Rasheed Sarpong Reverts to Islam

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

as-salaamu `alaykum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakaatuh. We’re delighted to share with you another story of reversion to Islam from the Ahmadiyya cult and it gives me great pleasure to announce that it is my friend Rasheed Sarpong who has come back to Islam. This inspiring young man is a real role model, who it has been my privilege to know. Even when he was Qadiani for many years after my reversion, I always held him and his family in respect. because of his character. I had a feeling that one day, insha’Allah, he would be guided to the right path by Allah (SWT) and alhamdulillah, it happened.

Enjoy!

Attacking the fundamentals of Islam to defend Mirza Ghulam Ahmad

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading

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

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!

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

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 -6 (Tomb of Jesus?)

Here is the sixth Qadiani argument and its refutation:

The Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: “May the curse of God be upon the Jews and the Christians who made the graves of their prophets into places of worship”. (Bukhari, Kitab as-Salat, p. 296).
The Holy Prophet said this because he was anxious that Muslims should avoid the evil of making the tomb of their prophet into a place of worship, as Jews and Christians had done with their prophets’ graves. The Jews had had numerous prophets but the prophet properly recognised by the Christians is only one – Jesus. This hadith shows that the Holy Prophet believed that Jesus had a tomb. And, in fact, this is the place where Jesus was kept after being removed from the cross (till he recovered from his wounds), which Christians revere greatly. Obviously, according to this hadith, Jesus did not rise up to heaven.

The Truth:

The Hadith they quote goes as:

عَنْ عَبْدَ اللَّهِ بْنَ عَبَّاسٍ أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَالَ لَعْنَةُ اللَّهِ عَلَى الْيَهُودِ وَالنَّصَارَى اتَّخَذُوا قُبُورَ أَنْبِيَائِهِمْ مَسَاجِدَ

Narrated Ibn Abbas: The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said: “May Allah curse the Jews and Christians for they built the places of worship at the graves of their Prophets.”
(Bukhari, Kitabul Salaah, Hadith 417)

1) Alhamdulillah our classical scholars have already clarified these things so I don’t have to write anything from my side to refute this argument. Below is a passage from Hafiz Ibn Hajr’s Fath al-Baari along with translation. Insha’Allah this is enough to bust the Qadiani argument. So here you go;

وَقَدْ اُسْتُشْكِلَ ذِكْر النَّصَارَى فِيهِ ؛ لِأَنَّ الْيَهُود لَهُمْ أَنْبِيَاء بِخِلَافِ النَّصَارَى فَلَيْسَ بَيْن عِيسَى وَبَيْن نَبِيّنَا صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ نَبِيّ غَيْره وَلَيْسَ لَهُ قَبْر ، وَالْجَوَاب أَنَّهُ كَانَ فِيهِمْ أَنْبِيَاء أَيْضًا لَكِنَّهُمْ غَيْر مُرْسَلِينَ كَالْحَوَارِيِّينَ وَمَرْيَم فِي قَوْل ، أَوْ الْجَمْع فِي قَوْله ” أَنْبِيَائِهِمْ ” بِإِزَاءِ الْمَجْمُوع مِنْ الْيَهُود وَالنَّصَارَى ، وَالْمُرَاد الْأَنْبِيَاء وَكِبَار أَتْبَاعهمْ فَاكْتَفَى بِذِكْرِ الْأَنْبِيَاء ، وَيُؤَيِّدهُ قَوْله فِي رِوَايَة مُسْلِم مِنْ طَرِيق جُنْدُب ” كَانُوا يَتَّخِذُونَ قُبُور أَنْبِيَائِهِمْ وَصَالِحِيهِمْ مَسَاجِد ” وَلِهَذَا لَمَّا أَفْرَدَ النَّصَارَى فِي الْحَدِيث الَّذِي قَبْله قَالَ ” إِذَا مَاتَ فِيهِمْ الرَّجُل الصَّالِح ” وَلَمَّا أَفْرَدَ الْيَهُود فِي الْحَدِيث الَّذِي بَعْده قَالَ ” قُبُور أَنْبِيَائِهِمْ ” ، أَوْ الْمُرَاد بِالِاتِّخَاذِ أَعَمّ مِنْ أَنْ يَكُون اِبْتِدَاعًا أَوْ اِتِّبَاعًا ، فَالْيَهُود اِبْتَدَعَتْ وَالنَّصَارَى اِتَّبَعَتْ ، وَلَا رَيْب أَنَّ النَّصَارَى تُعَظِّم قُبُور كَثِير مِنْ الْأَنْبِيَاء الَّذِينَ تُعَظِّمهُمْ الْيَهُود .

