Ahmadiyya

I’m sorry to report some sad news. Yesterday, on Friday 15th May 2009, my beloved brother in Islam Sheikh Raheal passed away.

Inna lillahi wa inna ilayi raji`oon!

Sheikh Raheal was instrumental in supporting me when I was making the decision about whether to revert publicly or not. He supported me with his loving kindness and patience.

It is hard to imagine a man more loving and patient. One of the biggest names to have left Ahmadiyya to revert to Islam, he was a constant thorn in the side of the cult. Yet, he was always dignified and decent.

No matter what filth the Qadianis tried to spread about him, he remained above it and continued to rebut their hateful matter with logic and wisdom.

May Allah (SWT) grant him jannah and shower his beloved family with rahmah. I urge all Muslims to pray for this great man and his family.

I will write soon insha’Allah on how he was such a great help to me.

Bismillah,

If one looks at the dozens of narrations that speak about Imam Mahdī and al-Masīh ‘Isa bin Maryam (AS), it is clear that they two distinct individuals, with different roles and characteristics, who will one day interact with each other.  However, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad claimed to be both the Mahdī and al-Masīh.  How did he justify his claim?  The following narration in Ibn Mājah

لا مهدي إلا عيس

[There is] no Mahdi except ‘Isa.

However, numerous Islamic scholars, from before Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was even born, criticize the authenticity of this statement, saying it is either fabricated, problematic or very weak. Ibn Taymiyya, in his Manhāj al-Sunnah and Ibn Al-Qayyim in his Al-Manār al-Munīf, classified this report as da’īf (weak).  Al-Qārī, in his Mirqāt al-Mufātīh, reported that this narration is da’īf according to the consensus of the scholars of hadīth.  Dhahabī says in his book al-Mizān that this is a munkar (problematic) report. Al-Saghānī says it is mawdū’ (fabricated). Al-Shawkānī, in his book Al-Ahādīth Al-Mawdū’ also wrote that the hadīth is fabricated.  Even the contemporary commentator of hadīth, Muhammad Nāsir al-Dīn Al-Albānī, in his Silsilat Al-Ahādīth Al-Da’īfah, reported that this is a munkar report. This is an example of a hadīth that exists in traditional hadīth books, but was found to be very weak or potentially fabricated.

This draws the Ahmadi methodology into question.  They quote any and all reports that agree with their position, even if they are known to be fake hadith.  The methodology of the people of the Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad (SAAWS) is to bring forth all narrations and reports on an issue and apply the time-tested critical methodology to arrive at proper conclusion.

Al-Masīh ‘Isa bin Maryam (AS) and Imam Mahdi are two distinct individuals.

May Allah guide the Ahmadis to Islam.

Mirza Ghulam wrote Braheen Ahmadiyya between 1880 – 1905 in five volumes. This is the same piece of work in which he originally intended to write 50 volumes but upon completion of the fifth volume he claimed that since the difference between 50 and 5 is a mere zero his promise of writing 50 books had been fulfilled. This of course is illogical mathematical nonsense. This twisted logic can be found in the preface of the fifth volume and of course if anyone would like to see the page it will be posted.

The issue here again is concerning his book Braheen Ahmadiyya, and the question of how many pages this book contains. Why? This will be made clear upon observing the mistake riddled books of Mirza Ghulam. Had he been from Allah (SWT), surely such mistakes would not exist.

Let’s being by pointing out the obvious and checking the length of Braheen Ahmadiyya. Feel free to download the book yourself and confirming the scans if you feel the need to.

Braheen-i-Ahmadiyya Vol 1-4
Link: http://www.alislam.org/urdu/rk/rk-1-1.pdf

Braheen-i-Ahmadiyya Vol 1-4 – Page 1 & 2 – Scan

Braheen-i-Ahmadiyya Vol 1-4 – Last Page – Scan

Braheen-i-Ahmadiyya Vol 5
Link: http://www.alislam.org/urdu/rk/rk-21-79.pdf

Braheen-i-Ahmadiyya Vol 5 – Page 1 & 2 – Scan

Braheen-i-Ahmadiyya Vol 5 – Last Page – Scan

So in total – Braheen Ahmadiyya volumes 1-5 is 1102 pages in long.

Now read his following book

Blessings Of A Prayer
Link: http://www.alislam.org/library/books/Blessings-of-Prayer.pdf

All this will become evident by reading the book Brahin-e-Ahmadiyya, which will consist of nearly 4800 pages, of which about 592 pages have already been published. I am ever ready to satisfy any seeker of truth. (Page 65 & 66)

Page 65 & 66 Scan

Where have these 3698 pages disappeared to? This is yet more evidence of his falsehood and his unfulfilled promise of writing 50 volumes. The man was a liar and was deceitful, he was no Prophet of Allah (SAW), the final Prophet and Messenger of Allah (SWT) is the Holy Prophet Muhammad (SAW), may peace and blessings of Allah (SWT) be upon him and his family and his companions.

Tahir Hussain.

