5 Core Beliefs of the Ahmadiyya Community
Yesterday, u/IqtisadMind posted this video on the r/AhmadiMuslims sub: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnTANi6_6WU
However, shortly after my response to it, not only did he delete his post but he also deleted his account.
For those who might benefit from my response to the video, I am reproducing my response here - I hope it is helpful:
"(1) The narrator states that Ahmadis believe in the Quran, but then also says that 'Khatam-an-Nabiyeen" means Muhammad was the "last law-bearing prophet". Unfortunately, the Quran does not say that -- the Quran makes no distinction between the prophets on the basis of law-bearing vs non-law-bearing, it says what was revealed to Muhammad was revealed to ALL prophets before him and he brought nothing new, and thrice refers to Islam as "the religion of Abraham". This concept of law-bearing vs non-law-bearing prophets is a concept completely invented by Sufis with no basis in the Quran or Ahadith, and for the purpose of describing the Sufi concept of post-Muhammad 'non-law-bearing prophethood' to be waliyat (sainthood, providential intimacy) and thus not actual prophethood (so as not to break Muhammad's 'seal').
(2) The narrator states that Ahmadis also believe in the Messiah and Mahdi. However, unlike as described in the Ahadith and as per the mainstream Sunni view, MGA denied that they are two separate people and declared all the Ahadith (except one) to be fabricared. MGA said:
"My claim is not that I am the Mahdi who conforms to فاطمۃ ولد من] the progeny of Fatimah], عترتی من] from my progeny], etc. Rather, my claim is that of being the Promised Messiah, and regarding the Promised Messiah, there is no statement of any muhaddith [scholar of hadith] that he would be from among the progeny of Fatimah etc. Nevertheless, at the same time—as every muhaddith says—I also say that all the ahadith regarding the Promised Mahdi are moot and suspect and not one of them is authentic. The degree to which fabrication has taken place in these ahadith has not taken place in any other hadith. During the time of the Abbasid Khulafa’ etc. the Khulafa’ were very fond of pronouncing themselves the Promised Mahdi. So for this reason, some ahadith describe the Mahdi as being from the progeny of ‘Abbas and some from the progeny of Fatimah. There are some ahadith which also say that تی ّ م ُ ا من رجل’ He will be a man from my Ummah.’ But essentially all of these ahadith are not worthy of any trust. This is not just my word; all eminent scholars of the Ahl-e-Sunnah have been saying the very same. As opposed to these ahadith, this hadith recorded by Ibn-e-Majah is very authentic: ی ّٰ عیسال مھدی ال meaning, there is no other Mahdi; ‘Isa is the very same Mahdi who is to come." In Barahin-e-Ahmadiyya (Part 5)(1908), on page 478 https://files.alislam.cloud/pdf/Barahin-e-Ahmadiyya-Part-5.pdf
Despite MGA's statement above regarding the Ibn-e-Majah hadith, classical scholars like Imam al-Qurtubi, Ibn al-Qayyim, and Al-Dhahabi all pointed out a weakness in the chain of transmission and thus consider it weak (da'if) or denounced/unreliable (munkar). Clearly, MGA needed to cancel out all the Ahadith that didn't suit him so he could be both the Messiah and the Mahdi in one. However, as supported by the Ahadith, the consensus mainstream Sunni view remains that they are references to two separate people.
(3) The narrator states that the Prophet gave the Messiah and Mahdi "the status of a prophet" -- leaving aside that all the Ahadith show them to be two separate people, as already shown to OP before and as mentioned above, MGA himself never gave himself "the status of a prophet". MGA described himself as a 'zilli', 'buruz' and 'non-law-bearing' nabi, all of which are terms not only not found anywhere in the Quran or Ahadith but were completely invented by Sufis (like Abdul Qadir Jilani and Ibn 'Arabi) to describe their concept of wilayat (sainthood, providential intimacy). Indeed, in referring to Jesus' second coming as the Messiah, Ibn' Arabi specifically said that Jesus would be a wali, and not a nabi.
(4) The narrator refers to the Ahmadi concept of Khilafat which has zero basis in the Quran, what we have of recorded Islamic history or even from MGA himself. In the Quran, the word "khalifa" occurs twice with reference to Adam and David (who were prophets) specifically, and the word "khulafa" occurs 11 times, and each time, it refers to a people/community/nation and not to a particular person, let alone one succeeding a prophet. The verse that the Qadian Jamaat (as evidenced at the top of this very subreddit) repeatedly cites as its support for its Khilafat is a blatant misrepresentation of and lie against that Quranic verse.
As for the ascendancy of each of the first 4 so-called khulafa of Islam, not once was 'divine-appointment' invoked or even apparently involved - (a) Abu Bakr ascended with reference to the prestige of the Quraish only - no reference to divine guidance, (b) Umar ascended because Abu Bakr named him, much to the chagrine of others, and because he "knew him better than others" -- no reference to divine guidance, (c) Uthman ascended due to a board of 6 people appointed by Umar (after much cajoling) to decide amongst themselves, and after 4 dropped out, the 4th named Uthman on the basis that Ali wanted it more - no reference to divine guidance, and (d) Ali ascended after the murder of Uthman, and only after he and two others refused, and also only after Medina was subject to a 24-hour death ultimatum by Uthman's murderers - again, no reference to divine guidance. Indeed, I also discovered that the first 4 khulafa were not even called 'khulafa', but "Amirul Momineen', with the first usage of the word 'khalifa' for the office being invoked by Abdul Malik Marwan (who sought to fashion himself a 'Khalifatullah' in the style of David, and not as a successor to Muhammad) and then retroactively applied to his predecessors.
As for MGA, in his 'Al-Wasiyyat', with reference to himself as Khalifatullah, he actually named the Anjuman as his Khalifa, and that his reference to 'Qudrat Saniyya' was not actually a reference to a person or an instituton, but rather, to a feeling of security and comfort that descends divinely."