Qadiani Jesus

On Christmas Day, I attended the “Arise and Warn” event at the Memon Centre in South London, hosted by iERA. There I met Shaykh Suliman Gani, who invited me to give a talk at the Tooting Islamic Centre on Boxing Day. I accepted. Here is a large extract of that talk, but for the full version, properly recorded and edited, I recommend that you wait for the version filmed by MessageTV, in which you will find the proper beginning and full ending. For now, this should serve as a taster.

My apologies for the rustiness, I had not much time to prepare and this was my first public talk in quite a while.

Please note that the video source is 720p, so going full-screen should give you reasonable quality insha’Allah.

[Update: January 2, 2012, 2:39 PM – the server is getting hammered through demand, so we are uploading the video elsewhere to make the streaming experience a bit better, insha’Allah]

[Update: January 2, 2012, 4:42 PM] – we are still getting reports of slow streaming speed, so we have removed the video and we will fix the error and repost within the next 6 hours insha’Allah, thanks for your patience in the meantime]

[Update: January 2, 2012, 10:15 PM] – good news – the video has been shrunk a little and uploaded to a faster server, it should be OK now, insha’Allah]

[Update: February 25, 2012, 4:24PM] – the video is now from The Message TV, jazkallah khayran to all of the brothers there]

Iqbal on the Idea of Finality of Prophethood

One of greatest Muslim philosophers and ideologues of all times, Dr. Allama Muhammad Iqbal, gave special attention to the idea Finality of Prophethood (Khatam Al-Nubuwwah) and at length wrote about its significance in the House of Islam.

Here are some quotes from him;

“I want rather to fix your gaze on some of the ruling concepts of the culture of Islam in order to gain an insight into the process of ideation that underlies them, and thus to catch a glimpse of the soul that found expression through them. Before, however, I proceed to do so it is necessary to understand the cultural value of a great idea in Islam – I mean the finality of the institution of prophethood…

The birth of Islam, as I hope to be able presently to prove to your satisfaction, is the birth of inductive intellect. In Islam prophecy reaches its perfection in discovering the need of its own abolition. This involves the keen perception that life cannot for ever be kept in leading strings; that, in order to achieve full self-consciousness, man must finally be thrown back on his own resources. The abolition of priesthood and hereditary kingship in Islam, the constant appeal to reason and experience in the Qur’an, and the emphasis that it lays on Nature and History as sources of human knowledge, are all different aspects of the same idea of finality…

The intellectual value of the idea is that it tends to create an independent critical attitude towards mystic experience by generating the belief that all personal authority, claiming a supernatural origin, has come to an end in the history of man. This kind of belief is a psychological force which inhibits the growth of such authority. The function of the idea is to open up fresh vistas of knowledge in the domain of man’s inner experience. Just as the first half of the formula of Islam has created and fostered the spirit of a critical observation of man’s outer experience by divesting the forces of nature of that Divine character with which earlier cultures had clothed them. Mystic experience, then, however unusual and abnormal, must now be regarded by a Muslim as a perfectly natural experience, open to critical scrutiny like other aspects of human experience.”

(The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam, Lecture V: The Spirit of Muslim Culture)

At another place he further says;

“The cultural value of the idea of Finality in Islam I have fully explained elsewhere. Its meaning is simple: No spiritual surrender to any human being after Muhammad who emancipated his followers by giving them a law which is realizable as arising from the very core of human conscience. Theologically the doctrine is that: The Socio-political organization called “Islam” is perfect and eternal. No revelation the denial of which entails heresy is possible after Muhammad. He who claims such a revelation is a traitor to Islam.