“Query has been raised regarding the mention of Christians here for, Jews had many prophets but not so the Christians as there was no Prophet between Jesus (PBUH) and our Prophet [Muhammad], on whom peace and blessings of Allah and Jesus (PBUH) has no grave. So the answer to this is, they [the Christians] also had prophets among them but they were not Messengers [sent by Allah], like the Disciples and Mary according to one saying. Or in the word ‘Prophets’ are included all those [holy men] who rose among the Jews and the Christians. The reference is to Prophets and the ancestors whom they followed but only the Prophets have been mentioned. And this is supported by the narration of Muslim from Jundub which says”[those before you] used to take the graves of their prophets and righteous men as places of worship.” (Muslim H.827). And it is for this reason that only the Christians are mentioned in the preceding Hadith which says “When any religious man dies amongst those people [they would build a place of worship at his grave]” (Bukhari H.409). And for the same reason only the Jews are mentioned in the following Hadith that says; “May Allah destroy the Jews [for they built the places of worship at the graves of their Prophets].” (Bukhari H.418). Or it may be to include all those who innovated and those who followed. The Jews innovated and the Christians followed [the innovation] for certainly Christians revered the graves of many of the Prophets who were revered by Jews [as well].”
(Fath Al-Baari 2/160, Kitabul Salaah)

2) The idea that there were among Christians certain people considered prophets but were not sent as Messengers by Allah is supported by the present New Testament even. See e.g. Acts 11:27, 13:1, 21:10 etc.

And definitely Christians also revered all the Prophets revered by Jews. Hafiz Ibn Hajr’s last point rests on this fact.

Alhamdulillah what a comprehensive answer by one of the greatest exegetes of Hadith.

Did you notice?

Refuting the Qadiani position Hafiz Ibn Hajr (RA) clearly says about Jesus (PBUH):

وَلَيْسَ لَهُ قَبْر

“And he has no grave.”

And not to forget Hafiz Ibn Hajr (RA) was recognized as a Mujaddid of 8th century A.H. by MGA himself.

May Allah guide all!

Note: I do not follow the Hadith numbering in vogue on internet as it is not a standard.

INDEED, ALLAH KNOWS BEST!

Hadith & Alleged Death of Jesus -1 (Meaning of Tawaffa)

Qadianis use a Hadith from Sahih Bukhari in an attempt to support to their false belief regarding Jesus’ (PBUH) death. Following is an excerpt from a Qadiani site:

It is reported from Ibn Abbas that the Holy Prophet said in a sermon:… Then I shall say, as did that righteous servant of God (i.e. Jesus): I was a witness of them so long as I was among them, but when Thou didst cause me to die (tawaffaitani) Thou wast Watcher over them’… ‘
The last words of the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) (`I was a witness of them …’) are taken from a verse of the Holy Quran where Jesus is quoted as replying in these very words on the Day of Judgement. It is agreed by all Muslims that, when these words are used by the Holy Prophet in the above hadith, the meaning of tawaffaitani occurring there is “Thou didst cause me to die”. So, obviously they have the same meaning when used by Jesus, i.e., Jesus was taken from his people by death, not by rising alive to heaven.

The Truth:

Below is the complete text of the Hadith and its true explanation.

عَنْ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمَا قَالَ خَطَبَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فَقَالَ … وَإِنَّهُ يُجَاءُ بِرِجَالٍ مِنْ أُمَّتِي فَيُؤْخَذُ بِهِمْ ذَاتَ الشِّمَالِ فَأَقُولُ يَا رَبِّ أُصَيْحَابِي فَيُقَالُ إِنَّكَ لَا تَدْرِي مَا أَحْدَثُوا بَعْدَكَ فَأَقُولُ كَمَا قَالَ الْعَبْدُ الصَّالِحُ {وَكُنْتُ عَلَيْهِمْ شَهِيدًا مَا دُمْتُ فِيهِمْ فَلَمَّا تَوَفَّيْتَنِي كُنْتَ أَنْتَ الرَّقِيبَ عَلَيْهِمْ وَأَنْتَ عَلَى كُلِّ شَيْءٍ شَهِيدٌ} فَيُقَالُ إِنَّ هَؤُلَاءِ لَمْ يَزَالُوا مُرْتَدِّينَ عَلَى أَعْقَابِهِمْ مُنْذُ فَارَقْتَهُمْ

