1, Is an umati nabi better than other nabis or rasools?

Your answer : http://www.scribd.com/doc/34444337/Answer-1

The ayat 253 of Surah Bakara which you quoted talks about Rasools not Nabis. I hope you know the difference
between the two. Every Rasool is a Nabi of Allah but not every Nabi is a Rasool.

The discussion here is of an “Ummati Nabi”. Therefore the ayat you quoted from the Quran does not testify to
any nabi being better than another.

But thank you anyways for letting us know what the Ahmadi belief about Mirza Saheb when you refer to him as
an “Ummati Nabi” you basically mean that he is better than some Nabis and/or Rasools but not Hazrat
Muhammad (S.A.W). Which we don’t accept since you were not able to prove it from the Quran.

3. If one umati nabi can come, can more come too later on?

Your answer : http://www.scribd.com/doc/34444407

Regarding the first ayat you quote 76 from Surah Al Hajj, you didn’t translate it correctly. Here is the correct
English translation:

“Allah chooses messengers from angels and from men for Allah is He Who hears and sees (all things).”

1. Again the ayat talks about Rasool NOT a Nabi. If we were to take this on its face value and not
contextually even than how does it prove that an ummati nabi will come?
2. Secondly, it also talks about angels being Rasool. How can angels and humans both be rasools? The
word Rasool here does not mean rasool as in the Prophets, but infact means messangers in the literal
way. Which the angels and humans both can be as anyone can get “hadayat” from Allah and guide
other people.
3. Thirdly, we Muslims believe that this ayat was for the Mushrikeens and the kuffars who used to say that
Hazrat Muhammad (S.A.W) is a mere man like us what is so special about him and that’s why Allah
revealed these verses to answer them. Since the Prophet (SAW) was physically alive and present
amongst them therefore Allah used the word “chooses” not “chose”.

Regarding the second ayat, again you don’t translate it correctly – please do justice to the Quran and atleast
translate the Arabic correctly. The words are clearly plural while you use singulars in your transaltion:

“All who obey Allah and the apostle are in the company of those on whom is the Grace of Allah,- of the
prophets (who teach), the sincere (lovers of Truth), the witnesses (who testify), and the Righteous (who do
good): Ah! what a beautiful fellowship!” (Surah An Nisa: Verse 69) By the way your reference was incorrect, it
wasn’t 74 but was 69.

Now how can you interpret the above ayat in the sense that with constant effort a righteous can move to a
witness and then become sincere and ultimately a prophet? The above ayat talks about normal people being in
the company of the elevated 4 categories because of obeying Allah and Hazrat Muhammad (S.A.W).
Regarding the ayats Al-Imran: 20 and Al-Ahzaab: 8, they are totally two different promises. How can you
possibly relate the two? There is no linkgae between them. Even the mufassareen have interpreted them to be
separate promises. Show me a mufasir who has interpreted them to be the same promise.

The first promise in ayat 20, Surah Al-e-Imran is as you mentioned. But the second promise in ayat 8, Surah
Al-Ahzab, relates to the promise to establish the religion of Allah and convey His Message. Here is how the
great mufasir of Islam Ibn-Kathir (R.A) has interpreted the two different ayats:

http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=3&tid=8624

http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=33&tid=41341

Now coming to another ayat that you quoted from Surah Noor. The translation is:

55. “Allah has promised, to those among you who believe and work righteous deeds, that He will, of a surety,
grant them in the land, inheritance (of power), as He granted it to those before them; that He will establish in
authority their religion…”

You have translated it as khilafat on earth while here it is translated as “grant them in the land”. Both
translations are right but then how do you go on to add in “naboowat” with it??? The ayat is talking about
khilafat and you add naboowat in your explanation by yourself??? That is quite strange. This happens when
you pick the answers from some Ahmadi books and not verify them from the Quran. The same thing applies to
your earlier answers where translations are all wrong and you change the interpretation to nabi where the
quran talks about rasool.

After this you quote Surah Maida ayat 20. Translation from Yusuf Ali is (any one can double check it online).

“20. Remember Moses said to his people: "O my people! Call in remembrance the favour of Allah unto you,
when He produced prophets among you, made you kings, and gave you what He had not given to any other
among the peoples.” What you said in your argument was that when Hazrat Musa (AS) says that its favour of
Allah that he produced prophets among you.” You say that if one prophet can come, the whole ummat is given
the “naimat” of “naboowat”. Ofcourse! The whole ummat is benefitted by the teachings of that prophet and
hence the guidance that the ummat gets is indeed a “naimat” of Allah. That does not have to mean that the
whole ummat can become prophets as you are interpreting it.

Q4. Did Prophet Mohammad (pbuh&hf) ever mention this concept of Umati Nabi?

