The Prophet Islam Honours, the 'Messiah' Who Attacked Him: MGA's Campaign Against Isa (AS)

There is a striking contrast at the heart of Islamic theology and Ahmadiyya theology that is rarely framed directly.

The Prophet Muhammad ﷺ spoke of Isa ibn Maryam (AS) with consistent honour and affection. The hadith literature is unambiguous: Isa (AS) is among the greatest of the messengers, his mother Maryam (AS) is among the four foremost women in the history of humanity, and he will return at the end of times as a sign of the Hour. The Quran mentions his name 25 times, describes him with the titles Kalimatullah (Word of Allah) and Ruhun minhu (a Spirit from Him), and dedicates an entire chapter — Surah Maryam — to his mother’s honour, explicitly refuting the slanders of those who accused her of wrongdoing (Quran 4:156-157; 19:16-36).

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (MGA) — who claimed to be the second coming of this same Isa (AS) — wrote page after page accusing Isa (AS) of drinking alcohol habitually, of allowing a prostitute to touch his body, of being morally inferior to Yahya (AS), of having no genuine miracles whatsoever, and of failing in his prophetic mission. He went further and described his healings as a form of mesmerism available to any Hindu, atheist, or Christian with sufficient practice.

This article documents those attacks from MGA’s primary sources, examines the theological self-contradiction they create, and explains the strategic purpose they served.

Why MGA Needed to Tear Down Isa (AS)

The motivation is not subtle. MGA claimed to be the return of Isa (AS) — the Promised Messiah of the latter days. If the first coming of the Messiah was filled with miracles, unimpeachable moral standing, and prophetic authority confirmed by divine signs, then the comparison to MGA — who performed no miracles, whose major prophecies failed, and who spent his career writing pamphlets against critics — would be unflattering.

The solution was to bring the first coming down.

If Isa (AS) was actually a drinker, a failure, a man whose “miracles” were just mesmerism, and whose mission was largely unsuccessful — then MGA’s own unimpressive output would not look so bad by comparison. This is the consistent thread running through all of MGA’s attacks on Isa (AS): every diminishment of the first coming is simultaneously a defence of the second.

One of the transcripts from debates on this topic puts it plainly: MGA wrote these passages “to take attention away from himself… he wanted to say the first coming wasn’t all that great, so therefore the second coming is also not that great.”

MGA’s Own Rules for Ilzami Jawab — Which He Then Violated

Ahmadi missionaries, when confronted with MGA’s statements about Isa (AS), typically invoke the concept of Ilzami Jawab (an accusative or counter-argument response). The claim is that MGA was simply responding in kind to Christian missionaries who were insulting the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, and that such counter-arguments are a recognised method in Islamic dialogue.

There are three problems with this defence. First, MGA was not merely quoting the Bible back at Christians — he was stating his own personal belief and theological position in books written in Urdu for Muslim audiences. Second, the accusation of alcohol use appears in works like Kishti Nuh and Dafi’ ul Bala, which are not polemical responses to Christian missionaries. Third — and most critically — MGA himself laid down explicit rules for Ilzami Jawab and then violated every single one of them.

MGA wrote in Ruhani Khazain, Vol. 23, Chashma Ma’rifat, p. 389:

“Zahir hai ke Musalman log kis qadr Hazrat Isa AS ko izzat aur ta’zeem ki nazar se dekhte hain aur unhen Khuda ka pyara rasool aur barguzida yaqeen rakhte hain. Lekin jab ek muta’assib padri aanhazrat ﷺ ki be-adabi se baaz nahin aata… to ilzami taur par ek Musalman aise jawab deta hai ke us padri ko yeh ma’loom ho — magar phir bhi woh tariq-e-adab se bahar nahin jata, kuch na kuch sehat-e-niyyat dil mein rakh leta hai. Kyunke Islam mein kisi nabi ki tahqeer kufr hai aur sab par iman lana farz hai.”

“It is clear how much respect and reverence Muslims have for Hazrat Isa (AS) and consider him God’s beloved messenger and chosen one. But when a bigoted priest does not stop disrespecting the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ… a Muslim gives a reply as a counter-argument — but still does not go beyond the boundaries of respect, and keeps good intentions in his heart. Because in Islam, disrespecting a prophet is disbelief, and believing in all prophets is obligatory.”

