The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement Blog

Miracles, Myths, Mistakes and MattersSee Title Page and List of Contents

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

October 6th, 2008

Tomb of Jesus: Can Muslim saints be prophets?

Our friend Bashir has submitted the following for a new thread.

When the tomb of Jesus was discovered in Srinagar(1895 or 1896), it was argued by Maulvi Abdullah who was an inhabitant of Kashmir, that since this tomb was that of a prophet, that eliminated all muslims from the equation. The person buried in this tomb could not be a muslim. Muslims strictly believe that the HP was the final prophet, there were no more prophets to come. Muslims only had one prophet, on the other hand the jewish people had many prophets, in other words because of the concept of khatme-nubuwwat, this had to be a jewish prophet. When HMGA recieved this data he also used the ending of prophethood as his main argument in terms of proving that Yus Asaf was not a muslim.

In a letter written to HMGA(1895 or 1896), maulvi Abdullah writes:

“The word nabi is common between the followers of Islam and the Israelites, and as in Islam no prophet came after our Holy Prophet Muhammad, nor could one come, therefore the general Muslims of Kashmir are agreed that this prophet is from before Islam.”

“But because of the ending of prophethood, this excludes the Muslim people.
Therefore it is clearly proved that this prophet is an Israelite prophet.”

Then HMGA wrote a footnote to this published letter, in it he comments:

“But after the ending of prophethood, no further prophet can come in Islam. Therefore it is settled that he was an Israelite prophet.”

It must remembered very carefully that at this time(Q & L) HMGA did not consider himself as a full-prophet, instead, HMGA considered himself as a partial nabi only. One would think that after 1901 the ahmadis(q) would have been forced to move away from this particular line of reason. Maulvi Sher Ali(1903) & Maulvi M. ali (1909) continued to argue along these lines.

After 1901 this line of debate should have been corrected. This strategy of argument was no longer valid. The ahmadis(q) now considered HMGA as a full-prophet. Obviously the ahmadis(L) did not. Let’s take a look at the writings on this topic after 1901, did the followers of HMGA realize this change?

The first instance that I found is from ROR May 1903, Maulvi Sher Ali writes:

PDF 40/47

“The fact that he is known as a Prophet or Nabi refutes the idea that he was a Muhamadan Saint. No intelligent man would think that a person who was reputed as a prophet among the Muhammadans was a Muhammadan saint. Even if a Muhammadan saint worked miracles, they would take him as a Wali at best, and never a prophet. They believe that their HP is the seal of the prophets and that he is not to be followed by any other prophet…….and one who takes him as a muhammadan saint only, betrays his complete ignorance of the beliefs prevailing among the muhammadans”

“…..we do not know of any prophet who appeared in Kashmir in the last 200 years”

It’s obvious that Maulvi Sher Ali had not yet realized that HMGA was a full-fledged prophet. This is a 1 ½ year after EGKI was published. Maybe MSA didn’t realize what happened in EGKI. It is important to note that HMBMA wrote that all ahmadis knew of the “tabdili aqidah” theory in 1901.

Next, M. ali writes in ROR April 1909, the title of this article is “Islam as interpreted by the Ahmadiyya Movement”:

“He is universally known as a Nabi or a prophet among the muslims, and therefore he cannot be a muslim saint for no muslim saint has been called nabi after the Holy Prophet”

The owners of the “tomb of Jesus” website also felt the same contradiction, they felt the need to add this important note:

Tomb of Jesus Website Comments:

“The reader will note that in footnote 2 above, Ghulam Ahmad states that no prophet can come after Muhammad. Therefore, the inhabitant of the Roza Bal must have been a Jewish prophet. Later, though, as his followers believe, and as Ghulam Ahmad explained, God had repeatedly told Ghulam Ahmad that He (God) had appointed Ghulam Ahmad as a follower-prophet of Muhammad.
Ahmadiyya literature reflects that Ghulam Ahmad himself seemed quite stunned by these revelations from God, because, just as other Muslims, he had understood Islam to teach that there could be no prophet of any type coming after Muhammad].”

