Author Archives: Waqar Akbar Cheema

Hadith & Alleged Death of Jesus -11 (Statement of Jarud in Bahrain)

Posted on by

As promised in a comment to the eighth post of this series, today I respond to the Ahmadi attempt of seeking evidence with an alleged statement of Sayyidina Jarud b. Ma’la (RA) made in Bahrain.

Some Qadianis quote a statement of Jarud bin Ma’la (RA) from Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab’s book Mukhtasar Sirat Al-Rasul. According to the statement as put on a Qadiani website[1]:

“Some people of Bahrain turned apostate at the death of Holy Prophet (PBUH) on the premise that had he been a Prophet he would have not died. At this eve Jarud (RA) addressed them saying, Holy Prophet (PBUH) is the servant and Messenger of Allah. He lived as Moses and Jesus lived and died as Moses and Jesus died. On listening to this the people reverted to Islam.” (Mukhtasar Sirat Al-Rasul p.187 by Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab. Darul Arabiya Beirut Lebanon)

The Truth:

In the following lines I reproduce the Arabic statement from the book, its translation and details about its authenticity. The actual wording goes as:

أنه قال : ما شهادتكم على موسى ؟ قالوا : نشهد أنه رسول الله . قال : فما شهادتكم على عيسى ؟ قالوا : نشهد أنه رسول الله قال وأنا أشهد أن لا إله إلا الله وأن محمدا عبده ورسوله . عاش كما عاشوا ، ومات كما ماتوا . وأتحمل شهادة من أبى أن يشهد على ذلك منكم . فلم يرتد من عبد القيس أحد .

“He [Jarud bin Ma’la] said [to his tribe]; ‘What is your testimony regarding Moses?’ They said: ‘We testify he was a Messenger of Allah.’ He said: ‘What is your testimony regarding Jesus?’ They said: ‘We testify he was a Messenger of Allah.’ He said: ‘And I testify that there is no other deity except Allah and Muhammad is his servant and Messenger. He lived as they lived and died as they died. And I imply the testimony on the one who among you refuses to testify. So no one remained apostate from Abd Al-Qais.” (Mukhtasar Sirat Al-rasul 1/431, Chapter on Apostasy of the people of bahrain)

Authenticity of the narration:

1) This narration has been given without any chain or a reference to any classical work that provides the chain for it. Infact with these words the narration is not found in any of the well known source books of Hadith, Sirah and History. So now it is for Qadianis to show us the complete chain of the narration with these words. Surely burden of proof lies upon the one who claims!

It speaks a lot  to rely on a narration without any isnaad (chain of narrators) in theological debates. Imam Sufyan Thawri (RA) is reported to have said:

الإسناد سلاح المؤمن فإذا لم يكن معه سلاح ، فبأي شيء يقاتل

“The Isnaad is the weapon of the believer, so if he does not have it with him, with what shall he fight?” (Khatib Baghdadi’s Sharaf Ashabi’l-Hadith 1/92)

But most certainly this is for believers and not the cultists!

2) A narration on these lines is found in Tarikh Al-Rusul wal Muluk (Tarikh Tabari) of Ibn Jarir Al-Tabari. Here I reproduce it:

حدثنا عبيد الله ، قال : أخبرنا عمي ، قال : أخبرنا سيف ، عن إسماعيل بن مسلم ، عن الحسن بن أبي الحسن ، قال… فقالت عبد القيس : لو كان محمد نبياً لما مات ؛ وارتدوا ، وبلغه ذلك فبعث فيهم فجمعهم ، ثم قام فخطبهم ، فقال : يا معشر عبد القيس ؛ إني سائلكم عن أمر فأخبروني به إن علمتموه ولا تجيبوني إن لم تعلموا . قالوا : سل عما بدا لك ، قال : تعلمون أنه كان لله أنبياء فيما مضى ؟ قالوا : نعم ، قال : تعلمونه أو ترونه ؟ قالوا : لا بل نعلمه ، قال : فما فعلوا ؟ قالوا : ماتوا ، قال : فإن محمداً صلى الله عليه وسلم مات كما ماتوا ، وأنا أشهد أن لا إله إلا الله وأن محمداً عبده ورسوله ، قالوا : ونحن نشهد أن لا إله إلا الله وأن محمداً عبده ورسوله ؛ وأنك سيدنا وأفضلنا

Ubaidullah narrated to us, he said: My uncle said: Saif [bin Umar] narrated from Isma’il bin Muslim, [he] from Hasan bin Abi Hasan, he said: ‘…so the Abd Al-Qais said: ‘If Muhammad were a prophet why did he die?’ and they turned apostate and this news reached him [Jarud]. So, he reached them and gathered them and then addressed them: ‘O people of Abd Al-Qais, I ask you of a matter so answer me if you know it and do not respond if you do not know.’ They said: ‘Ask of the matter that concerns you!’ He said: ‘Do you know in the past there have been Prophets from Allah?’ They said: ‘Yes.’ He said: ‘Do you know that or you just perceive it?’ They replied: ‘No, we but know of it.’ He said: ‘What happened to them?’ They said: ‘They died!’ he said: ‘So if Muhammad died as they died, I testify there is no deity but Allah and Muhammad is his Servant and Messenger.’ They said: ‘And we also testify that there is no deity but Allah and Muhammad is his Servant and Messenger. And you [O Jarud] are our leader and the best of us.’ (Tarikh Al-Rusul wal Muluk 2/164. Chapter on the Expedition of Khalid towards Bani Juzaima)

3) Other than the fact that this narration does not clearly speak of what Ahmadis contend, it has been classified as Da’if (weak) by scholars in the first place. See Tarikh Al-Tabari With research of Muhammad bin Tahir Barzinji & Subhi Hassan Hallaaq 3/66 pub. Dar Ibn Kathir, Beirut, 2007. Its chain has the same narrator Saif bin Umar whose status we discussed in the second post of this series.

4) In conclusion, we can say that there is no authentic narration with complete chain of narrators that mentions what Qadianis cite. The closest narration found is utterly weak and thus does not serve as evidence.

INDEED ALLAH KNOWS THE BEST!

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

Response to ‘Khatamul Auliya’ argument

Posted on by

In direct clash to the the Ijma (scholarly consensus) of the Muslim Ummah the Ahmadis take the word ‘Khatam‘ in Qur’an 33:40 to mean other than ‘the Last’. And in their series of endeavors to create confusions about the essential Islamic belief of Finality of Prophethood they quote a certain narration which attributes the following words to the Holy Prophet (SAAW);

أنا خاتم الأنبياء وأنت يا علي خاتم الأولياء

“I am Khatam ul Anbiya and you O Ali are Khatam ul Auliya.”

Their argument hinges on the idea that just as Ali (RA) was not the last of the Auliya (Saints) Holy Prophet (SAAW) is not the last of the prophets. They say this ‘Hadith’ is an evidence that Khatam ul Anbiya does not mean Last of the Prophets.

Authenticity of this narration:

The narration basically comes from Tarikh Al-Baghdad (4/473) of Khateeb Baghdadi.

Its chain among other narrators includes,
1) Abul Qasim Ubaidullah bin Lu’lu Al-Saaji
2) Umar bin Wasil

And just after quoting the narration Khateeb Baghdadi himself says;

هذا الحديث موضوع من عمل القصاص وضعه عمر بن واصل أو وضع عليه والله أعلم

“This is a fabricated narration regarding Qisas* and was fabricated by Umar bin Wasil or was attributed to him and Allah knows best.”
(Khateeb Al-Baghdadi 4/473)

* it is the ending of a longer narration whose initial part perhaps related to Qisas.

Discussing the status of Ubaidullah bin Lu’lu Hafiz Ibn Hajr points to this narration and says in Lisan Al-Mizan;

روى عن عمر بن واصل حديثاً موضوعاً ساقه الخطيب في ترجمته

“He narrator a fabricated narration from Umar in Wasil, Al-Khateeb quoted it under his (Ubaidullah’s) entry.”

Ibn Jawzi also quoted it in his Al-Mawdhu’aat 1/398 (A collection giving fabricated narrations)

Interestingly Khateeb Baghdadi was recogized as Mujaddid of 4th century Hijrah by Ahmadis, Ibn Jawzi that of 6th century Hijrah and Ibn Hajr that of 8th century Hijrah.

Recently Shaykh Albani called it Mawdhu (fabricated) in Silsala Da’ifa Narration 694.

