As we all know, Noorudin, Maulvi Abdul Karim and MGA were all influenced by the writings of Sir Syed. Sir Syed denied all miracles in Islam by 1880, he denied the Islamic creation theory, the return of Esa (as), the arrival of the Mahdi, the physicality of the Mir’aj, all the hadith work, etc etc etc. Obviously, Noorudin and Abdul Karim knew each other in 1880 and in the below I present data which proves this fact. They would all eventually join MGA’s team of Mullahs and ghost writers, Maulvi Abdul Karim, Maulvi Mufti Muhammad Sadiq, Maulvi Sher Ali, Hakim Fazl Din of Bhera, Noorudin and many others. Some other people who came independently, yet still joined MGA’s team was Maulvi Muhammad Ahsan Amrohi, who was also a member of the Ahl-e-Hadith sect, in fact, uptil his job with MGA, he worked for the founder of the Ahl-e-Hadith sect, Syed Nazeer Husain from Delhi and Siddiq Hasan Khan of Bhopal. Maulvi Muhammad Ali was another, however, he came via Khwaja Kamaluddin and the prominent Ahmadi’s of Lahore.

Sir Syed began publishing his commentary of the Quran in 1880, however, the section which concerns Esa (as) was published (see Nuzhat Haneef) in 1882, MGA almost immediately began calling himself as “like-esa” or “Maseel-e-Maseeh”. It’s important to note that it was Noorudin who urged MGA to do so. Later on, MGA also copied Sir Syed’s swoon theory and passed it off as his own (see Jesus in India, 1908 and Nuzhat Haneef). MGA also attracted lots of people who were already following Sir Syed’s new ideas on Islam, like Maulvi Abdul Karim and others. Sir Syed also denied the entire concept of the Mahdi in this era. The truth is that MGA knew about the new beliefs of Sir Syed as early as 1872 and began to slowly adopt them. However, he lied about his true beliefs from 1876–1890. Check out the books on Islam by Sir Syed herein from 1857-1870. Afzal Upal has revealed in his book on Ahmadiyya that MGA was actually writing letters to Sir Syed back in the early 1860’s, when he was employed in Sialkot (see page 112).

Like I have written before, MGA and his team copied from Sir Syed on almost every single topic, except Jesus in India, that was tooo ridiculous for any human to conjure up. In this specific case, I have a scan from the writings of Sir Syed, pre–1891, wherein he says that all hadith on the Mahdi are weak and unreliable. In 1891, MGA claimed to be “jesus”, he then downgraded all hadith on the Mahdi and called them as unreliable. However, once he heard about the eclipses, he quickly found a super unreliable hadith and called it as reliable and thus made the claim of being the only Mahdi who was to come.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________Some Additional data on MGA’s connection to Sir Syed

MGA basically stole Sir Syed’s ideas. In fact, the name “Ahmadiyya” came from a book that Sir Syed wrote “””Al Khutbat al Ahmadiya”” (1870), in reply to Muir”s “Life of Mahomet”.  Sir William Muir’s “Life of Mahomet” (available online) made some wild allegations against the Prophet Mohammad (saw). Syed Ahmad was greatly disturbed and pained and prepared to write a detailed response in the form of the book “Khutubat-i-Ahmadiya”. He planned to collect research material in England during his trip to England. Syed Ahmad had to endure many financial difficulties for the translation and publication of the book in England. He later expanded upon these ideas in the form of “Tasanif-i-Ahmadiya”.  Maulana Moudoodi declared this book as the first major scholarly work on the life of Prophet.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________The Quotes

i. “Now we must turn to the Holy Quran to see what it says. The Quran makes mention of Jesus’ death in four places … Firstly in Sura Aal Imran, secondly in Sura Ma’ida, … thirdly in Sura Maryam … fourthly in Sura Nisa’. Jesus was not killed by the Jews, either by stoning or by crucifixion, but he died his natural death, and God raised him in rank and status … From the first three verses it is clear that Jesus died a natural death. However, as the Ulama of Islam had followed the Christians, in accepting that Jesus had gone up to heaven alive, before looking at the Quran, so they have tried to interpret some of the words in these verses to accord with their unsound belief.”

(Tafsir Ahmadi by Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, vol. ii, p.48)

ii. Referring to the expression ‘in this’ (Arabic: bi-hi) in the verse: ‘And there is none of the People of the Book but will believe in this before his death’ (4:159), which is generally taken to mean in him (i.e. in Jesus) Sir Syed writes:

“This points to the words ‘And their saying: we have killed the Messiah’ [4:157], and to their saying, and not to the Messiah. So this means: ‘All the People of the Book, before their death, will believe that Jesus was killed’. After this it is said: ‘And on the day of Judgment he, i.e. Jesus, will be a witness against them’. The word ‘ala [‘against’] is used to indicate loss or harm. So the meaning is that on the day of Judgment Jesus will be a witness against their belief.”

(Maktub Sir Syed, No. 2, p. 48)

iii. “Jesus spent his early life migrating from one place to another. His later life was not very long, for he was 33 years of age when he died, and at that time there were only 70 people who believed in him.”

