‘Ulama, Murabbis and two extremely weak hadiths

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم الحمد لله وحده و الصلاة و السلام على من لا نبي بعده و على آله و أصحابه أجمعين

Some of the Ahmadiyya leaders try to stereotype contemporary Islamic scholarship as a whole using some narrations recorded in Hadith works.

Before talking of the status of scholars (‘ulama) in the House of Islam and especially their role with regards to the Ahamdiyya cult, let us first see the narrations that some Ahmadiyya leaders use and scrutinize them to check their authenticity.

Narration 1:

The following is the translation of one such narration as it appears on the AlIslam.org website:

The Prophet once said, “There will come a time upon the people when nothing will remain of Islam except its name and nothing will remain of the Quran except its words. Their mosques will be splendidly furnished but destitute of guidance. Their divines will be the worst people under the Heaven; strife will issue from them and avert to them.”

Continue reading

Scholars on the meanings of “Khatam al-Nabiyyin”

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم الحمد لله وحده و الصلاة و السلام على من لا نبي بعده و على آله و أصحابه أجمعين

In this post we see quotes from various scholars about the meaning of “khatam al-nabiyyin”. Many issues that are often a subject of discussion among the Muslims and Ahmadis are dealt with in these quotes.

Continue reading

Attacking the fundamentals of Islam to defend Mirza Ghulam Ahmad

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم الحمد لله وحده و الصلاة و السلام على من لا نبي بعده و على آله و أصحابه أجمعين

In one of his works, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani attributes a hadith to Imam al-Bukhari’s collection which does not exist in it. See Rohani Khazain vol.6 p.337 (هذا خليفة الله المهدى)

In their bid to defend Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, his followers take a lot of pain. Malik Abdul Rahman, author of the much celebrated Ahmadiyya Pocket Book, not only clutches at straws but goes even further to put doubt to the very fundamentals of Islam to justify the gimmicks of the false claimant of prophethood.

In the Ahmadiyya Pocket Book, pages 517-518, he comes up with various arguments to dilute the issue and presents the worst possible alternatives.

He alludes to two Ahadith of the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم:

Narrations about the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم erring about the number of raka’ahs:

Firstly, there is a narration in which the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم mistakenly said the final salaam of ritual prayers (salaah) at the end of two raka’ahs instead of four raka’ahs..

Continue reading

Mujaddid Alf Thani and Finality of Prophethood

بسم الله الحمد لله و صلاة و سلام على رسول الله و على آله و سلم

Lately I found an Ahmadi site insinuating that Mujaddid Alf Thani, Imam Rabbani Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi (d. 1034 A.H.) believed in continuity of prophethood for the followers of the Holy Prophet, may Allah bless him.

They misuse a couple of lines from one of his Maktubat (letters).

The text in question:

In his letter # 301 addressed to his son, Maulana Amanullah he says:

پس حصول کمالات نبوّت مر تابعان را بطریق تبیعت و وراثت بعد از بعثت ختم الرسل علیه وعلی آلہ وعلی جمیع الانبیاء والرسل الصلوات والتحیات منافی خاتمیت او نیست علیه و علی آلہ الصلوۃ وسلام فلا تکن من الممترین

“So for the followers to attain the wonders of prophethood (kamalat nubuwwat) by way of following and inheritance after the coming of the Last Prophet –on him and his followers and all the prophets be the peace and salutations- is not in contradiction to his finality. So be not of those who doubt.”

The trick:

Ahmadi leaders resort to the age old deceit of isolating the text from the context and abusing it in translation. As given above it actually reads حصول کمالات نبوّت which means “to attain wonders of prophethood” and they make it “The rising of prophethood.” Anyone with elementary knowledge of Persian and even Urdu will catch this trick.

Putting text into the context:

Here I give the translation of what the learned Shaykh said before coming to the text in question.

Bismillah al-Rahman al-Rahim. After the praises (due to Allah) and the salutations (due to the Holy Prophet). My son, Amanullah ought to know, Prophethood (nubuwwah) is about closeness to Allah which does not have even a remote connection to the idea of “zill”. It ascends to Almighty Allah and descends towards the creation. This closeness in essence belongs to the Prophets –on them be the peace and blessings- and this rank (mansab) is exclusive to those godly men –may the peace and blessings be upon them. And the Leader of Mankind (i.e. the Holy Prophet) –on him be the peace and salutations- is the final seal of this rank. After his descent ‘Eisa will follow the shar’iah of Khatam al-Rusul –on them both be the peace and salutations. The point here is that followers also have their share. And by the way of inheritance the followers also find their share from the wisdom, gnosis and wonders of this station (‘uloom o ma’arif wa kamalaat aan maqam).

So for the followers to attain the wonders of prophethood (kamalat nubuwwat) by way of following and inheritance after the coming of the Last Prophet –on him and his followers and all the prophets be the peace and salutations- is not in contradiction to his finality. So be not of those who doubt.”

