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!

Related posts:

1. Hadith & Alleged Death of Jesus -9 (Holy Prophet’s Discussion with Christian Delegation) Here is another Qadiani argument and its refutation; “When a...
2. Hadith & Alleged Death of Jesus -10 (Two different descriptions?) Tenth Qadiani argument answered in the following lines. They argue...
3. Hadith & Alleged Death of Jesus -1 (Meaning of Tawaffa) Qadianis use a Hadith from Sahih Bukhari in an attempt...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

“The Holy Qur’an commands, ‘Obey Allah and obey His Prophet and obey those in authority among you.’ Believers are to obey those in authority, besides God and His Prophet. To say that ‘those in authority’ does not include a non-Muslim Government would be a manifest error. For, a government-or authority-whose ordinances are in accordance with the Shariah (that is, they are not in conflict with it) is ‘authority from among you.’ Those who are not against us are amongst us. The Qur’an, therefore, is unequivocal on the point. Obedience to governmental authority is one of its imperatives.” (Works and Speeches, Vol. (i), p. 261)

Just recently, an individual by the name of Naseem Mahdi, who is an Ahmadi, made some statements on FOX news to the effect that Muslims needed to stand up and denounce terrorism and in turn support the country in which they lived.  In the same breath he announced that this was a directive of the Quran and the Sunnah.  He was asking all Muslims who live in the USA to support the US foreign policy without question or concern, he wanted Ahmadis to know that he considered it an Islamic directive to support the USA in their foreign policy.  All this stems from the yearnings of MGAQ over 100 years ago.  MGAQ wanted to support the British in any shape or form, this was not a queer perspective that Naseem was presenting, in fact it was the rhetoric that the Islamic world had condemned over 100 years ago. 

MGAQ argued from Chapter 4 verse 60 (in the Ahmadi numbering system).  MGAQ contended that this verse had global appeal inasmuch as it explains that a good Muslim will obey any ruler who is above them in any circumstance and in any country, more specifically British India.  This policy was irregardless if the ruler was just or not, MGAQ presented it as a standing policy of support.  MGAQ didnt care that european colonialism was killing the innocent and stealing gold and diamonds.   This was not part of his formula of faith. 

The Ahmadis have purposely not used the biggest piece of the puzzle in terms of understanding Chapter 4:60.  There is a hadith in the traditions of Imam Bukhari that explains the context of this verse. 

Here it is:

Bukhari

Volume 6, Book 60, Number 108:

Narrated Ibn Abbas:

The Verse: “Obey Allah and Obey the Apostle and those of you (Muslims) who are in authority.” (4.59) was revealed in connection with ‘Abdullah bin Hudhafa bin Qais bin ‘Adi’ when the Prophet appointed him as the commander of a Sariyya (army detachment).

This hadith explains that this verse is conditional inasmuch as it means that if a Muslim is a soldier he should obey the orders of his respective captain or seargent or whoever is in charge over him.  It must be remembered that 99.9% of young Muslim men were in the military in those days, military service was mandatory in the classical period of Islam as well as almost every culture in the earth.  The Ahmadis have distorted this verse (as well as many others) in an attempt to be loyal to the Europeans and receive a kick-back.  It bothers me so much that any “so-called” Muslim would be willing to distort the word of Allah to fit his or her economic needs. 

I then found a paper written by Mirza Bashir Ahmad which was written in the early 1960’s.  In this paper he argued that Ahmadis can kill Ahmadis for the sake of their respective country.  He elaborated on his father’s fascination with connecting their family business/religion with the country that they were in.  Mirza Bashir Ahmad and his brothers considered it essential to the life of Ahmadiyyat that all members of this cult should support the country in which they live.  As Ahmadis spread to different parts of the globe it became essential for the growth and life of Ahmadiyyat to support any and all countries that it was doing business in. 

