Category Archives: Qadiani Dajjal

Explanation Of the Verse Regarding Jesus (‘Isa Alayhissalaam) “Caused to Die” in Qur’an

By Mufti Muhammad Shafi (rahimahullah)

When  Allah  said:  “O  ‘Isa!  I  am  to  take  you  in  full  and  raise  you  towards  Myself,  and  cleanse  you  of  those  who disbelieve,  and  place  those  who  follow  you  above  those who  disbelieve,  upto  the  Day  of  Doom.  Then  to  Me  is your  return,  whereupon  I  shall  judge  between  you  in  what  you  have  been  differing  in.”   [Qur’an 3:55]

In  these  verses  the  miraculous  event  of  the  Ascension  of  Sayyidina  ‘Isa  (Jesus  Christ)  has  been  mentioned. 

Explanation  of  important  words  in  the  verse
Some  sects  (&  Qadiani  Kafirs) which  deny,  contrary  to  the  belief  of  the  entire  Muslim   community,  the  Ascension  of  Sayyidina  ‘Isa  (alayhissalaam)  (Jesus  Christ),  his  being  alive  in  the  heavens  and  his  descension  towards  the  later  times,  have  worked  through  the  words  and  meanings  of  these  verses  to  open  doors  of  distortion  in  the  Qur’anic  text.  Therefore,  it  seems  appropriate  that  these  words  be  explained  in  some  details.

The  word, Mutawaffi’  in Innee Mutawaffika takes tawaffi as  its  verbal  noun  with  its  root  being wafyun.  Lexically,  the  word  means  ‘to  take  in  full’.  This  being  its  real  meaning,  its  derivations  wafa,  ifa’  and  ‘istifa’  are  used  to  convey  that  sense.  In  fact,  the  real  meaning  of  tawaffi  is  ‘to  take  in  full’  which  is  universalIy  confirmed  by  all  lexicons  of  the  Arabic  language.  Since  man  completes  his  appointed  time  at  the  hour  of death  and  the  spirit  or  soul  given  by  Allah  is  taken  back  fully  and  conclusively,  it  is  in  that  context  that  this  word  is  also  used  figuratively  in the  sense  of  death.  A  simple  form  of  death  is  the  daily  sleep  of  human  beings.  For  this  too,  the  Holy  Qur’an  uses  the  same  word  when  it  says: 

‘Allah  takes  away  lives  of  the  living  at  the  time  of  their  death  and  of  those  that  do  not  die,  in  their  sleep’.  [Qur’an 39:42]

Hafiz  Ibn  Taimiyyah  says  in  al-Jawab  al-Sahih  v. 2,  p. 83:

Al-tawaffi,  in  the  Arabic  language,  means:  to  exact  fully  or  take  in  full.  It  takes  three  forms; 

the  first:  to  take  in  sleep; 

the  second:  to  take  in  death;  and 

the  third:  to  take  the  soul  and  the  body  all  together.

In  Kulliyat  Abu  al-Baqa’,  it  is  said: 

Al-tawaffi  is  putting  to  death  and  exacting  of  the  soul  in  common  usage  while,  in  the  classical  usage,  it  is  taking  in  full  and  the  exacting  of  the  due  right.

Therefore,  the  majority  of  scholars  have  translated  the  word  Mutawaffika in  the  verse  under  study  in  the  sense  of  ‘taking  in  full’.  This  means  that  Allah  will  not  leave  Sayyidina  ‘Isa  in  the  hands  of  the  Jews,  rather  He  would  take  him  away  which  would  be  in  the  form  that  he  would  be  risen  unto  Him  in  the  heavens. 

This  is  how  the  words  ‘I  am  to  take  you  in  full’  have  been  interpreted  by  the  majority  of  the  scholars.  However,  some  authentic  commentators  of  the  Holy  Qur’an  have  interpreted  these  words  in  the  sense  of  ‘giving  death’ also,  but  they  do  not  mean  that  the  death  of  Sayyidina  ‘Isa  (alayhissalaam)  will  occur  at  the  hands  of  his  enemies.  The  true  meaning  of  the  verse,  according  to  these  commentators  is  as  follows:

Allah  Almighty  said  two  things  to  comfort  ‘Isa  Maseeh  (alayhissalaam)  (Jesus)  at  a  time  when  the  Jews  were  bent  on  killing  him. 

One:  That  his  death  will  come,  not  at  their  hands  in  the  form  of  killing,  but  that  it  would  be  a  natural  death. 

Two:  In  order  to  rescue  him  from  the  evil  designs  of  those  people,  Allah  Almighty  will,  at  that  time,  raise  Jesus  towards  Him. 

This  explanation  is  exactly  what  has  been  reported  from  Sayyidina  Ibn  ‘Abbas  (radhiyallahu  anhu)  as  quoted  by  al-Suyuti  in  his  al-Durr  al-Manthur  v. 2, p. 36  on  the  authority  of  several  narrators.

The  gist  of  this  tafsir  or  explanation  is  that  tawaffi does  mean  giving  death,  but  there  is  the  element  of  precedence  and  sequence  in  the words  used.  The  fact  of  Raafi’uka (I  shall  raise  you)  will  come  first  and  that  Mutawaffika (I  shall  give  you  death)  later.  Now  at  this  point,  the  wisdom  behind  mentioning  the  phenomenon  of  the  earlier  lies  in  the  hint  that  it  gives  about  the  events  which  are  to  come  later  on.  It  means  that  raising  towards  Allah  will  not  last  forever;  it  would  be  temporary  and  then,  he  would  return  to  the  mortal  world  and  prevail  over  enemies  and  later  on,  death  will  come  to  him  in  a  natural  way. 

Thus,  the  event  of  his  return  from  heaven  and  his  death  after  having  established  his  victory  in  the  world  was  not  only  a  miracle  but  a  consummation  of  the  honour  and  integrity  of  Jesus  (‘Isa  alayhissalaam).  In  addition  to  that,  the  unfounded  Christian  belief  in  the  divinity  of  Jesus  was  also  refuted.  Had  it  not  been  so,  the  event  of  Jesus  being  raised  towards  the  heavens  alive  would  have  further  strengthened  their  false belief  that  he  too  was  Living  and  Eternal  like  Allah.  Therefore,  by  introducing  the  word  Mutawaffika (pointing  out  to  his  death)  first,  all  those  misconceptions  which  might  have  arisen  from  ‘raising  of  Jesus’  have  been  refuted  in  advance. 

The  reality  is  that  disbelievers  and  polytheists  have  always  been  vehemently  opposed  to  prophets  (alayhimussalaam).  And  parallel  to  that  there  has  been  the  customary  practice  of  Allah  –  when  a  people  unto  whom  a  prophet  has  been  sent  stick  to  their  own  opinion,  do  not  listen  to  the prophet  and  do  not  believe  in  him  even  after  having  witnessed  the  miracles,  then,  one  of  the  following  two  counter-actions  were  taken: 

Either  those  people  were  annihilated  through  some  natural  calamity  as  was  done  with  ‘Ad  and  Thamud  and  the  peoples  of  Prophets  Lut and  Saalih  (alayhimussalaam)  or,  alternatively  Allah  would  instruct  His  prophet  to  migrate from  the  habitat  of  disbelievers  and  go  to  some  other  place.  It  was  there  that  they  were  provided  with  such  power  and  glory  that  they  finally  achieved  victory  against  the  people  whom  they  were  sent  to.  For  example  Prophet  Ibrahim  (alayhissalaam),  migrated  from  Iraq  and  sought  refuge  in  Syria.  Similarly,  Prophet  Musa  (Moses) alayhissalaam,  migrated  from  Egypt  and  came  to  Madyan.  Finally,  the  Last  prophet,  Muhammad  (sallallaahu  alayhi  wasallam)  migrated  from  Makkah  and  came  to  Madinah.  It  was  from  there  that  he  finally  attacked  Makkah  and  conquered  it.  This  raising  of  Jesus  to  the  heavens  to  outmaneuver  the  threatening  designs  of  the  Jews  was,  in  fact,  an  act  of  emigration  in  its  own  way  following  which  he  would  return  to  this  world  and  achieve  total  victory  over  the  Jews. 

Now  comes  the  question  as  to  why  this  emigration  of  his,  quite  separate  from  the  rest,  has  the  heavens  as  the  destination?  So,  for  that matter,  Allah  Almighty  has  Himself  said  about  him  that  his  case  is  like  that  of  Adam  (alayhissalaam).  The  way  in  which  Adam’s  (alayhissalaam)   birth  differs  from  the  normal  birth  of  the  rest  of  creation,  (i.e.,  without  a  father  and  a  mother)  so  it  is  that  the  birth  of  Jesus  took  a  miraculous  form  different  from  the  normal  birth  of  human  beings;  and  his  death  too,  taking  a  unique  and  unmatched  form,  will  materialize  after  thousands  of  years  following  his  return  to  the  world  –  unprecedented  indeed.  Why  then,  should  one  be  surprised  if  his  emigration  too  follows  some  such  unique pattern?

These  marvels  of  nature  led  the  ignorant  among  Christians  into  believing  and  declaring  that  he  was  God,  while  deliberation  into  the  various  aspects  of  these  very  marvels,  are  clear  proofs  of  his  servitude  as  a  human  being  to  God,  obedience  to  the  Divine  will  and  the  demonstration  of  human  traits.  It  is  for  this  reason  that  the  Holy  Qur’an  has  made  a  pointed  reference  to  the  refutation  of  belief  in  the  Godhood  of  Jesus  on  all  such  occasions.  The  raising  towards  the  heavens  would have  made  this  doubt  all  the  more  strong.  Therefore,  by  bringing  the word  mutawaffika  (I am  to  take  you  in  full)  earlier,  this  doubt  was  totally  eliminated.  Thus  we  come  to  realize  that  this  verse,  no  doubt,  aims  at  negating  the  Jewish  plans  since  they  were  all  set  to  crucify  and  kill  Jesus  (alayhissalaam),  and  that  Allah  Almighty  made  their  plans come  to  nothing.  Moreover,  this  precedence  and  sequence  of  words  became  the  mode  of  refuting  the  Christians  as  well,  that  Jesus  was  no  God  who  was  never  to  die  but  that  a  time  will  come  when  he  too  will  meet  his  death.

