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.
Continue reading “Pappas, Paul Constantine, “Jesus’ tomb in India : the debate on his death and Resurrection” (1991)—he accuses Ahmadiyya of academic dishonesty”
Ahmadi’s run around the world and want to debate Muslims on the death of Esa (as). However, they hide their true beliefs, which are that Waffa happened to Esa (as) in India. This is a ridiculous belief in terms of Islamic literature. NO Muslim ever in the history of the world claimed that Waffa happened in India. Watch my video on this herein. Ahmadi’s even twist 23:50 and claim that this verse is about the death of Esa (as), however, this verse is about the birth of Esa (as), not his death. Watch my video explanation on this. Continue reading “The most important question for #Ahmadis, did Waffa happen in India? Or Israel?”
After 1896, MGA and his team of writers began to assert that Esa (as) was buried in Kashmir and was Yuz Asaf. However, when MGA claimed to be the Messiah in 1891, he was claiming that Esa (as) died in Galilee (Al-Khaleeli), which is modern day Israel. A few years later in Itmam ul Hujjah, MGA and his team of writers wrote Tarabulus, Lebanon (Tripoli) in the same book, a few pages later, his team of writers wrote Al-Quds (modern day Jerusalem). By 1896, MGA and his team landed on the Yuz Asaf theory and lied about the life of Yuz Asaf in Ayun-al-Hayat, as they claimed that Esa (as) was buried in Kashmir.
Continue reading “From 1891 to 1894, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was claiming that Esa (as) died in either Syria, Lebanon or Israel and at age 33”
Watch my video explanation on this. In 1902, in the book, “Ijaz ul Ahmadi“, MGA and his team began to use the Quranic verse, 23:50 to argue that Esa (as) traveled to Kashmir and was given refuge as such. Before 1902, in the 1882-1884 era, MGA and his team of writers were indirectly denying the miracles of Esa (as), however, they didn’t comment specifically on 23:50, instead, they commented on 3:49 and totally denied all the miracles of Esa (as). Nevertheless, NO scholars in Islam have ever written such a thing, its a total lie. 100% of the scholars on Islam had always connected 23:50 with the birth of Esa (As), in fact, the verse start off explaining how Mary and Esa (as) were made as a sign. The sign was the miraculous birth of Esa (as) without a man, this is unanimously accepted by 100% of the scholars of Islam. Furthermore, the verse explains how both Mary and Esa (as) were given refuge on an elevated land wherein there were valleys, water springs and water flows. When we check the classic Tafsir’s on Islam, Suyuti, Ibn Kathir, Tabari, Ibn Abbas and etc, they all confirm that this verse is in relation to the birth of Esa (as) and they give the location as Damascus and the flatlands around it. Thus, this is just another embellishment of the Mirza family. Furthermore, Ahmadi writers began to assert that Yuz Asaf=Jesus. Ahmadi’s also believe that Mary was buried in Pakistan as it borders with Azad Kashmir, since they knew it wasn’t just Esa (As) who was given refuge, but also Mary.
Continue reading “In 1902, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad argued that the Quran, 23:50 referred to Esa (as) and Maryam traveled to Kashmir”
The entire ulema, Shia and Sunni believe that Esa (as) left planet earth at roughly age 33 (see Tafsir Ibn Kathir). In 1891, when MGA made his wild claims, he was also asserting that Esa (As) died at roughly age 33 and was buried somewhere. About a year later, in 1892, MGA began to say that Esa (As) lived to age 120 and indirectly quoted the saying of Aisha, which was also recorded in Kanzul Ummul.
In 1895, in Satt Bachan, MGA and his ghost writers wrote that Esa (as) lived an additional 87 years after the event of crucifixtion, that would make his age at death to be 120, since Esa (As) was 33 at the event of crucifixtion. In 1898, in “Raz-e-Haqiqat” (A hidden Truth), MGA and his team again wrote that Esa (as) lived til he was 120, but now they were claiming that he died in Kashmir. Continue reading “Esa (as) didn’t live til age 125 or 120, Ahmadiyya people are wrong!”
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and his team of writers totally lied about Jesus in India, in fact, MGA’s teams book, “Jesus in India”, Yuz Asaf is not mentioned at all, this book was published per the order of Noorudin in late 1908. They took the lies of Nicholas Notovitch and spun them for their own benefit. However, they went toooo far and claimed that Esa (as) = Yuz Asaf, which has been totally disproven. In fact, Max Muller disproved it back in the early 1900’s.
Who is Holger Kersten?
Holger Kersten (born 1951) is a German writer on myth, legend, religion and esoteric subjects. He is best known for the books about Jesus’ early years and later years in India. Kersten’s views have received no support from mainstream scholarship.
Jesus Lived in India, 1983
Jesus Lived in India promotes the claim of Nicolas Notovich (1894) regarding the unknown years of Jesus between the ages of 12 and 30 in India. The consensus view amongst modern scholars is that Notovitch’s account of the travels of Jesus to India was a hoax. Kersten also promotes Ahmadiyya founder Ghulam Ahmad‘s claims regarding the years aged 33 to age 120 in India, and the burial of Jesus at the Roza Bal shrine in Srinagar. Kersten also draws on earlier material by Louis Jacolliot, Andreas Fabeer-Kaiser, and German popular novelist Siegfried Obermeier (also 1983). The book was translated into Chinese in 1987.
