Rizwan Jamil is a scholar

Moderator: admin

Rizwan Jamil is a scholar

Postby rationalist » 13 Jul 2012, 17:15

1. The point is that it is not “clearly” established from the Quran… If it was, it would not have come into discussion only after 1200 years of Islam (i.e. in 19th century CE)… The greatest of Islamic religious ideological figures passed in these 1200 years and no one ever discussed that Jesus pbuh died instead of being ascended?… And this is the very question with which I began this thread…

The fact is that there have been differences in the interpretation of these verses related to Jesus pbuh depending upon which pronouns the commentators deemed more suitable to select… but even on the basis of those differences, no one ever concluded in the whole 1200 years what AAIIL does after that!

Moreover, it is well-known that Tafsir Ibn Kathir is a summarized version of Tafsir Tabari who lived in the period of the collectors of six books of ahadith “Sihah Sitta”… so Ibn Kathir does not quote reports recorded by himself after 700 AH… but he quotes directly from the books of ahadith and from Tafsir Tabari… but I agree that as he does not mention the isnad, his mentioned reports may not be relied upon so conveniently…

The analogy derived by you between the Christian and Muslim histories is not valid… this is because Christians did not record their history with the way Muslims did… if you slightly look at the Science of Hadith (Asma ar-Rijal and Isnad etc) you will realize why such a question is incorrect to ask in Christians case while totaly justified in the case of Muslims…

2. A lot has been written by classical scolars on the authority of Jesus pbuh which he will assume after he descends to earth… it has also been mentioned everywhere that he will not come as a prophet (bringing new shariah for that generation) but as an ummati of Prophet Muhammad pbuh… even the leader of the ummah of that time will not be him but Imam Mahdi who will be the than Khalifah of the whole Muslim Ummah, like Khulafah-e-Rashid were… so Jesus will not have to be a scholar of Islam…

3. The people you have mentioned upholding the view of the death of Jesus pbuh, all belong to 20th century… it does not answer the question that when did in history this transition in idea occurred and why is the classical Islamic literature empty with discussions on it… the reason why people after AAIIL started upholding this view, in my opinion, is the influence of the teachings of AAIIL on its readers… Muhammad Asad’s translation also clearly shows heavy influence of MMA’s translation over it… and the reason why they remained non-ahmadis is that one can remain a Muslim even without becoming an ahmadi… so they might not have found a severe need of associating themselves without any good reason with a jamaat not held in praise among general Muslim community… and the reasons may be many, but I believe that these scholars also made a mistake by not verifying the historical credibility of their expounded viewpoint…

4. Coming of Dajjal does not necessitate the instant coming of Jesus and of Imam Mahdi… As mentioned in the ahadith Dajjal will come and spread corruption on earth… Than will come Imam Mahdi and than Jesus… But as Jesus has not arrived yet, and that youth considered to be Dajjal has died, it means that Sahaba mistakenly identified him as Dajjal… But it needs to be understood that identification of Dajjal is not a matter to be revealed by Allah to the Muslims… means Allah will not make people identify Dajjal through His revelation… people will identify him themselves and thus can also be wrong in their identification, as Sahaba were… however contrary to this, the matter of Jesus’s ascention and return was a revealed matter… and Sahaba could not have been mistaken on that on a communal level…

5. My comments on ahadith of Bukhari, Muhsin Khan translation (end of Book 55 and beginning of Book 56):

Numbers 648, 649:
As these two ahadith depict Jesus at two different occasions, there is no issue if he was seen with curly hair at one and combed hair at the other. The point is that he was Jesus, because if he were not, Prophet Muhammad s.a.w would not have been able to recognise him. Moreover, although hadith 55/649 describes his complexion as brown but the same hadith elsewhere (Bukhari 87/128,153) mentions his complexion as red, as mentioned in hadith 55/648.

Number 656:
In this hadith, verse 5:117 is recited by Prophet s.a.w for himself while it is the wording of Jesus pbuh quoted by Allah in Quran. The arabic word used in this verse is “TAWAFFA”. The literal and general meaning of this word is “to take/receive/summon” while it can also be used metaphorically to mean the infliction of death. And this word is used in both meanings in Arabic language. Jesus used it for himself as mentioned in 5:117 in its literal sense while Prophet Muhammad s.a.w used it in metaphorical sense for himself. See Maududi’s tafsir below for verse 3:55 using the same Arabic word:

Number 657-658:
Starts with Baab “Isa bin Maryam ka Nuzuul” and mentions his descent.

Number 660:
You have missed this hadith. It starts with a new Baab “Bani Israel ka Zikr”. In this hadith, Prophet Muhammad warns that Muslims shall not become like Jews and Christians who used to build places of worships at graves.

