Myth of Ijma’ on the alleged death of ‘Eisa (AS)

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani claimed that the first ever Ijma’ of the Ummah was on the death of ‘Eisa –may Allah bless him. (See Tuhfa Ghaznawiya page 55-61 included in Rohani Khazain volume 15)

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s contention:

His contention remains that as Abu Bakr –may Allah be pleased with him- recited the verse 3:144 to make the companions believe that Holy Prophet –may Allah bless him- had died, it is an evidence for the death of all the earlier Prophets.

He then quoted (Tuhfa Ghaznawiya p.48, Rohani Khazain vol.15 p.581) a passage from al-Shahristani’s work al-Milal wa al-Nahl to convey that ‘Eisa ibn Maryam –may Allah bless him- has also died.

Continue reading

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.

Conclusion:

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.

INDEED ALLAH KNOWS THE BEST!


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

 

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

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

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

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

The Truth:

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

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

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

Authenticity of the narration:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

INDEED ALLAH KNOWS THE BEST!


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

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!

The Tenure of My Prophetic Mission

This prophecy ties in with one of my previous blogs relating to the age of the death of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad though this entry focuses directly on a fixed period he prophesied his ministry would last.  To put it bluntly, he claims in the following quote that once he announces he is the ‘Promised Imam’, he will preach for an additional forty years from that day forward. Why forty years? Because the following hadith states that once Hazrat Isa (AS) returns, he will live for forty years, thus Mirza Ghulam Ahmad had to in some way attempt to fulfill this prophecy.

Sunan Abu Dawud
Book 37, Number 4310,
Narrated Abu Hurayrah:
The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “There is no prophet between me and him, that is, Jesus (peace be upon him)… He will destroy the Antichrist and will live on the earth for forty years and then he will die. The Muslims will pray over him.”

The explanation of the above hadith by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is given below:

“This means that he will live to forty years from the day he becomes the recipient of revelation and proclaims to be the Promised Imam. Now, let it be clear, that I was commanded, through a specific revelation, to call the people to Allah, in the fortieth year of my life, and I was given the glad tidings that I will live up to eighty years or thereabout. In view of this revelation, the tenure of my prophetic mission will extend to forty years out of which ten full years have already passed.” (The Heavenly Sign – Page 27-28)

Before going any further, the front cover of the original book verifies that this statement was made in 1892 as does the English rendering:

“Nishan-e-Asmani first published in 1892…” (The Heavenly Sign – Foreword)

This means at the time he wrote this, in 1892, he was fifty years old, as he says he was appointed when he was forty years of age and ten years had passed at the time of writing this book. This is clear as he says “…I was commanded, through a specific revelation, to call the people to Allah, in the fortieth year of my life.” In union with this he says “…the tenure of my prophetic mission will extend to forty years out of which ten full years have already passed”.  This therefore means from the day he invites people, commencing at  the age of forty, he would have an additional forty years to live and since ten years of the prophesied forty have passed, he would be fifty years old in the year 1892 (thus he was sixty-nine when he died this reinforces ‘the age of my demise’ blog entry).

However, if ten years of his further forty year preaching period had passed in 1892, this would mean he had thirty remaining years to preach from 1892 onwards before he died, as prophesied in his quote and attempt to fulfill the hadith in ‘Sunan Abu Dawud’. Nevertheless, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad died in the year 1908 thus consider the fact that in 1892, regardless of his age, he unambiguously states that he has an additional thirty years of preaching remaining before his demise. In spite of that, 1892 up until the year 1908 only covers sixteen years, not even close to the thirty year period he prophesied he had yet to cover. This cannot be refuted as mathematics, unlike words, cannot be twisted. Again let us be clear that he stated in 1892 that from the forty years of divinely commissioned preaching, “…ten years have passed”. The quote above verifies he said this in 1892 and the following quote is verification of the year he died.

“Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was born in February 1835 at Qadian, India and died at Lahore on May 26th 1908. (Tadhkirah, Page vii)

Conclusion
To reiterate, he states that once he reveals himself by virtue of inspiration, he  would have an additional forty further years of his divinely commissioned preaching tenure remaining, hence he would die at the age of eighty. He states in 1892, that he revealed himself by virtue of inspiration at the age of forty and that ten of the continuous forty preaching years had passed, thus in the year 1892 onwards, he has at least thirty years of continuous preaching remaining according to his prophecy. However he died in 1908 therefore the prophecy failed as the difference between 1908 and 1892 is sixteen years, not thirty. He therefore only preached for an additional sixteen years and had another prophesied fourteen years remaining in order for the prophecy to stand fulfilled, this never happened and ultimately the prophecy failed.The only way this prophecy would have been fulfilled is if he died in the year 1922 (1892 plus thirty years equals 1922).

May Allah continue to guide Ahmadis away from Ahmadiyya and to Islam.

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

Here is another Qadiani argument and its refutation;

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

The Truth:

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

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

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

قال المفسرون‏‏

i.e. “Commentators said…

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

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

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

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

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

ألستم تعلمون أن ربَّنا حيّ لا يموت، وأنّ عيسى يأتي عليه الفناء؟

“Do you not know that Our Lord (Allah) is ever living but death will come to Jesus?”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The narration is evidence against Qadianis:

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

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

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

May Allah guide all!

INDEED ALLAH KNOWS THE BEST!

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

Yet another Qadiani twisting of plain things:

A hadith about the Miraj records:

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

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

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

The Truth:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Truly absurd and baseless are their contentions!

May Allah guide all!

INDEED ALLAH KNOWS THE BEST!

Hadith & Alleged Death of Jesus -7 (In Company of the Dead?)

Qadianis try to make an issue of the fact that the Holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه و سلم) met Jesus (عليه السلام) along with other prophets during his miraculous Night of Ascension (Mi’raj).

The various hadith about the Holy Prophet’s Mi’raj record:

i. “Adam is in the first heaven … Joseph is in the second heaven, and his cousins Yahya (John the Baptist) and Jesus are in the third heaven, and Idris is in the fourth heaven” (Kanz al-Ummal, vol. VI, p. 120).

The Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) saw Yahya and Jesus in the same place; and as the former, indeed every other prophet seen, is dead, so must Jesus be.

ii. The above hadith is corroborated by another that tells us that in the Mi’raj vision the Holy Prophet met the spirits of all the previous prophets (Tafisir ibn Kathir, Urdu ed. published in Karachi, vol. III, p. 28).

The Truth:

1) We cannot take the affairs of the Heavenly domain on the lines we take the things here on this Earth for we do not know the exact nature of the affairs of the Other World.

2) Following the Qadiani line of argument one is bound to believe that either Mirza Qadiani ‘died during his life time’ or lied when he said:

“I have seen him (Christ Jesus) many times. On one occasion, Jesus and I ate beef out of the same dish.” (Al-Hakam vol.6 No.29, Dated August 17, 1902 P.12, Tadhkira [Eng.] p. 548 ed. 2009)

And,

“Once while awake I saw the Messenger of Allah (SAAW), along with the Hasnain, Ali (RA) and Fatima (RA) and this was not a dream but a kind of wakefulness.” (Al-Hakam vol.6 No.44, Dated December 10, 1902 p.9)

3) Moreover, if such reasoning makes sense then it would also mean that the Holy Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم) had died when he met the Prophets during Mi’raj. If he can, being alive, meet the ‘dead prophets’ why can Jesus (عليه السلام) not be alive with them? If Mirza Qadiani during his life on Earth can meet Holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه و سلم) and his family members and even join ‘dead Jesus’ in meal than why can’t Jesus (عليه السلام) be alive at a place where other Prophets live after their bodily death?

4) Further, if someone takes Mi’raj only as a vision of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه و سلم), and Qadianis take it like that only, then it is more incumbent on him not to take any exception to the idea of Holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه و سلم) meeting Jesus (عليه السلام) along with other prophets at the same place for, vision is only a vision and is most certainly above the bounds of temporal world.

Such are their arguments which they use to confuse innocent minds. But Alhamdulillah we, who know, will continue to expose them.

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!