Myth of Ijma’ on the alleged death of ‘Eisa (AS)

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani claimed that the first ever Ijma’ of the Ummah was on the death of ‘Eisa –may Allah bless him. (See Tuhfa Ghaznawiya page 55-61 included in Rohani Khazain volume 15)

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s contention:

His contention remains that as Abu Bakr –may Allah be pleased with him- recited the verse 3:144 to make the companions believe that Holy Prophet –may Allah bless him- had died, it is an evidence for the death of all the earlier Prophets.

He then quoted (Tuhfa Ghaznawiya p.48, Rohani Khazain vol.15 p.581) a passage from al-Shahristani’s work al-Milal wa al-Nahl to convey that ‘Eisa ibn Maryam –may Allah bless him- has also died.

Qur’an 3: 144 reads:

وَمَا مُحَمَّدٌ إِلَّا رَسُولٌ قَدْ خَلَتْ مِنْ قَبْلِهِ الرُّسُلُ أَفَإِنْ مَاتَ أَوْ قُتِلَ انْقَلَبْتُمْ عَلَى أَعْقَابِكُمْ

‘And Muhammad is but a messenger, there have been messengers before him. So, if he dies or is killed, would you turn back on your heels?’

And the words from al-Shahristani go as;

shahristani milal wal nahl

The highlighted words when translated mean;

“’Umar bin al-Khattab said, Whoever said that Muhammad has died I will kill him with this sword of mine and he has been raised to the heavens as was raised ‘Eisa ibn Maryam –may Allah bless him.” (al-Milal wal Nahl p.9)

More narrations:

Muhammad bin Sa’d quoted more narrations on the issue:

عن أبي سلمة بن عبد الرحمن قال: اقتحم الناس على النبي، صلى الله عليه وسلم، في بيت عائشة ينظرون إليه فقالوا: كيف يموت وهو شهيد علينا ونحن شهداء على الناس؟ … لا والله ما مات ولكنه رفع كما رفع عيسى بن مريم، صلى الله عليه وسلم

Narrated Abu Salamah bin ‘Abd al-Rahman: The people rushed to the Prophet, may Allah bless him, in the apartment of ‘Aisha to look at him. They said: “How can he die since he is a witness to us and we are witnesses to other people? … No! by Allah! He has not died; but he has been raised as ‘Eisa ibn Maryam was made to ascend.(Tabaqat al-Kubra 2/271)

The narration at first place proves that not merely ‘Umar but other companions too referred to ascension of ‘Eisa –may Allah bless him and be pleased with them all.

It further proves that at the back of their minds the blessed companions had the idea that ‘Eisa ibn Maryam –may Allah bless him- was alive and has been raised to the heavens and will return.

A query killed:

Lest one say, ‘Eisa’ –may Allah bless him- ascension was not physical because the companions said that while the body of the Holy Prophet –may Allah bless him- was present in front of them, the response is that they said it out of the shock and inability to believe in the death of the Holy Prophet.

We read:

فلم يزل عمر يتكلم ، حتى أزبد شدقاه

“’Umar continued speaking till the edges of his mouth were filled with foam.” (Kanzul ‘Ummal, Hadith 18773)

This was surely due to him being much affected by the tragedy.

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad also said:

kal majanin“And due to the sorrow he (‘Umar) was like the people who lose senses.” (Tuhfa Ghaznawiya p.55 –R.K. vol.15 p.588)

Moreover, ‘Umar and other companions alluded to ‘Eisa’ –may Allah bless him- ascension to contend against the death of the Holy Prophet –may Allah bless him- which also shows they belief in the life of ‘Eisa –may Allah bless him.

An interesting narration:

Another narration says:

Anas bin Malik –may Allah be pleased with him- reported:

لما توفي رسول الله، صلى الله عليه وسلم، بكى الناس فقام عمر بن الخطاب في المسجد خطيبا فقال: لا أسمعن أحدا يقول: إن محمدا قد مات، ولكنه أرسل إليه كما أرسل إلى موسى بن عمران فلبث عن قومه أربعين ليلة

When the Messenger of Allah –may Allah bless him- died, people wept. Thereupon ‘Umar bin al-Khattab stood as a preacher in the mosque and declared, “I should not hear anyone saying that Muhammad was dead. He has only been summoned (by Allah) as Musa ibn ‘Imran had been summoned and he had remained away from his people for forty nights …” (Kanzul ‘Ummal, Hadith 18772)

Can one say that even Musa Ibn ‘Imran was summoned to Mt. Sinai (al-Tur) for forty days only spiritually or metaphorically?

These narrations are solid evidence that companions had firm belief in the ascension of ‘Eisa ibn Maryam very much like in the fact of Musa Ibn ‘Imran being summoned by Allah to Mt. Sinai –may Allah bless them both. And it was just the overwhelming moment of shock that was making them to relate these things with the Holy Prophet –may Allah bless him.