Number 661: Does not prove that Jesus cannot return. This is because that Baab is already closed and new Baab about Bani Israel is opened. This hadith mentions Bani Isarel so it is quoted here. Moreover Jesus in his 2nd coming will not do siyaasah/politics for Muslims. Imam Mahdi as Khalifat-ul-Muslimeen will do that. Jesus will only deal with Dajjal.

Number 662: Muslims will become like Jews and Christians in the same way as mentioned in hadith 56/660 above. And not in any other way as claimed by you and mentioned by MMA in his Fazl-ul-Bari.

So these ahadith do not contradict each other. They are quoted in two separate Baab’s. And even if it is claimed that Bukhari had put these allegedly contradictory ahadith together for a discussion, the question is again that where is that discussion than?… Why do not we see it in the religious literature of those times?… The time of Bukhari was a peak time of Muslim classical scholars… no one discusses it while even the minutest details of Jesus’s return, his place, time, Dajjal, his coming, place etc are dealt with exhaustively…

6. The Arabic word used in both verses 3:144 and 5:75 is KHALAT which means “passed away or gone by”. It does not literally mean “died” but can be used in this sense as well. In verse 3:144 i.e. in the case of Prophet Muhammad s.a.w, it signifies the meaning of “died”. This is because what is meant in this verse is that Prophet Muhammad can also die just like the prophets of the past did. So the mention of Prophet Muhammad’s death gives the meaning of “died” to KHALAT. However in verse 5:75 i.e. in the case of Jesus pbuh, it is mentioned that like other prophets who were sent to Bani Israel for their guidance, Jesus was also a prophet. So they should not worship Jesus. So these verses preceding verse 5:75 give KHALAT the meaning of “gone by” and not “died”.

Moreover if Allah has kept Jesus alive to be sent later again, it does not give Jesus any share of God. If it did, all Muslims believing in Jesus’s return would also consider him a god like the Christians do. But they do not. So Jesus’s ascension does not necessitate Jesus to be a god.

I would again like to say that it is an old ongoing debate that which of the two interpretations is more valid, and I think threads are not suitable places for such debates. Books and commentaries have been written on that from both sides. So instead of initiating the same old debate from zero, I want to approach this problem with a completely different angle i.e. history and thus expect an answer from history alone.


Let us analyse the hadith in which Prophet Muhammad s.a.w mentions both Jesus and Dajjal. This hadith occurs in Muwatta, in Bukhari and in Muslim as well. Imam Malik gives a separate title to it mentioning both Jesus and Dajjal in the title. Muslim also starts it with a new Baab “Zikr-e-Masih bin Maryam wa Masih Dajjal”. This can be seen in the following two links:

Please see the arabic as well. Both Jesus and Dajjal are called Masih in this hadith. Their mention together portraits a clear picture of Jesus vs Dajjal. Dajjal is still to come, thus will Jesus descend for him.

Muwatta, Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim are considered as the most reliable of all hadith books. Out of them, Imam Malik (a taba-tabaee) heard this hadith with the shortest of chains i.e. from Naafi (a great Muhaddith himself and exteremly reliable) who heard it directly from Abdullah bin Umar (Sahabi). So there is no doubt on the authenticity of this tradition. And this chain consists of the first three generations only. So if this hadith mentions Jesus and Dajjal together and both as Masih, it shows that Taba-tabaeen, Tabaeen and Sahaba believed in the return of Jesus in the time of coming of Dajjal.

Same hadith travels to Bukhari and Muslim as well, with the same chain upto Imam Malik (taba-tabaee) with the addition of one or two later generation(s) i.e.from Imam Malik to Bukhari, and from Imam Malik to Muslim. Following is their references along with chain of narrators:

Bukhari, Book 87, Dreams, Hadith 128
Abdullah bin Umar -> Naafi -> Imam Malik -> Abdullah bin Muslima

Bukhari, Book 72, Dress, Hadith 789
Abdullah bin Umar -> Naafi -> Imam Malik -> Abdullah bin Yusuf

Muslim, Book 1, Faith, Hadith 323
Abdullah bin Umar -> Naafi -> Imam Malik -> Yahya bin Yahya

The same hadith is also narrated by Musa bin Uqba (taba-tabee) from the same tabaee Naafi:

Bukhari, Book 55, Prophets, Hadith 649
Abdullah bin Umar -> Naafi -> Musa bin Uqba -> Abu Zumra -> Ibrahim bin Munzir

Muslim, Book 1, Faith, Hadith 324
Abdullah bin Umar -> Naafi -> Musa bin Uqba -> Anas bin Ayyaz -> Muhammad bin Ishaq

And it is also narrated by Saalim (tabaee) from his father Abdullah bin Umar:

Muslim, Book 1, Faith, Hadith 325
Abdullah bin Umar -> Saalim -> Hanzalah -> Ibn Numair

Bukhari, Book 87, Dreams, Hadith 153
Abdullah bin Umar -> Saalim -> Zuhri -> Shoaib -> Abul Yamaan

Bukhari, Book 55, Prophets, Hadith 650
Abdullah bin Umar -> Saalim -> Zuhri -> Ibrahim bin Saad -> Ahmad bin Muhammad Makki

As the same hadith has travelled from the times of taba-tabaeen to the times of Bukhari and Muslim, same idea must have been travelled from the former times to the latter times.