Reference of Shiite Tafsir al-Safi:

Well aware of the fact that Al-Khateeb has clarified the actual value of this narration just after quoting Ahmadis now quote it with reference to a Shiite Tafsir Al-Safi by Al-Faiz Al-Kashani. Al-Kashani (d. 1091 A.H.) quotes it under Qur’an 33:40 but without any chain. He writes;

في المناقب عن النبي صلى الله عليه وآله قال أنا خاتم الأنبياء وأنت يا علي خاتم الأوصياء

“[It is narrated] in Al-Manaqib from the Prophet, on whom and his progeny be the blessings of Allah, said; ‘I am Khatamul Anbiya and you, O Ali, are Khatamul Ausiya*.’” (Tafsir Al-Safi 4/193 with research of Shaikh Hussain Al-’Alami)

* the edition I have access to has the words Khatamul Ausiya instead of the alleged Khatamul Auliya.

How can a narration without any chain of narrators be an evidence? It is upon Ahmadis now to show us an unbroken chain of trustworthy narrators before they bring this as evidence.

Conclusion:

The narration as found in Sunni sources like Tarikh Al-Baghdad comes through a liar without any supporting evidence thus it has to be considered a lie and not a Hadith of the Prophet of Allah, peace and blessings of the Almighty be upon him.

The narration as found is Shi’a sources is without any chain of narrators which is as good as any word from hearsay.

This brings to our attention the following words of the great scholar Abdullah bin Mubarak (d. 181 A.H.);

الإسناد عندي من الدين لولا الإسناد لقال من شاء ما شاء وإذا قيل له : من حدثك ؟ بقي

‘Isnaad (chains of narrators) to me are a part of Deen, and if it was not for Isnaad, one would have said whatever hee desired. When it is said (to the one who speaks without Isnaad): Who informed you? He remains silent and bewildered.’ (Khateeb Baghdadi’s Al-Akhlaaq Al-Rawi wa Aadaab A-Sami’ 4/392 Narration 1654)

Isn’t the situation of Ahmadiyya exactly same as the learned Imam described? Truly bewildered!

May Allah bring Ahmadis to true Islam!

Indeed Allah Knows the best!

Ibn Abbas (RA) & alleged death of Eisa (AS)

Posted on by

Ahmadiyya often allege that Ibn Abbas (RA) was at par with their heretic belief about the death of Eisa (AS). This article aims at a detailed refutation of the claim.

Ahmadiyya refer to the following saying of Ibn Abbas (RA);

قَالَ ابْنُ عَبَّاسٍ { مُتَوَفِّيكَ } مُمِيتُكَ

Ibn Abbas said: “Mutawaffeeka [means] ‘I’ll cause you to die’ (Mumeetuka)” (Sahih Bukhari 14/149, Kitabul Tafsir)

This much is true but this saying alone does not give the complete view of Ibn Abbas (RA).

Correct position of Ibn Abbas (RA) on this issue:

The correct position of Ibn Abbas (RA) is that he believed in the physical ascension and return of Eisa (AS) even though he understood ‘mutawaffeeka’ to mean death. Following narration clarifies this;

عن ابن عباس في قوله { إني متوفيك ورافعك } يعني رافعك ثم متوفيك في آخر الزمان

It is narrated from Ibn Abbas about the Ayah “I’ll take you and raise you”; “It means I’ll raise you then will cause you to die near the End of Times.” (Durr Manthur 2/347 under 3:55)

It is thus obvious that Ibn Abbas (RA) believed in Taqdim & Takhir (advancing and retarding) in this verse.

Taqdim & Takhir is valid, not heretic:

In wake of the reality that sole person whose reference they cite in forwarding their argument about the meaning ‘mutawaffeeka’ made Taqdim in this verse (3:55) Ahmadiyya take exception to the whole idea of Taqdim and Takhir. While this only shows their frustration two references in this regard will suffice;

Imam Al-Razi in his commentary after explaining this verse from various angles says;

والمعنى : أني رافعك إليّ ومطهرك من الذين كفروا ومتوفيك بعد إنزالي إياك في الدنيا ، ومثله من التقديم والتأخير كثير في القرآن

“The meaning is; I will raise you unto me and will purify you from infidels and will cause you to die after I descend you in the word. And examples of advancing and retarding (taqdim and takhir) are numerous in the Qur’an.” (Tafsir Al-Kabir 4/227 under Qur’an 3:55)

An example is the following verse;

وَاللَّهُ أَخْرَجَكُمْ مِنْ بُطُونِ أُمَّهَاتِكُمْ لَا تَعْلَمُونَ شَيْئًا وَجَعَلَ لَكُمُ السَّمْعَ وَالْأَبْصَارَ وَالْأَفْئِدَةَ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَشْكُرُونَ

“Allah has brought you forth from your mothers‘wombs when you knew nothing, and He made for you ears, eyes and hearts, so that you may be grateful.” (Qur’an 16:78)

Clearly the idea of Taqdim and Takhir is implied in this verse as Allah surely makes for one his ears, eyes and heart before he comes forth from his mother’s womb though this is not mentioned in sequence.

And Imam Jalaluddin Suyuti in his monumental work on Qur’anic sciences and knowledge, Al-Ittiqan fi Uloom Al-Qur’an, has a complete chapter about it. He starts the chapter with the following words;

هوقسمان. الأول: ما أشكل معناه بحسب الظاهر، فلما عرف أنه باب التقديم والتأخير اتضح وهوجدير أن يفرد بالتصنيف، وقد تعرض السلف لذلك في آيات

“This, the first of two sections, deals with verses that remain ambiguous on face value. But knowing that they belong to the category known as Advancing and Retarding (taqdim and takhir) brings clarity to them. Though some of the pious ancestors have made passing references to them, such verses in fact, ought to have been dealt with exclusively in a separate work. “

And in the same section he writes;

وأخرج عن قتادة في قوله تعالى إني متوفيك ورافعك قال: هذا من المقدم والمؤخر: أي رافعك إلي ومتوفيك

“And he [Ibn Abi Hatim] quotes Qatada as saying that the verse ‘inn mutawafeeka wa rafiyuka’ (3:55) also belongs to the said category and must be understood thus: ‘rafiyuka ilayya wa mutawafeeka’.” (Al-Ittiqan section 44 p.1399-1400. Classified as Sahih by the research team of Markaz Al-Dirasat Al-Qur’ania, pub. Saudi Ministry of Islamic publications)

Please note, Qatada was one of the most prominent students of Ibn Abbas’ (RA) pupils. Also note that both Al-Razi and Suyuti have been recognized as Mujaddids by Ahmadis.

Isn’t it not amazing that one of their Mujaddid says that taqdim and takhir is very often found in the Qur’an, another says that the subject should have been dealt in a separate work and yet Ahmadis reject the idea altogether? Perhaps they have found no other way out of the quagmire of arguments they land into; thanks to their inconsistent methodology!

Hypocrisy of Ahmadiyya’ pseudo-prophet:

When it suits them they bestow epithets of honor on a person and when the same person rebukes their claims they abuse him.

In Azala-tul-Auham MGA referring to the narration of Ibn Abbas (RA) from Bukhari writes about him;

“It must be clear to the readers that Ibn Abbas is among the most prominent people in the understanding of Qur’an and in this regard there is a prayer of Holy Prophet (saaw) in his favour.” (Azala-tul-Auham p.247 , RK – vol.2 p.225)

But knowing the fact that idea of taqdim and takhir in this verse which is proved from Ibn Abbas (RA) and his students kills his argument he yelled all kinds of abuses against those who prescribe to this idea. (See Zamima Barahin Ahmadiyya p.178, RK – vol.21 p. 347)

What is it, if not hypocrisy and sham, to bisect a learned person’s opinion and accept a part of it and decline the rest?

The conjunction ‘wa’ does not imply sequence:

Imam Al-Razi, recognized as Mujaddid by Ahmadis, says;

الواو في قوله { مُتَوَفّيكَ وَرَافِعُكَ إِلَىَّ }لا تفيد الترتيب فالآية تدل على أنه تعالى يفعل به هذه الأفعال ، فأما كيف يفعل ، ومتى يفعل ، فالأمر فيه موقوف على الدليل ، وقد ثبت الدليل أنه حي وورد الخبر عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم : « أنه سينزل ويقتل الدجال » ثم إنه تعالى يتوفاه بعد ذلك .

“The [conjunction] ‘wa’ [i.e. and] in the word of Allah ‘mutawaffeeka wa rafiuka’ does not imply sequence. So the verse says the Almighty does all these things but as to how he and when, this depends on the evidence. And it is proved with evidence that he [Eisa A.S.] is alive. There is a saying of the Prophet, on whom be peace, ‘He [Eisa] will return and kill Dajjal’ then afterwards the Almighty will cause him to die.” (Tafsir Al-Kabir 4/226 under Qur’an 3:55)

Infact MGA himself accepted that the Arabic conjunction ‘wa’ does not imply sequence. See Taryaq Al-Qulub p.143, RK – vol.15 p.454 (marginal note) but then without giving any valid reason opposed the same idea’s application to Qur’an 3:55.

