MGA
In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful
The Birth & First 40 years
Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement, was born in Qadian, Punjab, in 1836. In the first edition of this book, 1839 was given as the date, and this is also the date given by the founder himself in the short autobiography which he wrote in 1897 and which appeared in his book Kitab-ul-Bariyya. His father, Mirza Ghulam Murtaza, traced lineage to the Barlas The Barlas tribe, descended from Haji Barlas, lived in Persia before moving to India in Babar’s time. Some say they were Persian, not Moghul, as “Barlas” and “Mirza” are Persian terms. Mughals, who migrated from Khurasan to India during Emperor Babar’s reign. His ancestor, Mirza Hadi Beg, settled near Lahore and founded a village called Islampur, later known as Qadian. The name Kad‘a, which is only another form of Qadi or Kadi, is mentioned in a hadith of the Holy Prophet Muhammad as the place of the appearance of Mahdi (Jawahir-ul-Asrar, p. 55). Granted judicial authority and land, the family rose in prominence.
During Mughal decline, the family’s jagir briefly gained independence. Despite widespread Sikh oppression, Qadian remained a refuge. Mirza Gul Muhammad, Ghulam Ahmad Sahib’s great-grandfather, was known for his piety and generosity. But under Sikh dominance, the family lost most holdings. His son, Mirza Ata Muhammad, was imprisoned, his estate ravaged. Eventually, Murtaza reclaimed five villages and resettled in Qadian. British colonial stability later restored some dignity, and Murtaza earned favor during the 1857 Mutiny, securing a pension.
Ghulam Ahmad Sahib was educated privately in Quran, Persian, and Arabic. His father, a physician, also taught him medicine. From youth, Ahmad preferred solitude and religious study, avoiding worldly ambition despite his father’s wishes. For four years, he worked as a clerk in Sialkot, where his deep spirituality and knowledge impressed both Muslims and Christians.
Even during legal affairs related to family lands, Ghulam Ahmad Sahib focused on defending Islam, especially against Christian propaganda. He often assisted Muslims facing theological challenges. In 1876, Murtaza passed away—an event Ghulam Ahmad Sahib foresaw in a vision. Despite anxiety over future livelihood, a divine revelation reassured him: “Is God not sufficient for His servant?” From then, spiritual revelations increased, marking a turning point in his life. He emerged deeply committed to divine purpose, moving away from all worldly concerns.
Religious Dedication
After his father’s death, Ghulam Ahmad Sahib entered a new phase of spiritual transformation. Freed from worldly obligations, he immersed himself in studying the Holy Quran and Islamic texts, rejecting all Sufi rituals not found in the Prophet’s practice. His devotion was quiet but intense—his son, Mirza Sultan Ahmad, recalled seeing him read and mark the Quran so frequently it seemed he had read it “ten thousand times.” One vision urged him to prepare for divine light through fasting. For 8–9 months, he secretly reduced his food to a few morsels daily, carefully hiding this from his family. These fasts led to powerful visions later published in Barahin Ahmadiyya, a seminal work whose prophecies came true years later, affirming their divine source.
Yet he was no dreamer alone— Ghulam Ahmad Sahib had studied Christian theology from age 16. He compiled over 3,000 objections raised against Islam and the Prophet Muhammad (saw), though none ever shook his faith. In Sialkot, and later in Qadian, he actively debated Christian missionaries and refuted anti-Islamic claims, especially those emerging from Batala, a center of aggressive missionary work. His articles, including those in Manshur Muhammadi, were widely circulated, revealing his growing influence. As early as 1873, Ahmad had planned a comparative religious study to highlight Islam’s superiority. In his handwritten note, he outlined a book comparing Mosaic Law, Gospel teachings, and the Quran. This project became his life’s mission.
Emergence of New Threats
Meanwhile, new ideological threats emerged. The Arya Samaj, founded by Swami Dayanand, launched in Punjab in 1875, began challenging both Islam and Christianity. A local branch opened in Qadian, drawing Ahmad into a widely publicized debate. His rebuttals, published in Hindu Bandhu, stunned readers with their clarity. Even Hindu editors acknowledged his reasoned arguments.
He also engaged the Brahmo Samaj, another Hindu reform movement that denied revelation. Its leader, Pandit Shiv Narain Agni Hotri, debated Ahmad but later founded his own sect, the Dev Samaj. Ahmad’s vast study and personal spiritual experiences placed him uniquely among religious thinkers of his era.
Mujaddid of The Fourteenth Century Hijri
Ghulam Ahmad Sahib was not merely a debater—he was a profound student of comparative religion. His conclusion: Islam alone holds the complete truth, destined to prevail globally. To establish this, he began Barahin Ahmadiyya (Ahmadiyya Proofs for the Truth of the Quran and the Prophethood of Muhammad).
In the third volume, published at the close of the 13th Hijri century, on page 238 he announced that he had received divine revelations designating him the Mujaddid (Reformer) of the 14th century. One revelation stated:
“The Beneficent God has taught you the Quran so that you may warn a people whose fathers have not been warned, and so that the erroneous path of the guilty may be seen manifestly. Say: I have been commanded by God to deliver His message and I am the first of believers.”
At the same time he issued a manifesto stating plainly that he was the mujaddid of that century. In this manifesto, he wrote, after speaking of this book:
(To verify, please refer – Majmu‘a Ishtiharat, 1986 edition, v. 1, p. 24)
“This servant of Allah has given a manifest proof by the grace of God the Almighty that many of the true inspirations and signs and minor miracles and news relating to the unseen and Divine secrets and the visions and prayers that have been accepted are a part of the religious experience of this servant of the faith, the truth of these being borne witness to by many of the religious opponents (the Aryas and others). All these matters have been related in this book, and the author has been given the knowledge that he is the mujaddid of this time and that spiritually his excellences resemble the excellences of Messiah, the son of Mary, and that the one of them bears a very strong resemblance and a close relation to the other.”
At the time, this claim was warmly received. The Muslim world, under internal discord and external attacks, longed for a reviver. Ghulam Ahmad Sahib’s scholarly defenses of Islam, unwavering piety, and Quranic expositions made him widely accepted as the awaited mujaddid. He avoided sectarian feuds and focused solely on defending Islam from its enemies.
In 1884, Barahin Ahmadiyya Part IV was published, a landmark in Islamic literature. Its rational, spiritual, and comparative depth was praised by leading scholars. Even the critic H.A. Walter acknowledged: Refer H.A. Walter's book - The Ahmadiyya Movement, p. 16.