Like others before him Kersten follows Mirza Ghulam Ahmad in his sources. For example, a passage in the Bhavishya Purana which refers to Jesus as “Isa-Masih” (Jesus the Messiah). The passage describes the Hindu king Shalivahana travelling to mountains where he meets a man who calls himself Isa, son of a Virgin. Isa says he has ministered to the Mlecchas, explaining that he has reformed the lives of the mlecchas by recommending principles of mental purity, japa by chanting holy names, and meditation. Kersten interprets this as a record of Jesus in Kashmir. In reality the passage is an 18th-century dialogue also featuring Muhammed, and not an early source as Ahmad claimed. Most scholars consider this part of the Purana to be a 19th-century interpolation.
The book achieved great popularity in Germany and overseas, though competed with the better-known Siegfried Obermeier’s book in Germany. The Indologist Günter Grönbold included a highly critical debunking of Obermeier and Kersten’s interpretations of Buddhist sources among various expositions of Jesus in India theories in Jesus in Indien. Das Ende einer Legende (Jesus in India, the end of a Legend, 1985). Wilhelm Schneemelcher in introducing the subject of New Testament Apocrypha (1991) uses Kersten by way of illustration of the development of legendary Gospel traditions and notes how Kersten “attempted to work up Notovitch and Ahmadiyya legends with many other alleged witnesses into a complete picture.” McGetchin notes that once his story had been re-examined by historians, Notovitch confessed to having fabricated the evidence.
However, in 1922 Swami Abhedananda visited the Hemis monastery and corroborated much of Notovitch’s story. Given access to the manuscripts on Jesus Christ, Abhedananda later published an abbreviated version of Notovich’s translated account. After Abhedananda’s death in 1939, one of his disciples inquired about the documents at the monastery, but was told they disappeared.
The Original Jesus, 1994
In a later work co-written with parapsychologist Elmar R. Gruber (b. 1955), Der Ur-Jesus (1994), translated The Original Jesus (1995) Kersten argues that Buddhism appears to have had a substantial influence on the life and teachings of Jesus. They hold that Jesus was influenced by the teachings and practices of Therapeutae, described by the authors as teachers of the Buddhist Theravada school then living in Judaea, although the only account, the extensive description by Philo of Alexandria describes them as a charismatic Hellenistic Jewish community following the Law of Moses. Gruber and Kersten assert that Jesus lived the life of a Buddhist and taught Buddhist ideals to his disciples. In doing so their work draws on earlier comparisons between Buddhism and Christianity such as the Oxford New Testament scholar Burnett Hillman Streeter (1932) who argued that the moral teaching of the Gautama Buddha has four remarkable resemblances to the Sermon on the Mount.
The Jesus Conspiracy, 1997
The ideas of the two earlier books were developed and related to the Turin Shroud in Das Jesus-Komplott: die Wahrheit über das Turiner Grabtuch, and Jesus starb nicht am Kreuz — Die Botschaft des Turiner Grabtuchs (1998) The Jesus Conspiracy: The Turin Shroud and the Truth About the Resurrection. The Jesus Conspiracy proposes that the Vatican interfered with the 1988 Radiocarbon 14 dating of the Shroud of Turin to show a medieval date for its origin. The authors propose that the shroud is authentic as the burial cloth of Jesus, but that evidence including blood tracks shows that Jesus was alive following his crucifixion. They argue that the Mandylion or Image of Edessa, known from the sixth century, was the Shroud, but folded to only show the face of Jesus. Because Jesus surviving the cross would contradict the teaching of the Resurrection, the central belief in Christianity, the authors allege that the Vatican used a piece from a 13th-century cloth with a similar herringbone weave to the Shroud of Turin as a substitute in the carbon dating. In part three, Elmar R. Gruber attempts to explain many details concerning what happened in “that dramatic hour of Good Friday“. The book’ repeats the author’s earlier arguments that after the crucifixion Jesus moved to India. In a later book, they argued that he had become a Buddhist monk.
None of Kersten’s works have found any support in mainstream scholarship — either Biblical or Indologist. The noted German scholar of New Testament Apocrypha Wilhelm Schneemelcher, in a revision of his standard work prior to his death in 2003, and in unusually strong language for the scholarly community states that Kersten’s work is based on “fantasy, untruth and ignorance (above all in the linguistic area)” and “has nothing to do with historical research. Gerald O’Collins and Daniel Kendall view that “Kersten’s discredited book” is simply the repackaging of Notovich and Ahmad’s material for consumption by the general public.
Links and Related Essay’s
- Penguin Books India
- Reinhard Feldmeier Die Bibel: Entstehung – Botschaft – Wirkung 2004 Page 164 “In Deutschland war es vor allem Holger Kersten, der mit seinem Buch »Jesus lebte in Indien« (zuerst 1984, Neuauflage 1993)23 die These vom Indienaufenthalt Jesu populär machte. Die bereits oben angesprochene »Lücke im Leben Jesu«”
- New Testament Apocrypha, Vol. 1: Gospels and Related Writings by Wilhelm Schneemelcher and R. Mcl. Wilson (Dec 1, 1990) ISBN 066422721X page 84. “Such works, in which fantasy, untruth and ignorance (above all in the linguistic area) are combined, and which are in addition marked by anti-Church feeling, have nothing to do with historical research. “
- * Jesus lebte in Indien – Sein geheimes Leben vor und nach der Kreuzigung. Ullstein-Verlag, Berlin 1998, ISBN 3-5483-5490-4, (1. Auflage: Droemer Knaur, München 1983, ISBN 3-426-03712-2).
