Was Mahdi to appear after the year 1200 A.H.?

Failing to come up with any positive argument in favor of countless claims of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani, Ahmadis resort to raise issues that prove nothing. In fact a deep look invariably proves their being a cult.

They use a narration from Sunan Ibn Majah to contend that Mahdi was to appear after the year 1200 A.H. and the point they try to make is that MGAQ was Mahdi as he was born after the year 1200 A.H.

Let’s have a look at the narration and its merits.

The Narration:

عن أبي قتادة قال قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم الآيات بعد المائتين

Abu Qatada narrates that the Holy Prophet (PBUH) said: “Signs will appear after two hundred years.” (Sunan Ibn Majah, Hadith 4057)

Authenticity of this narration:

Ahmadis will be in a haste to tell us that Hakim in his Mustadrak (H. 8437) quoted this narration and said, ‘This narration is Sahih on the standards of Bukhari and Muslim.’

But the fact is, to anyone who knows the science of classification of Ahadith and their narrators it is clear that Al-Hakim was too lax in his approach and many times authenticated weak narrations.

Al-Sakhawi, recognized as Mujaddid by Ahmadis, has said the same about Al-Hakim. See Al-‘ilan bi l-Taubih li man zamm al-Tarikh p. 168. Also see Abdul Hayy Lakhnawi’s Al-Rafa wal Takmil 1/291

Dr. G.F. Haddad has briefly given the opinions of scholars about his leniency HERE.


The most prominent scholar to comment about the narrations of Hakim’s Mustadrak is Imam al-Dhahbi. He writes in his comment to this narration:

أحسبه موضوعا

“I deem it to be Mawdhu i.e. fabricated. (See Mustadrak Al-Hakim ma’ Taliqat al-Dhahbi fil Takhlis, Hadith 8319)


Imam Bukhari also criticized this narration. He said;

هذا حديث منكر

“This is a rejected narration.” (Faidh Al-Qadir 3/206 Hadith 3029)

Ibn Jawzi:

Ibn Jawzi writes in his al-Mawdhu’at 3/198

هذا حديث موضوع على رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم

“This Hadith is fabricated [and ascribed] to the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him.”

Ibn Jawzi has been recognized as Mujaddid by Ahmadis.

Ibn Kathir:

Hafiz Suyuti writes in his commentary to Sunan Ibn Majah;

قَالَ بن كثير هَذَا الحَدِيث لَا يَصح

“Ibn Kathir said this Hadith is not Sahih.” (Sharah Sunan Ibn Majah 1/294)


Al-‘Ajluni in his Kashaf al-Khafa writes:

باب ظهور الآيات بعد المائتين لم يثبت فيه شئ

“Chapter on the appearance of signs after two hundred years: There is nothing proved in it.” (Kashaf al-Khafa 2/423)

Others early scholars:

Al-Manawi in his Taysir bi-Sharah al-Jami’ al-Saghir writes;

صَححهُ الْحَاكِم فأنكروا عَلَيْهِ وَقَالُوا واه جدا بل قيل بِوَضْعِهِ

“Hakim authenticated it, while many have rejected it and called it extremely absurd. Nay! They spoke of its being fabricated.” (Taysir bi-Sharah al-Jami’ al-Saghir 1/420)


Among recent scholars Shaykh Nasiruddin Albani has classified it as Mawdhu’ (fabricated) in his Sahih wa Da’if Sunan Ibn Majah (H. 4057) and Silsala Ahadith Da’ifa wa Mawdhu’a (H. 1966)

What does the Hadith mean?

Having clarified the actual value of this narration, let’s analyze its text;

1- Is Mahdi mentioned in this narration?

Can you, the reader, please find any reference to Mahdi in this narration? You can find it only if you are a die-hard, closed-eyed and brain-locked Ahmadi.

2- Mulla Ali Qari’s commentary:

Actually Ahmadis base their whole case on the commentary, rather a part of Mulla Ali Qari’s commentary to this, otherwise, false narration. He writes;

” بَعْدَ الْمِائَتَيْنِ ” أَيْ: مِنَ الْهِجْرَةِ، أَوْ مِنْ دَوْلَةِ الْإِسْلَامِ، أَوْ مِنْ وَفَاتِهِ – عَلَيْهِ الصَّلَاةُ وَالسَّلَامُ – وَيُحْتَمَلُ أَنْ يَكُونَ اللَّامُ فِي الْمِائَتَيْنِ لِلْعَهْدِ، أَيْ: بَعْدَ الْمِائَتَيْنِ بَعْدَ الْأَلْفِ، وَهُوَ وَقْتُ ظُهُورِ الْمَهْدِيِّ، وَخُرُوجِ الدَّجَّالِ، وَنُزُولِ عِيسَى – عَلَيْهِ الصَّلَاةُ وَالسَّلَامُ

‘After two hundred years’ i.e. :

1) From Hijrah.

2) Or from [establishment of] the Islamic state.

3) Or from the death of the Prophet –on whom be peace and blessings.

4) And it is possible that the article ‘al’ (equivalent to ‘the’) in ‘al-mi’atayn’ makes it a reference to a period of time. That is to say: [it means] two hundred years after the millennium and that is the time of appearance of Mahdi, and that of Dajjal and descent of ‘Eisa –on whom be the peace and blessings.’ (Mirqaat Al-Mafatih Sharah Mishkat Al-Masabih 8/3446 Hadith 5460 Broken down for understanding by the author of this post)

Firstly this commentary shows that Mulla Ali Qari believed Mahdi and Eisa (RA) to be two different fellows. This goes directly in contrast to Ahmadiyya religion’s dogma. If this has to be made the basis of a whole theory, why not accept it in full?

Concerning the issue at hand, he gives four possibilities in his opinion and one of them is picked up by Ahmadiyya and their faith hinges on it. Mulla Ali Qari, though a great scholar, is no evidence when it comes to his conjecture. Ahmadiyya are only aboard the ship of his conjecture sailing in the wild ocean. But this cannot lead them to any destination for the anchor to port this ship, i.e. the narration commented to, is a hoax. So Ahmadiyya please wake up and do not be eager to get drowned!

3- Imam Bukhari’s comments:

هذا حديث منكر. لقد مضى مائتان ولم يكن من الآيات شئ

“This is a rejected narration. Verily two hundred years have passed and nothing of the signs has appeared.” (Faidh Al-Qadir 3/206 Hadith 3029)

4- Hafiz Ibn Kathir’s saying:

Hafiz Suyuti writes:

وَقَالَ بن كثير هَذَا الحَدِيث لَا يَصح وَلَو صَحَّ فَمَحْمُول على مَا وَقع فِي الْفِتْنَة بِسَبَب القَوْل بِخلق الْقُرْآن للامام أَحْمد بن حَنْبَل وَأَصْحَابه من أَئِمَّة الحَدِيث

“Ibn Kathir said this Hadith is not Sahih and [even] if it Sahih it would be taken as a reference to the tribulation caused by the word about Qur’an being a creation at the time of Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal and his companions from amongst the scholars of Hadith.” (Sharah Sunan Ibn Majah 1/294)

This seems quite reasonable if at all the narration is to be accepted.


Ahmadiyya have absolutely no evidence for their claim. The Hadith does not even mention Mahdi, nor does it ask to count two hundred years after the millennium. To run to races with one of the four possibilities according to one single scholar suits only a cult. Ahmadiyya do it while their own ‘prophet’ had said that such statements are no evidence. Not to forget that the same statement of Mulla Ali Qari rejects Ahmadi belief of Mahdi and ‘Eisa (AS) being the same.

And before Ahmadis built their whole case on just a single possibility mentioned by a single scholar they ought to read the following statement of their ‘prophet’;

“Having been put to shame, our opponents resort to the excuse that their elders have said like that only. They do not realize that those elders were not innocent. Infact just as the Jewish elders fell into error concerning prophecies so did they.” (Zamimam Braheen Ahmadiyya part 5 p. 124 included in Rohani Khazain vol. 21 p. 290)

In wake of all of the above mentioned facts, I wonder if it suits Ahmadiyya to use the narration and statement of Mulla Ali Qari for any reason.

Is there not among you a single man of reason?


Be Sociable, Share!

15 thoughts on “Was Mahdi to appear after the year 1200 A.H.?

  1. thats called owning
    Mashallah brother Waqar great work like always
    now suddenly all the scholars u mentioned will become unauthentic for Ahmadies 🙂

    even though according Mirza himself all Ahadith about Mahdi was Majroh but still ahmadies keep quoting these narrations which shows that they are not honest.

  2. Masha’Allah brother Waqar, excellent post. These kind of articles require a lot of research, so jazakAllah khayr.

  3. As with the hadith of double eclipse, the proof of its truth is in its fulfillment. The list of scholars you have mentioned above have expressed their doubts based on their understanding that signs will appear after 200 years. Other scholars interpret this hadith to mean that signs shall appear after 1200 years. And indeed, the major and minor signs did start to happen after 1200 years of Hijra.

    Scholars and Mujaddids can make mistakes. It is my experience that debates around many ahadith produce equal volumes of pro and anti arguments from various scholars. This hadith is no exception,. So we need to consult Quran and other Ahadith to interpret this.

    Imam Ali Al-Qari in Mirqaat ul Masaabeeh states that it is possible that “al” in al-mi’atain may signify 1000 years on top of 200 mentioned in hadith.