And he does not stop here rather he goes on to answer some of the fundamental arguments of the Ahmadiyya. He says;

“Since the Qadianis believe the founder of the Ahmadiyya movement to be the bearer of such a revelation, they declare that the entire world of Islam is infidel. The founder‘s own argument, quite worthy of a mediaeval theologian, is that the spirituality of the Holy Prophet of Islam must be regarded as imperfect if it is not creative of another Prophet. He claims his own Prophethood to be an evidence of the Prophet-rearing power of the spirituality of the Holy Prophet of Islam. But if you further ask him whether the spirituality of Muhammad is capable of rearing more prophets than one, his answer is “No”. This virtually, amounts to saying: “Muhammad is not the last Prophet; I am the last.” Far from understanding the cultural value of the Islamic idea of finality in the history of mankind generally and of Asia especially, he thinks that finality in the sense that no follower of Muhammad can ever reach the status of Prophethood is a mark of imperfection in Muhammad‘s Prophethood. As I read the psychology of his mind he, in the interest of his own claim to Prophethood, avails himself of what he describes as the creative spirituality of the Holy Prophet of Islam and at the same time deprives the Holy Prophet of his ‘finality’ by limiting the creative capacity of his spirituality to the rearing of only one prophet, i.e., the founder of the Ahmadiyya movement. In this way does the new prophet quietly steal away the ‘finality’ of one whom he claims to be his spiritual progenitor.

He claims to be a ‘buruz’ of the Holy Prophet of Islam insinuating thereby that, being a ‘buruz‘ of him his ‘finality‘ is virtually the ‘finality‘ of Muhammad; and that this view of the matter, therefore, does not violate the ‘finality‘ of the Holy Prophet. In identifying the two finalities, his own and that of the Holy Prophet, he conveniently loses sight of the temporal meaning of the idea of Finality. It is, however, obvious that the word ‘buruz‘ in the sense even of complete likeness, cannot help him at all; for the ‘buruz‘ must always remain the other of its original. Only in the sense of reincarnation a ‘buruz‘ becomes identical with the original. Thus if we take the word ‘buruz‘ to mean ‘like in spiritual qualities’ the argument remains ineffective; if, on the other hand, we take it to mean reincarnation of the original in the Aryan sense of the word, the argument becomes plausible; but its author turns out to be only a Magian in disguise.”

(Islam and Ahmadism, p.8 pub. Da’wah Academy IIUI, Islamabad)

And it is precisely the same Magian spirit which Iqbal like his great predecessor, Ibn Khaldun, considered to be against the spirit of the Muslim culture. In his lectures he says;

“I have already indicated the direction in which the student of Islam should seek the cultural meaning of the doctrine of finality in Islam. It may further be regarded as a psychological cure for the Magian attitude of constant expectation which tends to give a false view of history. Ibn Khaldun, seeing the spirit of his own view of history, has fully criticized and, I believe, finally demolished the alleged revelational basis in Islam of an idea similar, at least in its psychological effects, to the original Magian idea which had reappeared in Islam under the pressure of Magian thought.”

(The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam, Lecture V: The Spirit of Muslim Culture)

And the importance and vitality of the same idea of ‘finality’ he beautifully sums up in a single poetic verse;

لا نبی بعدی احسان خداست      پردہ ناموس دین مصطفیٰ است

‘No Prophet after me’ is of God’s grace,

And veil the modest beauty of the Faith!

Mirza Ghulam, the Last Messenger

This post is a continuation of work being done by team on Mirza’s claim of being the last messenger.

Mirza is the REAL Khatam-un-Nabiyyen

Mirza is the Real Khatam-un-Nabiyeen 


((You should know that Khatamiyyat [finality] was given to Muhammad (SAAW) from the beginning; then  it was given to the one [Mirza Ghulam] who was taught by Mohammad’s spirit and made his shadow. Thus blessed is the one who taught and blessed is the one who learned. Therefore the REAL Khatamiyyat was intended for the sixth millennium)) – RK, vol 16, Khutba Ilhamiyya, page 310








Mirza is the Last Messenger



((Allah wanted to end the matter and to complete the building [of Islam] through the LAST BRICK. Oh you who witness, I am that LAST BRICK)) – RK, vol 16, Khutba-Ilhamiyya, page 178