In conclusion, I feel that it is very strange that 2 top followers of HMGA did not realize a change from non-prophet to prophet in 1901. If MSA and M. ali would have realized this change(EGKI), they would not have written that Yus Asaf could not be a muslim prophet, because no prophets were to appear. They should have abandoned this line of reason. Is it fair to say that without this argument it is hard to prove that Yus Asaf wasn’t a muslim prophet? What if Yus Asaf was in fact an ummaati nabi? I hope the readers of this article ponder on these facts that I have presented above.

34 Responses to “Tomb of Jesus: Can Muslim saints be prophets?”

  1. salam,

    In this article, we can read :

    “Next, M. ali writes in ROR April 1909, the title of this article is “Islam as interpreted by the  Ahmadiyya Movement”:

    “He is universally known as a Nabi or a prophet among the muslims, and therefore he cannot be a muslim saint for no muslim saint has been called nabi after the Holy Prophet”


    this argument would have contradictory with article :

    English author uses word “apostle” for Sayyid Ahmad Barelvi

    “Perhaps there was a reason why he said this; maybe these words were used by his followers about him, even though they regarded him as only a Saint.”

  2. October 7th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
    From Zahid Aziz:

    There is no contradiction because what is stated about Yuz Asaf is that: “He is universally known as a Nabi or a prophet among the muslims” (i.e. of the area).

    While the terms nabi or rasul have been used for Muslim saints here and there by their followers, these saints did not become known and identified by these titles, as happened when people referred to Yuz Asaf’s tomb.

  3. October 7th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
    From Abdul Momin:

    While I agree with Bashir’s general conclusions in his article, one quote needs a response. He states:

    “It is important to note that HMBMA wrote that all ahmadis knew of the “tabdili aqidah” theory in 1901.”

    Well, seventy prominent Ahmadis declared on oath that:

    “We, the undersigned, declare on oath that when Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian, the Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement, announced in 1891, that the prophet Jesus was dead according to the Holy Quran, and that the ‘son of Mary’ whose advent among the Muslims was spoken of in Hadith was he [Hazrat Mirza] himself, he did not lay claim to prophethood. However, the Maulvis misled the public, and issued a fatwa of kufr against him by alleging that he claimed prophethood. After this, the Promised Messiah declared time after time in plain words, as his writings show, that to ascribe to him a claim of prophethood was a fabrication against him, that he considered prophethood to have come to a close with the Holy Prophet Muhammad, and that he looked upon a claimant to prophethood, after the Holy Prophet, as a liar and a kafir. And that the words mursal, rasul, and nabi which had occurred in some of his revelations, or the word nabi which had been used about the coming Messiah in Hadith, do not denote a prophet in actual fact, but rather a metaphorical, partial or zilli prophet who is known as a muhaddas. After the Khatam an-nabiyyin, the Holy Prophet Muhammad, no prophet can come, neither new nor old.

    We also declare on oath that we entered into the pledge of the Promised Messiah before November 1901, and that the statements of Mirza Mahmud Ahmad, the head of the Qadian group, that though in the beginning Hazrat Mirza Sahib did not claim prophethood, but that he changed his claim in November 1901, and laid claim to prophethood on that date, and that his previous writings of ten or eleven years denying prophethood are abrogated — all this is entirely wrong and absolutely opposed to facts. We do swear by Allah that the idea never even entered our minds that the Promised Messiah made a change in his claim in 1901 or that his previous writings, which are full of denials of a claim to prophethood, were ever abrogated; nor, to our knowledge, did we ever hear such words from the mouth of even a single person until Mirza Mahmud Ahmad made these statements. Allah is witness to what we have stated.”

    For all seekers of truth concerning HMGA’s claims and how his followers understood his claims during his lifetime, it is time that they paid serious attention to the above sworn statement. This is no ordinary statement. The Qadianis should have had no hesitation in refuting this statement in the same words that the authors of the above statement used if they were true in their claims concerning HMGA. But where was the response?

    If HMGA did not claim prophethood before 1901 or after 1901 as the above statement claims, when did HMGA exactly claim prophethood? After his death?

  4. I have a full version of the article.  Email me

    Further research showed that ahmadis(q) did not abandon this debate-tactic.  In two books published in the 1930’s and 40’s the same technique was used:

    The Tomb of Jesus by Sufi Mutuir Rahman Bengalee, M. A.