“…this book was quite universally acclaimed (in so far as it was read), throughout the Muhammadan world as a work of power and originality.”
The book won this recognition in spite of the fact that it contained all the material which formed the basis of later differences with the orthodox Muslims. In this work were published the author’s revelations in which he was addressed as messenger, prophet and warner. His claim to be inspired by God was never contested. Thus, Maulvi Muhammad Husain, the head of the Ahl Hadith (Wahabi) sect in the Punjab, wrote a review: Isha‘at-us-Sunna, vol. vii, no. 6, June to August, 1884, p. 169–170. of Barahin Ahmadiyya, and the following paragraph from this review shows how wide was the acceptance accorded to this book by men of all shades of opinion, the author being a declared Hanafi, to which school of thought he adhered to the last:
"In our view, no other book like this has been written in Islam to date, and only Allah knows what the future holds. Its author has firmly supported Islam through his wealth, self, writing, speech, and personal spiritual experiences—an example rarely found among past Muslims. If anyone sees this as exaggeration, let them show us a single book that so powerfully refutes all opponents of Islam—especially the Arya Samaj and Brahmo Samaj—or name even two or three individuals who, like the author, have defended Islam not just with word and deed, but also with spiritual experience, boldly challenging deniers of revelation to witness its truth firsthand."
Ghulam Ahmad Sahib himself explained: Barahin Ahmadiyya, pp. 499–502
“God intends… to spread the true teachings of the Quran among all nations… through this humble one—whether in my lifetime or after.”
In December 1888, MGA announced that God had instructed him to accept bai‘at—an oath of allegiance from seekers of truth. He wrote: Majmu‘a Ishtiharat, 1986 edition, v. 1, p. 188
“I have been commanded that those who seek after truth should enter my bai‘at, in order to give up dirty habits and slothful and disloyal ways of life and in order to imbibe true faith and a truly pure life that springs from faith and to learn the ways of the love of God.”
This wasn’t the usual Sufi initiation—it was a spiritual pledge to serve Islam selflessly. Among its ten conditions was: Majmu‘a Ishtiharat, 1986 edition, v. 1, p. 188
“That he will regard religion… as dearer than his life, property, and family.”
Later simplified to: “I will place religion above the world.”
This spiritual pledge gave rise to a spiritual movement—a disciplined force to defend Islam, uplift it, and take its message to the world.
Mahdi and Messiah
Claim to Messiahship
The Muslims had lost that love and zeal for the spread of Islam which led the earlier sons of Islam to the distant corners of the world. Many people, however, came to him and took the pledge. While preparing himself and his followers for the great conquests, he made an announcement which fell like a bombshell among the Muslim public — that Jesus Christ was not alive, as was generally believed by the Muslims, but that he had died as all other prophets had died, and that his advent among the Muslims meant the advent of a mujaddid in his spirit and power; that no Mahdi would come, as generally thought, to convert unbelievers with the sword, as this was opposed to the basic teachings of the Quran, but that the Mahdi’s conquests were to be spiritual; and that the prophecies relating to the advent of a Messiah and a Mahdi were fulfilled in his own person. It was about eighteen months after his call to bai‘at that this announcement was made and it changed the whole attitude of the Muslim community towards him. Those very people who hailed him in his capacity of mujaddid as the saviour of Islam now called him an impostor, an arch-heretic and Anti-Christ.
Recluse and soldier
Ghulam Ahmad Sahib’s claims to mujaddidship and Messiahship were rooted in Divine revelation. Only deep conviction in God’s command could have made him forsake public acclaim and embrace disgrace. He had already attained fame, but knowingly risked losing it all, even turning admirers into foes. For fifty-five years, his sole desire was Islam’s triumph, showing no interest in wealth or family status. Despite his father’s urgings, he remained detached from worldly affairs, maintaining a reclusive life—except when called to defend Islam, becoming a fearless soldier. His life’s mission, shaped by Divine will, aimed to remove major obstacles hindering Islam’s spread: the ascendancy of Christianity and the belief in Jesus’s physical return. At that time, Islam was losing ground to Christianity both politically and in propaganda. To revive Islam, Ahmad had to clear false charges against the Prophet and refute the mistaken view that Jesus was alive. He declared that Jesus had died and his return symbolized a reformer in his spirit.
Two baseless doctrines
The two doctrines were interlinked: if Jesus had died, his physical return was impossible. His prophesied return, like Elijah’s, had to be metaphorical. Yet the belief that Jesus was alive in heaven was so ingrained in Muslims that even Quranic and Hadith evidence failed to sway them. But this was precisely the mujaddid’s mission. Christianity’s strength rested on Jesus being alive with God. Removing this key pillar would collapse its entire structure and pave the way for Islam’s rise in the West. Alongside this, another false belief harmed Islam: that the Mahdi would appear to spread Islam by the sword. This view reinforced Western misrepresentations of Islam as a violent religion. But the Quran declares in (2:256) and (2:190):
“There is no compulsion in religion.... Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loves not the aggressors.”
Ghulam Ahmad Sahib explained, Mahdi was not a warrior but another name for the Messiah, as stated in the hadith: “There is no Mahdi but the Messiah.” Ibn Majah 4039, Ch. Shiddat-uz-Zaman
Storm of opposition
In defending Islam, Ghulam Ahmad Sahib opposed the ideas that Islam needed either Jesus or the sword for victory. He asserted that Islam’s spiritual strength surpassed all worldly power and that great reformers could rise from within. But such views clashed with the narrow mindset of many clerics. Maulvi Muhammad Husain Batalwi, who once praised Ghulam Ahmad Sahib as a great Islamic figure, now led the charge against him, branding him a heretic. Fatwas followed—barring Ahmadis from mosques, graves, property rights, and valid marriages. Yet Ghulam Ahmad Sahib stood firm. Even critics like Dr. Griswold admired his unshaken resolve: “His persistency… is magnificent.” The year 1890 marked a turning point. As a mujaddid, he was respected, but once he claimed to be the Promised Messiah, he was vilified. Yet, even his enemies acknowledged the integrity of his earlier life. His later years fulfilled the promises of earlier revelations—where once he prophesied victories, he now lived through their fulfillment despite fierce opposition.
