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!

‘Eisa (AS) did ascend and will descend from the Heavens above; categorical Ahadith

Today let’s meet a challenge which the Murabbis often boastfully come up with and try to fool the ordinary Ahmadis

The Challenge:

Though it has been plainly stated in the Qur’an that Allah did raise ‘Eisa, may Allah bless him, to Himself and saved him from the evil designs of the Jews, the Murabbis try to confuse the simple facts by their twisting. And same is their attitude towards the Ahadith which clearly indicate that near the End of Times ‘Eisa, may Allah bless him, will descend from the Heavens. But as mostly Ahadith use the word نزل only which means ‘to descend’ they again twist such narrations by relating it to rather rare usage of the word which does not even fit the context of these narrations. Taking the spirit, context and the continuous and unanimous belief and understanding of Muslims of past 1400 years it is evident that those Ahadith do actually mean he will descend from the Heavens above. Infact there are many directives to this in various narrations. But for a people like Ahamdis this is perhaps too difficult to grasp.

So the Ahmadiyya religious elite, the Murabbis,  bring a challenge for Muslims to come up with any Hadith that clearly says نزل من السماء i.e. ‘Eisa will descend from the Heavens above.’

Meeting the Challenge

Here are categorical Ahadith about the fact that ‘Eisa, may Allah bless him, was raised up alive to the Heavens and will descend from the Heavens above.

I hope this will lead the Ahmadis to give up the false ideas brought to them by the False Prophet and will help them come closer to embrace Islam and be the follower of the Last and Final Prophet of Allah, Muhammad, on whom be the peace and blessings of Almighty Allah.

Hadith 1

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

Hadith 2

عن صفية أم المؤمنين رضي الله عنها أنها كانت إذا زارت بيت المقدس ، وفرغت من الصلاة في المسجد الأقصى صعدت على جبل زيتا فصلت عليه وقالت : هذا الجبل هو الذي رفع منه عيسى عليه السلام إلى السماء

 

It is narrated from Ummul Momineen Safiya, may Allah be pleased with her, that when she visited Bait Al-Maqdis (i.e. Jerusalem) and finished prayers in Al-Aqsa Mosque she climbed up to Mt. Olives and prayed there as well and said: ‘This is the mountain from where ‘Eisa, may Allah bless him, was raised up to the Heavens. (Al-Tasrih bima Tawatar fi Nuzul Al-Masih Hadith 74 cf. Tafsir Fath Al-Aziz Surah 95)

Hadith 3

إن أبا هريرة رضي الله عنه قال : قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم : « كيف أنتم إذا نزل ابن مريم من السماء فيكم

 

Narrated Abu Huraira, may Allah be pleased with him: Allah’s Messenger, may Allah bless him, said “What will be your condition when the son of Maryam (i.e. ‘Eisa) will descend amongst you from the heavens…?” (Baihaqi’s Asmaa wal Sifaat 2/432 Hadith 855)

About this particular narration Ahmadiyya cry a lot trying to raise confusions. I will insha’Allah respond to their arguments in the next post.

Baihaqi (RA) was recognized as a Mujaddid of 4th century A.H. by Ahmadis.

Hadith 4

عن أبى هريرة قال سمعت أبا القاسم الصادق المصدوق يقول …ثم ينزل عيسى بن مريم عليه وسلم من السماء فيؤم الناس

 

Abu Huraira  said: I heard Abul Qasim the Truthful and Trustworthy (i.e. Holy Prophet) say: ‘… then ‘Eisa ibn Maryam, on him be the peace, will descend from the heavens and lead the people.’
(Majma’ Al-Zawaid 7/349. Haithmi said, Bazzar has narrated it and all its narrators are those of the Sahih [i.e. Sahih Bukhari] except Ali bin Munzar and he is also trustworthy)

Hadith 5

قال ابن عباس : قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم : فعند ذلك ينزل أخي عيسى ابن مريم من السماء 

 

Ibn Abbas narrated: the Messenger of Allah, on whom be the blessings of Allah, said: ‘And near it (Bait al-Maqdis) will descend from the Heavens my brother ‘Eisa ibn Maryam.’
(Kanzul Ummal 14/619 Hadith 39726)

An interesting observation about this narration to follow in the next post, insha’Allah.

Compiler of Kanzul Ummal, Ali Muttaqi Al-Hindi (RA) was recognized as a Mujaddid of 10th century A.H. by Ahmadis.