    Shah Waliullah also declared that the appearance of Mahdi is imminent. Shah Abdul Azeez also confirmed that 13th century hijra was the century of Imam Mahdi. Both these scholars are considered authority among the sunni/wahabi circles. Nawab Siddique Hasan also agrees with them.

    There you go.. My list of scholars supporting the hadith.

    • I think u didnt read it luft Coz Waqar mentioned Ali Qari understanding as well

      so it just expose ahmadies that they pick and chose wat ever suits them 🙂

    • Do u even read stuff:

      Mullah Ali Qari Said:

      And it is possible that the article ‘al’ (equivalent to ‘the’) in ‘al-mi’atayn’ makes it a reference to a period of time. That is to say: [it means] two hundred years after the millennium and that is the time of appearance of Mahdi, and that of Dajjal and descent of ‘Eisa –on whom be the peace and blessings.’ (Mirqaat Al-Mafatih Sharah Mishkat Al-Masabih 8/3446 Hadith 5460 Broken down for understanding by the author of this post)

      Firstly this commentary shows that Mulla Ali Qari believed Mahdi and Eisa (RA) to be two different fellows. This goes directly in contrast to Ahmadiyya religion’s dogma. If this has to be made the basis of a whole theory, why not accept it in full?

      can u question ur jammat about it or u just take part of his statement as correct and part of it wrong 😀

      • The identity of Mahdi or Messiah is not the topic here, but the validity of the Hadith. Mullah Ali Al Qari gives plausable explanations for the hadith, you should concentrate on those rather than diverting the issue.

        Shah Waliullah, considered as a mujaddid by Ahmadis, and a great scholar by Deoband and Wahabis, agrees. The matter of appearance of Mahdi was considered so imminent that Syed Ahmad Shaeed at one point thought that he was the Mahdi.

        • Luft it is part of the same statement why are u ignoring that? 🙂

          why are u running away from the proof that statement about Ali Qari u quote regarding 200 years after thousand goes against ur CORE BELIEF BIG TIME.

          it is part and parcel and you cant just ignore the part of statement and take the other part, coz this expose you big big time once again.

          and even if you take the first part it means that 200 years after millennium that is 1200 or 2200 or 3300 and it goes on 🙂

          and even now we are in two years after Millennium.
          and same Ali Qari Pawns your jammat whole belief by this statement 🙂

          Ahmad sirhindi also believe mahdi will come soon so they were thinking that was their wish and opinion but that didnt happened.

        • So Luft ppl thinking and wishes thats what it was and nothing more
          but what Waqar has proven that you ppl quote stuff which according to ppl u consider Mujadid is fake.

          So Luft the statement of Ali Qari completely destroys Ahmadiyya according to which Mahdi and Messiah are Different.

          Where as ur whole belief is based upon that mahdi and messiah are same 🙂

          Can you question ur jammat about these lies and tricks?

    • Chill my Qadiani friend, although you have the full-time-media to peddle your hatred and fear-mongering, sadly, we are not here 24/7 to moderate all of your comments.

      Don’t you find it ironic that you’re here enjoying more freedom than most Ahmadis will ever get within their own circles? Or that you don’t have your own forum that is open, transparent and as lightly moderated as this one? It’s certainly more freedom than Muslims enjoy, whose voices are not allowed to be heard in the media unless they’re rent-a-“Muslim” Islamophobes like Anjem Choudary, Ed Hussein, Majid Nawaz, Shiraz Maher, Taj Hargey, Amina Wadud and now your cult? Do you enjoy their company?

      Do you enjoy your fan-base in the BNP and the EDL Lutf?

      • Last time I checked it was EDL who posponed their plans to protest in Wallsall because muslims like you took upon themselves to oppose the mosque.

        • I must have touched a raw nerve. It wouldn’t have been Muslims like me, all Muslims are allowed to have their opinions, this is a democracy after all. I didn’t oppose your place of worship actually. Go ahead, build what you want as long as it’s legal. I have no issue with that at all.

          I always give credit where it’s due Lutf. I once saw you counter a bigot who sympathised with you. But you can see how your movement acts like flypaper for such thugs, right? And your community didn’t help itself by congratulating Andrew Brons or shaking hands with Michael Nazi(r)-Ali or inviting the war criminal Shimon Peres to an “iftaar” dinner.

  4. So Ahmadies agree with Ali Qari on his explanation and where he tells that mahdi and messiah are different? or now suddenly they reject him? 🙂

    Sincere truth seeking Ahmadies must go and question ur leaders and jammat about it.

    that why they quote part of the statement and ignore the rest of it which completely destroys jammat ahmadiyya

    Allah Hu Akbar

Comments are closed.