- Mark Bothe Die Jesus-in-Indien-Legende Über eine alternative Lebensgeschichte des Jesus von Nazareth 3 Die modernen Autoren. Wie eingangs erwähnt sieht Grönbold diese Quellen als Grundsteine für die moderne JiIL an. Choudhury, Faber-Kaiser, Obermeier und Kersten hätten die Idee für ihre Theoreme aus diesen Quellen entnommen und ihre Beweisargumente gingen auf die Autoren der ersten Phase wie Jacolliot zurück.
- Chinese edition: 霍尔根·凯斯顿, translators 赵振权 and 王宽湘 title:《耶稣在印度》, published 国际文化出版公司 1987
- Holger Kersten, Jesus Lived in India: His Unknown Life Before and After the Crucifixion, Penguin Books India, 2001, p.260.
- See Swami Parmeshwaranand, “Christ in the Bhavisya Purana”, Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Purānas, Sarup, 2001, pp.278ff; Wendy Doniger, Purāna Perennis: Reciprocity and Transformation in Hindu and Jaina Texts, SUNY Press, 1993, p.105.
- Daniel Kendall – 1996 On reissuing Venturini in Gregorianum — Page 258 Pontificia università gregoriana (Rome) “The whole story of how this legend was simply created (without a shred of evidence in its support), spread widely among a gullible public and still finds such latter-day exponents as Holger Kersten is splendidly told by Günther Grönbold. In Jesus Survived Crucifixion Soami Divyanand offers a recent repetition of the legend originally fashioned by Ghulam Ahmad. Divyanand draws on Kersten’ s discredited book, Jesus Lived in India.”
- New Testament Apocrypha: Gospels and Related Writings – Page 84 Wilhelm Schneemelcher, R McL Wilson – 1991 “Kersten for example attempted to work up Notovitch and Ahmadiyya legends with many other alleged witnesses into a complete picture26. Thus Levi’s Aquarian Gospel (1905)27 is pressed into service, along with the Turin shroud and the “
- Indology, Indomania, and Orientalism by Douglas T. McGetchin (Jan 1, 2010) Fairleigh Dickinson University Press ISBN 083864208X page 133 “Faced with this cross-examination, Notovich confessed to fabricating his evidence.”
- Chaitanya, Brahmachari Bhairab; Swami Abhedananda’s Journey into Kashmir and Tibet; Ramakrishna Vedanta Math, Calcutta, 1987 (first published in Bengali in 1929) pp.119-121, 164-166; ISBN 0874816432
- Richard, Hooper; Jesus, Buddha, Krishna, and Lao Tzu; 2012 p. 176 ISBN 1571746803
- Der Ur-Jesus — Die buddhistischen Quellen des frühen Christentums. Langen-Müller Verlag, München 1994, ISBN 3-7844-2504-6.
- Gruber, Elmar; Kersten, Holger. (1995). The Original Jesus. Shaftesbury: Element Books.
- Das Jesus-Komplott: die Wahrheit über das Turiner Grabtuch. Heyne-Verlag, München 1997, ISBN 3-453-12307-7.
- Jesus starb nicht am Kreuz — Die Botschaft des Turiner Grabtuchs. Langen-Müller Verlag, München 1998, ISBN 3-7844-2688-3, (mit Elmar R. Gruber).
- Sengupta, Reshmi (22 September 2005). “When Jesus came to India!”. The Telegraph (Calcutta). Calcutta, India. Retrieved 21 February 2012.
- “The curious trail of Christ”. The Telegraph (Calcutta). Calcutta, India. 4 April 2006. Retrieved 21 February 2012.
- Zohar, Danah (9 July 1995). “In search of the gospel truth”. The Independent. London. Retrieved 21 February 2012.
- Gerald O’Collins Daniel Kendall Essays in Christology and Soteriology1996 p169
Raja Gopadatta is mentioned in “Tarikh-i-Kashmir” (History of Kashmir), in 1420 Mullah Nadri compiled the first full record of the history of Kashmir. Pappas wrote his name as Raja Gopanand, also as Gondopatta.
Quote from “Tarikh-i-Kashmir” (History of Kashmir)
“During this time Hazrat Yuz Asaf having come from Bait-ul Muqaddas [the Holy Land] to this holy valley proclaimed his prophethood. He devoted himself, day and night, in [prayers to] God, and having attained the heights of piety and virtue, he declared himself to be a Messenger [of God] for the people of Kashmir. He invited people [to his religion]. Because the people of the valley had faith in this Prophet, Raja Gopadatta referred the objection of Hindus to him [for decision]. It was because of this Prophet’s orders that Sulaiman, whom Hindus called Sandeman, completed [the repairs of] the dome. [The year was] Fifty and four. Further, on one of the stones of the stairs he [Sulaiman] inscribed: ‘In these times Yuz Asaf proclaimed his prophethood,’ and on the other stone of the stairs he also inscribed that he [Yuz Asaf] was Yusu, Prophet of the Children of Israel.”
“I have seen in a book of Hindus that this prophet was really Hazrat Isa [Jesus], the Spirit of God, on whom be peace [and salutations] and had also assumed the name of Yuz Asaf. The real knowledge is with God. He spent his life in this [valley]. After his departure [his death] he was laid to rest in Mohalla Anzmarah. It is also said that lights of prophethood used to emanate from the tomb of this Prophet. Raja Gopadatta having ruled for sixty years and two months, [then] died…”
Use of Mullah Nadiri in Ahmadi texts
The Ahmadi writer Khwaja Nazir Ahmad in his advocacy of evidence for Jesus in India (1952) produced a photograph of a page in a folio he had tried to purchase in 1946 which he identified as being from Mullah Nadri. The folio is now lost and no identification of the document had been made by academic sources.