After this Imam Rabbani discusses how one may find his share from this blessed inheritance. And towards the end of the letter he writes;

“One must know that attaining to this blessing is direct for the prophets –on them be the peace and blessings. And for the companions (sahaba) of the prophets who attain this wealth though inheritance and following it is through the prophets –on them be the peace and blessings. Those who received this wealth after the prophets and their companions are rare although it is possible that someone else may also be blessed with this wealth through inheritance or by having followed.

I think this wealth was available to the earliest tabi’in, and was given to the senior taba’ tabi’in too. Thereafter this wealth became extinct till it came to the second millennium after the Holy Prophet –on him and his followers be the peace and blessings. Even now this wealth has become visible through following and succession. And the last of the times have been made akin to the earliest days.”

(See Maktubat Imam Rabbani, Hakikat Ketabevi, Istanbul, 1977 Maktub # 301 pp. 636-639)

Important points from the above:

Now the text put into context shows us;

1- The rank (mansab) of Prophethood is exclusive to prophets and it was sealed by the Holy Prophet –may Allah bless him.

2- Some of the followers of the prophets do however find share from the wonders, wisdom and gnosis of prophethood.

3- The wonders, wisdom and gnosis of prophethood were attained by the companions of the prophets too and we know none of the companion is considered a prophet by anyone including Ahmadis.

4- Earliest tabi’in and even the senior taba’ tabi’in did also receive this wealth and certainly none of them was a prophet.

5- To Imam Rabbani even in his time i.e. beginning of the second millennium, some people were blessed with this wealth.


Clearly it implies a manifest difference between “rank” (mansab) of prophethood and the “share from the wonders, wisdom and gnosis” of prophethood. Trying to achieve its ignoble end, the Ahmadiyya religious elite deliberately confuses the two to fool common-place Ahmadis and deceive the Muslims.

If it is taken to mean prophethood then it would imply that companions, tabi’in, taba’ tabi’in and even later people were also prophets. The absurdity of which is too evident to require any elucidation. And certainly it was never the intent of the learned Imam who was only showing that even though after the Holy Prophet –may Allah bless him- one cannot rise to the rank of prophets he can achieve certain blessings of the status by following and by the way of spiritual inheritance.

I believe it’s the time the common Ahmadis must exercise their right to question Murabbis and Jamaat leaders about such intellectual foul play and lies. And also ponder as to what cost they pay by following these people? Think!

Indeed Allah knows the best!

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.

Continue reading

On Baihaqi’s narration about the descent of Eisa (A.S.)

In my last post on categorical narrations about the descent of Eisa (AS) from the heavens above, I quoted a hadith (#3) from Imam Baihaqi’s Asma’ wal Sifaat and promised to answer the Ahmadi chatter about it.

I am cognizant of the fact that it may well be too deep and not of too common interest but I feel there is need to document the things for general use if and when required.

The Hadith:

The Hadith in full along with the comments by Imam Baihaqi goes as under:

أَخْبَرَنَا أَبُو عَبْدِ اللَّهِ الْحَافِظُ، أنا أَبُو بَكْرِ بْنُ إِسْحَاقَ، أنا أَحْمَدُ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ، ثنا ابْنُ بُكَيْرٍ، حَدَّثَنِي اللَّيْثُ، عَنْ يُونُسَ، عَنِ ابْنِ شِهَابٍ، عَنْ نَافِعٍ، مَوْلَى أَبِي قَتَادَةَ الْأَنْصَارِيِّ قَالَ: إِنَّ أَبَا هُرَيْرَةَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ قَالَ: قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ: «كَيْفَ أَنْتُمْ إِذَا نَزَلَ ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ مِنَ السَّمَاءِ فِيكُمْ وَإِمَامُكُمْ مِنْكُمْ» . رَوَاهُ الْبُخَارِيُّ فِي الصَّحِيحِ عَنْ يَحْيَى بْنِ بُكَيْرٍ، وَأَخْرَجَهُ مُسْلِمٌ مِنْ وَجْهٍ آخَرَ عَنْ يُونُسَ. وَإِنَّمَا أَرَادَ نُزُولَهُ مِنَ السَّمَاءِ بَعْدَ الرَّفْعِ إِلَيْهِ

Abu Abdullah al-Hafiz (i.e. Imam Hakim) – Abu Bakr bin Ishaq – Ahmad bin Ibrahim – Ibn Bukayr – Laith – Yunus – Ibn Shihab – Nafi’ the freed-slave of Abu Qadadah al-Ansari — Abu Huraira, may Allah be pleased with him – Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him, said: “What will be your condition when the son of Maryam (i.e. ‘Eisa) will descend amongst you from the heavens and your Imam will be from amongst you?” Bukhari narrated it in al-Sahih from Yahya bin Bukayr. And Muslim also narrated it through another chain from Yunus (bin Yazid). And they (also) meant his descent from the Heavens after his ascension towards it.