Resolution to carry Islam forward
Opposition surrounded Ghulam Ahmad Sahib from every side. All Muslim sects who once praised him now denounced him, joining hands with Christians and Arya Samajis —his former adversaries. Yet, Ghulam Ahmad Sahib remained unshaken. No abuse, threat, or persecution disturbed his resolve or made him consider abandoning the cause of Islam. Instead, amidst hostility, he strengthened his commitment to spreading Islam worldwide, his belief in its ultimate triumph growing even stronger. It was a rare sight: a lone soldier battling powerful enemies ahead and betrayal from those behind him. His claim to Messiahship was detailed in three books released in succession. In Fath-i Islam, he wrote that God, in a time of deep darkness, had chosen a servant to raise Islam high and purify the Muslims. He declared that Islam’s early light would shine again—but only after hearts bled with effort, comforts were sacrificed, and disgrace was endured. He also wrote: Source: Fath-i Islam, p. 7, 15–16.
“And the truth will win and the freshness and light of Islam which characterised it in the earlier days will be restored and that sun will rise again as it arose first in the full resplendence of its light. But it is necessary that heaven should withhold its rising till our hearts bleed with labour and hard work and we sacrifice all comforts for its appearance and submit ourselves to all kinds of disgrace for the honour of Islam. The life of Islam demands a sacrifice from us, and what is that? That we die in this way.”
Significance underlying claim
While narrow-minded clerics failed to grasp the deeper significance of Ghulam Ahmad Sahib’s claim to Messiahship, even educated Muslims saw it only as a cause of division. True, much of his time post-1891 was spent in controversy, but he never lost sight of his real goal. Internal disputes already plagued Muslims, who focused on minor issues, ignoring the greater purpose behind Ahmad’s claim. Islam lost nothing from it—Jesus’ death only placed him among other deceased prophets—but to Christianity, it struck a fatal blow, toppling its central dogmas. In fact, Islam gained strength. Belief in Jesus’ return had kept Muslims passive, waiting for divine intervention. This belief dulled their energy and sense of responsibility. But the idea that the Messiah had already come reignited a sense of purpose. His advent marked the time for Islam’s global rise. Those who accepted him, though few, became active torchbearers of Islam, unlike the orthodox majority, lost in endless internal disputes.
From defence to attack
With Ghulam Ahmad Sahib’s claim to Promised Messiahship, two key shifts emerged in his mission. First, his contest with Christianity moved from defense to offense. Previously, he focused on defending the Holy Prophet against missionary slanders. Now, his claim required a direct assault on the very foundations of the Church—not Christ’s original teachings, but the man-made doctrines built later. In Fath-i Islam, the first pamphlet announcing his new claim, He wrote: Source: Fath-i Islam, p. 17.
“I … bear a strong resemblance to the nature of the Messiah, and it is owing to this natural resemblance that I have been sent in the name of the Messiah, so that the doctrine of the cross may be shattered to pieces. Therefore, I have been sent to break the cross and to kill the swine.”
This symbolized the mission to shatter the doctrine of the cross and dismantle false beliefs upheld by the Church. The struggle was no longer just about protecting Islam—it had become a call for Islam’s spiritual forces to unite and challenge Christianity itself, shifting from mere defense to a bold, reformative offensive.
(We have dedicated Page for topic of Dajjal in menubar)
Dajjal, Gog and Magog
With the claim to Promised Messiahship, Ghulam Ahmad Sahib’s mission gained a defined goal: to lead Islam to world triumph, especially in the West. This aim was intrinsically tied to his Messiahship and linked to prophecies about Dajjal and Gog and Magog. Muslims widely believed the Dajjal to be a one-eyed man with treasures, paradise, and hell, claiming divinity and roaming the earth. But the truth revealed to Ahmad was that the Dajjal symbolized the deceptive Christian nations of Europe and America. Their religious distortions, material wealth, and missionary zeal fit every prophecy. In Izala Auham, Ahmad declared the Dajjal to be an association of liars misleading the world, claiming divinity for Jesus — claims he never made. These nations carried “paradise” for converts and “hell” for opponents, fulfilling the signs of Dajjal. Ahmad explained “one-eyed” as spiritual blindness, not physical. Gog and Magog, he said, referred to the English and Russians—powerful, prosperous, and dominant. As for the sun rising in the West, he interpreted it as the West awakening to Islamic truth. In a vision, he preached in London, capturing white birds—symbolizing future Western converts. Though material wisdom ruled Europe, God now willed them to receive spiritual light. (We have a dedicated Page for topic of Dajjal)
Islamization of Europe
It is remarkable that a man from a remote village, with no knowledge of English or Europe, envisioned himself preaching Islam in English in London. Just as Khwaja Mu‘in-ud-Din Chishti’s vision in Madina led to Islam’s spread in India, so too is Europe fulfilling Ghulam Ahmad Sahib’s vision. Despite fierce persecution, Ghulam Ahmad Sahib’s heart beat with one aim — to spread Islam in the West — the mission of the Promised Messiah. Europe, symbolizing Dajjal, had to be overcome by the Messiah. While opposition blazed around him, he remained focused, calmly writing books revealing Islam’s beauty and responding to criticisms from missionaries and materialists. He Declared: Source: . Izala Auham, pp. 669, 771–773.
“Then so far as it lies in my power I intend to broadcast, in all the countries of Europe and Asia, the knowledge and blessings which the Holy Spirit of God has granted me … It is undoubtedly true that Europe and America have a large collection of objections against Islam, inculcated through those engaged in Mission work, and that their philosophy and natural sciences give rise to another sort of criticism. My enquiries have led me to the conclusion that there are nearly three thousand points which have been raised as objections against Islam … To meet these objections, a chosen man is needed who should have a river of knowledge flowing in his vast breast and whose knowledge should have been specially broadened and deepened by Divine inspiration … So my advice is that … writings of a good type should be sent into those countries. If my people help me heart and soul I wish to prepare a commentary of the Holy Quran which should be sent to them after it has been rendered into the English language. I cannot refrain from stating clearly that this is my work, and that no one else can do it as well as I or he who is an offshoot of mine and thus is included in me.”
“In this critical time, a man has been raised up by God and he desires that he may show the beautiful face of Islam to the whole world and open its ways to the Western countries.”
Opposition
Controversies with Ulama
Though his true goal was spreading Islam in the West, Ghulam Ahmad Sahib couldn’t avoid controversy with orthodox ulama. He often said that if left alone, he would dedicate himself fully to Islam’s cause, but instead had to write extensively to defend his position. His first major debate was in Ludhiana with Maulvi Muhammad Husain, lasting from July 20–29, 1891, documented in al-Haqq. In September, he faced intense opposition in Delhi, where ulama stirred public anger. A formal debate eventually took place with Maulvi Muhammad Bashir from Bhopal. Ghulam Ahmad Sahib’s claim to Messiahship wasn’t heretical; he never denied the Quran or Hadith but offered a different interpretation, especially about Jesus’s death. He maintained the Quran confirms Jesus died and wasn’t bodily raised to heaven. His claim, rooted in mujaddidship, was metaphorical. Unable to counter him theologically, opponents falsely accused him of denying angels, miracles, and the finality of prophethood.
