How should a report be understood that a companion never heard Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (as), the Promised Messiah, say a certain prayer?

That someone did not hear something proves only that he did not hear it. Such prayers were as natural to the Promised Messiah (as) as food and drink, but he said aloud mainly those he wished to teach to others.

A report that a companion never heard a certain prayer tells us something about that companion. It tells us little about the Promised Messiah (as). Many prayers are said quietly, alone or at night. Whoever was not present, or could not hear them, simply knows nothing of them. However great the companion was, his lack of knowledge cannot be turned into proof.

Those who lived in the house of the Promised Messiah (as) knew that such prayers were said there day and night. For him they were as natural as food and drink. He said aloud mainly the prayers he wanted to teach to others. The rest he had no need to perform before anyone. The idea that a prophet has no need of such prayers is therefore entirely wrong. Precisely those who are closest to God turn to Him the most.

This leads to a question that concerns every collection of reports. What should be done with a report that creates a false impression? Whoever suppresses evidence in order to hide the truth acts dishonestly. But when a report suggests exactly the opposite of the truth, it does not belong in a selection for readers who would misunderstand it.

There is a clear limit here. A complete reprint of a book must remain complete. Quietly leaving something out there would be dishonest. Whoever wants to select makes an abridged edition and says openly that it is a selection.

The verses above give the standard for this. One does not follow what one has no knowledge of, and one checks a report before drawing conclusions from it.