    See pg. 41

    and Where Did Jesus Die? by J. D. Shams

    See chaper 13

    They wrote the same argument.  That’s unbelievable.  I think these two men felt that this argument alone convinced HMGA that this tomb was in fact that of Jesus.

    I am just showing the results of my research.   

  5. “While the terms nabi or rasul have been used for Muslim saints here and there by their follower”

    so if Kwajja Kamaluddin said the prophet to Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan too, then he was his follower,

  6. October 8th, 2008 at 5:30 am
    From Zahid Aziz:

    Mr Hassan, do please learn the basics of logic. If followers of someone have referred to him as prophet, it doesn’t mean that anyone else on some odd occasion calling that person a prophet is his follower. Non-Muslims often refer to our Holy Prophet Muhammad as the prophet.

    In any case, what is wrong with being a follower of Sir Sayyid? There were many Muslims of all sects, including some Ahmadis, who supported and helped Sir Sayyid’s efforts to spread education among Muslims and admired him. Even the Promised Messiah has written that two of his own basic standpoints were also shared by Sir Sayyid: death of Jesus and support for the British government. And, of course, Sir Sayyid expressed them earlier than the Promised Messiah.

  7. Mr Zahid said:
    “Mr Hassan, do please learn the basics of logic. If followers of someone have referred to him as prophet, it doesn’t mean that anyone else on some odd occasion calling that person a prophet is his follower. Non-Muslims often refer to our Holy Prophet Muhammad as the prophet. ”

    So Sir Sayyid was universaly known as a Nabi or a prophet among the moslem as the fact Kwajja has called him as a Prophet although he is not his follower, RIGHT Mr. Zahid?
    This is the fact that Kwajja kamaluddin called the Prophet to MGA and Sir sayyid is not in sense for the Moslem saint as per you said before but for the real prophet
    because MMA said that: ” No moslem saint has been called Nabi after the Holy Prophet”

  8. Hassan,

    Was Yus Asaf a muslim saint??  You didnt even answer the question.  You didnt even acknowledge the data.  Can you please comment on the topic.

    Why hasnt the ahmadis(q) moved away from this line of reason.  It is quite contradictory.

    Is it safe to say that Sher Ali didnt realize that HMGA was a prophet in 1901?  I think it is.  I dont think Sher Ali and many many others realized that HMGA was a prophet until 1914.

    But, HMBMA claims that everybody knew that HMGA went from non-prophet to prophet in NOV 1901.  Sher Ali must have been the lone exception…… or maybe not.

    I think that upwards of 90% didnt know of this appointment of prophethood in NOV 1901.

  9. October 8th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
    From Zahid Aziz:

    Dear Mr Hassan, you seem to be aiming for the world record in distortion. Maulana Muhammad Ali wrote that Yuz Asaf could not be a Muslim saint because he is “universally known” among Muslims of Kashmir as prophet.

    It is an obvious fact that Sir Sayyid was not universally known as a prophet among Muslims, nor did he ever claim to be a prophet. Do you agree with this or not? In fact, do you ever answer any question or not?

    Therefore the fact that Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din referred to him as prophet, in the same sentence where he refers to Hazrat Mirza sahib by the same title, shows that he is using the term in a general sense in English, to mean a religious leader.

    When you recently joined the Qadiani Jamaat, how did you express your acceptance of HMGA as prophet? Was it, perhaps, by saying: La ilaha ill-Allah, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad rasul-ullah?  Or did you perhaps start believing that when you say La ilaha ill-Allah, Muhammad-ur Rasul-ullah it includes the prophethood of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad? Do let us know.

  10. Hassan appears to be a very confusing character.  I dont know what to make of his remarks.  Most of the time he doesnt make any sense. 

    Hassan, M .ali and Sher Ali shared the same belief in terms of the finality of prophethood from 1903 to 1909(at least).  That is what my data shows. 

    That is another point that proves that M. ali and others never considered HMGA as a full-fledged prophet of allah.