In  his  Tafsir  Imam  al-Razi  has  said  that  such  precedence  and  sequence  occurs  frequently  in  the  noble  Qur’an  in  order  to  cover  similar  expedient  considerations  under  which  an  event  due  later  has  been mentioned  first  while  an  event  due  earlier  has  been  placed  after  that. [al-Tafsir  al-Kabir,  v. 2, p. 48]

As  for Rafi’uka Ila’yy (And  I  shall  raise  you  towards  Me),  the  meaning  is  clear.  Addressing  Jesus  here,  it  has  been  said:  ‘I  shall  raise  you  to- wards  Me’.  Every  one  knows  that  Jesus  is  not  the  name  of  just  the  spirit  but  that  of  the  spirit  and  the  body  of  Jesus. 

Now  taking  the  raising  of  Jesus  in  the  sense  that  the  act  of  raising  was  spiritual  only,  and  not  Physical,  is  all  wrong.  AS  far  as  the  word,  raf  (raising)  is  concerned,  there  are  occasions  when  it  is  also  used  to  indicate  raising  of ranks  as  it  appears  in  the  following  verses  of  the  noble  Qur’an:

…And  raised  some  of  you  in  ranks  over  others [Qur’an 6:165].

…and  Allah  will  raise  up  in  rank  those  of  you  who  believe  and those  who  have  been  given  knowledge  [Qur’an 58:11].

So,  it  is  obvious  that  the  word,  raf (raising),  in  the  sense  of  the  raising  of  rank  or  status  has  been  used  figuratively  in  view  of  the  context  of  the  aforementioned  verses.  There  is  no  reason  here  to  ignore  the  real  meaning  and  go  by  that  which  is  figurative.  Moreover,  by  using  the  word,  ila’ :  (towards)  along  with  the  word,  raf  (raising),  at  this  particular  place,  the  possibility  of  such  a  figurative  meaning  has  been  totally  eliminated.  What  is  said  in  this  verse  is rafi’uka ilaiyya:  I  shall  raise  you  towards  Me.  Then  there  is  the  verse  from  Surah  al-Nisa’  [4:158],  which  refutes  the  belief  of  Jews;  there  too,  what was  said  is:  the  Jews  certainly  did  not  kill  Jesus,  instead,  Allah  raised  him  towards  Himself.  This  later  expression  is  used  for  nothing  but  the  raising  alive  of  the  spirit  and  the  body. 

Explained  this  far  were  the  words  of  the  verse.

Advertisements

Refuting the Baseless Contentions of Mirza Ghulam Qadiani

A REFUTATION OF THE QADIANI’S/AHMADIYYAH

[Darul Uloom Trinidad & Tobago]

Among the many deviated sects who departed from the true teachings of Islam is that of the Qadianis. The Qadianis or Ahmadis are the followers of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad who was born in Qadian in the year 1839 or 1840 C.E.

During his lifetime he laid claims to several different positions and thus managed to obtain followers in different (self-acclaimed) roles. A study of his movement reveals that first of all he claimed IN THE YEAR 1884, to be a revivalist and a reformer. Seven years later he made an announcement stating that he was the promised messiah and the messiah of the age. He further laid claim to his prophethood in 1901 and in the year 1904 he announced that he was Krishna.

            Based on the different claims made by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad his followers fell into different brackets and sections differing from each other.  The two main groups are:

1)         Those who believe that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is a prophet and considered non Ahmadis as unbelievers.

2)         Those who believe that Mirza Ghulam is the promised Messiah and a reformer. They separated from the main group of the Qadianis after the death of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. They are known as the Lahori Ahmadis.

However, whatever they may regard him as, they are unanimously held by the recognized authorities of Islam to be non-muslims. Whether they may belong to the ‘Rabwa group’ or the ‘Lahori group’, they are all called Qadianis and Ahmadis.

CLAIMS AND REFERENCES MADE BY MIRZA GHULAM AHMAD

He said, “Aa’eel came to me and He has chosen me. At this time Allah has put the name of Jibraeel Aa’eel because he comes to me again and again.” (Haqiqatul Wahi written by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad pg. 103, Ruhani Khaza-in written by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Vol. 22 pg. 106)

“I swear by Allah saying that these are the words of Allah which are revealed to me.”   (Haqiqatul Wahi written by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad pg. 387, Ruhani Khaza-in written by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Vol. 22 pg. 503)

“And I swear by the lord in whose hand is my life that He has sent me and He has placed my name as a Nabi (Prophet) and He has called me the promised Messiah.” (Haqiqatul Wahi written by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad pg. 387, Ruhani Khaza-in written by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Vol. 22 pg. 503)

“What a vain and corrupt belief it is to believe that after the Prophet Muhammad (S.A.) revelation has been stopped forever. I swear by Allah that in these times there is no one far away from such a belief than me. Whichever religion preaches such a belief I say that it is a religion of Satan. I have firm belief that such a religion leads to the fire of Hell.” (Zamima Baraheen Ahmadiyah by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Vol. 5 pg. 184, Ruhani Khaza-in written by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Vol. 21 pg. 354)

“It is very clear and evident that after the Prophet Muhammad (S.A.) the door of Prophethood is still open.” (Haqiqatun Nabuwah Vol. 1 pg. 228 by Mirza Basheerudeen, son of Mirza Ghulam)

“Afterwards revelation kept coming to me as the rain. He (Allah) has clearly addressed me as a prophet. However, in this manner, that on one side I am a follower of Prophet Muhammad and on the other side I am a Prophet.” (Haqiqatul Wahi written by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad pg. 150, Ruhani Khaza-in written by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Vol. 22 pg. 153-154)

In the above-mentioned references it is clear that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad has claimed to be a prophet and rejected the finality of Prophet Muhammad (Sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). In other writings he has also claimed to be the Prophet Muhammad (Sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) himself.

      In his books, Haqiqatul Wahi (pg 67) and Ruhani Khaza-in (vol. 22 pg. 503) he mentioned the following, “Twenty six years ago Allah had named me Muhammad and Ahmad.” In another book he wrote, “I have repeatedly stated that I am that Prophet, who is the seal of all Prophets, twenty years ago I have been given the name of Muhammad and Ahmad.” (Ruhani Khaza-in vol.18 pg. 212)

      He further wrote, “I am Adam, I am Noah, I am David, I am Jesus the son of Mary and I am Muhammad (A.S.).” (Haqiqatul Wahi written by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad pg. 521, Ruhani Khaza-in written by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Vol. 22 pg. 521)

            Then reciting the following verse, “Muhammad is the Rasool (Messenger) of Allah,” he says, “In this revelation I have been named Muhammad and a Rasool (Messenger).”

      “There is no doubt that Allah has again sent Muhammad to Qadian, so that he can fulfill His promise.” (Kalimatul Fasl – Mirza Basheer, son of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad pg. 105)

In his book Kashti Nuh Pg. 56 and in Ruhani Khaza-in Vol. 19 Pg. 61, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian wrote, “Blessed is that person who recognized me. I am the last of all Allah’s paths and the last of His lights. Unfortunate is that person who forsakes me because besides me there is darkness.”   Claiming superiority over the Prophet Muhammad (S.A.) he wrote, “For this Prophet (i.e. Muhammad S.A.) the moon went into eclipse and for me both the sun and moon went into eclipse.” (Ruhani Khaza-in Vol. 19 pg. 183)

It has also been a custom of the followers of Mirza Ghulam to send Darood and Salaam upon him. This is evident from the following writings of Muhammad Yusuf Qadiani in his Al Fazl Qadiani Vol. 7 No. 100 published on 30th June 1920. He wrote,

            “O Imam of the creation, peace and salutations upon you

            You are the moon removing darkness, peace and salutations upon you

      You are the awaited Mahdi and promised Isa

      And the chosen Ahmad, peace and salutations upon you

      It was in Qadian you manifested

      As the sun of Guidance, peace and salutations upon you.”

A study of the life of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad reveals him as a person who continuously changed from one claim to another until he finally claimed divinity with Allah. In the very early stages of his mission he claimed to be only a saint and a reformer. At that time he openly proclaimed his belief in the finality of Prophet Muhammad (Sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). In one of his books “Hamamatul Bushra” Pg. 34 he said, “Our Prophet Muhammad (S.A.) is called the last of the prophets and the prophet has said, ‘there will be no prophet after me”. Now if we believe in any other prophet after him it will mean the reopening of the gate of revelation, which is closed after him. How can any prophet come after our prophet when the chain of revelation has been snapped forever after him and he has been made the last of the Prophets.’