((In contrary to what some ignorant and sinner people think, you must know that the Promised Messiah who is mentioned in the book of Allah [Quran] is NOT Isa ibn Maryam of the bible who had served the religion of Mousa; BUT the Promised Messiah is the last Khalifa from this Ummah similar to  Isa who was also – for Mousa’s chain – the last brick and Khatam-ul-Mursaleen [last prophet] )) – RK, vol 16, Khutba-Ilhamiyya, page 309











((I have been sent at the end of Muhammad’s chain, exactly like the Messiah who had been also sent at the end of Mousa’s chain, so the two chains became identical)) – RK, vol 16, Khutba-Ilhamiyya, page 124











((I have been given the name of Isa the Messiah because the Khilafat of the best messenger [Muhammad] has been ended by me, similar to Isa who ended the Khilafat of Mousa)) – RK, vol 16, Khutba-Ilhamiyya, page 324














((The chain of our prophet [Muhammad] had started with a prophet [Muhammad “saaw”] who was like Mousa, and ended with the one who is similar to Isa in order to fulfill the promise of Allah. This is a sign for those who ponder. It was mandatory to make the two chains equal: their beginnings are the same, and their ends are the same)) – RK, vol 16, Khutba-Ilhamiyya, page 329











 ((How could both chains [Muhammad’s chain and Mousa’s chain] be similar to each other without sending a Messiah like that Messiah of Mousa’s chain at the END of the chain of the holy prophet [Muhammad SAAW] )) – RK, vol 18, Ijaz-ul-Masih, page 189











((It was mandatory that Muhammad’s chain should be ended by a Khalifa like Isa who ended Mousa’s chain, so this chain [Muhammad’s chain] becomes identical to the first chain [Mousa’s chain] )) – RK, vol 16, Khutba Ilhamiyya, page 92








Mirza is the REAL Khatam! Was the first Khatam fake! Astaghfirullah!

Ahmadiyya – A New Religion

The team behind has been working very hard behind the scenes to secure some hitherto buried nuggets of Ahmadiyya history, unrevealed in English until now.

Recently, we made a startling discovery. The image says it all. And shortly, we will make available the full source of the book from which this audacious claim was made.

How did our ancestors fall for this man?

The Last Messenger?

Indeed, The Prophets have PASSED AWAY?

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.

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.

Beliefs of the Early Muslims

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:

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

No Firm Basis for the Law-Bearing vs. non-Law-Bearing Prophet Distinction

السلام عليكم و رحمة الله و بركاته

Ahmadis believe that Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سلم is the Last Law-Bearing Prophet…  Wait, what?  Law-Bearing Prophets?  What’s that?  Non-Law-Bearing Prophets?  Huh?  Where is that distinction mentioned in the Qur’an?  Well, it isn’t.  Its a theory by some of the ‘Ulema of the subcontinent, employed by the Ahmadiyya.  Based on this they believe that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was a “Non-Law-Bearing Prophet”.  This concept of law-bearing and non-law-bearing prophets is far too seldom critiqued.  Below is a discussion on the topic of law-bearing vs non-law-bearing prophets, and its (lack of) evidence in the Qur’an.

The following argument was taken from The Qur’anic Evidence: Truthfulness of The Promised Messiah, by Ansar Raza, Chapter 3, “The Possibility of Prophethood”, under Question 1.

Ahmadi Argument:

تِلْكَ الرُّسُلُ فَضَّلْنَا بَعْضَهُمْ عَلَى بَعْضٍ مِّنْهُم مَّن كَلَّمَ اللّهُ وَرَفَعَ بَعْضَهُمْ دَرَجَاتٍ وَآتَيْنَا عِيسَى ابْنَ مَرْيَمَ الْبَيِّنَاتِ وَأَيَّدْنَاهُ بِرُوحِ الْقُدُسِ وَلَوْ شَاء اللّهُ مَا اقْتَتَلَ الَّذِينَ مِن بَعْدِهِم مِّن بَعْدِ مَا جَاءتْهُمُ الْبَيِّنَاتُ وَلَكِنِ اخْتَلَفُواْ فَمِنْهُم مَّنْ آمَنَ وَمِنْهُم مَّن كَفَرَ وَلَوْ شَاء اللّهُ مَا اقْتَتَلُواْ وَلَكِنَّ اللّهَ يَفْعَلُ مَا يُرِيدُ