” … and on the other stone of the stairs he also inscribed that he (Yuz Asaf) was Yusu, Prophet of Children of Israel (Aishan Yusu Paighambar-i-Bani Israel ast). I have seen in a book of Hindus that this prophet was really Hazrat Isa (Jesus), Ruh-Allah (the Spirit of God) on whom be peace (and salutations) and had also assumed the name of Yuz Asaf. The (real) knowledge is with God. He spent his life in this (valley). After his departure (death) he was laid to rest in Mohalla Anzmarah. It is also said that lights (anwar) of prophethood used to emanate from the tomb (Rauza) of this Prophet. Raja Gopadatta having ruled for sixty years and two months died.. .” Translation by Khwaja Nazir Ahmad of photograph on page 393 of Jesus in Heaven on Earth 1952
Nazir Ahmad speculates that the Hindu text mentioned in the text in the 1946 photograph identifying Yuz Asaf with Jesus might have been the Bhavishya Purana. However that part of the text of the Bhavishya Purana dates from the British colonial era and does not mention Yuz Asaf, only Jesus and Mohammed.
#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyatrueislam #ahmadiapartheid #Ahmadiyyat #rabwah #qadian #meetthekhalifa #muslimsforpeace #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog #nolifewithoutkhalifa #AhmadiMosqueattack #AhmadiyyaPersecution #Mosqueattack #trueislam #atifmian
#yuzasaf #rozabal #jesusinindia
We have found a study written by a Buddhist person about the Ahmadiyya theory of “Jesus in India”. This is written by Adrian Chan-Wyles PhD.
Author’s Note: This article is not an attack on Islam, and is not intended in any way to disrespect Hadrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, or ridicule his beliefs. In fact, I have an ardent respect for Islam, and take the opportunity here, to enter into the cut and thrust of frank debate. This article is intended as an appraisal of Ahmad’s viewpoints and reconstructed history concerning Buddhism, from a modern, secular, and Buddhist perspective. In effect I am providing the perspective of a Buddhist who has encountered Ahmad’s beliefs for the first time, and assessing those beliefs from the point of view of the Buddha’s pristine logic. In this regard, I fully understand that scholarship regarding Buddhist studies was very much in its infancy during the late 1890’s, and that Ahmad was working in an astonishingly intelligent and imaginative fashion with the information he had available to him. He did not possess the advantage of being an ethnic Buddhist, or have access to the most up to date academic knowledge regarding Buddhism. He also seems to have had to work from English language sources for the Buddhist information he accessed – translating those sources into Urdu. I do not share this honourable man’s faith, but neither do I begrudge the fact that he possesses one. In my life I have always been treated well by Muslim people, and benefitted from Islamic civility. On the other hand, as a modern academic who does not possess any type of theological faith, I feel compelled to put pen to paper and answer Hadrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, even though it has been well-over a hundred years since he penned his masterpiece ‘Jesus in India’. I think a distinctly ‘Buddhist’ response is required, as at no point in his expressed narrative does Ahmad consult ethnic or practising Buddhists about what they think of his ideas, as I suspect none would have agreed with him. In all the years I have studied the theory that Jesus may have visited India, I have never once been told that a Muslim scholar had contributed magnificently to this subject in 1899. Surely this omission is a grave injustice to the very well developed tradition of Islamic academia. I only heard about this work whilst walking down Sutton High Street recently, when I stopped by a small Islamic stall, and was given a free copy. I think any form of dialogue between Islam and Buddhism is to be welcomed in any positive format, with the differences between the two systems being acknowledged with respect rather than denigration. Peace and understanding is better than war and violence.
‘I have written this book so that by adducing proofs from established facts, conclusive historical evidence of proven value, and ancient documents of other nations, I might dispel the serious misconceptions which are current among Christians and most Muslim sects regarding the earlier and the later life of Jesus. The dangerous consequences of these misconceptions have not only hijacked and destroyed the concept of Tauhid – Divine Unity, but their insidious and poisonous influence has long been noticed in the moral condition of Muslims in this country. It is these baseless myths and tales that result in spiritual maladies, like immorality, malice, callousness, and cruelty, which are almost endemic among most Islamic sects. Virtues like human sympathy, compassion, affability, love of justice, meekness, modesty, and humility are disappearing by the day, as if they will soon bid a hasty farewell to them. This callousness and moral degradation makes many a Muslim appear only marginally different from wild beasts. A Jain or a Buddhist is afraid of killing even a mosquito or a flea and detests such an act, but alas! There are many among Muslims who would kill an innocent person with impunity and commit wanton murder without the lest fear of God Almighty.’
(Jesus in India: By Hadrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Islamic International, (2015 – Introduction Pages 1-2 – originally written in 1889)
This book was completed in 1889, and published in 1908 in its original Urdu script (although it had been partly serialised prior to this date). It was not published in English translation until 1944 (in India). The subject matter of this book seeks to establish the following objectives:
1) The Jewish attitude toward Jesus Christ was morally bankrupt.
2) The established Christian belief that Jesus Christ died on the cross and was then ‘risen’ from the dead is wrong and a misinterpretation of the New Testament.
3) Jesus Christ lived the crucifixion by way of a conspiracy between Pontius Pilate, Joseph of Arimathea and others, who worked together to ensure his survival and escape from Palestine.