Explicit narrations from Ibn Abbas (RA) about ascension, life & return of Eisa (AS):

The points of debate between Muslims and the Ahmadiyya are whether Eisa (AS) was physically raised upto the Heavens or not and if he will personally return before the End of the Times. Following narrations clarify his belief.

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 (AS) to the heavens, he went to his companions…and Eisa (AS) ascended to the Heavens through an opening in the top of the house.”
(Tafsir Ibn Kathir 2/449, Tafsir Ibn Abi Hatim 4/431 Hadith 6266. Ibn Kathir classified it as Sahih)

What explicit evidence is required after this?

عن سعيد بن جبير، عن ابن عباس:”وإن من أهل الكتاب إلا ليؤمنن به قبل موته”، قال: قبل موت عيسى ابن مريم

It is narrated from Sa’id bin Jubair from Ibn Abbas [about]; “No one will remain from among the People of the Book but will certainly believe in him before he dies.” He said; “Before the death of Eisa ibn Maryam.” (Tafsir Al-Tabari 9/380 Narration 10794-5 under Qur’an 4:159. Classified as Sahih by Hafiz Ibn Hajr in Fath Al-Bari 10/250, Kitab Ahadith Al-Anbiya, Chapter on the Descent of Eisa ibn Maryam)

Simple implication of this narration is that Ibn Abbas (RA) believed in the return of Eisa ibn Maryam (AS). Hafiz Ibn Hajr who authenticated this narration has been recognized as Mujaddid by Ahmadis.

We find a narration in Musnad Ahmad which says that Abu Yahya, the freed slave of Ibn Aqil Ansari, asked Ibn Abbas about the verse;

{ وَإِنَّهُ لَعِلْمٌ لِلسَّاعَةِ }

“And he is the sign of the Hour (the Day of Judgment)” (43:61)

قَالَ هُوَ خُرُوجُ عِيسَى ابْنِ مَرْيَمَ عَلَيْهِ السَّلَام قَبْلَ يَوْمِ الْقِيَامَةِ

Ibn Abbas said: “That is the descent of Eisa ibn Maryam, on whom be peace, before the Doomsday.” (Musnad Ahmad 3/284 Hadith 2921. Classified as Sahih by Ahmad Shakir)

Many more narrations to this effect are found in Tafsir Al-Tabari under this Ayah. All these narrations belie the notion of Ibn Abbas (RA) prescribing to the view held by Ahmadiyya.

Following is another explicit and categorical narration leaving no room for the usual Ahmadi twisting.

عن ابن عباس قال … وإن الله رفعه بجسده، وانه حي الآن، وسيرجع إلى الدنيا فيكون فيها ملكاً، ثم يموت كما يموت الناس

Narrated from Ibn Abbas, he said: “… and verily Allah raised him [Eisa ibn Maryam] with his body while he was alive and he will soon return to this world and will be a ruler therein. Then he will die as other people die.”  (Ibn S’ad’ Tabaqat Al-Kubra 1/53)

Alhamdulillah all the above details show it beyond all doubt that Ibn Abbas (RA) and his pupils adhered to the unanimous Islamic belief about the life and return of Eisa ibn Maryam (AS). And he is free from the charge that Ahmadis make against him by wrongly attributing to him a false belief.

May Allah guide Ahmadis and bring them out of the mental slavery of the cult!

Indeed Allah knows the best!

Quran & the Meaning of Raf’a -2

Posted on by

In PART-1 we discussed the meaning of the word Raf’a in the light reputed works on Qur’anic lexicography and correct interpretation of the verses related to Eisa’ (A.S.) raf’a. Please refer back to part-1 and keeping in mind the original meanings of the word read the following.

The Qur’anic usage of Raf’a:

To chase the evil to its utter helplessness, let us briefly look into all the instances where the derivates of the root ‘RA-FA-AYN’ are used in the Qur’an. In total the words with the root ‘RA-FA-AYN’ are used in 29 verses and in the following lines each of these instances is tackled with.

1- In Qur’an 3:55 and 4:158 it is used with reference to Eisa (A.S.) as explained above.

2- In Qur’an 2:63, 2:93 and 4:154 it used regarding physical elevation of Mt. Tur (Mt. Sinai) like;

“And we raised (rafa’na) high above you the (Mount of) Tur.” (Qur’an 2:63)

It refers to a clear physical phenomenon as it is clear from Qur’an 7:171 and its exegesis in Tafasir of Ibn Kathir, Al-Raazi, Al-Zamakhshari, Aalusi and in Tafsir Jalalain to mention only a few.

3- In Qur’an  2:42, 6:83, 6:165, 12:76, 40:15, 43:32 and 58:11 it is used for exaltation and raising of ranks but in all these verses ‘ranks’ are explicitly given as the objects of Raf’a e.g..

“He hath raised you in ranks, some above others.” (Qur’an 6:165)

Here and in all such references Allah has used the word Raf’a (i.e. to raise) but then He clearly speaks of the دَرَجَاتٍ (ranks). If Raf’a by itself means ‘rise in ranks’ and ‘exaltation’ why would Allah then mention ‘ranks’ separately? Infact Raf’a only means ‘raising’ and ‘elevation’ and its object is determined by the context.

4- In Qur’an 2:127 it is used about Ibrahim (A.S.) raising the foundations of the Holy Ka’ba.

“And when Ibrahim was raising (yarf’a) up the foundations of the House.”

As it refers to corporeal thing we find a connotation of physical change in it.

5- In Qur’an 7:176 it refers to exaltation but the context (verse 175) shows it refers to exaltation through the revealed verses from Allah as stated by Al- Zamakhshari in his Tafsir. Thus the context clarifies that it relates to a non-physical phenomenon as revealed verses cannot make one ascend physically.

6- In Qur’an 12:100 it is used about the act of Yusuf (A.S.) making his parents to sit on a high seat.

“And he raised (raf’a) his parents up on the throne.”

This is clear from numerous narrations given in Tafsir Al-Tabari and Durr Manthur.

7- In Qur’an 13:2, 52:5, 55:7, 79:28 and 88:18 it is used for the physical elevation of the heavens e.g.

“Allah is the One who raised (raf’a) the heavens without pillars” (Qur’an 13:2)

8- In Qur’an 19:57 it is used about Idris (A.S.);

“We raised him (raf’anahu) to a high place.”

Scholars have differed about this nature of elevation in this verse. Some say it refers to his being lifted up alive into the heavens just like Eisa (A.S.) and some say it refers to being raised to a higher spiritual level. Al-Raazi who holds a prominent position among the greatest exponents of the Qur’an and has been recognized as a Mujaddid by Ahmadis also says;

فيه قولان : أحدهما : أنه من رفعة المنزلة … الثاني : أن المراد به الرفعة في المكان إلى موضع عال وهذا أولى ، لأن الرفعة المقرونة بالمكان تكون رفعة في المكان لا في الدرجة

“There are two opinions about it. First of them: that it refers to exaltation in rank … second: that rising refers to lifting to a lofty place and this is the stronger opinion for elevation is linked to place so it’s rise in place [of rest] and not rank.” (Tafsir Al-Kabir 10/322)

9- In Qur’an 24:36,

“(The guided people worship Allah) in the houses that Allah has permitted to be raised (turf’a), and where His name is recounted and His purity is pronounced, in the morning and in the evening.”

Scholars explain that either ‘houses’ refer to the mosques in which case Raf’a has the meaning same as in Qur’an 2:127 or it refers to the dwellings of the believers in which case it refers to their being exalted in honour. In this later case the context i.e. ‘where His name is recounted and His purity is pronounced’ determine Raf’a to be of a spiritual connotation.

10- In Qur’an 35:10,

“Whoever desires honor, then all honor lies with Allah alone. Towards Him ascends the pure word, and the righteous deed uplifts it (yarf’ahu).”

Here it simply means that righteous deeds lift the pure words to Allah so the object of Raf’a here is ‘pure word’ which is not a corporeal thing. This is clear from the narrations of Ibn Abbas (cf. Al-Tabari), Hassan and Qatada (cf. Durr Manthur).

11- In Qur’an 49:2;

“O you who believe, do not raise (la tarf’au) your voices above the voice of the Prophet.”

Clearly the object of Raf’a here is voice and no corporeal thing.

I2- In Quran 56:3 it is used with reference to the Doomsday;

“It will bring low (some); (and others) it will exalt (raafi’a);”

In the preceding verse (no. 2) it is said; “And there can be no denying of its befalling.” Thus the verse means owing to the fact that it cannot be denied so when it befalls it will bring low those who denied it stubbornly and will exalt those who believed in it in the light of the Divine Guidance. Thus it’s the context which determines its meaning of exaltation.

