MGA was a follower of the Ahl-e-Hadith aka Wahhabi type of Muslims in Northern India. In fact, his second wedding was with a family of Muslims who were Ahl-e-Hadith. His best friend, Maulvi Muhammad Hussain Batalvi was also Ahl-e-Hadith, the list is endless. MGA had a beef with Nawab Siddiq Hasan Khan after he tore up MGA’s Braheen e Ahmadiyya and sent it to Qadian in that condition. We have found a thesis on the life and times of Nawab Siddiq Hasan Khan, we have posted the links in the below.
Hardly is any historical Indian Muslim figure of the 19t h century as controversial as Sayyid Siddiq Hasan Khan al-Qannauji al-Bukhari (1832–1890). The reason
for all the contrasting assessments of his personality
was his astonishing career: he rose from an impoverished
scholar to the son-in-law of the Prime Minister
at the court of Bhopal.1 In 1871, the widowed ruler of
this principality, Shah Jahan Begum (r. 1868–1901)
chose him as her second husband. After his marriage,
Siddiq Hasan Khan established the reformist movement
Ahl-e Hadith (people of the prophetic traditions),
which soon became a dominant Muslim group
in Bhopal. But as soon as Siddiq Hasan’s career had
started, it came to a sudden end.
In 1885, Siddiq Hasan was deprived of all his
posts and titles by the British, thus forcing
him into privacy. For a period of more than
one year, he had to retire in his own palace,
Nur Mahall, completely isolated from his
wife and his supporters. Due to this sudden
end of his career, in the Indian nationalist
views prevalent since 1918 Siddiq Hasan is
described as one of the first heroes of the
This nationalist paradigm is overshadowed
by another perspective about the historical
figure of Siddiq Hasan: several Muslim
sources describe him as a puritan and a
Wahhabi, closely linked to the reformist
movement of Muhammad cA b d a l – W a h h a b
(d. 1762) in today’s Saudi Arabia. Besides
these contrasting views, the sources lack an
assessment of the ‘real’ Siddiq Hasan. As a
consequence, it is necessary to apply changing
research methods in order ‘to avoid
common pitfalls of historiography, like projecting
modern nationalist paradigms …
back into the past’.2 Consequently, the social
network analysis, originally developed
by the Manchester school of anthropologists
in the 1950s, seems to be a suitable research
method. Taken the premise that
every individual (ego) is embedded into a
network of personal relationships, it is interesting
to observe which parts of his/her
ego-network a person activates in order to
achieve his/her aims. Hence, it may be interesting
to show which personal relations
were really important in Siddiq Hasan’s career
– and which connections became crucial
only to the eyes of posterity. The following
gives an analysis of Siddiq Hasan’s personal
networks, trying to avoid the categories
of ‘Wahhabi’ or ‘nationalist hero’,
which have determined the characterization
of Siddiq Hasan for more than 100
Born into a Sayyid family, strongly connected
to the Tariqa-ye Muhammadiya reform
movement of Sayyid Ahmad Barelwi (d.
1832), Siddiq Hasan made the first steps of
his personal career as the secretary of the
Prime Minister at the court of the Islamic
principality of Bhopal. Since 1818 this Central
Indian princely state was ruled by strong
female rulers, the Begums. Sikander Begum
(r. 1844–1868) followed her mother Qudsiya
Begum (r. 1818–1837) to the throne (m a sn
a d) and secured the succession of her
daughter, Shah Jahan Begum (r. 1868–1901).
Sikander Begum, on the one hand, needed
support from the British to protect Bhopal’s
territory from the invasions of the Marathas
and Pindaris. On the other hand, she wanted
to have her reign legitimated by a group of
Islamic scholars. Thus, she invited several
ulama of reformist background to Bhopal.
Among them was Sayyid Jamal ud-Din Dihlawi
(d. 1881) who had been, like Siddiq
Hasan’s father, an active member of the
The ‘Yemen connection’
When young Siddiq Hasan approached
Bhopal, Jamal ud-Din took him under his
wing. Due to the fact that from now on he
lived in financially secure conditions, he
could continue his personal studies, which
he had had to interrupt before. In Bhopal he
came to know two Yemenite brothers who
had been living in Bhopal for several years,
namely the brothers Zain al-cA b i d i n ( d .
1880) and Husain b. Muhsin al-Hudaidi (d.
1910). Sikander Begum had met the Yeminite
family in Hudaida during her pilgrimage
to Mecca in 1863. She invited Zain alcA
b i d i n to Bhopal, because she was looking
for a new qadi al-qudat (chief judge) for her
Although Zain al- cA b i d i n did not know
Persian or Urdu, nor did he belong to the
Hanafi school of law prevailing among the
Indian Muslims (he was a S h a f ic
i), he soon
became acquainted with the situation in
Bhopal. After a short time, he knew all relevant
manuals of Hanafi law in India and
wrote his legal decrees (f a t a w a) according
to that school. Later, he invited his younger
brother Husain to join him in Bhopal. Husain
decided to undertake the long journey to
Bhopal, where the Begum cordially welcomed
him. She employed him as a teacher
of the local dar ul-hadith (house of the
teaching of the prophetic traditions). It was
around 1856, that Husain taught h a d i t h t o
Siddiq Hasan. This close teacher-pupil relation
made a deep impression on Siddiq
Hasan and caused a significant change in his
intellectual orientation. The reason for this
change can be seen in his studies of various
famous books by the reputed Yemenite
scholar and q a d i Muhammad b. cA l i a s h –
Shaukani (d. 1834), who gained fame mainly
for his legal theories of rejecting the t a q l i d,
i.e. the strict adherence to one school of law.