In many other books written by Mirza Ghulam, he emphatically stated that there is no Prophet after the Prophet Muhammad. Some of these references are, ‘Izala-I-Awham pgs. 577, 761, Kitabul Bariyyah pg. 84. In one of his pamphlets dated 20thShabaan 1314 A.H. he considered that person cursed who claimed prophethood after the Prophet Muhammad. About himself he wrote, “Anybody who accuses me of anything more than this is not at all God fearing and honest. In short I am not claiming prophethood, but only sainthood and revivalisthood.”   (Mujade diyat)

Further to this Mirza claimed that he received inspiration and communication from Allah. In Mawahibur Rahman Pg. 66, he said, “God communicates with and addresses his friends among the followers of the prophet. But they are not, in fact, prophets as God has perfected Islam in every way. He further stated, “I have no claim to prophethood, it is your understanding. It is not necessary that those who claim to receive inspiration should turn into prophets. I am a follower of Muhammad and fully obey Allah and His Prophet.” (Jang Muqaddas pg. 67) He then claims that the inspirations address him as a Prophet. He wrote, “It is a fact that the inspiration that this bondsman of God receives ascribe him constantly as prophet and messenger, but is not used in a literal sense. This is just a figurative term of God and that is why such words are used. I confess that no prophet in the real sense of the term shall come after the prophet; it may be new or old. The Holy Quraan disallows such advent of prophets. But God has every right to address some inspired person with such words as prophet or messenger in a metaphorical sense.”  (Siraj-I-Munir pg. 2-8)

Mirza further stated, “The position is that this humble being receives inspirations continuously for the last 20 years and on many occasions I am addressed as a messenger, but anyone who thinks that it actually means prophet or messenger is wrong. I would ask my followers not to use such words about me in their day to day conversations as it will open the flood gate of mischief.” (Sermon of Mirza Ghulam in Al Hakam 18th August 1899)

Having negated the concept of Prophethood at this stage, he devised a new name known as an addressee for himself and having done that he then discloses himself as a prophet. In Ayena Kamalat pg. 383, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad said, “I am not a prophet, rather I am an addressee of God and a communicator with Him so that I could receive the religion.” He further said, “I am laying claim not to prophethood, but to an addressee-ship which is put forward at the behest of God. And there is no doubt about it that an addressee has in him the ingredients of prophethood. If an addressee could be called a figurative prophet or an abstract prophet, it does not mean that it entails claim to prophethood.”   (Izala-i-Awham pg. 421) However in pg. 569 of the same book, he wrote, “An addressee is a messenger among the followers and an incomplete prophet also. He is a follower in the sense that he follows fully the way of the Prophet and gains light from the light of his prophethood. That is the way God deals with him as with the prophet. An addressee has a status of an intermediary between the prophet and his followers. He is a perfect follower as well as a prophet. And it is essential for an addressee that he should be like a counterpart of a prophet and he gets the same name as that of a prophet.” Opening the doors of his claim to messengership he wrote, “The promised Messiah who is to come will have this symbol that he will be a prophet of God, that is he will receive revelations from Allah. But here it does not mean a perfect prophethood as the last seal has been attached to the perfect prophethood. But it means an addressee who will receive his light from the light of the prophethood of Muhammad. And this bounty is especially given to this humble person.” (Izala-I-Awham pg. 701) In trying to explain this claim he states, “I do not claim to be Christ, the son of Mary, rather I claim to be a counterpart of him.” (Tabligh Risalat Vol. 2 pg. 21) However it was not long after that he openly made the claim that he was Christ, the Messiah. In one of his famous books, Kashti-I-Nooh pg. 47 he wrote, “The mystery is now cleared, that my claim to messiahship is just what I have been describing in my books.  On page 48 of the same book he said, “This is Christ who is awaited. And in the words of inspiration it is I who is meant by Mary and Christ. It is said about me, “I will be the symbol and it is also said about me, “I am the same Christ, son of Mary whose advent was awaited. The awaited one is me and to doubt it is sheer unwisdom.” Again in Kashti-I-Nooh he says, “First I was named Mary and I remained and was nursed and brought up in the state of Maryhood for two years. Then just like Mary, the soul of Christ was infused in me and in a figurative sense I became pregnant and after several years but not more that ten years, by inspiration, I was transformed from Mary to Christ. This is how I am the son of Mary, but while writing my book ‘Baraheen-I-Ahmadi’ I was not yet initiated into the Mystery.” In Izala-I-Awham pg. 698 he said, “Great saints have predicted on the basis of their enlightenments that the promised Messiah will come by the 14thcentury (Hijra) or the 20th century C.E  and his advent will no longer be delayed. So there is none except this humble person to claim that status.” Making it even clearer he said, “This is my claim that I am the promised Messiah about whom there are prophesies in all the holy books.” (Tohfa-I-Golrwiah pg.195)

Not being satisfied with his false claims of Messiahship, Mirza took the next step towards furthering his claims of Prophethood. He wrote in his book Chashma-I-Masihi pg.41, “If a follower gets the honour of revelation and inspiration and prophethood due to obedience to the Prophet and he is graced with the name of a prophet then that does not violate the seal of the prophet.” In another book Risala Khatme Naboowat pg. 10, Mirza Ghulam wrote, “During the last 1300 years no one has claimed prophethood just in deference to the great position of the prophet, but now that people have become seasoned in their belief of the last of the prophets and now if anyone comes forward as a prophet it does not affect in the least the great position of the holy prophet. Therefore, the word prophet is now allowed to be used for Messiah.” After paving the way for his false claim of prophethood he openly declared that he is a prophet. In his book Haqiqatun Nabuwwat pg. 272, he says, “To me any religion that has no continuity of prophethood is a dead one. We call Judaism, Christianity and Hinduism as dead religions just because they will have no more prophets. If Islam is also of the same nature then what is the distinction between them and Islam? Mere true dreams do not suffice, even cobblers and scavengers may have true dreams. There must be a communication with and an address from God and these must contain prophecies. I am having revelations for the last several years and many symbols from God have testified to their truthfulness. That is why I am a prophet. There should be no secrecy in conveying the truth.”   Based upon these statements Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s successors, his sons and followers all regard him as a perfect and complete prophet. They lay great emphasis in his prophethood and honour him in every respect in the same manner as the prophet Muhammad (Sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) is honoured.

Qadianis believe that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad received numerous revelations from Allah as he himself had made such claims. In his book Haqiqatul Wahi page 391 Mirza Ghulam said, “I have received so many revelations that if all are written down they would fill about 20 volumes.” Based upon this claim of Mirza Ghulam, his followers are exhorted to read his revelations with great respect. Among his (so-called revelations) he asserts that many of the verses of the Holy Quraan were revealed to him.

For example:-

In Tazkira Majmu’a ilhamat (pg. 281) he wrote that Sura Kauthar was revealed to him.

In sura Inshirah the verse “Wa rafa’na laka zikrak” he claimed was revealed to him. (Tazkira Majmu’a ilhamat pg. 282)

The verse “And we have not sent you except as a mercy unto mankind” he claimed was revealed to him. (Tazkira Majmu’a ilhamat pg. 634)

The verse “Say if you love Allah, follow me” He said was revealed to him. (Tazkira Majmu’a ilhamat pg. 634)

A few of the new revelations, which he claimed to have received, are:

“The companions of the Suffah. And what do you know about the companions of the Suffah. You will see their eyes flowing with tears, sending blessings upon you.” (Tazkira Majmu’a ilhamat pg. 625-626)

“You are to me like my Arsh. You are to me like my son.” (Tazkira Majmu’a ilhamat pg. 636)

“We have revealed it close to Qadian. And in truth we have sent it down and in truth we have revealed it.”  (Tazkira Majmu’a ilhamat pg. 637)

“Salutations be upon you. We praise you and send blessings upon you. Blessings from the Arsh until the Earth.” (Tazkira Majmu’a ilhamat pg. 644)

“Had it not been for you, I would have not created the heavens.” (Tazkira Majmu’a ilhamat pg. 649)

Similar to the above, which he claimed were revealed in Arabic, he also asserted that he received revelations in the English language. In his book Arba’een-I-Ahmadia pg. 81 he wrote, “Once I received revelation in English “I love you” and then God said, “I am with you.” He further said, “I shall help you”. Then He said, “I can what I will do”, then there was a forceful inspiration, which shocked me, “We can what we will do.” It was in such an accent as if an Englishman was standing in front of me. Such revelations in English also continued. He also claimed that revelations came to him in code words and figures. (Tabligh-I-Risalat pg. 85)

            In Khutba Ilhamia page 20, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad wrote, “My lord has named me Ahmad, so praise me and do not abuse me.”  In his Tazkira, he further wrote, “There was a big square shaped throne installed among the Hindus and I was sitting on it. A Hindu pointing to someone said, “This is”. Then all the Hindus began tendering rupees etc. as offerings. Then a Hindu among the crowd said, “O Krishnaji, Rudra Gopal.”  In “Mukashefat-I-Mirza” pg.560 he says, “Twice I saw in a vision that many Hindus were prostrating before me saying that this is the incarnation, this is Krishna and they tendered me offerings. Then there was an inspiration, “O Krishna, Rudra Gopal be glorified, thy name is mentioned in the Gita.”  Possibly it is for this reason Mian Mahmood Ahmad, the Caliph of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad said that Hindus were also people of the book and as such marriage with their women folk was allowed.

            Owing to their firm belief in Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as a prophet or Messiah the Qadianis have attributed great respect and veneration to the land of Qadian. In one of his books Aina’I-Kamalat pg. 354, Mirza wrote, “It is more meritorious to attend the annual conference at Qadian as it results in greater merits than a pilgrimage which is uncalled for.” As such Qadianis believe that a pilgrimage should be made at Qadian, which is known as a shadow pilgrimage. In his address Mian Mehmood, the caliph of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad mentioned in Al Fazal (dated 1st December 1932). “As it is only rich people who can afford to go to Mecca for pilgrimage, so in order to enable the poorer sections of Muslims to perform that pilgrimage a shadow pilgrimage is appointed for them at Qadian.” Mirza Ghulam has also described his Qadian Mosque as sacred as “the Holy Kaaba and has considered Qadian to be the sacred land.”  (Durre thimin) Similarly in Al Fazal (dated 21stAugust 1932) it is mentioned that Mirza’s Mosque in Qadian is considered to be the real Masjudul Aqsa and not the one in Jerusalem. On the night of Miraj (Ascension) the Prophet Muhammad travelled from Masjid Haram to Masjid Aqsa and that Mosque is the same one that is on Qadian, situated in the East.