Abu Bakr’s speech and Qur’an 3:144:

Question remains as to the intent and implication of Abu Bakr’s speech on the occasion. Abu Bakr –may Allah be pleased with him- recited Qur’an 3:144 on this occasion.

وَمَا مُحَمَّدٌ إِلَّا رَسُولٌ قَدْ خَلَتْ مِنْ قَبْلِهِ الرُّسُلُ أَفَإِنْ مَاتَ أَوْ قُتِلَ انْقَلَبْتُمْ عَلَى أَعْقَابِكُمْ

‘And Muhammad is but a messenger, there have been messengers before him. So, if he dies or is killed, would you turn back on your heels?’ (Qur’an 3:144)

Ahmadiyya allege that what he meant was to convey that all the prophets before the Holy Prophet –may Allah bless them all- had died and similarly he also died. And they contend, it implies according to him ‘Eisa ibn Maryam –may Allah bless him- was also dead.

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad argued that in the above verse the word خَلَتْ (khalat) means death and he maintained that taking to mean otherwise was simply absurd.

The fact of the matter, however, remains that his argument itself is totally absurd as it defies both the dictionary meaning and other usage of the word in the Holy Qur’an.

Meaning of ‘khalat’ according to dictionary:

Here the actual Arabic word is ‘khalat‘ which comes from the word ‘khala‘.

About ‘khala‘ Raghib Isfahani says:

والخلو يستعمل في الزمان والمكان لكن لما تصور في الزمان المضى فسر أهل اللغة خلا الزمان بقولهم مضى الزمان وذهب

Al-Khullu (the root of khala) is used for both time and space and but as there is a nuance of the past in (its usage of) time so linguists take it to refer to the past.” (Mufradaat al-Quran 1/158) …. and then he gives Quran 3:144 and 13:6 as its examples.

Thus he makes it clear that the verse does not refer to the death of the Prophets before Prophet Muhammad –may Allah bless him. It does not even deal with their being alive or dead rather it only refers to their fact of their having lived in the past.

Usage in the Qur’an:

The word is used at many places in the Qur’an and other instances with this word defy the claim of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.

In Surah al-Fath we read;

سُنَّةَ اللَّهِ الَّتِي قَدْ خَلَتْ مِنْ قَبْلُ وَلَنْ تَجِدَ لِسُنَّةِ اللَّهِ تَبْدِيلًا

“The consistent practice of Allah that went on since before (qad khalat), and you will never find a change in Allah‘s consistent practice.” (Qur’an 48: 23)

No sane person would ever say that here ‘khalat’ can mean death by any stretch of imagination.

When used for people:

It’s also wrong to say that when used for persons the word khala means death for we read in the Quran:

وَإِنْ مِنْ أُمَّةٍ إِلَّا خَلَا فِيهَا نَذِيرٌ

“…and there never were a people, without a Warner having lived (khala) among them (in the past)” (Quran 35: 24)

In relation to Qur’an 5:75

In fact the same wording is used in Qur’an 5:75

مَا الْمَسِيحُ ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ إِلَّا رَسُولٌ قَدْ خَلَتْ مِنْ قَبْلِهِ الرُّسُلُ

“The Masih, son of Maryam, is no more than a Messenger. There have been messengers before him…”

You should not be amazed that Mirza who took strong exception to above like translation of Qur’’an 3:144 himself translated 5:75 likewise. See Jang Muqaddas p.7 –Rohani Khazain vol.6 p.89

untitledIf the above translation is perfectly valid for Qur’an 5:75 why is it not so for Qur’an 3:144? If I call it sham and hypocrisy then some people might take feel hurt. To such I call on to reflect on this game of double standards and self contradiction.

Infact it will be logically wrong to say that either Qur’an 5:75 or 3:144 entail death of each and every Prophet before ‘Eisa or Muhammad –may Allah bless them both- respectively. As a matter of fact, while ‘Eisa Ibn Maryam walked this Earth another Prophet Yahya was also alive –may Allah bless them both.

While it has to be accepted why can then it not be agreed to that while Holy Prophet –may Allah bless him- walked this Earth ‘Eisa –may Allah bless him- was also alive?

A very important point:

It is well known that Qur’an 3:144 was revealed about the happenings during the Battle of Uhud which took place in the year 3 A.H. and it was certainly all about the Holy Prophet –may Allah bless him- alone. In the year 9 A.H. when a deputation of the Christians of Nejran came to the Holy Prophet –may Allah bless him- during argumentation with them he said.

ألستم تعلمون أن ربَّنا حيّ لا يموت، وأنّ عيسى يأتي عليه الفناء؟

“Do you not know that Our Lord (Allah) is ever living but death will come to ‘Eisa?”

The verse that Abu Bakr –may Allah be pleased with him- was revealed in the year 3 A.H. and in the year 9 A.H. Prophet –may Allah be bless him- said that death had yet to come to ‘Eisa –may Allah bless him. So how on Earth can a true believer dare to stretch the verse to contend what Mirza Ghulam Ahmad suggested?