Shaukani insisted on the i j t i h a d, i.e. to find
the proof (d a l i l, pl. a d i l l a) of a legal opinion
in the Qur’an and s u n n a. Shaukani applied
the method of i j t i h a d in his own f a t a w a, collected
in his voluminous Nail al-autar.
Shaukani’s works, all of them containing
heavy criticism on t a q l i d, spread all over
India starting from the late 1850s. The
Yemenite brothers in Bhopal as well as Siddiq
Hasan were responsible for this ‘Shaukani
boom’. Siddiq Hasan, formerly influenced
by the teachings of Shah Waliullah (d.
1762) and Sayyid Ahmad Barelwi, shifted to
the Yemenite tradition of Shaukani and Husain
b. Muhsin. Husain wrote several i j a z a t
(teaching permissions) to him, which allowed
him to teach several works of this
Yemenite tradition (e.g. by the Ahdal family,
the Mizjajis, and mainly Shaukani).
At this time, around 1857, Siddiq Hasan
was a young scholar with limited influence.
He even lost his job as a secretary to the
Prime Minister and had to leave Bhopal.
Later on, in 1859, he was allowed to return
to Bhopal and was appointed Head of the
Bhopal State Archives by Sikander Begum.
His career gained further impetus when he
married the widowed daughter of the Prime
Minister Jamal ud-Din Khan. From that time
onwards, Siddiq Hasan was one of the most
influential scholars in Bhopal. His career
reached its climax when the widowed ruler
Shah Jahan Begum made him her Nawwabconsort
in 1871. Siddiq Hasan started extensive
propagation of the theories of Shaukani,
Ibn Taimiya, and to a lesser extent the
opinions of Sayyid Ahmad Barelwi. This mixture
of Indian and Yemenite religious reformist
teachings became fundamental to
the Ahl-e Hadith movement, of which Siddiq
Hasan was one of the most active members.
He wrote almost 300 works in Arabic,
Persian, and Urdu dealing with the elimination
of unlawful innovations (b i dca), the upcoming
approach of the Day of Judgement
(yaum al-qiyama) and the need for reform of
the Indian society according to the model of
the early Islamic community in Medina. It
was mainly the insistence on i j t i h a d t h a t
caused conflicts among all Indian Muslim
groups of that time, e.g. the Deobandis and
the movement of Ahmad Riza Khan Barelwi
(d. 1921), who were all strict followers of the
Siddiq Hasan’s enemies in Bhopal’s as well
as in other Muslim circles chose the easy
way to get rid of him: they denounced him
as a ‘Wahhabi’, which was synonymous with
‘anti-British’, ‘fanatic’, and ‘puritan’. At first,
the British did not believe these rumours,
mainly because the Begums proved to be
loyal supporters of the British in several critical
situations. Later, the British began to examine
Siddiq Hasan’s books critically and
discovered some writings in which the theory
of jihad was explained at length. When
the British further detected that 17 ‘Wahhabi’
scholars from Najd had come to study
in Bhopal, they began to think of an international
network of anti-British agitators,
reaching from Bhopal to Egypt, Istanbul,
and the Mahdist Sudan. The British Resident
Lepel Griffin immediately reacted and deposed
Siddiq Hasan. Other prominent leaders
of the Ahl-e Hadith like Husain b. Muhsin
and Muhammad Bashir Sahsawani (d. 1908)
further propagated the objectives of the
movement. This points to the fact that some
people at the court of Bhopal only wanted
to eradicate Siddiq Hasan’s dominant influence
on the Begum. Nationalist circles, however,
had labelled their hero as ‘a victim of
the British imperialism’. At first, the British
were proud to have caught ‘one of the leading
figures of the Indian Wahhabis’. Later
they had to admit that they had overreacted
to intrigues and rumours circulating at the
Every group mentioned above neglected
completely that Siddiq Hasan in his works
had always denied Muhammad b. cA b d a l –
Wahhab’s influence on the Indian reformists.
Rather, he had accused the Najdi of
religious fanaticism and bloodshed among
fellow Muslims. Siddiq Hasan himself was
far away from being an anti-British agitator:
he did not support the Mahdist revolt in
Sudan and did not even justify Islamic jihad
against the British in India. He opted for a
close cooperation of Muslim rulers and the
British authorities within the framework of
Islamic s h a r ica.