Ibn Abbas: The Prophet (PBUH) delivered a sermon and said, “…Lo! Some men from my followers will be brought and taken towards the left side, whereupon I will say, ‘O Lord, (these are) my companions!’ It will be said, ‘You do not know what new things they introduced (into the religion) after you.’ I will then say as the righteous pious slave, Jesus, said, ‘I was a witness over them while I dwelt among them when Thou didst take me up Thou wast the Watcher over them, and You are the Witness to all things.’ (5: 117) Then it will be said, ‘(O Muhammad) these people never stopped to apostate since you left them.”
(Bukhari, Kitabul Tafsir, Hadith 4259)

Qadianis argue that as the word تَوَفَّيْتَنِي ‘tawaffaitani‘ with reference to the Holy Prophet (PBUH) means physical death, it must have the same meaning with regards to Prophet Jesus (PBUH). But this is simply absurd and here I explain why;

1) When Holy Prophet (PBUH) said, , I will say just as the pious slave Jesus said..’, clearly he sought a parallel only in the sayings and the not their whole context and implications. This is just as if someone who has been extremely successful in debating various religions and cults on a certain forum, when asked to comment about his achievements, pronounces;  ‘I would rather say just as Julius Caesar said, ‘I came, I saw, I conquered.’ Most certainly he does not mean that he actually won a battle against the Army of Pharnaces II of Pontus, or does he?

2) The word كَمَا ‘kama‘ between two phrases does not make them exactly same. For instance, in another Hadith we read;

عن أبي واقد الليثي أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم لما خرج إلى حنين مر بشجرة للمشركين يقال لها ذات أنواط يعلقون عليها أسلحتهم فقالوا يا رسول الله اجعل لنا ذات أنواط كما لهم ذات أنواط فقال النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم سبحان الله هذا كما قال قوم موسى اجعل لنا إلها كما لهم آلهة والذي نفسي بيده لتركبن سنة من كان قبلكم

Abu Waqid Laythi (RA) reported that when the Prophet (PBUH) went out for the Battle of Hunayn, he passed by a tree belonging to the polytheists. It was known as Dhat Anwat. They used to hang down their weapons over it. The companions said, “O Messenger of Allah, make for us a Dhat Anwat as there is for them a Dhat Anwat.” He said, “Glory be to Allah! This is just as what the people of Moses (PBUH) said, ‘Make for us a god as there is for them a god.’ By Him who has my soul in His hand, you will perpetrate the practices of the people gone before you.” (Jami’ Tirmidhi, Kitabul Fitan, Hadith 2180. Albani classified it as Sahih)

In this Hadith Holy Prophet (PBUH) termed the wish of the pious companions to have a tree nominated to hang weapons on, akin to the wish of the people of Moses (PBUH) to have pagan deity like a certain people. Obviously the Prophet (PBUH) did not mean that both wishes were exactly same rather, it only pointed to the same spirit of following the ways of disbelievers.

In the same way the Hadith in question does not mean that both Jesus and Muhammad, peace be upon them both, experienced same kind of ‘tawaffa’. It rather points out to the fact that both were not present among their people when they deviated.

3) Further, it is NOT necessary that ‘tawaffaitani’ means the same everywhere. According to linguists and scholars e.g. Abu Al-Baqa and Ibn Taymiya ‘tawaffa‘ has various meanings i.e. 1) To take in full, 2) Sleep and 3) Death. And the fact that one word may have different meanings for different subjects is proved from Quran. Infact in Surah Ma’ida’s same passage we read that Jesus (PBUH) will say;

فَقَدْ عَلِمْتَهُ تَعْلَمُ مَا فِي نَفْسِي وَلَا أَعْلَمُ مَا فِي نَفْسِكَ

“Thou knowest what is in my heart, Thou I know not what is in Thine [heart].” (Quran 5:116)

Here same word i.e. نَفْسِ ,translated as heart or mind, is used for Allah (SWT) and Jesus (PBUH). Does that mean that نَفْسِ (i.e. heart/mind) of Allah (SWT) and Jesus (PBUH) is exactly of same nature?