(The Ali Garh Magazine, Intikhab No. 1971, p. 48)

See the lahori website.  I copy and pasted from there.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________The scan work

The scan from tahdheeb al ikhlaaq, vol -7, August 1877


As for the war of Independence 1857 that took place because of the Muslim spirit of freedom struggle and their growing resentment towards the British, “Sir” Syed labeled it as a ‘riot’ and ‘sedition.’ In his pamphlet, ‘Asbab-e-Baghawat-e-Hind’ (Causes of the Hind Sedition), he made it clear that Muslim were guilty of sedition. In this pamphlet, he told the British that the Muslims were in favour of their rule, but rebelled because they had not been given any seat or position in government circles. So, he played along with the British plan to engage Muslims within the British rule, rather than act to uproot it and he himself took a government position.

“Sir” Syed also wrote a book called ‘Loyal Muhammadans of India’. It had three volumes and was published in the years 1860-61. Throughout the book, he proved his loyalty towards the British. In this book, he wrote, “I am extremely angry with the Muslims who rebelled and were defiant against the British and consider them bad because this outbreak by the Muslims was against the People of the Book, the who are our religious brothers, believed in the Messengers, accepted Allah’s rules and keep Allah’s revealed books with them which are part of our fundamental beliefs. Therefore, whenever Christian blood was shed, Muslim blood should have been shed too. And whoever stands against this and are ungrateful to the government, which is not tyrannical, have gone against their religion. They are extremely worthy of being angry with.

“Sir” Syed seized every opportunity in giving a favourable opinion about the British. After the War of Independence 1857, Queen Victoria appealed to the Muslims for forgiveness and asked them to excuse the British for the mass murder that took place. “Sir” Syed told the Muslims in Muraadabad that it was absolutely necessary to thank her. So a ‘Dargah Hazrat Shah Balaqi’ was suggested and on 28 July 1859, 15,000 people were gathered. To attract more people, food arrangements were made and after ‘Asr Prayer, “Sir” Syed made a collective Dua. Some of the content of this Dua is as follows: “Oh Lord! You have shown mercy to Your people and the people of Hindustan by placing upon them just and equitable rulers and for this we thank You. In the preceding years, we had to face a curse of the absence of such rulers owing to our wicked deeds but now You have compensated it and provided us with such just and kind rulers. We thank You for this blessing of Yours from the core of our hearts. Oh Lord! Accept our gratitude! Ameen! The Indians who were caught into this unfortunate catastrophe, You molded the hearts of our rulers to be merciful to these Indians for the Queen issued an appeal seeking forgiveness just because of Your inspiration. We not only thank You but also pray for the Queen Victoria, wherever, she might be. Oh Lord! Accept our Dua! Ameen!” The cunningness, treachery and deceit against Muslims and Islam is obvious in these words. This Dua is a proof of the loyalty of “Sir” Syed to the British but the tragedy is that such a personality is presented to us as a role model to our Children in School text books while pious personality like Aurangzeb (rahimahullah) are antagonized.

In reality, the decline of the Muslims began with a decline in the comprehension of Islam and its wrong implementation. “Sir” Syed suggested a wrong way to come out of this decline. In his flawed understanding, the Muslims can make progress only by following the British blindly in science, inventions and their thoughts related to life, without adopting the systems springing from the complete Deen of Islam. In fact, we fell behind West, because we did not adopt Islam as  a complete way of life. Therefore, if we want to be a progressive Ummah, we must first revive by holding fast onto our Islamic Aqeedah, instead of following the West. Moreover, if science and technology is the only way to success and if Islam mandates that the path to enlightenment is progress and evolution as envisaged by ‘Sir” Syed, then why didn’t Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم spread Islam and conquer through science and technology?? How did the Khulafa-e-Rashideen establish the golden era of Islam without the inventions and discoveries of the Industrial Revolution?? If science was so central to human existence, then wouldn’t the prophets and messengers have been scientists, or at least invented something for mankind??
(Shahid, 1958: 97). See Shahid, Dost Muhammad (1958). Tareekh-e-Ahmadiyyat. Rabwah: Idarat-ul-Musanifeen.

“””Since Mirza Sahib liked to debate Christian clerics, Murad Beg who used the nom de guerre
of Mirza Shikasta (and later on Muwahid) and was a resident of Jallandhar, told him, “Syed
Ahmad Khan has written an exegesis of Torah and Injil. If you write to him it may be helpful.”
Thus Mirza Sahib wrote a letter to Sir Syed in Arabic”””. 

Links and Related Essay’s

The life and death of Maulvi Abdul Karim Sialkoti (1858–1905)

During the writing of Braheen-e-Ahmadiyya, MGA masked his beliefs, he was already asserting that Esa (as) died

Dard lied about MGA’s views on Esa (as) pre-1891

What is Maseel-e-Maseeh? The like of the Messiah?

MGA explains how he misunderstood his prophethood in 1880 and was confused for 20+ years

Dard lied about MGA’s views on Esa (as) pre-1891

Noorudin and Abdul Karim were influenced by Sir Syed

Dard lied about MGA’s views on Esa (as) pre-1891

Sir Syed was the first Muslim in India to ever say that all hadith on the Mahdi were weak…MGA copied

Sir Syed was the first Muslim in India to ever say that all hadith on the Mahdi were weak…MGA copied

Was Noorudin the Ghost-writer of MGA?|

Friedman errs on Ishaat us Sunnah volume numbers and the corresponding year


#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog #messiahhascome #ahmadiyyat #trueislam #ahmadianswers #ahmadiyyamuslimcommunity #ahmadiyya_creatives #ahmadiyyatthetrueislam #ahmadiyyatzindabad #ahmadiyyatrueislam #ahmadiyyamuslim  #mirzaghulamahmad #qadiani #qadianism