As Salaam O Alaykum,
First of all thanks for great responses to the allegations rasied by our opponents. There are several who email me and tell me that the admin. of Rahe Huda Forum delete any allegations raised by them. so I asked them to email me and I will post it and it did appear on this forum thus proving anti-ahmadiyya as liar because they assured me that Rahe Huda forum will not answer them but they were speechless when i passed them the link with the answer.
Keep up the great work you are doing for the spreading of Islam. JazzakAllah.

Now here is another allegation and it is sent from a video on youtube. Here is the link to the video:
CHALLENGE FOR QADIANIS NO.2 [£500 REWARD]

I am not sure that if we are permitted to post youtube links but if they are not permitted please omit the link.

======================================================================================

£500 REWARD IF QADIANIS CAN SHOW THIS TO US FROM THE QUR'AN AND AUTHENTIC AHADEETH

Mirza Qadiani Sahib said:
"The person NAMED Khaatamul Khulafaa in Qur'an, is the same person NAMED Maseeh Ma'ood in the Ahadith."
"Qur'an Shareef main jis shakhs kaa NAAM Khaatamul Khulafaa rakkhaa giyaa hay, use kaa naam Ahadeeth main Maseeh Ma'ood rakkhaa giyaa hay."
(Malfoozat, Vol 5, page 554)

Can anybody show us where in the Qur'an we can find the name "Khaatamul Khulafaa" and "Maseeh Ma'ood" in the authentic books of Hadith?

This is book is called Malfuzaat London print vol 10 pages 265-266,
India print vol 5 page 554,
At the time, Mirza Sahib claimed to be:
1) Khaatim ul khulafaa
2) Maseeh Mau'ood

These words were spoken in May 1908 - roughly twenty days before his death.

Mirza Sahib says that he is the most superior and greatest one to arrive before Qiyamah, and at the time he was claiming to be Maseeh Maw'ood and Khaatam ul Khulafaa. Probably to give his word some weight, he said all the predictions about the Maseeh Maw'ood and Khatam ul Khulafaa in the Qur'an and Hadeeth refer to himself.

Mirza Qadiani said:
"The same person who is NAMED Khaatamul Khulafaa in the Qur'an, is NAMED Maseeh Ma'ood in the Ahadith."

Because Mirza Sahib is referring to a NAME, Qadianis cannot make excuses and give references for Quranic ayaat or Ahadeeth which indirectly refer to the Messiah. So basically, the same person who is called Khaatam ul Khulafaa in the Qur'an is known as the Maseeh Ma'ood in the Ahadeeth - Mirza Sahib claims to be both!

www.alislam.org/urdu/pdf/Malfoozat-v5.pdf


================================================

Kindly please provide a response to this allegation.


Was Salaam,

Ahmadiyya Zindabaad

The Holy Quran says in 48:30 that the description of the Holy Prophet (sa) and his companions (ra) is in Torah and Gospel. Can any non-Ahmadi show any verse from the BIble wherein this description is mentioned?

The Holy Prophet (sa) said that there has been no prophet since Hadhrat Noah (as) who has not warned his people from Dajjal. Can non-Ahmadis show us from the scriptures of at least five religions wherein Dajjal is mentioned and people of those religions have been warned by their prophets?

The fundamental response to each and every allegation and objection of non-Ahmadis on the Promised Messiah (as) is that if he is a true Prophet of God, then whatever he says is correct. But if he is not a true Prophet, then who cares what he says.
So, what needs to be decided is whether he is a true prophet or not. All the rest is automatically settled after this issue.

Salaam.

Is there any prophet who did not warn people against the one-eyed spiritual blind opposition which rises up against them and their message? Suratul Kahf (which the Holy Prophet s.a. said was a remedy against Dajjaal) denounces people (claiming to be religious but rejecting the signs and the meeting) whose pursuits are all worldly and superficial, and yet they imagine they are doing good deeds. Likewise, we read:

فَخَرَجَ عَلىٰ قَومِهِ فى زينَتِهِ ۖ قالَ الَّذينَ يُريدونَ الحَيوٰةَ الدُّنيا يٰلَيتَ لَنا مِثلَ ما أوتِىَ قٰرونُ إِنَّهُ لَذو حَظٍّ عَظيمٍ

So he (Qaaroon) went forth before his people in his (pompous/superficial) beauty. Those who were desirous of the life of this world said, ‘O would that we had the like of what Korah has been given! Truly, he is the master of great fortune.’ [28:80]