[Exactly is our Lord above all what they suggest]

Or as we read in Quran 33:43;

هُوَ الَّذِي يُصَلِّي عَلَيْكُمْ وَمَلَائِكَتُهُ

“He it is who sends salat (His blessings) on you, and his angels too (ask Allah to bless and forgive you)”

Most certainly here صلاة has different meanings with regards to Allah (SWT) and the angels. Ibn Kathir writes:

والصلاة من الله ثناؤه على العبد عند الملائكة، … وقال غيره: الصلاة من الله: الرحمة … وأما الصلاة من الملائكة، فبمعنى الدعاء للناس والاستغفار

“Allah’s Salah means that He praises His servant before the angels …others said: “Allah’s Salah means mercy.” … Salah from the angels means their supplication and seeking forgiveness for people.” (Ibn Kathir 6/436 under Surah 33 Ayah 43)

Similarly the word ‘tawaffa‘ does not mean exactly same for Jesus (PBUH) and Holy Prophet (PBUH). This goes perfectly in line with the fact that same word can have different meanings in different contexts and concerning different persons.

4) On the Qadiani lines of the argument a Christian may say that perhaps Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) also died through crucifixion like Jesus as the same word is used for both of them. He can only be answered that it is known from other evidences as to how the Holy Prophet (PBUH) died. Similarly from evidences other then this verse we know that ‘tawaffa‘ of Jesus (PBUH) was different from that of Holy Prophet (PBUH).

5) As to the fact that Holy Prophet (PBUH) has used the past tense, it is because Holy Prophet (PBUH) will say this on the Day of Judgment and as the saying of Jesus (PBUH) has already been told in the Quran so it was in his and the listeners prior knowledge when he uttered these words.

6) The Holy Prophet (PBUH) will recite this verse as the implication is exactly same i.e. neither Jesus (PBUH) was present among his people when they got involved in heresies (Trinity etc) not was Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) present while some from his Ummah deviated and some even if went out of the pale of Islam by believing in false prophets. Both went away from their people before they were lead astray.

* Insha’Allah more refutations of Qadiani arguments from Ahadith about death of Jesus (PBUH) to follow soon.

INDEED ALLAH KNOWS THE BEST!

Masih Ad-Dajjal – The Anti-Christ

The term ‘Masih Ad-Dajjal’ is Arabic for the ‘False Messiah’. It is believed that he will appear at the end of times before the Day of Judgment deceiving people to believe that he is actually the true Messiah. The word ‘Dajjal’ means ‘deceiver’ and the Holy Prophet Muhammad (SAW) warned that Dajjal will serve as a colossal trial for humanity. In the sayings of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (SAW), Dajjal has been described as follows:

Sahih Bukhari
Volume 4, Book 55, Number 553:
Narrated Ibn Umar:
Once Allah’s Apostle stood amongst the people, glorified and praised Allah as He deserved and then mentioned the Dajjal saying, “l warn you against him (i.e. the Dajjal) and there was no prophet but warned his nation against him. No doubt, Noah warned his nation against him but I tell you about him something of which no prophet told his nation before me. You should know that he is one-eyed, and Allah is not one-eyed.”

Sahih Muslim
Book 041, Number 6995:
Narrated Abu Sa’id Khudri:
Ibn Sa’id said to me something for which I felt ashamed. He said: I can excuse others; but what has gone wrong with you, O Companions of Muhammad, that you take me as Dajjal? Has Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) not said that he would be a Jew whereas I am a Muslim and he also said that he would not have children, whereas I have children, and he also said: verily, Allah has prohibited him to enter Mecca whereas I have performed Pilgrimage, and he went on saying this that I was about to be impressed by his talk. He (however) said this also: I know where he (Dajjal) is and I know his father and mother, and it was said to him: Won’t you feel pleased if you would be the same person? Thereupon he said: If this offer is made to me, I would not resent that.

Sahih Muslim
Book 041, Number 7007:
Narrated Anas b. Malik:
That Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: There is never a prophet who has not warned the Ummah of that one-eyed liar; behold he is one-eyed and your Lord is not one-eyed. On his forehead are the letters k f. r. (Kafir).