            While explaining his relationship with God, he said that God once said to him, “You are like my son, O moon, O sun, you are from me and I am from you.” (Haqiqatul Wahi pg. 86)

            In Tazkira Majmua Ilhamaat page 452 he wrote, “Once I received an inspiration that God will descend to Qadian.

            In Ainae Kamalat pg. 564 Mirza Ghulam Ahmad wrote, “I saw in a dream that I am the lord, I then firmly believed that it was so.” Again in Kitabul Bariya pg. 85 he wrote, “I saw in one vision that I am god and then firmly believed in it.”

            From the above quotations it can be clearly seen that besides claiming to be a prophet Mirza Ghulam raised himself to claim divinity. As such he committed the unforgivable sin of shirk. He further explained his concept of divinity in the following words, “God came into my existence and then my anger, forbearance, leniency actions and tranquility became His. In this state I was saying that we need a new heaven and earth. I then first of all created the heavens and earth in a concise shape without any separation. Then conforming to the wishes of the truth I gave it its format and separation and I saw that I was powerful over the creation. I then created the sky of the earth and said we have certainly adorned the earthly sky with stars.” I then said, “We will create man from a piece of clay. Then my state was such that I was now transformed from a mere vision to inspiration and upon my tongue was the words: – “I intended to place a vicegerent (on earth) so I created Adam. We created man in the best of forms.”

Kitabul Bariya pgs 86-87, Ruhani Khazain vol 3 pgs 104-105

            In another book, Arba’een, he wrote, “In some of the books of the prophets, figuratively I have been described as an angel. Prophet Daniel has mentioned me in his book as Mika-il and according to the Hebrew language Mika-il means the like of God.” (Arba’een Vol. 3 pg. 30, Ruhani Khazain Vol.17 pg. 413)

            Thousands of many other quotations can be cited to show the baseless claims of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian. In a nutshell Mirza himself believed that the religion, which he came with, is a new religion having a new shariah. This is clearly seen from the following quotations. In Al fazal Vol. 22 No 93 (dated 3rdFebruary 1936) it states, “Allah revealed this last truth in the desolate land of Qadian and chose the promised Messiah who was of Persian descent, for this great task and said, “I shall spread thy name to the corners of the world and shall protect thee from forceful onslaughts. And the religion which you have brought shall be made to prevail against other religions by virtue of symbols and arguments and that its supremacy shall remain till the end of the world.”

            In his book Arba’-een pg. 7 Mirza wrote, “What is Shariat? I have given some commandments for do’s and don’ts and have prescribed laws for my followers.” Then in “Hashia Arbaeen” No.4 pg. 7 he said “My shariat is named “Ark of Noah” – that is the salvation for the whole world.”  His son, Mirza Basheer Ahmad then explained the reason for no new kalima in the following words, “There is no need for a new kalima because the promised Messiah, who is Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is not separated from Prophet Muhammad. In fact it was the promise of Allah that he will once again send the “Seal of the prophets” to the world. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad who is the promised Messiah is therefore Muhammad the Messenger of Allah identically. This is the reason for not having any new Kalima.” (Kalimatul Fasl pg. 158)

            It is thus very clear from all the above quotations that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is no more than an Imposter, a liar and a person who made many false and baseless claims. His entire mission attacks the very core of Islam as preached by Prophet Muhammad (Sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) as he outwardly condemned the “Seal of prophethood”. As such the entire foundation of the Qadiani religion will be uprooted by the fact that prophet Muhammad (Sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) was the seal of prophethood as established by the authentic sources.

REFUTATION AGAINST THE QADIANIS

The Holy Quraan in Sura Ahzab verse 40 states, “Muhammad is not the father of any of you but a messenger of Allah and the seal of the Prophets. And Allah is fully aware of everything.”

            Commenting upon this verse of the Holy Quraan, all the commentators of the Holy Quraan have stated that the word “Khatamun Nabiyeen” seal of the prophet mentioned in this verse means that there is no Prophet after the Prophet Muhammad (Sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) As such the famous commentator Allama Ibn Katheer wrote in his tafseer, vol. 3 pg. 493 that, “This verse is very explicit that there is no prophet after prophet Muhammad (Sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) nor any messenger. Many Mutawatir traditions have mentioned the same from all the companions.”

            Another famous commentator of the Holy Quraan Imam Qurtubi, wrote that all scholars past and present are in full agreement that the words “Khatamun Nabiyeen” (Seal of Prophets) directly imply that there is no prophet after prophet Muhammad (Sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)” (Tafseer Qurtubi Vol. 14 pg.196)

            Similarly the great Imam Ghazali wrote, “There is Ijma (consensus) of the entire Ummah that the words “Khatamun Nabiyeen” (Seal of Prophets) mean that there will be no prophet nor messenger after the Prophet Muhammad. On this matter there is no allowance for interpretations or specifications. Whosoever rejects this has rejected Ijma in Islam.” (Al Iqtisaad Fil Itiqaad pg. 123)

            In the most authentic tradition, which fulfills the highest standard and criterion of authenticity, the prophet Muhammad (Sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) has openly declared that there is no prophet after him.

            The famous Mufassir commentator Allama Alusi has written in Tafseer Ruhul Ma’aani, “The Prophet Muhammad (Sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) being the seal of the prophets is such a matter that the Quraan has spoken of it, the traditions have confirmed it and it has therefore gained the Ijma (consensus) of the Muslim Ummah. Anyone who claims anything against it shall be deemed a kafir (unbeliever) and if he propagates against it shall be killed.”  (Ruhul Ma’aani Vol. 22 pg. 41)

AHADITH (TRADITIONS)

Abu Huraira reported that the Messenger of Allah (Sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said, “My likeness and the likeness of the prophets of the past is like that of a man who built a house. He decorated it and beautified it except that one brick was missing. People then passed around the house, looking at it and becoming happy with it said, “Why was not this brick placed in it?” The Prophet then said, ”I am that brick and I am the seal of all the prophets.” Reported by Bukhari and Muslim.

This tradition is mentioned in Musnad e Ahmad, Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim and Tirmizi. In the Tradition reported by Muslim the following is mentioned at the end of the Hadith, “The Prophet (Sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said, “I am that brick, I came and completed the chain of Messengers.”

Abu Hurairah (Radhiyallahu anhu) reported that the Messenger of Allah (Sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said, “I have been honoured above the prophets with six things:

Comprehensive words

I was helped with fear

The spoils of war were made permissible for me

The earth has been made as a Masjid and a purification for me

I have been sent to all mankind

With me the prophets came to an end.

Reported by Muslim and also by Imam Bukhari in the narration of Jabir (Radhiyallahu anhu)

Sa’ad bin Abi Waqas (Radhiyallahu anhu) reported that the Messenger of Allah (Sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) once said to Ali (Radhiyallahu anhu), “You are to me as Haroun was to Moosa except that there is no Prophet nor Prophethood after me.” (Bukhari and Muslim).

Besides Sa’ad bin Abi Waqas, fourteen other companions of the Prophet (Sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) have reported this Hadith and as such it is known to be a Mutawatir Hadith.

From Abu Hurairah (Radhiyallahu anhu), the prophet (Sallalpaqhu alayhi wasallam) mentioned that, “From among the Bani Israel, prophets became successors one to another. Whenever a prophet died, another prophet succeeded him and carried on his mission. However there will be no Prophet after me but there will be Khalifas who will be in great number.”   (Bukhari, Muslim). In a tradition reported by Abu Dawood the Prophet (Sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said, “Certainly Allah will raise for this ummah at the beginning of every one hundred years someone who will revive their deen (religion) for them.

Thauban (Radhiyallahu anhu) reported that the Messenger of Allah (Sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said, “There will be in my Ummah thirty liars each of them claiming to be a Prophet. How be it? I am the seal of the prophets there is no prophet after me.”  (Abu Daud, Tirmizi). This Hadith (tradition) is also a Mutawatir Hadith and has been reported by eleven other companions of the Prophet (Sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)

Anas bin Malik (Radhiyallahu anhu) reported that the Messenger of Allah (Sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said, “Certainly Apostleship and Prophethood have come to an end. There will be no Messenger nor Prophet after me.” (Tirmizi) This hadith has also been narrated by Imam Bukhari, Muslim, Ahmad, Ibn Majah and others by different companions.

From Abu Hurairah that he heard the Messenger of Allah (Sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) saying, “We are the last but the first on the Day of Judgement except that they have been given their scriptures before us.” (Bukhari, Muslim)

Uqba ibn Aamir (Radhiyallahu anhu) states that the Messenger of Allah (Sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said, ”Had there been any Prophet after me it would have been Umar.” (Tirmizi)

Jubair bin Mutim (Radhiyallahu anhu) said, “I heard the Messenger of Allah (Sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) saying, “I have many names, I am Muhammad and I am Ahmad. I am Mahi (the Remover) through whom Allah will remove Kufr (disbelief) and I am Hashir (the Gatherer) who will gather the people around me. I am Aaqib (the last) after whom there is no Prophet.” (Bukhari, Muslim)

Abu Huraira (Radhiyallahu anhu) stated that the Messenger of Allah (Sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) used to place his index finger and the middle finger close together and then say, “I have been sent and the Hour of Judgement like both these fingers.” This tradition has been narrated by eleven different companions in Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmizi, Musnad e Ahmad.