Refutation of false charges
Ghulam Ahmad Sahib repeatedly refuted the false charges leveled against him. On 2nd October 1891, in Delhi, he issued a manifesto titled An Announcement by a Traveller, stating: Source: Majmu‘a Ishtiharat, 1986 edition, vol. 1, pp. 230–231
“I have heard that some leading ulama falsely accuse me of claiming prophethood and denying angels, heaven, hell, Gabriel, Lailat-ul-Qadr, miracles, and the Mi‘raj. I publicly declare all this to be baseless. I do not claim prophethood nor deny any core Islamic beliefs. I fully accept everything established by the Quran and Hadith and the doctrines of Ahl Sunnat wal-Jama‘at. I firmly believe that any claimant to prophethood after Muhammad Mustafa (peace be upon him), the Seal of the Prophets, is a liar and an unbeliever. Revelation began with Adam and ended with Muhammad (peace be upon him).”
A few days later, in Delhi’s Jami‘ Masjid, he said: Source: Izala Auham, pp. 421–422.
“The accusations that I deny Lailat-ul-Qadr, miracles, Mi‘raj, or claim prophethood are completely false. My beliefs align with those of Ahl Sunnat wal-Jama‘at. Misinterpretations of my books like Tauzih Maram and Izala Auham are due to misunderstandings. I fully believe in the finality of prophethood, angels, and miracles.”
Click on Image for detailed Info
No claim to Prophethood
It is strange that Ghulam Ahmad Sahib was accused of claiming prophethood in Izala Auham, a book that contains repeated denials of such a claim and affirms belief in the finality of prophethood. One clear statement appears in Q&A form: (Izala Auham, pp. 421–422)
Question: Has a claim to prophethood been made in Fath-i Islam?
Answer by Ghulam Ahmad Sahib:
There is no claim to being a prophet. Only a claim to being a muhaddath (one spoken to by God), which is by Allah’s command. Though muhaddathiyya has some qualities resembling prophethood, metaphorical usage doesn’t amount to claiming prophethood.
In early 1892, at Lahore, during a debate with Maulvi Abdul Hakim, Ghulam Ahmad Sahib publicly clarified: Majmu‘a Ishtiharat, 1986 edition, vol. 1, pp. 312–314
“All phrases in Fath-i Islam, Tauzih Maram, or Izala Auham describing a muhaddath as a partial or metaphorical prophet are not to be taken literally. I do not claim actual prophethood. As stated in Izala Auham (p.137), I believe Muhammad (peace be upon him) is the final prophet. If these terms offend anyone, they may substitute muhaddath wherever nabi appears in my writings.”
He emphasized that his intent was never to claim prophethood but only to refer to being a muhaddath, as described in a hadith about Umar. This clarification, signed by eight witnesses, was ignored by his opponents, who insisted falsely that he aimed to mislead.
Diverse Work and Activities
Diversified work
The years following Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s claim were filled with intense trials and remarkable activity. At 55, an age when most in India slowed down, his most active phase began. Despite hosting numerous guests, educating disciples, engaging in debates, and handling a heavy mailbag personally, he found time for immense literary work. He also undertook journeys to confront Muslims, Christians, and Arya Samajists in debates, and faced court cases filed by opponents. Yet, in 17 years, he produced over 7,000 pages of Urdu, Arabic, and Persian writings—compared to just 800 before age 55. This was despite chronic illnesses like syncope and polyuria. His energy seemed endless. His major debates with ulama occurred in Ludhiana, Delhi, and Lahore (1891–92). In 1893, he debated Christian missionaries in Amritsar for over two weeks. There, he emphasized that all religious claims should be judged by their own sacred texts and proved the Quran alone met this standard. The debate is recorded in Jang Muqaddas (Holy War).
Guru Nanak’s Chola
In 1895, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad turned his attention to Sikhism, which had grown strong in Punjab. His study of Sikh scriptures led him to conclude that Guru Nanak was heavily influenced by Muslim Sufis and was, in fact, a Muslim. To support this, he journeyed to Dera Nanak, where Guru Nanak’s sacred relic—the chola (cloak)—was kept. According to tradition, the chola descended from heaven and bore inscriptions in Arabic, Persian, Turkish, Hindi, and Sanskrit. Over time, many silk coverings were added to protect it, obscuring its writing. Only a sleeve remained partly visible, though faded. On 30th September 1895, MGA and his companions arranged with the caretakers to remove the layers. The original cloak was uncovered, revealing verses of the Holy Quran written on it. This discovery confirmed Ghulam Ahmad Sahib’s belief that Nanak was a Muslim at heart. The findings were published in Sat Bachan. Though it stirred controversy among orthodox Sikhs, the Quranic inscriptions have never been denied.
Prosecutions
Between 1897 and 1904, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad faced numerous criminal charges, yet in every case, he was acquitted—often as foretold in his divine revelations. In 1897, Dr. Henry Martyn Clarke accused him of abetment to murder. With support from Christian missionaries and orthodox Muslims, the case was serious, but the court found the evidence fabricated, confirming a prior vision Ghulam Ahmad Sahib had of a harmless threat. In 1898, he was again charged for breach of peace due to a prophecy against Maulvi Muhammad Husain. He published Haqiqat-ul-Mahdi, foretelling his acquittal and his opponent’s disgrace—both fulfilled. In 1903, Ghulam Ahmad Sahib faced defamation charges in Jhelum by Maulvi Karam Din. Prior revelations assured him of success, and both cases were dismissed. A later defamation case by the same complainant dragged on for 18 months in Gurdaspur. Ghulam Ahmad Sahib was acquitted on appeal, just as predicted in a revelation likening it to the victory at Hunain. In all these cases, he was the defendant, except once in 1900, when he filed a civil case over blocked access to his mosque—again successful. Not a single case against him succeeded.
Visits to Important Cities
From 1904 onward, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Sahib visited key cities to counter false propaganda and clarify his mission. In September 1904, he lectured in Lahore to over 10,000 people of various faiths. In November, he visited Sialkot, where he explained that Hindu prophecies of a reformer were fulfilled in him, promoting unity among nations. In October 1905, he went to Delhi for two weeks of private discussions, then lectured in Ludhiana and Amritsar. In Amritsar, fanatics disrupted the event and stoned him and his companions. His final journey was to Lahore in April 1908, where he passed away in May at the residence of Dr. Syed Muhammad Husain Shah. During this stay, he held informal meetings, clarifying that he did not consider non-Ahmadi Muslims as disbelievers and reaffirmed he did not claim prophethood. He explained that any use of the term was metaphorical, as used by earlier Muslim Sufis, to denote one who receives divine inspiration or makes prophecy.
