Search results

"jesus in india"

Edgar J. Goodspeed also refuted Jesus in India

We continue to add data in terms of Jesus in India, read our other essays here:

Who is Edgar J. Goodspeed?

A summary of the refutation

Notovitch’s The Life of Saint Issa refused to die; it was republished in New York in 1926. This motivated Edgar J. Goodspeed, Professor at the University of Chicago, to publish a Christian response. He commented that “it is worthwhile to call attention to [The Life of Saint Issa] because its republication in New York in 1926 was hailed by the press as a new and important discovery,”[19] even though first published over thirty years earlier (1894).
Three of Goodspeed’s arguments are noteworthy.

(1) Goodspeed suggests a literary dependency of The Life of Saint Issa on Matthew, Luke, Acts, and Romans. This would not be odd except that The Life of Saint Issa was allegedly written three or four years after the death of Christ, whereas Matthew, Luke, Acts, and Romans were written two or three decades later. An example of this dependency relates to how The Life of Saint Issa attempts to fill in the silent years of Jesus between the ages of twelve and thirty: “these two ages are taken for granted by the author of this work, who unconsciously bases his scheme upon them. We know them from the Gospel of Luke alone, and the question arises: ‘Has the author of Issa obtained them from the same source?'”[20]

(2) Notovitch describes Luke as saying that Jesus “was in the desert until the day of his showing unto Israel.” This, Notovitch says, “conclusively proves that no one knew where the young man had gone, to so suddenly reappear sixteen years later.” But, says Goodspeed, “it is not of Jesus but of John that Luke says this (1:80), so that it will hardly yield the conclusive proof Notovitch seeks. At this point in Luke’s narrative, in fact, Jesus has not yet appeared.”[21]

(3) Goodspeed comments that The Life of Saint Issa does not purport to have been deciphered and translated by a competent scholar: “The lama read, the interpreter translated, Notovitch took notes. He could evidently not control either the lama or the interpreter, to make sure of what the Tibetan manuscripts contained.”[22]

Throughout the twentieth century, many individuals have responded positively to the work of Notovitch, including Janet and Richard Bock (makers of the film, “The Lost Years of Jesus“), Swami Abhedananda, Sai Baba, Paramahansa Yogananda of the Self-Realization Fellowship, and Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh.

Evidence abounds that the Issa legend is alive and well today.
Max Muller, J. Archibald Douglas, and Edgar J. Goodspeed have all presented solid refutations of the legend. These should challenge any serious Issa advocate to reevaluate his or her position. I shall offer further arguments later. But first, it is necessary to examine additional features in the New Age profile of Jesus.

19 Goodspeed, 14 emphasis added.
20 Ibid., 5.
21 Ibid., 9.
22 Ibid.,

Nicholas Notovitch confessed to fabricating the story of Jesus in India!!!!!!!!!!!!

One of the most silly arguments that Ahmadis make in terms of the tomb of Esa (As) is that Esa (as) somehow lived 90 additional years after the attempted crucifixtion.  Ahmadis use silly arguments that are given to them by their mullahs, and they never double check the content.

MGA and his team used Nicholas Notovitch’s fake research work
As we all know, in roughly 1896, MGA and his team landed on the idea that Esa (As) was buried in India.  A few years later, they connected it with the tomb of Yuz Asaf.  Then they made up false reports and relied on shoddy information to seal their idea that Esa (as) died in Kashmir.  However, research proves to us that Nicholas Notovitch actually lied about all of work on Jesus in India, thus, the foundation of the Ahmadiyya belief that Esa (As) =Yuz Asaf is a total lie.

The quote
page 133

“Faced with this cross-examination, Notovich confessed to fabricating his evidence.”

Source—-Indology, Indomania, and Orientalism by Douglas T. McGetchin (1 January 2010) Fairleigh Dickinson University Press ISBN 083864208X

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad lied in his book Jesus in India


Jesus in India by MGA was published posthumously in 1908 (see page 248) under the leadership of Noorudin, the 1st Khalifa of Ahmadiyya.  Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and his team began writing that Esa (as) = Yuz Asaf as early as 1896, in various newspapers, announcements and books.