Let me also mention that some commentators have even said that this can refer to the system of the Heavens and the Earth going topsy-turvy on that Awful Day with heavens splitting asunder, stars falling down and mountains flying away like clouds. See the works of Shaukani, Al-Zamakhshari, Al-Baidhawi, Aalusi etc.

13- In Qur’an 56:34 it is used as an adjective;

“And on couches or thrones, raised high (marfu’a).”

The height of these thrones/couches is mentioned in physical terms in Hadīth.

Abu Sa’id (RA) reported from the Prophet (SAAW) about Allah’s Words: “And couches raised high” He said, “Their heights would be like the distance between Heaven and the Earth. And the distance between them is a journey of five hundred years.” (Musnad Ahmad, Hadith 11659. Shaykh Hamzatul Zain classified it as Hasan)

Qur’an 88:13 refers to the same.

14- In Qur’an 80:14 it is used in reference to the Preserved Scripts of the Holy Qur’an;

“It is (recorded) in those scripts (of the Preserved Tablet) that are honoured, exalted (marfu’a), purified.” (Qur’an 80:13-14)

Al-Raazi says;

مرفوعة في السماء السابعة أو مرفوعة المقدار مطهر عن أيدي الشياطين

“Placed high in the seventh heaven or raised to a such height where they remain pure from the touch of devils.” (Tafsir Al-Kabir 16/361)

Al-Zamakhshari says;

{ مَّرْفُوعَةٍ { في السماء

“marfu’a : [placed high] in the heaven,” (Tafsir Al-Kashshaf  7/234)

15- In Qur’an 94:4,

“And We raised (raf’ana) high your name.”

Clearly the object of Raf’a is the name (zikr) of the Holy Prophet (SAAW) and nothing of corporeal nature hence it does not mean physical elevation.

The purpose of this post is to strike at the root of all the possible Ahmadis arguments about the usage of the word elsewhere in Qur’an. Above details support our contention that Raf’a the way it used for Eisa (A.S.) can only be taken to mean physical ascension and no other usage of the word puts to doubt the basis of the Islamic Belief.

Coming up next is a discussion on Raf’a in the light of Ahadith.

Indeed Allah knows the best!

Quran & the Meaning of Raf’a -1

Posted on by

Ahmadis claim that the word Raf’a used in Qur’an with respect to Sayyidina Eisa (A.S.) means ‘rise in ranks’. This is what was said by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani himself and it is so translated by their leading ‘scholars’.

Following is the translation of the two verses in this regard i.e. Qur’an 3:55 and 4:158 by an Ahmadi, Sher Ali;

“When Allah said O’ Jesus I will cause thee to die (a natural death) and will exalt thee to myself …” (3:55)

“.. on the contrary Allah exalted him to Himself.” (4:158)

But this is most certainly erroneous as we shall see shortly.

In the following lines we understand the meaning of Raf’a in the light of the monumental works on lexicology and the context of the verses in question.

Meaning according to leading scholars:

1- Raghib Isfahani writes;

الرفع يقال تارة في الاجسام الموضوعة إذا أعليتها عن مقرها

“Raf’a is sometimes used for corporeal things to mean raising or elevating it from its resting place.” (Mufradat Al-Qur’an 1/200)

2- Al-Feyumi writes;

فَالرَّفْعُ فِي الْأَجْسَامِ حَقِيقَةٌ فِي الْحَرَكَةِ وَالِانْتِقَالِ وَفِي الْمَعَانِي مَحْمُولٌ عَلَى مَا يَقْتَضِيهِ الْمَقَامُ

“So Raf’a in relation to corporeal things is used properly to denote motion and removal and in relation to ideal things it is accorded in meaning to what the case requires.” (Al-Misbah Al-Munir 3/443)

3- Edward William Lane says the same; infact he quotes the above two statements in his Arabic-English Lexicon part.3 p.287

Raf’a in relation to Eisa (A.S.) refers to both his body and soul and not just soul:

1- A careful but honest look into the wording of the Qur’an shows that Raf’a is used for the body of Eisa (A.S.) as well and not just his soul;

We see that in Qur’an 3:55;

إِذْ قَالَ اللَّهُ يَا عِيسَى إِنِّي مُتَوَفِّيكَ وَرَافِعُكَ إِلَيَّ وَمُطَهِّرُكَ مِنَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا وَجَاعِلُ الَّذِينَ اتَّبَعُوكَ فَوْقَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا إِلَى يَوْمِ الْقِيَامَةِ

“When Allah said: .O Eisa , I am to take you in full and to raise you towards Myself, and to cleanse you of those who  disbelieve, and to place those who follow you above those who disbelieve up to the Day of Doom. Then to Me is your return, whereupon I shall judge between you in that over which you have differed.”

Just as مُطَهِّرُكَ (cleanse you) and اتَّبَعُوكَ (follow you) refer to the whole person, body as well as soul, رَافِعُكَ (raise you) also refers to both body and soul. There is no basis to maintain the difference between reference of pronouns of مُطَهِّرُكَ ,اتَّبَعُوكَ  and رَافِعُكَ. And as body is a corporeal thing so in the light of actual meaning of the word it most certainly denotes its displacement. This also leads us to the True Islamic belief that even مُتَوَفِّيكَ (take you) refers to the whole person, body as well as soul and not merely the soul.

Meaning of ‘Cleanse you’:

2-‘Cleanse you’ refers to Eisa’ (A.S.) departure from the evil company of the Jews. The very fact the verse reads ‘cleanse you of those who disbelieve’ shows it was physical separation and not spiritual for disbelievers could have never been close to the Mighty Prophet (A.S.) in spiritual sense. This cannot be a reference to his being relieved from the false accusations of Jews and Christians because context has nothing to do with it. It refers to the evil plot of the Jews (verse 54) and Allah’s plan to save him from their dirty trick. Same is evident in light of the scholarly opinions see e.g. Tafsir Kabir of Al-Raazi and Tafsir Kashshaf of Zamakhshari. Al-Raazi has been recognized as Mujaddids by Ahmadis and Al-Zamakhshari accepted as an authority by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad himself.

3- Similarly in Qur’an 4:157-158;

وَقَوْلِهِمْ إِنَّا قَتَلْنَا الْمَسِيحَ عِيسَى ابْنَ مَرْيَمَ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ وَمَا صَلَبُوهُ وَلَكِنْ شُبِّهَ لَهُمْ وَإِنَّ الَّذِينَ اخْتَلَفُوا فِيهِ لَفِي شَكٍّ مِنْهُ مَا لَهُمْ بِهِ مِنْ عِلْمٍ إِلَّا اتِّبَاعَ الظَّنِّ وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ يَقِينًا () بَلْ رَفَعَهُ اللَّهُ إِلَيْهِ وَكَانَ اللَّهُ عَزِيزًا حَكِيمً

“And for their saying, .We have certainly killed the Masih Eisa the son of Maryam, the Messenger of Allah., while in fact they did neither kill him, nor crucify him, but they were deluded by resemblance. Those who disputed in this matter are certainly in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it, but they follow whims. It is absolutely certain that they did not kill him. But Allah lifted him towards Himself. Allah is All-Mighty, All-Wise.”

Here again just as وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ (and they killed him not), وَمَا صَلَبُوهُ (nor crucify him) and وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ يَقِينًا (and for a surety they killed him not) refers to the body of Eisa (A.S.); رَفَعَهُ اللَّهُ (Allah lifted him) also refers to the body of Eisa (A.S.) and not just his soul. Again there is no reason to drop body from رَفَعَهُ اللَّهُ (Allah lifted him).

A possible objection killed:

4- Ahmadis may refer to Qur’an 80:21

أَمَاتَهُ فَأَقْبَرَهُ

“He made him die, and put him into grave,”

And say that in أَمَاتَهُ (He made him to die) the personal pronoun refers to both body and soul while in فَأَقْبَرَهُ (put him into grave) it refers to either of them; hence it is not necessary that personal pronouns in a single sentence always refer to one and the same being.

Without going into long discussion if أَمَاتَهُ (He made him to die) refers to merely body or both body and soul, we can prove this assertion to be wrong in light of the simple fact that that with أَمَاتَهُ (He made him to die) there comes a separation between body and soul so naturally the personal pronoun in the word to follow can refer to either of them and not both. This is because of the separation between the two. While in Qur’an 4:157-158 such a separation between body and soul is out of question for Allah in most explicit terms declares;

وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ يَقِينًا (And for a surety the killed him not). Thus there is no separation between the body and soul and hence it baseless to drop body from the personal pronoun in رَفَعَهُ اللَّهُ (Allah lifted him).