All in all, Siddiq Hasan was a reformer who
gained most of his religious knowledge
from his Yemenite teachers. His link to
Yemenite scholarship even overshadowed
his connection to Indian reformist circles
into which he was born. The combination of
the analysis of Siddiq Hasan’s oeuvre and
that of his social network is the objective of
the further research concerning this subject.
N o t e s
1 . Claudia Preckel, The Begums of Bhopal (New Delhi,
2000); Shaharyar Muhammad Khan, The Begums of
B h o p a l (London, 2000).
2 . Thomas Eich, ‘Quest for a Phantom: Investigating
Abu l-Huda al-Sayyadi’, I S I MN e w s l e t t e r 7 (2001):
2 4 .
Claudia Preckel, M.A., is currently working on her
Ph.D. dissertation on Siddiq Hasan Khan and the
emergence of the Ahl-e Hadith in Bhopal. She is
member of the Junior Research Group ‘Islamic
Networks in Local and Transnational Contexts,
1 8t h– 2 0t hCenturies’ at the Ruhr-University Bochum,
G e r m a n y .
Hujaj-ul-Kiramah was a book written by the one of the founders of the “Ahl-e-Hadith” sect of Muslims in northern India. Nawab Siddiq Hassan Khan was married to the Queen of Bhopal, who gave lots of money to MGA for the creation of the Braheen e Ahmadiyya Series. In roughly 1884, Nawab Siddiq Hassan Khan tore up MGA’s Braheen e Ahmadiyya book and sent it to Qadian in that state, Nawab Siddiq Hassan Khan was dead by 1890. Later in 1907, MGA claimed that he died abruptly as a result of disrespecting MGA’s book (See Haqiqatul Wahy). He seems to have written Hujaj ul Kiramah in late 1883 or early 1884, see ROR May-1908.
This book is also called, “Hujjaj Al-Karamah fi Athar Al-Qiyamah”, “A treatise on the approaching of the Day of Judgment and its signs according to Islamic sources”.
Continue reading “What is “Hujaj-ul-Kiramah” by Nawab Siddiq Hassan Khan of Bhopal?”
Maulvi Noorudin seems to have went for Hajj in the late 1960’s, while it was under Wahabi rule (See page 30, Maulvi Nurudin by Zafrullah Khan)(and “Nur ud Din”, page 25). The very famous Rahmatullah Kairanawi was living there and personally taught Noorudin. Our research on Rahmatullah Kairanawi is still incomplete. He seems to have been exiled from India to Wahabi controlled Arabia after the famous mutiny of 1857. This seems to be the beginning of Noorudin connections with the Ahl-e-Hadith aka Wahabi-type of Muslims. Even Sir Syed Ahmad Khan became Ahl-e-Hadith. Noorudin was a solid member, and had many students. This is probably how he met MGA. You can read about Noorudin’s affiliation to the Ahl-e-Hadith herein. He also had a connection with the Deobandi’s. In fact, he was also taught by Shah Abdul Ghani Mujaddadi, who was the teacher of the famous Nanautvi and many others (See the Deobandi school).
In Part-2 of Izala Auham (and BA5), MGA and his team of writers argued that the Messiah would appear in the 14th century per the Quran and hadith. However, the defenders of Ahmadiyya (ahmadi answers) seem to have totally avoided this quote in their response. The reality is that they mis-quote Nawab Siddiq Hasan Khan and thus, their line of argument is totally fabricated from all angles. It needs deeper research however. Siddiq Hasan Khan and his son, Nuru Hasan, wrote the two books, respectively — Hujajul Kirama and Iqtiraab saa’ah. The quotes are taken out of context, and the authors themselves take the mention of 100, 200, 300 out of context and gratuitously add 1000 to them. It is well known that Dajjal and advent of Esa (as) was expected in early days (first 3 centuries) and then the interest died off until Suyuti, and then these two authors. These latter day authors added 1000 to the original Ahadith. Nurul Hasan ends his book saying that even if Mahdi does not appear, it does not change fundamental beliefs of Muslims, and that God decides when to raise him, and it may be that people become dejected and then God decides to raise him. This quote is also referenced in another article on Al-Islam web site. So, there is no Hadith or Quran verse that denotes a date and Nurul Hasan specifically says that no date was specified. In Izala Auham, MGA quoted 23:18 (23:19 in the Ahmadi Quran), the second half of it. “””and surely it is We Who determine its taking away””, MGA claimed that this verse equals 1274. In some type of weird mathematical method. Ahmadi scholars have connected 23:18 (23:19 in the Ahmadi Quran) to the return of Muhammad in the 14th century as the messiah. He goes on to quote 61:9, and claims that this verse related to himself, the Messiah, son of Mary, of the time.
It should be noted that in the very first edition of Arba’in, MGA and his team of writers wrote that “anbiya” had said that the Messiah would come in the 14th century, however, in the 2nd edition (1920), they wrote a footnote wherein it was stated that this was a clerical error and the word should have been “auliya”. Manzur Ahmad Chinioti explains this situation in this video. Watch my tik tok on this also. See our book review on Arba’in for details. Zia Rasul from the Aaqa Ka Ghulam youtube channel explains the entire story herein, see at the 3:30 mark).