4) Jesus Christ subsequently travelled to Afghanistan, Kashmir and Tibet.
5) Whilst in India he taught Jewish Buddhist monks his message, and they in-turn then ‘altered’ the Buddhist suttas to integrate this new information into the Buddhist Canon.
6) Conventional Buddhism, although containing a morality of sorts, is ultimately wrong and incomplete without the influence of Jesus Christ.
7) Jesus Christ – being a prophet of god – is in fact the teacher of the Buddha, as the Buddha was just an ordinary man in comparison.
8) The Buddhists, in their ignorance, mistook Jesus Christ for the Buddha yet to come (i.e. ‘Mettayya’ in Pali, or ‘Maitreya’ in Sanskrit).
9) Contemporary Buddhism is a disguised form of Christianity, sullied by the heathen vestiges left-over from its pre-Jesus days.
Why would a very intelligent Islamic scholar spend so much time engaging in research regarding the non-theistic philosophy (or ‘perceptual science’) of Buddhism? Why would a man with a strong theistic ‘faith’ bother with what is in essence the ‘secular’ system of the Buddha? The answer is that as a North Indian, Hadrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was very well aware of the ancient Buddhist history associated with that part of India. Furthermore, as he viewed himself as the reincarnation of Jesus Christ (effectively the ‘Second Coming’), and something akin to a combined representation of the ‘Messiah’ of Christian prophecy and future ‘Maitreya’ of Buddhist scripture. Ahmad requires (the otherwise ‘heathen’) Buddhist teachings to legitimise his claim to being the new manifestation of Jesus Christ, through the Buddhist prophecy of Maitreya, because he is a Muslim (with fair-skin) born in North India. Without his conflation of Buddhism with Christianity, and the merging of the Second Coming of Jesus Christ with the future Buddha Maitreya, Ahmad would have no more a claim to being an incarnation of Jesus than any other person, religious or otherwise. The faulty scholarship begins here with his incorrect assertion that the name ‘Mettayya’ (or ‘Maitreya’) has the same meaning as the Hebrew word ‘Messiah’ (Ahmad uses the transliteration of ‘Mashiha’ see Page 92). In both Pali and Sanskrit, the term ‘Mettayya’ (or ‘Maitreya’) simply means ‘he who possesses loving kindness’, or ‘metta’, whereas ‘messiah’ translates as the ‘anointed one’, or ‘one touched by god’s grace’. The progression of argument that Ahmad believes he has revealed is that the historical Buddha foretold the coming of Jesus Christ to India, and that he was not talking about simply another enlightened being. Ahmad simply has the Buddha arbitrarily abandon his ‘inferior’ secular philosophy of perceptual science, and replace it with the very theology he had abandoned when he realised enlightenment. The ‘ignorant’ and ‘misled’ Buddhists of the 1st century CE understood Jesus Christ to be ‘Maitreya’, but did not understand the theological import of their encounter. With this narrative in place, the stage is set for Hadrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad to be recognised as the ‘Second Coming’ of Jesus Christ, and perhaps the real ‘Maitreya’. Once the story of Jesus is transplanted from Palestine to India, then the location for his ‘second Coming’ is also transplanted from Palestine to India (as Jesus, in all likelihood, will be reborn an ‘Indian’ man). It is the Buddha’s ancient prophecy in India that Ahmad uses to facilitate this transformation from Buddha, to Christ to the modern Islamic reincarnation of Christ. This is why Ahmad makes this point one of his central issues, and dedicates such time and effort to prove it correct. Buddhism is the doorway to his status as the revealed reincarnation of Jesus Christ – albeit from an Islamic perspective. This is why it is imperative that Jesus Christ is seen to have survived the cross and visited India, eventually dying and being buried there, in a tomb in Kashmir.
The Islamic scholar Hadrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (1835-1908) was from the area of the Indian Punjab known as Qadian. He believed he was the incarnation of Jesus Christ, and in so doing, viewed himself as being the fulfilment of Islamic scriptural prophecy. When 40 years old, his father died, and it is from this point in his life that he started communicating directly with god. Following divine intervention, Ahmad founded the Ahmadiyya Movement in 1889, which emphasised the oneness of god, and the rejuvenation of Islam across the world in its morally pristine form. Through this mission, Ahmad attempted to integrate as many of the great religious and spiritual leaders in world history with Islam, by elevating such visionaries as Zoroaster, Krishna, Buddha and Confucius to the status of Prophets of Allah. However, mainstream Islam does recognise the claims of the Ahmadiyya Movement as being representative of authentic Islam. Most Muslims, for instance, do not recognise Ahmad as the reincarnation of Jesus Christ, but state that Jesus has still yet to return. In his 1899 book entitled ‘Jesus in India’, Ahmad treads a thin path of appearing to eulogise Buddhism on the one-hand (because he thinks Jesus was instrumental in making it a world-class religion), whilst criticising it on the other for being a fabrication of ‘Aryan’ dishonesty. Ahmad’s assumptions are obviously incorrect in their conclusions, as he is trying to co-opt the non-Islamic, and non-theological teachings of the logical and rational Buddha, into the theology of Islam, via the person of Jesus Christ. Obviously Ahmad cannot link the far older Buddhism with the much later Mohammed (peace be upon him), and so he attempts to link the earlier Jesus with 1st century CE Buddhism in North India. To do this he must misinterpret Buddhist history and philosophy, reducing both to Islamic theological rhetoric. The following is a direct quote from Ahmad, encapsulating the entire thrust of his ‘Jesus influenced Buddhism’ theory:
‘The question now arises as to why there was so much resemblance between the Buddha and Jesus. The Aryans in this connection say that Jesus, God forbid, became acquainted with Buddhism in the course of his journeys in India, and having acquainted with Buddhism in the course of his journeys in India, and having acquired knowledge of the facts of Buddha’s life, incorporated them in the Gospel on return to his native country; that Jesus composed his moral precepts by plagiarising the moral teaching of the Buddha, and that just as the Buddha called himself the Light and Knowledge and adopted other titles, so did Jesus assume all such titles, so much so, that, even the long story of the Temptation of the Buddha was appropriated by him. This, however, is no more than a dishonest fabrication by the Aryas. It is quite untrue that Jesus came to India before the event of the cross, for he did not need to undertake such a journey at the time. The need for it arose only after the Jews of Judea had rejected him and, as far as they were concerned, crucified him. He had, however, been saved by a subtle divine intervention. Jesus felt that he had done his duty in conveying the message to the Jews of that country, and that they did not deserve compassion anymore. Then, on being informed by God that the ten tribes of the Jews had migrated towards India, Jesus set out for those regions. As some of the Jews had accepted Buddhism, there was no alternative for this true prophet but to turn his attention to the followers of Buddhism. As the Buddhist priests of that country were waiting for the “Messiah Buddha” to appear, they hailed Jesus as the Buddha considering all the signs like his titles, and his moral teachings like “love thine enemy” and “do not resist evil,” and the Buddha’s prophecy about fair skin. It is also possible that some of the titles and teachings and facts of Jesus’ life may, consciously or unconsciously, have at that time been ascribed to the Buddha; for the early Indians never had any scruples about recording history objectively. The events of Buddha’s life had not been recorded till the time of Jesus. Buddhist priests, therefore, had ample room to ascribe to the Buddha anything they wished. It is quite likely, therefore, that when they came to know of the facts of Jesus’ life and his moral teaching, they mixed them up with many of their own innovations and ascribed them to the Buddha.’
(Jesus in India: By Hadrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Islamic International, (2015 – Pages 86-87)
A list of reasons why Ahmad believes Jesus influenced Buddhism are as follows (found in Chapter Four – Section Two – Pages 83-84)
1) Jesus visited Tibet (Page 83)
2) Jesus refers to himself as ‘light’, Buddha = ‘light’ in Sanskrit (Page 83)
3) Jesus is called ‘master’ in the gospels, whilst Buddha is referred to as ‘Saasta’ in the Buddhist sutras (Page 83-84)
4) Jesus is called ‘blessed’ in the gospels, whilst Buddha is referred to as ‘Sugt – ‘blessed’ (Page 84)
5) Jesus and Buddha both referred to as ‘prince’ (Page 84)
6) Jesus and Siddhartha = he who comes to fulfil the object of his coming (Page 84)
7) Jesus is a refuge; Buddha is the Asarn Sarn – the refuge of the refugeless (Page 84)
8) Jesus and Buddha both referred to as ‘king’ (Page 84)
9) Jesus and Buddha both tempted by the devil (page 84)
10) Gospels of Jesus compiled much earlier than Buddhist scriptures (Page 84)
There is no objective historical evidence that Jesus visited Tibet. This is in fact a Eurocentric myth created Nicolas Notovich (1856-1916) as a means to sell his 1894 book ‘Life of Saint Issa, Best of the Sons of Men’. The name ‘Issa’ is apparently the Arabic word for ‘Jesus’. Notovich claimed to have seen a Buddhist scripture in a Buddhist temple in Ladakh during an alleged visit in 1887, that recorded a visit to the Tibetan area of China by a Palestinian Jew whilst a young man (i.e. prior to his crucifixion), where he learned the Buddhist teachings, which he then took back to the Middle East – the implication being that the later Christianity was in fact a distortion of Buddhist philosophy. The famous expert on Buddhist philosophy, and world-renowned translator – Max Muller (1823-1900) – immediately questioned Notovich’s account, and wrote to the Head Monk of the Ladakh temple to enquire about the truthfulness of the claims. The Head Monk replied that no Westerner had visited the temple in 15 years, and that there was no such Buddhist scripture recording Jesus in Tibet. Ahmad appears to premise his entire theory on the dubious authority of Notovich’s book – and simply inverted or reversed the conclusions. Instead of Jesus being influenced by the much earlier Buddhist philosophy, the argument was turned the other way around, and Jesus is presented as being a unique prophet of god who possesses the spiritual power to ‘alter’ Buddhist teaching as he came into contact with it. In other words, Buddhism was ‘Christianised’, and Christianity remained ‘pure’ and ‘unsullied’ by Buddhism. This is, of course, religiously inspired nonsense. Interestingly, Ahmad asserts that Max Muller ascribed to the idea that the teachings of Jesus may have been influenced by Buddhism (referencing Page 517 of the October 1894 issue of the periodical The Nineteenth Century). Ahmad then refers to Max Muller as a ‘Christian’, when it was well known in the UK (where lived and worked at Oxford University) that he most assuredly was not a Christian. In fact, his lack of ‘faith’ in this regard, and his purely ‘academic’ approach to the study of objective fact, often cost him important academic posts. Max Muller was a modern person who assessed religious claims on their objectively ascertained ‘truth’ or ‘lack’ of truth. As religion is premised upon ‘faith’ in that which cannot be seen, a blind acceptance of dogma is not considered ‘logical’ or ‘reasonable’. The Buddha would have agreed with Max Muller. Ahmad, of course, states that Max Muller is correct to observe a link between Buddhism and Christianity, but wrong in the discerned direction of travel. Ahmad states that from an Islamic perspective, it is disrespectful to assume that the prophet of god (i.e. ‘Jesus’), was a ‘disciple’ of the Buddha, and more in accordance with the will of god to assume that the Buddha (an ordinary man), was a disciple of Jesus (and therefore of god).