    The concept of full-fledged prophethood after the HP doesnt exist in ahmadiyya literature until 1914(see ROR).  Yes, partial prophethood(muhadassiyyat) did exist not only in ahmadiyya literature but also in muslim literature.  

    HMBMA wrote in AS something to the effect that terms are not a special moment of realization, its the definition of those terms that matters. 

    Once again, i am requesting you to comment on the article.  Please do so. 

  11. Mr. Bashir,
    Yus Asaf was not the muslim saint therefore MGA said that this prophet should be from Israelity prophet.
    also MMA said that no muslim saint has been called the prophet after the HP, I totally agree with this. Related my question about kwajja Kamaludin that he called the Prophet to MGA
    aaiil has answered with “the terms nabi or rasul have been used for Muslim saints by their follower” How could the answer is contracdictory with MGA’s argument and MMA said?

    Mr. Zahid,
    I agree that Sir Sayyid was not universally known as a prophet among Muslim
    he never claim to be a prophet, that why the article of Kwajja Kamaludin was not clearly that he called the prophet to Sir Sayyid,
    it just mentioned the same Aligarh, forget him
    but its very clearly that Kwajja kamaluddin called the MGA with “the prophet of Qadian.”
    so if related with the above article what MGA argument and MMA said that no muslim saint has been called the prophet after the HP.
    it shows me strongly that Kwajja called the prophet to MGA not in sense because no muslim saint has been called the prophet after the HP
    In regard with your question about my syahadat
    I acceptance that MGA was messenger of Allah and he was the prophet because he has been called the prophet by Allah.
    His prophethood morever a not a substantial and independent prophethood but one acquired through the Holy Prophet, it is on account of his being a perfect manifestation of the Holy Prophet that he has received the tite of a prophet.
    that why no need to saying “La ilaha Ill-Alah, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad rasul-ullah.” 
    enough to say: “La Ilaha ill-Allah, Muhammad-ur Rasul-ullah”
    because the Holy Prophet is ‘the seal of the prophets’
    The “Seal of the Prophets” is a much higher position than the “Last of the Prophets”.
    It means that the Holy Prophet excel all the other prophets
    do you believe Adam to Isa as the prophets, mr. Zahid? If yes why you not mentioned their name in your syahadat?
    so what means the seal of prophet? The last Prophet?
    how could the part of the prophethood (mUhaddast) still could be come if the meaning ‘seal of the prophets’ is ‘the Last of Prophet (any kind of prophethood)’ ?

  12. October 9th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
    From Zahid Aziz:

    Mr Hassan, you can read the beliefs of Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din about Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad in his brief lecture of 1911 as published at this link. Please read from page 10 to the end (p. 13). He declares the Holy Prophet Muhammad as the last prophet and Hazrat Mirza sahib as Mujaddid like previous mujaddids and auliya, some of whom he names.

    As to your question, “do you believe Adam to Isa as the prophets, mr. Zahid? If yes why you not mentioned their name in your syahadat?”, the reason is simply that since the very beginning of Islam everyone has known that a person who becomes a Muslim by this shahadat also believes in all the earlier prophets.

    But in your case, when you declare the shahadat, no one will know from it that you believe in an additional prophet, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.

    Your Jamaat has declared that other Muslims, reciting the same shahadat, are kafirs, excluded from Islam, and are unbelievers like Jews, Hindus and Christians, and that in practical relations and Shariah matters your jamaat members must treat other Muslims like they are non-Muslims. So how are you, Mr Hassan, going to know from someone’s Kalima shahadat if you should regard him as a Muslim brother of yours or a non-Muslim?

    The Kalima shahadat is what someone declares in order to become a Muslim. If, as your Jamaat believes, people who are reciting that Kalima still remain unbelievers, just like Jews and Christains, then you must formulate a Kalima that does make a person into a Muslim.

    Finally, are you from Indonesia?

  13. Mr. Zahid said:
    “But in your case, when you declare the shahadat, no one will know from it that you believe in an additional prophet, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. “”

    Believing the prophet is my relationship with God

    thats why no one must know what my believing including you

    When I declare the syahadat, I believe with all messenger of Allah,

    and I will not make distinction between one messenger and other messenger of Allah

    do you believe that Imam Mahdi is messenger of Allah, Mr. Zahid?
    I dont think so.

    did he got the title of a “prophet” from Allah?

