translation of the Holy Quran in dozens of languages, they have refused to translate the writings of their own founder in any other language (original writings are mostly in Urdu, Persian, and Arabic)! What are they hiding?”
- Idara Dawat-o-Irshad

How can the Jamaat go all around the world preaching Ahmadiyyat and claiming Mirza Sahib was a true prophet, when most people in this world do not have access to most of his writings(since they do not understand Urdu)?

How can the Jamaat tell us not to pray behind our Non-Ahmadi Muslim friend(who for example let’s say might be an African-American or Arab Imam) because he doesn’t accept Mirza Sahib as Imam Mahdi when the Jamaat has not given him a fair chance to evaluate Mirza Sahib?

In 1994, why was Dr. Syed Rashid Ali’s request to translate Roohani Khazain denied?
Read the Letter the Jamaat mailed him.

“Interestingly, the Qadiani leadership has refused to allow a translation of these books, so that everyone may become familiar with the irrational teachings and contradictory claims of the founder of their organization.”- Idara Dawat-o-Irshad
7) Can Ahmadis Answer, Part 2?
In Invitation to Ahmadiyyat, Mirza Mahmud states...
“There is another important statement by the Holy Prophet. During his last illness, the Holy Prophet said to his daughter Fatima:
’Once in every year, Gabriel recited the Quran to me. This year he recited twice. He also told me that every succeeding prophet has lived to half the age of his predecessor. He told me that Jesus. son of Mary, lived to a hundred and twenty years. Therefore, I think, I may live to about sixty years.’14
The statement is an inspired one. The Holy Prophet does not say anything on his Own, but reports what he received from Gabriel the angel of revelation. The important part of the statement is that Jesus lived to a hundred and twenty years. According to the New Testament records, Jesus was about thirty-two or thirty-three years old when the event of the Cross took place and Jesus ’ascended’ to Heaven. If Jesus really did ’ascend’, his age up to the time of the Holy Prophet comes to about six hundred years, not a hundred and twenty. If what the Holy Prophet received from Gabriel is true, the Holy Prophet should have lived for at least three hundred years. But he lived only for sixty-three years. Yet, according to Gabriel Jesus lived for a hundred and twenty years. This important statement by the Holy Prophet proves that to think Jesus alive is against the teaching of the Holy Prophet, against what was revealed to him by God. In view of all this, how can we be persuaded to believe that Jesus is alive? How can we deny anything which the Holy Prophet has taught so clearly?” (Invitation to Ahmadiyyat, Pages 18-19)
The book that this saying comes from is Mawahib-ud duniya by Qastalani; not an authentic book of Ahadith.
Muslim Scholars have divided Ahadith into four categories.
Sahih - Strong or Sound
Hasan - Good or Acceptable
Daef - Weak
Mawdu - False or Fabricated
Any reasonable Muslim Scholar would put the above hadith in the Mawdu category based on common sense. Let’s find out why.
In Part 2 of Can Ahmadis Answer Illias Sattar states...
“Now in the light of above statement, if what Mirza Basheer(uddin Mahmud) has written is true then let us very quickly calculate the age of some Prophets. Although there have been 124,000 of them, we will just take a few famous ones. We come to the following conclusion:-
Hazrat Adam (pbuh) 122880 years old
Hazrat Seth (pbuh) 61440 years old
Hazrat Noah (pbuh) 30720 years old
Hazrat Abraham (pbuh) 15360 years old
Hazrat Ishmael (pbuh) 7680 years old
Hazrat Jacob (pbuh) 3840 years old
Hazrat Joseph (pbuh) 1920 years old
Hazrat Moses (pbuh) 960 years old
Hazrat David (pbuh) 480 years old
Hazrat Solomon (pbuh) 240 years old
Hazrat Jesus (pbuh) & 120 years old
Hazrat Muhammad (pbuh) 60 years old
Hazrat Adam (mph) should have lived up to 122880 years. which means that he is still alive. In fact even Hazrat Shees, Nuh, Ibrahim and Ismail (pt) should all be alive now. FURTHER, if Mirza Sahib is a prophet, he should have died at the age of 30 only, that is half the age of the previous Prophet. Did Mirza Sahib become Prophet after his death?”
I think the above analysis needs no further explanation.
6) Who is the real author of Tafseer-e-Kabeer?

