"...I must say, before God and man, that the more I scrutinized
the claims and purported
references for them, the more I discovered that the Ahmadiyyah Mission is
the world and playing on the ignorance of many of their
In a series of articles published in Nigeria during 1974, Dr. Ismail A. B.
Balogun, a high level Ahmadi leader, refuted the tenets of Ahmadiyyah
and publicly denounced the Movement he had been born and raised in. A
Professor of Islamic and Arabic Studies at the University of Ibadan, Algeria,
Dr. Balogun had dedicated his life to the cause of Ahmadiyyah and
had raised through the ranks to become a top spokesman and ambassador for
the Movement. Throughout the years, his well articulate and emotional speeches
had motivated many young Ahmadis. Similarly, his public departure and the
commotion and debates that pursued caused many educated individuals to realize
the truth and abandon Ahmadiyyah.
Allah accept the repentance of those who do evil in ignorance and repent
soon afterwards; to them will Allah turn in mercy: For Allah is full of knowledge
(The holy Quran, An-Nisa, 4:17)
Subsequently, Dr. Balogun documented the reasons for his withdrawal from
the Movement and included some of the ensuing debates in a book entitled
"Islam versus Ahmadiyyah in Nigeria". In this book, Dr. Balogun disclosed
how he, as many other highly educated individuals, had blindly accepted
Ahmadiyyah out of loyalty to his parents, misinformation disseminated
by the Ahmadi leadership, divisive methods of the Indo-Pakistani Ahmadi
missionaries, and other subjective reasons having more to do with propaganda
and cultural habits than the truthfulness of any movement.
Dr. Balogun recounts his upbringing and his blind faith in the Indo-Pakistani
Ahmadi missionaries in the following passage:
"In my Childhood, I was brought up to revere the Indo-Pakistani Ahmadiyyah
missionaries who guided and controlled our religious activities. When the
mission came to our elders and, through the elders to us, we believed all
that they told us in toto, because of the implicit confidence we had in them.
Their preaching appeared plausible to us and we accepted their arguments
in good faith. They made references to Islamic books in order to substantiate
their claims and we accepted the references without cross-checking them because
of our confidence in them.
Their method was to alienate us against the orthodox Muslims in whom they
found faults in the way they practiced Islam. The missionaries claimed to
present "the true Islam" to us in the name of Ahmadiyyah.
They often impressed on us that the stiff opposition, which Ahmadis suffered
in India before the partition and subsequently in Pakistan, was a conclusive
proof of the truth of Ahmadiyyah. After all, no prophet is readily accepted
in his own town or country. This also appeared plausible to us, hence we
followed them with unalloyed confidence." (Sunday Sketch, Nigeria,
Sept. 29, 1974; Islam versus Ahmadiyyah in Nigeria, p. 85-86)
Over a quarter of century ago, Dr. Balogun had accurately identified the
strategy employed by high level Ahmadi missionaries to misguide the uninformed.
Not only the missionaries do not publicize a complete picture of their doctrine
and history, but also they distort the teachings of Islam and attempt to
exasperate and capitalize upon sectarian division among few ignorant Muslims.
Dr. Balogun testified:
"Even though Ahmadiyya has been in this country for close to sixty years,
I make the bold to say that, up till now, the vast majority of the adherents
of the organization, within both the Movement and the Mission, are still
in the dark about the details of its teaching, as well as its purpose. For
example, it was only very recently, when stiff opposition to Ahmadiyyah started
to rear its head in this country, that certain high-ranking Ahmadis knew
for the first time that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad claimed to be a Prophet." (Sunday
Times, Nigeria, Jan. 20, 1974; ibid., p. 3)
“[The fact that Ahmadis hid their true doctrine from the membership at large
is] evident in the fact that when one of the young educated Nigerian Muslims,
who originally invited the Movement here, went to Britain for further studies
and thereby came in contact with Indian Ahmadis, who resided then in Britain,
he studied them at first hand and returned home only to withdraw his membership
of the Movement. This was the late al-Haj L. B. Agusto of blessed memory."