Sahih Muslim
Book 041, Number 7015:
Narrated An-Nawwas b. Sam’an:
That Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) made a mention of the Dajjal one day in the morning… He (Dajjal) would be a young man with twisted, contracted hair, and a blind eye. I compare him to ‘Abd-ul-‘Uzza b. Qatan. He who amongst you would survive to see him should recite over him the opening verses of Sura Kahf (xviii.). He would appear on the way between Syria and Iraq and would spread mischief right and left… and it would at this very time that Allah would send Christ, son of Mary, and he will descend at the white minaret in the eastern side of Damascus wearing two garments lightly dyed with saffron and placing his hands on the wings of two Angels. When he would lower his head, there would fall beads of perspiration from his head, and when he would raise it up, beads like pearls would scatter from it… and then Allah would send Gog and Magog and they would swarm down from every slope…

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad however proposes that Ad-Dajjal is not a human being in so far as referring to one person; he believes that the description given by the Holy Prophet Muhammad (SAW) is metaphorical in nature and not literal. However, a careful analysis shows that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is indecisive on this issue regardless of his interpretation of the ahadith and his argument makes no sense as will be proven.

…in Arabic Dajjal also connotes a group. If Dajjal is taken to mean someone other than the misguided preachers of Christianity, this would entail a contradiction… the two are one and the same…Dajjal is not the name of one man. (The Essence Of Islam Volume 3 – Page 280)

Direct Link: http://www.alislam.org/books/essence3/essence-3.pdf

It is quite clear that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad believes that other than the clergyman of Christianity, no one else can be termed Dajjal and it is undoubtedly in reference to a group, not one person. However, he then begins adding more groups to this:

Dajjal in fact is none other than the people known as Christian missionaries and European philosophers. (The Essence Of Islam Volume 3 – Page 281)

Direct Link: http://www.alislam.org/books/essence3/essence-3.pdf

The group that acts under the command of Satan is called Dajjal. (The Essence Of Islam Volume 3 – Page 281)

Direct Link: http://www.alislam.org/books/essence3/essence-3.pdf

Perhaps developed nations are Dajjal and their donkey is this railway train which you see going from thousands of kilometres in the countries of East and West. (Roohani Khazain, Izala Auham – Volume 3 – Page 174)

Direct Link: http://www.alislam.org/urdu/rk/rk-3-8.pdf

However he settles on the Christian preachers as the Dajjal and opposing this opinion, according to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, is to deny the Holy Qu’ran.

There is no Dajjal-e-Akbar (Great Dajjal) than Christian Priests and he who waits for another one after the appearance of this turmoil is denying the Qu’ran. (Roohani Khazain, Anjaam Aatham – Volume 11 – Page 47)

Direct Link: http://www.alislam.org/urdu/rk/rk-11-33.pdf

But in the end, as was his habit, he contradicts himself and goes against the Holy Qu’ran according to his own qualifications as he states:

This is our faith that actually Dajjal is the ‘Ism-e-Azam’ of Satan, which is opposed to the ‘Ism-e-Azam’ of God which is ‘Allah al-Hayee al-Qayoom’. This research proves that in reality neither Jews can be called Dajjal, or Christian Priests or any other nation. (Roohani Khazain, Toufah-Golravea – Volume 17 – Page 269)

Direct Link: http://www.alislam.org/urdu/rk/rk-17-56.pdf

‘Izm’ means great and ‘Azzam’ means name. However, more importantly note the fact that he initially claims that the Christian priests are Dajjal and to deny this is to deny the Holy Qu’ran and then note how he claims that his later research proves that in reality neither Jews can be called Dajjal, or Christian priests or any other nation.

Conclusion
The problem Mirza Ghulam Ahmad had was that it was prophecised the Messiah would destroy the Anti-Christ, therefore Mirza Ghulam Ahmad had to, one way or another, attempt to fulfill this prophecy. Below he affirms that this is indeed his task:

The Holy Qur’an unambiguously designates the Christian clergy as the greatest Dajjal… the Hadith also specifies that the true sign of the Promised Messiah would be that he would break the cross and slay the great Dajjal… the main objective of the Promised Messiah is the breaking of the cross and slaying of the great Dajjal. (The Essence Of Islam Volume 3 – Page 282)

Direct Link: http://www.alislam.org/books/essence3/essence-3.pdf

Please see the video ‘Breaking the Cross’ by brother Shahid to see how he fails in his attempt to fulfill the first prophecy in his quote. The second prophecy of slaying Dajjal meant he had to move away from the conventional view that Dajjal will be a man who will deceive people to believe that he is the Messiah as no one would fit the description, thus he interpreted that Dajjal was in reference to the Christian clergy. The reason why his story about Dajjal connoting a group, specifically the Christian priests does not add up is quite simply because they have existed for so long. They did not suddenly appear at the time of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. My point is that during the time of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (SAW) such clergyman existed, yet at no point did the Holy Prophet Muhammad (SAW) declare them to be Dajjal. Is Mirza Ghulam Ahmad alleging he knows better?

