Intro
in 1901, MGA and his team of writers seem to have sent Rashid Rida (and his team of editors) a copy of “Ijazul Masih” (1901) to the offices of al-Manar (his newspaper in Egypt). Per Ahmadiyya sources a copy of “Ijazul Masih” (1901) was also sent to al-Manazir and al-Hilal (See Hidden Treasures). Riḍā attacked Ghulam Ahmad for his claim to be a “shade for the Prophetic miracle” (basically prophethood). Riḍā wrote this in a fatwā to a question sent to al-Manār by a certain Aḥmad Muḥammad al-Alfī, a local Shafiʿī scholar in the town of Tukh in northern Egypt. Al-Manār, 4, no. 12 (31 Aug. 1901), 460–468. Rashid Rida also commented in his newspaper about the lack of were against the Arabic syntax and usage and how the book contained Arabic phrases contrary to normal usage and about how ridiculous the challenge of the MGA was and whether anyone could produce a book like it in 70 days. Rida said that many scholars could write a book like it in seven days. This issue of al-Manar was splashed in the Rawalpindi magazine, Chaudhwin Sadi (See Hidden Treasures).
In 1902, MGA and his team of writers sent him a new book, “Al-Huda wal-Tabsirah li-man yara” (Guidance for Perceiving Minds)(June-1902), which was half-Urdu and half-Arabic. The urdu portion is a full-on attack of Rashid Rida and a death prophecy, they also called Rida as “jealous” and “arrogant”. MGA claims that Yuz Asaf brought the Injeel and this info is in “Kamal-ud-Din WA Itmam ul Naimat”. Rashid Rida quoted this book as he referred to the Jesus in India theory. However, Rashid Rida did respond to the Arabic portion of “Al-Huda wal-Tabsirah li-man yara” (Guidance for Perceiving Minds)(June-1902) and even printed a major portion of the book relating to the migration of Jesus to Kashmir in his journal and observed that it was not supported by reasons and record (see Hidden Treasures). His next interaction with the Ahmadiyya movement happened in 1912 whilst in British-India. He was also fast friends with Lahori-Ahmadi’s like Khwaja Kamaluddin, however, they did eventually fall out. Another strange Muslim was Muhammad Abduh, he was also from Egypt and wrote that Eisa (As) is dead and never coming back, he was like a semi-bahai.
In 1912, Rashid Rida seems to have traveled to Lucknow, British-India and held a debate with the local Ahmadi’s there (see Salafiyya, Ahmadiyya and European converts during the inter war period (2016)).
In 1913, despite harsh critiques of Ahmadiyya doctrines, Rashid Rida, in his al-Manār magazine, in some instances, hailed the conversions of Europeans to Islam in the Woking mosque. The above-mentioned Baron Lord Headley and his conversion occupied a prominent place in al-Manār, despite Headley’s known close connection with the Ahmadis in London (See Umar Ryad, “Muslims in Interwar Europe: A Transcultural Historical Perspective”, 2016, pp. 47-87 (41 pages).
In 1923, after MGA died and by 1923, in general, Riḍā agreed with Khwaja Kamal-ud-Dinʼs “friends” and followers in Egypt and considered him a “moderate” follower of the Ahmadiyya. In 1923, Lord Headley, Kamal-ud-Din, and Abdul Mohye, the Arab mufti of the Woking Mosque (the Arab press gave him the title of the Mufti of the English Lands), passed through Egypt on their way to hajj. The trip was covered in a favorable light in the Islamic press in Egypt, including al-Manār. In Egyptian newspapers, Kamal-ud-Din found a suitable opportunity to defend the Lahore branch of the Ahmadiyya and their faith as being a trend close to “mainstream” Islam. Riḍā was not able to meet them in order to discuss his doubts regarding the Ahmadiyya with Kamal-ud-Din in person. At this point, Riḍā found that Kamal-ud-Din’s consideration of Ghulam Ahmad as merely a “reformer” was a good step by the Lahore branch towards the “true” Islam (Al-Manār 24, no. 8 (Aug. 1923), 583).