These messengers have We exalted some of them above others; among them there are those to whom Allah spoke; and some of them He exalted in degrees of rank. And We gave Jesus, son of Mary, clear proofs and strengthened him with the spirit of holiness. And if Allah had so willed, those that came after them would not have fought with one another after clear Signs had come to them; but they did disagree. Of them were some who believed, and of them were some who disbelieved. And if Allah had so willed, they would not have fought with one another; but Allah does what He desires.
– Muhammad ‘Ali translation, Surah Baqarah, Chapter 255

This verse hints at the two different kinds of prophets: law-bearing and non-law-bearing. Notice where the verse says, “among them there are those to whom Allah spoke”. There is no such thing as a prophet to whom Allah did not speak. So, this part of the verse refers to the laws which certain prophets received. These are the law-bearing prophets. The verse continues by saying “and some of them He exalted in degrees of rank.” This part of the verse refers to non-law-bearing Prophets, who were honored by Allah, but did not bring forth any laws for their nation to follow. This verse is evidence that the Qur’an speaks of law-bearing and non-law-bearing prophets.

Muslim Response:

This is an attempt by the Ahmadis to interpret the Qur’an according to their pre-conceived notions of what they want it to mean, rather than reading the text as-is.

The crux of the refutation of this argument lays in an important distinction between the methods Allah employs to communicate to his prophets. What is known from the Qur’an is that Allah sent inspiration to all of the Prophets, but did not necessarily speak to them all.

For example, in Surah Baqarah verses 164 and 165, Allah says:

إِنَّا أَوْحَيْنَا إِلَيْكَ كَمَا أَوْحَيْنَا إِلَى نُوحٍ وَالنَّبِيِّينَ مِن بَعْدِهِ وَأَوْحَيْنَا إِلَى إِبْرَاهِيمَ وَإِسْمَاعِيلَ وَإْسْحَقَ وَيَعْقُوبَ وَالأَسْبَاطِ وَعِيسَى وَأَيُّوبَ وَيُونُسَ وَهَارُونَ وَسُلَيْمَانَ وَآتَيْنَا دَاوُودَ زَبُورًا

وَرُسُلاً قَدْ قَصَصْنَاهُمْ عَلَيْكَ مِن قَبْلُ وَرُسُلاً لَّمْ نَقْصُصْهُمْ عَلَيْكَ وَكَلَّمَ اللّهُ مُوسَى تَكْلِيمًا

164. Surely, We have sent revelation to thee, as We sent revelation to Noah and the Prophets after him; and We sent revelation to Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and his children and to Jesus and Job and Jonah and Aaron and Solomon, and We gave David a Book.

165. And We sent some Messengers whom We have already mentioned to thee and some Messengers whom We have not mentioned to thee – and to Moses Allah spoke at great length

In verse 164, the Qur’an says Allah sent revelation (أَوْحَيْنَا) to the prophets. Then, in verse 165, the Qur’an specifies that Allah spoke to Musa (كَلَّمَ اللّهُ مُوسَى). Notice the distinction between revelation and speech. This is because Musa was one of the few prophets who spoke to Allah directly, without the intermediary of an angel. For example, Surah Ta-Ha starting from verse 12, describes the entire conversation between Allah and Musa. Again in Surah Nisa verse 165 Allah speaks to Musa. Likewise, Allah spoke directly to the Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم during the journey of al-Mi’raaj and even negotiated the daily prayers down to five.[1] [2] This is what is meant when Allah says he spoke directly to some of the prophets.

The verse continues by saying “and some of them He exalted in degrees of rank.” All prophets are honored, but some are honored above others. For example, al-Azam min ar-Rusul, the greatest from amongst the Prophets, are Muhammad, Ibrahim, Musa, ‘Esa and Nooh عليهم السلام.

