بسم الله و صلاة عليه
When the Muslims were building the first masjid in Madinah, Masjid al-Nabawi, everyone was carrying a single brick upon his shoulder for construction, but, Ammar ibn Yusuf was carrying two bricks. Upon seeing him, the Prophet (Prayers and peace be upon him) said “Rejoice Ammar! The transgressing side will kill you!” Later in his life, he was told that the last meal he would have would be a bowl of milk.
Now fast-forward roughly 40 years. Its the battle of Siffin between the forces of ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib and Mu’awiya ibn Sufiyan (May God be pleased with them both). A Civil War amongst the sahaba. There’s confusion. Who is upon the Truth? Who is Right?
By this point, everyone came to know about the prophetic traditions regarding ‘Ammar. The transgressing party will kill him. Throughout the battle, the forces of Mu’awiya avoid fighting him, while the forces of ‘Ali stayed close to him. The battle raged, but no one wanted to fight ‘Ammar.
Then, during one of the periods of rest in the battle, ‘Ammar is delivered a bowl of milk. He smiled. Just as the Prophet told him. Death is soon. He returns to the battle to find a soldier of Mu’awiya. The soldier cuts down the aged sahabi, and finishes him off. So shocked is everyone that the battle stops and the sides regroup.
That night, some of the soldiers of ‘Ali went to the camp of Mu’awiya to hear what they were saying about this incident. One remarked “We are the transgressing party, we killed ‘Ammar!” Everyone was worried.
Then, Mu’awiya responds saying “The murderers of Mu’awiya were the ones who took him out to the battlefield to begin with”, meaning ‘Ali’s army. At that, everyone spontaneously agreed that the real killer of ‘Ammar was ‘Ali, because ‘Ali was the one who armed him, provided for him, and had him fight. He twisted the narration.
The soldiers of ‘Ali did not know what was stranger. The twisting of the hadith, or the fact that everyone believed it!
What does this story demonstrate? It shows that anyone can make an excuse, an argument, a response, a rebuttal to any problematic ayah or hadith. All you have to do is twist the text to change the meaning. It’s not hard. And this is precisely what Ahmadi apologetics do. Its the only way you can make half a dozen variants of “There is absolutely no prophet after Muhammad, none whatsoever” allow for Mirza Ghulam. They’re all twists and distortions.
To each Ahmadi I say, had you been a neutral observer, you would have admitted how absurd their distortions are. I ask you to question what the Ahmadi leaders argue and to accept the clear guidance of Islam!