“Spiritual War Turns Dark: How a Dispute Over an ‘Angel’ Sparked Ghana’s Most Disturbing Religious Feud”

Ghana’s spiritual and social media space was thrown into chaos after a fiery and deeply unsettling confrontation erupted between Ajagurajah, founder of the Universal Spiritual Outreach, and controversial religious figure Avraham Ben Moshe.

What began as a dispute over spiritual authority and the existence of what was described as “an angel” quickly escalated into one of the most disturbing public clashes in recent memory, following a viral statement attributed to Ajagurajah declaring, “I will take your child.

The remark, delivered during a heated exchange that has since circulated widely online, sent shockwaves across Ghanaian social media and beyond.

Clips of the confrontation spread rapidly, sparking outrage, fear, disbelief, and intense debate.

Many viewers were left asking how a disagreement rooted in spiritual ideology could spiral into language so explosive that it crossed from rhetoric into perceived threat.

At the heart of the clash lies a long-simmering tension between two men who represent radically different spiritual philosophies.

Ajagurajah, known for his unconventional teachings, rejection of orthodox religion, and unapologetically confrontational style, has built a massive following by challenging pastors, prophets, and traditional belief systems.

Avraham Ben Moshe, on the other hand, positions himself as a defender of scriptural doctrine, often using social media platforms to criticize spiritual movements he considers deceptive or dangerous.

According to accounts surrounding the incident, the conflict intensified when Avraham Ben Moshe publicly questioned Ajagurajah’s claims about spiritual encounters, including references to a supposed angelic presence.

What might have remained an ideological disagreement quickly turned personal.

Words were exchanged, accusations flew, and the tone shifted from debate to confrontation.

Then came the statement that froze many listeners in shock.

The phrase “I will take your child” instantly became the focal point of the controversy.

Critics interpreted it as a direct threat, arguing that such language—especially coming from a spiritual leader with a large audience—was reckless and unacceptable.

Parents, religious leaders, and civil society voices expressed alarm, warning that rhetoric of this nature could incite fear and normalize intimidation under the guise of spiritual power.

Supporters of Ajagurajah, however, rushed to contextualize the comment.

They argued that his words were metaphorical, rooted in spiritual symbolism rather than literal intent.

According to this camp, the statement was meant to convey dominance in spiritual authority, not physical harm.

They accused critics of deliberately stripping the comment of context to inflame public sentiment and discredit him.

Avraham Ben Moshe’s supporters saw it very differently.

To them, the statement crossed a red line.

They insisted that no religious disagreement, no matter how intense, justifies invoking someone’s child—even symbolically.

For them, the incident confirmed long-held concerns about the dangers of unchecked spiritual influence and aggressive rhetoric.

As the debate raged, the clash evolved into something much larger than two men arguing.

It reopened uncomfortable conversations about the power wielded by spiritual leaders in Ghana, the lack of accountability for incendiary speech, and the blurred line between metaphor, menace, and manipulation.

Legal experts weighed in, noting that language perceived as threatening can have serious implications, regardless of intent, especially when delivered publicly.

Social media became the battlefield where narratives clashed.

Hashtags trended, reaction videos flooded timelines, and influencers took sides.

Some called for calm and urged authorities not to overreact.

Others demanded investigations, apologies, and stricter regulation of religious content online.

The polarization was intense, reflecting deeper societal divisions around faith, freedom of speech, and responsibility.

Ajagurajah later addressed the uproar, denying any intention of physical harm and framing the controversy as a misunderstanding amplified by his critics.

He maintained that his teachings are spiritual, not violent, and accused opponents of weaponizing his words to provoke public hysteria.

Avraham Ben Moshe, meanwhile, stood firm, insisting that the statement was dangerous regardless of explanation and that spiritual authority should never be expressed through fear.

What makes this incident particularly explosive is Ghana’s broader context.

In a deeply religious society, spiritual leaders hold enormous influence over millions of followers.

When disputes between such figures turn hostile, the consequences ripple far beyond the individuals involved.

The clash has left many questioning how much power is too much—and who draws the line when words become weapons.

As days pass, the controversy shows no sign of fading.

Calls for dialogue compete with demands for accountability.

Some religious leaders have urged restraint, warning that public feuds damage the credibility of spiritual leadership as a whole.

Others see the clash as inevitable in an era where belief systems collide openly on digital platforms.

For now, one thing is clear: this was not just another online argument.

It was a moment that exposed the volatile intersection of faith, ego, influence, and language.

Whether the fallout leads to reflection, reform, or further escalation remains uncertain.

But the echo of that single statement continues to reverberate—forcing Ghana to confront uncomfortable questions about power, belief, and responsibility in the modern spiritual arena.