Hadith 6

عن ابن عباس { إن تعذبهم فإنهم عبادك } يقول : عبيدك قد استوجبوا العذاب بمقالتهم { وإن تغفر لهم } أي من تركت منهم ومد في عمره حتى أهبط من السماء إلى الأرض يقتل الدجال ، فنزلوا عن مقالتهم ووحدوك 

 

About the verse, ‘If you punish them they are your servants’ Ibn Abbas  said, he [‘Eisa] will say: ‘These slaves of yours have invited your chastisement by what they said [and believed]’. ‘And if you forgive them’ i.e. ‘those whom I left behind me and those who were there when I came down from the Heavens to Earth to kill al-Dajjal and they turned back from what they said [i.e. Trinity] and believed in your Oneness…’
(Durr Manthur 4/27 Under Surah 5 Ayah 118)

The writer of Durr Manthur, Jalaluddin Suyuti (RA) was recognized as a Mujaddid of 9th century A.H. by Ahmadis.

The True Call:

Now it is incumbent upon Ahmadis to accept these Ahadith quoted by people whom they themselves accept as Mujaddidin and to leave the cult and join Muslim Ummah by sticking to its agreed upon belief about physical ascent and descent of ‘Eisa, may Allah bless him.

وَمَا عَلَيْنَا إِلَّا الْبَلَاغُ الْمُبِينُ

‘And our duty is only to convey plainly.’

INDEED ALLAH KNOWS THE BEST!

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.

 

Was Mahdi to appear after the year 1200 A.H.?

Failing to come up with any positive argument in favor of countless claims of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani, Ahmadis resort to raise issues that prove nothing. In fact a deep look invariably proves their being a cult.

They use a narration from Sunan Ibn Majah to contend that Mahdi was to appear after the year 1200 A.H. and the point they try to make is that MGAQ was Mahdi as he was born after the year 1200 A.H.

Let’s have a look at the narration and its merits.

The Narration:

عن أبي قتادة قال قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم الآيات بعد المائتين

Abu Qatada narrates that the Holy Prophet (PBUH) said: “Signs will appear after two hundred years.” (Sunan Ibn Majah, Hadith 4057)

Authenticity of this narration:

Ahmadis will be in a haste to tell us that Hakim in his Mustadrak (H. 8437) quoted this narration and said, ‘This narration is Sahih on the standards of Bukhari and Muslim.’

But the fact is, to anyone who knows the science of classification of Ahadith and their narrators it is clear that Al-Hakim was too lax in his approach and many times authenticated weak narrations.

Al-Sakhawi, recognized as Mujaddid by Ahmadis, has said the same about Al-Hakim. See Al-‘ilan bi l-Taubih li man zamm al-Tarikh p. 168. Also see Abdul Hayy Lakhnawi’s Al-Rafa wal Takmil 1/291

Dr. G.F. Haddad has briefly given the opinions of scholars about his leniency HERE.

Al-Dhahbi:

The most prominent scholar to comment about the narrations of Hakim’s Mustadrak is Imam al-Dhahbi. He writes in his comment to this narration:

أحسبه موضوعا

“I deem it to be Mawdhu i.e. fabricated. (See Mustadrak Al-Hakim ma’ Taliqat al-Dhahbi fil Takhlis, Hadith 8319)

Al-Bukhari:

Imam Bukhari also criticized this narration. He said;

هذا حديث منكر

“This is a rejected narration.” (Faidh Al-Qadir 3/206 Hadith 3029)

Ibn Jawzi:

Ibn Jawzi writes in his al-Mawdhu’at 3/198

هذا حديث موضوع على رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم

“This Hadith is fabricated [and ascribed] to the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him.”

Ibn Jawzi has been recognized as Mujaddid by Ahmadis.

Ibn Kathir:

Hafiz Suyuti writes in his commentary to Sunan Ibn Majah;

قَالَ بن كثير هَذَا الحَدِيث لَا يَصح

“Ibn Kathir said this Hadith is not Sahih.” (Sharah Sunan Ibn Majah 1/294)

Al-‘Ajluni:

Al-‘Ajluni in his Kashaf al-Khafa writes:

باب ظهور الآيات بعد المائتين لم يثبت فيه شئ

“Chapter on the appearance of signs after two hundred years: There is nothing proved in it.” (Kashaf al-Khafa 2/423)

Others early scholars:

Al-Manawi in his Taysir bi-Sharah al-Jami’ al-Saghir writes;

صَححهُ الْحَاكِم فأنكروا عَلَيْهِ وَقَالُوا واه جدا بل قيل بِوَضْعِهِ

“Hakim authenticated it, while many have rejected it and called it extremely absurd. Nay! They spoke of its being fabricated.” (Taysir bi-Sharah al-Jami’ al-Saghir 1/420)

Albani:

Among recent scholars Shaykh Nasiruddin Albani has classified it as Mawdhu’ (fabricated) in his Sahih wa Da’if Sunan Ibn Majah (H. 4057) and Silsala Ahadith Da’ifa wa Mawdhu’a (H. 1966)

What does the Hadith mean?