THE AGE OF MY DEMISE

In The Name Of Allah (SWT), Most Gracious, Most Merciful

This article is actually quite ironic as the followers of Mirza Ghulam try very hard to prove that he made false statements.  A statement can only be true or false and if it is false then surely it can only be acknowledged as such. If I was to proclaim that I am 21 years old then this statement can only be true of false, correct? If the fact is that I am actually 26 then I obviously lied when I said I was 21 and made a false statement opposed to a true statement. This is the issue here and as you will see; his own followers try very hard to convince us that Mirza Ghulam was dishonest when he told us how old he was. The reason they are saying this is to avoid further repercussions concerning the statements relating to the age of Mirza Ghulam. The first statement is as follows:

From the day Imam reveals himself by virtue of Ilham (Inspiration of the heart); he will live for 40 years. Let it be clear that this humble self was appointed by special Ilham to invite to the truth in the 40th year of age and good news was given that I will get to an age of 80 or near it. So 40 years of preaching is proven by this Ilham, out of which 10 years have passed. (Roohani Khazain, Nishan Asmani – Volume 4 – Page 14)

Direct Link: http://www.alislam.org/urdu/rk/rk-4-12.pdf

Before going any further, you can see for yourself (by downloading the book) that the statement above was made in 1892 as the front cover verifies this fact.

1892 (Roohani Khazain, Nishan Asmani – Volume 4 – Front Cover)

Direct Link: http://www.alislam.org/urdu/rk/rk-4-12.pdf

This means at the time he wrote this, 1892, he was 50 years old as he had been preaching for 10 years and as he claims he started when he was 40 years old and 10 years had passed since then. This is clear as he says “…this humble self was appointed by special Ilham to invite to the truth in the 40th year of age.” In union with this he says “…from the day Imam reveals himself by virtue of Ilham, he will live for 40 years.” This therefore means from the day he invites people (starting at the age of 40) he will have another 40 years to live (aged 80). He then says “…40 years of preaching is proven by this Ilham, out of which 10 years have passed.” This therefore would make him 50 years old in the year 1892.

If 10 years of his 40 year preaching period has passed in 1892, this means he has 30 years left to preach from that year before he dies, as prophesised. This is clear as he states “…good news was given that I will get to an age of 80 or near it.” Thus, in 1892, he completed 10 years of preaching and consequently has another 30 years remaining according to alleged inspiration, as he says “…so 40 years of preaching is proven by this inspiration, out of which 10 years have passed” and from the start of the 40 years he “will live for (another) 40 years” thus, making him, as he prophesised, 80 when he dies.

It is a fact that Mirza Ghulam died in the year 1908 but let’s examine the fact that he had said in the year 1892, regardless of his age, that he had another 30 years of preaching remaining. From the year 1892 till the year 1908 only covers 16 years, not even near the 30 years he said he had yet to cover. This cannot be refuted as mathematics cannot be twisted unlike words. Again let’s be clear that he stated in 1892 that from the 40 years, “…10 years have passed.” The quote above on this page verifies he said this in 1892 and the previous quote prior to that confirms his “40 years more” preaching claim and the following quote is verification of the year he died.

The Promised Messiah Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani (1835 – 1908) Founder of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama’at The Promised Messiah and Imam Mahdi (The Official Website of The Ahmadiyya Community – Front Page of The Promised Messiah Section)

Direct Link: http://www.alislam.org/library/messiah.html

Next, we move on to the second part of the two fold prophecy. This being that Mirza Ghulam stated he would “…get to an age of 80 or near it.” From the previous statement we can derive that he was 50 years old in 1892. This therefore suggests he was born in the year 1842. However the official website states, as above, he was born in the year 1835. To confuse matters further, Mirza Ghulam himself has specifically stated his date of birth as quoted below:

I was born towards the last days of Sikh rule in 1839 or 1840 C.E. In 1857 I was sixteen or seventeen years old; my beard and moustaches had not yet started growing. (A Brief Sketch Of My Life – Page 10)

Direct Link: www.muslim.org/bookspdf/bar/sklife0.pdf

This is taken from the Lahori community website for the purposes of an English translation and as an alternative to the Urdu version. However, I have included below the original Urdu statement (translated) from the official website so they should be no confusion.

I was born in 1839 or 1840, towards the end of the Sikh era. In 1857 I was in my 16th or 17th year and facial hair had not yet started growing. (Roohani Khazain, Kitab-ul-Bariyyah – Volume 13 – Page 177)

Direct Link: http://www.alislam.org/urdu/rk/rk-13-40.pdf

According to Mirza Ghulam himself, he was born in 1839 or 1840. Let’s give him the benefit of the doubt and agree he was born in 1839 not 1840, this would therefore mean that when he died, he was 69 years old. Let me now re-quote his earlier statement, “…good news was given that I will get to an age of 80 or near it.” He is clearly nowhere near the age of 80 when he died.