Hani Tahir has covered the entire issue here:

Lets start from the beginning, they self-report that the writing of “Jesus in India” didnt start til 1899.  MGA and his team lied specifically as such:

“””Reliable reports in the Hadith show that the Holy Prophet said that Jesus was 125 years of age. Besides, all the sects of Islam believe that Jesus had two unique things about him — things which are not to be found in any other prophet, namely: (1) he lived to a full old age, i.e., to 125 years; (2) he travelled in many parts of the world and was therefore called the ‘travelling prophet’. It is evident that if he had been raised to the skies when he was only 33 years old the report of ‘125 years’ could not have been true, nor could he have travelled so much while he was only thirty-three. Not only are these reports found in the reliable Books of Hadith. They have been so well-known among all the Muslim sects that it is difficult to think of anything which has been more widely known among them.”””(Jesus in India, online edition,, retrieved on 1-15-17, 4th paragraph from the bottom)

1. Kanzul Ummul is a re-collection of hadith reports.  It is not a primary source of information on Islamic tradition.

1.a. Moreover, this hadith is traced to Al-Tabari, i traced it many years ago…its a ridiculous hadith that seems to indicate that prophets live half the amount of years as the previous prophet that they come after..

1.b.  Tabari Vol.6, “Muhammad at Mecca”, pg. 61

“Ibn al-Muthanna—al-Hajjaj—Hammad—‘Amr—Yahya b. Ja’dah: The messenger of God said to Fatimah, “Gabriel has reviewed the Quran with me once a year, but this year he has reviewed it with me twice, and I fancy that my time has come. You are the nearest to me of my kin. Whenever a prophet has been sent , his mission has lasted for a period of half his predecessor’s lifetime. Jesus was sent for a period of forty years, and I was sent for 20.”

For example, Esa (as) must have lived to 120/125, since Muhammad (saw) died at 63-ish. However, this would mean that MGA or the messiah to come would live 30 years, i.e. half of the life of Muhammad (saw)…

Moreover, this hadith would insinuate that Yahya (as), must have lived to 250..since he was before Esa (as)..

Do you see how ridiculous this sounds?? Obviosuly, this hadith was invented in an attempt to explain how Nuh (as) lived to 950 and how other prophets did the same…however, as we all know, ahmadis dont believe in this idea…they believe that Nuh (as) didnt live to 950, or whatever, they say that this age was the the age of his prophethood…which is total rubbish.

2. MGA and his team lied and said that all sects of Islam believe that Esa (As) lived to 125…that is a bold face lie.

3. MGA and his team continue to lie in the next few sentences, he claims that all muslims believe that Esa (as) travelled extensviely….

4. Finally, this book was published posthumously, and although Ahmadi newspapers and MGA began writing that Esa (as)= Yuz Asaf from 1896 onwards and that he lived to 120/125, they didnt write this diatribe, i.e. that all islamic sects believed this. This seems to be a later addition by Noorudin, Muhammad Ali, or Mufti Sadiq.

5.  This hadith explains the remaining life of Esa (as):

Book 37, Number 4310:
Narrated AbuHurayrah:

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: There is no prophet between me and him, that is, Jesus (peace_be_upon_him). He will descent (to the earth). When you see him, recognise him: a man of medium height, reddish fair, wearing two light yellow garments, looking as if drops were falling down from his head though it will not be wet. He will fight the people for the cause of Islam. He will break the cross, kill swine, and abolish jizyah. Allah will perish all religions except Islam. He will destroy the Antichrist and will live on the earth for forty years and then he will die. The Muslims will pray over him.

MGA and his team of writers were trying to fool the illiterate masses of India with their fake-research.  They seem to have succeeded just a little bit, in fact, to this day, most Ahmadis are stuck in Ahmadiyya and aren’t man enough to admit to their mistake.

