In 1902, MGA and his team wrote “AL-HUDA WA-TABSIRATO LIMAN YARA”, which means “Guidance for Perceiving Minds”, it’s in Arabic with Urdu and was published from the Diya’ul-Islam Press, Qadian. Muhammad Rashid Rida, in his capacity as editor of the al-Manar, received a copy of “””I‘jazul-Masih“””. While the editors of two other Egyptian journals, al-Manazir and al-Hilal, seemed to compliment MGA on the literary merit of the book, Muhammad Rashid Rada criticized MGA’s book in his journal and said:
“If this man had not claimed to be the Messiah and had he not interpolated in surah al-Fatihah, then his commentary would have been extremely popular. His knowledge of religion is undoubtedly deep.”
Muhammad Rashid Rada also alleged that some of the constructions he used were against the Arabic syntax and usage, and about the challenge of MGA whether anyone could produce a
book like it in 70 days, Rada said that many scholars could write a book like it in seven days. This issue of al-Manar somehow reached the hands of the Mullahs and was splashed in the Rawalpindi magazine, Chaudhwin Sadi. MGA stated in this book that he (Muhammad Rashid) claims to have acquired a high level of command on the language, he would soon meet his defeat and flee from the field.When this book appeared in print, a copy of the book was sent to
Muhammad Rashid Rada. He 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.
In the 1940-50’s, Jalal-ud-Din Shams wrote an introduction for “Al-Huda Wa-Tabsirato Liman Yara” and mentioned that when he was in Haifa he had an opportunity of meeting the said Muhammad Rashid Rida. Rashid Rida claimed that MGA had predicted his death in 1902, and Rashid Rida was still alive in the early 1930’s (he died in 1935, aged 69). Shams claimed that MGA had only prophecied was about his inability to write a counter to this book in eloquent Arabic.
Rashid Rida’s controversial beliefs
One of his controversial views was his support of Darwin’s theory of evolution. To justify Darwinism, Rida considered it permissible to “interpret certain stories of the Qur’an in an allegorical manner, as, for example, the story of Adam.”. He also believed that the origin of the human race from Adam is a history derived from the Hebrews and that Muslims are not obliged to believe in this account.
Other controversial beliefs held by Rida included:
– His view that usury (riba) may be permitted in certain cases 
– His idea that building statues is permissible in Islam as long as there is no danger of their being devoted to improper religious uses.
– His support of the British against the Ottomans 
– His view that “the minute living bodies which today have been made known by the microscope and are called microbes, may possibly be a species of Jinn“
His beef with MGA started in 1901
In MGA’s arabic only book, “I’jaz ul Masih”, he wrote about Rashid Rida as follows:
After Sheikh Mohammed Rashid Rida expressed his opinion on MGA’s book “إعجاز المسيح”, where he said that the non-arabic words and rhetoric are clear in it, MGA attacked Egypt, the Egyptians, their Arabism and their dialect.
بعد أن أبدى الشيخ محمد رشيد رضا رأيه بكتاب الميرزا “إعجاز المسيح”، حيث ذكر أنّ العُجمة فيه واضحة،
هاجم الميرزا مصرَ والمصريين وعروبتهم ولهجتهم وقال:
“The Messenger of Allah and the Lord of الورى did not call your land [meaning Egypt] the land of the Arabs, so do not slander to Allah and His Messenger, the slanderous has been disappointed”.
MGA also said this about Rashid Rida
MGA depicted Riḍā as a “jealous” and “arrogant” scholar who, like many others, not only rejected the message, but fueled the dislike of Indian Muslims against him and his followers (See Salafiyya, Ahmadiyya and European converts during the inter war period (2016) )
1912, Rashid Rida comes to British-India
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)).
1923, Rashid Rida and the Lahori-Ahmadi’s
See “””Salafiyya, Ahmadiyya, and European Converts to Islam in the Interwar Period””
Author(s): Umar Ryad
“”””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).
Meanwhile, 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 ʿAlīʼs 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 his view, Riḍā emphasized that Muḥammad ʿAlī 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/
Cf. Moch Nur Ichwan, “Differing Responses to an Ahmadi Translation and Exegesis: The
Holy Qurʾān in Egypt and Indonesia,” Archipel 62 (2001): 143–161).
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).
Nevertheless, 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).”””””
al-Huda Wattabsirah Liman Yara, p. 9, Ruhani Khaza’in, vol. 18, p. 254, see also the 2009 online edition of Tadhkirah
“””Translation: [Arabic] He will soon run away and will not be seen again. This is news from
Allah Who knows that which is secret and most hidden.”””
Taken, from Muhammad Ali, “Prophethood in Islam” , http://www.aaiil.org/text/acus/mga/261ref.shtml
155. Al-Huda wal-Tabsirah li-man yara (June 12, 1902), p. l
“Peace and blessings of Allah be upon the Last of the Messengers. Finality of prophethood in him warranted that people resembling prophets should appear in his ummah.”
156. Ibid., p. 31
“Listen! All the (spiritual) stations are under the authority of Allah and this is one of the miracles of the glorious Book (the Quran). These stations are granted to the perfect followers (muqarrabin) of the Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, according to their capabilities because miracles require that spiritual excellences should continue till the day of Resurrection. The blessings of the Holy Prophet’s excellences are granted to his successors by way of reflection. Had it not been so, the blessings of prophethood would have become extinct (batil). These successors are thus imprints of their preceptor (the Holy Prophet) who has preceded them and are in a way the true reflection of the image, as if in a mirror. They have annihilated themselves and have eschewed hypocrisy. …So, whatever supernatural acts or words come through them resembling those found in the scriptures, are not their personal feats but, in fact, are of the Leader of messengers, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, in the form of reflections (zilliyyat). If you doubt the glory and grandeur of these friends of the Beneficent Allah, read the Quranic verse over and over again: ‘the path of those upon whom Thou hast bestowed favours’.”
157. Ibid., p. 32
“Let curse of Allah be on those who claim that they can produce a book like the Quran! The Quran is the miracle a like of which can not be produced by any man or jinn. …It is a divine revelation which has no parallel, although there may be revelations from Allah after it. Divine communications are through revelation and it is an admitted fact that the scope and degree in which Allah revealed Himself to the Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, has no parallel in the pre or post period of the Holy Prophet. The grandeur of the Quranic revelation is far superior to the revelation to a wali (friend of Allah), though words similar to it may occur in the latter revelations.”
Links and Related Essay’s
#VisitAMosque #MessiahHasCome #Ahmadiyyat #TrueIslam #Ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog #ahmadiyyatrueislam #ahmadiapartheid #rabwah #qadian #meetthekhalifa