For an exposition of Ahmadi gimmicks on the above quoted report see THIS.

What did Abu Bakr refute?

What was the notion that Abu Bakr –may Allah be pleased with him- debunked? This is what is to be considered with due attention.

‘Umar and other companions in that moment of extreme grief and distress were awestricken and in that mode they make wrong analogies. They tried relating the case of Holy Prophet –may Allah bless him- with that of Musa’ visit to Mt. Sinai (al-Tur) and of ‘Eisa’ ascension –may Allah bless them both. So the cases of Musa and ‘Eisa –may Allah bless them both- were the objects of their analogies while Holy Prophet –may Allah bless him- was the subject.

While the verse he recited speaks that there were Prophets before him, it relates death to Holy Prophet –may Allah bless him- in person alone. So all Abu Bakr –may Allah be pleased with him- wanted to clarify was that the Prophet had died. He showed how the subject itself did not fit into the analogies and this has nothing to do with the object i.e. either the visit of Musa to Mt. Sinai or the resurrection of the ‘Eisa –may Allah bless them both.

Rather, the fact that ‘Umar and other companions –may Allah be pleased with them all- related the happening to ‘Eisa’ ascension itself shows that they held the same belief as is the unanimous belief of the whole Ummah in opposition to the Ahmadiyya. On it they were as certain as about Musa’ visit to Mt. Sinai.

Had he any reservations about the object of analogy he would have refuted the object of analogy to kill the argument of ‘Umar and other companions–may Allah be pleased with them all.

This shows even Abu Bakr –may Allah be pleased with him- was at par with other companions about the life and ascension of ‘Eisa ibn Maryam –may Allah bless him. He just did not agree that something of the similar had happened to Holy Prophet –may Allah bless him.

Summary:

1. ‘Umar and other companions referred to ascension of ‘Eisa –may Allah bless him- which shows they did believe that he was alive and had ascended to the heavens.

2. The fact that he referred to ascension of ‘Eisa –may Allah bless him- while denying the death of the Holy Prophet –may Allah bless him- shows he meant it literally for only physically alive ascension does away with the idea of death.

3. ‘Umar –may Allah be pleased with him- also referred to Musa’ –may Allah bless him- going to Mt. Sinai (al-Tur) which proves, to him all he referred to including the ascension of ‘Eisa -may Allah bless him- was literal. It refutes the notion of spiritual ascension in ranks.

4. The word ‘khalat’ in Qur’an 3:144 does not mean death and merely refers to something having been in the past.

5. Nearly 6 years after the revelation of Qur’an 3:144 Holy Prophet –may Allah bless him- confirmed that ‘Eisa Ibn Maryam had not been countered by death.

6. The incident is rather evidence for the Islamic belief and not that of the Ahmadiyya.

7. Statement of ‘Umar and other companions and the reaction of Abu Bakr and no further objection on it from any other companion is an evidence of ijma’, albeit a tacit one, on the life of ascension of ‘Eisa –may Allah bless him- as much literal like Musa’ visit to Mt. Sinai (al-Tur).

I wish this paper helps common Ahmadi folk to develop an understanding of the things and look into the academic tricks of Ahmadiyya ‘intellectual elite.’

Indeed Allah knows the best!

Be Sociable, Share!

48 thoughts on “Myth of Ijma’ on the alleged death of ‘Eisa (AS)

  1. And yes, Khalat doesn’t mean death.

    Tilka ayyam qad khalat
    (Those are days that have passed)

    Tilka Sunnan qad khalat
    (Those are traditions that have passed)

    Days and traditions don’t die. Khalat doesn’t mean death.

  2. Great work

    Main points in summary clearly shows that this incident suppots Muslims rather than AHMADI beliefs

  3. If some ahmadies or other will say
    that companions said that thing of ESA(AS) coz they were in shock but
    Out of grief someone can apply the belief wrongly.

    But not that they just Create the belief out of thin air is highly unlikely 🙂

  4. Salam brothers,

    I have read your post and it is extremely misleading. You are beyond of beyond on this one brothers. Here is why;

    Why was this specific verse of the Holy Qura’an revealed? At the battle of Uhud when rumors started to spread on the battle field that Muhammad (sas) had been killed many of the faithful wavered in their faith at that moment. Therefore this is why this verse revealed;

    ‘And Muhammad is but a messenger, messengers have passed away before him. So, if he dies or is killed, would you turn back on your heels?’

    This is the meaning given by Yusuf Ali, Muhammad Asad, Shakir, in fact you are the only people that I have at all ever come across that say that passed away does not mean passed away. [Note from admin: You ascribe one position to all people on the blog, be very careful about your sloppiness please]

    Now as to the meaning of the first statement of this verse. This is important to understand. Firstly Rasool Allah (sas) is mentioned in the present tense “that he is (but) a Messenger”. But then the tense changes to the past. It is mentioned that “Messengers have passed away” i.e. these messengers “were” (in the past) meaning that they are not now or are not in the present. Therefore they have “passed away” in the term that they have died.

    خَلَتْ* comes from the root word خَلَا means to “vacate” or “has gone/left”. But خَلَتْ is a past tence verb meaning “vacated/left” in the past. When applied to a human being of human beings what does it mean? What was vacated? It means death i.e. passed away. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (as) was therefore correct in this meaning when used for a person or person in that it means death, that in this case it means that they died.
    Example; “Those are a people that have passed away(قَدْ خَلَتْ); for them is what they earned, and for you shall be what you earn; and you shall not be questioned as to what they did” Al-Baqarah Chapter 2 : Verse 134 (Suffice to say they are no longer in existence temporally) The testament to that statement of course is every translation of the Holy Qur’aan in existence.

    قَدْ means “already” when used as an adverb. So this means that they have “already passed”

    Also the word قَبْلِهِ here means “before” as in before Muhammad (sas). So they have passed before Muhammad (sas). So they have passes and are in the past and that this happened before the coming of Muhammad (sas).

    So the meaning is that;

    And Muhammad was but a Messenger, verily; Messengers have passed away before him…

    So this verse is saying that Muhammad is a mere man and a Messenger. The Messengers that came before him have died and he shall also die. So if he dies or is killed will you then turn back?

    As Abu Bakhir (ra) announced;

    “Whoever among you worships Muhammad, Muhammad has indeed died; but whoever worships Allah, Allah lives on for ever, never dies. Allah says: ‘Muhammad is only a messenger; messengers before him have indeed passed away…’ (the Quran, 3:144).”
    (Bukhari, Kitab al-Mughazi)

    Wasalam

    • wa ‘alaykum as-salaam,
      Thanks for your response.

      The crux of your argument is that khala means death.

      What does ‘khala’ mean when applied to a human being, you ask? Surah al-Baqarah, verse 14, Allah says “wa idha khalaw illa shaytateenihim” (When they depart to their devils). This applies to a human being, yet does not mean death. Or do you really believe it still means death there?

      Khala means ‘depart’, that’s it. You are turning ‘go away’ or ‘depart’ into ‘Died a natural death in India at the age of 120.’

      There are many other things that depart, but the quality of death would not make sense to them: Ayyam (days), Sunan (Traditions), etc.

      My brother, what words could I utter that would have you leave this false prophet that has driven a wedge between you and I in spiritual brotherhood? Are there any?

      • Salam,

        No brother the crux of my argument is not that “Khalat” means death. “Khalat” is only one word and depending on its usage its meaning can amend. Farhan you are going into another area when you talk about false prophets brother. Please lets stick to the academic subject here as to the meaning of “qad khalat min qablihi”. Yes “Khalat” means “vacated” or “departed” “something empty”. Actually the comprehensive meaning is like a void i.e. there was something there but not anymore. (Kh-L-W can also mean “alone” – as from the root almost as a synonym) so you are right and Qad Kallat can mean “have already departed”. And as I said “qablihi” means “before” (past tense) SO “qad kallat min qablihi” means “have departed before” So …Messengers have departed before him….

        Now you are saying that “Messengers have departed before him” does not mean death but rather just means that they have in a manner of speaking left the stage of action (either completely or temporarily).

        “Khalaw” in the verse you presented in this context means “alone”. Arabic is very complected (and I am not a scholar by far) However Qad has the instant meaning. Khalat when mentioned in the third person (so neither you nor I but they) has the meaning of emptiness. So Qad Khalat has the meaning of arriving an emptiness meaning “they became gone” in the literal sense or the grammatically correct “they passed away” i.e. died.

        Now if this verse says that all the Prophets before Rasul Allah (sas) are dead then what is the problem? Isa (as) has dies as all Prophets have dies. The Jews are still banging their head against the wailing wall waiting for Elijah although he has already been and gone in the personage of Yayah (as) and because they insist on literal fulfillment they are devoid or understanding. Remember Allah (aza wa Jal) told us to pray ihdinas sirital mustaqeem that guide us on the right path, sirititlah dhina…the path of those whom thou has blessed (Rasul Allah) and not of those whom have incurred thy displeasure (the Jews). and if you read the Qur’aan you will see that because they rejected the Messiah (as) and treated him as a liar that they became deserving of ruin (May Allah save our Ummah from this ruin). So brother what words MAY I SPEAK to convince you of the reality that the Messiah of Muhammad (sas) has come?

        Wasalam dear brother,
        Yusuf

        • Mirza ghulam himself translated it differently from what ur saying and example is given above…. So Ahmadies got no argument on this issue.

          unless u ppl reject Mirza Ghulam Ahmad

      • Great reply! This is exactly what one needs to understand. It is simple. Just wanted to add further.

        “Khala means ‘depart’, that’s it. You are turning ‘go away’ or ‘depart’ into ‘Died a natural death in India at the age of 120.’”……………………. and then returning as the son of Chirag Bibi in the form of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qaidani and not to mention that the religion of Christianity is still increasing even after 100years after his death.

    • Wa alaikum assalam

      ** As to the background of the verse

      The verse 3:144 was revealed about the incident during the Battle of Uhud and all that verse suggests is that Prophet (PBUH) is not to remain forever as has been the case with the earlier prophets who have been there before him. The words that Allah chose here are miraculous indeed for they give the message yet do not provide room for those who doubt the return of ‘Eisa (AS)

      Phrase 1 says: Muhammad* is just a Prophet (*may Allah bless him)

      Phrase 2 says: There have been prophets in the past

      Phrase 3 says: If the Prophet dies or is killed …

      the verse was revealed sometimes in Hijrah 3, 8 years before the death of the Holy Prophet -may Allah bless him. So the the verse simply says that no prophet is to live forever and likewise Prophet is to die sooner or later … this does not contradict the Islamic belief of life and return of ‘Eisa (AS) Also relate it to the Hadith I quoted(“‘Eisa WILL die”, said the Holy Prophet SAAW)

      In that moment of grief the thing went off the mind of ‘Umar (RA) etc but Abu Bakr (RA) whom Allah had chosen to remain composed recited the verse simply to tell that it was already told that death was to come to the Prophet -may Allah bless him and it was nothing that should make one behave that way.

      ** On meaning of “khalat”

      See what Ragheb Isfahani said and then he quoted the verse in question as its example

      Further, while the idea that “khalat” means death which is essentially derived from certain english translations cannot be applied to every single use of the word for humans (as shown by akhi Farhan), the fact that it only refers to sth having been in the past leaves no issue at all.

      *** Mirza’s translation of Qur’an 5:75

      A very similar verse is 5:75 and as I have shown in the post Mirza himself translated the way I am arguing the translation ought to be.

      Your comments on Mirza’s translation of 5:75 shown above please??

      • Brother,
        1. I would first give preference to the five or six locations in the Quran that have used ‘qad khalat’, before I start looking at scholars, and then I would not look at only one. That is the honest way. ‘qad khalat’ means ‘passed away’ in Arabic. The problem is not in the translation, the problem is in assigning meanings to a Quranic verse that do not exist in order to justify your interpretation of a hadith.

        I am ready to have a debate on ‘qad khalat’ alone.

        2. Below, I have listed the sources for the two ‘Ahadith’ where ‘Umar (ra) presumably talks about Eesa(as) that you cite. Are these books the only source of Ahadith. If so, are they considered authentic collections of Ahadith?

          • Moral of the story:

            We have enough data on the character of MGAQ to convict him of ‘religious/secular-perjury’ in any court of law or public opinion. I think that Brother Akber was referring to this aspect of the “Awareness Team”. It seems that he was referring to the fact that the ‘A’ is teetering on the ropes of ‘free-fall’. I think he is right, I think he was giving us a glimpse into the mis-management of the ‘A’ that Masroor has created. Furthermore, we should seize this oppurtunity collectively.

            Waqar is an in-depth Islamic Scholar that has provided us with some wonderful insight into the scholarly perspective of Islamic literature. Waqar’s work is ground-breaking inasmuch as it motivates Muslims to search deeper into the academic aspect of the greatest religion of all-time.

            For the Ahmadis that stop by:

            Islam is a religion that allows men and women with the freedom of expression annd thought. We may differ on some minor points of beliefs. However, we are all brothers and we are all working with each other to solidify the message of Islam in the 21st century.

    • He didnt distorted it
      u know arabic way better than me

      and as much as I read khalat does not mean death so its not talking about death of previous prophets but more like comparing Prophet (PUBH) with previous Prophets that he was just like one of them.

      I know its difficult for u to accept it coz u grow up having this belief and its not that easy.

        • It was not an insult sorry if u felt like that

          what I was trying to point out that it is difficult for u coz u grew up with that belief.

          • I would like to add this:

            At the time of the battle of Uhud when the verse in question was revealed (3:144). The story of Esa (as) hadnt been fully explained to Muhammad and the Muslims. There was uncertainty. If face, I hypothesize that all the traditions in terms of the return of Esa (as) were reported after 4:157-158 were revealed.

            4:157 came about a year after 3:144. Hence…at the time of 3:144 the story of Esa (as) was unclear to Muslims. Allah hadnt clarified if Esa (as) was to return or not. Allah also hadnt clarified the conditions of Esa ‘s (as) escape.

            Whether ALL the messengers had died before Muhammad (saw) or not was not the purpose of the verse. And even if it was……. 4:157 and 4:158 explained the escape of Esa (as) once and for all.

            In all of my research I have noticed some minor technical inconsistencies with Islam. We shouldnt dwell on them the way that MGAQ did.

        • When Similar wording were used for ESA(AS) during ESA(AS) time Hazrat Yahya (AS) was alive so was the verse proven wrong then?