Lahori-Ahmadis cast doubt on the Jesus in India theory


Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and his team lied about Jesus in India.  Furthermore, they lied about the tomb of Yuz Asaf and falsely called it the tomb of Esa (As).  MGA and his team were fond of plagiarism, they stole Sir Syed’s belief that Esa (as) was dead and the would never return and twisted it to make MGA as Esa (as) bin Maryam in 1890-1891.  MGA and his team them began to look for grave sites, they proposed 3 different grave sites:

1) Al-Khaleeli (Galilee) (Izala-e-Auham, Roohani Khazain vol.3 p.353-354)—–1890-1891
2) Al-Quds (Jerusalem) (Atmam-ul-Hujjat, Roohani Khazain vol.8 p.299)—–1893
3) Tarabulus, Lebanon (Tripoli) (Atmam E Hujat, Page: 18-19, Roohani Khazain vol.8 p.296-297)—1893
“This has to be admitted that Hazrat Eisa is also dead, and interestingly enough the grave of Hazrat Eisa is also in Syria and for further clarity, in the footnote, I include the testimony of My brother, My lover in Allah, Molvi Mohammad Al-Saeedi Trablisi. He is a resident of Tripoli, in the Country of Syria and in his area is the Grave of Hazrat Essa AS (Jesus). If you say that Grave is a fake, then you must provide the proof of this fake, and prove that when this fraud took place. And in this event we will not be sure about the graves of any prophet and trust will be lost, and we will have to say that all those burial places are fake.” (Atmam E Hujat, Page: 18-19, Roohani Khazain vol.8 p.296-297)

MGA and his team read Nicholos Notovitchs book entitled, “The Unknown Life of Jesus” (1894)

After 1894, MGA and his team started slowly announcing that they had found a tomb in Kashmir and were investigating it further, by 1899, they would claim with certainty that it was the tomb of Esa (as).  They basically took the data from Notovitch and spun it.

Notovitch wrote that Jesus was in India between the age of roughly 13–30
Ahmadiyya authors were spin doctors, they took a lie from Notovitch, which was proven a lie by Max Muller.  Nonetheless, Ahmadi authors didn’t care, they were able to fool many desi-people in India of this ridiculous ideology.  See Simon J. Joseph, “Jesus in India?” Journal of the American Academy of Religion Volume 80, Issue 1 pp. 161-199 “Max Müller suggested that either the Hemis monks had deceived Notovitch or that Notovitch himself was the author of these passages”

They eventually landed on the tomb of Yuz Asaf in 1896–1899
Ahmadis lied about their alleged research on the tomb of Yuz Asaf in Kashmir, interestingly enough, Yuz Asaf was most likely a Zorastrian prophet, and there is a muslim buried with him in this tomb, his is Naseer-udddin.

Review of Religions on Yuz Asaf
MGA and his team were trying to write “Jesus in India”, they claim that the writing of it began in 1899, however, this is a blatant lie, the book was eventually silently published after MGA died in 1908, much like Ba-vol-5, it was published without any marketing at all.  The book was incomplete and was re-published many times thereafter.

Shahid Aziz’s recent video on this topic
I have spoken to Shahid Aziz on Fb many times.  He seems to be slow on social media, therefore, I havent been able to have a detailed discussion with him on any topic.  However, in the video attached, he admits that MGA never got any revelations which connected Esa (as) with Yuz Asaf, and thus admits that MGA could be wrong.

Ahmadiyya authors have lied for years and years and years.  They won’t stop, however, the Lahori-Ahmadis seem to be a bit more honest then their Qadiani counterparts, most likely because they dont give MGA propehthood and thus are allowed to call MGA as wrong.

Pappas, Paul Constantine, “Jesus’ tomb in India : the debate on his death and Resurrection” (1991)—he accuses Ahmadiyya of academic dishonesty


Ahmadis never use their own brains.  They follow their mullahs indiscriminately, then they cry that we are conducting ad hominem attacks on them.   This is the Ahmadiyya psyche.  Nonetheless, I wanted to present this work by a “jain”, and who is otherwise neutral in terms of being a Muslims or Christian.  Professor Pappas wrote a book about Ahmadiyya and Ahmadiyya research in terms of Jesus=Yuz Asaf and essentially accused Ahmadiyya leadership of academic dishonesty.