وَقالَ الَّذينَ أوتُوا العِلمَ وَيلَكُم ثَوابُ اللَّهِ خَيرٌ لِمَن ءامَنَ وَعَمِلَ صٰلِحًا وَلا يُلَقّىٰها إِلَّا الصّٰبِرونَ

And those endowed with knowledge said, ‘Woe to you, the reward of Allah is best for those who believe and do good works; and it shall be granted to none except those who are steadfast.’ [28:81]

So, the Khaatamul Khulafaa is indicated in Suratul Jumu'ah just as Dajjaal is indicated in Surtaul Kahf, viz:

قُل هَل نُنَبِّئُكُم بِالأَخسَرينَ أَعمٰلًا ﴿١٠٣﴾ الَّذينَ ضَلَّ سَعيُهُم فِى الحَيوٰةِ الدُّنيا وَهُم يَحسَبونَ أَنَّهُم يُحسِنونَ صُنعًا

Say, ‘Shall We tell you of those who are the greatest losers in respect of their works? — ‘Those whose labour is lost in the life of this world, and they imagine that they are doing beautiful works.’ [18:104-105]

It is such one-eyed spiritually blind religious leadership that would denounce a Messiah as Dajjal and/or Kafir. So, the Promised Messiah a.s. is mentioned as Khaatamul Khulafaa, in that the 'Best of the Khalifas' of the Holy Prophet Muhammad s.a. would be the best reflection of him, as described in Suratul Jumu'ah.

Wassalaam.

ansar58 wrote:


I have skipped the other half of your post since I am not the best scholar of Hadith on earth. However, this part attracts my attention a little.

We Muslims unanimously believe, as is confirmed by the Qur´an itself on numerous occasions, that the earlier scriptures such as the Taurah/Tawrah and Injeel have been corrupted by their followers gradually after the passing away of the prophets. It could possibly be that a description of Prophet Muhammad and his Companions did exist in the original scriptures but not found in those which are accessible in our age. The Qur´an on the other hand is safe and secure as it was during the time of its revelation and so it was during the time of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Sahib, so if he found in The Qur´an something back then, then it should exist in the book even now.

So back to the question, where is the Khatam-ul-Khulafah in the Qur´an?

It can sometimes be the fact that things are not mentioned so clearly and it requires an interpretation. If you guys can provide any verse which Mirza Sahib even interpreted so that it according to him meant to a mention of Khatam-ul-Khulafah then it will be much appreciated.

By the way, can someone please confirm when the "Miscellaneous" section of the new Al-Huda forum is going to be launched? I hope that section of the forum hasn´t been dropped from it as it offered very good intellectual debates.

Azaad Sahib
It is a historical fact that the present day Bible is the same which was found in the days of the Holy Prophet (sa). Allah says:

‘Those who follow the Messenger, the Prophet, the Immaculate one, whom they find mentioned in the Torah and the Gospel which are with them. [7:158]

This verse clearly states that the signs of the Holy Prophet (sa) was found even in the corrupted and distorted version of Torah and Gospels which the Jews and the Christians of that time had with them. Therefore, this excuse does not work that the Bible is corrupted and those signs mentioned in 48:30 are not there anymore.

Secondly, you skipped the rest of my post on the pretext that you are not a scholar of hadith. It means that you are scholar of Quran. That is why you discussed Quranic argument but skipped the argument of Hadith. But the more amazing fact is that you also skipped my logical argument which I presented as the principal stand, as follows:


The fundamental response to each and every allegation and objection of non-Ahmadis on the Promised Messiah (as) is that if he is a true Prophet of God, then whatever he says is correct. But if he is not a true Prophet, then who cares what he says.
So, what needs to be decided is whether he is a true prophet or not. All the rest is automatically settled after this issue.

I wish you say something about this principal stand.

Assalam u Alaikum,

This matter of Khatam al Khulafa is not a difficult thing. Hazrat Aqdas a.s. is right in what he has written. I will prove it soon (after about 12 hours) when I am free. He is right in saying that the Khaatam al Khulafa according to Quran is the same person who is called Masih Ma'ud (or promised Masiha a.s.) in the Hadith.

It is very simple matter. It will be proved by the verse 24:56 Insha Allah. But needs some explanation. Wait out, please. In the meantime ask the questioner if there is any mention in the Quran of the Khulafa?? If so where it is?/ And is there any Khaatam al Khulafa known to have been before the prophet s.a.w.s. Yes, it is none other than hazrat Isa a.s.