(Sunday Times, Nigeria, Jan. 20, 1974; Ibid., p. 2)
Indeed, since its very inception, the Ahmadi leadership has relied upon the
well-proven methods of the Christian Missionaries to alienate the uninformed
individuals from knowledgeable and sincere Muslims and selfishly increase
their membership. They know only too well that the descendants of individuals
somehow tricked into joining their organization are generally less likely
to renounce their membership, even after they discover the truth.
Truly they found their fathers on the wrong Path;
So they (too) were rushed down on their footsteps!
And truly before them, many of the ancients went astray;-
(The holy Quran, As-Saaffat, 37:69-71)
Dr. Balogun records that, when in 1974, the Pakistani Government and the
Muslim World League both declared the Ahmadiyyah to be a non-Muslim
group, he set out in earnest to defend the Movement he was born into and
prove its truthfulness. However, his scholarly and thorough research into
the teachings of Ahmadi leadership untangled a disturbing web of deceit and
left him with no alternative but to denounce the Mission. This finding is
even more significant since Dr. Balogun, even though a high level Ahmadi
and a Professor of Islamic Studies, had himself been kept in the dark for
over forty years.
Regarding the authenticity of the alleged references and interpretations
provided by the Ahmadi Missionaries, from the Holy Quran, books of Hadith,
and the writings of Muslim personalities, to lend the appearance of support
to their various claims, Dr. Balogun wrote:
"My aim [in cross-checking the references offered by Ahmadi missionaries]
was actually to strengthen myself against the gathering opposition to Ahmadiyyah.
As a University scholar, I was conscious that my pronouncement in support
of Ahmadiyyah must necessarily be backed with authentic references to Islamic
In my cross-checking of the Ahmadiyyah missionaries' references, however,
my findings were rather disappointing.
Consequent upon my first article on the Ahmadiyyah problem in Nigeria
(Sunday Times, 20 January 1974), the Ahmadiyyah Mission members wrote
extensive rejoinders which gave me a further opportunity to examine,
independently, more Ahmadiyyah claims and views than hitherto.
I must say, before God and man, that the more I scrutinized the claims and
purported references for them, the more I discovered that the Ahmadiyyah
Mission is deceiving the world and playing on the ignorance of many of their
In many cases, they quote authors [scholars] who are explicitly opposed to
Ahmadiyyah ideas; but so cleverly do they quote that they often give the
impression that the authors support Ahmadiyyah views.
Examples of such distortions abound in the quotations made by Dr. Bhutta
in his rejoinder (Sunday Sketch, 8 September 1974) to my article.
It may interest the readers to know that Dr. Bhutta is himself a Pakistani
Ahmadiyyah medical missionary.
It is only by going to the source references and reading what the Ahmadis
had quoted within the context in which they are set that the reader, and
the seeker after truth, will realize how much the Pakistani Ahmadiyyah
missionaries try to deceive the world." (Sunday Sketch, Nigeria, Sept.
29, 1974; ibid., p. 86-87)
In support of his statements, Dr. Balogun researched, exposed, and refuted
many of the deceptive and false arguments used by the Ahmadi missionaries
to deceive the uninformed. For instance, he wrote:
"In order to buttress their claim about Khatam-un-Nabiyyin, the Ahmadis often
quote the mystic Shaikh Muhyiddin Ibn 'Arabi as saying, 'The Prophethood
that was terminated with the person of the Prophet of Allah(SAW) was no other
than the Law-bearing Prophethood, and not Prophethood itself.' (Futuhat
al-Makkiyyah, Vol. II, p. 3)
This quoted statement appears on page 3 of the book, which contains over
700 pages. The book does not stop at the statement concerning the matter
of Prophethood. On the contrary, it explains further at length, covering
eleven pages, pages 252 to 262 inclusive, in the same volume, the different
aspects of the Prophethood.
