The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement Blog


New area: Miracles, Myths, Mistakes and MattersSee Title Page and List of Contents

latest, 9th July 2018: Can Muslims (-women) marry Non-Believers


See: Project Rebuttal: What the West needs to know about Islam

Refuting the gross distortion and misrepresentation of the Quran, the Prophet Muhammad and Islam, made by the critics of Islam

Read: Background to the Project

List of all Issues | Summary 1 | Summary 2 | Summary 3‎ — completed, 28th June 2013


December 13th, 2008

Error by A.R. Dard in Ismu-hu Ahmad prophecy

The following has been submitted by our friend Bashir.


There are many controversies that exist between the AMI and the AAIIL. One of these are in terms of Ismuhu Ahmad (IA).

M. Ali clearly wrote in over 7 books that this prophecy which occurs in the Quran (61:6) refers to the Holy Prophet Muhammad in totality and in a certain sense refers to HMGA as well. HMBMA wrote the opposite, or at least it appeared that he wrote the opposite. Later in 1954 HMBMA explained 61:6 just as M. Ali did. Very strange I must say. In HMBMA’s commentary on the Holy Quran he did not translate chapter 61, Malik Ghulam Farid translated that portion of the Quran.

Qazi Muhammad Nazir (1965, Truth Prevails) explained this contradiction:
“Between this passage (Anwar Khilafat) and the statement before the Inquiry Commission, on the surface, there appears to be a slight difference more in words, than in the meaning and sense. There is no real difference between the two.”

I can’t say that I agree with this explanation. QMN admitted that there was a difference in words. At least he admitted that there was in fact a contradiction.

I found another contradiction. Last night I was reading Life of Ahmad by Maulana A.R. Dard. This book is the most comprehensive book on the life of HMGA. Dard was commenting on the era of 1891. This is in Chapter 21, the title of the chapter is ‘Claims to be the Messiah’.

Dard writes on pg. 235-236:

Ahmad (as) also explained that his advent was foretold in the Holy Quran (Al-Fatihah 1:7; Al-Nur 24:56, Al-Muzzammil 73:16).
The following verse of the Holy Book refers clearly to Ahmad (as): ‘And remember when Jesus, son of Mary, said, O children of Israel, I am Allah’s messenger unto you, fulfilling that which is before me of the Torah, and giving glad tidings of a Messenger who will come after me. His name will be Ahmad (as). And when he will come to them with clear proofs, they will say “This is a clear fraud”‘ (61:7).

This book was published in 1948. Why was Dard claiming that HMGA was IA? Maybe he got the same impression as me. Maybe Dard read HMBMA’s books from 1914 to 1922. HMBMA hadn’t commented on IA since 1922.

HMGA did not claim to be IA, both groups agree on this concept. But DARD is claiming that in 1891 HMGA claimed to be IA. Where did Dard get this from? This appears to be a major error by Dard.

3 Responses to “Error by A.R. Dard in Ismu-hu Ahmad prophecy”

  1. December 13th, 2008 at 11:08 am
    From Taimur Mirza:

    I can’t say except you people are confused about Hadrat Massih-e-Moud and Khilafat.

    Khalifa Khuda banata hai…!
    Or jis ko Khuda khara karde, usk hukam ko na maan k aap Khalifat ka tu khuch bigar nahin saktay, han Khuda ko zaroor naraz kar chukay hen 🙂


  2. Taimur:

    thanks for not writing on the topic.  The topic was an error by DARD….  can you post a response to that???

    Ok, so GOD chooses the khalifa, I agree with you.  But what about Mauwiya, what about yazid?  Did GOD help them become khalifa???  I think not.  

    You should read a book or two.   

    Taimur, you are a perfect example of what happened in 1914.  99% of the AMI followed HMBMA because he was the khalifa… they didnt read any books. 

    My mother-in-law is 70 years old, she has lived in rabwah her whole life.  She never read EGKI….  She didnt even know that there was a change in 1901!!!  I told her of course…


  3. I don’t think the average reader can even understand the level of error.  What if this isnt an error??  What if the AMI really considered HMGA as IA. 

    What if in 1954 that theory changed!!  No member of the aaiil noticed this before me.

    What’s even stranger is that DARD dates this belief all the way back to the 1891 era.  How could HMGA claim to be IA in 1891.  He didnt even consider himself a prophet at the time.  Or it is said. 

    There is really something wrong here.  I dont have the heart to write as to exactly what I feel.  I’m just hurt by the brevity of the data. 


Leave a Reply