(Asma’ wa Sifaat 2/331 Hadith 895. Shaykh Abdullah bin Muhammad al-Hashidi has classified the narration as Sahih)

Note: The difference in the reference to Hadith in the current and the previous post is because I am using a different edition now. This one is with research of the scholar mentioned above.

Answers to Objections

Ahmadis contend that the words مِنَ السَّمَاءِ “… from the Heavens” in this narration are not genuine but a later interpolation.

The author of Ahmadiyya Pocket Book has raised certain objections on this narration See Ahmadiyya Pocket Book pp.227-228. In the following lines I respond to each of them.

Comparison with Bukhari’s narration:

He says that Imam Baihaqi has written after the narration, “Bukhari narrated it,” and in Bukhari’s Sahih we do not find the words مِنَ السَّمَاءِ “… from the Heavens” so it means these words are not part of the narration.

This is a rather naïve argument for it shows absolute ignorance of the author.

1. Firstly Baihaqi’s book is not like Kanzul Ummal that he is quoting things on someone’s authority without giving a chain down to himself. Infact as one can see Imam Baihaqi has given the chain down to him and that is why he has clarified that Bukhari has narrated it from Yahya bin Bukayr. Even though the same fellow falls in the chain of Imam Baihaqi but between him and Ibn Bukayr there are two other fellows. This proves Baihaqi has not narrated it on the authority of Bukhari but has given a complete chain for himself.

2. Now as to the question that why it happens. I reproduce the words of Shaykh Shafi Usmani in response to this;

فإن من له أدنى معرفة بالحديث وكتبه يعلم أن المحدثين قاطبة – ولا سيما البيهقي – ربما يعزو رواية لبعض المحدثين إذا أخرجها بأكثر ألفاظها ، ولا يشترط استيعاب ألفاظ الرواية ، فإذا قال المحدث : رواه البخاري كان مراده أن أصل الحديث أخرجه البخاري

‘Whoever has even a slight knowledge of Ahadith and its compilations knows the all the Muhaddithin- especially Al-Baihaqi- whenever they ascribe a narration to some other Muhaddithin and they narrate it with more words, they do not mean to relate exactly the same words of the narration [as narrated by the Muhaddith to whom they ascribe it to]. So when the Muhaddith says ‘Bukhari narrated it’ his point is that the essence of the Hadith has been narrated by him.’

3. And the above statement can be substantiated by multiple examples. Following should suffice for now.

Baihaqi says:

أَخْبَرَنَا أَبُو عَبْدِ اللَّهِ الْحَافِظُ , وَأَبُو عَبْدِ اللَّهِ إِسْحَاقُ بْنُ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ يُوسُفَ بْنِ يَعْقُوبَ السُّوسِيُّ وَأَبُو بَكْرٍ أَحْمَدُ بْنُ الْحَسَنِ الْقَاضِي , قَالُوا: ثنا أَبُو الْعَبَّاسِ مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ يَعْقُوبَ نا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ خَالِدِ بْنِ خَلِيٍّ , نا بِشْرُ بْنُ شُعَيْبِ بْنِ أَبِي حَمْزَةَ , عَنْ أَبِيهِ , عَنْ أَبِي الزِّنَادِ , عَنِ الْأَعْرَجِ , عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ , قَالَ: قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ: «إِنَّ لِلَّهِ تِسْعًا وَتِسْعِينَ اسْمًا مِائَةً إِلَّا وَاحِدًا مَنْ أَحْصَاهَا دَخَلَ الْجَنَّةَ , إِنَّهُ وِتْرٌ يُحِبُّ الْوِتْرَ» رَوَاهُ الْبُخَارِيُّ فِي الصَّحِيحِ عَنْ أَبِي الْيَمَانِ عَنْ شُعَيْبِ بْنِ أَبِي حَمْزَ

Abu Abdullah al-Hafiz – Abu Abdullah Ishaq bin Muhammad bin Yusuf bin Ya’qub al-Susi and Abu Bakr Ahmad bin Hasan al-Qadhi – Abu al-Abbas Muhammad bin Ya’qub – Muhammad bin Khalid bin Khaliyy – Bishr bin Shu’aib bin Abi Hamza – his father (i.e. Shu’aib bin Abi Hamza) – Abi Zannad – A’raj – Abu Huraira – Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him said: “Verily for Allah there are ninety nine names, one less than hundred – whoever remembers them will enter Jannah. And indeed Allah is Witr (One) and loves Witr.” Bukhari narrated it in al-Sahih from Abi Yaman from Shu’aib bin Abi Hamza.