    Please let me know.


  14. October 10th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
    From Abdul Momin:

    Mr Hassan, this is a sincere piece of advice for you. First take a course in English. When it comes to expressing yourself, you are a complete mess. Take some time out, learn how to construct a proper sentence in English and then come back in a year’s time. When reading your posts one is hard pressed to understand what you are trying to say. We should not have to bear the burden of trying to understand both your logic as well as your English.
    Just because you feel it necessary that you have to defend your jamaat’s beliefs is no reason for you to get involved in a discussion where you hardly make any sense. While you are learning the English language, also try to get to know about HMGA’s claims from his books, not what your mind tells you what he has claimed or should claim.   

  15. Mr, Hassan, if your belief in Hazrat Mirza sahib as a prophet is a matter between you and God, and no one else needs to know about it, then why are you discussing this belief on this forum! Your Jamaat is preaching this doctrine throughout the world. You should tell them that it a matter between a person and God, and they should stop mentioning this belief to any person!

    The shahadat you declare consists of the same words as the shahadat that other Muslims declare. So why do you call them kafir and excluded from Islam like Jews and Christians, while you are Muslim?

    You didn’t answer whether you are from Indonesia?

  16. Supporters of Sir Syed Ahmad Khan:
    Qadianis, whether like it or not, have no choice but to give utmost respect to Hazrat Maulana Noor Ud Din sahib in order to legitimize and establish their Khilafat system.

    The same Hazrat Maulana Noor Ud Din made huge financial contributions towards the establishment of Aligarh Muslim University, founded by Sir Syed Ahmad Khan. So if we use Hassan’s logic that he gave in October 08, 2008 comment, then it will be fair to say that Qadiani Khalifas are followers of Sir Syed Ahmad Khan.

  17. Mr. Abdul Momin, thanks for your advice.

    I’m sorry if my English is bad.

    but It is not necessary for you to answer my question which addressed to Mr. Zahid.

    Btw, are you English Master, mr. Abdul?

    If yes I will take English course to you.

    Now my first question is what is the actual meaning of ‘Khatam’ in English dictionary?

    and Please tell me the Originally MGA’s book in English regarding with his claim.

    Mr. Zahid,

    What are you talking about?
    Where and when did I call them kafir? It is slander, fear Allah Mr. Zahid

    You did not answer my question. Was the MGA messenger of Allah?

    If you answer my question first, you will find what qur’an say regarding about your question.

  18. On a point discussed earlier about Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, please note the following statement on the Story of Pakistan website:

    Syed Ahmad Khan’s Aligarh Movement played a significant role in bringing about an intellectual revolution among the Indian Muslims. Thus it succeeded in achieving its major objectives, i.e. educational progress and social reform. His efforts earned Sir Syed the title “Prophet of Education”.

    See link here.

    Perhaps this is why Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din used that term about him.

  19. Mr Hassan, you ask “Where and when did I call them kafir?”. I am referring to the doctrines preached by your Jamaat. If your personal beliefs on this point are different, then please let us know.

    It is clearly stated in the book The Truth about the Split, available on your Jamaat’s website in English and Urdu, text as well as audio, that all other Muslims are kafir, outside the fold of Islam, and are not Muslims, even though they may not have heard the name of the Promised Messiah. In the book Kalimat-ul-fasal by the younger Mirza Bashir Ahmad, on your Jamaat’s website, it is declared that Ahmadis must treat other Muslims as if they are unbelievers just like Christians.

    You ask whether Hazrat Mirza sahib was “messenger of Allah”. Here is what the Quran says:

    “Certainly We sent Our messengers with clear arguments, and sent down with them the Book and the measure” (57:25).

    According this verse, Hazrat Mirza sahib is not a messenger as he was not sent with any book.

    And in the following verse:

    “The believers are those only who believe in Allah and His Messenger, then they doubt not, and struggle hard with their wealth and their lives in the way of Allah.” (49:15).

    who is “His Messenger”. No name is given. We don’t believe that “His messenger” in this verse is now Hazrat Mirza sahib. Perhaps you do.