The official website still maintains that he was born in 1835. This can only mean that Mirza Ghulam was dishonest when he said he was born in 1839 or 1840. If he was actually born in 1835 then he lied when he said he was born in 1839 or 1840. Moreover if we accept the official view that we was born in 1835 then this would mean that when Mirza Ghulam was 22 he still had no facial hair which is odd. Mirza Ghulam himself states above that in 1857 he had no facial hair and he explains this by saying in that year (1857) he was in his 16th or 17th year which makes sense as to why he had no facial hair at the time. Even if we accept that he was born in 1835, this still makes him 73 when he died and still nowhere near 80.

As Allah, the Exalted, knew that my opponents would wish for my early demise so that they might be able to proclaim that I had died early because I was false in my claims, therefore, He revealed to me aforetime: Eighty years or thereabouts, or a little more, and you will witness your distant progeny. Thirty-five years or so have passed since this revelation was vouchsafed. (Tadhkirah – Page 17)

Direct Link: http://www.alislam.org/library/books/Tadhkirah.pdf

Conclusion
From the information commenced you can see two unmistakable failed prophecies in the writings of Mirza Ghulam. Let’s be clear that he states that once he reveals himself by virtue of Ilham (inspiration), he will live for 40 years more which means he has 40 more years of preaching left and would die at the age of 80. He states in 1892, that he revealed himself by virtue of Ilham at the age of 40 and that 10 of the continuous 40 preaching years had passed, so therefore:

1 – In 1892, Mirza Ghulam has at least 30 more years of continuous preaching left:
He dies in 1908 therefore the prophecy has failed as 1908 – 1892 = 16 years. He therefore only preached for another 16 years instead of the prophesised 30 years. The only way this prophecy would have been fulfilled is if he died in the year 1922 (1892 + 30 = 1922).

2 – He would die at an age of 80 or near it or thereabouts or a little more:
A. According to the 1892 statement, he was born in 1842 thus 1908 – 1842 = 66 yrs old
B. According to his own date of birth it should be calculated as 1908 – 1839 = 69 yrs old
C. According to the official website it should be calculated as 1908 – 1835 = 73 yrs old

From these calculations, B is the most reliable and accurate as Mirza Ghulam himself has stated that he was born in 1839 or 1840 and I have calculated it using 1839 as it is more favourable for his prophecy. Had I used 1840 he would be 68 years old. His followers try hard to say he is lying and he was actually born in 1835 to push his age closer to his prophecy. This has no premise as there are five quotes in his works where he states his date of birth around 1839-1842. Therefore suggesting he was born in 1835 has no foundation as he himself declares the year which is closest to the official figure as 1839. Either way, he made false statements about his own date of birth and even if we take anyone of them to be true, he did not live to fulfil his prophecy that God had allegedly told him he would live to be 80 years old. Does this not prove his falsehood?

The following verse is about the Holy Qu’ran, but ponder over the greatness of God and realise that what comes from Him is free of errors.

The Holy Qu’ran – 4:82 – Surah An-Nisa (4) Ayat 82:
“Had it been from other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much discrepancy.”

Article By Tahir Hussain
(Taken From Pages 155-161 of ‘The Mirza Project’)
Coming Soon (Inshallah)… The Mirza Project
(A Book Full Of Evidence From The Books Of Mirza Ghulam – Exposing Him In Light Of His Own Writings)

بسم الله الحمد لله و صلاة و سلام على رسوم الله

Surah Aali Imran, Verse 145
Ahmadi Translation: And Muhammad is only a Messenger. Verily, all Messengers have passed away before him. If then he die or be slain, will you turn back on your heels? And he who turns back on his heels shall not harm Allah at all. And Allah will certainly reward the grateful.

Transliteration
Wama muhammadun illa rasoolun qad khalat min qablihi alrrusulu afa-in mata aw qutila inqalabtum AAala aAAqabikum waman yanqalib AAala AAaqibayhi falan yadurra Allaha shay-an wasayajzee Allahu alshshakireena

Ahmadis use this verse in combination with Surah Ma’idah Verse 75 to argue that ‘Esa bin Maryam عليه السلام died.  Ironically, this verse same verse is used by the Muslims to argue that he did not die.  Which is correct?  Lets analyze:

First, notice the word Khalat (خَلَتْ).  This word is translated as passed away, which is correct.  However, Ahmadis argue that the implication is that this word means passed away in the sense of death.  They understand this to mean that the prophets before Muhammad صلى الله عليه have [all] died.  Therefore, they argue ‘Esa bin Maryam عليه السلام, one of the prophets before Muhammad صلى الله عليه, has died.  This is correct?  More specifically, does the word Khalat (خَلَتْ) mean death?  Lets look at other verses to determine its meaning.

In Surah Aali Imran verse 138 Allah says:
Qad khalat min qablikum sunanun faseeroo fee alardi faonthuroo kayfa kana AAaqibatu almukaththibeena

Ahmadi translation: Surely, there have been many dispensations before you; so travel through the earth and see how evil was the end of those who treated the Prophets as liars.