The context of the verse refutes the Ahmadi belief:

5- In Qur’an 4:157-158 first the Jewish belief of their having killed Eisa (A.S.) is repudiated by saying وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ (and they killed him not) and then the Christian belief is denounced by saying وَمَا صَلَبُوهُ (nor crucify him) and then the belief of his ascension has been testified by saying بَلْ رَفَعَهُ اللَّهُ إِلَيْهِ (But Allah lifted him towards Himself). Had the belief of his physical ascension been baseless Allah would have denounced it as well.

Scholars on Raf’a of Eisa (A.S.):

6- All the classical scholars have taken Raf’a about Eisa (A.S.) in the meaning of physical ascent. See Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Tafsir Al-Kabir of Al-Raazi,  Aalusi, Shaukani’s Fath Al-Qadir, Jalalain, Durr Manthur, Baidhawi, Khazin etc.

Al-Raazi, Shaukani and Jalaluddin Suyuti have all been recognized as Mujaddids by Ahmadis.

Even Al-Zamakhshari takes the word Raf’a to mean physical ascension of Eisa (A.S.). See his Tafsir Kashshaf 1/280 under 3:55)

And Al-Zamakhshari is the one whom Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani himself praised and said;

“Matchless scholar of the Arabic language who cannot be disputed with.” (Baraheen Ahmadiyyah Part V p.381included in RK- vol.21)

So had there been any possibility of taking Raf’a to mean other than physical ascension this ‘Matchless Scholar’ would have done for sure. Will some Ahmadi now dispute with an authority reckoned as undisputable by their own pseudo-prophet?

Was raf’a in response to the idea of ‘cursed crucifixion’?

7- Ahmadis also try to suggest that as Jews in light of Book of Deuteronomy 21:22-23 held that the one crucified is the one accursed so to refute their belief Allah exalted Eisa (A.S.) in rank.

This again is a twisted argument;

a- Firstly seeking evidence with Biblical reference is allowed only when it goes in line with Qur’an and Sunnah but there is no support for such an idea in the entire Islamic rubric.

b- Even according to Deut. 21:22-23 only one crucified for a sin punishable by death is accursed and surely this was never the case with Eisa (A.S.).

c- In Qur’an 4:157-158 Allah strongly rejects the notion of his death and then says that ‘But he was raised’ this bringing in contrast to his idea of being killed. Is ‘rise in ranks’ opposite to being killed? Were the prophets killed unjustly cursed or something? Is giving ones life in the way of Allah as good as being cursed?

d-  Just two verses prior to it Qur’an mentions the killing of the Prophets by the Jews;

“And for their slaying of the prophets unjustly …” (Qur’an 4:155)

If raf’a refers to ‘being exalted’ and ‘rise in ranks’ then why was the same not mentioned about other Prophets killed unjustly? Why the personal pronoun attached with raf’a is singular? Were they not even martyrs holding the high office of prophethood?

e- The sole reason raf’a was not mentioned along with earlier Prophets is that it refers to physical ascension which happened in the case of Eisa (A.S.) only!

Where is the mention of sky?

8- Ahmadis say these verses are about Eisa’ (A.S.) being exalted to Allah and ask as to where is the mention of the sky in these verses?

The fact is that as per the Qur’anic usage the verses mean ‘being raised to sky’. The following references help in this regard;

“Have you become fearless of Him who is in the sky if He makes you sink into the Earth.” (Qur’an 67:16)

“Or, have you become fearless of Him who is in the sky if He looses a violent wind with stones against you?” (Qur’an 67:17)

And whenever the Holy Prophet (SAAW) waited for the revelation from Allah he looked up towards the sky;

“We have been seeing you turning your face to the heavens.” (Qur’an 2:144)

9- Having proved that being raised to Allah means ascension to the Heavens, will some Ahmadi explain if Raf’a means a rise in rank what is the purpose of Allah saying ‘raise you towards Myself’ and the words ‘Allah lifted him towards Himself’?

Conclusion:

All the above details, testimonies of celebrated scholars and study into Qur’an, plainly establish the fact that the word Raf’a with reference to Eisa (A.S.) means physical ascension.

May Allah guide us all to the Truth!

Next we shall look into the other instances in Qur’an where the word Raf’a is used.

INDEED ALLAH KNOWS BEST!

Iqbal on the Idea of Finality of Prophethood

Posted on by

One of greatest Muslim philosophers and ideologues of all times, Dr. Allama Muhammad Iqbal, gave special attention to the idea Finality of Prophethood (Khatam Al-Nubuwwah) and at length wrote about its significance in the House of Islam.

Here are some quotes from him;

“I want rather to fix your gaze on some of the ruling concepts of the culture of Islam in order to gain an insight into the process of ideation that underlies them, and thus to catch a glimpse of the soul that found expression through them. Before, however, I proceed to do so it is necessary to understand the cultural value of a great idea in Islam – I mean the finality of the institution of prophethood…

The birth of Islam, as I hope to be able presently to prove to your satisfaction, is the birth of inductive intellect. In Islam prophecy reaches its perfection in discovering the need of its own abolition. This involves the keen perception that life cannot for ever be kept in leading strings; that, in order to achieve full self-consciousness, man must finally be thrown back on his own resources. The abolition of priesthood and hereditary kingship in Islam, the constant appeal to reason and experience in the Qur’an, and the emphasis that it lays on Nature and History as sources of human knowledge, are all different aspects of the same idea of finality…

The intellectual value of the idea is that it tends to create an independent critical attitude towards mystic experience by generating the belief that all personal authority, claiming a supernatural origin, has come to an end in the history of man. This kind of belief is a psychological force which inhibits the growth of such authority. The function of the idea is to open up fresh vistas of knowledge in the domain of man’s inner experience. Just as the first half of the formula of Islam has created and fostered the spirit of a critical observation of man’s outer experience by divesting the forces of nature of that Divine character with which earlier cultures had clothed them. Mystic experience, then, however unusual and abnormal, must now be regarded by a Muslim as a perfectly natural experience, open to critical scrutiny like other aspects of human experience.”

(The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam, Lecture V: The Spirit of Muslim Culture)

At another place he further says;

“The cultural value of the idea of Finality in Islam I have fully explained elsewhere. Its meaning is simple: No spiritual surrender to any human being after Muhammad who emancipated his followers by giving them a law which is realizable as arising from the very core of human conscience. Theologically the doctrine is that: The Socio-political organization called “Islam” is perfect and eternal. No revelation the denial of which entails heresy is possible after Muhammad. He who claims such a revelation is a traitor to Islam.“

And he does not stop here rather he goes on to answer some of the fundamental arguments of the Ahmadiyya. He says;

“Since the Qadianis believe the founder of the Ahmadiyya movement to be the bearer of such a revelation, they declare that the entire world of Islam is infidel. The founder‘s own argument, quite worthy of a mediaeval theologian, is that the spirituality of the Holy Prophet of Islam must be regarded as imperfect if it is not creative of another Prophet. He claims his own Prophethood to be an evidence of the Prophet-rearing power of the spirituality of the Holy Prophet of Islam. But if you further ask him whether the spirituality of Muhammad is capable of rearing more prophets than one, his answer is “No”. This virtually, amounts to saying: “Muhammad is not the last Prophet; I am the last.” Far from understanding the cultural value of the Islamic idea of finality in the history of mankind generally and of Asia especially, he thinks that finality in the sense that no follower of Muhammad can ever reach the status of Prophethood is a mark of imperfection in Muhammad‘s Prophethood. As I read the psychology of his mind he, in the interest of his own claim to Prophethood, avails himself of what he describes as the creative spirituality of the Holy Prophet of Islam and at the same time deprives the Holy Prophet of his ‘finality’ by limiting the creative capacity of his spirituality to the rearing of only one prophet, i.e., the founder of the Ahmadiyya movement. In this way does the new prophet quietly steal away the ‘finality’ of one whom he claims to be his spiritual progenitor.

He claims to be a ‘buruz’ of the Holy Prophet of Islam insinuating thereby that, being a ‘buruz‘ of him his ‘finality‘ is virtually the ‘finality‘ of Muhammad; and that this view of the matter, therefore, does not violate the ‘finality‘ of the Holy Prophet. In identifying the two finalities, his own and that of the Holy Prophet, he conveniently loses sight of the temporal meaning of the idea of Finality. It is, however, obvious that the word ‘buruz‘ in the sense even of complete likeness, cannot help him at all; for the ‘buruz‘ must always remain the other of its original. Only in the sense of reincarnation a ‘buruz‘ becomes identical with the original. Thus if we take the word ‘buruz‘ to mean ‘like in spiritual qualities’ the argument remains ineffective; if, on the other hand, we take it to mean reincarnation of the original in the Aryan sense of the word, the argument becomes plausible; but its author turns out to be only a Magian in disguise.”