(Asma’ wal Sifaat 1/21 Hadith 5)

But if you search in Bukhari you find this narration as;

حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو اليَمَانِ، أَخْبَرَنَا شُعَيْبٌ، حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو الزِّنَادِ، عَنِ الأَعْرَجِ، عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ: أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَالَ: «إِنَّ لِلَّهِ تِسْعَةً وَتِسْعِينَ اسْمًا مِائَةً إِلَّا وَاحِدًا، مَنْ أَحْصَاهَا دَخَلَ الجَنَّةَ»

Abu Yaman – Shu’aib (bin Abi Hamza) – Abu Zannad – A’raj – Abu Huraira — Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him said: “Verily for Allah there are ninety nine names, one less than hundred – whoever remembers them will enter Jannah.” (Sahih Bukhari, Hadith 2736)

Clearly it does not have the words, “And indeed Allah is Witr and loves Witr,” and no one can find these words in Bukhari with the chain a through Abi Yaman from Shau’aib bin Abi Hamza as Baihaqi said.

This supports the point 2 above that when Muhaddithin especially Baihaqi says “Bukhari narrated it” all they means is about the essence of the narration and not a verbatim parallel.

And it is never a problem for Baihaqi has not quoted from Sahih Bukhari but given a complete chain down to him as stated in point 1 above.

Weakness of the narrator Abu Bakr bin Ishaq:

Second objection that Malik Abdul Rahman, the compiler of Ahmadiyya Pocket Book has raised is a glaring example of Ahmadiyya scholars’ intellectual “honesty.”

He argues that Abu Bakr bin Ishaq is actually Abu Bakr Muhammad bin Ishaq bin Muhammad al-Naqid and then he quotes scholarly views about his being negligent in Hadith narration.

Whatever the author has quoted from Lisan al-Mizan is true but the fact is he is not the narrator here. Narrator infact is Abu Bakr Ahmad bin Ishaq al- Nishapuri.

How do we know this? In Lisan al-Mizan (5/69) Hafiz Ibn Hajr has given the names of the common narrators from Abu Bakr Muhammad bin Ishaq bin Muhammad al-Naqid and Abu Abdullah al-Hafiz (i.e. Imam Hakim) i.e. the person narrating from him in the hadith under consideration, is not among them.

However, Imam Dhahbi gives the profile of Abu Bakr Ahmad bin Ishaq al-Nishapuri and counts Abu Abdullah al-Hakim among the people who narrate from him (see Sayr A’lam al-Nubala 15/483-484). This proves Ahmad bin Ishaq and not Muhammad bin Ishaq is the narrator in the chain.

And that is how Shaykh Abdullah bin Muhammad al-Hashidi has said in his research on the book Asma’ wal Sifaat. See his footnotes to Hadith 895 and Hadith 4. Kitabul Asma’ wal Sifaat pub. Makteba al-Sawadi, Jeddah 1993

Weakness of the narrator Ahmad bin Ibrahim:

Next Malik Abdul Rahman, the Ahmadi author, says that Ahmad bin Ibrahim is also Da’if and he says, “See Lisan al-Mizan.” Now in Lisan al-Mizan 18 narrators by the name of Ahmad bin Ibrahim are given. Neither has he clarified as to which one he thinks falls in the chain in question nor has he given any comment that can help us sort the fellow out.

However our contention is that it makes no difference for the actual narrator intended here is not mentioned in Lisan al-Mizan. The actual narrator here is Ahmad bin Ibrahim bin Milhan. And we know it because under his profile Hafiz al-Dhahbi writes “Companion of Yahya bin Bukayr” (see Sayr A’lam al-Nubala 13/533-534) and in the Hadith in question he is narrating from Yahya bin Bukayr only.

And this fellow is indeed trustworthy. Imam Dhahbi writes that Imam Darqutni has graded him as “reliable.” Same is quoted by Khateeb al-Baghdadi, See Tarikh al-Baghdad 5/18 No. 1862. And they have not mentioned any criticism on him.

Shaykh Abdullah bin Muhammad al-Hashidi in his research on Kitabul Asma’ wal Sifaat also says that the narrator is Ahmad bin Ibrahim bin Milhan. See his footnotes to Hadith 895 and Hadith 95.

Weakness of other narrators:

The author then goes further to criticize the narrators, Yahya bin Abdullah (Ibn Bukayr) and Yunus bin Yazid. He is simply trying to be smart by quoting some critical views about them but for general readers it is enough that they are the narrators of Bukhari and Muslim which is good enough of evidence for their reliability. We can insha’Allah answer all the lies but for the fear of making the discourse too lengthy I simply allude to their being the narrators of the Sahihayn (Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim).

The two narrators I discussed above are not the narrators of Bukhari and Muslim and further the Ahmadi author was simply lying so the two-fold reason became a drive to discuss their cases in detail.

Are the words “from the Heavens” a later interpolation?

Next the Ahmadi “scholar” comes with an allegation that the hand-written edition of Baihaqi’s Asma’ wal Sifaat was first published in 1328 A.H.[sic] and that Muslim scholars added it as an adulteration and interpolation.

There are two problems with the claim.`

1. It is false to say that first edition was published in 1328 A.H. Infact we have extant to this day the hand-written edition published in 1313 A.H.