          So Abu Bakar(RA) quoting the verse does not mean that he was refuting the analogies but was reply to the point of return of Prophet (PUBH) and proving his (PUBH) death

          coz the Moses (AS) analogy does not even involves DEATH

  5. Salam,

    No brother the crux of my argument is not that “Khalat” means death. “Khalat” is only one word and depending on its usage its meaning can amend. Farhan please you are going into another area when you talk about false prophets brother. Please lets stick to the academic subject here as to the meaning of “qad khalat min qablihi”. Yes “Khalat” means “vacated” or “departed” “something empty”. Actually the comprehensive meaning is like a void i.e. there was something there but not anymore. (Kh-L-W can also mean “alone” – as from the root almost as a synonym) so you are right and Qad Kallat can mean “have already departed”. And as I said “qablihi” means “before” (past tense) SO “qad kallat min qablihi” means “have departed before” So …Messengers have departed before him….

    Now you are saying that “Messengers have departed before him” does not mean death but rather just means that they have in a manner of speaking left the stage of action (either completely or temporarily).

    “Khalaw” in the verse you presented in this context means “alone”. Arabic is very complected (and I am not a scholar by far) However Qad has the instant meaning. Khalat when mentioned in the third person (so neither you nor I but they) has the meaning of emptiness. So Qad Khalat has the meaning of arriving an emptiness meaning “they became gone” in the literal sense or the grammatically correct “they passed away (into physical emptiness)” i.e. died.

    Now if this verse says that all the Prophets before Rasul Allah (sas) are dead then what is the problem? Isa (as) has died as all Prophets have dies. The Jews are still banging their head against the wailing wall waiting for Elijah (as) although he has already been and gone in the personage of Prophet Yayah (as) and because they insist on literal fulfillment they are devoid or understanding. Remember Allah (Aza wa Jal) told us to pray ihdinas sirital mustaqeem that; guide us on the right path, sirititlah dhina…the path of those whom thou has blessed (Rasul Allah) and not of those whom have incurred thy displeasure (the Jews). And if you read the Qur’aan you will see that because they rejected the Messiah (as) and treated him as a liar that they became deserving of ruin (May Allah save our Ummah from this ruin). So brother what words MAY I SPEAK to convince you of the reality that the Messiah of Muhamamd (sas) has come?

    Wasalam dear brother,
    Yusuf

    • wa ‘alaykum as-salaam wa rahmat Allahi wa barakatahu,

      You made several points, but I’m going to focus on the meat again

      To our Ahmadi readers, do your own research! Do this:
      1) Read Surah al-Baqarah, Verse 14/15 and read “Khalaow illa shayatinihim” and then read the translation.
      2) You’ll see that it means “When they depart [ie, in a private gathering or the like] to their devils…”.
      3) Recognize that Khalow means ‘depart’, not ‘death’.
      4) Reject the Ahmadi argument that ‘Indeed all prophets have died befoer him” is what it says about ‘Esa bin Maryam (AS)

      Yusuf, you can’t just throw out “It means alone”, without evidence. This is an exact usage of the word khalow upon a human being as the Direct Object, just as you cited, and it proves khalat/khala/khalow does not mean ‘death’. Now the burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise – and if you do, Surah Baqarah verse 14/15 makes no sense.

      Arabic is not as complicated of a language as outsiders seem to think. Its much cleaner and has less nuances than English. For example, Arabic has 3 parts of speech, English has 8. So, just appealing to Arabic’s mysterious and complex nature doesn’t work.

      The Messiah is ‘Esa bin Maryam (AS). This whole “two messiahs” notion is not supported by the Qur’an. Mirza Ghulam just made it up. May Allah guide us all to the Truth.

      May Allah heal this wound in the Muslim ummah and bring the Ahmadiyya community back to us…

  6. I like to throw the parallel of these two verses back at them:
    When the verse was revealed about Muhammad SAAWS, was Muhammad SAAWS alive? Yes.
    When the verse was revealed about ‘Esa bin Maryam (AS), was ‘Esa bin Maryam (AS) still alive? Yes.

    Question the Murabbis

  7. The first part of the debate was on the logical and referential problems with ‘qad khalat’ as presented by the author. There is no sufficient explanation of that.

    If we are through that, we can discuss the origins of the two ‘Ahadith’ as presented in the post. The two references for the Eesa version are: Tabaqat al-Kubra (a Sufi bibliography) and Kitab al-Milal wa al-Nihal (a study of comparative religions). Both of these are not books of authentic Ahadith.

    There may be other more authentic sources, but I am not an expert. Any other source for this?

    We Muslims can disagree on things and be part of the same Ummah, unlike the Qadiani cult. If we cannot explain away ‘qad khalat’ as it occurs five or six times in the Quran, and we cannot find more authentic sources for the Eesa (as) version of the Ahadith, then where do we stand on this post?

    The one in Kanzul Ummal about Moses (as) appears to be more reliable and I have found more references to it, but I haven’t looked into it in detail.

