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

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

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

The Truth:

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

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

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

This narration has quite a number of problems:

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

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

Nasai said: ‘Weak! He has nothing’

Abu Dawud said: ‘[He is] Weak’

Jozjani said: ‘[He is a] Liar’

(Tehzib Al-Tehzib 1/166 Entry 353)

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

وكان ضعيفا جدا

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thus no authentic narration supports the Ahmadi contention.

Similar narrations from Shi’a sources:

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

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

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

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

Another narration says;

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

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

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


5- All these narrations are infact evidence against Ahmadiyya.

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

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

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


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


Response to ‘Khatamul Auliya’ argument

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.


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!