Continue reading “Why did MGA claim that per the Quran, the Messiah would arrive in the 14th century?”
The British government invented Wahabism in Arabia and got those people to do Jihad vs. the Ottoman empire. In North-India, the British also supported the Ahl-e-Hadith sect of Muslims, who held exactly the same beliefs as the Wahabi’s of Arabia. The Wahabi’s disagreed with the 4 schools of thought in Islam, the Ottoman’s and the Mughal Empire used the Hanafi fiqh. Nevertheless, firstly Sir Syed Ahmad Khan began leaning towards Wahabism, then, in Sialkot, when MGA was there (1864-1868), the ahl-e-hadith aka Wahabi’s were growing. Nevertheless, in the below, we have given a timeline of connections to the Wahabi doctrines.
Continue reading “Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and his connection to the Wahabi’s of Saudi Arabia”
Syed Nazeer Hussain of Delhi (1805–1902), his name has many variations, it could also be Maulawi Nadhir Husain or Maulvi Nazeer Hussain of Delhi or Miyan Nadhir Husain Dehlvi and Maulavi Sayyed Nadhir Husain Dehlvi. was a leading scholar of the reformist Ahl-i Hadith movement and one of its major proponents in India. Earning the appellation shaykh al-kull (teacher of all, or the shaykh of all knowledge) for his authority among early Ahl-i Hadith scholars, he is regarded, alongside Siddiq Hasan Khan (1832–1890), as the founder of the movement and has been described as “perhaps the single most influential figure in the spread of the Ahl-i-Ḥadīth”. Among Syed Nazeer Husain’s students were Imdadullah Muhajir ,Makki, Muhammad Qasim Nanotvi and Rashid Ahmad Gangohi, the founding figures of the Deobandi movement. Although Mirza Ghulam Ahmad never studied under him. Prior to pledging his allegiance to Ghulam Ahmad and becoming his foremost disciple, Hakim Nur-ud-Din had also studied under Husain. Other students of Husain included the Afghan-Indian scholar Abdullah Ghaznavi; the two major Ahl-i Hadith proponents Muhammad Husain Batalvi and Sana’ullah Amritsari, both vociferous opponents of the early Ahmadiyya movement; and the Indian hadith scholar Shams-ul-Haq Azimabadi.The modernist founder of the Aligarh Movement and Muslim University Syed Ahmad Khan, also studied under Husain in the 1850s.
Syed Nazeer Husain’s Fatwas were collected posthumously by some of his students into two large volumes called fatawa Naziriyya. Other written works by him include the following:
- Mi’yar al-haq (Criterion for Truth; Urdu)
- Waqi’at al-fatwa wa dafi’at al-balawi (Event of the Fatwa and Defence Against the Affliction; Urdu)
- Thabut al-haq al-haqeeq (Proof of the Veritable Truth; Urdu)
- Risalah fi tahli al-nisa bi al-dhahab (Treatise on the Adornment of Women with Gold; Urdu)
- Al-masa’il al-arba’a (The Four Issues; Urdu)
- Falah al-wali ba ‘itiba’ al-nabi (Felicity for the Saint in Following the Prophet; Persian)
— Risalah fi ibtal ‘amal al-mawlid (Treatise on the Erroneousness of the Practice of Mawlid; Arabic)
Nazeer Husain advocated political quietism and was among a large number of Muslim ulema, from both the Sunni and Shia sects, who supported British rule and rejected calls for armed jihad against it. He was also among a number of Muslim scholars, including the muftis of Mecca, who declared British India to be dar al-Islam (abode of peace) and not Dar al-harb (abode of war). During the Indian Rebellion of 1857, he resisted pressure from the mutineers to call for a jihad and instead declared in favour of British rule, viewing the Muslim-British relationship as a legal contract which could not be broken unless their religious rights were breached. Despite having denied any involvement in the rebellion in its aftermath and having strongly opposed the declaration of jihad as sinful and a faithless breach of covenant, Husain was widely believed to have been among a group of Delhi ulema pressured into signing a jihad fatwa.
Because he was seen by the British as the only scholar of the Ahl-i Hadith who could allay the conflict between the movement and followers of the prevailing Hanafi school of thought, which often resulted in civil disturbances that the Government sought to prevent, and because he also knew English which was very rare among Indian Muslim scholars at the time, Husain’s turbulent relations with the British at Delhi had improved. He was granted a letter of recommendation by the government to the British Vice Consul in Jedda when he travelled there in 1883 to perform the Hajj pilgrimage. However, he was already denounced as a Wahhabi by Indian Hanafis to the Ottoman governor of Jedda who had him arrested and imprisoned before he could present the letter. He was later released with the intervention of the British Vice Consul.
He was arrested in 1868 by the British on suspicion of being the leader of the Wahhabi insurgents in Delhi and detained for six months but was eventually released without charge after it had emerged that he had not supported the rebels. Husain consistently denied any links with the Wahhabis as well as any role in the Delhi uprising in 1857.