    • @ //Tabaqat al-Kubra (a Sufi bibliography)//

      Ibn Sa’d’s Tabaqat al-Kubra is a “sufi” bibliography … when was this revelation made? brother, if this is your level of understanding of the classical Islamic works then it is no wonder to find horrendous flaws in your arguments. Ahan now we will be told that it is not the heart of the argument, however it does say a lot about one’s level of of understanding of hadith literature … especially when a person continues making such “supporting errors” .. it’ll however be interesting to find out as to which western orientalist said this before the a “modern rationalist” mind adopted it

      Regarding the “khalat” thing. I’ll insha’Allah make a dedicated response on my blog letmeturnthetables.com

      Though I do maintain that idea of death of ‘Eisa (AS) is a heresy but I would not equate one with Qadianis for this thing alone if he does believe in Finality of Prophethood.

      • I will ignore the personal comments. I do maintain that you are a Muslim even though you have tried to change the established meaning of a Quranic verse 🙂

        You are still to answer on why you chose to ignore the meaning of ‘qad khalat’ as understood by generations of scholars and even your chosen translation.

        You are the expert – I asked you if you considered this book an authentic collection of Ahadith. Please answer yes/no and try to avoid personal comments if you can.

        • I think bro Akber’s statement:

          All I am saying is that ‘qad khalat’ in this verse has been understood by many scholars as death of past prophets.

          BY SAYING MANY he has admitted that it can be understood differently.

          Now it seems Bro Akber is just arguing out of ego rather than for any valid reason

    • A Simple point

      In grief people could apply analogy wrongly but they creating NEW BELIEF (if u believe that they did not believe in ascension and return of ESA(as) )

      So u believe that this NEW BELIEF about Jesus was just created suddenly at that point?

      • Brother Xia, am still waiting to hear Brother Waqar’s verdict whether the Ahadith are from authentic collections or not – as none of the books I have read so far refer to the Eesa(as) version, only the Musa (as) version.

        Meanwhile, the question to Brother Waqar about the established usage of ‘qad khalat’ remains unanswered, and he asked for Arabic references — here is a link to five great mufassireen talking about this verse (out of many). To make sure you read them, please pay close attention to the Tafseer al-Minar excerpt 😉
        http://urdu.ahmedi.org/archives/786

        • While I’ll post the details on my blog in the evening. let me share with people that Tafsir Manar was written by Rasheed Raza al-Misri, student of Muhammad Abduh, both committed skeptics of established Hadith tradition. It is like quoting somebody from the club of Sir Syed, Parvez or Ghamidi

          • Bro, nobody asked for typical long-winded ‘details and there are FIVE mufassireen quoted, just for things like these 🙂 and I have a list of 20 more, don’t want to bore people.

            We want to know (please don’t avoid):
            1. Whether you departed from the meaning of ‘qad khalat’ in this verse that is established for 1400 years.
            2. Whether the hadith mentioning Eesa in this post is from an authentic collection.

            So far, you have excluded me, Ghamidi, Sir Syed, Parvez, Rashid Raza, Mohamed Abduh etc. from Islam in your Islam v Ahmadiyya. By the time we are done, you would have excluded/twisted the majority of the Ummah.

            3. Is this narrow parochial view Islam v. Ahmadiyya?

            You could have made the case for the exception of Jesus (as) from ‘qad khalat’ and that may have been defensible. But to change the meaning of that phrase that occurs in 5/6 places in the Quran and that has been known for 1400 years is astounding.

  8. Brother Waqar asked me in a private email to ignore the ‘angraizi’ and refer to Arabic. I have respectfully complied in the link below. He has also asked me to refer to the scholars of the last 1400 years — and I have presented 5 of the most well-known tafseers (out of many). Again, the usual course of Quranic scholars is to find usage in the Quran, then look at mufassireen, and then betweeen the tafseer to the language.

    The goal in this exercise is for us, as Muslims, to be careful in what we write so as to not assign a new meaning to a verse as understood by scholars for 1400 years. In other words, leave the deed of distorting established meanings to the Qadianis!

    http://urdu.ahmedi.org/archives/786

  9. Faran@

    Abd’ullah Yusuf Ali the famous Qur’anic Translator translated “qad kallat” in the aforementioned instance as “passed away”.

    “Muhammad is no more than an apostle: many Were the apostle that passed away before him. If he died or were slain, will ye then Turn back on your heels? If any did turn back on his heels, not the least harm will he do to Allah. but Allah (on the other hand) will swiftly reward those who (serve Him) with gratitude”.
    -(Yusuf Ali Translation)

    Are you honestly telling me that you have trumped him, surpassing all other translators of the past in your understanding of the Arabic language?

    Faran approach any Arab brother and ask them about the meaning of these words in this verse and what they connote and you will get the same meaning which Yusuf Ali arrived at. Many of the posts on this site are your own personal opinion and perspective but on this post on all counts and from every angle you are just 100% wrong brother plain and simple.

  10. Denying the descent of Eesa AS is kufr and takes one out of the fold of Islam. Only “free thinkers” such as Sir Syed and Ghamdi-followers try to deny the words of our beloved Prophet Muhammad and try to create fitna in the Ummah.