— Ruhani Khazain, Vol. 23, p. 389

In the same passage he adds that using harsh words against Isa (AS) even in counter-argument makes one uncivilised and against the Quran. In Majmooah Ishtiharat, Vol. 3, p. 544, he explicitly called Muslims who use harsh language about Isa (AS) when responding to Christian insults “ignorant” (jahil).

He also stated that Ilzami Jawab against Christians must come from their own Bible, not from invented claims (Malfuzat, Vol. 9, pp. 335–336).

Against his own standards:

Attack One: Alcohol

MGA’s condemnation of alcohol in his own words:

“Sharaab jo Umm ul Khabaaith hai use halal samjha gaya hai. Is se insaan khushoo’-khuzoo’ se jo ke asal juz-e-Islam hai bilkul be-khabar ho jata hai. Ek shakhs jo ke raat din nashe mein rehta hai hosh us ke baja hi nahin hote to use doosri badiyon ke irtikab mein kya rukawat ho sakti hai?”

“Alcohol, which is the mother of all filthy things, has been considered permissible [in Christianity]. It makes a person completely unaware of the humility which is the main component of Islam. A person who is drunk all the time and not in his senses — what can possibly stop him from committing all other evils?”

— Malfuzat, Vol. 5, p. 151

He also stated clearly that alcohol is so evidently filthy that no scripture needs to declare it so (Review of Religions, March 1902, p. 110). He declared Yahya (AS)/John the Baptist superior to Isa (AS) on this basis:

“Magar Maseeh ki raastbaazi apne zamaane mein doosre raastbaazon se barh kar saabit nahin hoti. Balke Yahya Nabi ko us par ek fazilat hai kyunke woh sharaab nahin peeta tha aur kabhi nahin suna gaya ke kisi faahisha aurat ne aa kar apni kamaai ke maal se us ke sar par ‘itr mala tha ya haathon aur apne sar ke baalon se us ke badan ko chhua tha ya koi be-ta’alluq jawan aurat us ki khidmat karti thi. Isi wajah se Khuda ne Quran mein Yahya ka naam Hasoor rakha magar Maseeh ka yeh naam na rakha kyunke aise qisse is naam ke rakhne se maani’ the.”

“But there is no evidence that Messiah’s righteousness was greater than the other righteous people of his time. Rather, Yahya (AS) has one superiority over him: he did not drink alcohol, nor is it recorded that a prostitute came and massaged his head with perfumed oil from her own earnings, or touched his body and rubbed it with her hair, or that a young woman with no relation to him was placed into his service. For this very reason, Allah referred to Yahya in the Quran as Hasoor [chaste] but did not give this name to Isa (AS), because such stories stood as a hindrance.”

— Ruhani Khazain, Vol. 18, Dafi’ ul Bala, pp. 219–220

MGA then moved from exegesis to personal theological opinion:

“Mere nazdeek jabke Maseeh sharaab se parhaiz karne wala nahin tha aur koi is ki biwi bhi nahin thi to go main maanta hoon ke Khuda ne us ko bhi bure kaamon se bachaya lekin main kya karun mera tajurba is baat ko nahin maanta ke woh ismat mein aisa kaamil ho sake jaisa ke woh doosra shakhs jo na sharaab peeta hai aur na halaal wajah ki aurton se us ko kuch kami hai.”

“But I have looked at this carefully and reflected as much as possible: while Christ was not one to abstain from alcohol and he had no wife, I believe that God saved him from evil deeds. But what shall I do? My experience does not admit that he can be as perfect [in chastity] as another person who neither drinks alcohol nor lacks women through lawful means.”

— Review of Religions, March 1902, Vol. 1, p. 116

He argued that since Yahya (AS) abstained from alcohol at a time when it was clearly prohibited, Isa (AS) had no excuse (Malfuzat, 1984 Ed., Vol. 4, p. 89). He went so far as to blame European alcoholism on the example of Isa (AS):

“Europe ke logon ko jis qadr sharaab ne nuqsaan pahunchaaya hai us ka sabab to yeh tha ke Isa AS sharaab piya karte the — shayad kisi bimari ki wajah se ya puraani aadat ki wajah se. Magar ae Musalmaano! Tumhare Nabi ﷺ to har ek nashe se paak aur ma’soom the.”

“The reason why alcohol has harmed the European societies is because Jesus (AS) used to drink alcohol — perhaps because of an illness or an old habit. But O Muslims, your Prophet ﷺ is free from every intoxicant and is innocent.”