That is well known fact and no one should deny it. He was the Khaatam for the Bani Israel even though he is not mentioned as such in the Quran. But that is a fact. Every one knows about it.

So a Khaatam al Khulafa is understood by the Quran. We have to settle that first. Nobody can deny it. Please ask the questioner about Isa a.s., about his status in the Ummah of Musa a.s. Was he not the Khaatam al Khulafa of the Musaic line?? If he was then the matter becomes simple and I shall return with more info on this subject, Insha Allah.

wassalam,,,

ansar58 wrote:


You failed to understand my point! I said that it could possibly be that it was mentioned in the original scriptures but had been scrapped from it well before the revelation of the Qur´an. Point was not whether we have the same today compared to those accessible in the time of Prophet Muhammad.

To add to your information, the Ahmadiyya commentary of the verse says that it possibly refers to Deuteronomy 33:2 and Matthew 13:3-8 with the former prophecy also held among traditional Islamic scholars.

So I at least have something as a recipe in my defence! You are yet to say something in regards to Khatam-ul-Khulafah being mentioned in the Qur´an.

ansar58 wrote:


There´s no implication that I am a scholar of the Qur´an, just that I am a little skeptical of the Hadith.

As for your "principal stand", I cannot say much to offend your theory. One thing I would like to add is that this is not the most mature way to settle a debate. A person first needs to be freed off his charges for the outsiders to believe in him and Mirza Sahib is no different.

Azaad Bro!
Regrettably you failed to grasp the point. The signs were certainly mentioned in the original scriptures but the Quran says that they are still found in those scriptures which are with the Jews and Christians living at the time of the Holy Prophet (sa). یجدونہ مکتوبًا عندھم فی التوراۃ والانجیل they find mentioned in the Torah and the Gospel which are with them. These words "with them" show that these signs were still found in the Torah and Gospels and were not removed.

Secondly you said that how does it imply that you are a scholar of Quran because you discuss Quran but avoid hadith on the pretext that you are not a scholar of hadith.

Third point is that where did you get the criterion that first a person has to be freed off charges from the outsiders to believe in him? Is it your self-fabricated principle or its source is Quran? If it is earlier then I'm sorry to say that we do not judge a prophet according to people's self-created principles. However, if it is later, then please bring your evidence.

Further, do you think that the Holy Prophet Muhammad^sa also needs to be freed off the charges of outsiders before you believe in him? If no, then why do you impose this condition on another claimant of prophethood like him? If yes, then please announce here that you do not believe in him and start clearing those millions of charges Jews, Christians, and other non-Muslim critics put on him.

I feel that one of my posts is not shown on this topic. If so, please present it immediately so that i proceed further. The problem of the Khaatam al Khulafa in the Quran is almost solved. There is no mistake in the writing of the promised Masiha a.s.

aparty Bro!

This is an unpleasant task for me but I must say that due to following reasons your post is not showing up here.

I have humbly submitted many times that we should not rush to answer every question but to settle the basis first and then try to resolve the issue on those basis.

Everyone has a right to express his/her views about any post and we cannot restrict anyone or limit their rights not to express what they wish to say about a particular issue. But what happens is that sometimes a post is simultaneously responded by more than one person. Sometimes the arguments are repeated and sometimes a new aspect is introduced. This confuses the person whom we are responding and discussion is totally messed up. I therefore, humbly submit that before responding to any post, first see whether someone else is already dealing with it or not. If yes, then observe the on-going discussion. All you should do at this moment is that add something while acknowledging what other Ahmadi bro/sis has already stated. If somebody is not dealing with it, then you may start responding to the post you wish to respond. Then others should do likewise, i.e., either observe your discussion with that person or add briefly to what you write, if needed, while acknowledging your arguments



I hope you don't mind and observe these humble guidelines.

ansar Bro, thanks for reply. I feel that i had discussed something (some important aspect) of the topic which none of you had brought up. Please read my that post and find it there. There are more things for me to say here but it would be better to ask you first to let that post be shown. Then i will come up with other things. I feel you have not read that post.

What I was presenting was the real answer to the problem of Khaatam al Khulafa in the Quran, Can you show me if any of you had tackled that properly?? Please do.

aparty Bro!

You are not understanding the issue. The problem is not that your response is valid or not. The problem is that why would we allow every one to come up with a new objection everyday and attack Ahmadiyyat without resolving the fundamental issue or not having their basis on Quran and Hadith. What they do is that they ignore all the principles and standards of Quran and Hadith, create their own standards and demand Ahmadis to answer their questions on those flimsy basis.