Scope of writings
Despite constant persecution and challenges, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad continued his prolific writing, producing over 7,000 pages of powerful religious literature—an immense contribution beyond the 800 pages of his earlier years. His work addressed nearly all major world religions: Hindu sects (Arya Samaj, Brahmo Samaj, Sanatan Dharm), Sikhism, Buddhism, Judaism, Baha’ism, Islam (all sects), Christianity, Atheism, and Materialism. Beyond variety, his writings stood out for originality and depth. He emphasized Islam’s recognition of prophets in all nations, arguing that all religions originated divinely, even if later corrupted. He clarified that while prophethood ended with Muhammad (peace be upon him), Divine revelation continues as God’s speech never ceases. He also redefined jihad, often misunderstood as warfare. He explained its true meaning as a broad struggle, especially the peaceful effort to spread the Quran’s message—jihad-an kabir-an—and showed that armed struggle was only allowed in self-defense.
Lecture at Conference of Religions, Lahore
At the 1896 Conference of Religions in Lahore, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad delivered a groundbreaking lecture addressing profound topics like the afterlife, heaven and hell, reward and punishment, and the spiritual, moral, and physical conditions of man. His originality and clarity drew praise from leading thinkers of the time. Though his earlier proposal for a respectful, rule-based interfaith dialogue was not accepted, a Hindu gentleman later organized the conference. Five key questions were posed to all faith representatives. Days before the event, Ahmad published a revelation predicting his paper’s superiority. Delivered by Maulvi Abdul Karim of Sialkot, the lecture captivated the audience, and even secular newspapers like the Civil and Military Gazette acknowledged its excellence. Notably, the lecture avoided criticism of other religions. It was later published in The Review of Religions and sent to Count Tolstoy, who praised its depth and originality. To this day, it stands as one of the most powerful expositions of Islam’s teachings.
Universality of Divine revelation
In critiquing other religions, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was both original and forceful. Against Brahmoism, which denied revelation, he presented his own experiences, asserting that God had spoken to prophets of all nations in the past and still does, as Divine speech is a constant attribute. He himself was a recipient of Divine revelation, and he extended this idea by explaining that in its basic form—true dreams and visions—it is a universal human experience. Regarding the Arya Samaj, which rejected Hindu idolatry, Ahmad argued that it still retained polytheistic beliefs, such as the co-eternity of matter and soul with God—concepts rooted in polytheism. On Sikhism, he offered new insight, showing that its ideas of Divine Unity and other key beliefs were borrowed from Islam. He further argued that Guru Nanak, its founder, was not just influenced by Islam but was, in fact, a Muslim, challenging long-standing assumptions and casting Sikhism in an entirely new light.
Death and crucifixion of Jesus
In addressing Christianity, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad showed remarkable originality, especially on the death and second advent of Jesus—topics long shrouded in mystery. Both Muslims and Christians believed Jesus was alive in heaven, differing only in details. Ahmad challenged this view, arguing that Jesus was indeed nailed to the cross but did not die there. Instead, he survived, was treated in a safe place, and recovered by the third day—explaining his post-crucifixion appearances. He later traveled to Afghanistan and Kashmir, where the lost tribes of Israel had settled, and died a natural death at around 120 in Srinagar, where his tomb as Yuz Asaf still exists. This original theory was supported by Quran, Hadith, the Gospels, and historical and geographical evidence. By solving the mystery of the crucifixion, Ahmad also dismantled the central Church doctrine that Jesus died for humanity’s sins, showing it was not supported by historical facts, thus shaking the foundation of Christian theology.
Advent of Messiah and Mahdi
The second advent of Jesus was surrounded by deep mystery, further complicated by related prophecies—Dajjal, Gog and Magog, the Mahdi, and the sun rising from the West. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad offered an original explanation: Jesus’s return was metaphorical, just like Elijah’s second advent, meaning someone would come in his spirit and power. Similarly, the Mahdi was not a separate figure but the Messiah himself—an interpretation never before proposed, though supported by Hadith. Identifying the Dajjal, Ahmad pointed to the Church, which had distorted Christ’s true message and was foretold in Hadith as the Dajjal’s origin. Gog and Magog, he explained, referred to the Teutonic and Slavic races, now dominant as the English and Russians. The “sun rising from the West” symbolized Islam’s message spreading in the Western world—long untouched by its light—through the Promised Messiah, who was to defeat the Anti-Christ and prepare the path for Islam’s global revival.
Final Days
The Last Will (Al-Wassiyah)
In late 1905, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad began receiving revelations indicating that his death was near. On 24th December, he published Al-Wasiyya (The Will), opening with the words (Al-Wasiyya, pp. 2–3):
“As Almighty God has informed me, in various revelations following one another, that the time of my death is near, and the revelations in that respect have been so many and so consecutive that they have shaken my being to its foundations and made this life quite indifferent to me, I have therefore thought it proper that I should write down for my friends, and for such other persons as can benefit from my teachings, some words of advice.”
The revelations included:
“The destined time of your death has drawn nigh, and We shall not leave behind you any mention which should be a source of disgrace to you. Very little has remained of the time appointed for you by your Lord… And We will either let you see a part of what We threaten them with or We will cause you to die… Very few days have remained, sorrow will overtake all on that day.”
A few words of comfort are added for his disciples, and they are told that the movement will prosper after his death:
“Bear in mind, then, my friends, that it being an established Divine law that He shows two manifestations of His power so that He may thus bring to naught two false pleasures of the opponents, it is not possible that He should neglect his old law now. Be not, therefore, grieved at what I have said, and let not your hearts feel sorrow, for it is necessary for you to see a second manifestation of Divine power, and it is better for you, for it is perpetual and will not be intercepted to the day of judgment.”
He also laid out guidance for succession. During his life, he accepted bai‘at (pledges). After him, any righteous person agreed upon by at least forty believers would be entitled to accept bai‘at in his name and serve as a model for others, ensuring the movement’s continuity.
“Such men will be elected by the agreement of the faithful. Anyone, therefore, about whom forty of the faithful should agree that he is fit to accept bai‘at from other people in my name shall be entitled to do so, and he ought to make himself a model for others.”