Here is the quote:

“One imaginary situation is often posed. Two countries, both with Ahmadi populations, go to war, Ahmadis in the two countries profess loyalty to their respective Governments. What are Ahmadis going to do in such a contingency? Will they still side with their respective Governments and engage in mutual killing? The question is not a new one. Neither for us, nor for the rest of the world. Our answer has always been this: Yes, even in such a contingency, Ahmadis will remain loyal to their respective Governments. This belief of ours is not of our making. It is a belief taught by God and explained by His Prophet. It is a belief we cannot alter or dilute. If loyalty to their respective Governments results in the killing of Ahmadis by Ahmadis, well that is there and, there is nothing more to be said or done. It is but a consequence, an obligation entailed by our religious belief. Principles have priority over persons. Persons may be sacrificed for the sake of principles, not principles for the sake of persons. Such mutual killing will be forgiven by the Wise and Merciful God of the Qur’an. It will be the result of His own teaching, of conditions, over which we have no control.”  (The Question of Divided Loyalty Some Parallels from History by Mirza Bashir Ahmad) http://www.alislam.org/jihad/loyality.html

Firstly, the Mirza brothers encouraged Ahmadis to kill one another.  That is just an unbelievable factoid that rips at the fabric of brotherhood in terms of the teachings of Islam.  Here is a hypothetical question: If Mirza Mahmud Ahmad was enlisted in the Indian army and Mirza Bashir Ahmad (his brother) was enlisted in the Pak army. If they met on the battlefield would they try to kill each other for the sake of their country?  I seriously doubt it.  These rules don’t apply to the “royal family”, only the subjects.  It is sickening to read this type of foreign policy.  It is even sickening to see how the Mirza brothers don’t care if Ahmadis begin to start killing Ahmadis.  All they care is that their business investment in all countries continues to thrive. 

After researching the many theories that Ahmadis present as they argue for nationalism, I decided to research this idea myself.  My research results showed that generally Islam is one nation and one culture, a Muslim should never attack another Muslim under normal circumstances.  A Muslim fighting another Muslim should never be encouraged.  This type of lifestyle is frowned upon by the theoretical position of the Quran and Hadith. 

When the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah came to pass.  Allah informed Muhammad (saw) and the other Muslims that it was Allah who had in fact stopped the Muslims from going to war with the Quraysh.  The reason that Allah had stopped the Muslims from engaging in battle with the Quraysh was because Allah did not want Muslims to kill Muslims.  Here are the words of Allah, from alislam.org:

 [48:26] It is they who disbelieved and hindered you from the Sacred Mosque and the offering which was prevented from reaching its place of sacrifice. And had it not been for believing men and believing women whom you knew not and whom you might have trampled down so that harm might have come to you on their account unknowingly, He would have permitted you to fight, but He did not do so that He might admit into His mercy whom He will. If they had been separated from the disbelievers, We would have surely punished those of them who disbelieved with a grievous punishment.

The words of Allah clearly shows that Allah is concerned with Muslims killing Muslims, and Allah even caused the Muslims to turn away from Mecca, just because Allah feared that some innocent Muslims who were living in Mecca might be killed. 

Please be advised that Allah never said that the Muslims of Mecca must support the Quraysh in their battle against Islam.  Allah never authorized Muslims to fight Muslims for the sake of nationalism.  Mirza Bashir Ahmad studied the Quran his entire life, but it seems that he totally missed this point.  I am at a loss for words in terms of how it is possible for someone to read the word of Allah and yet encourage Muslims to kill Muslims. 

The Ahmadis are very keen to point towards Jihad and announce that Jihad is conditional, as if this is some type of new discovery.  In fact, almost every injunction in the Quran has conditions that are attached to it.  A very brief conditional injunction is the eating of swine.  Muslims cannot eat swine, unless there is nothing else to eat.  Similarily, a Muslim must Fast during the month of Ramadhan, unless they have some illnesess that prevent them from doing so, like diabetes. 

The verse that the Ahmadis reference here is conditional.  There are other Quranic verses that must be taken into consideration when understanding this particular verse (4:60).  Here they are:

3:74 “And obey none but him who follows your religion;’ — Say, ‘Surely, the true guidance, the guidance of Allah, is that one may be given the like of that which has been given to you’ — ‘or they would dispute with you before your Lord.’ Say, ‘All bounty is in the hand of Allah. He gives it to whomsoever He pleases. And Allah is Bountiful, All-Knowing.”

3:101 “O ye who believe! if you obey any party of those who have been given the Book, they will turn you again into disbelievers after you have believed.”

3:150 “O ye who believe! if you obey those who have disbelieved, they will cause you to turn back on your heels, and you will become losers.”

6:117  “And if thou obey the majority of those on earth, they will lead thee astray from Allah’s way. They follow nothing but mere conjecture, and they do nothing but lie.”