All the above traditions bear clear testimony to the fact that Prophet Muhammad (Sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), the son of Abdullah and Amina, who was born in Makkah 571 C.E. and to whom Jibraeel (Alayhissalaam) came with revelations is the last and final prophet of Allah after whom there will be no prophet, Apostle and Messenger. As such, all the Muhaddhith (traditionists) commentators of the Holy Quran and Jurists from the time of the Prophet (Sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) until the present time have all clearly stated that:

The claim of Prophethood after the Prophet Muhammad (Sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) is kufr (disbelief). The claimer is an imposter and liar and must be killed.

Whosoever thinks/says that prophethood is inheritent and has not ended then he is an atheist whose punishment is death.

Whosoever claims to receive revelations is a kaafir even though he did not claim prophethood.

Whosoever believes or accepts the prophethood of anyone after the Prophet Muhammad (Sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) is a kaafir (unbeliever)

It is the consensus opinion and decision (Ijma) of the Ummah that the claimer of Prophethood after the Prophet (Sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) is a kaafir. Whoever opposes this is himself a Kaafir.

Other claims made by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad that he was the Promised Messiah or Jesus are all fallacious and unsound. This is evidently clear from the true teachings of the Holy Quraan and authentic traditions of the Prophet Muhammad (Sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)

            The following are certain beliefs about Isa (Alayhissalaam), which are taught by the Quraan and Hadith and upon them Ijma of the Ummah is held:

Isa (Alayhissalaam) was born miraculously without the agency of a father. His mother was Maryam (Alayhissalaam) who is mentioned in the Holy Quraan.

Isa (Alayhissalaam) lived on the face of the earth approximately 571 years before the Prophet Muhammad and did not die. However he was taken up bodily into heaven where he remains alive to this day.

When the Hour of Judgement is nearby, Isa (Alayhissalaam) will descend from the heaven to the earth. After accomplishing his mission on the earth, he will die a natural and physical death.

With all these citations and evidences, it should not be doubtful upon any muslim that the Qadianis are out of the pale of Islam. This ruling is one which has been given by the sound and authentic scholars of the Muslim Ummah from the time of the Qadianis origin until present time and has also been officially given by the Federal Shariat Court and the Supreme Court of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

Mufti Waseem Khan.

Hadhrat Nabi Isa Dead or Alive?: A Response to Qadiani Claims

[Majlisul Ulama]

OUR RESPONSE TO THE MULHID FOLLOWERS OF THE IMPOSTER: MIRZA GULAM OF QADIAN FOUNDER OF THE QADIANI/AHMADI CULT

No one on this earth—  be he Muslim or non-Muslim—disputes the fact that Islam in its final form was the Message delivered to mankind by Nabi Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) more than 1425 years ago. There is consensus of all people that Islam is not the product of this age or of a few decades ago or of a couple of centuries ago. When it is said that Muhammad Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) delivered to mankind the Islam which Allah Ta’ala had revealed to him, it is understood thereby that he handed to the world a set of beliefs and practices  – the Aqaaid and A’maal  of Islam. He did not leave Islam as an ambiguous concept subject  to the understanding and interpretations of the multitudes of people.

It is only logical and a simple fact to understand that the beliefs and practices of the Sahaabah and the early Muslims of the Khairul Quroon  (the Three noblest Ages of Islam) constitute Islam, and that only their Beliefs and Practices are authentic and valid. Any belief or practice which conflicts with the  Aqaaid and A’maal  of the Sahaabah will not be part of Islam. Thus, if someone today has to claim that there are only three Fardh Salaat instead of the five that we know of and adhere to, then the first question such a proponent will have to answer is: When did this belief or teaching of three Salaat develop in Islam? If he cannot prove that it originated with the Sahaabah, then obviously it will be expunged as kufr and branded a figment of the shaitaan’s evil whispering into the heart of the one who contended the belief or act of kufr

If a belief or practice cannot be reliably and authoritatively traced to the Sahaabah, it shall be thrown out into the garbage can of kufr. The very first obstacle any propounder of kufr has to surmount is to prove that the doctrine he is propagating has always been the belief of the People of Islam from the inception of Islam. No man can impose his personal idea as Islamic doctrine and claim that this is what the Qur’aan says, if his personal doctrine has not been the official belief or practice of the Ummah from the time of the Sahaabah.

Islam is not an interpretation of the Qur’aan which modernists or deviates of this age present. Irrespective of how much the interpretation may appeal to and appease the western mind and the western intellectual masters of the modernists, it will never be part of Islam if it cannot be substantiated on the basis of the Ijma’ of the Ummah. Such consensus has its roots in the Beliefs and Practices of the Sahaabah. Hence, the proponent of a belief which is at variance with the Beliefs of the Ummah or in conflict with the  Ijma’ which has been transmitted down the centuries from the age of the Sahaabah is under obligation to furnish his Shar’i evidence for his theory/idea. Evidence is not personal opinion nor is evidence of the Shariah a man’s interpretation of the Qur’aan. Evidence of the Shariah is what the official position of the belief or practice was during the age of the Sahaabah and the Khairul Quroon,  and whether the belief advocated by the deviate was the belief or practice of the Ummah from the inception of Islam.   

It is on the basis of this criterion of authenticity that the beliefs pertaining to Hadhrat Isaa (alayhis salaam) as well as all other beliefs and alleged beliefs are to be examined. Any belief, practice or teaching which does not satisfy this criterion stands rejected and will be branded as kufr which expels the proponent from the fold of Islam. Explicity and emphatically stating this conception of Ijma and this criterion of authenticity  which is the belief and practice of the Ummah from the time of the Sahaabah, the Qur’aan Shareef says:    

“And among the people are those who say: “We believe in Allah and the Last Day, while (in reality) they are not Mu’mineen (Believers). They (try to) deceive Allah and those who have Imaan. However, they deceive none but themselves whilst they lack understanding.”    (Surah Baqarah, aayats 8 and 9)

“And when it is said to them: “Believe in the manner in which the people (i.e.the Mu’mineen) believe, they say: ‘What shall we believe as the ignoramuses believe?’   Heed well! Verily, they are the ignoramuses, but they do not know.” (Surah Baqarah, aayat 13) 

It is quite evident from these verses of the Qur’aan Majeed, that Imaan is not the personal idea or conception of any person. A man’s contention of belief in Allah and the Aakhirah is of no significance and validity if it is in conflict with the Belief of “The People”, i.e. the People of Islam who inherited their Beliefs and Practices from the Sahaabah. The Sahaabah are in the highest category of “The People” whom the Qur’aan commands to follow. Elsewhere in the Qur’aan Majeed, Allah Ta’ala commands the selfsame obedience and following to “The People” of Imaan. Thus He says:

“And, follow the Path of those who turn (and lead) towards Us.”  

These as well as other Qur’aanic aayaat categorically command the Mu’mineen to follow the Path of  “The People”, not the path of personal opinion.  Hence, the Consensus of the  “The People” is the criterion of authenticity for the beliefs and practices of Is lam. Any concept which is at variance with or in conflict with the conception of Imaan of “The People” of Imaan and Islam is kufr which extinguishes Imaan and assigns the proponent into irtidaad (making him a renegade) for which the punishment in a truly Islamic nation is Qatl (execution).

THE MULHID’S BELIEF OF KUFR

One  mulhid  who has sprouted up from somewhere, seeking some cheap publicity, stating his ideas about Hadhrat Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam), wrote to the non-Muslim press that Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam) is dead. He is not alive in Heaven as the Ummah of Islam believes and has believed from the age of the Sahaabah. He presents as his ‘proofs’ the following arguments: 

(1)   The Sunni Muslims derive their support from their ‘priests’ whose basis is the traditions (Ahadith). These Ahadith are derived from Israeli sources.  

(2)   These sources were from Jews and Christians who embraced Islam, and who had introduced their ‘apocryphal’ literature in the Ahadith and the commentaries of the Qur’aan. 

(3)   The Qur’aan declares “Messengers had passed away before Him (Muhammad).” (Q3:144)

(4)   “Further: God will cause you (Jesus) to die (or take  You away) and exalt, honour and raise You in My  Presence.” (Q3:55) 

(5)  “God caused Jesus to die or took Him up”. (Q5:120) 

(6)  “That Jesus is dead is confirmed by the Qur’an and some Ahadith (traditions), jurists and modern scholars.”

If these are called ‘proofs’ (daleel), then we must say that they are an insult to the term as well  as an insult to intelligence. Although these stupidities do not warrant  an intelligent response, nevertheless, such a response becomes necessary in view of the large scale ignorance prevailing among the Muslim masses on the issue of Aqaa-id  (Beliefs). Unwary persons and simple-minded folk are quickly misled by the most absurd specimens of kufr offered by just any  jaahil  who reads a few lines of  Yusuf Ali’s commentary. 

The proponent of the kufr belief has made claims without presenting any substantiation whatsoever. He makes allegations about the Qur’aan and “some Ahadith” confirming the death of Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam) without tendering the relevant Qur’aanic verses and “some Ahadith” which he claims support his idea of kufr

The very first attack against the belief of Hadhrat Isaa’s death is that it miserably fails the Criterion of Authenticity explained earlier. The death of Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam) never was a doctrine  of Muslims at any time in the history of Islam. If the deviate claims that it was, then it devolves on him to produce his evidence, not his opinion. At what stage in Islam’s history did the belief in Nabi Isaa’s death develop among Muslims? Did the Sahaabah believe in the death of Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam)? Was this the belief of  “The People”  whose obedience the Qur’aan commands? If it was, the zindeeq should produce his proof. 