The Ahmadis have attempted to interpret speech as laws, and honored as non-law-bearing. This outrageous extrapolation is simply not the meaning of the verse, cannot be implied from the text of verse, nor was the agreed upon by any of the traditional scholars of Islam.

Ahmadi Response:

وَمَا كَانَ لِبَشَرٍ أَن يُكَلِّمَهُ اللَّهُ إِلَّا وَحْيًا أَوْ مِن وَرَاء حِجَابٍ أَوْ يُرْسِلَ رَسُولًا فَيُوحِيَ بِإِذْنِهِ مَا يَشَاء إِنَّهُ عَلِيٌّ حَكِيمٌ

And it is not for a man that Allah should speak to him except by direct revelation, or from behind a veil, or by sending a messenger to reveal by His command what He pleases. Surely, He is High, Wise.

The Qur’an says that there are only three mediums Allah uses to communicate to humanity: through direct revelation, from behind a veil and through a messenger (ie, angel). There is no fourth medium. So, direct speech is not a valid medium of communication between Allah and his prophets. This implies that there was an intermediary between Muhammad and Musa عليها السلام in both examples, such as an angel.

Muslim Rebuttal:

When the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سلم spoke to Allah, he did not see him. He could only see the veil of light. [3] This is confirmed because Abu Musa al-Ash’ari رضي الله عليه said that the veil, separating Allah and the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سلم is light. [4]

Similarly, Surah Al-A’raaf verse 144 proves that Musa عليه السلام did not see Allah. And, Surah Ta-Ha does not suggest that there was any sort of angelic intermediary, whatsoever.

For those who place a sense of trust in classical Islamic scholarship, this interpretation is agreed upon by all of the books of Qur’an exegesis that I researched, such as Tafseer Jalalayn (written by someone whom the Ahmadis believe was a Mujaddid), Tafseer ar-Raazi, Tafseer Ibn Katheer (written by the student of someone whom the Ahmadis believe was a Mujaddid), Tafseer at-Tabari (one of the earliest books of Tafseer ever), and many others.

Next Ahmadi Argument:

إِنَّا أَنزَلْنَا التَّوْرَاةَ فِيهَا هُدًى وَنُورٌ يَحْكُمُ بِهَا النَّبِيُّونَ الَّذِينَ أَسْلَمُواْ لِلَّذِينَ هَادُواْ وَالرَّبَّانِيُّونَ وَالأَحْبَارُ بِمَا اسْتُحْفِظُواْ مِن كِتَابِ اللّهِ وَكَانُواْ عَلَيْهِ شُهَدَاء فَلاَ تَخْشَوُاْ النَّاسَ وَاخْشَوْنِ وَلاَ تَشْتَرُواْ بِآيَاتِي ثَمَنًا قَلِيلاً وَمَن لَّمْ يَحْكُم بِمَا أَنزَلَ اللّهُ فَأُوْلَئِكَ هُمُ الْكَافِرُونَ

Surely, We sent down the Torah wherein was guidance and light. By it did the Prophets, who were obedient to Us, judge for the Jews, as did the godly people and those learned in the Law, because they were required to preserve the Book of Allah, and because they were guardians over it. Therefore fear not men but fear Me; and barter not My signs for a paltry price. And whoso judges not by that which Allah has sent down, these it is who are the disbelievers.

– Surah Ma’idah, Verse 45

As the verse explains, first Allah sent the Torah, through a law-bearing prophet, that contained the laws for the Jews to follow. Then, he sent a succession of non-law-bearing prophets who judged according to the Torah. This verse implicitly explains the distinction between law-bearing and non-law-bearing prophets.

Muslim Response:

If this verse was taken in isolation, the Ahmadis would have a tenable position, but further analysis weakens their belief.