Within a couple of years of his release from prison in 1868, Hussain, together with Siddiq Hasan Khan of Bhopal and Muhammad Husain Batalvi (c.1840–1920), two influential fellow alumni of the Madrasah-i Rahimiyah, formally founded the politico-religious organisation known as the Jamaat Ahl-i Hadith, the Party of the People of the Hadith.
He read out MGA’s nikkah (marriage ceremony) with a Nusrat Jehan, who’s family was also Ahl-e-Hadith. MGA gave him Rs. 5 and a prayer mat (See Dard).
Siddiq Hassan Khan and other top Maulvi’s call MGA a Kafir and tear up the Braheen e Ahmadiyya and sent it to Qadian as such.
MGA challenges Syed Nazeer Hussain of Delhi to a Mubahila in Amritsar, he also challenges Batalvi, Maulawi Abdul Jabbar and Maulawi Abdul Haq (see Dard).
_____________________________________________________________________________________________1891, September 29th
MGA reached Delhi on September 29th, 1891, and stayed at Kothi Nawab Loharu, Ballimara.
MGA and his team publish a leaflet inviting Maulawi Muhammad Nadhir Husain or Maulawi Abu Muhammad Abdul Haq to a written debate. Maulawi Muhammad Nadhir Husain was roughly 88 years old. Maulawi Abu Muhammad Abdul Haq refused to have a written debate per Ahmadi sources (See Dard).
On October 6th, 1891, repeating his invitation to a debate as he published another announcement the Akhbar Khair Khah Hind Press, Delhi (see Dard). Maulawi Muhammad Nadhir Husain announced that a debate would be held with MGA on a certain date. MGA was invited to the place at the time of the meeting when his house was surrounded by hundreds of angry people who were hurling abuse upon MGA from the street. Thus, MGA didn’t show up to the debate.
Maulawi Muhammad Nadhir Husain seems to have published an announcement which said that his pupils, Abdul Majid and Muhammad Husain, would reply on his behalf and that MGA should address his pupils in the future (see Dard).
Simulataneously, MGA agrees to debate Maulvi Muhammad Bashir Bhopali (a disciple of Nadhir Husain). The debate is scheduled to be held at MGA’s house in Delhi on 10-23-1891.
MGA challenged Nadhir Husain to a decisive debate. MGA suggested October 18th, 19th or 20th for the debate and offered a reward of Rs. 25 for each Quranic verse or authentic tradition quoted by his opponents which showed that Jesus (as) was still alive in the flesh in the heavens (see Dard). MGA said that at the end of this debate, he (MGA) would pray for a decisive judgment, and he believed that the wrath of God would overtake Nadhir Husain within one year on account of his transgression in misleading the people (see Tadhkirah, and The Announcement of October 17, 1891, Majmu‘ah Ishtiharat, vol. 1, p. 249). Per Ahmadiyya sources, Nadhir Husain agreed to the debate to be held on October 20th in the Juma‘ Masjid, Delhi (See Dard).
Per Ahmadiyya sources, more than 5,000 people gathered on that day in the Mosque. The
European Superintendent of the city police was himself present there with an Inspector and a police force adequate for the occasion. There was great agitation in the city. Feelings ran high and there was great tension. The 12 disciples of MGA gathered round him. Ch. Sher Muhammad, uncle to Maulawi Sher Ali, was left at the house with another friend. The 12 disciples of MGA accompanied him to the cathedral Mosque in horsedriven carriages, and there the party walked through the angry crowd straight to the mihrab and took their
seats. A little later Nadhir Husain also arrived with Muhammad Husain Batalvi and Abdul Majid.
They were seated in the adjoining veranda. It was the time of ‘Asr, all Muslims in the mosque prayed together. MGA and his disciples had did not join the prayers. Nadhir Husain declared that MGA was a Kafir, thus, a debate with him was invalid, MGA was a Kafir since he claimed prophethood and denied miracles. MGA and his team immediately denied their claim to prophethood and claimed that they believed in miracles (both lies). MGA even claimed that he believed in the Miraaj, however, he had just recently denied it in Izala Auham. MGA even had a British official make the announcement a second time. There was an uproar. The British official ordered all Muslims to leave the mosque. MGA and his group of 12 Ahmadi’s were the only ones allowed to stay. MGA and his disciples exited the mosque via the north gate, however, the carriage and driver that they had rented was gone. The superintendant of the local police also showed up. A mob scene erupted. MGA’s disciples found another carriage for hire, they escaped via British escort, Maulvi Abdul Karim traveled with MGA in the carriage and a few others, all the others walked, they were Sayyid Amir Ali Shah, Ghulam Qadir Fasih,
Muhammad Khan of Kapurthala, Hakim Fadl Din of Bhera, Pir Sirajul Haq, and six others (see Dard).
_____________________________________________________________________________________________10-21-1891 and 10-22-1891
MGA wrote three letters to Maulawi Muhammad Bashir on October 21st, 22nd and 23rd
and the following points were further laid down: The debate should begin after the Friday prayers in MGA’s house. (2) Maulawi Muhammad Bashir would write the first paper. (3) Maulawi Muhammad Bashir would bring only 10 men with him. (4) Maulawi Muhammad Husain Batalvi and Maulawi Abdul Majid would not be allowed to take part. (5) Not more than five papers would be exchanged. It should be noted that it was not agreed that the papers would be written in the meeting (See Dard).