He should not endeavour to conceal himself in ambiguity and say that according to “some Ahadith” Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam) has died. He should produce these “some Ahadith” and the academic discussion pertaining to such traditions. If this mulhid is reborn and he devotes his entire new life to the search for proof to prove that  “The People”  of Islam had ever held this belief of kufr, then too he will miserably fail to do so other than making baseless claims which cannot be substantiated on the basis of Shar’i evidence.

The Mulhid’s First  and Second arguments

In this stupid ‘proof’ he claims that Islam’s belief of Hadhrat Isaa’s death is based on ‘apocryphal’ traditions which Jews and Christians had introduced into Islam when they had embraced this religion. The absurdity of this ludicrous claim is not hidden from  any person who has made even a superficial study of the Science of Hadith compilation. Even a man who lacks expert Islamic Knowledge, but has read some English books on the subject of Hadith compilation, will laugh at the stupid claim which this mulhid has ventured so audaciously. It is said that fools  rush in where angels fear to tread. This is the similitude of the proponent of Nabi Isaa’s death. Can any sane Muslim who does not have kufr concealed in his heart  –who is not a munaafiq  –ever accept  that the wonderful and authentic Hadith compilations of the illustrious Muhadditheen who devoted their entire lives to the science of Hadith authentication are ‘apocryphal’ as the zindeeq alleges? (Apocryphal refers to traditions which are baseless, untrue, legendary, and fabricated). 

The mulhid has made his claim that the belief the People of Islam regarding Hadhrat Isaa (alayhis salaam) being alive in Heaven is based on ‘apocryphal’ traditions which Jews and Christians  had interpolated into the Hadith Compilations which the  People of Islam  regard to be correct and authentic. It devolves on him to now produce these ‘apocryphal’ traditions which he claims constitute the basis of the Belief of  “The People”  whom the Qur’aan commands us to submit to. Any Tom, Dick, Harry and atheist can present their personal ideas of whim and fancy, and tender just any stupid and absurd argument. But they cannot present evidence to back up the kufr they gorge up. We want to know about these ‘apocryphal’ traditions which the Jew and Christian converts had introduced into Islam.
It might benefit the mulhid to hear what Allah Ta’ala Himself says about the Christians who had converted to Islam. The Qur’aan Majeed says in this regard:    

“And, most certainly, you will find the closest (to you, O Muslims!)in love, are those who say: ‘Verily, we are Nasaaraa’. That is so because among them are men of justice and Ulama who are  not proud. And, when they hear what has been revealed to the Rasool, you will see their eyes flowing with tears because they have recognized the Haqq.”    (Qur’aan, Surah Maaidah, aayats 82 and 83) 
The reference here is to the early  Nasaaraa who had embraced Islam. There  were highly qualified Ulama and experts of the Taurah and Injeel among them. It is an insult to the Qur’aan  to claim that these noble, pious and knowledgeable members of  Ahl-e-Kitaab  had introduced ‘apocryphal’ traditions into Islam. It is an even greater insult to claim that ‘apocryphal’ traditions of the Jews and Christians were used by the illustrious authorities of Islam to formulate  Aqeedah  when it is a fact as clear as daylight that Beliefs are based on only Ahaadith which are of the  Qatiyuth Thuboot category. The ignorance of the mulhid is stark and quite evident. He simply does not know what he is trumpeting. 

This deviate who in all probability lacks knowledge in the very elementary teachings of Islam  is too stupid to understand or to even know that the Fuqaha (Jurists of Islam) never employed Dhaeef  (Weak, technically speaking) Ahaadith which are au thentic, as basis for  Fardh and Waajib Ahkaam, leave alone Aqaa-id. His sweeping statement simply displays his crass  jahaalat. His argument is absolutely devoid of substance. 

His claim that “Sunni Muslims”  believe in Isaa (alayhis salaam) being alive on the basis of “support from their priests and jurists” is designed to ridicule. This type of stupid childish stratagems of ridicule is a salient feature of the mulhideen who are bereft of rational and Islamic arguments for their concepts and theories of kufr.  If the beliefs of the Sunni Muslims are supported by their “priests” and jurists, it lends more strength to the authenticity of the beliefs of the masses. It is evidence for the correctness of the beliefs of the masses. It shows that the beliefs of the masses are based on scholarly, rational and factual basis, and are not the product of wild speculation of the vacillating nafs (whim and fancy –self-opinion) of men of ignorance. It is  simply logical and acceptable that the masses accept the beliefs as explained to them by their “priests” and jurists. These “priests” and jurists are members of the class of men whom the Qur’aan designates  “The People”,  and whose obedience the Qur’aan commands. The Qur’aan commands that Muslims should believe as “The People” believe, not as the nafs dictates. 

An intelligent mind will present evidence to substantiate the claim that the “priests” and the jurists have erred and that they had in  turn based their belief on the ‘apocryphal’ traditions of the Jews and Christians. What proof does the zindeeq have for his contention in this regard? If he has even a vestige of evidence, let him produce it. The zindeeq is guilty of a blasphemous slander for his contention that the Jurists of Islam had based the beliefs pertaining to Hadhrat Isaa (alayhis salaam) on the apocryphal traditions of the Jews and Christians.

It is incumbent for him to define exactly what he means by ‘apocryphal traditions’ and  on which such traditions of the Jews and Christians did  “The People”  of the Qur’aan base their belief.  Since he has manipulated the term ‘apocryphal’ to serve his kufr idea, he has to explain his criteria for labeling a Jewish or a Christian tradition as ‘apocryphal’. Or perhaps he is a  muqallid (blind follower) of the Jewish and Christian theologians and priests who have categorized their own respective traditions. Just look at this zindeeq! He becomes a blind  muqallid  of the Jewish and Christian theologians and priests who have studied and classified their traditions, but he refuses to accept the highly authentic Ahaadith classified by the illustrious Muhadditheen such as Imaam Bukhaari, Imaam Muslim and others of high rank. He must say who had classified the relevant Jewish and Christian traditions to be apocryphal, and  on what basis does he (the zindeeq) accept such classification. Then he should provide his  dalaa-il  for his biggest calumny, viz., the Fuqaha of Islam had based the beliefs regarding Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam) on such ‘apocryphal’ traditions of the Jews and Christians.

Another stupidity of the ‘apocryphal’ argument is that as far as the Jews are concerned, they do not even accept Hadhrat Isaa (alayhis  salaam) to be a Nabi. His ascension into Heaven, his second advent and him being alive or dead do not concern them. They have no apocryphal literature on Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam). 

The Christians on the otherhand believe that Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam) had first died a physical death, then after resurrection he ascended into the heaven. But the Qur’aan rejects  the notion of his death. He was not crucified nor killed in any manner whatsoever. This is the official and authoritative belief of “The People” whom the Qur’aan commands us to follow.  Since the Christians do believe in Nabi Isaa’s ascension , his existence in the heavens and his second advent, their narrations are not apocryphal for them on this particular issue.  Those narrations and traditions which are in conflict with their beliefs are rejected by the Christians and termed ‘apocryphal’, e.g. the Gospel of Barnabas which predicts the advent of our Nabi Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Thus, the argument that the People of Islam based their beliefs regarding Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam) on the ‘apocryphal’ traditions of the Jews and Christians is utterly stupid and fallacious. 

Furthermore, if Muslims had based their beliefs on any such traditions, the belief of Isaa’s death would have also been incorporated into Islamic  Aqeedah  in terms of the logic of the zindeeq because he claims that Islamic Belief is the consequence of Christian and Jewish ‘apocryphal’ (but non-existent) traditions. The absurdity of the mulhid’s arguments should thus be conspicuous. 

In  Tafseer  Durr-e-Manthur  appears the following narration: “Ishaaq Bin Bishr and Ibn Asaakir narrating from  Jauhar  who narrates from Dhuhhak who narrates from Ibn Abbaas (radhiyallahu anhu) (the tafseer) of the Allah’s statement: “Verily, I shall cause you to die and raise you up to Me”—i.e. “Shall raise you, then cause you to die in the last of ages (aakhiruz zamaan).”   (Page 36, Vol. 2) 

Hadhrat Ibn Abbaas (radhiyallahu anhu) was not a Jew or a Christian who had embraced Islam. He does not present the  tafseer  of this aayat No.55 of Surah Aal-e-Imraan on the basis of  any narration or tradition of Bani Israaeel. He states the meaning as he had acquired it from Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Hadhrat Ibn Abbaas (radhiyallahu anhu) is known as Raeesul Mufassireen (The Chief of the Mufassireen).

We shall discuss this tafseer further in the ensuing pages, Insha’Allah. Suffice here to say that the Sahaabah of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), not only the noble Ulama of the Yahood and Nasaaraa who had embraced Islam, taught the belief that Hadhrat Isaa (alayhis salaam) did not die but was physically raised into the Heavens. This belief which the Sahaabah propagated was not based on any apocryphal tradition of the Jews and Christians. The mulhid should present his proof for his fallacious contention of kufr

For ignoramuses it is quite easy to tender sweeping and ridiculous contentions. But to substantiate such claims is entirely a different matter. When proof for their  nafsaani  speculation is demanded, they are adept in  the art of seeking refuge in impregnable fortresses of silence and in childish stratagems of ridicule. It behoves this mulhid to produce his Qur’aanic and historical evidence for his absurd contention that the Beliefs of Islam pertaining to Hadhrat Isaa (alayhis salaam) are based on apocryphal traditions of the Jews and Christians. He supposedly regards himself as a member of the ‘enlightened intellegentsia’. If so, he has to necessarily provide his rational and historical evidence  for his claim. Just when  – at which period in the history of Islam- did the belief of Isaa’s death on the basis of Jewish and Christian  traditions develop in Islam? Let the miserable zindeeq answer. 