    Then there is this verse:

    “The Messenger believes in what has been revealed to him from his Lord, and so do the believers. They all believe in Allah and His angels and His Books and His messengers.” (2:285)

    Who is “the messenger” here? Do you think it is Mirza Ghulam Ahmad? This verse says that both the Holy Prophet Muhammad and all the believers believe in the same messengers. So we today believe in all the messengers that the Holy Prophet Muhammad believed in. He did not believe in Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as messenger.

    You still haven’t answered my question I have asked twice before: Are you from Indonesia?

  20. October 13th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
    From Abdul Momin:

    Mr Hassan, I don’t have any desire to get involved in a discussion with you, but on a couple of occassions you have referred to my article on this discussion forum. That gives me a justification to write a post addressing you.

    Whether I am a master in the English language or not is not for me to say, but I do not hear any complaints concerning my English.

     “Now my first question is what is the actual meaning of ‘Khatam’ in English dictionary?”


    The simple answer is that the word “khatam” does not exist in the English language. So it is not present in any English dictionary! Since it is not present in the English language or dictionary, therefore no meaning is provided.

    You see a dictionary will only provide a meaning to a word when that word is present in that dictionary. Now when that word is not even known to the language for which the dictionary provides meanings, therefore the dictionary will not contain that word. If it is not present in that dictionary, how can that dictionary present a meaning to that word? I hope this is not very hard for you to understand.
    If you want to read about Hazrat Mirza Saheb’s claims, most of his books were written in Urdu and none in English. So you have to read them in Urdu.

    As you want to debate HMGA’s status (whether he was a prophet or a saint) on this discussion forum, it is your job to read about his claims in the languages that he used to write his books or to find adequate translations. It is not my job to provide English translations of his books to you.

    But since you only want to ask questions of Dr Zahid Aziz, I shall be very glad to let you have your “discussion” with him. So I shall not write a post addressing you unless it is extremely necessary.

  21. I am greatly amused by all of this.  This guy is a lamen.  He has no business discussing anything with a scholar like ZA. 

    Hassan, thanks for amusing me this month. 

    You wrote to abdul momin saying something like, “..if your english is so good, why dont you teach me”.

    ^was that an attempt at sarcasm?  OMG, thats funny.

    Thanks for making this thread a laugher–good job.

  22. Dear Mr. Abdul Momin,

    Please read the article from aaiil page 8

    This article in English

    ..I am The Khatamal Khulafa…

    I am still confusing with the meaning of khatam

    what does it means? The most perfect or the last.

    also please read Mr. Zahid’s commentary dd. 20 august 2008 about this

    which one is correct?



  23. Mr Hassan, I notice you have already learnt the Qadiani Jamaat tricks. The meaning of Khatam is not what you or I give it but what the person using it gives it. If someone in English wrote “the last day”, can you tell if he means yesterday or if he means the final day of judgment?

    Hazrat Mirza sahib has repeatedly given the meaning of Khatam-un-nabiyyin. See this link for several references.

    He has directly translated khatam-un-nabiyyin into Urdu as “the one to end the prophets”. He has repeatedly written that khatam-un-nabiyyin means that no prophet, new or old, can come after the Prophet Muhammad.

    Even your Khalifa Mirza Mahmud Ahmad wrote in 1912: “Now, who is the Khatam-un-Nabiyyin: the one who comes last or the one who came earlier?” He wrote in 1910, in 1911, and in 1912 that Khatam-un-nabiyyin means that no prophet can come after the Prophet Muhammad. See this link for full references.

    As to Khatam-ul-Khulafa, this means what the writer has said it means, just as Khatam-un-nabiyyin means what the writer says it means. In any case, whether Khatam-ul-Khulafa means perfect, greatest or last, it proves that Hazrat Mirza sahib was a khalifa of the Prophet Muhammad, and in the same category as other khalifas of the Holy Prophet, from Hazrat Abu Bakr onwards. This demolishes your khilafat system completely, because it was Hazrat Mirza sahib who was a khalifa of the Holy Prophet and not the khalifas of your Jamaat.