In this verse the same word, Khalat, is used.  However, what is the object that is being “passed away”?  It is Sunan (the Plural of Sunnah), which is translated as dispensations, but I personally feel a better translation is paths or traits.  Now, I ask Ahmadis, is it possible that a trait, dispensation or path can die?  These are not living things or even physical objects, that are alive and die.  But, the same word is applied to them.  This argues that Khalat means pass away in the sense of go away, not die.  Lets look at one more verse.

In Surah al-Baqarah verse 15 Allah says:
Waitha laqoo allatheena amanoo qaloo amanna waitha khalaw ilashayateenihim qaloo inna maAAakum innama nahnu mustahzioona

Ahmadi translation: And when they meet those who believe, they say: ‘We believe;’ but when they are alone with their ringleaders, they say: ‘We are certainly with you; we are only mocking.’

In this verse we see the word khalaw, the plural of khalat.  This verse says: wa idha khalaw ila al-shayateen meaning and when [they] go to their devils.  (This Ahmadi translation conveys the gist of the meaning of the verse, but not the actual word for word translation.)  Again in this verse Allah uses the word Khalat to mean go away, not death.

One can see based on these examples that Khalat does not mean “pass away” in the sense of “death”, it means “pass away” in the sense of “depart”.

Based on this, one must rightly ask, does it mean [all] the Prophets before Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سلم died?  The reality is, this verse has nothing to do with the death of the prophets.  Allah is very very precise with the words he used in the Qur’an.  If this verse meant that the prophets before Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سلم died, Allah would have used the word yamutūna (they die)  But, Allah did not use this word.

There are other problems with this translation, specifically the inclusion of the word All (كل), as in All Messengers before him have passed away, when the word All does not exist in the Arabic text of the verse.

Now, this does not completely destroy the entire Ahmadi concept about the death of ‘Esa bin Maryam (in India at the age of 120 after his alleged adventure through Iran and Afghanistan based on Eastern Folklore and…The Bible).  After all, they have about a dozen other arguments in support of this belief.  But, it does cast doubt into their beliefs.  How could this supposed prophet of Allah bring an incorrect argument?  Did Allah incorrectly inspire him?  Or is it the more rational answer: he was faking prophethood.

Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullah صلى الله عليه و سلم is the last and final prophet.
May Allah guide our Ahmadi friends to Islam.

From the Calgary Herald on Friday the 19th:

A Calgary-based company has sued the country’s largest mosque for nearly $4 million in allegedly unpaid bills related to a contract to construct the northeast religious facility.

EllisDon Construction Services Inc. filed the statement of claim earlier this month in an attempt to recover $3,962,671 it claims it is owed, plus $1 million in “damages for interference with contractual and economic relations.”

The construction company says it entered into a written contract in June 2006 to build the 45,000-square foot Ahmadiyya Muslim Mosque, completed in late August this year, and that the contract was breached.

Naseer Ahmad, an employee or agent of Ahmadiyya also named as a defendant, is alleged to have interfered with EllisDon’s contractual and economic interests with an an intent to damage its reputation.

EllisDon alleges he “encouraged subcontractors to reduce their billings on the project and to make up the reductions on other projects; issued instructions directly to subcontractors to carry out additional work then refused to pay for the work; advised contractors that delays in payments arose from the contractor’s incompetence or misconduct; and attempted to pursuade the project consultant to rescind approvals and certificates of payments that had already been issued.

If not paid the amount owing, says the claim, a builders’ lien must be placed on the mosque and property and it should be sold to pay off EllisDon.

A spokesperson for Ahmadiyya, based in Toronto, did not immediately return phonecalls on Friday.

None of the allegations have been proven in court. No statement of defence has been filed.

When I was a Qadiani, I used to hear of a lot of fraud, mismanagement, nepotism and skullduggery surrounding the building of Qadiani places of worship, so this comes as no surprise, if true.

More can be found here and here.

بسم الله الحمد الله و صلاة و سلام على رسول الله

The earliest Muslims!  What did they believe?  They were closer to the prophetic cup of guidance than any modern-day Muslim.  I mean, we are talking about people whose grandparents might have known the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سلم personally.  So, one can reasonably conclude that what the earliest Muslims believed is closer to the true beliefs of Islam.  But, how do we know what they believed?  Do we just guess?  I mean, all groups of Islam quote the Qur’an and all believe they are the logical ones.  How do we know who is upon the truth…?

Lets go 1100 years into the past to Baghdad, the heart of the Muslim world.  There are all sorts of internal conflicts, political disputes, new sects and ideologies proping up left and right.  Even the khilafah was been taken over by a deviant sect for a few generations. [From Mu'tasim to Ma'mun]

Many of the early groups, with their deviant theologies and beliefs, such as the Mu’tazilites, the Qadariyya, the Jabariyya, the Jahmiyya and even some early groups of the Shi’a do not even exist anymore.  But, in this mix, the mainstream Muslims lived, practiced, spread their teachings based primarily on the Qur’an and prophetic tradition, and most relevant to this analysis, wrote books summarizing and codifying what they believed to distinguish themselves from the other deviant sects of Islam.