“He(Mirza Mahmud) went on to write over 6000 pages on the subject of the Holy Quran, including the ten glorious volumes of Tafseer-e-Kabeer...” (The Review of Religions, February 2002, Page 20)

Munir Ahmed is a former Ahmadi who has lived in Qadian and Rabwah. He was classmates with Mirza Rafiq, discussed literature in a literary circle called “Bazm-e Khayal” with Mirza Hanif, and was also friends with Mirza Khalil(all sons of Mirza Mahmud). He stated the following...
“I remember that when Mirza Tahir Ahmad came back from England after his failed attempt to earn a B.A. from School of Asian and African Studies, he asked right on the Railway platform of Rabwah about Abul Munir Nurul Haq. He said where is the real author of Tafseer-e-Kabeer?”

2 inside sources: one who belongs to the Lahori group, and another who is the grandson of Maulana Al-Hajj Nooruddin stated the following...

“7 people(a board or commission of people) were deputed to work on Tafseer-e-Kabeer. They use to sit in Khalifa’s office. One had job of finding meanings of words in Arabic dictionaries. Another’s job was finding Hadiths, etc, etc. One person job was to collect all the information and put/write in order to make a essay/composition.”

Could a guy that made such a stupid blunder in Reason Number 7 really have written Tafseer-e-Kabeer?
5.62) Does the Quran foretell the coming of Mirza Sahib?

“As well as (to confer all these benefits upon) others of them, who have not already joined them: and He is Exalted in Might, Wise.”
- The Holy Quran, (62:3), Yusuf Ali Translation

“Others of them: refers to other persons or peoples who may be ignorant other than those among whom the Holy Prophet(peace be upon him) came as a messenger... for his Arab people and his non-Arab contemporaries as well as those who live in other ages, and have no personal contact with him or his Companions.”
- Yusuf Ali Commentary

“And among others from among them who have not yet joined them. He is the Mighty, the Wise.”
- The Holy Quran, (62:4), Ahmadi Translation

“The reference in the verse and in a well-known saying of the Holy Prophet(peace be upon him) is to the Second Advent of the Holy Prophet(peace be upon him) in the person of the Promised Messiah in the Latter Days.”
- Ahmadi Commentary (Volume 5 of 5, Page 2627; Short Commentary Page 1136)

I don’t know what you are thinking but that seems to be a pretty huge claim to make; to say that the verse was referring to Mirza Sahib. Let’s examine the saying that they are referring to...

When the verse was revealed, Abu Hurairah stated, “Who are they, O Allah’s Messenger?” The Holy Prophet(peace be upon him) did not reply till he repeated the question thrice. At that time Salman Al-Farisi(a Persian) was sitting with them. The Holy Prophet(peace be upon him) put his hand on Salman, saying, “If faith were at (the place of) Ath-Thuraiyya (the highest star), even then (some men or man) from these people(i.e. Salman’s folk) would have taken it.”
(Sahih Bukhari #4897)

Let’s think of the Persian empire at the time. It was not under Islamic rule. After the death of the Holy Prophet(peace be upon him) it would fall under Islamic rule and the people would become Muslims. This verse could have been meant for them. It also could have been meant for any Persian Saint that would reform the faith.

It’s a big claim to say that he was referring specifically to Mirza Sahib, just because Mirza Sahib was also of Persian descent.

Now, if this verse was truly revealed for Mirza Sahib, let’s examine something else. Remember, that Mirza Sahib is also according to Ahmadi belief the “Son of Mary” that the Holy Prophet(peace be upon him) refers to in Ahadith.
Do you see any connection between this hadith and the Ahadith regarding the “Son of Mary”?
I don’t know about you, but I simply do not see any connection whatsoever between this hadith and the Ahadith referring to the “Son of Mary.”
If this verse was really revealed for the “Son of Mary”, then why didn’t Muhamamad(peace be upon him) say so?
Why did he forget to mention that the “Son of Mary” would be of Persian descent?
5) Back to the Middle

Click here to go back to the middle ... Middle


No comments: