The Shaykh’s remarks on the Qadiyyah sect and their amir, and how Rashid Rida refuted them.

The Shaykh : I remember clearly that when I was growing up in the pursuit of knowledge, I benefited greatly from Sayyid Rashid Rida and his magazine *Al-Manar*, in particular. In fact, I believe that this magazine was the key that opened the way of the Salaf for me. Yes, indeed; but I later found that in many of his articles, he deviated, to a small or large extent, from what the Sunnah brought. The reason for this is that he was afflicted by those who are called the Qadiyyah. Do you know them?

The questioner : Are they Sunni?

The Shaykh : No, the Qadiyyah who call themselves the Ahmadiyyah.

The questioner : Ghulam Ahmad al-Qadiyani.

The Shaykh : Ah, Ghulam Ahmad al-Qadiyani. They are known among the people of the Sunnah as the Qadiyyah, and they flee from this designation to the Ahmadi designation. So they say, “We are Ahmadiyyah.” They have a sinister objective in fleeing from that designation to this one; because the first designation is a reference to the town from which their lying prophet, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad al-Qadiyani, emerged, which is Qadian. And they claim affiliation with Ahmad because Mirza Ghulam Ahmad al-Qadiyani’s name is not Ahmad, but rather Ghulam, Ghulam Ahmad. This is a phrase in the Hindi language, and its interpretation is “servant of Ahmad.” So he is not Ahmad, but rather the servant of Ahmad. And the intended Ahmad is our Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). The non-Arabs have such designations to boast of their affiliation to the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). So Ghulam Ahmad is how the man was known. But when he claimed to be the Mahdi, and then claimed prophethood, he forced some of the texts of the Book and the Sunnah upon himself, dragging them onto himself. For example, the saying of the Exalted: Who is this Ahmad? It is Muhammad... He is the one they praise. And based on this, in order to make it valid for him to bring this verse and apply it to his self, other than his name in his writings, and I have studied this personally because I was afflicted with debating the Qadiyyah there in Damascus for many years. He used to write his name in his writings as Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, meaning the servant of Ahmad, son of Abdullah, son of Abd al-Muttalib. So he deleted Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and said: Ahmad, his name is Ahmad, in order to mislead people that this verse refers to me, and my name is Ahmad. As for Muhammad, the Prophet sent as a mercy to the worlds, his name is Muhammad, not Ahmad. This is how he deceived the misleaders. And therefore, to complete the misguidance of his Shaykh for him, he misleads the world that they are Ahmadiyyah, not affiliated with Ahmad ibn Abdullah ibn Abd al-Muttalib, but with Ahmad the Dajjal the liar. These people are like the Mu'tazilah, or even more immersed in misguidance, because they deny what is known from the religion by necessity. They believe in the entire Book, but only in its wording, not its meaning. It is not hidden from the scholars of knowledge that the wording in all speech, let alone the speech of the Divine, is not intended for its own sake, but rather it is a means to the meanings. As it is said: “Words are molds.” Yes, so what is the benefit if a believer believes in a certain verse, then twists and turns around it, and extracts from his misguidance a meaning that has no connection to the Qur'anic wording? This is the case of all the misguided sects in their dealing with the Qur'an, those who have not declared their exit from Islam, but rather they continue to claim that they are Muslims and believe in the Qur'an.
The Qadariyyah are an example of this; they believe in the wording of the Qur'an in many of its texts, but they distort the words from their places, as our Lord related in the Noble Qur'an regarding the Jews. They believe, for example, that the door of prophethood is open after Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), despite the saying of the Blessed and Exalted in the Qur'an: They do not deny that he is the Seal of the Prophets, but they deny, as the Mu'tazilah denied the divine decree and denied the divine attributes and the like. So they say: It does not mean the last of them, but rather the Seal of the Prophets is like a ring on the finger; it is their adornment. Well, this is their position regarding the Qur'an. What is their position regarding the mass-transmitted hadiths that there is no prophet after Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him)? What they could not interpret, they distorted, just as they distorted the Qur'an. And what they could not demolish, they demolished completely, saying: This contradicts the Qur'an. One of the most famous hadiths establishing that there is no prophet after him (peace and blessings be upon him) is the hadith of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) addressing Ali when he traveled to Tabuk as a warrior, and left Ali in the city, and Ali wept. So he (peace and blessings be upon him) comforted him by saying: They said this is an authentic hadith, but you did not understand it well. “No prophet after me” means with me, as for after me, there is a prophet.

The questioner : This is their interpretation.

The Shaykh : Yes, and this is another example of how they distort the words from their places. Yes.

The questioner : Because Aaron was with Moses; they have intelligence, these people, despite their misguidance.

The Shaykh : What intelligence? But intelligence without reason is of no benefit at all. Therefore, our Lord, Glorified is He, related in the Noble Qur'an regarding the polytheists and the disbelievers: Therefore, intelligence is one thing and reason is another.

The questioner : And you see that a third of the tafsirs after Ibn Kathir.

The Shaykh : Excuse me, excuse me, I made the digression very long, but I was talking about Sayyid Rashid Rida, and that I benefited from him, but I saw some deviations from him, including because of his refutation of the Qadiyyah. The Qadiyyah claim among their false claims that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad al-Qadiyani is from the Isa (Jesus) foretold in the hadiths. This is also from their false interpretations: The intended meaning is not Isa, but rather the added word is omitted, and its estimation is “a likeness of Isa.” Twisting and turning, who is this likeness? Mirza Ghulam Ahmad al-Qadiyani. So Sayyid Rashid Rida (may Allah have mercy on him) seemed to feel that he would not be able to establish a decisive, overwhelming proof against them except by casting doubt on the hadiths of the descent of Isa (peace be upon him). Why? So that the general public is influenced by the Qadiyyah...
Likewise, we said regarding him, despite his virtue and knowledge:
Sa'd mentioned it, and Sa'd is wrapped in it. / It is not thus, O Sa'd, that you drive the camels.
And I wrote in some of my writings and books that the way in all these examples and others is not interpretation (ta'wil), which is the brother of denial of the divine attributes (ta'til), but rather it is understanding the texts well as Muslims, so that they do not fall into negative or positive deviation.