The Three Methods: How MGA Systematically Dismantled the Miracles of Isa (AS) -- and the Prophet ﷺ

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (MGA) had a sharp and public opinion about people who rationalise miracles away. When Sir Syed Ahmed Khan — the 19th-century Muslim reformer — re-interpreted Islamic miracles as natural events and questioned the received understanding of prophetic signs, MGA condemned him directly:

“Mu’jiza to Islam ki pehli aint hai. Afsos hai in logon ne Islam ko badnaam kiya hai… 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… The fact is that these ideas are the result of atheism (dahriyyat) which is spreading dangerously.”

— Malfuzat, Vol. 2, p. 345

He also wrote: “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).

These are strong, clear positions. Miracle-denial is atheism. Miracles authenticate prophets. Without miracles, faith is dead.

MGA then applied three distinct methods to strip every genuine miracle from the Prophet Isa ibn Maryam (AS) — and quietly extended one of those methods to the splitting of the moon, a miracle of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ himself.

This article documents all three methods from MGA’s primary sources, examines the logical structure of each, and shows why each one collapses under MGA’s own stated principles.

The Setup: Why Denying Isa’s Miracles Was Strategically Necessary

MGA claimed to be the second coming of Isa (AS) — the Promised Messiah of the latter days. This created an obvious problem: if the first coming of the Messiah involved raising the dead, healing the blind from birth, creating living birds from clay by divine permission, and a life confirmed by unambiguous prophetic signs, then comparisons to MGA — who performed none of these — were damaging.

His solution was to bring the first coming down to his own level.

If Isa (AS) never actually performed any real miracles, then the absence of miracles from MGA’s own career becomes unremarkable. If Isa’s healings were just a natural human technique available to Hindus and atheists, then MGA’s failure to heal anyone requires no explanation. If even the Prophet’s ﷺ greatest miracles were just natural astronomical events, then the entire framework of prophetic authentication through signs is gone — and no one can demand such signs from MGA.

Each of the three methods serves this single strategic purpose.

Method 1: Outright Denial

The most direct approach was simple assertion. MGA stated, flatly, that no miracle was ever performed by Isa (AS):

“‘Isaaiyon 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 Anjam-e-Atham, p. 291

He went further, calling what appeared to be a miracle an act of 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, p. 291

He compared accepting Isa’s miracles to accepting the mythology of Hindu gods:

“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

And he ranked Isa (AS) below the Prophet Elijah:

“Agar us ke mu’jizaat hain to woh doosre nabiyon se barh kar nahin hain — balke Ilyas Nabi ke mu’jizaat us se bahut zyaada hain. Aur ba-mujib-e-bayan-e-Yahoodion ke us se koi mu’jiza nahin hua, mahaz faraib aur makr kaha tha.”

“If he has miracles, they are no greater than those of other prophets. In fact the miracles of the Prophet Elijah are far greater than his. And according to the Jews, no miracle was performed by him at all — it was mere deception and trickery.”

— Ruhani Khazain, Vol. 20, Chashma Seehi, p. 344

Note the theological sleight of hand: MGA is endorsing the Jewish position on Isa (AS) — the same Jewish position that the Quran explicitly rejects in 4:156-157, where it condemns the Jews for “their disbelief and their saying about Maryam a great slander.”

The Quran treats the Jewish dismissal of Isa (AS) as a form of slander deserving of divine condemnation. MGA treats it as corroborating evidence.

Method 2: Aml Turb (Mesmerism)

The second method did not simply deny the healings — it reframed them as a natural human technique. MGA introduced the concept of Aml ul Turb (which he equated with the modern concept of mesmerism or hypnosis) and applied it to every healing attributed to Isa (AS).

Critically, he claimed this label was itself divinely revealed:

“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 severed any connection between this technique and prophethood:

“Yeh slab-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.”

“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. It is a trivial thing.”

— Malfuzat, Vol. 2, p. 508

He added that this technique requires no moral character whatsoever:

“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

And then came the most damaging conclusion. Having attributed Isa’s healings to Aml Turb, MGA declared that the same technique caused Isa to fail in his actual 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

He also clarified the Quranic verses about Isa’s miracles in the most deflating terms possible:

“Quran Sharif ki aayaat bhi ba-awaaz-e-buland yehi pukaar rahi hain ke Maseeh ke aise ‘ajaib kaamon mein us ko taaqat bakshi gaee thi aur Khuda ta’ala ne saaf farma diya hai ke woh ek fitrati taaqat thi jo har ek fard-e-bashar ki fitrat mein mawjood hai — Maseeh se is ki kuch khususiyat nahin.”

“The verses of the Quran themselves are loudly declaring that Isa was given power for such wondrous works and God clearly stated that it was a natural power placed in every human’s nature — Isa has no special distinction for it.”