On October 23rd, 1891, MGA had another announcement published wherein he desperately tried to explain himself for what happened at the Jama Masjid, Delhi and the lack of a proper debate, which was printed at the Iftikhar Press, Delhi. A detailed report of everything that happened was published in a supplement to the Punjab Gazette, dated November 14th (see Dard). On the same day, MGA had another debate with Maulvi Muhammad Bashir Bhopali, who was another disciple of Nadhir Husain on a Friday (see Dard).
MGA abruptly leaves the debate. MGA breaks his own contract, which is a serious crime per the Quran. Only 3 arguments had been put forward by Maulvi Muhammad Bashir Bhopali and no response had been given by MGA and his team. MGA flees to Patiala wherein his father-in-law was ill, however, Mir Nasir Nawab hadn’t accepted Ahmadiyya yet. Patiala was 157 miles to the west, about halfway home towards Qadian (see Dard).
On roughly this day, MGA arrives with his team in Patiala at the house of Sh. Fadl Karim (see Dard). Per Ahmadiyya sources, a local imam, Muhammad Ishaq, came to see MGA and had a talk with him on the subject of the death of Jesus.The imam destroyed MGA and spread the news in the town with the comment that MGA had been defeated. In defense, MGA issue a leaflet on October 31st in which he asked the imam to have a debate with him. He waited there till November 2nd, but the mullah did not come forward. Then MGA returned to Qadian.
MGA returns to Qadian safe and sound.
The first annual Jalsa in Ahmadiyya history is held at Qadian, MGA and his team had already pre-written out “Nishan Asmani” which is read out to the less than 100 Ahmadi’s who are present. In this book, MGA talks about Batalvi and Nazeer Hussain. MGA calls him Miyan Nadhir Husain (See Asmani Faisalah, page-1, online english edition). MGA mentions Miyan Nadhir Husain 22 times, he mentions, and Muhammad Husain Batalawi 29 times. Per Ahmadiyya sources, the book itself was published in the early part of 1892, by May at the latest (see Hidden Treasures).
MGA and his team publish “Nishan Asmani”, Mian Nadhir Hussain is mentioned 9 times.
MGA mentions Nadhir Hussain in his book “The Truth Revealed”, “Sachai Ka Izhar”.
MGA claims that he has Nadhir Hussain sign a edict of Kufr vs. his own disciple, Syed Muhammad Hussain Batalvi.
MGA publishes “”Dafi‘ul-Bala’ Wa Mi‘yaro Ahlil-Istifa”””, English Version, “””Defence Against the Plague and a Criterion for the Elect of God”””, wherein he mentions his debate with Nadhir in 1891 as well as the fact that Nadhir was the first cleric to sign his stamp of approval of MGA’s apostacy.
‘Tofha Golarviyyah is published. MGA mentions Nadhir Hussain.
Syed Nazeer Husain died on 13 October 1902 in Delhi. MGA is happy about this and in classic fashion backdates a fake revelation. As can be seen, this wasn’t published until 2 weeks after Nadhir Hussain died, however, 20 years later Mufti Muhammad Sadiq claims that MGA got the revelation on August 15th, 1902 (See Zikr-e-Habib), Mirza Bashir Ahmad also commented that the words of this ilham also point to the year* of his death (See Tadhkirah). The reference is to the al-Hakam, vol. 6, no. 39, October 31, 1902, p. 7–10:
[Arabic] The leading ones will be driven to their graves.
[Arabic] One who was in error has died a rebel.
In Haqiqatul Wahy, Nadhir Hussain is mentioned 11 times. MGA claims that he published a sign in the early versions of the Braheen e Ahmadiyya wherein Maulawi Nadhir Husain of Delhi would issue a verdict proclaiming me (MGA) a disbeliever, however, on closer research, the sign doesn’t seem to exist. In fact, the word Nadhir doesn’t exist in the first 4 volumes of the Braheen.
Braheen e Ahmadiyya volume 5 is published, Nadhir Hussain is mentioned once.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________Links and Related Essays
#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog #messiahhascome
Maulvi Muhammad Ahsan Amrohi was initially working as a Mullah in the state of Bhopal, he worked exclusively for Nawab Siddiq Hasan Khan, who was the husband of the Queen of Bhopal, it seems that MGA sent him his Braheen-e-Ahmadiyya in 1880 or 1882, I am not sure which volume, however, Nawab Siddiq Hasan Khan tore up the book and sent it back to MGA in that condition. This could have been 1885 also. In 1890, Nawab Siddique Hassan Khan of Bhopal died and it seems that Syed Maulvi Muhammad Ahsan Amrohi was jobless. In 1891, he helped MGA with secret information about the debate with Maulvi Muhammad Bashir Bhopali. After Noorudin died (1914), he left Ahmadiyya and it is unclear what religion he joined, however, it seems like he became a Lahori-Ahmadi. Muhammad Ismail Ghulam Kibria, Ahmad Hasan and Sayyid Muhammad Ya‘qub were his sons, Nawab Muhammad Ali KhAshab-e-Sidq-o-SafaAshab-e-Sidq-o-Safauneration for Molvi Muhammad Ahsan. In a letter to Nawab, MGAQ writes “whatever remuneration (payment) you have fixed for Molvi Ahsan, plz send a sum of 20 Annas to him to Qadian and remaining amount may be sent to his son Syed Muhammad Ismail to Shah Ali Sarai Amroha. As per Ashab-e-Sidq-o-Safa, which was written by Nasrullah Khan Nasir and Asim Jamali, published by Ziaul Islam Press Rabwah in 2007 and 2011. Ahsan Amrohi died in 1926.