In conclusion, it is obvious that the Ahmadis have taken 4:60 totally out of context.  If a person studies the entire body of the Quran he will quickly learn that a Muslim should never kill another Muslim.  The verses that I presented in conjunction with 4:60 as well as the authentic hadith lead me to understand that 4:60 is highly conditional.  The first condition is that this is a military order and it was used to remind the soliders that they MUST obey those in-charge over them, we all know how Muhammad (Saw) had lost some teeth towards the end of the Battle of Uhud and the reason was that some soldiers failed to obey the orders of those above them, this verse in Surah Nisa was revealed just after this battle and is a reflection of the military society that Islam was born into.  This is main context of this verse. 

Secondarily, a Muslim must live in an Islamic nation that is just and is Islamic in every way shape or form and has a positive aqeedah.   Allah would never authorize any Muslim to fight with those who plunder and persecute the weak.  Allah would never authorize any Muslim to support a regime that has historically killed innocent men and women for the sake of gold and trade.  Allah would never allow any Muslim to work together with those had a hand in raping innocent women and killing their babies. 

I end this paper with a Hadith that explains Muslim vs. Muslim combat.

Sahih Bukhari

Volume 5, Book 59, Number 354:

Narrated ‘Ubaidullah bin ‘Adi bin Al-Khiyar:

That Al-Miqdad bin ‘Amr Al-Kindi, who was an ally of Bani Zuhra and one of those who fought the battle of Badr together with Allah’s Apostle told him that he said to Allah’s Apostle, “Suppose I met one of the infidels and we fought, and he struck one of my hands with his sword and cut it off and then took refuge in a tree and said, “I surrender to Allah (i.e. I have become a Muslim),’ could I kill him, O Allah’s Apostle, after he had said this?” Allah’s Apostle said, “You should not kill him.” Al-Miqdad said, “O Allah’s Apostle! But he had cut off one of my two hands, and then he had uttered those words?” Allah’s Apostle replied, “You should not kill him, for if you kill him, he would be in your position where you had been before killing him, and you would be in his position where he had been before uttering those words.”

Related posts:

1. The Mi`raj in Ahmadiyya Thought The Ahmadis deny that the Prophet (SAW) physically ascended to...
2. Out of Context Vol. 2 4:69 taken from alislam.org KORAN [4:70] And whoso obeys Allah...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

In one of the many claims made by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, he declares himself the ‘Hindu avatar‘ awaited by the adherents of Hindusim. However, there seems to be an inconsistency in his claim. This particular contradiction highlights his understanding or as some may more accurately argue, deception, of the word ‘last’. He made the following claim in the year 1900.

“There is a prophecy in Hindu scriptures that in the latter days an Avatar would appear, who will possess the qualities of Krishna and will be his reflection. It has been conveyed to me that I am that person”. (Tadhkirah, 2009 Edition – Page 486)

Direct Link: http://www.alislam.org/library/books/Tadhkirah.pdf

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was adamant that he was the awaited avatar for the Hindus. Many Ahmadiyya arranged events hold up banners reading, ‘Krishna has arrived’ a misconception in itself, pushing forth the belief that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad came to guide the Hindus as stated below in 1904.

“…my advent in the present age is not for the reformation of the Muslims alone, but I have come to reform the people of all the three religions: Muslims, Christians and Hindus. Just as God has appointed me the Promised Messiah for the Muslims and Christians, so am I the Avatar for the Hindus”. (Lecture Sialkot, Page – 38/39)

Direct Link: http://www.alislam.org/library/books/LectureSialkot.pdf

However, if he was the awaited avatar for the religion of Hinduism as he claims then how do Ahmadis reconcile this with the following statement?

“…Nanak undoubtedly came as a blessing to the Hindus. He was, as it were, the last Avatar of the Hindu religion”. (A Message Of Peace, Page – 6)

Direct Link: http://aaiil.org/text/books/mga/msgpeace/messagepeacepaighamsulh1993.pdf

Guru Nanak was born in the year 1469CE, approximately 370 years before Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. He died in the year 1539CE at the age of 69 and is the founder of Sikhism. The above translation is taken from the Lahori branch of Ahmadiyya, the Qadiani branch have translated the above as “the last bearer of a message from God for Hinduism” which in effect has the same undertone as declaring Guru Nanak the last avatar for the Hindu religion. The Qadiani translation is some what of a mystery as the Urdu transliteration (thanks to brother Zia Ahmad) reads “...aur yoon shamjo whoa Hindu mazhab ka akhri avatar tha. Jis nay is nafrat ko dur karna chaha tha jo Islam kay mutalq Hindion kay dilon mein thee” (Roohani Khazain, Paigham-i-Sulh, Volume 23, Page 446) which quite clearly translates as “…he was like last avatar of Hinduism”. It is quite strange that the Qadiani branch have translated this differently leaving out the word ‘avatar’ altogether. This book, as stated in the introduction of both versions, is the last written work of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.