The Mulhid’s Third argument

In this argument the mulhid avers: “The Qur’aan declares: ‘Messengers had passed away before Him (Muhammad)”. Q3:144” 

The ignorance of the mulhid is manifest from his citation of this aayat which does not have the remotest relevance to Hadhrat Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam). Even the  general purport of the aayat cannot be adduced  to substantiate the kufr belief of the zindeeq.

He is unable to even present a correct translation of the verse he cites as his ‘proof’  for  the imagined death of Nabi Isaa  (alayhis salaam). Since the mulhid has merely lapped up what Yusuf Ali says in his translation, he presents the erroneous translation of Yusuf Ali as well. The translation of the aayat is:  “Verily, numerous Messengers passed before you.”  By saying “passed away”, the meaning of ‘died’ is proffered. Although it is understood that the numerous Ambiya who appeared before Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had passed away (died), the word in this aayat does not mean “passed away” or ‘died’. 

Even if  the meaning of “have died” or have passed away is taken, it does not in any way whatsoever support the contention that Hadhrat  Isaa (alayhis salaam) too had died. The aayat does not say that each and every  Messenger before Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi  wasallam) without any exception had died. The tenor of the aayat does not preclude exceptions. It is a general statement simply mentioning that just as the Messengers before Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had died so too will he also die.  The exception  of Hadhrat Isaa (alayhis salaam)  is based on other dalaa-il.  

The contention  is not that  Nabi Isaa  (alayhis salaam) will never die. The belief of Islam is that  he has not yet died and that after his  Nuzool  (Descent) from the Heavens, he will die a normal physical death. The mulhid believes that he is an intellectual and a member of the ‘intellegentsia’. However, his stupidity boggles the mind. He is totally ignorant of the fact that  Aqeedah (Belief) is not the product of interpretation and opinion, least  of all the absurd opinions of  juhala and mulhideen.  Beliefs are based on Qur’aanic aayaat or Ahaadith-e-Mutawattirah  which are Ahaadith of absolute certitude, which do not brook the slightest vestige of doubt, ambiguity or uncertainty. The number of the raka’ts, for example, are established on the basis of such Proofs. 

Instead of presenting any  daleel  of absolute certitude, the mulhid presents a verse which has no relevance whatsoever with Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam). He employs and misinterprets this aayat in blind imitation of the Qadiani mulhideen who went before him, and  on the basis of such fallacious interpretation, he offers the belief of Hadhrat Isaa’s death.  And, in his presentation of this kufr belief he perpetrates the chicanery of endeavouring to convey the impression of originality, namely, that his own ‘ingenuity’ has unraveled the mystery surrounding Hadhrat Isaa  (alayhis salaam)  –the mystery  which the Christians had failed to unravel. He fails to acknowledge his ‘imaam’, Yusuf Ali and others of his ilk who had peddled these baseless, legless and stupid arguments. 

The Qur’aanic averment that Messengers had  “passed away” before Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) does not negate the fact and belief that Hadhrat Isaa (alayhis salaam)  had not died and that he was raised bodily into the Heavens whilst alive and awake. These beliefs are structured on  independent  Dalaail  of the Shariah. This specific aayat does not negate the longevity of the lifespan of Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam). The demise of innumerable Messengers, in fact all except Hadhrat Isaa (alayhis salaam), before Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) does not rationally or logically or Islamically preclude any being born before Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) outliving him. What is the rational argument to prove that a person who was a Nabi and born before Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), could not have lived beyond the lifespan of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam)? Only mulhids who deny the infinite Power of Allah Ta’ala, covertly refute the Qur’aanic proclamation: “Verily, Allah has power over all things.”  

What is the Islamic proof for claiming that Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam) was not alive  when Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) was born and that he  did not remain alive after the demise of Nabi-e-Kareem (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and that he will not remain alive until  the great signs of Qiyaamah materialize?  Independent proof of the category of absolute certitude (Qatiuyuth Thuboot)  is imperative for claiming a belief which conflicts with the 14 century belief of  The People  –the Sahaabah, Taabieen, Tab-e-Taabieen  –all the Aimmah Mujtahideen, Fuqaha, and the entire Ummah down the long corridor of Islam’s history. 

It devolves on the mulhid to prove with Shar’i facts the stages of origin of the two diametrically opposite beliefs—the belief that Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam) is alive and the kufr belief of his death. While  we can conclusively claim that  the belief of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah  –the belief of  The People of the Qur’aan  –  has its origin in the Qur’aan and Ahaadith, the zindeeq fails hopelessly to produce even one valid argument to substantiate his belief of kufr

It is thus illogic and in conflict with Islam to claim the death of Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam)  on the basis of the aayat which merely states that numerous Messengers had passed away before Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

The Mulhid’s fourth argument

In this argument, the mulhid offers the aayat No.55 of Aal-eImraan. Thus he says: “Further:  God ‘will cause You (Jesus) to die (or take You away) and exalt, honour and raise You in My Presence.”

Firstly, he has ventured a corrupt translation. The correct translation of the aayat is: “(Remember) when Allah said: ‘O Isaa! Verily, I shall cause you to die and I shall raise you towards Me, and I shall exonerate you from the disbelievers………”  

He translates the word  ‘raafiuka’ to mean ‘exalt, honour and raise you in My Presence”.   But  this word in the context of the aayat does not mean ‘exalt and honour’. When the term  ‘rafa’  is used with the word  ‘ilaa’, it does not mean exalting the rank of a person. It clearly refers to physical raising or lifting . Furthermore, this meaning has been determined by the explanations of the Sahaabah. It has thus to be translated in the context of the meaning and belief of  The People  whom we are commanded by the Qur’aan to follow. Hadhrat Isaa (alayhis salaam) already had an exalted rank by Allah Ta’ala. He was among the great Ambiya.  The  figuritive meaning ascribed to the term in the context of this aayat is  palpably erroneous. In other verses where the term  rafa’  is used for elevation of rank, the term  ilaa  is not used.  Hence, the Qur’aan says: “He has elevated   some  over  others by ranks.” “Allah exalts the Believers among you….”  

In these verses and many others, the word  rafa’  to mean elevation of ranks is used without ‘ilaa’. It should thus be clear that the term  ilaa  when used in conjunction  with the word,  rafa’ produces the meaning of physical lifting or raising upwards physically. There is also  no need for us to substantiate the belief of  Isaa (alayhis salaam) on the basis of this interpretation of the word  rafa’.  The belief is based on the  Ijma’ of the Ummah— “The People” whom the Qur’aan says we have to obey and follow. 

The physical transportation of Hadhrat Isaa (alayhis salaam) into the Heavens is further confirmed with emphasis in the following aayat of Surah Nisaa, which  rejects the notion that Hadhrat Isaa (alayhis salaam) was killed:

“They most certainly did  not kill him. But, on the contrary, Allah lifted him (Isaa) to Him (Allah Ta’ala).”  The word  rafa’  (lifted) is brought here in this aayat to negate and refute the claim of the Yahud that they had physically killed Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam). Refuting their contention, the Qur’aan Majeed declares with emphasis that they did not kill him. On the contrary, Allah Ta’ala saved Isaa (alayhis salaam) by lifting him up to the Heavens. The meaning  of ‘exalting’ or ‘honouring’ will be improper in the context of the refutation stated in this aayat.

“CAUSE TO DIE”

The translation which even the Mulhid presents, is:“cause you to die” . The aayat does not say that Hadhrat Isaa (alayhis salaam) had died. Allah Ta’ala does not say: “Isaa is dead or has died.” In this verse, Allah  directly addressing Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam), says:  o “O Isaa! Verily, I shall cause you to die, and I shall lift you up to Me”. Isaa (alayhis salaam) at the time  of the Divine Address was being pursued by the Yahood  who wanted to have him killed. Allah Ta’ala in this aayat assures him of  the failure of the plot of the Yahood. Hence, the Qur’aan states immediately  before this aayat:  “They (the Yahood) plotted, and Allah plotted, and Allah is the best of plotters.”  

The aayat assures Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam) that the Yahood will not succeed in killing him. He will die at some time in the future. Meanwhile he will be raised up into the Heaven. It is absurd to infer from an event which has not yet transpired that it has already happened. The absurdity is obvious. By what warped and stupid logic does the mulhid argue? He claims that Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam) has died. But in support he presents an aayat which says that Allah Ta’ala will cause Isaa (alayhis salaam) to die in the future. 

Islam does not negate the future death of Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam). “The People”  do not contend that Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam) will never die. The belief is only that he has not yet died, but will die after his descent from Heaven. The fallacy of this argument of the mulhid should also be conspicuous.

The Mulhid’s fifth argument

In this argument he says: “God caused Jesus to die or took him up. Q5:120”  

Firstly, aayat No.120 of Surah Maaidah does not remotely refer to Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam). The translation of aayat 120 is: “Unto Allah belongs the sovereignty of the heavens and the earth and whatever is therein. And, He is All-Powerful over everything.”  

However, the mulhid, Yusuf Ali, in his erroneous numbering of the verses has numbered the relevant aayat No.120 when in fact it is No.117. Pick up any copy of the Qur’aan and it will be seen that the number of the aayat to which the mulhid and Yusuf Ali refer is No.117. The translation of the relevant portion of the aayat to which the mulhid has referred is:

“I was a witness over them while I was among them. Then, when you took me away (i.e.caused me to die), then You were the Guard over them.”  (Aayat 117, Surah Maaidah) 

The entire discussion of  the aayat (the above is only a portion of the aayat) is an event which will transpire in Qiyaamah  – in the future. It is not a discussion which Allah Ta’ala already had with Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam). It is a discussion which will yet take place after resurrection in Qiyaamah. Hadhrat Isaa (alayhis salaam) says (in this aayat): “You caused me to die”. It should be obvious that he is speaking here after his death, not prior to his death. To claim that this discussion took place on earth prior to Nabi Isaa’s death is absurd. He himself says :When  You (O Allah!) caused me to die”.  Hence the discussion logically will take place after resurrection in Qiyaamah. And this is confirmed by the authentic Ahaadith. 