Pappas also says
Pappas states that the analysis of any possible combinations of date assignment to Nazir Ahmad’s theory about the travels of Jesus indicates that none of the scenarios can be consistent with the generally accepted historical dates such as the reign of Gondophares, in part because Nazir Ahmad relied on the dating methods used in the court of Zain-ul-Abidin (1423–1474).[49]       See  Jesus’ Tomb in India: The Debate on His Death and Resurrection by Paul C. Pappas 1991 ISBN 0895819465 ; page 116 presents a detailed analysis and a table of the possible date assignments to Khwaja Nazir Ahmad‘s story and concludes that none of them can be consistent with the general historical records. Page 116 of Pappas states: “.. as indicated previously, the Kalyugi era is rejected by Ahmad in favor of the Laukika (Haptrakesh-waran) era only because Mullah Ahmad, the fifteenth-century historian of the court of Sultan Zain-ul-Abidin, maintained that this era was used in Kashmir until the conversion of Ratanju (Sultan Sadr-ud-Din) to Islam in 1324 A.D.”

Who is Professor Pappas?

Paul Constantine Pappas (born 1934) is an American writer. He is professor of history at West Virginia Institute of Technology.[1]

Jain, Pappas has an interest in the religions of India. In 1991 he wrote a book on the Roza Bal shrine in Srinagar, which, according to the teaching of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (1899), founder of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama’at, is the tomb not of a Buddhist or Muslim holy man, but of Jesus of Nazareth. Pappas notes that the Yuzasaf (or Budasaf) traditions associated with the tomb are interpreted by Ahmadis to read that the Yuzasaf tradition is also about Jesus and not Buddha.[2] Pappas uses as sources Ahmadi authors such as Nazir Ahmad and Aziz Kashmiri, and esoteric writers such as Andreas Faber-Kaiser and Holger Kersten, but not critical academic sources such as Günter GrönboldNorbert Klatt, and Per Beskow. However Pappas concludes the scholarship of the Ahmadi claims is questionable (page 97), that passages from various texts have been collected and presented inaccuraely and out of context in order to prove that Jesus traveled to Kashmir (page 100). Therefore, the thesis rests only on eastern legends which for the most part are not reliable, not only because they were written long after the facts, but also because their stories of “Yuzasaf” are different and in contradiction and therefore it is almost impossible to identify “Yuz Asaf” with Jesus (page 115).


  • United States and the Greek War for Independence 1821-1828, New York: Columbia University Press, 1985
  • Pappas, Paul Constantine. Jesus’ tomb in India : the debate on his death and Resurrection. Berkeley, California: Asian Humanities Press, an imprint of Jain Publishing Company, 1991.


  • “A Portrait of Early American Journalism West of the Alleghenies” 1969[3]


  1. Jump up^ Steven Propp Josu: Prisoner at Shalem: The Story of a Religious Revolutionary 2005 “Paul C. Pappas, a Jain, wrote Jesus’ Tomb In India: The Debate on His Death and Resurrection (1991) which investigates the idea that Jesus ultimately died and was buried as “Jusasef the Prophet,” according to local legends.”
  2. Jump up^ Paul C. Pappas Jesus’ Tomb in India: The Debate on His Death and Resurrection 1991 Page 90 “The Ahmadis also think that the Christian-Greek medieval popular story of Barlaam and Joasaph, the origin of which was Indian and which was thought to be based on the life of Buddha, was an old version of the life of Yuz Asaf or Yuzasaph,”
  3. Jump up^ The Register of the Kentucky Historical Society – Volume 67 – Page 335 Kentucky Historical Society – 1969 -“Mr. Pappas is an assistant professor of history at West Virginia Institute of Technology.”


“The Alleged Sojourn of Christ in India” by Max Muller

MGA and his team lied about Jesus in India.  See here:  Also read here:

We found the essay in the below here:

Who is Max Muller?