He says, among other things, that Prophethood exists among both animate and
inanimate objects. With regard to human beings, he classified the Prophets
into two: law-bearing prophets and follower prophets. He explains the functions
of each category and concludes in both cases that, with the coming of the
Prophet Muhammad, both categories have ceased to appear.
He says that what would remain for Muslims after Muhammad are speculators
(Mujtahids) who would strive in their own different ways to explain the Shariah
to the people according to their understanding of it. Such Mujtahids, he
says, will NOT be called Prophets (Ibn Arabi, al-Futuhat al-Makkiyyah,
Vol. II, pp. 254 and 255). This is certainly known to the Pakistani Ahmadi
missionaries, but they hide it from their followers deliberately in order
to entrench their own false idea on Prophethood…
Another example of the distortions by the Ahmadis for their selfish ends
is contained in their official rejoinder to my article already mentioned.
On page 5, column 2, of Monday 11 February 1974 issues of The Truth, the
Ahmadiyyah Mission quoted the following in support of the Prophethood of
the Promised Messiah: 'There is no discrepancy between the two, that he (the
Messiah) will be a Prophet and a follower of the Holy Prophet(SAW) for the
purpose of explaining the commandments of his Shariah, and to strengthen
its way, even though he does so through his revelations.' (Mirqat Sharh Miskat,
Vol. 5, pg. 564)
This quotation has been extracted from the explanation of the Hadith in which
the Prophet Muhammad had declared that there would be no other Prophet after
Indication. The Hadith, which is contained in Mishkat al Masabih,
reports that the Messenger of God said to 'Ali, 'You are in the same position
to me as Harun (Aaron) was to Musa (Moses): except that there is no prophet
after me'. The Mishkat reports also that authentic books of Hadith
are agreed on this tradition.
Now, in commenting on this authentic Hadith, Imam 'Ali Qari, who was deceitfully
quoted by Ahmadis, says:
"In the commentary of Muslim, some scholars say concerning his [the Prophet's]
statement 'Except that there is no Prophet after me,' that it is an indication
that whenever 'Isa b. Maryam [Jesus Christ] descends, he will descend as
one of the arbitrators of this Community inviting people with the Law of
Muhammad(SAW), and will not descend as a Prophet.
I say that there is no inconsistency in his being a Prophet and being a follower
to our Prophet(SAW) concerning the explanation of the rules of the Shariah
and the improvement of his way even with revelation to him, as indicated
by the saying of the Prophet: 'If Moses were alive he would have no choice
but to follow me.'
That is even though he is described as a Prophet and a Messenger; and in
the absence of both of them (Prophethood and Messengership), there will not
be any additional attainment.
Interpretation. So, the meaning is that there will not be any new Prophet
after him because he is the Seal of all the Prophets that had gone before.
In it (the statement) is an allusion that, if there were to be a Prophet
after him, it would have been 'Ali; and it is not incompatible with what
has clearly been related concerning the right of 'Umar because the decision
is hypothetical and suppositional.
It is as if he (the Prophet) says: 'If there were to be a Prophet after me,
a group of my Companions would have been Prophets; but there is no Prophet
This is the meaning of the Prophet's(SAW) saying: 'If Ibrahim had lived,
he would have been a Prophet.'
As for the Hadith, which says, 'The scholars of my Community are like the
Israelites Prophets', memorizers like Zurkashi, Asqalani, Damiri, and Suyuti
have clearly said that is has no basis."
This quotation is from the same book and on the same page referred to by
the Ahmadiyyah Mission. That is: 'Ali al-Qari, Mirqat al-Mafatih Sharh
Mishkat al-Masabih, vol. 5, pg. 564.
It is clear from the quotation that the Mission has extracted what they thought
would support their erroneous view from a commentary which, taken together,
is explicitly opposed to the view. This is in order to give the impression
that the author supports their idea.