Therefore, whenever we are attacked, we must ask them to provide references from Quran and Hadith or even before that we need to ask them to disprove from Quran and Hadith that the Promised Messiah^as was a true Prophet. Unless we do that we are not supposed to answer any objection.

As far as your post is concerned, your only argument is that as Hadhrat Isa^as was Khatamul Khulafa for Bani Israel but it is not mentioned in Quran, similarly the Promised Messiah^as is Khatamul Khulafa for this Ummah, and it is also not mentioned in Quran.

This argument not only fails to rebut the objection but also adds to your problem. Instead of providing the evidence for the Promised Messiah^as mentioned as Khatamul Khulafa in Quran, you made another claim, and that too without any evidence that Hadhrat Isa^as is Khatamul Khulafa for Bani Israel. The interesting thing is that you think that you have almost solved the problem but do not realize that you have added to the problem. First he asked about reference from Quran about the Promised Messiah^as as Khatamul Khulafa. Now, he would ask you to provide the reference from Quran about Hadhrat Isa^as as Khatamul Khulafa.

Also take note that the correct spelling is Messiah not Massiha.

Ansar Bro. You have not yet addressed the issue about Khaatam al Khulafa in the Quran. If I have done it or am prepared to do it, you are blocking the posts. Let the post be shown and then we will decide whether it is in the right direction or not. If anything is wrong, it will come upon me, not you.

You have avoided to answer the issue. But I have complete answer to that question. will you please allow me??

Please go ahead!

ansar, thank you for reply. Where do I go ahead from here when my previous post of yesterday is still blocked by you?? That was an important preliminary to my next post.

I see that my post has appeared at #6. Please read that first.

There has been big question to show that khaatam al Khulafa in Quran is the same as the Promised Masiha a.s. mentioned in the Hadith. There seemed to be a prize of 500 Sterling Pounds on that question which apparantly could baffle any one out of his wits.

The question was about an Urdu writing of the Promised Masiha a.s. There is a problem about the Urdu writing and Arabic writing because we do not know whether the word used was "Khaatam" or "Khaatim". Anyhow, let us deal with this matter now.

It is being questioned that the word "Khaatam" or "Khaatim" al Khulafa should be shown from the Quran. There is no such word in the Quran. But there is definite mention of Khulafa in the Quran in verse 24:56. When there have been Khulafa in the previous Ummas, definitely there was a Khaatim too, i.e. Khaatim al Khulafa. The subject matter is there and it cannot be denied.

Allah has promised to the believing Muslims and those who do good deeds that a Khilafat will be established amongst them as it was established in earlier Ummas (See verse 24:56 please).

We have the example of the prophet Musa a.s. and his Ummah. Khilafat was established amongst them who carried forward the teachings of the prophet Musa a.s. Hazrat Isa a.s. was the last of those prophets who came in the line of Musa a.s. Whether he was a Khalifah of Musa a.s. or not, yet we can assume that there was a last khalifah in that line, who ever he was. All this follows from the teachings of the Quran. It is nothing from the Hadith.

The promised Masiha a.s. is writing that the Khaatim al Khulafa of the Quran (definitely meaning the one in the line of Israelis) in principle (not in words) is same as a one Promised Masiha a.s. mentioned in the Hadith. In the Hadith, he is not mentioned as Khaatim al Khulafa, but is mentioned as the Promised Masiha a.s.

There is no need to look for the exact words in the Quran. The writing is mentioning about a person, in the Quran, and he is calling him "Khaatim al Khulafa" or "Khaatam al Khulafa" of the previous Ummas.

I am immediately presenting another post which may make the matter more clear. Please see.

My last post. This is what I understand by that writing of the Promised Masiha a.s. Please see:

The question arises; Are there any Khulafa mentioned in the Quran?? If yes then where they are mentioned??

If there is a subject of the Khulafa in the previous Ummah then there must have been a Khaatam al Khulafa too. That is by the meaning, not by the exact words. The subject of the Quran discusses about the Khulafa in previous Ummas. That is found in verse 24:56.

There had been Khulafa and there had been a Khaatam too amongst them. Taking the case of the Ummah of Hazrat Musa a.s. we can say that Hazrat Isa a.s. was the Khaatam al Khulafa, even though he is not named or mentioned as such. But there is no doubt that there had been a Khaatam al Khulafa in that Ummah and the subject is mentioned (contained) in the Quran in verse 24:56.