(Islam and Ahmadism, p.8 pub. Da’wah Academy IIUI, Islamabad)

And it is precisely the same Magian spirit which Iqbal like his great predecessor, Ibn Khaldun, considered to be against the spirit of the Muslim culture. In his lectures he says;

“I have already indicated the direction in which the student of Islam should seek the cultural meaning of the doctrine of finality in Islam. It may further be regarded as a psychological cure for the Magian attitude of constant expectation which tends to give a false view of history. Ibn Khaldun, seeing the spirit of his own view of history, has fully criticized and, I believe, finally demolished the alleged revelational basis in Islam of an idea similar, at least in its psychological effects, to the original Magian idea which had reappeared in Islam under the pressure of Magian thought.”

(The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam, Lecture V: The Spirit of Muslim Culture)

And the importance and vitality of the same idea of ‘finality’ he beautifully sums up in a single poetic verse;

لا نبی بعدی احسان خداست      پردہ ناموس دین مصطفیٰ است

‘No Prophet after me’ is of God’s grace,

And veil the modest beauty of the Faith!

Quran, Hadith & Jesus’ (PBUH) alleged travel to Kashmir

Posted on by

Qadianis in their series of absurd arguments about Jesus (PBUH) claim that he went to Kashmir and died there. To your surprise, they even tend to use an ayah of the Quran and some Ahadith to prove his arrival in Kashmir.

Place of shelter, rest and security for Jesus (PBUH):

They contend that following ayah refers to his arrival in Kashmir;

وَجَعَلْنَا ابْنَ مَرْيَمَ وَأُمَّهُ آَيَةً وَآَوَيْنَاهُمَا إِلَى رَبْوَةٍ ذَاتِ قَرَارٍ وَمَعِينٍ
“And We made the son of Mary and his mother as a Sign: We gave them both shelter on high ground, affording rest and security and furnished with springs.” (Quran 23:50)
They suggest that ‘high ground, affording rest and security and furnished with springs’ is a reference to Kashmir.

Those who have known classical and basic tafasir know how ridiculous this assertion is. In the following lines we understand it in the light of authentic sources and valid reasoning.

1) The verse calls both Jesus and his mother Mary, together a sign. This is nothing but a reference to miraculous birth of Jesus (PBUH).

2) Immediately after calling them a sign (i.e. making a reference to the miraculous birth) it is mentioned that they were also provided with a safe shelter to rest in peace. This clearly gives a notion of being saved from some trouble.

3) From the Biblical source (Matthew 2:13-23), which we cannot reject as long as it goes with Quran and Hadith, we learn that immediately after the birth both the mother and son had to move out of their actual place to find a shelter as King Herod was bent on taking the life of the child.

4) According to narrations of Wahab bin Munabbih (cf. Abd b. Hamid, Ibn Asaakir etc.), Ibn Zaid (cf. Ibn Jarir, Ibn Abi Hatim), Zaid bin Muslim and Ibn Abbas (cf. Ibn Asaakir) ‘high ground affording rest and security…’ refers to Egypt. This goes directly in line with what is narrated in the Gospels that Jesus (PBUH) and his Mother had to flee to Egypt for the fear of King Herod. See Matthew 2:13-14

5) While according to other narrations of Abdullah bin Salam, Ibn Abbas and Hassan (cf. Ibn Asaakir) it refers to Damascus. Assuming Damascus to be actually a reference to a broader region it can perhaps be understood to mean Nazareth where both Jesus (PBUH) and his Mother had to seek shelter on their return from Egypt for the fear of Archelaus. See Matthew 2:22-23

6) Some other narrations relate it to Ramallah. Still it’s in that same region and no where near Kashmir.

7) None of the Sahaba, early commentators, scholars who followed and even common Muslims ever thought it to be a reference to so far off a region as Kashmir. Had this verse something to do with what Qadianis assert Holy Prophet (PBUH) would surely have told his companions about it but he never said anything on those lines. There is not even a shred of evidence for Qadiani stance.

8 ) Lest one object as to why we seek evidence with Biblical narrations, let it be clear that we seek evidence only in the narrations from Sahaba, the direct students of Holy Prophet (PBUH) and in turn their students among the followers. We refer to Biblical evidences only because they go in line with our sources of value and we are allowed to refer to the narrations of People of Book if they go along with Quran and Hadith. Same is the case here as explained above.

Do Ahadith support Jesus’ (PBUH) travel to Kashmir?

Qadianis use a couple of narrations to meet their ends. Let’s understand their reality.
First of them goes as:

أحب شئ إلى الله تعالى الغرباء الفرارون بدينهم ، يبعثهم الله يوم القيامة مع عيسى ابن مريم
“Dearest to Allah are the strangers who flee (their homelands) with their Faith. On the Day of Judgment Allah will raise them with Jesus son of Mary.” (Kanzul Ummal 3/153 H.5930 cf. Abu Na’im)

The narration is weak and unauthentic. Albani called it Daeef in Silsala Daeefa No. 1859. Some scholars have called the essence of this Hadith as true but surely this Hadith only points to the fact that Jesus (PBUH) also left his place for the sake of Deen and we just saw how narrations and other evidences agree that he did travel to Egypt and then to a district around Damascus. This narration has nothing in it to to help Qadianis!

Another narration is:

أوحى الله تعالى إلى عيسى : أن يا عيسى انتقل من مكان إلى مكان ، لئلا تعرف ، فتؤذى
‘Allah revealed this to Jesus; O Jesus keep moving from one place to another lest they know you and tease you.’ (Kanzul Ummal 3/158 H.5955 cf. Ibn Asaakir)

This narration is also weak. Infact the Ali Muttaqi, the compiler of Kanzul Ummal himself mentions that in its chain is Hani Bin Mutawakkil who is Majhool (i.e. unknown) and most certainly a narration with a Majhool narrator in its chain is Daeef and thus unauthentic.

Even if these narrations were authentic they simply refer to Jesus’ (PBUH) fleeing his land for his mission and to be safe from the evil of the people. All this has been explained above in the light of classical Islamic narrations and Biblical evidences. They have nothing to do with the fairy tale of Jesus’ (PBUH) travel to Kashmir.

Jesus (PBUH) was raised to Heavens from Mt. Olives in Jerusalem:

Contrary to Qadiani belief, there is substantial evidence that Jesus (PBUH) was raised alive to Heavens from Jerusalem itself.

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 (RA) 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 Jesus (PBUH) was raised up to the Heavens.’ (Al-Tasrih bima Tawatar fi Nuzul Al-Masih Hadith 74 cf. Tafsir Fath Al-Aziz Surah 95)

All this debunks the baseless Qadiani belief about Jesus (PBUH).

INDEED ALLAH KNOWS THE BEST!

Hadith & Alleged Death of Jesus -10 (Two different descriptions?)

Posted on by

Tenth Qadiani argument answered in the following lines. They argue that;

1. In the Mi`raj the Messiah seen with Moses, Abraham, and other prophets, by the Holy Prophet, was described by him thus:

a. “I saw Jesus. “I saw Jesus. He was a man of a reddish complexion” (Bukhari, Kitab al-ambiya, ch. 24).

b. “I saw Jesus, Moses, and Abraham. Jesus had a reddish complexion, curly hair, and a wide chest”(ibid., ch. 48).

It is clear from both these hadith that by Jesus, who was seen here along with Abraham and Moses, is meant the Israelite prophet. He had a red complexion and curly hair.

2 Bukhari has recorded a hadith in which the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) relates a dream of his about the future: “In a state of sleep I saw myself circumambulating the Ka’ba, and I saw a man of a wheatish complexion with straight hair. I asked who it was. They said: This is the Messiah, son of Mary” (Bukhari, Kitab al-Fitn, ch. 27).

Thus, where Jesus is mentioned along with Abraham and Moses, he is described as of a reddish complexion with curly hair; but where he is seen along with the Dajjal in a dream about the future, he is said to have a wheatish complexion with straight hair. Evidently, these two different descriptions do not apply to one and the same person. So Jesus, the Israelite prophet, whom the Holy Prophet saw in the Mi`raj vision, and the Messiah who was to appear in the latter days to kill the evil Dajjal, are two different persons.

The Truth:

Following are the two Ahadith they refer to along with their usual but erroneous translation;

أَنَّ عَبْدَ اللَّهِ بْنَ عُمَرَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمَا قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ بَيْنَا أَنَا نَائِمٌ رَأَيْتُنِي أَطُوفُ بِالْكَعْبَةِ فَإِذَا رَجُلٌ آدَمُ سَبْطُ الشَّعَرِ بَيْنَ رَجُلَيْنِ يَنْطُفُ رَأْسُهُ مَاءً فَقُلْتُ مَنْ هَذَا قَالُوا ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ

Narrated ‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar:  Allah’s Messenger (PBUH) said, “While I was sleeping, I saw myself performing the Tawaf of the Ka’ba. Behold, there I saw a wheatish-lank-haired man (holding himself) between two men with water dropping from his hair. I asked, ‘Who is this?’ The people replied, ‘He is the son of Mary.’ (Bukhari, Kitabul Ta’beer, Hadith 6508)

Though normally the English translators have translated the words in red as ‘whitish-red’ but I have given the literal translation. The thing will be hopefully clarified in the lines below;

عَنْ ابْنِ عُمَرَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمَا قَالَ قَالَ النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ رَأَيْتُ عِيسَى ومُوسَى وَإِبْرَاهِيمَ فَأَمَّا عِيسَى فَأَحْمَرُ جَعْدٌ عَرِيضُ الصَّدْرِ

Narrated Ibn Umar: The Prophet said, “I saw Moses, Jesus and Abraham (on the night of my Ascension to the heavens). Jesus was of red complexion, curly hair and broad chest.” (Bukhari, Kitabul Ahadith al-Anbiya, Hadith 3183)

Apparently there seem to be two contradictions here;

1)      About Complexion

2)      About Hair

In the following lines we discuss in detail all the various Ahadith about the issue and expose the Qadiani lie.

Complexion:

1) As to the complexion, apparently there seems to be a contradiction but there isn’t any. One Hadith of Ibn Umar (RA) above says that the Holy Prophet (PBUH) described Jesus (PBUH) to be of red complexion while other narration from him says he was described to be of wheatish complexion. This apparent contradiction is resolved considering other narrations.

عَنْ سَالِمٍ عَنْ أَبِيهِ قَالَ لَا وَاللَّهِ مَا قَالَ النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ لِعِيسَى أَحْمَرُ وَلَكِنْ قَالَ بَيْنَمَا أَنَا نَائِمٌ أَطُوفُ بِالْكَعْبَةِ فَإِذَا رَجُلٌ آدَمُ سَبْطُ الشَّعَرِ

Salim reports from his father (i.e. Abdullah bin Umar), he said: “No, By Allah, the Prophet did not say that Jesus was of red complexion but he said, “While I was asleep circumambulating the Ka’ba (in my dream), suddenly I saw a man of brown complexion and lank hair.” (Bukhari, Kitabul Ahadith al-Anbiya, Hadith 3185)

2) Considering the fact that Ibn Umar (RA) himself so emphatically repudiates the idea that Holy Prophet (PBUH) described Jesus (PBUH) to be of red complexion so we have to believe, the narration which attributes to Ibn Umar (RA) the report of Holy Prophet describing Jesus as such is perhaps a mistake by some later narrator. Jesus (PBUH) was not purely of red complexion. Infact this is generally not true for the Semitic people.

3) The rightful description of Jesus (PBUH) is as narrated by Ibn Abbas (RA):

ابْنَ عَبَّاسٍ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمَا عَنْ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَالَ …َرَأَيْتُ عِيسَى رَجُلًا مَرْبُوعًا مَرْبُوعَ الْخَلْقِ إِلَى الْحُمْرَةِ وَالْبَيَاضِ سَبِطَ الرَّأْسِ

Narrated Ibn Abbas: The Prophet said, “On the night of my Ascent to the Heaven, … I saw Jesus, a man of medium height and moderate complexion inclined to the red and white colors and of lank hair.” (Bukhari, Kitabul Bad’ al-Khalq, Hadith 3000)

4) Infact his complexion was neither white as lime nor purely red but something between these two as described in the Hadith above. And the same complexion was sometimes referred to as ‘wheatish’ or ‘wheat-colored.’

Al-Nawawi has written the same in his commentary to the Hadith that speaks of red complexion of Jesus (PBUH):

وَأَنَّهُ اِشْتَبَهَ عَلَى الرَّاوِي فَيَجُوز أَنْ يُتَأَوَّل الْأَحْمَر عَلَى الْأَدَم ، وَلَا يَكُون الْمُرَاد حَقِيقَة الْأُدْمَة وَالْحُمْرَة بَلْ مَا قَارَبَهَا

“And this is confusion on the part of the narrator and perhaps he took red to be wheat-like and it does not mean tan or red but what is near to it.” (Sharah Al-Nawawi on Sahih Muslim 1/302, Kitabul Iman)

5) The fact of the matter is that it’s not easy to describe ones complexion. The same is evident from the fact that Anas (RA) in one narration says Holy Prophet (PBUH) was wheatish in complexion and in another narration says he was not wheat-colored. (Shamail Tirmidhi Hadith 1 & 2. Both authenticated by Albani)

The Hair:

1) As to the hair; straight or curly, we need to have a look at the actual wording of the Hadith that is taken to speak about the curly hair of Jesus (PBUH);

فَأَمَّا عِيسَى فَأَحْمَرُ جَعْدٌ

The usual translation goes as; “Jesus was of red complexion [and] curly hair.”

Here the word جَعْدٌ is taken to mean curly hair but this is not the exclusive meaning of this word. Ibn Athir writes about it:

مَعْناه… شَدِيد الأسْرِ

i.e. “It means…  ‘Of strong built.’” and further gives an example of it from Hadith:

والحديث الآخر [ على ناقة جَعْدَة ] أي مُجْتَمِعة الخَلْق شَدِيدةٍ

“In another Hadīth, ‘On a camel of strong built’ i.e. of rigorously cogent built.” (Nihaya fi Gharib al-Asar 1/767)

Indeed scholars have always taken جَعْدٌ to mean ‘of strong built’ in this context. Hafiz Ibn Hujr mentions that it refers to his physical bearing and not hair. He says;

وَوَصْفه لِجُعُودَةِ فِي جِسْمه لَا شَعْره وَالْمُرَاد بِذَلِكَ اِجْتِمَاعه وَاكْتِنَازه

“And this is about sturdiness in body, not the hair and it refers to its compactness and robustness” (Fath Al-Baari 10/242, kitabul ahadith al-anbiya)

Al-Nawawi has also said the very same. He writes;

الْمُرَاد بِالْجَعْدِ هُنَا جُعُودَة الْجِسْم وَهُوَ اِجْتِمَاعه وَاكْتِنَازه وَلَيْسَ الْمُرَاد جُعُودَة الشَّعْر .

“Here جَعْدِ means firmness of the body i.e. its compactness and being thickset. And it does not refer to curling  of the hair’ (Sharah Al-Nawawi on Sahih Muslim 1/296, Kitabul Iman)

* Please note, both Hafiz Ibn Hajr and Imam Al-Nawawi have been recognized as Mujaddids by Ahmadiyya.

2) So the correct and most suitable translation of the Hadith which is generally taken to refer to the curly hair of Jesus (PBUH) is:

Narrated Ibn Umar: The Prophet said, “I saw Moses, Jesus and Abraham (on the night of my Ascension to the heavens). Jesus was (person) with red complexion, robust body and a broad chest.” (Bukhari, Hadith 3183)

Similar Description of Jesus (PBUH) as seen during Mi’raj and on his descent:

The thing of utmost importance we need to consider here is the fact that when the Holy Prophet (PBUH) told about the features of the Jesus (PBUH) to recognize him on his descent it went directly in line with the description of Jesus (PBUH) found in the Ahadith about Night of Ascension (Mi’raj).

ابْنَ عَبَّاسٍ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمَا عَنْ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَالَ …َرَأَيْتُ عِيسَى رَجُلًا مَرْبُوعًا مَرْبُوعَ الْخَلْقِ إِلَى الْحُمْرَةِ وَالْبَيَاضِ سَبِطَ الرَّأْسِ

Narrated Ibn Abbas: The Prophet said, “On the night of my Ascent to the Heaven … I saw Jesus, a man of medium height and moderate complexion inclined to the red and white colors and of lank hair.” (Bukhari, kitabul bad’ al-khalq , Hadith 3000)

عن أبي هريرة أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قال ليس بيني وبينه نبي يعني عيسى وإنه نازل فإذا رأيتموه فاعرفوه رجل مربوع إلى الحمرة والبياض

Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet (PBUH) said: There is no prophet between me and him, that is, Jesus (PBUH). He will descend (to the earth). When you see him, recognize him: a man of medium height, complexion inclined to red and white…” (Abu Dawud, Kitabul Malahim, Hadith 4324. Classified as Sahih by Albani)

This proves that the man who is described in the Ahadith to descend from the Heavens near the End of Times will be same Israelite Prophet whom the Holy Prophet (PBUH) met during the Miraculous Night (Mi’raj).