    Please answer also what the Promised Messiah means by khatam when he writes that “the Holy Prophet Muhammad is the khatam-un-nabiyyin and the Holy Quran is the khatam-ul-kutub.”

    And what does he mean by khatam when he writes that “the khatam-ul-anbiya of the Israelites is named Isa and the khatam-ul-anbiya of Islam is named Ahmad and Muhammad”?

  24. October 14th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
    From Abdul Momin:

    In his books HMGA says that the spiritual systems of the Jewish and Islamic religions closely paralleled each other. In other words they were similar – though not the same. According to the similarities that HMGA presents, Jesus (the Jewish Messiah) was the last prophet of the Jewish religion while he (HMGA – the Muslim Messiah) was the last Wali or Khalifa amongst those Khalifas who bore a spiritual resemblance to the Israeli prophets. This is what he means by Khatam-ul-Khulfa or Khatam-ul-Auliya. If one reads his book Tohfa Golarea, one is left with no doubt about what he means by these terms.

    The term “last Khalifa” is therefore used in a restricted sense to himself as being the last Muslim Successor of the Holy Prophet who bore a spiritual resemblance to the last Israeli successor to Moses.

    However, while there can be no more prophets after the last of the prophets (Holy Prophet) because the perfection of scriptures prevents the appearance of a new prophet, a new Muslim saint in the future who does not resemble an Isreali prophet is not forbidden to the world because no saint ever brings or adds anything to the exisiting scriptures.

    I wonder why “last” and “best” are considered to be contradictory or mutually exclusive words by members of the Qadiani jamaat. Where the word “khatam” is concerned, these two words complement each other. Something brought to a perfection usually occurs at the end of a process, as the Holy Prophet indicates in a hadith.

  25. Mr. Zahid,
    Where I can found out about MGA’s writting that “the khatam-ul-anbiya of the Israelites is named Isa and the khatam-ul-anbiya of Islam is named Ahmad and Muhammad”?
    Please show me in aaiil website, thanks

    Mr. Abdul Momin,
    What book did you read Mr. Abdul Momin?
    I am talking about book the ark noah in aaiil website which clearly mentioned that the Khatam-Ul-Khulafa means the most perfect among the successors of the Holy Prophet
    Please read in the bracket on page 8
    Overall, your explanation shows that you did not understand the concept well.
    In this book MGA only says that Allah has conveyed to him that the Muhammadi Messiah
    stands higher in RANK than the Mosaic Messiah.
    he did not say anything about the Last successor

    Mr. Abdul Momin said: “However, while there can be no more prophets after the last of the prophets (Holy Prophet) because the perfection of scriptures prevents the appearance of a new prophet, a new Muslim saint in the future who does not resemble an Isreali prophet is not forbidden to the world because no saint ever brings or adds anything to the exisiting scriptures. ”

    If MGA claims that he was the Last saints, how could a new Muslim saint in the future still can appear into the world?

  26. Mr Hassan, I can certainly show you the references from Hazrat Mirza sahib’s writings, and on the Qadiani Jamaat’s own website. But when you realise that you can’t answer them, you will simply say nothing. That’s what you have been doing up to now. You accused me of “slander” when I wrote that you consider other Muslims to be kafir and outside the fold of Islam. But when I provided the references, you became quiet, instead of answering or admitting that you were wrong.

    Why don’t you answer whether you are from Indonesia? I have asked you this three times before.

    We don’t even know whether you are actually a member of the Qadiani Jamaat. It is quite possible that you are an opponent of the Ahmadiyya Movement pretending to be a Qadiani. It is an anti-Ahmadiyya ploy and tactic to try to prove that the Qadiani beliefs about Hazrat Mirza sahib’s claim are correct and ours are wrong, because it strengthens your case for denouncing the Promised Messiah. How will you prove to us that you are really a member of the Qadiani Jamaat? Perhaps with a photograph in the company of the khalifa.

  27. October 15th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
    From Abdul Momin:


    To the blog Administrator:
    Isn’t it remarkable that the first comment from the ‘skunk was:

    “I really thought that you will be at least worth having a debate, but after reading your responses to Hassan’s posts, it is quite evident to me, you are no different from any other Quadiani………”

    A self-proclaimed anti-Qadiani finds no rationality in a Qadiani’s views when he debates with them, but seems to have such a soft corner for him here that before debating anything with the AAIIL, he condemns them before discussing anything with them!