So, that is the Khaatam al Khulafa as per Quran. Hazrat Aqdas a.s. is saying that The Khaatam al Khulafa as per Quran is same as the Promise in Hadith of a Masiha a.s. in this Ummah. In other words, the person promised as Masiha in this Ummah in Ahadith is same as the Khaatam al Khulafa described (contained) in the Quran.

I repeat, Khulafa are mentioned in the Quran (not by that word exactly) and there had been a Khaatam amongst them too (naturally, if they are more than one).For our Ummat e Muhammdiyah, In the Hadith, that person is described as Promised Masiha a.s. or, further more, when that person will come, he will be as the Khaatam al Khulafa described in the Quran.

Even though, Hazrat Aqdas a.s. is called Promised Masiha (as per Ahadith), he is the Khaatam al Khulafa for this Ummah, as per description of the Quran.

Promised Masiha a.s. says about himself in another part of poetry ( perhaps it was some Ilhaam): (Words are Arabic)
Khaatam al Aulia wal Khulafa,
Jarri Allah u fee hula lil Anbia.
Transaltion: The Khaatam of Aulia and Khulafa, the brave man of God in the garb of prophets.

In Persian poetry, he said about himself:
Raseed muyzdah ze ghaibam kih man humaa mard am,
Kih oou Mujaddid e ean Deen wa rehnumaa baashad,

Manam Masih beh bang e buland may goyam,
Manam khalifah e Shahe kih bar samaa baashad.

Translation:
Good news has come to me from the Ghaib (unseen) that I am that man (person),
Who is a reformer for this religion and a guide (for his people).
I am the Masih, I declare it with loud voice,
I am the Khalifah of the King (the prophet s.a.w.s.) who is high in the Heavens.

The purpose is not to look for those exact words. The explanation lies in the meaning of the words. Wassalam,

ansar58 wrote:


Yeah, but to exactly avoid this part of your post, which I could already foresee coming my way, I made two points and not: One was my personal observation where I said that it might have been scrapped from the Torah and Gospel (which now seems wrong having been proven so by your help and willingness to clarify your side), and two that the other Muslims and Ahmadis both respectively point to Deuteronomy 33:2 and to Matthew 13:3-8 to affirm the stance of verse 48:29 of the Qur´an.

What do you point to in regards to Khatam-ul-Khulafah being mention in the Qur´an in defence of Mirza Sahib?

ansar58 wrote:


I am afraid this still remains an assumption on your part! If someone says that I am not an expert in maths, how do you conclude from this that he has to be one in Biology? Just to confirm my personal position, I am rather a ‘student’ of the Noble Qur´an and not a ‘scholar’. Anyways, let´s move on from this it being not the part of our debate/discussion.

ansar58 wrote:


I guess I should have worded myself better. I am not talking about the character of Mirza Sahib as accused of by his opponents without any proper argument, but about the allegations and charges upon his writings.

To put a similarity between him and Prophet Muhammad, I will rather exclude the Hadith since it being reported and collected more than 100 years after his death and they are not his own writings. In comparison to Mirza Sahib´s writings, I will put forth the Qur´an since both of these have not been corrupted by anyone and they both remain so from the time it was written and compiled.

1. If non-Muslim opponents were to put forth any sort of allegations upon the Qur´an which were to be left unanswered by Muslims by maintaining a stance such as “we don´t have to answer every accusation of theirs”, then I will be badly disappointed with their efforts.

2. No person or his writings are different to the other. What my stance is on Mirza Sahib´s writings will remain so even for the Qur´an. I expect Divine scriptures and writings of the prophets to be free of errors, keeping in mind that they weren´t corrupted by their respective followers.

3. I am not a Muslim since I am one. I try to quench my own thirst to reach the path ordained by God Almighty. If I were to buy into everything as inherited from my elders, I would have reached a conclusion to hate and dislike many sects around the world including the Ahmadiyya.

4. The criterion is somewhat my personal one, but it has a definite place in the religions around the world. When Prophet Muhammad´s character was attacked by Christian missionaries and by the people of Arya Samaaj, why did then Mirza Sahib feel the need to defend the Prophet and why did he not say that “we don´t have to answer every accusation of theirs”? Did not his responses to those allegations attract people to accept him as the Promised Messiah and Imam Mahdi? I am afraid your ‘stance’ is doing no favour upon Mirza Sahib and neither any service to the great Ahmadiyya Community.