  11. I have just read brother Waqars rebuttal to the allegations of Akber Chaudhry on his website.

    http://www.letmeturnthetables.com/2011/07/qad-khalat-quran-3-144-part-1.html#more

    Yet again it seems Ahmadi apologists refuse to look into the tafseer of the greatest mufassireen, Ibn Katheer. The muslim world unanimously consider the tafseer of Ibn Katheer the most reputable without discounting others however on the topics of prophethood and Eesa’s ascension, Ahmadis ‘forget’ to look into his works and then have the audacity to claim they have researched ‘mufasireen’. ‘The word ‘Qad khalat’ has been proven beyond doubt to mean ‘the past’ and not ‘dead’ based on all the instances of qad khalat within the Quran. Any objective person would understand this. Ibn Katheer also has a huge rebuttal of any claim to prophethood, so without going off the topic, it doesnt surprise me Ahmadis ‘overlook’ his comments on all topics. If they admit to using his tafseer on some issues they also need to somehow explain away his statements on the end of prophethood. Its probably easier for Ahmadis to deny all of Ibn Katheers work than try and cherry pick those ones which Mirzas beliefs could agree with.

  12. Brother Farhan whats the answer to my question? Is this the new Farhani Fiqah that no one heard of before? Did you make a new Qur’aan? So now you and Asif Raja can say that Abdulla Yusuf Ali is Kafir because he translated a verse to prove Isa (as) died? This according to Asif puts one out of Islam. Can we have the Fatwa in writing please so we can know who is Kafir?

    King Fahd translation of Qur’aan brother, what does it say? “Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وسلم) is no more than a Messenger, and indeed (many) Messengers have passed away before him”. Can you call up the Saudi Embassy in your country and let them know that all the people of Saudi are non Muslim, Jazzzak’Allah.

    Maybe they can join the Farhani movement to “reform” the Qur’aan….or is the word I’m looking for “interpolation”? no “deviation” is a better word.

    Yesterday I asked my brother Hamza about your argument. He is Arab/Libyan. He really laughed.

    • @Yusuf are you for real? What are you saying? Are you saying Yusuf Ali claimed Esa died? Are you seriously claiming King Fahad translation claims that Esa died? What a slander on an individual and an organisation.

      Have you even read the rebuttal by brother Waqar in relation to the term qad khalat, in relation to all those ayahs? Do you just ignore evidence that is contrary to the beliefs of one man in qadian?

      Lastly in relation to your Arab/Libyan friend and your insult to bro Farhan. I know many Arabs, far more than your solitary ‘Arab expert’ and they laugh every day about the Ahmadi claim that Khaatam un Nabiyeen doesnt mean the last of the prophets. But ofcourse these Arabs are not the Arabs you associate with because they would laugh at you.

      • Abu Eemaan, Good reply MashaAllah!

        Looks like @Yusuf has either misunderstood the Abdullah Yusuf Ali translation or someone in the ‘A’ has misinformed him.

        The whole point of the ‘A’ argument is to rely heavily on the mystery of Isa a.s, leaving this World and try to find some fault with the Muslim belief (based on their own twisted logic) and then try to introduce MGAQ as some kind of Messiah, Prophet, Mahdi etc.

        If anyone has really read the teaching of MGAQ sahib and has studied his life there is no way on Earth (If they are honest with themselves) that they can believe he was a Messiah or a Prophet or a Mahdi. You can’t even say that he was an honest and decent person.

        For Ahmadis, to keep on arguing about the subject of Isa a.s, without realizing that MGAQ (with abundance of proof) was never a Messiah or a Prophet or Mahdi is like someone trying to argue about a post graduate degree program while he cannot even read or write at a kindergarten level.

    • Yusuf how that verse proves that ESA(AS) has died?
      Come on are u for serious

  13. Pingback: Tracking Waqar Akbar Cheema on ‘qad khalat’ » ahmedi.org

  14. I am coming to this site after several months and notice that the usual issues are being debated. I have asked many non-Ahmadi brothers a number of questions about Hazrat Isa AS and, so far, I have not received a full answer. I hope I can get some of them here. Please note that I am asking in good faith and I am not really interested in debate as there are far more compentent brothers here (Yusuf Sahib for example). My interest is to understand people’s faith. I have done the same with Christian, Hindu, Sikh and Buddhist friends at work.

    My questions are simple: Firstly, if you believe that Hazrat Isa AS is in Jannat, does this mean that there is a physical place in the universe somewhere, where he is residing. Secondly, when he does come back physically in Damascus Syria, how would he be viewed by other sects who have a totally different approach to Islam, such as Shia, Sufi, Deobandi and others. I am asking this because there is no agreement among the Muslim sects and regular Fatwas and exchanged. Thirdly, what would he know of the religion founded by Rasulullah SAW, given that he was a Jew.

    Many thanks for any replies that I receive. I do have a few more questions. Again as I said I am not here to debate but to understand the point of view of the 1 billion plus Muslims.

Comments are closed.