— Ruhani Khazain, Vol. 3, Izalat ul Auhaam, p. 263

This is the full trajectory of Method 2:

1. Isa’s miracles = Aml Turb (mesmerism)
2. Aml Turb is a natural technique available to atheists and Hindus
3. Aml Turb has nothing to do with prophethood or divine approval
4. Aml Turb actually caused Isa to fail in his prophetic mission
5. Therefore: what God Almighty called a divine sign in Quran 3:49 (bi-idhniLlah) is a natural human technique that any sufficiently practised non-Muslim can replicate

The Quran uses the phrase bi-idhniLlah (by Allah’s permission) twice in one verse about Isa’s miracles (3:49). MGA replaced that phrase with “natural human capacity.”

Method 3: Kashf — The Collective Vision Argument

The third method is the most philosophically ambitious and the most dangerous in its implications. Rather than denying miracles outright or naturalising them, this method accepts that something happened — but re-categorises the event as a shared spiritual vision (kashf) rather than a physical occurrence.

MGA applied this kashf argument to the splitting of the moon (Shaq ul Qamar) — one of the most celebrated miracles of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ himself. He first floated it as a mere “possibility” as early as 1886; his son and successor, the 2nd Caliph, later hardened it into an outright denial that the moon had ever physically split.

The Splitting of the Moon — A Miracle of the Prophet ﷺ

The Shaq ul Qamar (splitting of the moon) is recorded in Sahih al-Bukhari (Hadith 3637), Sahih Muslim (Hadith 2800), and multiple other chains. The Quran itself opens Surah Qamar (54:1-2): “The Hour has drawn near and the moon has split. And if they see a sign, they turn away.” The classical Tafsir tradition is unanimous that this refers to a physical, visible miracle witnessed by the Quraysh in Makkah at the time of the Prophet ﷺ.

The seed of the kashf reinterpretation appears as early as 1886. In Surma Chashm Arya, MGA was answering an Arya (Hindu) critic — Lala Murli Dhar — who had objected, in a written challenge dated 11 March 1886, that the splitting of the moon was contrary to the laws of nature. MGA defended the miracle, but in the course of that defence he floated both a naturalistic and a kashf reinterpretation of it:

“…then why be surprised at lunar events? Is it not possible that the All-Wise placed in [the moon] both the properties of splitting (inshiqaq) and joining — their manifestation tied to appointed times by eternal decree — when such a miracle was asked of a prophet? Is it not also possible that, by the effect of the prophet’s holy power, the onlookers were granted kashf eyes (spiritual sight), and the splitting that is to occur near the Day of Judgment was brought before their eyes?”

— Ruhani Khazain, Vol. 2, Surma Chashm Arya, p. 315

The subject of this passage is explicitly the moon (inshiqaq — its splitting), not any other miracle. What MGA raised here in 1886 as a tentative “is it not possible,” his movement would, in the decades that followed, harden into firm doctrine.

MGA wrote in Malfuzat, Vol. 2, p. 400:

“Doosra bara ‘azeem ul-shaan mu’jiza aanhazrat ﷺ ka Shaq ul Qamar tha. Aur Shaq ul Qamar mu’jiza dar-asl ek qism ka khusūf hi tha aur aanhazrat ﷺ ke ishaare se hua.”

“The second grand miracle of the Prophet ﷺ was the Shaq ul Qamar. And the Shaq ul Qamar miracle was in fact a kind of lunar eclipse and happened through the gesture of the Prophet ﷺ.”

In Ruhani Khazain, Vol. 23, Chashma Ma’rifat, p. 232:

“Hamaari raai mein yeh ek qism ka khusoof tha. Khusoof mein jo hissa posheeda hota hai go yah phat kar alag ho jaata hai — ek isti’aara hai.”

“In our view, that was a type of lunar eclipse. In an eclipse, the portion that becomes hidden is as if it splits apart — it is a metaphor.”

And in Ruhani Khazain, Vol. 18, Nuzool ul Maseeh, p. 506:

“When the disbelievers saw the sign of the moon — which was a kind of lunar eclipse — they said ‘What is unusual about this? It has been happening since time immemorial.’”

MGA’s son and successor, the 2nd Caliph Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmad, made the Kashf interpretation explicit in Al-Fazl, 7 July 1922:

“The moon did not actually split into two pieces. Rather, it was shown as a collective kashf (spiritual vision). Such kashf can involve multiple people. Those present in that gathering saw the moon split in two, and a Raja in India also saw it — so there could be future testimony. The idea that the moon actually split is incorrect. If it had actually split, the astronomers sitting in their observatories would certainly have seen it, but they did not record it.”

The Double Standard That Destroys the Entire Position

Now we reach the devastating internal contradiction.

MGA denied the Prophet’s ﷺ greatest miracle (Shaq ul Qamar) by saying it was just a lunar eclipse. But he then turned around and claimed a lunar and solar eclipse as his own sign of truthfulness:

“خسف القمر المنير — wa inna li ghassaq al-qamarayn — attankir?”

“For him [the Prophet ﷺ] the sign of the moon’s eclipse appeared, and for me [MGA] the sign of both the sun and moon. Now will you deny?”