— Ruhani Khazain, Vol. 19, Kishti Nuh, p. 71

And his conclusion in the Review of Religions, March 1902, p. 110:

“Not only the objections of the Jews, but it is also proven from the Gospel that Jesus was guilty of it [drinking alcohol] all his life… hence no one has any doubt that Jesus Christ used to drink alcohol.”

This is MGA’s personal, considered theological position — stated in multiple books over multiple years. It is not a single polemical remark made in the heat of debate.

Attack Two: A Sinful Prophet Who Repented

MGA also argued that Isa (AS) was a sinner who formally repented — specifically through the Baptism of Yahya (AS):

“By the confession of Messiah when he said ‘do not call me righteous’, above and beyond other things, it proves that he was a sinner. Because the actions of Christ shed light on the same meanings and takes this matter to the level of Haqq al-Yaqeen. Because, first, he took the Baptism of repentance at John’s hand, which is a confession of sin — hence by taking this Baptism he had put a stamp on being a sinner.”

— Review of Religions, March 1902, Vol. 1, pp. 108–109

He further wrote: “In the history regarding Christ, there is confession of sin, there is repentance like sinners, and there are sinful acts too” (Review of Religions, March 1902, p. 110).

And from Ruhani Khazain, Vol. 18, p. 220: “Moreover, Isa (AS) repented of all his sins at the hand of Yahya [whom the Christians call John] — who was later identified as Elijah — and became one of his special followers.”

Attack Three: No Miracles — Three Methods of Denial

MGA’s attack on the miracles of Isa (AS) is the most systematically developed part of his campaign. He employed three distinct methods of denial.

Method 1: Outright Denial

“‘Isaaiyyon ne bahut se aap ke mu’jizaat likhe hain. Magar haqq baat yeh hai ke aap se koi mu’jiza nahin hua.”

“The Christians have written many miracles of his. But the truth is that no miracle was performed by him at all.”

— Ruhani Khazain, Vol. 11, Zamima Risala Anjam-e-Atham, p. 290

He went further and called what appeared to be miracles outright fraud:

“Agar us se koi mu’jiza bhi zahir hua ho to woh mu’jiza us ka nahin balke us talaab ka mu’jiza hai. Aur us ke haath mein siwa makr aur faraib ke aur kuch nahin tha.”

“If any miracle was performed by him, it was not his miracle but the miracle of that pool [of Bethesda]. And in his hands there was nothing but deception and fraud.”

— Ruhani Khazain, Vol. 11, Zamima Risala Anjam-e-Atham, p. 291

And equating Isa’s miracles with Hindu mythology:

“If we are to accept [such narratives] in the same manner, then what wrong have the Hindus done that their 33 crore gods should not be accepted and the stories of the Puranas not believed?”

— Malfuzat, Vol. 2, pp. 455–456

Method 2: Aml Turb (Mesmerism)

This is the most theologically significant method. MGA reframed Isa’s healings as Aml Turb — a form of mesmerism or hypnotic force — and then claimed this term was itself divinely revealed to him:

“Yeh jo main ne mismereezmi tariq ka ‘Aml ul Turb naam rakha jis mein Hazrat Maseeh bhi kisi darje tak mashq rakhte the yeh ilhaami naam hai aur Khuda ta’ala ne mujh par zahir kiya ke yeh ‘Aml ul Turb hai.”

“The name ‘Aml ul Turb’ that I have given to this mesmerism technique, in which Jesus the Messiah had expertise to some level — this is a revealed title. God Almighty has revealed to me that it is ‘Aml ul Turb.”

— Ruhani Khazain, Vol. 3, Izalat ul Auhaam, p. 259

Having labelled the miracles as mesmerism by divine authority, he then explicitly severed any connection between this technique and prophethood:

“Yeh salb-e-amraaz ka mu’jiza — is se nubuwwat ka saboot nahin hota aur na nubuwwat se is ko koi ta’alluq hai kyunke yeh sirf mashq par mawqoof hai aur har shakhs jo mashq kare — khwah woh Hindu ho ya Musalman, ‘Isaai ho ya Dahri — yeh gharz koi bhi ho — woh mashq karne se is mein maharat paida kar sakta hai. Is liye is salb-e-amraaz ko nubuwwat se koi ta’alluq nahin hai balke yeh ek aam baat hai.”