Imam Ibn Abdul Barr (born in 356 AH) a Maliki scholar commenting on this hadith of Imam Malik says in his books:

“In this Hadith, Allah knows best- there is an evidence that Issa will descend on shrines and will make Tawaf (cirucumbulation) around the Ka’bah.”
[Al-Tamhîd limâ fîl-Muwatta' min al-Ma`ânî wal-Asânîd (The Facilitation to the Meanings and Chains of Transmission Found in Mâlik's Muwatta)]

“Ahl Al-Sunnah believe in the descent of Issa.”
[Al-Istidhkâr li Madhhab `Ulamâ' al-Amsâr fîmâ Tadammanahu al-Muwatta' min Ma`ânî al-Ra'î wal-Athâr (The Memorization of the Doctrine of the Scholars of the World Concerning the Juridical Opinions and the Narrations Found in Mâlik's Muwatta)]

This is quoted in the following link:
http://www.islamweb.net/emainpage/index ... d&Id=88216

So this early Maliki scholar also confirms the opinion of Imam Malik (a taba-tabaeen) which necessitates that the first three generations believed in the ascention and return of Jesus.

It should also be noted that all the six collections of Sihah Sitta ending with the death of Imam Nasai in around 300 AH, contains each and every and even the minutest details of the future events of Dajjal and Jesus. Musnad of Ahmad (d. 241 AH) also contains many such ahadith. So if even the tiniest of details regarding Dajjal and Jesus were in circulation in the times of these Fuqaha, Mujtahids and Muhaditheen, than why did not anyone even discussed the transition in such a prominent idea of Jesus death explicitly?…

Summing it up, as both kinds of interpretations of Quranic verses regarding Jesus pbuh exist, I think what is sensible is to adopt that which is consistent with history far from which totally belies it.
"Ahmadiyyat robbed me, didnt educate me properly"
Posts: 1872
Joined: 11 Dec 2009, 21:32

Re: Rizwan Jamil is a scholar

Postby rationalist » 13 Jul 2012, 17:15

I saw this response posted on the internet and was impressed.
"Ahmadiyyat robbed me, didnt educate me properly"
Posts: 1872
Joined: 11 Dec 2009, 21:32

Re: Rizwan Jamil is a scholar

Postby RizJam » 22 Oct 2013, 08:54

@ rationalist

Hey! Here am I. Rizwan Jamil. And I am not a scholar. This was just an effort. My post which you have quoted may seem un-understandable to users because you have not mentioned/explained the theme/topic on which this discussion was going on.

The topic was the death of Jesus a.s. i.e. did he really die or not. Ahmadis contend that since he died, he will not return because no one will get two lives on earth. And they interpret the verses of Quran to show that Quran says as well as the Sahaba knew that Jesus died. While the stories of his ascension were formed somewhat later but before the collections of ahadith were complied.

My approach was not to interpret the Quran in Muslim's way and thus to show their interpretation as incorrect. But it was a bit different one. My approach was historic. And its theme was that when exactly was this so-called story about Jesus's ascension formed in history? Or to state it another way, when exactly the reality of Jesus from his death changed to his ascension? Moreover, why is the early classic muslim literature of the first three centuries devoid/empty of any such discussions about the death of Jesus?

So Ahmadis say the Sahaba's knew Jesus died (as also mentioned in Quran: according to Ahmadis). While we know that Sihah Sitta are full with details of Jesus return. So this story of ascension (according to Ahmadis) must have formed before 300 AH.

In response to this, I presented that even Muwatta of Malik (d. 140 AH) mentions return of Jesus and appearance of Dajjal. And the same tradition moves onward to be collected by Bukhari (256 AH) and Muslim (d. 261 AH). So the alleged story about Jesus's ascension must have come into circulation before 140 AH. But Imam Malik was a tabatabae. He narrates from Imam Naafi who narrates from Ibn Umar r.a who heard directly from the Prophet s.a.w. So no one is unreliable in this such a short sanad/chain. So there can be no time in history (after hijrah) when this story would have formed or brought in circulation. So this is not a story. This is the reality that Jesus was indeed ascended to the heavens by Allah and did not die.

Rizwan Jamil
(Islamabad, Pakistan)
Posts: 1
Joined: 21 Oct 2013, 13:01

Return to Main Discussion Area

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest