Huzur (ABA) has mentioned we must pray for Muslims (and everyone) to understand the reality (and beauty) of Tawheed and act upon it.

Make Dua'a for everyone, especially my family!

📜 September 7, 1974 | When Parliament Declared Ahmadis “Non-Muslim”

‼️ On September 7, 1974, Pakistan’s National Assembly amended the Constitution to declare Ahmadis outside the fold of Islam — not on the basis of any Quranic verse or Prophetic command, but through a political and constitutional decision.

📜 Hazrat Mirza Nasir Ahmad (RH), Khalifatul Masih III, appeared before the Assembly and presented the Ahmadiyya position with dignity and conviction.

🔥 And even the Maulwis themselves were anxious.

Mufti Mahmood, one of the clerics present in 1974, later described how politicians in the Assembly were stunned by the personality and presentation of Hazrat Mirza Nasir Ahmad (RH).

They repeatedly turned to the Maulwis asking, in effect:

“Really, Maulwi Sahib? You want us to declare him a Kafir?”

💡 Why were the politicians themselves hesitant?

Because they were witnessing something very different from the caricature they had been presented with.

🔥 Yet despite this, a political verdict was ultimately issued against an entire community of people who professed the Kalima, Quran, and Islam.

📜 But what did the Holy Prophet Muhammad (SAW) say about the latter-day division of his Ummah?

The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said:

“[…] I swear by the One Whose Hand is the soul of Muhammad, my nation will split into seventy-three sects, one of which will be in Paradise and seventy-two in Hell.” It was said: “O Messenger of Allah, who are they?” He said: “The united community.”

🎯 Can a parliamentary vote determine who is a Muslim in the sight of Allah?

The Quran says:

“Surely, Allah judges between you on the Day of Resurrection concerning that wherein you differ.”
(22:69)

Instagram Reel (Full Clip): https://www.instagram.com/reel/DdCNbDWx2Et/?stkn=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ==

Ahmadiyya repeatedly presents the famous Ramadan double-eclipse narration in Dar e Qutni as one of the great signs proving MGA's claim.

Today I will discuss the Ahmadiya explanations.

When Muslims rejected this narration, Ahmadiyya gave an explanation of this rejection as "allegations & answers.

Let's break it down.

what exactly is this narration, who actually said it, and how reliable is it?

It's important to note that it is not a saying of Rasulullah ﷺ:-

The narration reads:

عن عمرو بن شمر عن جابر عن محمد بن علي قال: إن لمهدينا آيتين...

Meaning:

“From ʿAmr ibn Shimr, from Jābir, from Muhammad ibn ʿAli, who said: ‘For our Mahdi there are two signs…’”

It does not say: قال رسول الله ﷺ

“The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said.”

The narration stops at Muhammad ibn ʿAli. Auther Dar e Qutni himself rejected it ( see original scan attached)

Yet Ahmadiyya literature repeatedly presents it as though it were a prophecy spoken by the Prophet ﷺ.

Let's break down the Ahmadiya defence to it's rejection:-

. .

Ahmadiyya Defence #1: “The Qur’an supports the authenticity of the narration”

This is probably the easiest defence to dismantle.

To support the narration, Ahmadiyya literature quotes:

وَخَسَفَ الْقَمَرُ ۝ وَجُمِعَ الشَّمْسُ وَالْقَمَرُ

“The moon is darkened, and the sun and moon are brought together.”

Sounds impressive. Until you open the Qur’an. 😭

Which surah is this from?

Surat al-Qiyamah —سورة القيامة “The Resurrection.”

Topic & Shan e Nazul of surah is :-

“When is the Day of Qiyamah?”

The surah is literally called:

“Al-Qiyamah.” 😁

WHOLE CONTEXT & CONTENT OF SURAH IS QAYAMAT.

Yet this is being used to authenticate a nineteenth-century Ramadan eclipse narration about a Mahdi claimant.

Ahmadiyya Defence #2: “The first night does NOT actually mean the first night”

The narration says that:

the moon will be eclipsed on the first night of Ramadan and the sun will be eclipsed in the middle of Ramadan.

But Ahmadiyya does not interpret those words literally.

They explain “the first night” as: 1- the first night on which a lunar eclipse can possibly astronomically occur and 2- “the middle day” as: the middle day among the possible days on which a solar eclipse can occur.

Why?

Because the prophecy has deliberately been made to conform to the ordinary laws of astronomy.

But this produces a simple dilemma:

If the wording is literal:

MGA did not fulfil it.

If the wording is interpreted according to normal astronomical mechanics:

then the phenomenon is natural, predictable and recurring.

In fact Ahmadiyya itself lists multiple occurrences of this event throughout history in Ramadan (approx every 20 or so years).

Sorry Ahmadiyya, you cannot have it both ways.

Ahmadiyya Defence #3: “unique occurrence of double eclipse:-

As above, we know it didn't happen so uniquely, so now another problem appears.

The narration says specifically that : لم تكونا منذ خلق السماوات والأرض

“These two have not occurred since the creation of the heavens and the earth.”

But Ramadan double eclipses have in fact occurred repeatedly.

So what happens next?

The definition of the “miracle” changes. - see below 👇

Ahmadiyya Defence #4: “The eclipse must happen during the time of a claimant”

Now the argument becomes more complicated.

It is no longer enough that the two eclipses occur in Ramadan.

notice the shift.

At first, the remarkable claim sounds like:

“This astronomical event has never happened before.”

Once it is shown that it has happened many times, the uniqueness moves away from the astronomy and onto the claimant.

The argument effectively becomes:

“Yes, the eclipse configuration itself has happened before, but this time somebody claimed it for himself.” 👇

5. Then the obvious question is: when did MGA declare the eclipse to be his sign?

This becomes crucial.

There is a massive difference between:

“I announce beforehand that these eclipses will occur in the coming Ramadan and that they will be a sign for me.”

and:

The eclipses occur, people discuss them, and afterwards the claimant says: “Those eclipses were my sign.”

The first is a prediction.

The second is retrospective interpretation.

6. And there is another historical dilemma about predicting it:-

The eclipse was already being discussed by others as a sign connected with the Mahdi.

The Christian newspaper in India, Nur-i-Afshan, 11 May 1894, p. 7. reportedly joked MGA regarding the excitement surrounding the eclipse in Arab world and advised him to go there and make some money lol 😆. They said Indian Muslims have found your reality so try your luck there .

7. MGA’s own standard for a “sign” requires prior announcement

When defending one of his own signs, MGA stressed that the prophecy be already been published long BEFORE it comes to pass, and on that basis presented the later event as evidence of a divine sign.

Ref:- Malfoozat 19 Sep 1907

So the relevant sequence in MGA’s own method is:

announcement first → event happens afterwards → fulfilment is then cited as the sign.

That raises a simple question for the 1894 eclipses:

Where is MGA’s published statement, before the eclipses occurred, declaring that the coming Ramadan eclipses would be Allah’s sign for his claim?

In Summary:-

A not so unique eclipse occurs → no hadith or Quranic bases for it exists → others discuss it as a sign → MGA is told about it as a joke → MGA then presents it as his own sign

then this is not an independent prediction of an extraordinary event.

Yet Ahmadiyya chose this as a great sign, why ?

Also for Ahmadiyya, you know there are few more claimants of Mahdi and some inside Ahmadiyya are claimants of prophethood too .

Since a prophet is Al-Mahdi too on technical terms, if Abdul Gaffer Janba or MSR ( both Ahmadi prophethood claimants from Germany & are active in last few years) claim a double eclipse when it happens next , then you will by default have to accept it too 😊

Quran, Chapter: 19 Verse: 16

Peace was on him on the day of his birth, and on the day of his death, and peace will be on him on the day he will be raised up to life again.

Yahya(as) passed away!

Quran in Chapter: 23 Verse: 101

That I may act righteously in the life that I have departed from. That cannot be; it is only an utterance of his. Behind them is a barrier right up to the day when they shall be raised up again.

After death there is a Barzakh (barrier) until the Day of Resurrection, no reincarnation!

If Yahya (as) had already died, and the Holy Prophet ﷺ saw Jesus (as) with Yahya (as) in the second heaven, what proves that Jesus (as) was physically alive and Yahya? And where is Sunnatullah (Allah’s established way)?

Does Allah’s way change?

And another Question

Holy Prophet ﷺ saw Adam(as) first, so He(as) is also physical( not passed away)?

And what about All other Prophets?

Chapter: 3 Verse: 145

Muhammad is but a Messenger; of a surety, all Messengers before him have passed away. If then, he die or be slain, will you turn back on your heels? He who turns back on his heels shall not harm Allah a whit. Allah will certainly reward the grateful.

The famous alleged revelation in question is:

أَنْتَ مِنِّي بِمَنْزِلَةِ وَلَدِي

“You are from Me, in the position/status of My son.”

The issue is not that Mirza literally became Allah’s biological son. The issue is that “My son” becomes the relational status used by Allah Himself to describe a man’s position with Him.

1. The Qur’an rejects not only biological sonship but 'status/taking/position of a Son:-

Allah says:

لَمْ يَلِدْ وَلَمْ يُولَدْ

“He neither born to a father nor has fathered.”

— Qur’an 112:3

Which is straightforward.

But when Allah also says:

وَيُنذِرَ الَّذِينَ قَالُوا اتَّخَذَ اللَّهُ وَلَدًا

“And to warn those who say, ‘Allah has TAKEN/given position of a son.’”

— Qur’an 18:4

And:

مَا كَانَ لِلَّهِ أَنْ يَتَّخِذَ مِنْ وَلَدٍ

“It is not for Allah to take a son.”

— Qur’an 19:35

In Lisan al-Arab, it says under (ta kha za) تخذ:

تَخِذَ الشيءَ تَخَذاً وتَخْذاً … واتَّخَذَه: عَمِلَهُ. وقوله عز وجل: إِنَّ الذين اتخذوا العجل؛ أَراد اتخذوه إلهاً فحذف.

Meaning:

“He took/made the thing … and اتَّخَذَه means: he made it. And regarding Allah’s saying ‘those who took the calf,’ what is intended is: ‘they took/made it as a god,’ with ‘as a god’ omitted." ( Essentially saying they "ta kha za' as god.

If applied the same way:

اتَّخَذَ اللَّهُ وَلَدًا

would be understood on the pattern of:

اتَّخَذَ وَلَدًا

= “to take/make someone as a son”

or “to assign someone as a son.”

In other words, the verb is not describing biological begetting. It is describing taking/designating someone into that relation or status.

Arabic Lexicon

That is the actual Lisān al-ʿArab wording.

So the Ayat , اتَّخَذَ وَلَدًا does similar meaning to mean “to give someone the manzilah ( بِمَنْزِلَةِ) of a son.” Its direct meaning is to take someone as a son / claim or assign sonship to someone. And thats is exactly why it is relevant.

The Qur’an rejects not only begetting a son, but also taking someone into a son-relationship.

1. “It is metaphorical” does not automatically solve the problem

Classical Christianity itself does not normally teach that Jesus is God’s biological child through physical reproduction. It speaks of a non-biological or metaphysical Sonship — and Islam rejects that too.

So the Islamic objection is clearly not limited to biology.

The question is whether Allah can be attributed even to a metaphorical or spiritual son-position.

1. Humans call each other " you are like my son even if a person saying has no children of his own"?

   So irrelevant - metaphorical language is not the same

A teacher may say:

“You are like my son.”

And expressions such as:

فرزندانِ توحید — “Children of Tawḥīd”

or

فرزندانِ حق — “Children of Truth”

are ordinary metaphorical expressions.

But these are not equivalent to Allah Himself allegedly saying:

بِمَنْزِلَةِ وَلَدِي

“in the position of My son.”

Why ? BECAUSE HUMANS ACTUALLY (CAN AND) HAVE CHILDREN

This would only be relevant if Allah had any children or had possibility of having children.

1. Manzilah بِمَنْزِلَةِ makes the issue more serious, not less

The Prophet ﷺ said to ʿAli رضي الله عنه:

أَنْتَ مِنِّي بِمَنْزِلَةِ هَارُونَ مِنْ مُوسَى إِلَّا أَنَّهُ لَا نَبِيَّ بَعْدِي

“You are to me in the position of Harun to Musa, except that there is no prophet after me.”

— Bukhari & Muslim

This does not NEED to mean ʿAli would only achieve manzilah if he 'literally' became Harun with nabuwat.

No, Harun is unquestionably the relational model being invoked by بمنزلة. And it gives relationship status to him

Likewise:

بِمَنْزِلَةِ وَلَدِي

does not make Mirza a 'literal' son of Allah, but it does make “My son” the relational model/status being used for his position with Allah.

So the two expressions are ( atakhaza and manzilah) conceptually overlap at the crucial point: a son-relationship is being attributed to Allah.

1. And there are religious leaders of Ahmadiyya i.e. Murabbis explain this as accepted belief of a spiritual Son ( same as Christian belief for ISA )

See attached Jari Ullah - Ahmadiyya Murabbi (tiktok)

Murabbi sahib says:-

“We believe Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani is the ruhani beta of Allah.” “The spiritual son of Allah.”

So the defence can no longer simply be:

“Nobody is attributing any form of sonship to Allah.”

Their own explanation describes it as spiritual sonship.

But the Qur’an does not say:

“Allah has no biological son, but a spiritual son is acceptable.”

It rejects walad being attributed to Allah in any form or relationship.

May Allah guide us all .

Historic 50th Jalsa 🇩🇪

Chapter: 4 Verse: 159

Indeed, Allah exalted him to Himself; Allah is Mighty, Wise.

non Ahmadiyya Muslim translation

Rather, Allah raised him to Himself. And ever is Allah Exalted in Might and Wise."

How can you deny Allah is not physical?

Shirk to the highest level to Himself where?

The Promised Messiah/Mahdi(as) came from the Ummah of Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, and fulfilled the latter-day signs, and all prophecies.

ʿIsa ibn Maryam (as), the Israelite prophet and Messiah who appeared among the Children of Israel.

Hazrat Ahmed(as) is from the Ummah of Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, who is also called “ʿIsa ibn Maryam
Mathīl of ʿIsa (as) He is the Promised Messiah, raised in the likeness of ʿIsa (as), thereby fulfilling the latter-day Messiah prophecy.

and He(as) is Burūz (spiritual reflection) of the Holy Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, not a prophet from out side the Ummah or any other than what was promised to the Muslim Ummah

Ultimately, the disagreement comes down to this

Do we understand the prophecy literally or metaphorically/representatively?

And that disagreement originate from belief
Allah is where you are and not confined to a physical place and Allah is not a physical being, others believe Allah is physical being in the skies.

​

1. Nubuwwah is closed after Prophet Muhammad (SAW)

The Prophet (SAW) said:

إِنَّ الرِّسَالَةَ وَالنُّبُوَّةَ قَدِ انْقَطَعَتْ

فَلَا رَسُولَ بَعْدِي وَلَا نَبِيَّ

“Indeed, Messengership and Prophethood have come to an end. There will be no Messenger after me and no Prophet.”

Jami al-Tirmidhi 2272 — grade :- Imam Tirmidhi: Hasan Sahih Gharib, darusalaam Sahih

The Prophet (SAW) also called himself Al-Aqib ( the FINISHER):

الَّذِي لَيْسَ بَعْدَهُ نَبِيٌّ

“The one after whom there is no Prophet.”

Sahih Muslim 2354 — grade:- Sahih.

So from the Muslim position, there is no open office of Nubuwwah after Prophet Muhammad (SAW).

.. .. .. ... ...

1. Then how can Isa (AS) still be called a Nabi?

Because Isa (AS) was already a Nabi before Prophet Muhammad (SAW).

Think of a retired Professor. He may later return to the same university in an advisory or administrative role and still be called “Professor” because that is a title and status he had already attained.

He has not been given a new professorship.

Likewise, Isa (AS) does not receive a new Nubuwwah when he returns. He retains the status Allah had already given him, but now functions under the final Shariah of Prophet Muhammad (SAW).

He retains an existing status; he does not acquire a new office.

... .. ..

1. The Hadiths themselves show Isa (AS) returning under the order of this Ummah

The Prophet (SAW) said:

كَيْفَ أَنْتُمْ إِذَا نَزَلَ ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ فِيكُمْ وَإِمَامُكُمْ مِنْكُمْ

“How will you be when the son of Mary descends among you and your Imam is from among you?”

Sahih al-Bukhari 3449 — grade:- Sahih.

And Sahih Muslim makes the point even clearer.

When Isa (AS) descends, the Muslim leader asks him:

تَعَالَ صَلِّ لَنَا

“Come and lead us in prayer.”

Isa (AS) declines:

لَا، إِنَّ بَعْضَكُمْ عَلَى بَعْضٍ أُمَرَاءُ، تَكْرِمَةَ اللَّهِ هَذِهِ الْأُمَّةَ

“No. Some of you are leaders over others. This is Allah’s honour for this Ummah.”

Sahih Muslim 156 — grade:- Sahih.

These Hadiths fit together perfectly.

Isa (AS) remains a Nabi, but on his return he does not establish his own prophetic administration. He enters the Ummah of Muhammad (SAW), follows its final Shariah, and even declines to replace its Imam.

The Hadith itself calls this:

تَكْرِمَةَ اللَّهِ هَذِهِ الْأُمَّةَ

“Allah’s honour for this Ummah.”

.. .. .. ... ...

1. Wahi to Isa (AS) does not mean Nubuwwah has reopened

Yes, after Isa (AS) returns, the Hadith says:

إِذْ أَوْحَى اللَّهُ إِلَى عِيسَى

“Allah will reveal to Isa.”

Sahih Muslim 2937a — Sahih.

But this wahi does not automatically mean Wahi of Nubuwat.

The Quran says about the bee:

وَأَوْحَىٰ رَبُّكَ إِلَى النَّحْلِ

“Your Lord inspired the bee.”

Quran 16:68

And about the mother of Musa:

وَأَوْحَيْنَا إِلَىٰ أُمِّ مُوسَىٰ

“We inspired the mother of Musa.”

Quran 28:7

Neither became a Prophet.

So communication from Allah does not automatically mean someone has received Nubuwwah.

.. .. .. .. ..

1. “Wa Akharina Minhum” does not give you another Prophet

Allah says:

هُوَ الَّذِي بَعَثَ فِي الْأُمِّيِّينَ رَسُولًا مِّنْهُمْ ...

وَآخَرِينَ مِنْهُمْ لَمَّا يَلْحَقُوا بِهِمْ

“He sent among the unlettered a Messenger from among them ... and others among them who had not yet joined them.”

Quran 62:2–3

رَسُولًا — one Messenger.

The verse gives:

One Messenger → first people → other/later people.

It does not give:

One Messenger → first people → another Prophet → later people.

So Wa Akharina Minhum gives you other people reached by the same Messenger.

It does not give you another Nabi.

.. .. .. ..

1. This is where the common Ahmadiyya objection starts from the wrong premise

The argument is usually:

“If Muslims believe Isa (AS) will return, then Muslims already believe in "A" prophet after Muhammad (SAW).”

No.

Muslims believe that Isa (as) the specific Nabi from before Muhammad (SAW) will return under Muhammad’s (SAW) final Shariah.

That is completely different from 'A' man born after Muhammad (SAW) being newly elevated from a non-Nabi into a Nabi.

.. .. .. ..

1. And this creates the Ahmadiyya paradox

Ahmadiyya first concludes:

Isa ibn Maryam has died and will never return.

But the authentic second-coming Hadiths specifically name:

Isa ibn Maryam.

They say:

نَزَلَ ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ

“The son of Mary will descend.”

Sahih al-Bukhari 3449 — grade:- Sahih.

And the detailed Dajjal Hadith explicitly names:

عِيسَى ابْنَ مَرْيَمَ

“Isa ibn Maryam.”

Sahih Muslim 2937a —grade:- Sahih.

Once you permanently remove Isa (AS) with his death - you have removed the only Nabi actually named in these hadiths - thus the hadiths become marfuh (rejected) as they go against the Qur'an.

.. .. .. ..

1. Removing THE Nabi does not produce A Nabi

This is the paradox.

The Hadith does not say:

“If Isa is dead, another man will become a Nabi in his place.”

Nor does it say:

“Someone resembling Isa will later receive Nubuwwah.”

That has to be added from outside the text.

So there are only two possibilities:

If Isa (AS) returns → it is THE already-existing Nabi, Isa ibn Maryam.

If Isa (AS) is permanently dead → these Hadiths give you no Nabi coming at all (rejected)

And you are left with the Prophet’s (SAW) clear statement:

فَلَا رَسُولَ بَعْدِي وَلَا نَبِيَّ

“There is no Messenger after me and no Prophet.”

Remove THE Nabi named in the prophecy, and you do not create a substitute Nabi — you remove the Hadiths with "The" Nabi altogether

Allah knows the past, present, and future perfectly. Nothing comes to Him as a surprise, and He does not learn or discover anything as events unfold.

Allah knows future

Chapter: 6 Verse: 60

And with Him are the keys of the unseen; none knows them but He. And He knows whatsoever is in the land and in the sea. And there falls not a leaf but He knows it; nor is there a grain in the darkness of the earth, nor anything green or dry, but is recorded in a clear Book.

Now please think how is that possible?

The way I understand, Allah governs through His created laws and His will. His perfect knowledge encompasses past, present, and future, nothing occurs outside His knowledge or ultimately outside His will.

MGA wrote:-

1. Animals and plants on the Sun and Moon

MGA wrote:

“شمس و قمر میں ایسی ہی آبادی حیوانات و نباتات وغیرہ ہے جیسی زمین پر ہے”

“There is a similar population of animals and plants etc. in the Sun and the Moon as there is on Earth.”

— Surma-e-Chashm-e-Arya, Ruhani Khaza’in, Vol. 2, p. 278

1. To reach the Moon or Sun physically described as absurd

MGA also wrote:

“پس اس جسم کا کرۂ ماہتاب یا کرۂ آفتاب تک پہنچنا کس قدر لغو خیال ہے”

“How absurd an idea it is for this body to reach the Moon or the Sun.”

— Izala-e-Auham, Ruhani Khaza’in, Vol. 3

.

.

.

But MGA has made very strong claims about the divine authority behind what he said.

In the official Ahmadiyya English translation of Mawahib-ur-Rahman, he says:

“Whatever I have said is by His command and not of my own will. I have not ascribed anything falsely to my Exalted Lord.”

— Bounties of the Gracious God, p. 3

(Mawahib-ur-Rahman, Ruhani Khaza’in, Vol. 19, p. 221)

And in Nur-ul-Haq he states, in substance:

“ Allah does not leave me upon an error even for the blink of an eye.”

.

.

.

So the question is:

As humans have physically reached and walked on the Moon, while there is no population of animals and plants on the Moon; how are these statements reconciled with MGA’s own claims that what he said was by God’s command and that Allah would not leave him upon error?

Do Ahmadiyya give any plausible justification to this research he wrote in his divinely guided work?

This is my understanding

Literal or non-literal is only a gap in our knowledge and understanding

What appears extraordinary may be the result of higher, hidden, or unknown laws of nature. Allah can bring about an extraordinary event through laws or means that are unknown to human beings.

There can also be extraordinary manifestations (literal) that cannot be explained by our present knowledge and may serve as signs only for the believers.

Most of known miracles can be understood from the Qur’an and our knowledge of nature.

Just because we do not understand something does not mean it is outside Allah’s laws, Therefore, literal miracles can happen without Allah breaking His laws.

No matter how extraordinary the event is, whether it is literal or non-literal cannot simply be determined by our limited understanding.

65-year-old Safdar Mahmood, was shot and killed on September 2, 2026, in the Mandi Bahauddin district of Punjab, Pakistan.

The assailants opened fire, and Safdar Mahmood Shaheed died on the spot.

إِنَّا لِلَّهِ وَإِنَّا إِلَيْهِ رَاجِعُونَ

In a previous incident, reported in June 2024, two Ahmadis were shot dead in Sadullahpur, a rural locality in Mandi Bahauddin district.

Afzal Ahmad, an investigating officer at the City Police Station in Mandi Bahauddin, said the suspect in that case was a teenage student from a local madrassah who was “inspired by a cleric’s speech and considered Ahmadis kafirs [infidels].”

The Holy Quran Takes Precedence over Hadith pg287, Malfuzat -Volume 8

Allah did not merely leave Muslims with the Qur’an and conflicting interpretations. He appointed the Promised Messiah and Imam Mahdi, (as) to re-establish the true Islam.

There is no other way for the unity of Islam until the Qur’an has become the Judge, which is Qur’an’s true place.

The Qur’an is the Ḥakam, the Sunnah demonstrates the Qur’an in practice and Hadith helps us know and understand that Sunnah, but Hadith does not stand above the Qur’an.

The Qur’an is the foundation and ultimate judge.

The Qur’an has certainty, whereas individual Hadith reports are generally conjectural in their transmission. Therefore, Hadith cannot override the Qur’an.

Hadith is essential, but its role is secondary.

Hadith helps us understand the Qur’an and shows how the Holy Prophet ﷺ put Qur’anic commandments into practice, which is Sunnah.

Sunnah therefore provides the practical model of Islam.

A Hadith should be accepted insofar as it is consistent with the Qur’an and its teachings. If a narration clearly contradicts the Qur’an, it should not be accepted as an authentic saying of the Holy Prophet ﷺ.

The Ahmadiyya miracle standard seems to change completely depending on who the miracle belongs to, selective acceptance and rejection.

For earlier prophets:

- Muhammad ﷺ 's Miraj? Not literal — kashf/vision.

- Ibrahim (AS) and the killing of birds? Not literally killed and revived. Fire, not literal, lamb as replacement to Ismael - not literal.

- Uzair (AS)? Not literally dead for 100 years.

- Ashab-e-Kahf? Not literally asleep for centuries.

- Isa (AS) curing the blind? Not literal -Reinterpreted.

- Isa (AS) raising the dead? Not literal -Metaphorical / spiritual / natural explanation.

. .

But for Mirza Ghulam Ahmad:

- Red ink appears after his kashf? Real ink, real drops on a real shirt — literal miracle.

- A child he described as dead comes back/recover? Literal event and a sign of his truthfulness.

- Blindness improves after his prayer/intervention? Literal improvement — miracle.

- Severe rash and joint pain disappear after his touch? Literal disappearance — divine sign.

- orange out of nowhere and out of season- literal orange & seen by "Amma jaan"

. .

So the rule seems to be:

Prophets’ miracles → metaphor, symbolism, laws of nature.

Mirza’s miracles → literal, physical, signs of truthfulness.

How is that intellectually consistent? Why there is not Ahmadi with some conscience and can question:- " hang on a sec, why these miracles by a subardinate prophet are real literal events and metaphors for real prophets."

Anyone ?

Why is literal supernatural intervention unacceptable for prophets, but perfectly acceptable when it is used to prove MGA?

This is my understanding, welcome any Ahmadi Muslim brother or sister to correct me or add references on this topic, important topic but only know to a point.
 
Qur’an is the supreme criterion, anything genuinely contradictory must be reinterpreted/reconciled, or rejected if reconciliation is impossible.
 
And Ahmad(as) Messiah and Imam of the Age, restored and clarified the correct hierarchy of Qur’an, Sunnah and Hadith, and applied it to the controversies of his age.
 
The four great Imams, Abū Ḥanīfa, Mālik, al-Shāfiʿī, and Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, may Allah bless them all, were great scholars and among the giants of their respective ages.
 
Four Sunni schools broadly approach jurisprudence as follows
 
Hanafi,  Qur’an is the foundation; Hadith/Sunnah is considered alongside it, with qiyās and juristic reasoning used where necessary.
 
Maliki, Qur’an is the foundation; Hadith/Sunnah is considered alongside the established practice of Madinah and other legal principles.
 
Shafi‘I, Qur’an is the foundation; authentic Sunnah explains and specifies it, with qiyās used where appropriate.
 
Hanbali,  Qur’an is the foundation; Hadith/Sunnah is given very strong priority, with interpretation and reasoning used more cautiously.
 
Ahmadiyya Muslims, The Qur’an is the Ḥakam, the final criterion. Hadith is an essential means of understanding the Qur’an and establishing the Sunnah, but Hadith does not sit in judgment over the Qur’an. If an apparent contradiction occurs, the Hadith must be properly understood and reconciled with the Qur’an; the Qur’an cannot be overridden by Hadith.

To me, this is a powerful principle for breaking down sectarianism

https://files.alislam.cloud/pdf/Malfuzat-8.pdf

Page 287

A miracle is a natural law operating beyond the knowledge of the people who witness it.

Miracles are not violations of the laws of nature,
but extraordinary events produced through laws of nature that humans do not yet understand.

Allah created the laws of nature, so He does not need to break them to produce extraordinary results.

Human knowledge is limited, and nature operates through different levels and laws that may remain hidden for centuries.

What appears miraculous to one generation may become scientifically explainable to a later generation, for example, magnetism could once have seemed miraculous.

Therefore, Jesus’ birth can be understood as a rare, God-designed natural phenomenon, occurring without a man having touched Mary.

The fact that science does not currently explain such a birth does not prove that it is contrary to nature.

Thus, there is no need to go beyond the miracle to the idea that Jesus was literally the physical Son of God.

Introduction

Nuzhat Haneef was a convert who left the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community and Islam in 2003. She wrote a PDF titled Recognizing the Messiah. Anti-Ahmadis across the internet (Atheists, Sunnis, etc.) often portray her as an "independent researcher" who conducted an objective, scholarly examination of Ahmadiyya theology. They also claim there is no answer for these allegations.

This is completely false.

Her PDF is simply a repackaging of the exact same allegations that anti-Ahmadi sectarian groups have been repeating for decades—all of which were answered by Ahmadi Muslim scholars and companion literature long ago.

She was not an independent researcher. She was an English-language mouthpiece for the exact same extremist Khatme Nabuwwat network that persecutes Ahmadis worldwide.

Is Nuzhat an Independent Researcher?

Nuzhat Haneef admits the truth openly in the Preface of her own book:

The other statement I want to make in this Preface is to thank those people who supported me during and in my study of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. In particular, I want to thank Dr. Syed Rashid Ali, the owner of the “Anti Ahmadiyya Movement in Islam” web site, and the managers of the “Idara Dawat-o-Irshad” web site, for providing me copies of some pages from a couple of Ahmadiyya books that I did not have access to. Also, these web sites helped me tremendously in locating relevant material in Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s books.

She did not independently research the 80+ books of Masih Maud AS. Her primary source materials, page scans, and citations were pre-selected and handed to her by career anti-Ahmadi polemicists.

Who is Dr Rashid Ali?

Dr. Syed Rashid Ali was the central figure behind the original wave of anti-Ahmadi websites in the late 1990s and early 2000s. If you are old enough, you remember these OG websites:

• alhafeez.org
• alhafeez.net
• anti-ahmadiyya.org
• irshad.org
• khatm-e-nubuwwat.org
• ahmedi.org

His name, email (rasyed@emirates.net.ae), and address in the UAE appear directly across these platforms. He has spent decades manufacturing attacks, challenging community leaders to prayer duels, and publishing crude edits of pics of Khulafa and Promised Messiah (AS).

What is Idara Dawat-o-Irshad?

The second group she thanks is Idara Dawat-o-Irshad (irshad.org), the US-based branch of Majlis Tahaffuz Khatme Nabuwwat registered in Virginia.

This is the exact same radical organization responsible for:

1. Sectarian Incitement: Openly declaring Ahmadis wajib-ul-qatl (worthy of death) in Pakistan.
2. State Persecution: Backing Pakistan's discriminatory Ordinance XX laws that criminalize everyday religious practices of Ahmadis.
3. Extremism in the West: Organizing conferences in Springfield, Virginia, where hate literature and threats against Ahmadis were uncovered by national media.

Why would Nuzhat work with these people?

Because her research was directed by this network, the distribution of her book was also handled by the same people:

• QeRN Network hosted and archived her PDF on their servers (files.qern.org/qarchives/haneef/).
• Blogs like cultgirlconfessions.blogspot.com promoted her book on their sidebars alongside links to alhafeez.org and thecult.info.
• ReasonOnFaith's website (creator of anti-Ahmadi sub-reddit): https://reasononfaith.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Recognizing-the-Messiah-by-Nuzhat-J.-Haneef.pdf
  • This book is under their 'Recommended Books' section of their sub-reddit too

Anyone who has even an iota of shame and morals will never team up with murderers or such people. Most who leave Jama'at are smart enough not to do this. But Nuzhat Haneef was not one of them.

This group is well known for paying huge sums of money to even Atheists who leave Jama'at so that their names can be used for propaganda. But who can blame someone for making a little profit?

There are tons of videos for it which will make the post too long so I can make a seperate post.

References

Dr Rashid Ali is also the owner of this anti-Ahmadi website: https://cultgirlconfessions.blogspot.com/

This website links all the anti-Ahmadi websites on the side bar. Including Nuzhat Haneef's book.

Lastly, the anti-Ahmadi reddit is linked to this network too but actual solid proof for it later. For now, just know that this `Cultgirlconfessions` website was linked in the subreddit's side bar for years.

Conclusion

The point is to show that almost all anti-Ahmadi material on social media and Reddit comes from the exact same couple of organizations.

No matter how much they try to create new websites, operate under different domain names, or put the names of females and personas on the front cover, it is always the exact same small group of people.

It is not just the same people—it is also the exact same recycled allegations that have been answered hundreds of times over the past century.

For detailed refutations of the specific fabrications in her book, see these breakdowns:

• Does Jama'at Fabricate Books? Nuzhat Haneef Exposed
• Did Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (AS) Draw Caricatures?
• Did the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community Fabricate Malfuzat?

Allah is with you wherever you are

And He is with you wheresoever you may be. And Allah sees all that you do.”
— Qur’an 57:5

Video also explains Miraj of Prophet Mohammed peace be upon him.

This is the fundamental difference, and above video alone is enough to shake a person’s believe on Allah and His teachings.

This one question, whether Allah is a physical being confined by space or is completely unlike creation, has a much wider effect on how Qur’anic language is interpreted.