Friedrich Max Müller, a German-born Oxford Orientalist. Soon after Notovitch’s book was published, Müller wrote an article titled “The Alleged Sojourn of Christ in India,” which expressed in a gently ribbing manner his reservations about Notovitch’s discovery, stating that it was “unfortunate” the Russian had “lost the photographs” of his expedition. Müller also suggested Notovitch “may have traveled in disguise” as no one seemed to remember him visiting the monastery. He also found it odd that the Sutra of Issa “should not have found a place either in the Kandjur or in the Tandjur [the Tibetan Buddhist canon].”

James Douglas, a history professor at Government College in Agra, India, at the time, read Müller’s article and, intrigued, headed up to Ladakh the following summer to investigate. Doubt crept in early as he trekked up the Sind Valley, which Notovitch had described as teeming with “panthers, tigers, leopards, black bears, wolves and jackals.” The best Douglas could summon on this ancient leg of the Silk Road was a timid bear.

After reaching Leh, the capital of Ladakh, Douglas soon discovered that Notovitch had been treated in the Leh hospital for a toothache, not a broken leg. Nevertheless, he continued on to the monastery, where he interviewed the head lama, who insisted that Notovitch never gained entrance to Hemis, theIssa text didn’t exist and Notovitch’s work contained “nothing but lies!”

Scholars of Buddhism generally agree that Notovitch was a fraud — he went on to publish other sketchy historical tomes and once claimed that a cardinal in Rome told him of hidden Vatican documents backing up his discovery of Jesus in India. (He may or may not have recanted his Issa story; it depends on the source.)

And he goofed on some basics. Donald Lopez, professor of Buddhist studies at the University of Michigan, describes dozens of factual errors in Notovitch’s book. At one point the author refers to The Life of Saint Issa as scrolls and at another as two bound volumes. “Tibetan Buddhists use neither scrolls or bound volumes,” says Lopez, “but xylographs [wood engravings].”

Notovitch’s wild tale didn’t arise simply out of a craving for fame and fortune. Tony Burke, an associate professor of early Christianity at York University in Toronto, points out that “only two noncanonical gospels mention Jesus’ adolescence and early adulthood,” with neither text diving into the “lost years” (ages 12 to 29). That ambiguity gives imaginative types like Notovitch plenty of murky historical leeway when reconfiguring religious traditions, or, as Burke notes, license to “reimagine” Jesus to fit the trends of the epoch they’re living in.

Plus, the Russian may have intended to align the Jesus narrative more closely with his own religious philosophy, Theosophy. This esoteric religion espoused by another Russian aristocrat, Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, places the world’s wisest “masters,” or mahatmas, in Tibet. Blavatsky wanted to “identify a mystical core at the foundation of all religions” via “her mystical communication with the mahatmas,” including the Buddha and Jesus, says Lopez.

The late 19th century was a time of religious appropriation, notes Lopez. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, the charismatic founder of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, “had Jesus [Isa in the Islamic tradition] come to India to die,” says Lopez. In the city of Srinagar, local legend holds that the carpenter’s son is entombed in the Roza Bal shrine.

And there may be a darker undercurrent to Notovitch’s tale. Many Christians of the era disliked the “idea that their religion originated with the Jews,” says Gary Lachman, author of Madame Blavatsky: The Mother of Modern Spirituality. Lopez believes the development of now-discredited race theories forced bigoted Christians to confront the fact that Jesus was a Semite. Placing Christ in Asia was a nifty anti-Semitic loophole, in which Jesus, as a young man, wasn’t “in a synagogue,” says Lopez, “but in a Buddhist monastery in the Himalayas.”

Max Muller’s essay in 1894

Max Muller, “The Alleged Sojourn of Christ in India,” The Nineteenth Century 36 (1894): 515f., cited by Edgar J. Goodspeed, Modern Apocrypha (Boston: Beacon Press, 1956, 10.)

In October 1894, preeminent Orientalist Max Muller of Oxford University (who himself was an advocate of Eastern philosophy and therefore could not be accused of having a Christian bias) published a refutation of Notovitch in The Nineteenth Century, a scholarly review. Four of his arguments are noteworthy:

(1) Muller asserted that an old document like the one Notovitch allegedly found would have been included in the Kandjur and Tandjur (catalogues in which all Tibetan literature is supposed to be listed).