Anjuman to carry on work after him
The second key directive in Al-Wasiyya concerned managing the movement’s affairs. For this, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad established the Sadr Anjuman Ahmadiyya (Chief Society of the Ahmadis), granting it full authority over all matters, including finances. Rules for its functioning were signed by him, and the Anjuman began operating immediately after the Will’s publication. When a dispute arose in 1907 over the scope of its powers, he clarified: “Any decision reached by majority vote shall be final. However, during my lifetime, I should be informed of religious matters tied to my mission.” He emphasized that this condition applied only during his life. Afterward, the Anjuman’s decisions were to be final. He declared, “The Anjuman is the successor of the Divinely-appointed Khalifa”—the Khalifa being himself. He lived two years and five months after the Will and authored two more major works: Haqiqat-ul-Wahy, on Divine revelation, and Chashma-i Ma‘rifat, a reply to Arya Samaj’s objections—published just six days before his passing. Refer. Source: Al-Wasiyya, Appendix, Clause number 13.
Message of peace (Paigham-e-Sulh)
In April 1908, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad traveled to Lahore, where his speeches deeply moved both Muslims and Hindus. Many Muslims were surprised to hear him clearly state that he did not claim prophethood, only Divine revelation—like the great Muslim sages and mujaddids before him. While explaining his mission to Muslims, he began writing a pamphlet titled Message of Peace, aimed at fostering lasting unity between Hindus and Muslims. His appeal was based on the Quranic verse: “There is not a nation but a warner has gone among them” (35:24). He believed prophets must have come to India, and identified Rama and Krishna as such figures. He urged Hindus to reciprocate by recognizing Prophet Muhammad’s prophethood. If mutual respect was achieved, he and his followers were even ready to give up their right to eat beef, honoring Hindu sentiment. This final message, rooted in interfaith harmony and mutual recognition, was published shortly before his passing and remains his lasting call for peace.
Founder’s demise & The Legacy
At age seventy-three, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was still tirelessly writing for Islam. He had just completed the final lines of Message of Peace, proposing lasting harmony between Hindus and Muslims, when he suddenly fell ill on the night of 25th May 1908. He passed away the next morning, 26th May, at Ahmadiyya Buildings in Lahore. The Civil Surgeon certified his death was not from an infectious disease, and his body was taken to Qadian and buried on 27th May. Thus ended a life that, in just 18 years (1890–1908), reshaped global religious discourse. He unraveled long-standing mysteries—the second advent of Christ, the Dajjal, Gog and Magog, and the Mahdi—and redefined Islam’s mission to reach the West. While Christianity sought to dominate Islam in worldly matters, Ghulam Ahmad Sahib issued a spiritual challenge that laid the foundation for Islam’s revival in the West. Today, mosques rise in Christian lands, and thousands of thoughtful Europeans are embracing Islam—fulfilling the spiritual vision he set in motion.
Not a Prophet
(Click on the image for detailed section)
His claim misunderstood
Like many great figures, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was misunderstood—most notably in the claim that he professed prophethood. This accusation arose when he declared himself the Promised Messiah in 1891, despite having only claimed mujaddidship in 1882. He firmly denied any prophetic claim, affirming his belief in Prophet Muhammad as the final prophet and declaring any later claimant a liar. Yet, the Qadianis later adopted this false interpretation, echoing his early opponents. How did the confusion begin? Critics argued that since Jesus was a prophet, his “like” must also be one. In response, Ghulam Ahmad Sahib clarified in his earliest book on the subject that the Prophet Muhammad never said the coming Messiah would be a prophet—only a Muslim follower of Islamic law. He described himself as a muhaddath—a recipient of Divine revelation, similar to prophets in some ways, but not a prophet in the true or legislative sense.
“Here, if it is objected that the like of Jesus must also be a prophet because Jesus was a prophet, the reply to this in the first place is that our Lord and Master [Prophet Muhammad] has not laid it down that the coming Messiah shall be a prophet; nay, he has made it clear that he shall be a Muslim and shall be bound by the law of Islam like ordinary Muslims … Besides this, there is no doubt that I have come as a muhaddath from God, and muhaddath is, in one sense, a prophet, though he does not possess perfect prophethood; but still he is partially a prophet, for he is endowed with the gift of being spoken to by God, matters relating to the unseen are revealed to him, and, like the revelation of prophets and messengers, his revelation is kept free from the interference of the devil, and the kernel of the law is disclosed to him, and he is commissioned just like the prophets, and like prophets it is incumbent on him that he should announce his claim at the top of his voice.”
Denial of prophethood
In Islamic terms, a muhaddath is a righteous person spoken to by God, but not a prophet. When critics claimed that being like Jesus implied prophethood, Ahmad clarified he was a muhaddath, not a prophet. His words were misinterpreted, but he repeatedly denied claiming prophethood. Source: 1, Source: Izala Auham, pp. 421–422. 2, Source: Majmu‘a Ishtiharat, 1986 edition, vol. 1, pp. 312–314 3, Source: Ainah Kamalat Islam, p. 377 and p. 383. Source: Majmu‘a Ishtiharat, 1986 edition, vol. 1, pp. 312–314 4 Source: Nishan Asmani, p. 28
1) “There is no claim to being a prophet but a claim to being a muhaddath, and this claim has been advanced by the command of Allah.”
2) “…I lay no claim whatever to actual prophethood.… wherever the word nabi (prophet) is used in my writings, it should be taken as meaning muhaddath, and the word nabi (prophet) should be regarded as having been blotted out.”
3) “It does not befit God that He should send a prophet after the Khatam-un-nabiyyin, or that He should restart the system of prophethood after having terminated it. … I am not a prophet but a muhaddath from God, and a recipient of Divine revelation so that I may revitalise the religion of the Holy Prophet.”
4) “I firmly believe that our Holy Prophet Muhammad is the Last of the Prophets (Khatam-ul-anbiya), and after him no prophet shall come for this nation (umma), neither new nor old. … Of course, those who are muhaddath will come, who will be spoken to by God ... I am one of these.”
He emphasized the finality of prophethood in Muhammad (pbuh) and called any prophetic claim after him heresy. In Haqiqat-ul-Wahy, written shortly before his death, he reiterated that his use of the word “prophet” was metaphorical, meaning one frequently spoken to by God—not a real or legislative prophet. He firmly maintained this till the end. His consistent explanation proves he never claimed actual prophethood, only spiritual communion as a muhaddath. Source Source: Haqiqat-ul-Wahy, Arabic Supplement, p. 16, Page 64-66.