See the front page


1313 A.H. is certainly not 1328 A.H. And on its page 301 one can find that the words are there.


Download the complete edition HERE

Moreover, this is not a proof that first edition was published in so and so year and the words were there. To prove the idea of interpolation one has to be show some manuscript or earlier edition in which words are not there. Burden of proof is on the one who claims!

The case of Durr Manthur:

Next he argues that Imam Suyuti has quoted the narration and has not given the words in question, proving that they were interpolated.

Imam Suyuti writes in Durr Manthur:

أخرج أحمد والبخاري ومسلم والبيهقي في الأسماء والصفات قال : قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم : كيف أنتم إذا نزل فيكم ابن مريم ، وإمامكم منكم؟

Ahmad, Bukhari, Muslim and Baihaqi in Asma wal Sifaat says: “What will be your condition when the son of Maryam (i.e. ‘Eisa) will descend amongst you and your Imam will be from amongst you?”

One can see that Imam suyuti has given the names of 4 books in which the narration is found and in case when one odd book gives slightly different wording he cannot account for that. This is easily understandable if we consider the fact that in Durr Manthur Imam Suyuti has given loads of narrations and often he quotes them on the authority of multiple compilations. This is the reason he could not take into account slight variation of wording but only considered the essence of the narration.

This is further clear from the following example.

Imam Suyuti in his same book, Durr Manthur writes;

وَأخرج أَحْمد وَالْبُخَارِيّ وَسلم وَالنَّسَائِيّ وَابْن مرْدَوَيْه وَالْبَيْهَقِيّ فِي الْأَسْمَاء وَالصِّفَات عَن ابْن عَبَّاس عَن النَّبِي صلى الله عَلَيْهِ وَسلم فِيمَا يروي عَن ربه من هم بحسنة فَلم يعملها كتبت لَهُ حَسَنَة فَإِن عَملهَا كتبت لَهُ عشرا إِلَى سَبْعمِائة إِلَى أَضْعَاف كَثِيرَة وَمن همّ بسيئة فَلم يعملها كتبت لَهُ حَسَنَة فَإِن عَملهَا كتبت لَهُ وَاحِدَة أَو يمحوها الله وَلَا يهْلك على الله إِلَّا هَالك

Clearly He attributed the narration to Bukhari along with Ahmad, Muslim, Nasai, Ibn Mardwiya and Baihaqi’s Asma’ wal Sifaat but the words in red towards the end are not to be found in Bukhari. Infact even for the rest of the narration wording in Sahih Bukhari is different.

Now the question is why this “anomaly”?

Did someone remove the last words from Bukhari after Suyuti and changes the rest of wording too?

Or it is simply that Muhaddithin did not rather could not consider all the variation in the wording from one Hadith collection to another when they referred to multiple works at a time?

For any reasonable person the issue is quite clear. They did so considering the essence of the narration only which remains the same.

So we find all the Ahmadiyya lies refuted Alhamdulillah!

Points to note:

With so much discussion on this narration, let’s not forget this is not the only narration with these words. We earlier saw more of them.

After giving the narration and saying that Bukhari and Muslim have also narrated it, Baihaqi said that they also meant his descent from the Heavens after his ascension. This shows the belief of Imam Baihaqi who has been recognized as Mujaddid by Ahmadis. Moreover even without the narration in question this “mujaddid” of Ahmadis has established the meaning of Hadith from Sahih Bukhari.

Let’s turn the tables now!

Murabbis tell common Ahmadis to take exception to the fact that Imam Suyuti did not put the words مِنَ السَّمَاءِ “… from the Heavens” even though it was infact not possible to take account of all the variation in wording a explained above. But how many times are they allowed to question as to why Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani ate away these words from a narration of Kanzul Ummal when he quoted it.

In my last post I quoted a narration (# 5) from Kanzul Ummal which goes as;

قال ابن عباس: قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: “فعند ذلك ينزل أخي عيسى ابن مريم من السماء على جبل أفيق إماما هاديا وحكما عدلا

Ibn Abbas narrated: the Messenger of Allah, on whom be the blessings of Allah, said: ‘And near it (Bait al-Maqdis) will descend from the Heavens my brother ‘Eisa ibn Maryam on Mt. Afiq as a guided leader and a just ruler.’ (Kanzul Ummal 14/619 Hadith 39726)

But when Mirza Ghulam Ahmad quoted it in Himamatul Bushra (p. 148 included in Rohani Khazain vol. 7 p.314) he ate away the words مِنَ السَّمَاءِ “… from the Heavens.”

Now mark the difference, Imam Suyuti quotes a narration from 4 different books with slight variation of wording and Ahmadiyya make an issue of it while their “prophet” quotes from a certain book and eats away the words. Does that not prove “something”?