(2) He rejected Notovitch’s account of the origin of the book. He asked how Jewish merchants happened, among the millions of India, to meet the very people who had known Issa as a student, and still more “how those who had known Issa as a simple student in India saw at once that he was the same person who had been put to death under Pontius Pilate.”[8]

(3) Muller cites a woman who had visited the monastery of Himis and made inquiries about Notovitch. According to a letter she wrote (dated June 29, 1894), “there is not a single word of truth in the whole story! There has been no Russian here. There is no life of Christ there at all!”[9]

And (4) Muller questioned the great liberty Notovitch took in editing and arranging the alleged verses. Muller said this is something no reputable scholar would have done.
Notovitch promptly responded to Muller’s arguments in the preface to the London edition of The Life of Saint Issa which was published the following year (1895). But his response did little to satisfy his critics. He said:




(1) The verses which were found would not be in any catalogues because “they are to be found scattered through more than one book without any title.”[10] (But in his first preface he said the Convent of Himis contained “a few copies of the manuscript in question.”[11])

(2) Regarding the unlikeliness of Jewish merchants encountering those who knew Issa as a child in India, Notovitch said “they were not Jewish but Indian merchants who happened to witness the crucifixion prior to returning home from Palestine.”[12] (Even so, it would still be unlikely that — among the millions in India — the merchants would come upon the precise people who knew Issa as a child.)

(3) As for editing and arranging the verses in The Life of Saint Issa, Notovitch said that the same kind of editing was done with the Iliad and no one ever questioned that. (But how does this legitimize Notovitch’s modus operandi?)

(4) As to the refusal by the lama of Himis to affirmatively answer questions about the manuscript (as he apparently did with the lady who wrote Muller), Notovitch says this was because “Orientals are in the habit of looking upon Europeans as robbers who introduce themselves in their midst to despoil them in the name of civilization.”[13] Notovitch succeeded only “because I made use of the Eastern diplomacy which I had learnt in my travels.”[14] (This was a convenient rationalization, for Notovitch could always point to a lack of “Eastern diplomacy” on the part of a European challenger whenever a monk refused to corroborate the Issa legend.)
Assuming (wrongly) that his response to Muller laid criticism of his work to rest, Notovitch suggested that in the future his critics restrict themselves solely to the question: “Did those passages exist in the monastery of Himis, and have I faithfully reproduced their substance?”[15]

8 Max Muller, “The Alleged Sojourn of Christ in India,” The Nineteenth Century 36 (1894): 515f., cited by Edgar J. Goodspeed, Modern Apocrypha (Boston: Beacon Press, 1956, 10.
9 Ibid., 11.
10 Notovitch, cited by Goodspeed, 11.
11 Ibid., 11-12.
12 Notovitch, in Prophet, Lost Years, 30.
13 Ibid., 103.
14 Ibid., 103.
15 Ibid., 108

Why do Ahmadi’s lie about Ibn Kathir and his comment “””If Moses and Jesus were alive, they would have no alternative but to follow me”””

Ahmadi’s have been brainwashed to purposely mi-interpret the Quran, hadith and the classic Tafsir’s.  Hence, they have went through lots of hadith, classical commentary and cherry-picked and refuse to give a context, and refuse to properly reference as refuse to be academically honest.  We have caught them lying and mis-representing the writings of Ibn Kathir, Suyuti and a specific hadith given by Aisha (ra)and many other topics.

The quote

لَوْ كَانَ مُوسَى وَعِيسَى حَيَّينِ لَمَا وَسِعَهُما إلا اتِّباعِي

“”””Holy Prophet saw, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him has said:- If Moses
and Jesus were alive, they would have no alternative but to follow me.”””
(Ibn Kathir: Tafseer ul Quran vol 1 page 378)

Other online sources for this quote
1-  This quote can be found in “Beacon of Truth”, see pages 85-86
2-  Life of Ahmad, (1948,but see the 2008, online edition, page 308.
3-  “Second Coming of Jesus” by Maulvi Muhammad Ali (1917, but this is from the online english edition of 2002, see page 93.