Within the first 200 years of Islam, a great scholar named Ahmad ibn Muhammad al-Tahawi رحمه الله codified the beliefs of the mainstream Muslims, to the exclusion of the other deviant sects.  The name of his creed is called ‘Aqidah al-Tahawi.  This text survived in its complete form to this day and is accepted by all orthodox Muslims, regardless of the relatively minor differences they have between them.  It is worth noting that Ahmadis consider themselves to be a “subsect” of the mainstream Sunni Islam. [Ref 1 below]

I did a quick google search and found it available on multiple sites here:

http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/misc/tahawi.htm
http://alghazzali.org/resources/articles/aqeedahNotes.pdf
http://www.central-mosque.com/aqeedah/tahawi.htm
http://www.alhaqq.net/AqeedahAtTahawiyyah.PDF

Some copies offer commentary, and the English translation is slightly different from place to place, but the meaning is essentially the same.

Ahmadis could argue that this text is man-made and is not binding upon them.  That is technically true, but it holds a very high degree of authority, because it was written during the earliest period of Islam during the greatest period of scholarship, intellectual pursuit and religious purity (within Orthodox Islam).  If there are disputes amongst the Muslims, both believing they are following the Qur’an, the prophetic traditions, and logic, it is safest to refer back to what the earliest Muslims believed before such deviations and alterations in religion.

I want my Ahmadi friends to read what the earliest Muslims believed about prophethood around point 30.  What you will notice is that the concept of the continuation of “non-law-bearing” prophets never existed amongst the earliest Muslims.  Instead, al-Tahawi made the unconditional statements that anyone who claims to be a new prophet after Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سلم is upon “falsehood and deceit”.

This means that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was a false prophet and is to be rejected.  Muhammad عليه صلاة و سلام is the last of the prophets, there are no prophets after him.

May Allah guide the Ahmadis to Islam.  Ameen!

[Ref 1] Welcome to Ahmadiyyat, The True Islam, page 205
http://www.alislam.org/books/ahmadiyyat/WelcomeBook2ndEd.pdf

The Ahmadis compiled their own dictionary of the words of the Qur’an titled Dictionary of the Holy Qur’an. Written by Malik Ghulam Farid, under the Publisher’s Note (page 5 on the pdf), it claims to be entirely based off of Lisan al-’Arab, Taaj al-’Aroos, al-Mufridaat fi Ghareeb al-Qur’an, Arabic-English Lexicon by E.W. Lane and Aqrab al-Mawarid.

On pages 222-223, regarding the word خاتم, Farid wrote:

خاتَمٌ also means the best and most perfect; embellishment or ornament; the hollow of the back of the neck: وَلَكِن رَّسُولَ اللَّهِ وَخَاتَمَ النَّبِيِّينَ But he is the Messenger of Allah and the seal of the Prophets (33:41)

I openly challenge the validity of this entry by Farid.  خاتم has many meanings, but ‘best’, ”most perfect’,’ embellishment’ or ‘ornament’ are not amongst them, nor can they be directly implied by any classical lexicon Farid referenced.  All of the referenced lexicons say خاتم means ‘last’ in some form or another, and some specifically give the example of Surah Ahzab verse 40 (41) as listed above to mean Last of the Prophets.  Below are the original Arabic texts and English translations of these dictionaries/lexicons.  Notice that none of them, without exception, say خاتم means ‘best’, ‘most perfect’, ‘embellishment’ or ‘ornament’.

Lisaan al-‘Arab لسان العرب

(خَتَمَ)
وخَتَمَ الشيءَ خَتْمًا بلغ آخرهُ
والقرآن والكتاب قرأَهُ كلَّهُ وأَتَّمَّهُ
والصكَّ وغيرهُ وضع عليهِ نقش خاتمهِ حتى لا يجري عليهِ التزوير والتبديل
وخَتَم العمل فرغ منهُ
والإِنَاءَ سدَّهُ بالطين ونحوهِ
ومنهُ في سورة المطفّفين يُسْقَوْنَ مِنْ رَحِيقٍ مَخْتُومٍ خِتَامُهُ مِسْكٌ وَفِي ذَلِك فَلْيَتَنَافَسِ المُتَنَافَسُون 
الخاتِم والخاتَم الخاتام وآخِر القوم ج خواتم
الخاتمة مؤَنَّث الخاتم. ومن كل شيءِ أقصاهُ وتمامهُ وعاقبتهُ وآخرتهُ كخاتمة الكتاب وغيرهِ وهي نقيض الفاتحة

(Khatama)
Khatama [v.] Khatman [n.] something: reached its ending
the Qur’än and a book: read all of it and comleted it.
a document, or others: put on it a pattern of his seal so it would not be forged or edited
Khatama a job: finished it
a container: sealed it with mud, or so forth.
Also in Sürat AlMuṭaffifïn Qur’än [83:25] 
Khätim, Khätam, Khätäm, and the last of a group, pl. Khawätïm
Khätimah, fem. of Khätim
Of anything: it’s farthest limit, its completion, its end, and outcome
Such as a Khätimah of a book or so forth
and it is the opposite of Fätiħah (opening/opener)