I will request Ahmadi readers to take these points to Murabbis and Jamaat leaders and question them;

1. Why did Mirza Ghulam Ahmad not quote the Hadith honestly? Or is there any justification for this?

2. How to “explain” the gimmicks of the author of Ahmadiyya Pocket Book who plays with the common people using the proximity of names of different authors?

3. With all the Ahmadiyya arguments refuted what is now the significance of the narration?

And one question that our Ahmadi fellows need to ask themselves;

How it feels to be a part of the group whose leader and “scholars” display such intellectual dishonesty?

Indeed Allah knows the best!

‘Eisa (AS) did ascend and will descend from the Heavens above; categorical Ahadith

Today let’s meet a challenge which the Murabbis often boastfully come up with and try to fool the ordinary Ahmadis

The Challenge:

Though it has been plainly stated in the Qur’an that Allah did raise ‘Eisa, may Allah bless him, to Himself and saved him from the evil designs of the Jews, the Murabbis try to confuse the simple facts by their twisting. And same is their attitude towards the Ahadith which clearly indicate that near the End of Times ‘Eisa, may Allah bless him, will descend from the Heavens. But as mostly Ahadith use the word نزل only which means ‘to descend’ they again twist such narrations by relating it to rather rare usage of the word which does not even fit the context of these narrations. Taking the spirit, context and the continuous and unanimous belief and understanding of Muslims of past 1400 years it is evident that those Ahadith do actually mean he will descend from the Heavens above. Infact there are many directives to this in various narrations. But for a people like Ahamdis this is perhaps too difficult to grasp.

So the Ahmadiyya religious elite, the Murabbis,  bring a challenge for Muslims to come up with any Hadith that clearly says نزل من السماء i.e. ‘Eisa will descend from the Heavens above.’

Meeting the Challenge

Here are categorical Ahadith about the fact that ‘Eisa, may Allah bless him, was raised up alive to the Heavens and will descend from the Heavens above.

I hope this will lead the Ahmadis to give up the false ideas brought to them by the False Prophet and will help them come closer to embrace Islam and be the follower of the Last and Final Prophet of Allah, Muhammad, on whom be the peace and blessings of Almighty Allah.

Hadith 1

عن ابن عباس قال: لما أراد الله أن يرفع عيسى إلى السماء خرج على أصحابه …ورفع عيسى من رَوْزَنَة في البيت إلى السماء


Ibn Abbas said, “When Allah intended to raise ‘Eisa to the heavens, he went to his companions … and ‘Eisa ascended to the Heavens through an opening in the top of the house.”
(Ibn Abi Hatim 4/431 Hadith 6266, Ibn Kathir 2/449. Ibn Kathir graded it Sahih)

Hadith 2

عن صفية أم المؤمنين رضي الله عنها أنها كانت إذا زارت بيت المقدس ، وفرغت من الصلاة في المسجد الأقصى صعدت على جبل زيتا فصلت عليه وقالت : هذا الجبل هو الذي رفع منه عيسى عليه السلام إلى السماء


It is narrated from Ummul Momineen Safiya, may Allah be pleased with her, that when she visited Bait Al-Maqdis (i.e. Jerusalem) and finished prayers in Al-Aqsa Mosque she climbed up to Mt. Olives and prayed there as well and said: ‘This is the mountain from where ‘Eisa, may Allah bless him, was raised up to the Heavens. (Al-Tasrih bima Tawatar fi Nuzul Al-Masih Hadith 74 cf. Tafsir Fath Al-Aziz Surah 95)

Hadith 3

إن أبا هريرة رضي الله عنه قال : قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم : « كيف أنتم إذا نزل ابن مريم من السماء فيكم


Narrated Abu Huraira, may Allah be pleased with him: Allah’s Messenger, may Allah bless him, said “What will be your condition when the son of Maryam (i.e. ‘Eisa) will descend amongst you from the heavens…?” (Baihaqi’s Asmaa wal Sifaat 2/432 Hadith 855)

About this particular narration Ahmadiyya cry a lot trying to raise confusions. I will insha’Allah respond to their arguments in the next post.

Baihaqi (RA) was recognized as a Mujaddid of 4th century A.H. by Ahmadis.

Hadith 4

عن أبى هريرة قال سمعت أبا القاسم الصادق المصدوق يقول …ثم ينزل عيسى بن مريم عليه وسلم من السماء فيؤم الناس


Abu Huraira  said: I heard Abul Qasim the Truthful and Trustworthy (i.e. Holy Prophet) say: ‘… then ‘Eisa ibn Maryam, on him be the peace, will descend from the heavens and lead the people.’
(Majma’ Al-Zawaid 7/349. Haithmi said, Bazzar has narrated it and all its narrators are those of the Sahih [i.e. Sahih Bukhari] except Ali bin Munzar and he is also trustworthy)

Hadith 5

قال ابن عباس : قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم : فعند ذلك ينزل أخي عيسى ابن مريم من السماء 


Ibn Abbas narrated: the Messenger of Allah, on whom be the blessings of Allah, said: ‘And near it (Bait al-Maqdis) will descend from the Heavens my brother ‘Eisa ibn Maryam.’
(Kanzul Ummal 14/619 Hadith 39726)

An interesting observation about this narration to follow in the next post, insha’Allah.