God, the Sublime, has taught us through Surah Fatiha that Dajjal against whom we have been warned is the group of erring Christian Missionaries who have abandoned the way of Jesus. (Commentary On Surah Fatiha – Page 347)

Direct Link: http://www.alislam.org/quran/Commentary-on-Surah-Fatiha.pdf

If I understand him correctly, he is alleging that the opening chapter of the Holy Qu’ran, Surah Fatiha, has forewarned us that the Dajjal is none other than the Christian missionaries. One question, did he know and understand the Holy Qu’ran better than the Holy Prophet Muhammad (SAW)? Of course not, then why did the Holy Prophet Muhammad (SAW) not inform us that this was the case if it was contained within the first chapter of the Holy Qu’ran? Mirza Ghulam Ahmad has a blasphemous answer for this:

It should not be surprising if the complete truth regarding Ibne Maryam (Jesus) and Dajjal was not revealed to the Holy Prophet Muhammad (SAW) because of lack of any exact prototype. Neither did the true meanings of the 70 Ba’a (1 Ba’a = 4 arm length = about 280 yards) and nor did Allah’s revelation guide him (SAW) towards the deep mystery of Gog and Magog and nor the exact composition of Da’abatul Ardh (Beast of the Earth) was revealed. (Roohani Khazain, Izala Auham – Volume 3 – Page 473)

Direct Link: http://www.alislam.org/urdu/rk/rk-3-8.pdf

Right, so the Holy Prophet Muhammad (SAW) did not understand what Mirza Ghulam Ahmad understood? Allah (SWT) did not guide the Holy Prophet Muhammad (SAW) in understanding the mysteries of the events preceding Qiyamah but Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was given that knowledge?

Dajjaliyat (Qualities of Dajjal) was actually a Jewish inheritance and from them it reached the Christians. That group is called Dajjal who are liars and make the earth filthy and mix the truth with falsehood. So this quality was at its peak among the Jews during the time of Jesus, then Christians inherited it from them. So the Messiah has descended with a heavenly weapon to abolish this Dajjal quality. This weapon is not made by earthly craftsmen; rather it is heavenly weapon as is proven by Sahih Ahadith. (Roohani Khazain, Izala Auham – Volume 3 – Page 174)

Direct Link: http://www.alislam.org/urdu/rk/rk-3-8.pdf

This again does not add up as the Holy Prophet Muhammad (SAW) at no point said such a thing and he lived among the Christians and the Jews. As a matter of fact the first Muslims to migrate from Arabia were sent to Negus Al-Najashi, the Christian King of Abyssinia (modern day Ethiopia). Would the Ahmadis contend that the Holy Prophet Muhammad (SAW) was sending them to Dajjal? Observe the following hadith:

Sahih Muslim
Book 001, Number 0296:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
It is narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) observed: When three things appear faith will not benefit one who has not previously believed or has derived no good from his faith: the rising of the sun in its place of setting, the Dajjal, and the beast of the earth.

Therefore, according to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, ever since the appearance of the Christian priests it is no good for a believer to believe if he did not believe before. The other two signs (sun rising from its place of setting and the beast of the earth) have already occurred according to Ahmadiyya interpretation. The sun rising from the west supposedly means nations from the west will partake in Islam, this of course has already happened as one only needs to look at Spain which was a Muslim nation for 800 years, producing saints such as Ibn Arabi. The beast of the earth according to Ahmadiyya interpretation is in reference to the bubonic plague which of course occurred at the time of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. Thus the three parts in the hadith have been fulfilled and accordingly if you did not believe before, it is no good to believe now. This of course is nonsense and again destroys the argument brought forth by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. The ahadith explicitly indicate he is one individual and anyone who reads the ahadith below can understand this:

Abu Dawud
Book 37, Number 4306:
Narrated Ubadah ibn as-Samit:
The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: I have told you so much about the Dajjal (Antichrist) that I am afraid you may not understand. The Antichrist is short, hen-toed, woolly-haired, one-eyed, an eye-sightless, and neither protruding nor deep-seated. If you are confused about him, know that your Lord is not one-eyed.