He was a member of the Majlis-i-Ulema of Nawab Siddique Hassan Khan of Bhopal State in India.
Syed Maulvi Muhammad Ahsan of Amroha was still living in Bhopal. He wrote letters to MGA and helped MGA with his debate with Maulvi Muhammad Bashir Bhopali.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________1891, December 27-29
Amrohi was at the first Jalsa Salana in 1891, he was seated on the stage, right next to MGA
See page 417—
Maulvi Muhammad Ahsan Amrohi lived exclusively in MGA’s house (1892)
Just like all the people in the inner circle of MGA, he lived exclusively with MGA and led prayers in the Masjid Mubarak, Maulvi Abdul Kareem and Noorudin also led the prayers in this tiny mosque which was the personal office of MGA(see page 430). MGA barely went into his own house and never taught his children anything about Islam. It is unclear whether or not Maulvi Muhammad Ahsan Amrohi’s children or wife also lived with him in Qadian, however, it seems unlikely.
In 1892, Maulvi Muhammad Ahsan Amrohi became a paid Mullah of MGA and took the lead in several debates
Ahmadiyya sources tell us Amrohi was the first paid mullah of Ahmadiyya (See Dard), starting in late 1892, he then began touring the countryside and helping MGA with debates. He also began editing MGA’s ilhams and other articles and books.
He disagrees with MGA’s claim of prophethood.
He defends MGA’s announcement of prophethood (Eik Ghalti Ka Izala), however, he only defends the part about MGA not being an independent prophet.
Al-Hakam of 24 May 1902, Maulana replied in these words:
“Mujaddad, Muhaddath, and Nabi, all these words (pertaining to the Promised Messiah) are
synonymous, therefore elucidation in any of the two ways is correct and both these elucidations are found in the Book and the Sunnah-e-Sahiha. This clearly means that the Promised Messiah, according to the terminology of the Shari‘ah, is a Muhaddath and only in the dictionary meaning can he be called a Nabi.
Al-Hakam of 21 October and 10 November 1903:
“In the hadith, ‘Lam yabqa min an nabuwat-e-illal mubashsharat’ (Nothing is left of
prophethood except mubashsharat [good tidings]). Exception is continual or uninterrupted and al in al-mubashsharat is beneficial for distinction. Thus, in brief, the meanings of the hadith are that nabuwat has two parts: one pertains to commandments, whether those about fariaz o wajbat (duties and obligations), or about halal and haram (permitted and unpermitted), and the other part, which are mubashsharat (good tidings), under which all mubashsharat (good tidings), whether those pertaining to anzarak (warnings) or bashsharat (good news) are included. From these two parts, the part or type which relates to mubashsharat continues till the Day of Judgement. Evidently, when out of the two parts of nabuwat (prophethood) one part is continuous, therefore nabuwat-e-juzvi (partial prophethood) continues. Yes, nabuwat-e-kulli (complete prophethood) has been terminated.” (See the Hope Bulletin, a Lahori-Ahmadi newspaper, retrieved on 12-26-2019).
Ahmadiyya leadership published books by Maulana Sayyid Muhammad Ahsan of Amroha on 30th May 1907–See Al-Badr.
Zikre Habib page No. 158-159. By Mufti Sadiq Qadiani
May 26th, 1908, Nooruddin nominates Amrohi as a possible choice for Khalifa
As we all know, Amrohi was highly praised in Ahmadiyya, this is another example, further, by 1909, almost all of MGA’s closest team of writers were forced to move out of MGA’ house, it is unclear if Amrohi also had to move out, however, by 1915, he was living in his ancestoral town of Amroha.
He comments on Mahmud Ahmad’s famous essay on Takfir from April (See “Truth about the Split”). “In my opinion, in the discussion on the subjects of Kufr and kafir, you have fully discharged your duty of conveying the message. Henceforth, there is no more need for you to devote your attention to this subject. As the Holy Quran says, ‘They can never do you any harm so long as you are yourself rightly guided’.”
He writes: “”Prophethood among the Followers of Muhammad”” by Maulana Sayyid Muhammad Ahsan of Amroha, Oct-1913, in Tashhizul Azhan.