Compiler of Kanzul Ummal, Ali Muttaqi Al-Hindi (RA) was recognized as a Mujaddid of 10th century A.H. by Ahmadis.

Hadith 6

عن ابن عباس { إن تعذبهم فإنهم عبادك } يقول : عبيدك قد استوجبوا العذاب بمقالتهم { وإن تغفر لهم } أي من تركت منهم ومد في عمره حتى أهبط من السماء إلى الأرض يقتل الدجال ، فنزلوا عن مقالتهم ووحدوك 


About the verse, ‘If you punish them they are your servants’ Ibn Abbas  said, he [‘Eisa] will say: ‘These slaves of yours have invited your chastisement by what they said [and believed]’. ‘And if you forgive them’ i.e. ‘those whom I left behind me and those who were there when I came down from the Heavens to Earth to kill al-Dajjal and they turned back from what they said [i.e. Trinity] and believed in your Oneness…’
(Durr Manthur 4/27 Under Surah 5 Ayah 118)

The writer of Durr Manthur, Jalaluddin Suyuti (RA) was recognized as a Mujaddid of 9th century A.H. by Ahmadis.

The True Call:

Now it is incumbent upon Ahmadis to accept these Ahadith quoted by people whom they themselves accept as Mujaddidin and to leave the cult and join Muslim Ummah by sticking to its agreed upon belief about physical ascent and descent of ‘Eisa, may Allah bless him.

وَمَا عَلَيْنَا إِلَّا الْبَلَاغُ الْمُبِينُ

‘And our duty is only to convey plainly.’


Hadith & Alleged Death of Jesus -12 (Statement of Hassan (ra) at Kufa)

Today I write about narration used by Murabbis to play with the beliefs of common Ahmadis. It is a statement of Hassan bin ‘Ali (RA) recorded in Tabaqat al-Kubra of Ibn Sa’d. It is used in an attempt to prove the death of ‘Eisa (AS). According to the statement as put on an Ahmadi website[1]:

At the eve of death of Ali (RA), Imam Hassan (RA) while addressing the people said: ‘Ali (RA) died the night Jesus’ soul ascended i.e. 27th night of Ramadan. (Tabaqat Ibn Sa’d vol.3 p.39)

The Truth:

Let’s discuss the actual wording, authentic and various versions of the narration. Ibn Sa’d’s narration goes as:

أخبرنا عبد الله بن نمير عن الأجلح عن أبي إسحاق عن هبيرة بن يريم قال: لما توفي علي بن أبي طالب قام الحسن بن علي فصعد المنبر فقال: أيها الناس …ولقد قبض في الليلة التي عرج فيها بروح عيسى بن مريم ليلة سبع وعشرين من رمضان

‘Abdullah bin Numayr narrated to me from Al-Ajlah, [he] from Abi Ishaq, [he] from Habira bin Yarbam who narrated: When ‘Ali bin Abi Talib  (RA) died, Hassan bin ‘Ali stood and went to the pulpit, then he said: ‘O people! … Verily he has died that night the soul of ‘Eisa  (AS) was ascended, the 27th night of Ramadan.’ (Tabaqat Ibn Sa’d 3/39 Chapter on Abdul Rahman ibn Maljam)

This narration has quite a number of problems:

1- In its chain is the narrator Al-Ajlah bin ‘Abdullah who has been criticized by the scholars. Hafiz Ibn Hajr quotes the opinions of various scholars about him;

Ibn Abi Hatim said: ‘He is not strong. Write his narrations but do not seek evidence with them.’

Nasai said: ‘Weak! He has nothing’

Abu Dawud said: ‘[He is] Weak’

Jozjani said: ‘[He is a] Liar’

(Tehzib Al-Tehzib 1/166 Entry 353)

Infact Ibn Sa’d who quoted this narration termed him extremely weak. After giving his basic bio-data he writes:

وكان ضعيفا جدا

‘And he is extremely weak.’ (Tabaqat Ibn Sa’d 6/350)

Hence the narration is extremely weak even according to the judgment of the author of the book.