These Ahmadi’s purposely ignore the superfluous statements from Ibn Kathir on how Esa (As) hasn’t died yet

Ibn Kathir was commenting on 3:81

See also, 33:7 and Ibn Kathir’s comments

Why do Ahmadi’s lie as such?

A large percentage of Ahmadees (at least those in India and Pakistan) are descended from someone who converted to the Ahmadiyya Movement during Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s life. These early converts are very much respected in the Ahmadiyya Movement and are generally considered pious and saintly. Their descendants are usually very proud of them and the Ahmadiyya Movement makes sure (by various means) that the families of these early converts take pride in them. It would be very difficult for an Ahmadee to believe that such a pious
and respected ancestor was wrong in his judgment of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. Therefore, even if an Ahmadee is presented with proofs of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s falsehood, he/she does not open his/her mind to this possibility because that would mean believing that his/her early convert ancestor was befooled.

Feel free to search a PDF here


Mirza Ghulam Ahmad supported blasphemy laws in British-India–1895

Nowadays, on social media, you will see Ahmadis totally contradicting the writings of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, as they continue to solidify their business in the world, the business of the Mirza family that is.

The quote
See Upal, “Moderate Fundamentalist” (2017), page 155.  

“””Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, for instance, claimed to be the first Muslim leader to
initiate a petition (published on 22 September 1895) demanding that the British
Indian government amend Indian Penal Code 298 to make it easier to prosecute
anyone who blasphemes a founder of a major religion.”””

In 1927, in British-India
In 1927, Ahmadis took the lead in agitating against publication of the book Rangila Rasul by Hindu author Raj Pal and demanded that the book be banned. One of the movement’s most prominent members, Sir Muhammad Zafrullah Khan, also spearheaded legal action against
the book. Defense of the honour of the Holy Prophet Muhammad has become such
an integral part of the Ahmadiyya identity that Ahmadis have been at the forefront
of demanding blasphemy laws around the world.

See Dard, pages 462-465
This is the additional proof that MGA supported blasphemy laws

In his preface to the Nurul Quran No. 2,
Ahmad says:
‘We are sorry to have to declare that this number of the Nurul Quran has been issued in answer to a man who has, instead of observing decency, used abusive language with regard to our master, the Holy Prophetsa, and on account of his own foul nature he has, through clear fabrication, heaped such slanders upon the Head of the good and the Leader of the pure that a pure-hearted
person shudders to hear them. Hence we have had to retort in defence only to stop such people.

‘We must make it clear to our readers that we cherish the best of beliefs with regard to the Messiah and we are convinced at heart that he was a true and beloved Prophet of God. We believe that he had, for his salvation, truly and sincerely believed in the Holy Prophetsa just as the Quran tells us. Of the hundreds of those who served the law of Mosesas he was also one. So we respect him in every way just as he deserves. But Christians have presented to us a Jesus who claimed to be God and declared that, excepting his own self, all men, the first and the last, were accursed, viz. he looked upon them as guilty of misdeeds punishable with God’s curse. We too regard such a one as deprived of the mercy of God. The Quran has not informed us of such an impertinent and foul mouthed Jesus. We wonder very much at the person who permitted death for God and himself laid claim to divinity and abused such pure people as were a thousand times better than him. So in our discourse we mean everywhere the imaginary Jesus of the Christians; and the humble servant of God, ‘Isa bin Maryamas, who was a Prophet and who is mentioned in the Quran is not at all meant in the harsh addresses. We have adopted this form after continually hearing abuse from Christian missionaries for no less than 40 years.’

Zia’s Ord-XX
A century later Pakistan’s military dictator Zia-ul-Haq amended the very article
to make blasphemy a capital crime in Pakistan. Ironically enough, a number of
Pakistani Ahmadis have been prosecuted under the amended 298 for blaspheming
prophet Muhammad by accepting Ahmad as a prophet after him!

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

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.

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

Up ↑