“This removal of ailments is not proof of prophethood, nor does it have anything to do with prophethood. Because it rests only on practice, and anyone may become proficient in it through practice — whether Hindu, Muslim, Christian, or atheist. Therefore this removal of ailments has nothing to do with prophethood. It is a trivial thing.”

— Malfuzat, Vol. 2, p. 508

He added that this technique does not even require moral character:

“For this technique, it is not even necessary to be righteous or pious [to practice it], let alone that it could serve as proof of someone being appointed [by God]. Because the method of removing ailments is found equally among Hindus, Jews, and Christians.”

— Malfuzat, Vol. 3, p. 127

Method 3: Salb-e-Amraaz (Removing Ailments = Merely Natural)

The third method re-labels the healings as a purely natural human capacity involving no divine intervention:

“Main ne tahqiq kar li hai ke un ke mu’jizaat ki haqiqat salb-e-amraaz se kuch bhi badhi hui na thi — jis mein aaj kal Europe ke mismereezm karne wale aur Hindu aur doosre log bhi mashaaq hain — aur khayyalaat aise behooda aur sathi the ke sara’ ke mareez ko kehta hai ke is mein jinn ghusa hua hai, halaan ke agar sara’ ke mareez ko quinine dein… to woh acha ho jata hai.”

“I have investigated and found that the reality of his miracles was no greater than the removal of ailments — in which European mesmerists and Hindus and others are also expert today — and his ideas were so absurd and superficial that he called an epileptic ‘one possessed by a jinn’, whereas if you give quinine to an epileptic… he recovers.”

— Malfuzat, Vol. 2, pp. 475–476

The Sir Syed Contradiction

For the reader who may think MGA’s rationalism on miracles was a consistent theological position, one passage is decisive. He wrote about Sir Syed Ahmed Khan’s rationalist approach to miracles:

“Mu’jiza to Islam ki pehli aint hai. Afsos hai in logon ne Islam ko badnaam kiya hai. Jis baat ko samajhte nahin us mein Europe ke filosopheron ki chand be-ma’ni kitaben parh kar dakhl dete hain… Asal baat yeh hai ke is qism ke khyaalaat dahriyyat ka natija hain jo khatarnaak taur par phailti ja rahi hai.”

“Miracle is the first brick of Islam and believing in the unseen is the first necessity. It is a pity that these people have defamed Islam. They interfere in matters they do not understand after reading a few meaningless books of European philosophers… The fact is that these ideas are the result of atheism (dahriyyat) which is spreading dangerously.”

— Malfuzat, Vol. 2, p. 345

He added: “Miracles are a stamp of approval from Allah to declare that he is my prophet and these are my teachings” (Ruhani Khazain, Vol. 6, p. 176).

The contrast is stark:

flowchart LR
    A["Sir Syed Ahmed Khan\nrationalises miracles away\ncalling them natural events"] --> B["MGA condemns this as\n'atheism' (dahriyyat)\nand an insult to Islam"]
    C["MGA then says of Isa AS:\n'no miracle was performed by him'\n'his healings were just mesmerism'\n'available to any Hindu or atheist'"] --> D["The same rationalism\nMGA condemned as dahriyyat\nwhen applied to the Prophet PBUH"]
    B ~~~ C

When Sir Syed applied rationalism to the miracles of Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, MGA called it atheism. When MGA applied the same rationalism to the miracles of Isa (AS) — a prophet of Allah — he called it theology.

The Internal Contradiction of Aml Turb

MGA’s Aml Turb framework collapses under the weight of his own stated principles. Consider the following three propositions, all from MGA:

Proposition 1: Miracles are the stamp of Allah’s approval for a prophet’s mission. (RK 6:176; Malfuzat 2:345)

Proposition 2: Aml Turb (the technique attributed to Isa’s healings) has nothing to do with prophethood, requires no moral character, and is equally available to Hindus, atheists, and Christians. (Malfuzat 2:508; Malfuzat 3:127)

Proposition 3: Aml Turb was so makrooh (religiously disliked and disgraceful) that MGA himself refused to practice it. (RK 3:257)

Proposition 4: Aml Turb caused Isa (AS) to fail in his prophetic mission:

“Yahi wajah hai ke go Hazrat Maseeh jismaani bimaaon ko is ‘amal ke zariya se acha karte rahe magar hidaayat aur tawheed aur deeni istiqamaton ke kaamil taur par dilon mein qaaim karne ke baare mein inki kaarrawaiyon ka number aisa kam darje ka raha ke qareeb qareeb naakaam ke rahe.”