2- The narration with this particular wording is unreliable as it contradicts another narration on similar lines reported by trustworthy narrators. We read in Al-Hakim’s collection;

حدثنا الأستاذ أبو الوليد الهيثم بن خلف الدوري ، ثنا سوار بن عبد الله العنبري ، ثنا المعتمر قال : قال أبي : حدثنا الحريث بن مخشي ، أن عليا قتل صبيحة إحدى وعشرين من رمضان ، قال : فسمعت الحسن بن علي يقول ، وهو يخطب وذكر مناقب علي ، فقال : « قتل ليلة أنزل القرآن ، وليلة أسري  بعيسى ، وليلة قبض موسى »

Abu Al-Waleed Al-Haitham narrated from Sawar bin ‘Abdullah Al-Anbari; he said, Mu’tamar narrated to us; he said: ‘My father said’; Harith bin Makhshi narrated: ‘Ali (RA) was murdered the morning of 21st Ramadan. He said; I heard Hassan bin ‘Ali (RA) speaking. He was making an address and talking of the virtues of ‘Ali (RA); he said: ‘He has been killed the night Qur’an was revealed, the night ‘Eisa (AS) was moved and the night Musa (AS) died.’ (Mustadrak Hakim, Hadith 4671. Hakim said it is Sahih)

Now this narration uses the word أسري which means to traverse a path, to make displacement. This certainly refers to his physical  ascension to the heavens.

Also note that the contrast of this word to the that used for Musa (AS). Had he died a natural death, there was no reason to use the word with the markedly different implication.

Lest one may ask as to the al-Dhahbi’s comment on this Hadith for we know he declared many of the narrations authenticated by al-Hakim as dubious, and recently we considered one such example, I shall clarify that al-Dhahbi did not comment on this narration. And scholars say that a narration of al-Hakim’s Mustadrak on which al-Dhahbi does not comment is Hasan in status if not criticized by others. (See Shaykh Abdul Fattah Abu Ghoddah’s Qawa’id fi ‘Uloom al-Hadith p. 71, pub. Idara al-Qur’an wa ‘Uloom al-Islamia, Karachi)

Same narration has been quoted by Jalaluddin Suyuti in Durr Manthur 2/348 under Qur’an 3:54-57

Obviously the second narration which has been authenticated by the scholars must be considered and first one stands rejected because of its weak chain and difference with the authentic narration. And the second narration does not give any hint to what Ahmadis suggest. Infact it testifies to the contrary.

3- Interestingly Imam Nasai who termed a key narrator of the narration in question as weak and Imam Hakim and Suyuti who have quoted and authenticated the other narration have all been recognized as Mujaddids by Ahmadis.

Thus no authentic narration supports the Ahmadi contention.

Similar narrations from Shi’a sources:

4- Here are some narrations of the similar import from Shi’a sources;

In Biharul Anwar of Allama Muhammad Baqir al-Majlasi it is reported;

عن حبيب بن عمرو قال : لما توفي أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام قام الحسن عليه السلام خطيبا فقال : أيها الناس في هذه الليلة رفع عيسى بن مريم .

Narrated Habib bin ‘Amr: ‘When the Commander of the Faithful passed away, Hassan stood and spoke. He said, ‘O you people! On this night ‘Eisa ibn Maryam was raised.’ (Biharul Anwar vol.14 p.335)

Another narration says;

عن أبي بصير ، عن أبي عبدالله عليه السلام قال : قال أبوجعفر عليه السلام : لما كانت الليلة التي قتل فيها علي عليه السلام لم يرفع عن وجه الارض حجر إلا وجد تحته دم عبيط حتى طلع الفجر ، وكذلك كانت الليلة التي قتل فيها يوشع بن نون عليه السلام ، و كذلك كانت الليلة التي رفع فيها عيسى بن مريم عليه السلام وكذلك الليلة التي قتل فيها الحسين عليه السلام

Narrated Abi Baseer from Abu Abdullah (A.S.), he said:  Abu Ja‘far (AS) said, “On the night when ‘Alí (AS) was murdered no stone was lifted from the face of the earth unless beneath it was found pure fresh blood, until the first break of dawn. It was the same on the night Yusha‘ ibn Nun (A.S.) was murdered, and it was the same on the night when Eisa ibn Maryam (AS) was raised, and it was the same on the night when Husain (AS) was murdered.” (Biharul Anwar vol.14 p.336)

There are similar reports in Tahdhib al-Ahkam of Abu Ja’far Muhammad bin Hassan al-Tusi and Tafsir Ayyashi.


5- All these narrations are infact evidence against Ahmadiyya.

a- The narration of al-Hakim and the first one from Biharul Anwar clearly use the words ‘Qabadha’ and ‘Tawaffi’ implying death of Musa (AS) and Ali (RA) respectively but not one of them uses any such word for ‘Eisa (AS). This is a categorical proof that ‘Eisa (AS) did not die and the ‘Rafa’ mentioned for him relates to physical ascension and not just exaltation in ranks after death.

b- The narration from al-Hakim says Musa (AS) died whereas Mirza Ghulam Ahmad claimed to the contrary. See Noor-ul-Haq p. 50 included in Rohani Khazain vol. 8 p.69

I will request the Ahmadi readers around to take all these references to the Murabbis and question them and if they cannot satisfy them, and for a surety they cannot satisfy any reasonable person, then come and be part of the fraternity of pristine Islam.


[1] The site has the statement in Urdu. Here I have given the literal translation of what the site reads.


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?