Did Muhammad Rashid Rida deviate from the methodology of the Salaf?

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, especially. In fact, I believe that this magazine was the key that opened the way of the Salaf for me. Yes, that is right; but I found that in much of his later writing, he deviated, to a small or large extent, from what the Sunnah brought. The reason for this is that he was afflicted by those known as the Qadiyyan; do you know them? The Qadiyyan who call themselves the Ahmadiyyah, Ghulam Ahmad al-Qadiyyani. They are known to the people of the Sunnah as the Qadiyyan, and they flee from that designation to the Ahmadiyyah designation. So they say, "We are Ahmadiyyah," and they have a sinister goal 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-Qadiyyani, emerged, which is Qadian. And they claim affiliation with Ahmad because Mirza Ghulam Ahmad al-Qadiyyani’s name is not Ahmad; rather, it is Ghulam Ahmad. This is a style in the Indian 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, then claimed prophethood, and took upon himself some of the texts of the Book and the Sunnah, dragging them onto himself, such as the saying of Allah the Exalted: Who is this Ahmad?

Another questioner : It is the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him and his family).

The Shaykh : No, it is "the one they praise," like that. And based on this, in order for it to be valid for him to drag this verse and apply it to his self, other than his name in his writings—I studied this personally because I was afflicted with debating the Qadiyyan 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, meaning 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 those who were misled, yes. And therefore, to complete the misguidance of their Shaykh, they mislead the world by saying they are Ahmadiyyah, not affiliated with Ahmad ibn Abdullah ibn Muhammad 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 wording, not in meaning. It is not hidden from scholars that the wording in all speech, let alone divine speech, is not intended for its own sake, but is a means to the meanings. As it is said, "Words are the molds of meanings." 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 Quranic wording? This is the case of all the misguided sects regarding the Quran: those who have not declared their exit from Islam, but still claim to be Muslims and that they believe in the Quran. The Qadiyyan are an example of this: they believe in the wording of the Quran in many of its texts, but they distort the words from some of their places, as our Lord mentioned in the Noble Quran regarding the Jews. For example, they believe 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 Quran: They do not deny that he is the Seal of the Prophets, but they deny it, just as the Mu'tazilah denied divine decree and denied the divine attributes and the like. So they say, "The Seal of the Prophets does not mean the last of them, but the Seal of the Prophets is like a ring on the finger; it is an ornament..." Well, this is their position regarding the Quran. 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 Quran, and what they could not do, they demolished completely, saying, "This contradicts the Quran." 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. Ali wept, so he (peace and blessings be upon him) comforted him by saying: They said, "This hadith is authentic, but you did not understand it well. 'No prophet after me' means 'with me.' As for 'after me,' meaning after his death, there is a prophet..." This is an example of how they distort the words from some of their places.

The questioner : This is intelligence.

The Shaykh : Intelligence, but intelligence without reason is of no benefit at all. Therefore, our Lord the Exalted and Majestic mentioned in the Noble Quran regarding the disbelievers and polytheists: So intelligence is one thing, and reason is another.