All these details expose the Qadiani lies and infact upholds the unanimous Muslim belief that Jesus of Nazareth will indeed descend from the Heavens.

NOTE: Alhamdulillah with this we come to the end of refutation of the 10 arguments of Ahmadiyya from Hadith about the death of Jesus (PBUH) which appeared in Paigham-e-Haqq (Organ of the Ahmadiyya Anjuman Isha’at-i-Islam, Fiji), pp. 31-37, July/Dec., 1980 and is now reproduced on a few Ahmadi sites.  To follow are the refutations of a few more Ahmadi arguments from Hadith on the topic.

INDEED ALLAH KNOWS THE BEST!

Hadith & Alleged Death of Jesus -9 (Holy Prophet’s Discussion with Christian Delegation)

Posted on by

Here is another Qadiani argument and its refutation;

“When a delegation of sixty men from (the Christian) people of Najran came to the Holy Prophet, their chief priest discussed with him the status of Jesus and asked him as to who Jesus’ father was. The Holy Prophet said…:
A lastum to `lamuna anna rabbana la yamutu wa anna `Tsa ata `alaihi-l fana’
i.e., Do you not know that our Lord lives for ever while Jesus perished”
(Asbab an-nuzul by lmam Abu-I-Hasan Ali bin Ahmad al-Wahide of Neshapur, published in Egypt, p. 53).
What clearer testimony could there be that Jesus has died than this saying from the blessed tongue of the Holy Prophet!

The Truth:

1) The incident of the delegation of the Christians of Nejran coming to the Holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه و سلم) and their mutual dialogue is recorded in a number of Tafasir (Commentaries of the Holy Quran). Normally if one wishes to quote it, he would certainly quote it from a much better and widely known Tafsir and the one which gives the complete chain of narrators for the narration.

2) But this is not true for Qadianis. They quote it from a Tafsir, Wahidi’s Asbaab Al-Nuzul, which is though important and known, but comes no where closer to Tafasir like Al-Tabari etc. And this is not without reason. We do smell a rat here and very rightly so.

3) It is true that in Wahidi’s Asbaab Al-Nuzul the wording is same as they say but the thing we need to understand is that the author of the Tafsir does not give any chain for the narration. He rather says:

قال المفسرون‏‏

i.e. “Commentators said…”

Naturally we would like to know as to who all among the commentators before him have related this narration authoritatively i.e. have given the complete chain. When we search, we find that they were Ibn Jarir Al-Tabari and Ibn Abi Hatim. And it was actually on their authority that the incident got reported in later Tafasir like Asbaab Al-Nuzul, Durr Manthur and Tafsir Kabir of Al-Raazi.

Al-Wahidi gives the particular sentence we are focusing on as;

ألستم تعلمون أن ربنا حي لا يموت وأن عيسى أتى عليه الفناء

“Don’t you know that our Lord is ever living but death did come to Jesus?”

But in the narration of both Al-Tabari and Ibn Abi Hatim the wording is:

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 Jesus?”

(Tafsir Al-Tabari 6/154 Narration. 6544, Ibn Abi Hatim 9/408. Both have brought it under verse 1 of Surah 3)

Moreover Nizamuddin Qumi quoted the same narration in his Tafsir Gharaib Al-Qurān generally known as Tafsir Nishapuri, with reference to Wahidi. he says;

قال الواحدي : نقل المفسرون أنه قدم على رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وفد نجران

‘Wahidi said: Mufassirin have recorded that a delegation from Nejran came to the Messenger of Allah (صلى الله عليه وسلم)‘

and quoting the discussion on the authority of Al-Wahidi he writes;

قال : ألستم تعلمون أنه حي لا يموت وأن عيسى يأتي عليه الفناء؟

‘He (the prophet) said: ‘Do you not know that He (Allah) is Ever-living, the Eternal and death will come to Jesus?’

(Tafsir Nishapuri 2/199 under surah 3 ayah 1)

It means even Wahidi actually quoted from earlier scholars correctly and it was only some later scribe who made the mistake.

And as matter of fact even in Suyuti’s Durr Manthur (2/276) and Tafsir Kabir of Al-Raazi (4/93) exactly the same wording is quoted i.e. word يأتي (future tense) is used and not أتى  (past tense).

Not to forget both Al-Suyuti and Al-Raazi have been recognized as Mujaddids by Qadianis.

To summarize; Al-Tabari (d. 310 A.H.) and others quoted it with complete chain and the wording they give uses the future tense. Nizamuddin Qumi (d. 728 A.H.) who quoted it from Wahidi (d. 468 A.H.) also gives the wording with future tense. Suyuti and Razi quote it and they also use the word يأتي (future tense). Only in the prevalent edition of Wahidi’s Tafsir, that does not have the chain of narrators even, uses the word with past tense.

Having gone through all this detail any sensible person will agree that the wording as found in Al-Tabari and Ibn Abi Hatim and quoted by Nizamuddin Qumi, Suyuti and Razi is the real authority in this case.

The narration is evidence against Qadianis:

4) All this detail not only smokes off the Qadiani argument and unveils their cunning tricks but also establishes that the actual wording of the narration is a proof that Jesus (عليه السلام) did not die hence the Prophet (صلى الله عليه و سلم) used the word signifying the death of Jesus (عليه السلام) as a phenomenon yet to take place.

Verily the narration is infact an Islamic evidence against the heretic Qadiani belief!

Will some Qadiani like to argue and explain why they play dirty tricks?

May Allah guide all!

INDEED ALLAH KNOWS THE BEST!

Hadith & Alleged Death of Jesus -8 (Descent in the Night of Mi’raj?)

Posted on by

Yet another Qadiani twisting of plain things:

A hadith about the Miraj records:

“Then the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) descended in Jerusalem, along with all the other prophets. At the time of prayers, he lead them all in prayer” (Tafisir on Kathir, Urdu ed., vol. III, p. 23).

Among “all” the prophets is included Jesus. Had he, unlike other prophets, been alive physically in heaven, his “descent” to Jerusalem would have been with his material body. In that case, he would have had to rise up to heaven physically a second time. But the Quran mentions only one raf (“exaltation” which is misunderstood as “rising up to heaven”) of Jesus!

This difficulty does not arise if we believe, as is clear from the various hadith about Mi`raj, that Jesus was in the same condition (i.e. dead) as were all the other prophets seen in the vision.

The Truth:

1) There are just two possibilities, when the Holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه و سلم) met the Prophets in Jerusalem during his miraculous night journey either all of them were present there in their bodily forms or he just met their spirits. But one thing is established, all of them were in similar condition and form as there is no evidence to say that Jesus (عليه السلام) was an exception in any way.

2) If he simply met their spirits i.e. he met the spirit of Jesus (عليه السلام) it doesn’t mean he was dead because  we do know from Quran and Hadith that even when a person is not dead his soul can move. As in sleep;

اللَّهُ يَتَوَفَّى الْأَنْفُسَ حِينَ مَوْتِهَا وَالَّتِي لَمْ تَمُتْ فِي مَنَامِهَا فَيُمْسِكُ الَّتِي قَضَى عَلَيْهَا الْمَوْتَ وَيُرْسِلُ الْأُخْرَى إِلَى أَجَلٍ مُسَمًّى إِنَّ فِي ذَلِكَ لَآَيَاتٍ لِقَوْمٍ يَتَفَكَّرُونَ

“Allah fully takes away the souls (of the people) at the time of their death, (and (of) those who do not die, in their sleep. Then He withholds those on whom He had decreed death, and sends others back, up to an appointed term. Surely, in this, there are signs for a people who ponder.” (Quran 39:42)

3) Even if the Prophets were physically present, there is no issue still because the ayah about ‘Rafa’ i.e. Ascension talks of one particular instance and about Jesus (عليه السلام) only. It does not rule out the possibility of the same thereafter and that too at an event in which he was no exception.

4) Moreover on these lines we have a counter question for Qadianis.

On April 7th 1908 an American couple came to interview MGA. Following are their last two questions and the response by MGA;

Q: In what way have you seen Christ, have you seen him in the bodily form?

A: Yes, in the bodily form and clearly while awake.

Q: We have also seen Christ and see him [still] but it’s in the spiritual sense. Have you seen him just as we do?

A: No, I have seen him in physical form and in clear wakefulness.

(Malfoozat [New Ed.] vol.5 p.521)

The question here is, if Jesus (عليه السلام) had died how MGA could see him in bodily form and that too in wakefulness and not merely in a vision? Qadianis believe he has been buried in some grave. So did he rise back to life to meet MGA and will die again to come back to life with rest of the people on the Final Day? Does it not contradict Quran which mentions only one death after a person is born?

Truly absurd and baseless are their contentions!

May Allah guide all!

INDEED ALLAH KNOWS THE BEST!