In 1925, despite Riḍā’s appreciation of the Lahore Ahmadiyya missionary work in Europe, he was critical of their translation of the Qurʾān into English. The Lahore Ahmadiyya tried to circulate Mawlana Muḥammad Alīʼs English translation of the Qurʾān in Egypt and Syria, but their attempt was resisted by the religious institution of al-Azhar, Riḍā himself, and his friend Shaykh Muṣṭafā Najā (1852–1932), the mufti of Beirut. In his fatwā, Riḍā saw it as a “deviant” translation that contradicts the principles of Islam. He stated that the translation attempts to destroy Islam from within by disseminating the Ahmadiyya’s “false” doctrines on revelation and by abrogating Qurʾānic rulings, such as jihad (al-Manār 25, no. 10 (March 1925), 794–796).
In 1928, Riḍā emphasized that Muḥammad Alī intentionally distorted some verses related to the Messiah (al-masīḥ) in order to argue, based on these verses, that Ghulam Ahmad is the promised Messiah. Riḍā urged Muslims not to rely on this translation, or on any other, to understand the Qurʾān, but rather to act according to its rulings in a direct manner. However, Riḍā did believe that this translation and other Qurʾān translations could be used to invite non-Muslims to Islam, particularly those without knowledge of Arabic (al-Manār 29, no. 4 (July 1928), 268–271. See Mohamed Ali Mohamed Abou Sheishaa, “A Study of the Fatwā by Rashid Riḍā on the Translation of the Qur’an,” Journal of the Society for Qurʾānic Studies 1, no. 1 (Oct. 2001), available online:(http://www.islamicwritings.org/quran/language/a-study-of-the-fatwa-by-rashid-rida-on-the-translation-of-the-quran/). Cf. Moch Nur Ichwan, “Differing Responses to an Ahmadi Translation and Exegesis: The Holy Qurʾān in Egypt and Indonesia,” Archipel 62 (2001): 143–161).
In 1927, Riḍā’s tone was inconsistent. With regard to the differences between the Lahore and Qadiyani branches in matters of creed (ʿaqīda) and their religious work in Europe, Riḍā argued that the Lahore movement agrees with other Muslims in general, except in specific issues related to the death of Jesus and the abrogation of certain verses of the Qurʾān. Despite their “great” sacrifices for Islam in India and Europe, Riḍā finally concluded that the Ahmadis of both branches were followers of falsehood (bāṭil) (al-Manār 28, no. 7 (Sept. 1927), 543–550).
In 1930-1931, Ahmadiyya sources claim that Rashid Rida mentioned this death prophecy to Jalal-ud Din Shams in roughly as Shams was working in Israel. Shams responded that it was never a death prophecy (a lie), it was a prophecy about Rida not responding to MGA’s challenges. In the 1930’s, Rashid Rida completed his Tafsir and mentioned MGA’s belief that Eisa (as) went to India (see the scans in the below).
In 1933, it is strange that Riḍā utterly dismissed Kamal-ud-Din from the Ahmadiyya movement. After Khawaja Kamal-ud-Din’s death, Riḍā eulogized him for his service for Islam in Europe. A brief biography of Kamal-ud-Din was soon published in al-Manār by Khwaja Abdul Ghani, secretary of the managing committee of the Woking Muslim Mission and Literary Trust in Lahore, as a token of appreciation. Riḍā considered Kamal-ud-Din “the greatest missionary to Islam” in their age. Through his mission, he provided a great service to Islam by converting many high-class British, the most refined of them being Lord Headley. Although Kamal-ud-Din was known as a “moderate” follower of the Ahmadiyya, Riḍā was told by many friends who were familiar with his work in Europe, that his activities and writings did not actually reflect any inclinations to the Ahmadiyya convictions as such (al-Manār 33, no. 2 (April 1933), 138).
In Nov-2025, Maulvi Razi streamed live on the True Islam Uk channel and at 42:29, Maulvi Razi mentioned Rashid Rida and claimed that Rida was the teacher of Albani.
Continue reading “Rashid Rida vs. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (1901-1903 era)” →