In educated circles, such act is an errant distortion of an author's view
and thought. It contradicts the international law of copyright. It is, indeed,
unacceptable as well as unbecoming of a mission that wants itself to be taken
From the Islamic point of view also, it is an abominable act. Consider, for
example, Quran 2:59 [also 7:162], which says, "The transgressors changed
the statement from that which was made to them; so We sent a pestilence from
heaven upon the transgressors, for their having gone astray.' A food for
thought indeed for the Ahmadis!" (Sunday Sketch, Nigeria, Sept. 29,
1974; ibid., p. 91-95)
It is those who do not believe in the Signs of Allah that forge falsehood:
it is they who lie!
(The Holy Quran, An-Nahl, 16:105)
No sooner had Dr. Balogun unearth such evidence and discovered that the doctrine
of Ahmadiyyah was contrary to the authentic teachings of Islam, that
he and many others abandoned the Mission and embraced Islam. These fortunate
individuals were blessed with the capacity to differentiate the Truth from
Falsehood and the sincere faith to prefer Allah(SWT) and His Messenger(SAW)
to the position, prestige, and life-style they had achieved within the
Organization. Truly, they were the recipients of guidance from Allah(SWT).
Subsequent to such public expositions, Dr. Balogun became the subject of
personal attacks by many senior Ahmadi missionaries. For instance, Molvi
Ajmal Shahid, then the Amir of Ahmadiyyah movement in Nigeria, provided
an extremely short reply in which he expressed his dismay at the "spiritual
death of a brother (ibid., p. 97)" and Moulvi Naseem Saifi, the chief
Ahmadiyyah missionary for West Africa, confirmed that Dr. Balogun
had been very close and high in the administration and expressed his sadness
that Dr. Balogun had abandoned Ahmadiyyah in favor of Islam (ibid.,
p. 99); other Ahmadi missionaries questioned his public withdrawal and, in
an attempt at damage control, advanced a number of unbecoming and unproved
accusations. In clarification, Dr. Balogun responded:
"I could have raised all the points in this article with them (e.g. the
Indo-Pakistani Ahmadi leadership) internally without any publicity; but
experience has shown that such criticisms will automatically earn the critic
either a long-term boycott or an outright excommunication. With any of these,
no other member will be prepared to listen to him... I have stated my point
of view, God is my witness, purely because of my awareness of the responsibility
incumbent on me towards my fellow Nigerian Muslims in particular, and the
world Muslims at large. My intention is not to oppose Ahmadiyyah; I have
lived in it long enough to have a soft spot for it in my heart. But that
notwithstanding, whenever a clash of opinion arises between Islam and Ahmadiyyah,
it behooves me to declare for Islam without mincing words." (Sunday
Times, Nigeria, Jan. 20, 1974; ibid., p.17)
“Furthermore, instead of being crossed with me, calling me names and making
all sorts of conjectures about me because of my renunciation of Ahmadiyyah,
let the Nigerian Ahmadis take my exposition to their Pakistani missionaries
for verification or denial.
Assertions. If they deny my assertions, then demand from them the Arabic
books (not Urdu translations) from which they took their quotations. Then,
let independent Arabic scholars translate the relevant sections within their
If I am proved wrong, let my father reject and disown me, and let the Ahmadis
collectively curse and “crucify” me. But if I am proved right, then it becomes
incumbent on all Nigerian Ahmadis, including my relations, both by blood
and affinity, to reconsider their association with Ahmadiyyah, pray fervently
to God Almighty as I have done to show them the way of Islam and help them
to follow it.” (Sunday Sketch, Sept. 29, 1974; ibid., p. 96)
Naturally, the personal attacks levied against Dr. Balogun had nothing to
do with the issue at hand and had been orchestrated solely to confuse the
naive. In truth, the deceptive methods of the Mission had been exposed and
independently verified by a number of individuals. The damage done to the
Mission was so great that it had to disband. Many Ahmadis reorganized under
the name of "Anwar-ul-Islam Movement" and rejected the unIslamic doctrines
which the Ahmadi leadership and missionaries had propagated and sustained
through their distortions and misrepresentations of the authentic teachings
of Islam (Daily Times, Monday, Nov. 25, 1974; ibid., p. 121). May
Allah(SWT) guide every sincere Ahmadi to Islam.