The Buddha lived either 1000 or 500 years before Jesus, and the Buddhist teachings were first written down not at the time of Jesus (as Ahmad incorrectly asserts), but rather a century earlier (in Ceylon). The teachings of the Buddha were passed on by word of mouth both before and after this time, with monks ‘remembering’ the entire Buddhist Canon. One of the main injunctions for the Buddhist monks is that the teachings must not be altered or modified in anyway. Ahmad misunderstands the Buddhist philosophy and Buddhist history – despite his otherwise erudite style of evidence gathering and presentation. Buddhist monks have never ‘compiled’ the Buddhist scriptures as was common with Judaism, Christianity and Islam. As Buddhism is a tradition of realised wisdom, it has no place whatsoever for revelatory intrigues, the type of which Ahmad is perpetuating. As Buddhism is a science of perception, the Buddha has no place for a belief in a god, or indeed a soul theory. When all this is taken into account, Ahmad’s theory with regards to Buddhism, fails at every juncture. Ahmad is presumably using his status of a reincarnation of Jesus to facilitate a different interpretation of history that defies a) objective evidence, and b) common sense. The assumption is that he possesses the memories of Jesus Christ from the 1st century CE, and is informing the world what actually happened, when in fact there is no objective evidence that Jesus existed in the 1st century CE (or at any other time). To be fair to Ahmad, he shows an extraordinary alacrity of mind, and in a sort of begrudging sense, he does acknowledge that Buddhism is very old, and that it does possess its own admirable morality. However, as Buddhism is not from the Judeo-Christian lineage, it remains outside of the accepted and valid paths acknowledged by Islamic thinking. Therefore, whilst ignoring the non-Islamic nature of Buddhist philosophy, Ahmad attempts to co-opt Buddhist thinking in the sphere of Christianity. In so doing, he attempts to reduce rational Buddhism to the level of irrational theology. All the other petty associations between Buddhism and Christianity are either meaningless coincidence, or perhaps the influence of Buddhism upon Christianity. However, if Jesus was influenced by Buddhism, this did not affect his essentially ‘non-Buddhist’ theistic beliefs. It is probably more likely that the early Christian ideologues borrowed from Buddhism in a superficial manner (as they really did not understand it in any depth), as a means to distinguish an emerging Christianity from the Judaism it was rapidly breaking away from. This habit of assimilation of non-Hebrew traditions by a developing Christian church can be observed in its appropriation of the Greek language and Greek philosophy (albeit in altered or distorted form), as the basis of the theology of the New Testament. This fits-in with the idea that Jesus may not have existed at all, but was a re-working by dissident or discontented Jews in Judea, of much earlier pagan legends, such as that of the story of the Persian god Mithras or the Greek god Dionysus. Finally, despite Ahmad’s ability to pull disparate facts together to support his theory, there is a definite strand of ‘anti-Buddhism’ running through the centre of his narrative. This extract is typical of this trend:
‘It is recorded on the authority of the book named Mahavagga (page 54 section 1) that a man called Rahulta was a successor to the Buddha. This Rahulta has been described not only as his devoted disciple, but also as his son. I am convinced that Rahulta of Buddhistic records is none other than Ruhullah, which is one of Jesus’ titles and reads as Rahulta due to phonetic variation. To say that Rahulta was the son of the Buddha, who abandoned his child in infancy, went into exile and, wishing to part from his wife for good, left her asleep and without informing her or saying farewell, and fled to some other land, is altogether absurd and derogatory to the high spiritual station of the Buddha. It portrays him as a cruel and hard-hearted man who had no compassion for his poor wife and left her asleep and slunk away like a thief without saying a word of consolation to her. He altogether ignored the duties he owed to her as a husband, neither divorcing her nor asking her permission to proceed on an endless journey, wounded her heart by disappearing so suddenly and did not care to send her even a single letter and took no pity on his child who grew up to manhood in his absence. Could such a man, who had no respect for the morals he taught his disciples, be righteous?’