5. The Holy Qur´an repeatedly defends the character and honour of Jesus Christ, as is told in the following link from your own official website:

"The prophecy must relate to one who would belong to another people but should respect Jesus and promote reverence for him. The Holy Prophet was neither Jew nor a Christian. He was an Ishmaelite. But he defended the honor of Jesus. Thus says the Qur´an:

“[The Jews] slew him not, nor crucified him, 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 definite knowledge thereof, but only follow a conjecture; and they did not convert this: conjecture into a certainty; on the contrary, God exalted him to Himself” - The Holy Qur´an 4: 158.

Here the Holy Qur´an specifically says that Jesus was saved from that accursed death designed for him by his enemies. However, they only suspected that they had succeeded in crucifying him. But Allah had not only saved him but admitted him to the circle of His favored ones."

Link to the above passage.......
www.alislam.org/books/in-bible/index.html

God Almighty is the Ultimate Judge of such issues and He does not need to take inconvenience to defend anyone, but He still does defend the honour of Jesus Christ! Why does not the Qur´an say “We don´t need to answer every accusation of theirs. You either believe Me or don´t”?

6. By again taking my criterion into account, if I were an outsider living during the time of the newly started Jew-Christian conflicts, I would have never bought into the theory of Christians of some human-being claiming to be a son of God who lost his life for our sins. I would have remained with the Jews on that for there cannot be a partner of God Almighty. Only someone like Prophet Muhammad would have been able to convince me of the truth of Jesus Christ by freeing him of the charges laid by Christians that he claimed Divinity!


This is a well worded post with utmost request to Ahmadis all around the world. I dearly hope it will be published by the Moderators around here as they have done very nicely in the past.

Azaad Bro!

One thing I like about you is that you accept what you find correct and do not resist the truth adamantly. As far as my stance, not to answer every question, is concerned I say that it is a habit of the critics that they do not settle the basic issue and try to defame a prophet by character assassination and defaming him. They raise irrational objections upon him. For example, it is mentioned in Quran that they say:
Why this Messenger eats food?
Why does he walk in markets?
Why is he mentioning such examples? etc

Similarly, the critics of Hadhrat Mirza Sahib^as do not settle the fundamental issue whether he is a true prophet according to the established standards or not. On the contrary, they start ridiculing him and irrationally comment about him.

My point is that if Mirza Sahib^as is a true Prophet, then according to Quran, we cannot ask him for proof of everything he says. We have to fully obey him and consider correct everything he says. This is what Allah demands from us and this is the quality of a true believer. On the other hand, if he is not a true Prophet, then why would we care whatever he says? Why would we ask him where it is written in Quran the words "Khatamul Khulafa" and many other statements of his like that.

Now the question is how do we know whether he is a true prophet or not. For this Quran has mentioned some definite standards, two of which I mention here:

A true prophet is famous in his people as a truthful person even before his claim of prophethood;
A true prophet is supported by Allah and emerges successful against all odds. Whereas a false prophet is doomed.

According to these two standards, MIrza Sahib^as is proved to be a true prophet, as he was known and famous for his truthfulness among his people. Even those who turned staunch enemies later, testified that he was a truthful person and a true Muslim before his claim of Prophethood.

Second standard is self-evident. He and his Jama`at always emerged successful against all such efforts to annihilate him and his Jama`at. It is also mentioned in the Bible (OT & NT) that a false prophet is destroyed. His flourishing message spreading all over the world proves that he did not attribute any lie to God that He spoke to him and sent His revelations upon him. If he were a false prophet, he would have been destroyed by Divin Hand by now.

In the light of the above I say that we cannot ask about proofs of his statements like Khatamul Khulafa and others and we are not required to answer such questions unless we settle the fundamental issue whether he is a true prophet of God or not. Sometimes believer ask some question only for the sake of increasing their knowledge and not to criticize.

I hope I have been able to explain myself now.

You see, issues can be settled so lovingly without going into any sectarian violence like it is done in many Muslims countries around the world.

I am very thankful to brother Aparty and Ansar for their help. What I wanted was at least a response in defence to the objection of non-Ahmadis and Aparty has done that somewhat very well. Whether I completely agree to that or not is a totally different matter of course, but it is an effort after all.

Thanks to brother Ansar for appreciating my goodness and for clarifying his stance.

May God bless the good people of the world and guide the wrong ones to righteousness which is global brotherhood in my views. Amen!