Sufi terminology
A central theme of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s writings is Islam’s superiority due to the ongoing gift of revelation. Throughout his works, he emphasized that true followers of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), who attain fana (self-extinction), may receive Divine revelation and reflect prophetic qualities. In Sufi terminology, such individuals are called buruz (manifestation), zill (shadow), majazi (metaphorical), juz’i (partial), or naqis (imperfect) prophets. These terms signify a spiritual likeness to prophethood, not actual prophethood. As Ghulam Ahmad Sahib clarified, a zilli prophet merely mirrors some prophetic traits—prophethood in a metaphorical, not technical, sense. He wrote in Haqiqat-ul-Wahy (page 28):
“But zilli nubuwwat, the significance of which is receiving revelation simply by the grace of Muhammad, shall continue to the Day of Judgment, so that the door to the perfection of men may not be closed.” — p. 28
That a zilli prophet is not actually a prophet is also clear from the fact that in a saying of the Holy Prophet a king is called zillullah or the zill of God. As zillullah is not actually God so a zilli prophet is not actually a prophet. This point was very lucidly put forth by him in a book called Mawahib-ur Rahman published in January 1903:
“God speaks to His saints (auliya) in this umma, and they are given the semblance of prophets, and they are not really prophets, for the Quran has made perfect the needs of Law." — p. 66
Concept of Jihad
(Click on the image for detailed section)
Doctrine of Jihad not abrogated
A common charge against Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is that he denied the doctrine of jihad. However, one who accepts the Holy Quran—which contains many verses on jihad—cannot reject it. While many orthodox Muslims believe certain verses were abrogated, the Ahmadiyya movement has always opposed this idea. Ahmad taught that no verse, word, or letter of the Quran was ever abrogated. In Mawahib-ur-Rahman pp. 66–67, he wrote:
“God speaks to His saints (auliya) in this umma, and they are given the semblance of prophets, and they are not really prophets, for the Quran has made perfect the needs of Law, and they are given only an understanding of the Quran, and they cannot add to, or detract from it anything; and whoever adds to, or detracts from it, he is of the devils who are wicked.”
Holding this belief, it is impossible that he denied jihad. Instead, he differed only in its interpretation. Ghulam Ahmad Sahib rejected the misuse of jihad for violence, upholding its true Quranic spirit as a moral and spiritual struggle. In his pamphlet The Jihad pp. 5–6, he wrote:
“It should be remembered that the doctrine of jihad as understood by the Muslim ulama of our day, who call themselves Maulvis, is not true … These people are so persistent in their belief, which is entirely wrong and against the Quran and Hadith, that the man who does not believe in it and is against it is called a Dajjal.”
Misconceptions about Jihad
According to the founder of the Ahmadiyya movement, the doctrine of jihad as interpreted by the ulama was contrary to the true teachings of the Quran and Hadith. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad did not reject jihad itself, but opposed its distorted interpretation, which had led to serious misconceptions in the West. Many believed jihad meant forcing Islam on non-Muslims through war. For example, the Encyclopaedia of Islam states: Encyclopædia of Islam, E.J. Brill, Leiden, 1913–38.
“The spread of Islam by arms is a religious duty upon Muslims in general”
Klein, in his Religion of Islam, makes an even more sweeping statement: Source: Frederick Augustus Klein, The Religion of Islam, London, 1906.
“Jihad … The fighting against unbelievers with the object of either winning them over to Islam, or subduing and exterminating them in case they refuse to become Muslims.”
Among Muslims too, the idea spread that killing a non-Muslim was jihad and earned one the title of ghazi. This belief, linked with the idea of a Mahdi who would enforce Islam by the sword, contradicted Quranic teachings and hindered the peaceful spread of Islam. Ghulam Ahmad Sahib waged an intellectual battle not against jihad itself, but against these harmful misinterpretations widespread among Muslims and non-Muslims alike.
War to spread religion never allowed
To dispel misconceptions about jihad, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad established two key principles:
1) That jihad means exerting oneself to the extent of one’s ability and power, whether it is by word or deed, and that the word is used in this broad sense in the Holy Quran;
2) That when it is used in the narrower sense of fighting, it means fighting only in self-defence.
Preaching Islam peacefully falls within jihad, but any war waged to forcibly spread religion—if ever done—was against the Quran’s principle: “There is no compulsion in religion” (2:256). Ghulam Ahmad Sahib never denied Quranic jihad, only its misinterpretation. In The Jihad p. 6, he wrote:
“The Holy Prophet never raised the sword except in self-defence… Even if we suppose jihad was once misunderstood as offensive war, such an order doesn’t stand now. The Promised Messiah, as foretold, will end religious wars."
Conditions of Jihad
This position is made still more clear in an Arabic letter, addressed to the Muslims of the world, and forming a supplement to his book, Tuhfa Golarwiyya. In this letter he says: Tuhfa Golarwiyya, Supplement, p. 30.
“There is not the least doubt that the conditions laid down for jihad [in the Holy Quran] are not to be met with at the present time and in this country; so it is illegal for the Muslims to fight for [the propagation of] religion and to kill anyone who rejects the Sacred Law, for God has made clear the illegality of jihad when there is peace and security.”
He clarified that jihad by the sword is only permitted when specific Quranic conditions are met—conditions absent in his context. This implies that jihad may be lawful in regions or times where such conditions exist. The Holy Quran states: Source: The Holy Quran 2:190-191
“Fight in the way of God against those who fight against you, and be not aggressive; surely, God loves not the aggressors”
Thus, Islam allows only defensive jihad. Ghulam Ahmad Sahib’s stance upheld this Quranic principle, rejecting all forms of aggression and reinforcing that jihad is not a tool for forced conversions but a defense of faith when under threat.
Charge of attacking Jesus
Vituperative Christian propaganda against Islam
Another charge against the founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement is that he made slanderous attacks on the blessed person of Jesus Christ. This, however, is a gross misrepresentation. As a devout Muslim, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad could never abuse a prophet of God, since belief in Jesus as a prophet is explicitly required by the Holy Quran. Every Muslim holds Jesus in honour and reverence.
To understand the tone of Ghulam Ahmad Sahib’s writings, two points must be considered. First is the nature of the aggressive Christian missionary activity in India during the late 19th century. Unlike modern interfaith dialogue, the missionary work of that era was deeply vituperative. Christian missionaries believed that the more they insulted the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), the more likely they were to win converts. Sadly, they succeeded to some extent—even some Muslim scholars and wealthy individuals converted to Christianity, and in an attempt to please their new patrons, joined in these attacks with even greater venom..