Your answer: http://www.scribd.com/doc/34444448

1. The first hadith that you quote is in Bukhari like this: “Kaeefa anta iza nazalabnu maryama feekum wa
imamukum minkum”

Any person who has a basic knowledge of arabic would understand that “nazalabnu maryama” means
that “ibn-e-maryam naazil ho gai” and “wa imamukum minkum” means “tumhara imam tum mein sai ho
ga”. The whole translation can be found if you open Bukhari, Kitab Al-anbiah hadith 669. So I don’t
know how you translated it to be “jab ibn-e maryam yani maseel maseeh mabous ho ga jo tumhara
 imam aur tumhi mein sai ho ga”. When it is clearly said that “nazalabnu maryama” how can you say that
“tumhi mein sai ho ga”. When he will descend from somewhere he will obvious not from the people in
whom he will descend.

2. The second hadith that you quote:

2.

Here is the Hadeeth in Arabic from Musnad Ahmad:

‫حدثنا محمد بن جعفر قال حدثنا هشام بن حسان عن محمد عن أبي هريرة‬
‫عن النبي صلى هللا عليه وسلم قال يوشك من عاش منكم أن يلقى عيسى ابن مريم إماما مهديا وحكما عدال فيكسر الصليب ويقتل الخنزير ويضع الجزية وتضع الحرب أوزارها‬
The translation above is inaccurate and even misleading. The hadith uses the words "Imaaman Mahdiyyan." It is in the indefinite case, so a more correct translation
would have been, "a rightly guided Imam."

You translated the second part properly as "a just judge" but put the first part as definite i.e. "the Mahdi" even though in Arabic both are indefinite.

2.
3. The third hadith that you quote, please be courteous enough to mention the hadith number. I could not
find it.
4. I have no problem with this hadith but this does not prove your case in any way.
5. Again you don’t quote the hadith number. But still I know how Muslims interpret this hadith. It is that this
is the reason why Allah gave him death to show that the gate of Naboowat are closed so even if Allah
send someone with the qualities of a prophet he will be given death earlier. I believe maybe the basic
aim behind his short life and death was to prove this point of khatam-ul-anbiah to the ummah.
6. The hadith that you quote is extremely “zaeef” in fact the book from which you refer is in itself consider
unauthentic. On the contrary you forget about the ahadith quoted in Bukhari and Muslim which mention
the muqaam of Hazrat Ali, Hazrat Umer and Hazrat Abu-bakr in the ummah but declare that there will
be no prophet after Hazrat Muhammad (PBUH).
7. The hadith that you quote here, I have no problem with it. But your interpretation shocks me. You say
that the proper khilafat was after prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and so to have that proper khilafat again
before qayamat it is necessary that another Nabi comes. So you are saying that the teachings of Hazrat
Muhammad (PBUH) were not enough or could not guide the Muslims in the age before qayamat to
have that proper khilafat again so another nabi has to come and guide the ummah again and then only
the khilafat is possible? You are dishonouring our prophet (PBUH) here by saying that.

5, Did your prophet ever claim to be Hazrat Imam Mehdi (a.j)? if so, did he fulfil any of the prophecies fortold by
Prophet Mohammad and his progeny?

Your answer: http://www.scribd.com/doc/34444511

Your first point as an answer for this question mentions these three ayat of Surah Al-jumma:

1. Whatever is in the heavens and on earth, doth declare the Praises and Glory of Allah,- the Sovereign, the
Holy One, the Exalted in Might, the Wise.

2. It is He Who has sent amongst the Unlettered an apostle from among themselves, to rehearse to them His
Signs, to sanctify them, and to instruct them in Scripture and Wisdom,- although they had been, before, in
manifest error;-
3. As well as (to confer all these benefits upon) others of them, who have not already joined them: And He is
exalted in Might, Wise.

Now what is most interesting is that the qualities of Allah that are mentioned in ayat 1 (the Sovereign, the Holy
One, the Exalted in Might, the Wise.) and then in ayat 3 (He is exalted in Might, Wise). These are the qualities
of Allah and in your argument you are saying that the first ayat mentions the qualities of prophet Muhammad
(PBUH) and the the third mentions that of his “zile”. Please can someone explain the logic behind this to me!!!

And again the same issue with surah Al-Nisa ayat 158. It says “…wakaan-allahu azeezan hakeema”. Meaning
“Allah is exhalted in power, Wise”

Yes the ayat talks about Hazrat Eesa but the whole translation is “158. Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself;
and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise”

The hadith that you quote after this, again there is no reference number. Please provide the reference number.
Also as I corrected your translations regarding the versus above, it becomes pretty clear that verse number 3 is
also talking about Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and who he will bring to islam not a “Zile”. Furthermore even if
we accept your translation for the hadith (and which I’m pretty sceptical about after the earlier experiences),
this hadith talks about one or more persons, could be anyone. How can you prove it is talking about Mirza
Sahib?

Your “Daleel #2”. Although you did not give the ayat number, it is ayat number 4 of Surah Taqweer.

“1. When the sun (with its spacious light) is folded up;

2. When the stars fall, losing their lustre;

3. When the mountains vanish (like a mirage);

4. When the she-camels, ten months with young, are left untended; …”

Atika, how does ayat # 4 say that the camels will become useless for long journeys??? These ayats are talking
about the day of Qayamat (and anyone who has read Surah Taqweer would know that), and that on that day a
she-camel, 10 months pregnant which was supposed to be very precious for Arabs in those days, would be left
untended.