    How touching!

  28. Mr. Abdul Momin
    Obviously you did not read or understand what Skunk’s post

    It is not strange for me if you also did not understand what MGA said in his book.

    Read what skunk posted:

    “I really thought that you will be at least worth having a debate, but after reading your responses to Hassan’s posts, it is quite evident to me, you are no different from any other Quadiani. You have absolutely no valid arguments to support your claims or support the writings of Mirza, except conjecture. Same old word game, Mirza played all his life, I am, I am not.”


    I am still searching for a Quadiani who is remotely truthful. But I think my search will be in vain. I was amongst those Muslims who knew absolutely nothing about your cult. And I mean both your Anjuman and Jamat, I consider both of you the same except that your anjuman to be hypocrite of highest degree. When I started to read your Mirza’s literature I was open minded. I started to research after coming across some one in my life albeit by chance whose wife belongs to this cult.

    I think you guys are halfway house. You deliberately and knowingly hide the truth that Mirza didn’t declare himself as Prophet. Anyhow, nothing Mirza wrote could be justified. I have started to write articles recently on my blog after debating on some Quadiani Forums. …..



  29. October 16th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
    From Abdul Momin:

    At first I thought about posting a lengthy response describing the character of someone posing as one of a group of poeple whom he hates – the Qadianis. He wrote on August 23, 2008, concerning HMGA:

    “Now after I got answering from you, I believe that he is one the messenger of Allah.”

    But after further consideration, I realized that we are dealing with a deeply troubled person. Whatever psychological problems he may have, it is fairly obvious that his mental space has become one dimensional. Something in life has made him go over the edge. So whatever he does or says appear to him as right, and he cannot see the contradictions within his own self. What troubles me the most, however, is that like a serial killer, he actually wanted to be found out who he was and what he was. This can only be the thinking of a mentally deranged person.

    As he is a fellow human being, we can only pray to the Almighty to remove his troubles and enable him to see and think clearly. Ameen.

    I do not see any further point in having “discussions” with a Crank.

  30. Your comment it only your trick for covering and to hide your shame mister 
    all readers here have known it !

  31. Mr Hassan, we have been answering every question you have put to us, but you have been repeating the same again and again in different forms. Also, you have failed to answer the questions that I asked you. Moreover, it appears that you are an anti-Ahmadiyya zealot just playing a game of arguing from the Qadiani Jamaat perspective.

    I have published your last comment above, even though you are impugning the integrity of our respected contributors. They don’t hide behind false names and false affiliations. No further post by you will be published here.

  32. October 17th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
    From Abdul Momin:

    It is remarkable isn’t it ? Or maybe it isn’t. Whenever one of these anti-Ahmadiyya cranks visit us to “defeat” us from the shallowness of their minds (and not from any knowledge of religion) their best weapon is deception and camouflage. A few years ago there was this person thumping his chest just as loudly as this recent one. Guess what? It turned out that he was posting under two different names and making it look like there were two posters “debating” us. Finally, he made a critical error by addressing himself while thinking that he was posting as the other person. 

    These people really give the anti-Ahmadiyya lobby a bad name.

  33. It was from the spelling of a word in a post by Hassan that I guessed that he was from Indonesia. No wonder he wasn’t answering my question whether he was from that country, because I have now discovered that his posts originated from Indonesia.

  34. October 17th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
    From Abdul Momin:

    I think I know which word is being referred to, and I always kept that in mind. But how much more convoluted can it get? This so called neutral Muslim posing as a Qadiani seems to actually regret that HMGA’s claim is not that of a Prophet.

    Life for these people is so much easier when they take the Qadiani jamaat’s members’ beliefs concerning HMGA at their face value. This way they don’t have to prove anything. All they have to do is to sling mud – the easiest job in the world. Like in most other matters, they are too lazy to try to understand anything which involves attaining knowledge. Their expertise lies only in mischief – which has become second nature to them.

    But at least this gives us first-hand knowledge of what it must have been like in HMGA’s time.

Leave a Reply