The religious literature of the time, particularly from Christian missionaries and the Arya Samaj, reached unprecedented levels of abuse and profanity. Books such as:
– Al-Masih al-Dajjal by Ramchand (1873),
– Sirat-ul-Masih wal Muhammad by Rev. Thakurdas (1882),
– Andruna Bible by Abdullah Atham,
– Muhammad Ki Tawarikh Ka Ijmal by Rev. William (1891), Taftish-ul-Islam by Rev. Rodgers (1870),
– Nabiyy Ma‘thum by the American Mission Press in Ludhiana (1884),
among many others, were filled with heinous accusations against the Prophet of Islam.
Some examples of their vile language include:
“If he [the Prophet Muhammad] abrogated the Gospels there is no wonder, for all those who are bent low on the world and are worshippers of lust do like this.”
“Sensual lust … is to be met with in Muhammad to an excessive degree so that he was always its slave.”
“Muhammad, like other Arabs, from his very appearance seems to be a lover of women.”
“The occasion of the law relating to marriage with an adopted son’s wife was the flaming of the lust of Muhammad on seeing Zainab naked.”
“The religion of the Pope and the religion of Muhammad are two jaws of the Dragon.”
“Ring-leader of thieves, a robber, a killer of people by secret conspiracies.”
“We cannot give any name to his claim to prophethood except fraud or cunning.”
“His character in no way befits the office of a prophet; he was a slave of his passions... The Quran is a falsehood, his own fabrication.”
These statements were not isolated; they represented a widespread and sustained campaign of religious abuse. The situation deteriorated to such an extent that when Rev. Imad-ud-Din—a former Muslim Maulvi turned Christian—published his works, even Christians began to express concern. Shams-ul-Akbar, a Christian newspaper from Lucknow, issued a warning about the offensiveness of his writings, stating:
“If there was again a mutiny like that of 1857, it would be due to the abusive and scurrilous language of his writings.”
In this context, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s responses must be seen as a defense of the honour of the Prophet Muhammad SAW and of Islam against extreme provocation. Far from attacking Jesus Christ, Ghulam Ahmad Sahib refuted the theological innovations introduced by the Church that conflicted with the original teachings of Jesus.
Muslims’ love for the Prophet Muhammad SAW
There was not the least exaggeration in the warning given by this Christian paper. The Muslim is never so offended as when his Prophet is abused. He can submit to the greatest insult, but the one thing to which he will not submit is the abuse of the Holy Prophet Muhammad. Recent years have brought before us many instances of this deep-rooted love of the Muslim for his Prophet. How many young Muslims have lost their mental balance and turned a revolver against the reviler of the Prophet, knowing fully well that they must pay for this with their lives? Nobody can gauge the depth of the love of a Muslim for his Prophet. It is a fact that the sting of the Prophet’s abuse affects the Muslim’s heart so deeply that he gets excited beyond all measure, and cognisance of this fact should be taken by the highest executive authority, even if the High Courts of Justice cannot give a more liberal interpretation to the law of the land and must inflict a death penalty on youths who have become mentally unbalanced by such excitement.
Criticism directed at the “imaginary Messiah”
Given the intensely abusive Christian missionary propaganda of the late 19th century, it would not have been surprising had a Muslim defender of the faith, like the founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement, resorted to unworthy or emotionally charged responses. However, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad maintained a remarkable composure and introduced a new method of controversy that soon compelled missionaries to reevaluate their approach. His method was simple: to reflect back the mirror—asking what picture would emerge if Jesus Christ were subjected to the same scornful scrutiny with which Christian missionaries maligned the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). This comparative approach aimed not to insult but to make missionaries realise the offensiveness of their attacks. Ghulam Ahmad Sahib wrote in Nur-ul-Quran No. 2, p. 1:
“As the Rev. Fateh Masih of Fatehgarh in the Gurdaspur district has written to us a very scurrilous letter, and in it he has accused our Lord and Master, the Holy Prophet Muhammad, of adultery, and has used about him many other scurrilous words by the way of abuse, it is, therefore, advisable that a reply to his letter should be published... Still, we have every regard for the sacred glory of Jesus Christ, and in return for the abusive words of Fateh Masih, only an imaginary Messiah (farzi Masih) has been spoken of, and even that is out of dire necessity.”
Despite such clear disclaimers, hostile critics distorted his words. M. Zafar Ali Khan of Zamindar falsely claimed that Ghulam Ahmad Sahib wrote in Anjam Atham:
“Jesus Christ was evil-minded and overbearing. He was the enemy of the righteous. We cannot call him even a gentleman, much less a prophet.”
Anyone who refers to page 9 of Anjam Atham book will find that Zafar Ali is guilty of making a false allegation. The passage as met with in the book runs thus:
“In the same way, the impious Fateh Masih has... called our Holy Prophet adulterer and has abused him in many other ways. Thus this filthy section... compel us to write something about their Yasu [Jesus], and let the Muslims know that God has not made any mention of this Yasu in the Holy Quran. The Christian missionaries say that Yasu was that person who claimed to be God and called Holy Moses a thief and a cheat, and disbelieved in the advent of the Holy Prophet... We cannot call such an evil-minded, overbearing person, and the enemy of the righteous, a gentleman—still less a prophet.”
Clearly, the criticism was directed not at the real Jesus of Islam, whom Muslims honour as a prophet, but at the distorted version invented by Christian dogma—the farzi Masih or “imaginary Messiah.” Ghulam Ahmad Sahib explicitly stated that it was the fictional portrayal, based on Christian theological claims like Jesus calling himself God or condemning other prophets, that deserved critique. By Islamic standards, a man making such claims would be seen as arrogant and ungodly. Ahmad repeatedly asserted that Jesus never claimed divinity, nor reviled Moses or other prophets, and thus this portrayal did not represent the real historical Jesus.
This technique of rebuttal—criticising the Christian-conceived image of Jesus rather than Jesus himself—was not unique to Ghulam Ahmad Sahib. Maulana Rahmatullah, writes in the introduction to his book Izalat-ul-Auham:
“As the Christian missionaries are disrespectful in their speeches and writings towards the best of men, our Holy Prophet... so we have been compelled to pay them back in the same coin... By no means is it my belief that I should speak of a prophet in disparaging terms.”
In summary, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s criticisms were not aimed at Jesus Christ but at the FALSE IMAGE crafted by Christian theologians — an image that contradicted Islamic teachings. His intention was never to revile a prophet but to defend his own Prophet from vile attacks by mirroring the logic used by opponents, hoping to provoke reflection, not division.