Could the Holy Prophet Muhammad (SAW) make it any clearer? Did Christian priests, philosophers or other nations not exist in his blessed time? Of course they did, but at no point did he declare any one of them to be the Dajjal or have qualities of the Dajjal of the latter days. What the Holy Prophet Muhammad (SAW) did say was:

Abu Dawud
Book 37, Number 4319:
Narrated Abu Hurayrah:
The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: The Last Hour will not come before there come forth thirty Dajjals (fraudulents), everyone presuming himself that he is an apostle of Allah.

Sahih Bukhari
Volume 3, Book 30, Number 106:
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
Allah’s Apostle told us a long narrative about Ad-Dajjal, and among the many things he mentioned, was his saying, “Ad-Dajjal will come and it will be forbidden for him to pass through the entrances of Medina. He will land in some of the salty barren areas (outside) Medina; on that day the best man or one of the best men will come up to him and say, ‘I testify that you are the same Dajjal whose description was given to us by Allah’s Apostle.’ Ad-Dajjal will say to the people, ‘If I kill this man and bring him back to life again, will you doubt my claim?’ They will say, ‘No.’ Then Ad-Dajjal will kill that man and bring him back to life. That man will say, ‘Now I know your reality better than before.’ Ad-Dajjal will say, ‘I want to kill him but I cannot.’

Undoubtedly, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad himself was confused on this matter. The theories he brings forward do not reconcile with, and are not supported by, the ahadith. To demonstrate his confusion and contradiction further, he declared the following:

Another proof (of being Promised Messiah) is that the band of Dajjal has appeared and it is emerging with great force and its donkey, which is actually created by him, as is desired by Sahih Hadith is roaming in the East and West, and the creation of that donkey by Dajjal which is according to the Hadith, is also proven by this evidence that if such a donkey had been born as usual from the belly of female donkey then such type of other donkeys should have still been here since young ones necessarily resembles their parents in their size and journey and power. Thus Sahih Hadith are pointing towards this that the donkey will be created by Dajjal himself, thus if it is not Railway Train then what else is it? (Roohani Khazain, Izala Auham – Volume 3 – Page 469/70)

Direct Link: http://www.alislam.org/urdu/rk/rk-3-8.pdf

In spite of considering the railway train as the creation of Dajjal and regarding it as his donkey, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad never hesitated in riding it whenever he was traveling long distances. He was obviously questioned about this and in turn he states the following to justify the use of the railway train:

If the donkey of Maseeh Dajjal is this railway train… and he who claims to be the Promised Messiah also rides it, then how can it be Dajjal’s donkey? Answer is that because of its ownership, possession and total custody and creation of Band of Dajjal, it is called donkey of Dajjal…. then if God wants believers to benefit from the possessions and products of Dajjal then what is the harm?….. Apart from that Promised Messiah is the killer of Dajjal spiritually, then according to the Hadith ‘mun qatala qateelun’ whatever belongs to Dajjal, it belongs to Messiah. (Roohani Khazain, Izala Auham – Volume 3 – Page 555)

Direct Link: http://www.alislam.org/urdu/rk/rk-3-8.pdf

The ideas put forward by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad are flawed from every plausible angle. He declares Christian priests to be Dajjal, something the Holy Prophet Muhammad (SAW) did not say, and claims if this is not accepted then one is going against the Holy Qu’ran. He then, later in his life, claims that Dajjal cannot be the Christian priests yet not realising that he is going against the Holy Qu’ran according to his own standards by making such a proclamation. If Christian priests were the Dajjal then why was the Messiah not dispensed as soon as they appeared? Mirza Ghulam Ahmad also declares that the railway trains are a product of Dajjal but since he uses it himself, it is fine to do so. Quite clearly Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was one of the false prophets that the Holy Prophet Muhammad (SAW) forewarned us about. The false Messiah, Ad-Dajjal is not in reference to Christian nations or priests or philosophers. The ahadith that upon the appearance of Dajjal, if you did not believe before it is no good to believe then, is enough to destroy his theory. The only way the Ahmadiyya community and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad could resolve this problem is by alleging that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad had more knowledge about this issue than the Holy Prophet Muhammad (SAW). Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of course has no problem implying this, do you, the Ahmadi community concur with his blasphemous assessment?

Scans of any quotes used are available on request (a thank you to brother Zia Ahmed for confirming the Urdu scans).