Taaj al-‘Aroos تاج العروس

الخاتم 
من كل شيء عاقبته وآخرته كخاتمته 
و الخاتم : آخر القوم كالخاتم
ومنه قوله تعالى وخاتم النبيين أي آخرهم 
وقد قرئ بضم التاء وقول العجاج
مبارك للأنبياء خاتم

The Khätam
of any thing is its conclusion and its end as Khätimatihi [its closing]
and the Khätam is the last of a group
and of it is the saying of [Allāh] ta`älä “wa-khätama n-nabiyyïn” [and the Seal of Prophets], meaning their last
It was also recited as khatum with a damma on the ta’; and [the poet] al-’Ajjaj said
A blessing to the prophets, this khatam is!

Al-Mufridaat fee Ghareeb al-Qur’an المفردات لغريب القرآن

وخاتم النبيين: الأحزاب/40، لأنه ختم النبوة، أي: تممها بمجيئه

“and the Seal of the Prophets” [Quran Ahzab:40], because he is the seal of prophet hood, that is: he completed it with his coming.

Arabic-English Lexicon by E.W Lane

† The last of a company of men; (Lb, TA ; ) as also ختَمُ and ختِمُ: (K:) whence خَاتَمَ النَّبِيِّينَ † [The last of the prophets], in the Kur [xxxiii. 40]; accord. to one reading, خاتُم, with damm to the ت; (TA;) or الأَنبياء خاتِمُ, i.e. Mohammad; (S;) also called الخاتَمُ and الخاتِمُ.

Aqrab al-Mawarid أقرب الموارد

خَتَمَ: صاحبهُ تَخْتِيمًا: البيهُ الخاتم في اصبعهِ: الاساس
خِتام كل شربٍ: آخرهُ: التاج
خِتام الوادي: افصا هُ و خِتام القوم آخرهم: التاج
زُفَّت اليهِ بخاتم ربّها و ختمها و خِتامها ايوهي في بكارتها: الاساس و التاج بلا تفسير
الخَتْم: بالفتح: لغة في الخاتم ج خُتُوم: التاج
اعطاني خَتْمِي: اي حسي لان حسب الرجل آخر طلبهِ: التاج

“Khattama”: to wear the ring on one’s finger (or place it on someone else’s finger)
“Khitaam” of a drink is its last drop
“Khitaam” of a valley is its endpoint (end of the valley) “Khitaam” of a people (qawm) is their last member
“she was delivered in a wedding procession with her “khaatim” or “khitaam” – (meaning with her virginity intact)
“al-Khatm” is another word (with same meaning) for Khaatim, and the plural of that is khutoom
“he gave me my Khatm”: means my fill/sufficiency, in other words, the last of his desire.”

The following dictionaries were not referenced by Farid.  But, I am providing them only to show that indeed, all classical lexicons completely reject with the Ahmadi invention of the meaning of ‘best’, ‘most perfect’, ‘embellishment’ or ‘ornament’.

Al-Muħït المحيط

Muħït Al-Muħït محيط المحيط

خَتَمَهُ 
ومحمد صلي الله عليه و سلم, خاتِمُ الأَنبياء , عليه وعليهم الصلاة والسلام
التهذيب : والخاتِم والخاتَم من أَسماء النبي
وفي التنزيل العزيز
مَا كَانَ مُحَمَّدٌ أَبَا أَحَدٍ مِنْ رِجَالِكُمْ وَلَكِنْ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ وَخَاتَمَ النَّبِيِّينَ
أَي آخرهم
قال : وقد قرئ وخاتَمَ
وقول العَجَّاج
مُبارَكٍ للأَنبياء خاتِمِ
إِنما حمله على القراءة المشهورة فكسر
ومن أَسمائه العاقب أَيضاً ومعناه آخر الأَنبياء

Khatamahu
and Muħammad PBUH, is the seal of prophets upon him and them be peace and blessing.
Out of respect: AlKhätim and AlKhätam are among the names of the prophet PBUH
and in the Glorious Revelation: Qur’än [33:40]
meaning their last
he says: and it was also read “wa-Khätam”;
and the saying of Al-Àjjäj:
“A blessing to the prophets, this khatam is!”
for he based it on the famous pronunciation [Qirä'ah], so he (ended it with or used) a Kasrah
and among his names is AlÀäqib also, and its meaning is the last of the prophets.

Al-Ghani الغني

خاتِم، خاتَم 
وَلَكِنْ رَسُولُ الله وَخَاتِمُ النَّبِيِّين 
قرآن) آخِرُ الأنْبِيَاءِ
خَتَمَ
خَتَمَ عَمَلَهُ : أنْهَاهُ
خَتَمَ الْكِتابَ : أكْمَلَ قِرَاءتَهُ، أتَمَّه
خَتَمَ الصَّبِيُّ الْقُرْآنَ الْكَرِيمَ : أكْمَلَ حِفْظَهُ وَقِرَاءتَهُ
خَتَمَ لَهُ اللهُ بِالْخَيرِ : جَعَلَ نِهَايَتَهُ سَعِيدَةً

(Khätim, Khätam)
Qur’än [33:40] 
(Qur’än): the last of the prophets
(Khatama)
Khatama his work: Ended it
Khatama the book: completed reading it, completed it
The lad khatama the Noble Qur’än: Completed memorizing and reading it.
Allāh khatama for him with goodness: made his ending happy.