Conclusion
If Guru Nanak is the “last bearer of a message from God for Hinduism” and thus “the last avatar of the Hindu religion” then where does that leave Mirza Ghulam Ahmad? Prior to declaring Guru Nanak the last avatar of the Hindu religion, he himself declared that he was the avatar for the Hindus. It is almost as if the word ‘last’ has lost all meaning in Ahmadiyya. You cannot help but contrast how Mirza Ghulam Ahmad in the early stages of his life believed as all Muslims believe that the Holy Prophet Muhammad (SAW) is the last of the Prophets but then went on to declare that he is a Prophet himself abolishing his earlier belief and destroying all meaning of the word ‘last’ as he does in a less cunning manner with this claim. The Hindu religion is awaiting the return of their tenth and last avatar (who is in actual fact referred to as ‘Kalki‘ not ‘Krishna‘, a completely different entity) and if as per Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Guru Nanak is that ‘last avatar‘ then he diminishes his own claim of being the awaited Hindu avatar himself.

The blind argument that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad declared Guru Nanak to be the last avatar prior to claiming that he himself was an avatar is effortlessly refuted. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad claimed he was an avatar in 1900 prior to declaring Guru Nanak the last avatar in 1908. The movement constantly produces oxymoron’s which a majority of their followers know nothing about, this is just another example. In conclusion, the question remains, who is the last avatar? Is it Mirza Ghulam Ahmad or is it Guru Nanak? Either answer would contradict the belief of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad yet in Ahmadiyya the answer can only be one of the two.

May Allah (SWT) guide the Ahmadis back to Islam. All praise is due to Allah (SWT).

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

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!

Related posts:

1. Quran & the Meaning of Raf’a -1 Ahmadis claim that the word Raf’a used in Qur’an with...
2. Quran, Hadith & Jesus’ (PBUH) alleged travel to Kashmir Qadianis in their series of absurd arguments about Jesus (PBUH)...
3. Hadith & Alleged Death of Jesus -1 (Meaning of Tawaffa) Qadianis use a Hadith from Sahih Bukhari in an attempt...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

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!

Related posts:

1. Quran, Hadith & Jesus’ (PBUH) alleged travel to Kashmir Qadianis in their series of absurd arguments about Jesus (PBUH)...
2. Hadith & Alleged Death of Jesus -1 (Meaning of Tawaffa) Qadianis use a Hadith from Sahih Bukhari in an attempt...
3. Hadith & Alleged Death of Jesus -8 (Descent in the Night of Mi’raj?) Yet another Qadiani twisting of plain things: A hadith about...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

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!

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

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

They contend that following ayah refers to his arrival in 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:

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:

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.

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

INDEED ALLAH KNOWS THE BEST!

Related posts:

1. Hadith & Alleged Death of Jesus -5 (Jesus dead like Moses?) Qadianis quote another saying: “Had Moses or Jesus been alive,...
2. Hadith & Alleged Death of Jesus -4 (Did he die at the age of 120?) Qadianis say that Jesus (PBUH) died at the age of...
3. Hadith & Alleged Death of Jesus -2 (All Prophets had to die?) Here is another Qadiani argument and its refutation. This is how...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

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!

Related posts:

1. Hadith & Alleged Death of Jesus -1 (Meaning of Tawaffa) Qadianis use a Hadith from Sahih Bukhari in an attempt...
2. Hadith & Alleged Death of Jesus -6 (Tomb of Jesus?) Here is the sixth Qadiani argument and its refutation: The...
3. Hadith & Alleged Death of Jesus -5 (Jesus dead like Moses?) Qadianis quote another saying: “Had Moses or Jesus been alive,...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Ahmadis claim that they use the Quran over all other sources of knowledge in terms of Islam. I conducted a study that is based on the Quran. The methodology was simple, I went to alislam.org and ourbeacon.com and searched the occurrences of the word seal/sealed/sealing and copied them down and began researching the context and pronunciation.