When Nooruddin died (1914), Amrohi was the first to nominate Mirza Basheer-uddin Mahmud Ahmad for the Khilafat
However, just 2 years (1916) later he seems to have been bought out by the Lahori-Ahmadis, he switched sides even after reviewing Mirza Basheer-uddin’s books of 1915, which forcefully promoted the prophethood of MGA. Mirza Basheer-uddin Mahmud Ahmad covered this topic extensively here (see page 195) and many others…
1914, April to December
He seems to go missing.
His son, Sayyid Muhammad Ya‘qub, reads “Qaul Al_Fasl” to his father (see Truth About the Split) and he approves of the prophethood of MGA.
Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmad sent a deputation of ‘ulamas to Maulana Amrohi. Maulana Abdul Rahman Misri was one of the members of this deputation. He wrote that one day in a one-on-one discussion with Maulana Amrohi, he asked him when he paid attention to the
beliefs of the Lahore Jama‘at. Maulana in reply mentioned the letter of Qazi Akmal which diverted his attention to research the beliefs of both sections, and that when he found out that Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmad was not willingly prepared to make amends in his beliefs which ran contrary to the MGA’s then he published a declaration of the renunciation of the bai’at which he had taken at the hands of Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmad, and thus he joined the fold of the Ahmadiyya Anjuman Ishaat-e-Islam, Lahore. Thereafter he also announced the dismissal of Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmad from the Khilafat (See the Hope Bulletin, a Lahori-Ahmadi newspaper, retrieved on 12-26-2019).
1915, roughly December
He wrote “Mubahsa-e-Rampur”, Qazi Akmal (one of the Khalifa’s secretaries, he was also the editor of Tashizazul Adhan)wrote a letter to him saying that Maulana, in his book, had supported the views of Maulana Muhammad Ali. It came as a big surprise to him as what he had written in the book was a presentation of the beliefs of the Promised Messiah.
The grandfather of the Khalifa, Mir Nasir Nawab goes around British-India and defames Syed Muhammad Ahsan Amrohi. Insiders tell the world that these two had a business deal in place, Amrohi would help Mirza Basheer ud Din Mahmud Ahmad become Khalifa, and Mir Nasir Nawab would forgive his debt. It seems that Mir Nasir Nawab had let the Amrohi borrow lots of money in terms of a wedding, the Amrohi did not have the means to pay back the loan, he thought he could pay it back via getting the Khilafat for Mahmud Ahmad, he was wrong.
He seems to have written a letter wherein he denounced the Khilafat of Mirza Basheer ud Din Mahmud Ahmad. We are unsure where it was published, however it as published as an introduction to a book by Muhammad Ali entitled, “Two Sections of the Ahmadiyya Movement” which seems to have been published in 1966. See here–http://www.aaiil.org/text/books/mali/twosectionsahmadiyyamovement/twosectionsahmadiyyamovement.pdf
He wrote two books, “Khatam-an-Nabiyin” and “Ismohoo Ahmad”, in which he explained that the beliefs of the Promised Messiah were not contradictory to the belief of Khatam-an-Nabiyeen in any way and the prophesy of Ismohoo Ahmad in the Qur’an pertains to the Holy Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. He also wrote “Al-Qaul-Al-Mummajjid”.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________He died in 1926
As per Ashab-e-Sidq-o-Safa, he died in 1926. He was 80+.
His books remain in Urdu and unexplored:
- Al-Fawaid Al-Aaidah
- Al-Furqan fi Jawab Al-Burhan
- Al-Mu’iza-tul Hasanah bil-Kitab wa Al-Sunnah (No. 1)
- Al-Qaul ul-Mumummujid fee Tufseer Ismo-hoo-Ahmad
- Al-Siraj-ul-Wahaj fee Bayan-ul-Miraj
- Fak al-Shak
- Mobaahisa Satta Zarooree ba Taqreeb Rampuri
- Sawa’ al-Sabil
- Sirr-ush-Shahadatain fee Bayaan Zibah-ush-Shaatain
- Zaruri I’lan
Links and Related Essays
#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyatrueislam #ahmadiapartheid #Ahmadiyyat #rabwah #qadian #meetthekhalifa #muslimsforpeace #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog #nolifewithoutkhalifa #AhmadiMosqueattack #AhmadiyyaPersecution #trueislam
Ahmadiyya leadership has the terrible habit of covering up the misgivings of MGA. They try to present MGA as someone who was loved by all Muslims in India until 1891, however, that is not true at all, Muslims in India were fed up by MGA by 1885. In fact, it was only Muhammad Hussain Batalvi who continued to support MGA. In this specific case, I will present some evidence which shows that Sultan Shah Jahan, Begum of Bhopal, who’s picture is given in the above, was the major contributor in terms of the publishing of the first 4 volumes of the Braheen-e-Ahmadiyya. She seems to have never directly commented on MGA, however, her husband thought that the Braheen-e-Ahmadiyya was offensive and worthless, and thus tore it up and sent to back to Qadian in that condition, which enraged MGA.
Continue reading “The Queen of the Princely state of Bhopal invested heavily (1878) into Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and his Braheen–they were disappointed by the product”