AlWasït الوسيط

الخاتِمُ الخاتامُ… و- من كل شيء: آخره
وفي التنزيل العزيز :مَا كَانَ مُحَمَّدٌ أَبَا أَحَدٍ مِنْ رِجَالِكُمْ وَلَكِنْ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ وَخَاتَمَ النَّبِيِّينَ
الخاتِمةُ: من كل شيء: عاقِبتهُ وآخره

(Khätam): Khätäm… and – of anything: it’s end.
And in the Glorious Revelation: Qur’än [33:40]
(Khätimah): of anything: its end, and last

AlQämüs AlMuħït القاموس المحيط

خَتَمَهُ
كالخاتِم والخاتامِ والخَيْتامِ والخِيتام والخَتَمِ: محرَّكةً (والخاتِيامِ) ج [ج] خَواتِمُ وخَواتِيمُ
وقَد (تَخَتمَ) به ومن كلٌ شيءٍ عاقِبَتُه وآخِرَتُهُ (كخَاتِمتِه) وآخِرُ القَوْمِ

Khatamahu 
(as Khätim, Khätäm, Khaytäm, Khïtam, Khatami) voweled (Khätyäm) [pl.] Khawätïm, Khawätim
Has (Takhattama) with it -
And of anything, its outcome and its ending as. (Khätimatihi), and the last of a group

As you can see, not a single one of the lexicons Farid referenced provide the alternative definition the Ahmadis insist on.  This begs the question, where did he get this definition from?  Did he just make it up?

My initial thought is that he fabricated this entry so that in the future, when Ahmadis reference his work to double-check Surah Ahzab verse 40 (41), they conclude that this verse has nothing to do with the Finality of Prophethood.

In reality, All of the classical interpretators of the Qur’an have concluded that Khaatam an-Nabieen means Last of the Prophets, there are no prophets after Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سلم.

If you wish to double-check my work, most are available here: http://lexicons.sakhr.com/idrisidic_1.asp?Sub=%ce%ca%e3
Here is a scanned copy of Aqrab al-Mawarid made:  http://profile.imageshack.us/user/farhan00/images/detail/#175/aqrabredoht4.jpg
Here is Lane’s Lexicon, page 339: http://www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume2/00000339.pdf

May Allah guide the Ahmadis to Islam.

Narrated in Sahih Bukhari, Book 31, Hadith 6177

“Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: If the din were at the Pleiades, even then a person from Persia would have taken hold of it, or one amongst the Persian descent would have surely found it.“

The Ahmadis often argue that this hadith refers to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.  How, you ask?  Because he revived Islam and was of Persian ancestry.  So, does this hadith refer to him?  Lets analyze.

Historically, the Persian people carried the banner of Islam for hundreds of years.  Many of the great scholars of Islam, in its various sciences from Fiqh (codified law), to ‘aqidah (theology), to Arabic grammar, to spirituality were Persian.  For example, Imam al-Ghazali, Al-Zamakhshari (The great scholar of the Arabic language) and many many others.

Now, they argue, that another Persian man has come to revive Islam.  Whether or not he really revived Islam aside, was Mirza Persian?  …was he really?  Lets analyze.

According to the modern definition of nationality, the Ahmadis might have a valid argument.  If they can show that his ancestry hailed from Persia, then he is Persian.  But, this understanding of race and nationality is not in accordance with the Islamic understanding.  It is based off of the nationalistic European understanding of race and ethnicity that crept into the collectively Muslim psyche during the periods of colonization.  But, this is not how Muslims historically understand nationality.

Traditionally, nationality was based on where someone lived, not where their ancestry hailed. For example, the great companion Suhayb ar-Rumi’s background was Arab from the village of al-Thani.  At a young age, he was captured and sold as a slave into the Byzantine empire and lived amongst them, but eventually returned to Arabia.  Even though he was ethnically Arab, he was called a Roman.  Likewise, Ahmad ibn Ibrahim “Ibn Nuhaas” the author of Kitab al-Jihad [not of the pen!], was called Al-Dimashqi (the Syrian) because he was originally from Syria and when he relocated to Egypt, he was called al-Dumyati (a city in Egypt).  His nationality changed based on his area of residence.

Were people cognizant of their ancestory?  Yes, of course.  But, that was less important, more of a minute- a trivial detail.  Nationality was based on your place of birth and/or your place of residence (depending on who you asked).  If your great great grandparents were from Samarqand (modernday Uzbekistan), but you were born and raised in Iraq, you were Iraqi.  If you moved to Al-Andulus (Spain) and settled there, you were Aundulusi.  At most, your ancestry mattered two to three generations back.

