Like I mentioned above – you have a different definition of prophet to that of the Muslims – so you cannot keep repeating that you believe something, when you define it differently to how it is meant to be. According to the correct definition of ‘nabi’ – you dont believe that Muhammad (saw) was the last!

You say ‘last’ – but your definition of last is not the definition that the Muslims have understood for 1400 years.

You do not believe that he is the ‘last’ – you believe he is a ‘non-law bearing prophet’ – i.e. you believe that he is a ‘nabi’ and not a ‘rusul’ – since the Islam defines a nabi who comes with no Sharia – whereas a Rasul comes with new laws.

That is not believing that he is the last!
You have to understand that when you talk to a Muslim – you have to at least be on a level playing ground with your definitions – if you are talking about ‘x’ and we are talking about ‘x’ but our definitions of ‘x’ are different – it is a waste of time – especially in putting forward arguments based on that premise.

Mirza Gullam according to the Ahmadiyya is not the last prophet – there are more to come. Muslims reject this.

Muslims believe that Muhammad (saw) was the last prophet – as mentioned by Allah (swt) in the Qur’an and the hadith – he is the last law bringer – and the last prophet.

Now, even if you claim that removing the modern day scholars (after Mirza Gullam appeared) – and we go back to the text of the prophet (saw) – we will have no choice but to be convinced that this man (Mirza) was the promised Messiah due to the signs that he holds, or the timing of his birth, or his death etc…

Even if this is so (although no major Muslim scholar before Mirza Gullam said anything about India, or the 14th century – rather the hadith point to his arrival in Syria, and a decent from the heavens, and a joining up with the Mehdi and fighting wars) – but anyway, if we go by what you say – I can not accept that Mirza was that man. Look at his above statement! Is that the words of a guided man?
Perhaps someone else at that time was the promised Messiah – and we all missed him – but there was more change that another random on the street was closer to being a guided individual, picked by Allah (swt) then Mirza. I mean, how does an Ahmadiyya explain this statement?

This is something that was never said by any companion of the prophet (saw), nor any early muslim scholar – or by today’s understanding of what a prophet is by the Muslim scholarship. There is much written on this topic even before Mirza Gullam was born – and none of the scholars agree with what you have said.

It is only the Ahmadiyya who say this statement – and to coin an ‘islamic principal’ or to ‘redefine one’ 1400 years after it was established and understood to fit your beliefs is a tool that has been used by other religions (Christians) and corrupted Muslims from before.

It is agreed upon that a prophet can follow the law of an older prophet (nabi) – just like Soloman (as) (and all the prophets of the Beni Israail) followed Musa (as)’s Tawra.
Or a prophet comes with a new set of rules (a new Sharia) like, Nuh (as), Ibraheem (as), Isa (as) or Muhammad (saw) – the Rasul.

Most scholars say that a nabi is one who has no Sharia, whereas a rusul has a Sharia. If you say that a nabi/rasul are the same, then you are saying something that was not understood by all Muslims before and after Mirza Gullam – and you will have a hard time explaining the verse in the Qur’an: ‘And we did not send a nabi, and no rusul except…’

I urge you to go back to some old Tafsir books and see what the early Muslims said about what prophets were and what messengers were – Insha’Allah, you will realise that this is an idea coined by the Ahmadiyya over a thousand years after it had been properly understood.

Wa Allahu Alam

I stumbled upon this website by mistake and I feel like I would be better off ignoring its existence as well as leaving you all to live in your own stubborn ignorance.

No matter how much anyone tells you differently you won’t accept it. So i’m not going to waste my time. I have much better stuff to do than trying to change the views of a few stubborn people.

You are claiming to know facts about other peoples religion better than they would know it.

Ahmadis do believe that the Holy Prophet (SAW) is the last prophet and chief of all prophets, they do not believe that there are many more prophets to come because obviously as I just mentioned they believe that the Holy Prophet is the last prophet and chief of all prophets. They do not believe that the Promised Messiah (as) was a prophet because as the name mentions in itself and is the proof in its entirety the Promised Messiah (as) was a Promised Messiah. If he were a prophet then the word Prophet would be mentioned.

You have no willingness to accept the fact.

No matter how many trillions of times you make this false claim, it will not change the fact that ahmadis believe that the Holy Prophet is the last prophet and chief of all the prophets.

AHMADIS BELIEVE 100000000% TO THE POWER OF INFINITY THAT THE HOLY PROPHET (SAW) IS THE LAST PROPHET AND THE CHIEF OF ALL PROPHETS.

If you don’t want to believe that yourself then there’s nothing I or anyone else can do to change that. You either accept the fact or live in your self-created stubborn ignorance.

Thank you brother, it was not easy decision to make but it had to be done, I feel it was right thing to do and I waited when I knew that it would not have a major impact on the children and now the children are old enough to make their own adult decisions and understanding, my husband and I decided it was best to part, everyday I am getting stronger and my believes are ever more stronger but still a testing time but Inshah’allah I will survive.