— Ruhani Khazain, Vol. 19, Ijaz Ahmadi, p. 183

The logical structure is extraordinary:

flowchart TD
    A["The Prophet ﷺ performs\nShaq ul Qamar"] --> B["MGA: 'That was just\na lunar eclipse'\n(RK 23:232; Malfuzat 2:400)"]
    B --> C["Miracle stripped from\nthe Prophet ﷺ"]
    D["A solar AND lunar eclipse\noccurs in MGA's era"] --> E["MGA: 'This eclipse is\nMY divine sign of truthfulness'\n(RK 19:183)"]
    E --> F["A natural astronomical event\nbecomes proof of MGA's prophethood"]
    C --> G["The same category of event\n= stripped from the Prophet ﷺ\nbut claimed by MGA"]
    F --> G

He used the eclipse framework to take away from the Prophet ﷺ and give to himself.

The Prophet ﷺ actually split the moon — confirmed by Quran, Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, and mutawatir narrations. MGA called this a lunar eclipse. Then he claimed a lunar-solar eclipse (a regular, predictable astronomical event) as his own exclusive divine sign.

The Confession He Could Not Avoid

Remarkably, MGA himself acknowledged that his position on miracles was being challenged — and he felt compelled to address the accusation directly:

“Yeh bhi mujh par ilzaam lagaya gaya hai ke main mu’jizaat se munkir hoon halaanke mera iman hai ke baghair mu’jizaat ke zinda iman hi naseeb nahin ho sakta.”

“It has also been alleged against me that I deny miracles, whereas my belief is that without miracles, living faith cannot be achieved.”

— Malfuzat, Vol. 5, p. 364

He denied the accusation while the evidence of the accusation fills his own books.

Why Each Method Fails Against MGA’s Own Framework

MGA established a clear theological framework for miracles. Against that framework, each of his three methods is self-refuting:

The compound effect is a theology in which:

• The Quran’s most explicit miracle verse (3:49, bi-idhniLlah) describes a natural technique
• The greatest miracle of the Prophet ﷺ (Sahih Bukhari 3637) was an ordinary eclipse
• Authenticating prophetic signs mean nothing, since atheists can replicate them
• Yet regular eclipses, occurring by astronomical necessity, do authenticate MGA

The Quranic Response

The Quran does not leave room for ambiguity on the miracles of Isa (AS).

On the clay birds:

“Anni akhluqu lakum min at-teeni ka-hay’at-it-tayr, fa-anfukhu feehi fa-yakoonu tayran bi-idhniLlah.”

“Indeed I design for you from clay the likeness of a bird, then I breathe into it and it becomes a bird by the permission of Allah.” — Quran 3:49

On healing:

“Wa ubri-ul-akmaha wal-abrasa wa uhyi-l-mawtaa bi-idhniLlah.”

“And I cure the blind and the leper, and I give life to the dead by the permission of Allah.” — Quran 3:49

Bi-idhniLlah appears twice in a single verse. It is the Quran’s explicit attribution of these acts to direct divine permission — not to a natural human capacity, not to mesmerism, not to a technique available to atheists and Hindus. The phrase bi-idhniLlah is the precise theological opposite of what MGA called Aml Turb.

On the splitting of the moon:

“Iqtarabat as-saa’atu wa-anshaqqa al-qamar.”

“The Hour has drawn near and the moon has split.” — Quran 54:1

The Quran does not say “an eclipse appeared.” It says anshaqqa — “it split.” The classical Tafsir tradition of Ibn Abbas, Ibn Masood, Anas ibn Malik, and the overwhelming scholarly consensus understand this as a physical splitting witnessed during the time of the Prophet ﷺ.

MGA’s reinterpretation is not the product of deeper scholarship. It is the product of a strategic necessity: the Prophet’s ﷺ miracle had to be reduced so that MGA’s own eclipse could look like evidence.

Summary

Three methods, one purpose. In MGA’s theological system:

• Method 1 (Outright Denial): Isa performed no miracles. What appeared to be miracles was deception (makr and faraib). The Jewish dismissal of Isa is treated as corroborating evidence — contra Quran 4:156-157.

• Method 2 (Aml Turb / Mesmerism): Isa’s healings were a natural human technique (mesmerism) available to any Hindu, Muslim, Christian, or atheist with sufficient practice. This technique has nothing to do with prophethood, requires no moral character, and actually caused Isa to fail in his mission. What the Quran calls bi-idhniLlah is called a trivial natural capacity.

• Method 3 (Kashf / Collective Vision): Miracles that cannot be naturalised were recast as collective spiritual visions — not physical events. MGA floated this for the Shaq ul Qamar of the Prophet ﷺ as early as 1886, and his successor hardened it into the claim that the moon never physically split — it was “only a kashf” or a lunar eclipse.

The man who declared miracle-denial dahriyyat (atheism) when Sir Syed Ahmed Khan did it deployed all three methods against a prophet the Quran explicitly calls honourable, close to Allah, and the bearer of divine signs bi-idhniLlah — by the permission of Allah Himself.

The Islamic position remains: the miracles of Isa ibn Maryam (AS) were real, physical, and divine. The moon split at the indication of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ as the Quran and mutawatir hadith confirm. These are not natural events, not collective visions, and not mesmerism. They are bi-idhniLlah — and no private revelation from Qadian changes that.