How does Mirza measure up to this standard?  Mirza never left India for any significant amount of time [not even to perform Hajj].  He lived and died in India.  His father Mirza Ghulam Murtaza, grandfather Mirza Ata Muhammad and great grandfather Mirza Gul Muhammad were all from India.  He even referred to himself as ” Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani“  Based on this classical understanding, Mirza was 100% Hindi (Indian), not Persian. Therefore, the narrations about the Persian people and how they will revive Islam have nothing to do with him.

And we put our trust in Allah that He made guide the Ahmadis to Islam.

One of the common arguments by the Ahmadi religious establishment and echoed by Syed Sulaiman Adnan in his blog replies is that the previous nations rejected their Prophets.  He calls us to learn from their mistakes and accept Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.  To me, this is very unsophisticated argument, but deserves a sophisticated response.

The previous peoples rejected their prophets.  That’s true and testified to in the Qur’an.  Lets analyze by juxtaposing the rejection of ‘Esa bin Maryam عليه صلاة و سلام, the rejection of the Prophet Muhammad عليه صلاة و سلام by the Quraysh and the rejection of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad by the Muslims.

In Surah Nisaa, verse 158 Allah says:

And for their saying, ‘We did slay the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah;’ whereas they slew him not, nor did they bring about his death upon the cross, but he was made to appear to them like one crucified; and those who differ therein are certainly in a state of doubt about it; they have no certain knowledge thereof, but only pursue a conjecture; and they did not arrive at a certainty concerning it.
- The official Ahmadi translation of the Qur’an by Muhammad ‘Ali

They openly admitted that ‘Esa bin Maryam عليه صلاة و سلام was al-Maseeh, the Messenger of Allah.  But, their kufr (in this case, rejection) stemmed out of their desire to maintain political and social control over the masses of Bani Isra’eel.  So, they rejected ‘Esa bin Maryam عليه صلاة و سلام even though they knew he was truly from Allah.

Now lets move to the Quraysh.  On the day of the Battle of Badr, Abu Jahl was asked if Muhammad عليه صلاة و سلام was known to be truthful or was a liar.  He said, “Woe to you! By Allah, he is truthful. He never told a lie in his life. But if the Family of Qusay enjoyed the privileges of leadership, guardianship of the Sacred House, the honor of providing pilgrims with water and the honor of Prophethood, what would be left for the rest of Quraysh to be proud of?” He knew the Prophet Muhammad عليه صلاة و سلام was truthful, but he rejected him out of tribalism and arrogance.

Now lets compare the Muslims and the rejection of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.  I can talk about myself personally.  I have nothing to gain or lose from rejecting MGA.  I live in America; no one cares what I believe in or don’t believe in.  I do not reject him out of arrogance, I do so out of conviction.  We believe in our hearts that he was a false prophet, an open enemy of Allah.  Debate with us as they may, we have evidence to support us.  Having said that, the argument of “you reject him just as the previous nations do” fails, because the motivations for rejecting him are completely different than the past nations.  One is out of arrogance, the other is out of conviction.  In fact, we reply by calling the Ahmadis to embrace Islam!

This is also a weak argument because it is reactionary and lacks insight.  Just because previous nations rejected their prophets, should we blindly accept all claimants to prophethood?  Or al-Maseeh?  Or al-Mahdi?  That’s irresponsible.  The soul is not a game to play like that.  Use the ‘aql (intellect) Allah has given us.

Ahmadis will argue that he fulfilled the signs of al-Mahdi, so we should use our intellect to objectively analyze his claims and realize his truthfulness.  I don’t want to get into a tangent on why Ahmadis cannot conveniently make everything that disagrees with them into a metaphor, so lets analyze the signs of al-Mahdi that cannot be interpreted as metaphors.  Just to name a few:

• Al-Mahdi will be named Muhammad ibn Abdullah
• Will come from the Tribe of Qahtaan (which still exists to this day)
• Will flee Madinah to Makkah and will seek refuge in the Ka’aba
• Will take the Bay’ah (pledge) between the Rukun and the Maqam of Ibrahim at the Ka’aba
• Will never claim to be al-Mahdi, but will be recognized by others as such.  Traditionally, the scholars understood that if someone openly claimed to be al-Mahdi, he was not al-Mahdi.

For more signs, perhaps Ahmadis would be interested in the perspective of al-Mahdi by the Muslims in this scholarly and gripping lecture series by Shaykh Yasir Qadhi, The Mahdi: Between Fact and Fiction.

http://www.islamicgoodsdirect.co.uk/the-mahdi-between-fact-and-fiction-yasir-qadhi-cd.html
[I support copyright laws, but under the fair-use policy, but I am willing to provide Ahmadis with excerpts of this lecture series, specifically about the signs of al-Mahdi, upon request.  Leave your e-mail address below and I will reply to you, in sha Allah]

May Allah guide our Ahmadi friends to Islam
All Muslims, say Ameen!