“This is why, although Hazrat Maseeh continued to heal bodily sick people through this technique, in the matter of firmly establishing guidance, monotheism, and religious steadfastness in hearts — his efforts were of such a low standard that he remained close to a complete failure.”

— Ruhani Khazain, Vol. 3, Izalat ul Auhaam, p. 258

Putting these four propositions together:

1. Allah gives miracles to prophets as His stamp of approval for their mission.
2. What Isa (AS) performed was not miracles — it was Aml Turb, a technique unrelated to prophethood.
3. Aml Turb is so disgraceful that MGA personally refused to practice it.
4. This same Aml Turb caused Isa (AS) to fail in his prophetic mission.

The conclusion MGA has forced: Allah gave a prophet a disgusting, non-divine technique that had nothing to do with prophethood, and which caused that prophet to fail in his mission.

This does not just attack Isa (AS). It attacks the nature of prophethood and divine wisdom itself. If a prophet sent by Allah can fail in his mission because of something Allah gave him — and that thing is disliked by MGA — then the entire framework of divine guidance is incoherent.

The Quranic Standard

The Quran does not describe Isa (AS) in any of these terms.

On his miracles, the Quran is explicit and unambiguous. Isa (AS) is described as performing miracles bi-idhni-Allah — “by the permission of Allah” — a phrase that appears repeatedly and specifically to distinguish divine miracles from natural events or human techniques:

“Wa rasoolanilaa bani Israel anni qad jitukum bi-aayatin min rabbikum: anni akhluqu lakum min atteeni kahayati-t-tair fa-anfukhu feehi fa-yakoonu tayran bi-idhniLlah. Wa abri-ul- akmaha wal-abrasa wa uhyi-l-mawtaa bi-idhniLlah.”

“And [I will make him] a messenger to the Children of Israel, [who will say], ‘Indeed I have come to you with a sign from your Lord in that I design for you from clay [that which is] like the form of a bird, then I breathe into it and it becomes a bird by permission of Allah. And I cure the blind and the leper, and I give life to the dead by permission of Allah.”

— Quran 3:49

The phrase bi-idhniLlah appears twice in a single verse about Isa (AS). It is not describing mesmerism. It is not describing a natural capacity available to Hindus and atheists through practice. It is describing a direct divine act.

On his moral character, the Quran describes Isa (AS) as wajeeh (honourable, of high standing) in this world and the next, among those brought near (min al-muqarrabeen) (3:45), and says Maryam (AS) was truthful (siddeeqa) (5:75) — the Quran’s response to those who accused her family. These are not the descriptions of a man who drank habitually, sinned publicly, and needed to repent through baptism.

On the return of Isa (AS), the hadith literature is established and mutawatir: he will descend near the white minaret east of Damascus, break the cross, kill the swine, and establish justice. The Prophet Muhammad ﷺ described him as a just judge, and said: “How will you be when the son of Maryam descends among you, and he is your Imam from among yourselves?” (Sahih Bukhari 3449; Sahih Muslim 155).

There is no hadith in which the Prophet ﷺ attributes drinking, sin, prostitute contact, or mesmerism to Isa (AS). The contrast between the Prophet’s ﷺ treatment of Isa (AS) and MGA’s treatment could not be more complete.

Summary

MGA’s attacks on Isa (AS) are not isolated polemical remarks. They are a sustained, multi-year theological position — developed across multiple books, journals, and volumes of Malfuzat — which contradicts the Quran, contradicts the authenticated hadith, and contradicts MGA’s own stated principles for how Muslims should speak about prophets of Allah.

The man who called miracle-denial dahriyyat (atheism) when Sir Syed did it, and who called disrespecting Isa (AS) kufr when ordinary Muslims did it, turned around and did both.

The Islamic position remains what it has always been: Isa ibn Maryam (AS) is the noble Messenger of Allah, born of a virgin, sent with clear miracles by divine permission, alive in the heavens, and will return as a sign of the Hour. Maryam (AS) is among the most honoured women in the history of humanity. This is the Quran. This is the Sunnah.

And it is entirely incompatible with MGA’s theology.