Among the individuals, who witnessed the written public debates between Dr.
Balogun and the high level Ahmadi missionaries and recognized the falsehood
of the Mission, was a well-known gentleman by the name of Mr. Alhaj A. S.
Olatunde. To save face and mislead their naive followers, Ahmadi missionaries
apparently had began a rumor that Br. Olatunde had recognized their "truth"
and accepted Ahmadiyyah! In response, Br. Olatunde issued a
public statement, which is reproduced below:
“For some months now, I have been quiet. My quietness has come as a result
of a very serious study I embarked upon in connection with a burning question.
The question began with an article published by Dr. Ismail Balogun of the
University of Ibadan a few months ago. It concerned the belief of the Ahmadiyya
Jamat that the founder of the organization was a kind of a prophet.
Dr. Ismail Balogun, who was born into the Ahmadiyya Community, advanced cogent
arguments and reasons to support his rebuttal of the claim of Mirza Ghulam
Ahmad to Prophethood and the need to abandon the name Ahmadiyya to denote
a class of Muslims.
A series of rejoinders came from many well-known Ahmadis. The most significant
thing about the rejoinders is that they are unconvincing! They have been
based on shifty premises.
Dr. Ismail Balogun came out again with a final reply to all the rejoinders.
His final reply contained incontrovertible facts from various books of Islam
and lexicons to support his stand that after the holy Prophet Muhammad there
had not been and there would never be another prophet of any kind, at least
in so far as Islam is concerned.
I want to make my personal stand clear now. I support Dr. Ismail Balogun.
I agree entirely with his findings. And with him I declare that Muhammad
is the last Prophet of God.
I also declare that I am not an Ahmadi. It is true that I have been closely
connected with the Ahmadiyya Mission for many years. During my period of
association with them, the question of another prophet after Muhammad was
never a point of interest in our discussions.
I am sure with this, nobody will be in doubt any more about my stand. I want
to remind all Muslims of an incident toward the close of the glorious life
of the Holy Prophet Muhammad. It was the parting sermon he delivered on the
Arafat in his last pilgrimage.
He said: "I am leaving unto you two noble things. So long as you will cling
to them, you will never go astray. One of them is the Book of Allah and the
other is the Tradition of His Apostle. Let him that is present tell unto
him that is absent. Haply he that shall be told may remember better than
he who has heard it."
With me, the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Prophet are sufficient.
I am a Muslim and anything that will tarnish my Islam is rejected with all
If there is any person or any group of persons who have been showing me any
favor because they thought that I was an Ahmadi, I pray, they should now
withhold or withdraw their favors. I shall be satisfied with whatever favors
it will please Allah to bestow on me as a Muslim, pure and simple. May Allah
open our hearts to His Truth. Amen.” (Daily Sketch, Friday, Nov. 8,
1974; ibid. p. 118-119)
Obviously, a movement whose very leaders and founders have used such deceptive
methods to misguide the uninformed, for a hundred years, can not be taken
seriously nor viewed as a divine organization. Each one of the arguments
Ahmadi leaders have advanced in support of their organization is similarly
based on deceptive claims or pure conjecture and has been solely invented
to keep their unfortunate followers confused and entrapped.
We hope that individuals who have mistakenly followed Ahmadiyyah
reconsider their standing in the light of all the evidence uncovered by Dr.
Balogun. Should those, who have been touched by the miracles of the Holy
Quran and the teachings of the last Prophet Muhammad(SAW), exhibit loyalty
and obedience to Allah(SWT) and His last Messenger(SAW) or to individuals
whose deception and falsehood has been continually exposed?
Those who reject Allah, hinder (men) from the Path of Allah, and resist
the Messenger, after Guidance has been clearly shown to them, will not injure
Allah in the least, but He will make their deeds of no effect.
(The holy Quran, Muhammad, 47:32)
Quotes taken from: "Islam versus Ahmadiyyah in Nigeria", Published
by Sh. Muhammad Ashraf, Kashmiri Bazar, Lahore, Pakistan