So the ayat and the hadith that you quoted are about two different things. The ayat is talking about the day of
judgment and pregnant she-camels as I have explained above. The hadith is regarding the time when Hazrat
Eesa will come and explains that the natural methods of travelling will be useless and it can be induced from
this the level of technology for commuting. So you cant relate the hadith and the ayat.

Furthermore if I may say that in the times of Mirza Sahib, more than a century back, camels and other animals
were being used for travelling long distances as well.
“Daleel #3” In the most euphemistic way I would say that this daleel of yours made me smile. Open “Dare
Qutni” and read this hadith. Imam Dare Qutni after stating this hadith himself says that it is a very week hadith
as there are two narrators who are very unreliable. Their narrations are not proof to substantiate any claim.
(Dare Qutni vol.2 p.65) Furthermore Upon studying the chain of transmission quoted above we notice that this
sanad does not reach right up to Rasoolullah sallallahu alaihi wasallam. It stops on Muhammad bin Ali, the
great-grandson of Ameerul Mumineen Hazrat Ali radhiyallahu anhu. So it is munqati as well.

6, Did your prophet Mirza Ahmed make any important prophecies?

Your answer: http://www.scribd.com/doc/34444525/Answer-6

When answering this question earlier I didn’t spend much time on it because I thought you will be offended
(more than you already are). But the thing is that making prophecies is not proof of prophethood. Nostradamus
made prophecies most of which were true, hindu jotish make prophecies, an octopus can prophesize correctly
for God’s sake. That does not make any of them prophets of Islam (Nauzubillah). I gave only one example of a
prophecy not coming true because where anyone can make correct prophecies, Muslims believe the
prophecies of a true prophet can never be wrong. But in this case we do come across many prophecies of
Mirza Sahib which were not fulfilled.

7, Did he believe in Shia or Sunni Islam?

Your answer: http://www.scribd.com/doc/34444559

Ok, thank you for letting us know about the life and personality of Mirza Sahib.

8. Did he try sorting out things for the Muslim ummah?

Your answer: http://www.scribd.com/doc/34444576

Thank you for the answer, no issues here.

9. What do you consider his chain that continues in UK?

Your answer: http://www.scribd.com/doc/34444576

Again, thanks for letting us know your beliefs regarding his children.

10 - Can anyone claim that his or her eeman or knowlwdge of deen is more stronger than Hazrat Abu Bakar
Siddique or any other Khalifa (Allah is pleased with them)?

Your answer: http://www.scribd.com/doc/34444588

I’m confused here. You quote a hadith (from an unauthentic book of ahadith. I have already discussed this
hadith earlier, but still if we consider it) which says that “Abu bakr iss ummat mein sub sai afzal hai sawaye iss
kai kai koi nabi aye”. But earlier in your comments on facebook you quote an incident from RK2 that a man
asked Mirza Sahib that shouldn’t we consider you better than and closer to Hazrat Muhammad (PBUH) than
the sahaba, on which Mirza Sahib got very angry and talked about the fazaail of sahaba for 6 hours.

Now please let me know clearly whether you consider him better than the sahaba or not.
11- If Hazrat Abu Bakar Siddique declared the first false prophet kafir, declared war on him, why should
anyone else be allowed to claim prophethood?

Your answer: http://www.scribd.com/doc/34444670

Your argument for this question is that Ahmadis are successful today and expanding. Also Mirza Sahib lived
more than 23 years so he can not be a false prophet. I’ll just give a couple of examples as I’m totally stressed
out by now. But there are many more.

Bahaullah, the founder of Bahai. They are present today, and very successful.

Mormonism founded by Joseph Smith is also very successful. In fact their movement comprises of the richest
people in the world today. Smith claimed in 1820, was killed in 1844. How many years did he live after making
his claims? 24 years. So should I accept him as a prophet, because he lived more than 23 years?

There are many more successful groups today who believe in men who claimed being prophets after Hazrat
Muhammad (PBUH). Worldly success does not mean you are on the right path.

Now coming to page 21, where are you quoting the hadith in the last paragraph from? As far as I know it’s a
very zaeef hadith but if you give me the reference number I will be able to check on it.

Now that we have gone over all the earlier questions, I’ll come to the question you asked me. “Jab uss imam
aur maseeh maoud ka itna muqam an-hazrat (PBUH) kee nazer mein hai tau aap nai unn kee ataayat ka farz
kahan tak ada kia” http://www.scribd.com/doc/34444684

Ans. InshAllah when he will come and if I am alive, inshAllah inshAllah I will be in his followers. prophet
"Muslemmah" Kafir, declared war on him and Muslemmah got killed in that war? When such a strong
precedence is set, why should anyone else be allowed to claim prophethood? prophet "Muslemmah" Kafir,
declared war on him and Muslemmah got killed in that war? When such a strong precedence is set, why
should anyone else be allowed to claim prophethood? 7, What did he belive in i.e Shiite or Sunni Islam? I hope
you would know that there are religious & theological differences rather than politcal as purported by many.