~Mirza Ghulam Ahmad – his conscience refuses to accept that Buddha behaved cruelly with his wife; similarly his righteous conscience refuses to accept the story in the Gospel that Jesus once showed no regard for his mother, that Jesus did not care for her when she came and called him, but instead uttered words insulting to her or Jesus was rude to his mother Mary.
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad 1835-1908, the Promised Messiah, the Second Coming says:
Among the testimonies contained in Buddhist records is the evidence mentioned on page 419 of Buddhism by Oldenberg14. In this book, on the authority of the book named Mahawaga page 54, section 1, it is recorded that a successor to the Buddha would be a man called ‘Rahula’, described also as a disciple; nay, rather, his son. Now here I am emphatic that the ‘Rahula’ of Buddhistic records is the corrupt form of ‘Ruhullah’ which is one of Jesus’ titles.
The story, that this ‘Rahula’ was the son of the Buddha who, having abandoned the Child in his infancy, had gone into exile and who, with the intention of parting from his wife for good, had left her asleep without informing her or saying farewell to her, and had run away to some other land, is altogether absurd, senseless and derogatory to the greatness of the Buddha. Such a cruel and hard-hearted man who had no compassion for his poor wife, who left her asleep and, without saying a word of consolation to her, stole away like a thief; who ignored altogether the duties he owed to her as a husband — neither divorcing her nor asking her permission to go on a journey without end;
who gave a hard blow to her heart by disappearing suddenly, who pained her and did not send even a letter to her, till the son grew up to be a man, and who did not take pity on the infant — such a man who had no respect for the moral teaching he himself inculcated can never be a righteous person. My conscience refuses to accept this, just as it refuses to accept the story in the Gospel that Jesus once showed no regard for his mother, that he did not care for her when she came and called him, but instead uttered words insulting to her.
So although the stories about hurting the feelings of wife and mother have a certain mutual resemblance, yet we cannot ascribe stories, which connote a falling off from the ordinary standards of character to Jesus or to Gautama Buddha. If the Buddha loved not his wife, had he no pity on a poor woman and her suffering child either? This amounts to a serious lack of character; so serious that I have been pained to think of it after the lapse of hundreds of years. One fails to understand why he did all this.
To be a bad man, it is enough to be careless towards one’s wife — except that she might be immoral, disobedient or faithless and hostile to her husband. Hence, we cannot ascribe any such offensive behaviour to the Buddha; this being against even his own teachings. These circumstances therefore show that the story is wrong. In point of fact ‘Rahula’ refers to Jesus, whose other name is ‘Ruhullah’.
The word ‘Ruhullah’ in Hebrew becomes similar to ‘Rahula’, and the ‘Rhaula’, i.e., ‘Ruhullah’, has been called the disciple of the Buddha because, as I have already stated, of Jesus coming after him and bringing a teaching similar to the teaching of the Buddha, and because of the followers of the Buddhist faith declaring that the source of that teaching was the Buddha and that Jesus was one of his disciples.
It should not be surprising if the Buddha, on the basis of revelation from God, should declare Jesus to be his ‘son’. Another piece of circumstantial evidence is that in the same book it is recorded that when ‘Rahula’ was separated from his mother, a woman who was a follower of the Buddha and whose name was Magdaliyana, acted as a messenger. It would be noticed that the name Magdaliyana is in reality a corrupt form of Magdalene, a woman follower of Jesus mentioned in the Gospels.
All this evidence, which has been briefly set out, leads impartial people to the conclusion that Jesus must needs have come to this country, and, apart from all such clear evidence, no wise man can afford to disregard the similarity, to be found especially in Tibet, between the teaching and the ceremonial of Buddhism and Christianity. Nay, rather, there is such a striking resemblance between them that most Christian thinkers believe that Buddhism is the Christianity of the East, and Christianity the Buddhism of the West15.
It is strange indeed that just as Jesus says, ‘I am the Light and the Way’, the same is said by the Buddha; just as the Gospels call Jesus the Saviour, the Buddha too calls himself the Saviour (see Lalta Wasattara). In the Gospels it is stated that Jesus had no father, and with regard to the Buddha it is stated that in reality he was born without a father16, although apparently, just as Jesus had a father, Joseph, so had the Buddha a father.
It is also stated that a star rose at the time of the Buddha’s birth; there is also the story of Solomon ordering the cutting of the child in two halves and giving one of these halves to each of two women, which is found in the Buddha’s Jataka. This, apart from showing that Jesus has come to this country, also shows that the Jews of that country who had come to this land had developed connections with Buddhism.
http://www.alislam.org/library/books/jesus-in-india/ch4.html
paarsurrey 