The very first instance where Allah uses the word K-T-M chronologically is in Chapter 42 and 45. It is uncertain as to which of these chapters were revealed first. Chapters 40-47 all begin with HA-MIM, they were all revealed very early on at mecca. In 42:24, Allah uses the word Khatim as he speaks to Muhammad (saw) and tells him that Allah could seal his (Muhammad’s (saw)) heart to protect it from the disbelievers. The 5-volume commentary by Malik Ghulam Fareed acknowledges that Allah used the word Khatim to describe the sealing of the heart of Muhammad (saw) to protect it and make it devoid of all mercy. This was a protective and unbreakable seal that was designed to protect the heart of Muhammad (saw). Khatim does not mean last in this case.

In Chapter 45:23, Allah uses the word Khatam to describe the sealing up of the hearts/ears/eyes of the disbelievers. Allah says: “who will guide them after Allah has condemned them?”

For the 3rd and 4th instance please refer to 83:25 and 26, in these successive verses Allah discusses the sealing of a drink that will be served in the hereafter. Allah promises to Muslims that the chosen ones will be seated on couches in a state of bliss and will be served the best drink which will be sealed to protect its taste, and it will be sealed with musk to protect its pureness. The words here are pronounced MUKHTOOM (25) and KHI-TA-MU (26). Even though these words are pronounced differently they still carry the same meanings as khatim or khatam.

Next is 36:65, wherein Allah again speaks of the Khatim that will be set on the mouths of the Kafirs on the day of judgement as they stand trial in the court of allah. This khatim will stop the disbelievers from speaking. Khatim cannot mean LAST in this case.

The 6th instance is in 6:46, this is where Allah speaks to the Kafirs yet again and warns them that he could take away their vision and hearing and Khatam their heart, then Allah says, “who could bring it back to you?”

The 7th instance is occurs after hijra, this is 2:6, where Allah again admonishes the Kafirs and says that their hearts have a khatam on them. Allah says “khatamallahu their hearts”.

The final instance of the use of the word KTM in the Quran is the famous 33:40. We have to use the same definition that was established in the previous 7 instances. Allah tells Muslims that Muhammad (saw) does not have any sons, but he is the KHATAM of the prophets. He is the sealer of the prophets.

The words seal/sealed/sealing occur in the Quran an additional 11 times. But, the letters KHA-TA-MEEM weren’t used exclusively by ALLAH when describing the sealing off of something. There is another Arabic word that translates into the english word seal/sealed/sealing. That word also has variations. It uses the root of TA-BA or T-B, with 2 variations. YUT-BA and NUT-BA are the variations. The English equivalent would be Y-T-B or N-T-B.
In conclusion, it didn’t matter how KTM is pronounced, it always has the same meanings. Even when the sound was changed, for example khatim, or MUKTUM or KHI-TA-MU, Allah nonetheless used the letters K-T-M when joined to mean the sealing off of something. It seems that Mahmud Ahmad tried to pull a fast one on his followers. Obviously, Mahmud Ahmad lied about the meanings of khatim and khatam. Hopefully, this article proves to the reader that these words are interchangeable and mean the exact same thing. I hope Ahmadis read this and realize the truth. I hope Ahmadis understand that I am not a major scholar, I only conducted a simple research project and printed my results. May Allah guide the Ahmadis to Islam.

Related posts:

1. Hadith & Alleged Death of Jesus -9 (Holy Prophet’s Discussion with Christian Delegation) Here is another Qadiani argument and its refutation; “When a...
2. Hadith & Alleged Death of Jesus -1 (Meaning of Tawaffa) Qadianis use a Hadith from Sahih Bukhari in an attempt...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

“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!

Related posts:

1. Hadith & Alleged Death of Jesus -2 (All Prophets had to die?) Here is another Qadiani argument and its refutation. This is how...
2. Hadith & Alleged Death of Jesus -5 (Jesus dead like Moses?) Qadianis quote another saying: “Had Moses or Jesus been alive,...
3. Hadith & Alleged Death of Jesus -4 (Did he die at the age of 120?) Qadianis say that Jesus (PBUH) died at the age of...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.