Having clarified the actual value of this narration, let’s analyze its text;

1- Is Mahdi mentioned in this narration?

Can you, the reader, please find any reference to Mahdi in this narration? You can find it only if you are a die-hard, closed-eyed and brain-locked Ahmadi.

2- Mulla Ali Qari’s commentary:

Actually Ahmadis base their whole case on the commentary, rather a part of Mulla Ali Qari’s commentary to this, otherwise, false narration. He writes;

” بَعْدَ الْمِائَتَيْنِ ” أَيْ: مِنَ الْهِجْرَةِ، أَوْ مِنْ دَوْلَةِ الْإِسْلَامِ، أَوْ مِنْ وَفَاتِهِ – عَلَيْهِ الصَّلَاةُ وَالسَّلَامُ – وَيُحْتَمَلُ أَنْ يَكُونَ اللَّامُ فِي الْمِائَتَيْنِ لِلْعَهْدِ، أَيْ: بَعْدَ الْمِائَتَيْنِ بَعْدَ الْأَلْفِ، وَهُوَ وَقْتُ ظُهُورِ الْمَهْدِيِّ، وَخُرُوجِ الدَّجَّالِ، وَنُزُولِ عِيسَى – عَلَيْهِ الصَّلَاةُ وَالسَّلَامُ

‘After two hundred years’ i.e. :

1) From Hijrah.

2) Or from [establishment of] the Islamic state.

3) Or from the death of the Prophet –on whom be peace and blessings.

4) And it is possible that the article ‘al’ (equivalent to ‘the’) in ‘al-mi’atayn’ makes it a reference to a period of time. That is to say: [it means] two hundred years after the millennium and that is the time of appearance of Mahdi, and that of Dajjal and descent of ‘Eisa –on whom be the peace and blessings.’ (Mirqaat Al-Mafatih Sharah Mishkat Al-Masabih 8/3446 Hadith 5460 Broken down for understanding by the author of this post)

Firstly this commentary shows that Mulla Ali Qari believed Mahdi and Eisa (RA) to be two different fellows. This goes directly in contrast to Ahmadiyya religion’s dogma. If this has to be made the basis of a whole theory, why not accept it in full?

Concerning the issue at hand, he gives four possibilities in his opinion and one of them is picked up by Ahmadiyya and their faith hinges on it. Mulla Ali Qari, though a great scholar, is no evidence when it comes to his conjecture. Ahmadiyya are only aboard the ship of his conjecture sailing in the wild ocean. But this cannot lead them to any destination for the anchor to port this ship, i.e. the narration commented to, is a hoax. So Ahmadiyya please wake up and do not be eager to get drowned!

3- Imam Bukhari’s comments:

هذا حديث منكر. لقد مضى مائتان ولم يكن من الآيات شئ

“This is a rejected narration. Verily two hundred years have passed and nothing of the signs has appeared.” (Faidh Al-Qadir 3/206 Hadith 3029)

4- Hafiz Ibn Kathir’s saying:

Hafiz Suyuti writes:

وَقَالَ بن كثير هَذَا الحَدِيث لَا يَصح وَلَو صَحَّ فَمَحْمُول على مَا وَقع فِي الْفِتْنَة بِسَبَب القَوْل بِخلق الْقُرْآن للامام أَحْمد بن حَنْبَل وَأَصْحَابه من أَئِمَّة الحَدِيث

“Ibn Kathir said this Hadith is not Sahih and [even] if it Sahih it would be taken as a reference to the tribulation caused by the word about Qur’an being a creation at the time of Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal and his companions from amongst the scholars of Hadith.” (Sharah Sunan Ibn Majah 1/294)

This seems quite reasonable if at all the narration is to be accepted.

Conclusion:

Ahmadiyya have absolutely no evidence for their claim. The Hadith does not even mention Mahdi, nor does it ask to count two hundred years after the millennium. To run to races with one of the four possibilities according to one single scholar suits only a cult. Ahmadiyya do it while their own ‘prophet’ had said that such statements are no evidence. Not to forget that the same statement of Mulla Ali Qari rejects Ahmadi belief of Mahdi and ‘Eisa (AS) being the same.

And before Ahmadis built their whole case on just a single possibility mentioned by a single scholar they ought to read the following statement of their ‘prophet’;

“Having been put to shame, our opponents resort to the excuse that their elders have said like that only. They do not realize that those elders were not innocent. Infact just as the Jewish elders fell into error concerning prophecies so did they.” (Zamimam Braheen Ahmadiyya part 5 p. 124 included in Rohani Khazain vol. 21 p. 290)

In wake of all of the above mentioned facts, I wonder if it suits Ahmadiyya to use the narration and statement of Mulla Ali Qari for any reason.

Is there not among you a single man of reason?

INDEED ALLAH KNOWS THE BEST!

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!

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!