According to the Ahmadis, ‘Esa bin Maryam عليه السلام is a “non-law-bearing prophet.”[5] It is true that he came to confirm the Torah. But, consider Surah Ale ‘Imraan verse 51, where ‘Esa bin Maryam عليه السلام says:

وَمُصَدِّقًا لِّمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيَّ مِنَ التَّوْرَاةِ وَلِأُحِلَّ لَكُم بَعْضَ الَّذِي حُرِّمَ عَلَيْكُمْ وَجِئْتُكُم بِآيَةٍ مِّن رَّبِّكُمْ فَاتَّقُواْ اللّهَ وَأَطِيعُونِ

‘And I come fulfilling that which is before me, namely, the Torah; and to allow you some of that which was forbidden unto you, and I come to you with a Sign from your Lord; so fear Allah and obey me;’

This verse brings forth three objections to the Ahmadi position. First, while ‘Esa bin Maryam عليه السلام fulfills the Torah, but per the mandate of Allah, he also modified and altered the existing laws. Some of the scholars of Islam comment that this means he allowed certain foods that were previously impermissible and made work permissible on their Sabbath. Either way, he was authorized to modify law. This would effectively make him a “law-bearing” prophet.

Second, consider that in the Islamic legal system there are two sources of law: the Qur’an and the Sunnah of the Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم, preserved through the books of hadith. The obligation to obey the Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم is outlined in dozens of verse, such as Surah Alee ‘Imraan verse 133 where Allah says:

وَأَطِيعُواْ اللّهَ وَالرَّسُولَ لَعَلَّكُمْ تُرْحَمُونَ

And obey Allah and the Messenger that you may be shown mercy.

Allah used the word أَطِيعُواْ, the command form of the word obey, and from this one can gather that it is legally incumbent upon all Muslims to obey his commandments. Next, consider that this same root-word is used with regards to ‘Esa bin Maryam عليه السلام. He tells the Bani Isra’eel to fear Allah and َأَطِيعُونِ (obey me). The obligation upon Bani Isra’eel to obey ‘Esa bin Maryam عليه السلام makes him a “law-bearing” prophet just as the obligation upon the Muslims to obey the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سلم, in addition to the Qur’an, makes him a “law-bearing” prophet.

This analysis is not specific to ‘Esa bin Maryam عليه السلام. Even if not all prophets were given revelatory scriptures, all prophets gave orders, and their commandments were incumbent upon their communities, thus making them all “law-bearing” prophets.[6]

And We have sent no Messenger but that he should be obeyed by the command of Allah. And if they had come to thee, when they had wronged their souls, and asked forgiveness of Allah, and the Messenger also had asked forgiveness for them, they would have surely found Allah Oft-Returning with compassion, and Merciful.
– Surah Nisa’ Verse 65


It is entirely possible that there is a distinction between law-bearing and non-law-bearing prophets, and even some modern Muslim scholars have commented on this idea. But, any conclusion thereof stems from deduction, not manifest evidence.

Even if there truly is a distinction between law-bearing and non-law-bearings prophets, there is no concise explanation anywhere in the Qur’an. But, such a distinction is foundational to Ahmadiyya, as Mirza Ghulam Ahmad claimed to be a “non-law-bearing” prophet. If Ahmadiyya is the True Islam, as they claim, that would mean Allah mistakenly left out a fundamental pillar required to accept one of his later prophets, or ciphered this belief in what seems to be otherwise unrelated verses, effectively dumbfounding the masses of those who believe in the Qur’an sending them to hellfire.

No, the guidance from Allah is clear. The concept of “law-bearing” and “non-law-bearing” prophets does not exist anywhere in the Qur’an. Any argument which uses this as a pillar rests on weak grounds and is subject to dismissal, including the entire Ahmadiyya religion.

May Allah guide our Ahmadi friends to Islam.

Sources Cited:
[1] Saheeh Muslim, Book 1, Hadith 309

[2] The Prophet’s صلى الله عليه و سلم advisor was Musa عليه السلام. Some comment that this is because Musa عليه السلام had previous experience in speaking directly to Allah.

[3] Saheeh Muslim, Book 1, Hadith 341

[4] Saheeh Muslim, Book 1, Hadith 343

[5] Revelation, Rationality, Knowledge & Truth by Mirza Tahir Ahmad, Part VII, “Attempts to Philosophically Justify the Finality of Non-law-bearing Prophethood”