Video: Rabuwa Resident Claims to be The Orignal Promised Messiah | "Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Was Mistaken"
OLD Messiah Gone, New in Town?
A man from Rabwah is reportedly claiming that he is the true Promised Messiah—and that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was mistaken.
The claim is striking enough on its own. But what makes it particularly significant is the theological question it raises for the Ahmadiyya community: if God continues to communicate with His chosen servants, how does the community determine whether a new claimant is genuine or false?
The man, identified as Inam-ul-Hai, presents himself as the true Promised Messiah. In a video of approximately 30 minutes, he explains his claims and challenges the religious position established by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian.
We are publishing his claims here for documentation and discussion. The accompanying photograph is also noteworthy because the claimant has written his own claim on the photograph.
The Claim: “I Am the True Promised Messiah”
According to Inam-ul-Hai's own statements, he claims:
“I am the true Promised Messiah.”
His position, as presented in his video, is that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was mistaken in his interpretation, and that God subsequently informed Inam-ul-Hai of this mistake.
He therefore presents himself not merely as another critic of the Ahmadiyya movement, but as the person who has supposedly come to correct what he considers to be a mistake in Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's interpretation and claim.
This makes his position particularly unusual. Also he is a Born Ahmadi, not any outsider (cause jamat these days has shrinked their belief of continued Nabuwah, they say new claimant can only be from withing Ahmadiyya)
He is essentially challenging the authority of the founder of the Ahmadiyya movement while simultaneously claiming the very religious role that the Ahmadiyya movement associates with Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.
See this short clip, Full video later in this post.
What Does He Say About Prophethood?
Another important part of his claim concerns the finality of Prophethood.
According to his statements, anyone accepting his Bai'at must believe Muhammad ﷺ to be the final Prophet and must reject the concept of continuing prophethood.
He argues that those who have subsequently claimed prophethood are false claimants.
In other words, his theological position is fundamentally different from the Ahmadiyya understanding of prophethood.
That immediately creates an obvious question:
How will the Ahmadiyya community respond to his claim?
And more specifically:
What theological principle will it use to declare him false?
WATCH FULL VIDEO:
The Bigger Question: Does God Still Speak?
This is where the discussion becomes considerably more interesting.
The Ahmadiyya theological framework places considerable emphasis on divine revelation, inspiration and communication from God.
Ahmadiyya literature distinguishes between different forms and categories of prophethood and revelation, while maintaining that none of these concepts undermine the finality of Prophet Muhammad ﷺ in the manner understood by mainstream Muslims.
That raises an important question when confronted with a modern claimant.
Suppose someone today says:
“God has communicated with me and informed me that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was mistaken.”
What is the principle by which that claim is evaluated?
Simply saying, “He is false because Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was already the Promised Messiah,” does not by itself answer the deeper theological question.
The claimant would presumably respond:
“How do you know that God communicated with Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, but did not communicate with me?”
That is the issue that deserves a direct answer.
If God Communicates With People, What Is the Test?
The argument becomes particularly important because the Ahmadiyya position does not simply depend on the idea that God communicated with a person in the distant past.
Divine communication, revelation and inspiration remain important concepts within Ahmadiyya theology.
So the question is not merely:
“Did someone claim to receive revelation?”
The more fundamental question is:
What objective criteria distinguish a genuine claim of divine communication from a false one?
If such criteria exist, they should be applicable consistently.
If Inam-ul-Hai is wrong, then what is the theological and evidentiary basis for demonstrating that he is wrong?
And if his claim is rejected because God no longer communicates with people in this manner, another question immediately follows:
When did that change occur, and on what basis?
The “False Claimant” Problem
There is another interesting dimension to this discussion.
Critics of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad have historically been told that ridicule or rejection of a claimant does not establish that the claimant is false. Within Ahmadiyya apologetic arguments, the rejection and mockery of prophets and religious claimants by their contemporaries is sometimes presented as part of the broader history of religious movements.
That creates an interesting test when the same situation occurs in the present day.
If a new claimant says:
“God has informed me that the previous claimant was mistaken,”
then simply ridiculing him does not establish the truth or falsity of his revelation.
The real question remains:
What is the evidence?
That standard should apply to everyone.
Another Major Claim: The End of the Ahmadiyya Khilafat
Inam-ul-Hai also reportedly makes another significant claim.
According to his statements, Mirza Masroor Ahmad would be the final Khalifa of the Ahmadiyya community.
His reasoning, as presented by him, is that the arrival of the “true Promised Messiah”—whom he identifies as himself—brings the existing system to an end.
This means that his challenge is not limited to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.
He is effectively challenging the present Ahmadiyya religious leadership and claiming that the existing structure of Khilafat has reached its conclusion.
That is an extraordinary claim by any standard.
The Question the Ahmadiyya Community Now Faces
It is important to distinguish between reporting a claim and accepting that claim as true.
We are not presenting Inam-ul-Hai's assertions as established facts. We are documenting what he says about himself and examining the theological questions that naturally arise from those assertions.
The central issue can be reduced to a few questions:
1. Does God still communicate with individuals?
If the answer is yes, what are the criteria for determining whether a claimant's alleged revelation is genuine?
2. If Inam-ul-Hai is false, what specifically makes him false?
Is the answer based on scripture, theology, historical evidence, the Ahmadiyya understanding of the Promised Messiah, or something else?
3. If divine communication is possible, why should it be assumed that it ended with Mirza Ghulam Ahmad?
4. If divine communication is no longer possible in this form, when and how was that limitation established?
5. What makes one claimant's revelation genuine and another claimant's revelation false?
These are not questions that can be settled simply by calling someone a liar.
They require consistent theological criteria and evidence.
Watch the Claimant in His Own Words
Because this story involves extraordinary religious claims, readers should not rely solely on summaries or social-media posts.
We have the claimant's photograph, on which he has himself written his claim, and we also have a roughly 30-minute video in which he explains and presents these claims in his own words.
Our Position: This Is Not Our Theological Problem
And now, as for our own position, there is an important distinction to make.
The entire framework of ongoing revelation, continuing prophethood and the theological arguments surrounding these concepts belongs to the Ahmadiyya interpretation that we are examining here. It is not the foundation of our own belief.
Our position regarding the finality of Prophethood is unchanged.
Therefore, if a dispute now emerges within that theological framework—between Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's claims and a new claimant who says that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad himself was mistaken—we do not suddenly inherit that dispute as our own theological crisis.
In simple terms:
The argument over continuing revelation and competing claimants is a debate within the framework developed by the Ahmadiyya movement. It is not a problem created by our theology, nor does this new claim alter our belief in the slightest.
If the Ahmadiyya community rejects this claimant, it is reasonable to ask them to explain according to their own theological principles why his claim is false.
If they accept the possibility of divine communication, they should explain the criteria by which they distinguish genuine revelation from false claims.
And if they reject the possibility altogether, they should explain what happened to the very concept of continuing divine communication that forms an important part of their theological discourse.
Either way, the theological question belongs to the framework in which the debate was created.
So, respectfully:
.heic)
Comments
Post a Comment