(Jesus in India: By Hadrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Islamic International, (2015 – Page 100)
The Buddha’s son Rahula, of course, eventually became a very proficient Buddhist monk, exercising no bonds of familial attachment to his father – the Buddha – who was his teacher. The Buddha’s wife – Yasodhara – apparently watched the steady progress of her former husband at a distance, and in time joined the Buddhist order of nuns – where she eventually realised enlightenment. Ahmad’s viewpoint is Islamo-centric and does not display any true understanding of the Buddha’s path of uprooting greed, hatred and delusion. As Indian society was not Islamic, and given that the Buddha was not a Muslim, there was no reason for him to behave in an Islamic manner. Within Indian society, leaving home was not only considered a very important habit of the Brahmanic tradition, but was seen as vital by many different spiritual sects as a pre-cursor to breaking the bounds of attachment to carnality and worldly affairs. Just as a Muslim leaves home and attends the mosque (where he is segregated from his wife) to commune with Allah, just so, a committed Buddhist leaves home and sits at the bottom of a tree to commune with a mind-essence free of greed, hatred, and delusion. For the Buddha it is much more karmically significant for humanity to realise the empty state of non-greed, non-hatred, non-desire and non-self, than it is to apply the strictures of a sentimentalist morality stemming from theological idealism. This is because the Buddha seeks to uproot the ignorance in the mind that gives rise to belief in theistic religions, and the development of theology that inevitably follows. The Buddha clearly states that when greed, hatred, and delusion are uprooted, belief in gods (probably conditioned by Brahmanic society) automatically cease, as it is understood that they do not exist in reality. Of course, the Buddha does not mention Judaism, Christianity or Islam, as these religions either did not yet exist, or did not exist in India. The Buddha’s path is one of superior moral behaviour that is self-imposed (from the Vinaya Discipline), and is not reliant upon a god-construct for its efficacy. The Buddha taught in a common-sense manner – do bad things and create bad situations, and bad things and bad situations will envelop you. Eradicate bad thoughts and behaviour (delusion) from the mind and body, and all negativity ceases. What Ahmad perceives as the ‘bad’ behaviour of the Buddha, is in fact the very ignorance the Buddha strives to uproot. The path of Jesus seeks to do good acts, that is correct, but nowhere in his teaching does he state that the underlying psychological traits that generate painful thoughts and motivate dreadful behaviour, should be a) recognised as such, and b) uprooted through spiritual practice, although it is true that the strict Christian monasteries tend to purify the mind through prayers, contemplation, and simple living, so that it might be ‘emptied’ to receive god’s grace. Perhaps another example of how the far older monastic tradition of Buddhism influenced the development of the much later Christian monasticism. Whereas the Buddha transcends the requirement to ‘believe’ with ‘faith’ in a theistic entity to escape suffering, Jesus (and Islam for that matter) remain fully wedded to the concept of a theistic religion as the only legitimate means for humanity to be ‘saved’. As a consequence of this dogmatic stance, everything in the universe is separated into ‘good’ or ‘evil’ elements, with everything good being co-opted into theism, and everything evil being rejected away, and out of theism. Ahmad clearly demonstrates this tendency by both embracing certain aspects of Buddhism that serve his cause, and firmly rejecting those aspects of Buddhism that contradict his cause. The problem with Ahmad’s research is that what he embraces within Buddhism, he misinterprets (from a Buddhist perspective), and what he rejects (as being un-Islamic and against god) is the very functional essence of what makes Buddhism unique amongst emancipatory world philosophies and religions. The Buddha freed himself from human suffering by an act of will, and not by an act of faith in an external, divine authority.
©opyright: Adrian Chan-Wyles (ShiDaDao) 2016.
Links and Related Essay’s
#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyatrueislam #ahmadiapartheid #Ahmadiyyat #rabwah #qadian #meetthekhalifa #muslimsforpeace #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog #nolifewithoutkhalifa #AhmadiMosqueattack #AhmadiyyaPersecution #Mosqueattack #trueislam #atifmian
#yuzasaf #rozabal #jesusinindia
The Quran confirms lots of stories from the Torah and Bible, one such example is that of Idris (as), the Torah said that he physically ascended to heaven and so did the Quran (see 19:56-57). In terms of Esa (as) 4:158 corresponds directly with Mark-16:19 and proves that Esa (as) did in fact, physically ascend to heaven and then sit down next to Allah. Even the billboard at the Yuz Asaf shrine indicates the same connection. MGA was totally silent on 19:56-57 and Idris (as) aka Enoch, specifically as it had to relate to his physical ascension to heaven and his death in heaven.
More about the Yuz Asaf cover-up story
Ahmadiyya mullahs and editors are totally academically dishonest, they are taught to behave as such by the Mirza family. In the case of Yuz Asaf, they were over-the-top academically dishonest. In this “Kamal-ud-Din WA Itmam ul Naimat” Vol. 2, it is clearly written that Yus Asaf had a father. Even in “Ayn-ul-Hayat” it is stated that Yuz Asaf’s father was a king. Recently, some ex-Ahmadi researchers made a video about all of this. Furhermore, in Jesus in India, which was published posthumously in November of 1908, the word Yuz Asaf doesn’t even exist. Nor do the references to any source material which would connect Yuz Asaf to Esa (as). The english ROR never mentioned “Ayn-ul-Hayat”, however, it does mention Ikmal-ud-Din (see ROR of May 1904), which seems to be a shortened version of “Kamal-ud-Din WA Itmam ul Naimat”. MGA and his team first quoted “Ayn-ul-Hayat” in 1898, in a book called ‘Raz-e-Haqiqat”, which was translated and published into english in 2016, see page 24, they also quoted “Kamal-ud-Din WA Itmam ul Naimat”, however, its spelled slightly differently, “Ikmal-ud-Din Wa Itmam-un-Ni’mat”. However, they were academically dishonest, they purposely didn’t mention that Yuz Asaf had a father and many other things, an Ex-Ahmadi, Shams ud Din, recently got a hold of “Ayn ul Hayat” and “Kamal-ud-Din WA Itmam ul Naimat” Vol. 2, and posted his results in a video, make sure you watch Part-2 also, these are in Urdu and watch part 3. We have also found “Ayn ul Hayat” and have posted the PDF’s in the below. This book proves that MGA totally lied. Shams ud Din found the book “Rahul ul Hayat” by Allama Muhammad Bakir, there is an urdu translation called, “Ainul Hayat”. On page 361, it is written that Yuz Asaf had a father in Kashmir.