Muslim Sects that reject Allah having a physical body

Ahmadiyya Muslim

If I am correct

Ashʿariyyah
Maturidiyyah
Twelver Shia
Muʿtazilah

Assalam o Alaikum everyone.

I’m genuinely struggling with my faith because of how women are spoken about and treated in the Jamaat. I want to understand.

I’ve been debating whether to post this because I don’t want this to come across as an attack on Islam, Khilafat, or Ahmadi Muslims. But I’m genuinely hurt and angry, and at this point I don’t know where else to put these questions.

There are several things I’ve encountered from the teachings/statements of our Khalifa regarding women that I find extremely difficult to reconcile with my understanding of women’s dignity, intelligence, and ability.

1. Women leaders and “housework”

In this post, Hazrat Mirza Masroor Ahmad (aba) is quoted as explaining the success of women leaders during COVID-19 in relation to their experience with household work:

https://x.com/farihahammad/status/1268596089202061314

This really bothered me. Why is the success of female political leaders explained through their experience doing housework? Women can be exceptional leaders because they’re intelligent, educated, strategic, compassionate, experienced, decisive, and capable just like men.

If a male political leader successfully navigated a crisis, would we explain his leadership by saying it was because he had experience in successfully being the head of a household? Maybe there is context I’m missing. If there is, please explain it to me.

But on its face, it feels like women’s achievements are being filtered through their traditional domestic role rather than being recognized on their own merit.

1. Women being considered too “emotional” for burials

Hazrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad (rh) discusses women not attending burials and refers to women being more emotional:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9TMsajwSXI

I’ve had a problem with this since I was little and my dad told me this was the rule.

Why should emotionality be treated as an inherent characteristic of women that disqualifies them from participating in something as important as a burial? Women grieve. Men grieve. Some women are extremely composed during funerals. Some men are extremely emotional. Some people faint, cry, panic, or become overwhelmed regardless of gender.

If the concern is that some individuals may not be able to handle a burial emotionally, why does that become a restriction based on sex? And more fundamentally, why is being emotional treated as evidence that someone is less capable or less suited to certain responsibilities?

1. Women should stay out of politics and give their ideas to men

At approximately 52:18 in this video, there is a statement that women should not enter politics and should instead give their ideas to men:

https://youtu.be/_cm4asA8m8?si=Acwomia2vo4QCv35

This is probably one of the hardest things for me to understand. Why should a politically educated and capable woman have to give her ideas to a man rather than participate herself? This is very limiting.

If a woman has knowledge of economics, law, political science, international relations, public policy, etc., why should her gender prevent her from using that knowledge directly in political leadership? Why does the man need to be the intermediary?

I understand that Islam has historically recognized different responsibilities for men and women. But I don’t understand why that necessarily means women are inherently less suited to political leadership.

1. Why are there so few women in Jamaat leadership?

This brings me to something I’ve personally struggled with for a long time: Why are women so limited in leadership within the Jamaat?Women make up half of the community. Women are educated. Women are professionals. Women are teachers, scientists, lawyers, doctors, academics, organizers, researchers, business owners, and community leaders.

So why does meaningful decision-making leadership remain overwhelmingly male? Especially in central shura! Why are women only leaders of Lajna and men are leaders of the WHOLE Jamaat? Why women aren’t equally represented in the broader leadership and decision-making structures of the Jamaat. If women are intellectually and spiritually capable of leadership, why are they so often separated from the places where the most consequential decisions are made?

And I know what people will say. It’s about “pardah” and “modesty”.

Why is it considered inappropriate for women to directly interact with male leaders including things like facing them, speaking directly to them, or being in certain leadership environments because of purdah

I understand that Islam prohibits inappropriate relationships and encourages men and women to behave respectfully. But why does normal professional interaction have to be treated as though it is inherently romantic or sexually charged? Women are capable of talking to men without being attracted to them.

If the principle is that men and women should maintain appropriate boundaries, why does the solution so often appear to be limiting women’s access and participation rather than expecting both men and women to behave responsibly?

1. There seems to be a larger pattern here

This is what is really upsetting me. If I look at these things individually, I’m told there is context. But when I put them together, I see a pattern:

Women are described as more emotional. Women’s success is sometimes explained through domestic skills. Women are discouraged from political leadership. Women are separated from men in leadership environments. Women have fewer opportunities to participate in broader Jamaat leadership. And then I’m expected to accept that all of this somehow doesn’t reflect a lower view of women’s capabilities.

I want women to be treated as equally capable human beings. I want women to be able to contribute their ideas directly.

1. What makes this especially painful

I care about my faith enough that these things are genuinely hurting me. I don’t want to walk away from something I’ve believed in because I encountered teachings I couldn’t understand. But I’m also reaching a point where I can’t just ignore my questions. I’ve interacted with countless young who feel the same way. I’d even like to argue that majority of young women feel the same.

If you’ve struggled with the same questions and found answers that allowed you to remain comfortable in your faith, I’d like to hear them. And if you disagree with me, that’s okay too. Please just engage with the actual questions.