But look at the seerat, osool, character, lineage, conduct and overall persona of the prophets and then look at that Mirza, where is the comparison ? How can you in sane mind while having belief in Allah, Quran and the all the prophets include mirza in that company. He wasn't even an ulema-e-deen and all his works are complete gibberish and garbage. While you are right that all prophets faced opposition but they were still respected and feared even by their enemies. Mirza was even lowly than a common man.
Just having one commonality makes a prophet not, specially when the Quran is very clear in khatam-e-nubuwat and declaring his beloved s.a.w as his last prophet and messenger. I know I've heard a sermon form one of your Khalifahs ( is that what you call them ) how Ahmadis use all sorts of lingual gymnastics to twist and turn the phrase khatam-e-nabuwat to declare Mirza as somekind of water, And that he is the mahdi, but its a baseless argument, so please spare me that detail. Also mainstream Islam, it does not revolve around the mahdi, thats the shia version of Islam.
At best you can call him a reformer of religion in the christian sense, who wanted to get rid of the concept of "Qital and Jihad" from Islam to appease the British. How can he introduce the concept the Hazrat Isa A.S died a natural death and did not ascend to heaven when the Quran clearly mentions that. You cannot change what you like and don't like from the Quran, those were the earlier books which were molested by people and now have turned into false religions or dissappeared.
Ok here is a challenge, if you can convice me with logic the Mirza was indeed the mahdi/prophet or whatever it is you call him, I am willing to convert to an ahmadi/qydiani. I think thats fair right ?