Since this is a discussion which will yet take place in the Hereafter, it is fallacious to present it in substantiation of the kufr belief. The manner in which the Mulhid quotes the portion of the aayat out of its context, is designed to convey the deceptive idea that Allah Ta’ala says in the Qur’aan that Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam) has already died., hence the zindeeq says:  “God caused Jesus to die” It is not refuted that Allah Ta’ala will cause Nabi Isaa to die. But his death will be caused after his Nuzool to earth. It is therefore baseless to present this aayat as proof for the contention that Isaa (alayhis salaam) is dead.

The Mulhid’s sixth argument

In this ‘argument’, the Mulhid merely makes a claim without providing any evidence. He simply says: “That Jesus is dead is confirmed by the Qur’an,and some Ahadith (traditions), jurists and modern scholars.”  

In his letter there is not a single Qur’aanic verse to confirm his claim. We have refuted and demolished the arguments which he had based on certain   Qur’aanic verses which do not even remotely suggest that Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam) had died. 

He speaks of “some Ahadith” which allegedly confirm the kufr belief. Firstly, he should not cite Ahaadith because in terms of his own claim, Ahadith are the products of the apocryphal traditions of the Jews and Christians. Secondly, he should present these Ahaadith for examination.  There are no Ahaadith which confirm the belief of the death of Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam). 

Then he speaks about confirmation by the ‘jurists’. The Mulhid is the last man who should speak about the jurists. According to his claim the Jurists had formulated the belief of Hadhrat Isaa’s death on the basis of the apocryphal traditions of the Jews and Christians. He should now not seek to extract capital from the Jurists for his kufr belief. It is, furthermore, a blatant falsehood to claim that the Fuqaha or some of them believe in the death of Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam). He should provide his proof for this claim of confirmation by the Fuqaha. 

As far as “modern scholars” are concerned, their ranks  preponderate with mulhids and zindeeqs. Anyone whose beliefs conflict with the  Ijmaaee  Belief of  The People  of Islam is not a scholar of Islam. Such a modernist is a deviated ignoramus. He is unacceptable to Islam. The views of some of these  modern day “scholars” are repugnant and of no concern. Their views cannot be cited as proof of the Shariah. It is truly amazing that a man who regards himself as an “investigative” scholar and researcher  –a deviate who is prepared to denounce and reject a Belief which the Ummah has believed in for the past 1438 years— citing “modern scolars:”  as his proof. How rapidly does he become a  muqallid  of just anyone whom he thinks is worthy of eking out support. Thus, while he rejects and criticizes the Fuqaha, he is quick to cite “some” of them when he thinks that there is some support for his doomed cause of kufr. No one is interested in the “modern scholars” of deviation (dhalaal),  false hood  (baatil) and kufr.  The views of such “scholars” do not occupy the category of any class of Shar’i proof, leave alone the highest class of evidence on the basis of which Aqeedah is structured. 

Alhamdulillaah! We have adequately refuted and demolished the fallacious arguments of the Mulhid. We now present the Proofs of  those People whose system of Imaan, according to the Qur’aan, is the only valid conception of Belief (Imaan), and whom we have been commanded to follow.

IJMA’ (CONSENSUS OF THE UMMAH)

The strongest  daleel  (proof/evidence) for any belief, practice or teaching of Islam is  Ijma.  This  Daleel  is the command of Allah Ta’ala stated in several aayaat of the Qur’aan Majeed.

“Whoever opposes the Rasool after the Hidaayah (Guidance of the Deen) has become manifest, and he follows a path other than  the Path of the Mu’mineen,  We divert him to that (path of deviation) which he follows. And, We shall cast him into Jahannum. Indeed, it is an evil abode.”    (Qur’aan, Aayat 115, Surah Nisaa’)   

“And follow the Path of him who turns to Me.”  

The basis of the validity of Imaan is to believe as the Ummah believes, i.e. to subscribe to all the beliefs  which the Ummah has acquired from  Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) via the agency of the Sahaabah.  The Qur’aan says in this regard:      

“Among mankind are those who say: ‘We believe in Allah and the Last Day”, while (in reality) they are not Mu’mineen (Believers)”. (Surah Baqarah, aayat 8)      

“And, when it is said to them: ‘Believe just as the people (believe)’, they say: ‘What! Shall we believe like the ignoramuses believe?’ Behold! Verily, they  are the ignoramuses, but they know not.”   (Surah Baqarah, aayat 13) 

The Qur’aan Majeed does not instruct Muslims to follow their personal opinions and understanding of the Qur’aan. It commands us to follow  The People, The Mu’mineen.  Those who diverge from the Path of the Mu’mineen, the Qur’aan declares unequivocally:

“We shall cast them into Jahannum”. It is abundantly clear from the Qur’aanic aayaat that in order to be among the  Mu’mineen, the essential requisite is to  “Believe as the People believe.” Thus, any belief, interpretation, idea or view which  conflicts with the Beliefs of the Sahaabah who were the very first Wrung in the Ladder of  The People  to whom the Qur’aan commands obedience, is kufr.

Ijma’  is the Path of the Mu’mineen from which divergence according to the aforementioned aayat leads to Jahannum.  Ijma’  is in the category of the Qur’aan  Majeed since the Qur’aan commands Muslims to follow the Path of the Mu’mineen. There is no difference of opinion among the Fuqaha and Authorities of Islam  on the issue of  Ijma being a  Hujjat  (Proof and Authority) in the category of the Qur’aan. Denial of any belief or teaching evidenced by  Ijma’  is kufr. This is the unanimous ruling of  all Authorities of Islam.

Ijma  of the Ummah  –of  The People  to whom obedience is commanded in the Qur’aan, has been recognized as  Hujjat  for the Ahkaam of the Shariah from the very inception  of Islam since it is a command of the Qur’aan itself. There is no need to delve further on this subject in this concise booklet. Only a moron will deny that the Ummah’s  beliefs pertaining to Hadhrat Isaa (alayhis salaam) are  structured on the basis of  Ijma .Inspite of the Mulhid’s denial of the validity and truth of these beliefs, he does concede that Isaa (alayhis salaam) being alive is the Belief of this Ummah. Hence, he had no alternative but to concede: “The belief that Jesus is still alive in heaven is held by both Christians and Sunni Muslims.” Whoever now denies this Belief denies the validity of  Ijma’  and in consequence he has to be prepared to be cast into Jahannum by Allah Ta’ala Who has warned in the Qur’aan Shareef that those who diverge from the Path of the  Mu’mineen will be the inmates of Hell-Fire.

THE QUR’AAN

Ijma’ on the Beliefs centering around Hadhrat Isaa (alayhis salaam) are structured on the basis of the Qur’aan and Ahaadith-e-Mutawaatirah  – the highest category of authentic and reliable Ahaadith. Refuting the belief of Hadhrat Isaa having died, the Qur’aan Majeed declares with the greatest emphasis and unambiguity:

“And (the punishment they received) was because of their claim: ‘Verily, we have killed the Maseeh, Isaa, the  son of Maryam who was the Rasool of Allah’. (However), they neither killed him nor crucified him, but they (the Yahood) were thrown into confusion (regarding Hadhrat Isaa)………..And most certainly they did not kill him. On the contrary, Allah lifted him up to Him. And, Allah is Mighty, The Wise.”  (Surah Nisaa, aayat 157).   

The Qur’aan in this aayat categorically rejects the claim of the death of Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam). The Yahood had claimed that they had killed Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam). Vehemently refuting this claim the Qur’aan affirms the ascension of Nabi Isaa into the Heavens. There is absolutely no difference of opinion among the Authorities of Islam on this belief. It is an  Ijmaaee Belief that this aayat confirms the physical ascension into the Heavens of Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam). This is the belief of the Mu’mineen  – the unanimous belief from the earliest time of Islam. Any Mulhid who in his stupidity is so audacious as to deny the fact that these beliefs are based on  Ijma’  of the Ummah, should produce his proof in refutation of this claim we are making. 

Aayat No.159 of Surah Nisaa’ states: 

“And there will be none of the Ahl-e-Kitaab, but he will believe in him (Isaa) before his Maut (death).”  

In the tafseer of this aayat, Hadhrat Abu Hurairah (radhiyallahu anhu) said:

“Nabi (alayhis salaam) said: ‘Most assuredly, the Son of Maryam will descend (to earth) as a just ruler. Then he will most certainly slay Dajjaal, kill pigs and destroy crosses. And, (at that time) Sajdah (Ibaadat) will be exclusively for Allah Rabbul Aalameen.’ Then Abu Hurairah said: If you wish recite (aayat No.159)’ He added: ‘Before the Maut of Isaa. He repeated this thrice.”    (Ma-aariful Qur’aan) 

All members of the Ahl-e-Kitaab will ultimately accept Imaan at the hands of Nabi  Isaa (alayhis salaam) before his death. This too testifies to the belief of him still being alive. Millions and millions of Ahl-e-Kitaab have not yet believed in Hadhrat Isaa (alayhis salaam) in the way Islam requires belief. This will happen after his   Nuzool from the Heavens. 

The  Nuzool  of Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam) is further confirmed by aayat 61 of Surah Zukhruf:   “Verily he (Nabi Isaa) is certainly a sign for the Hour. Therefore, never ever doubt in it (i.e. the Hour of Qiyaamah) and obey me.”  
The Mufassireen commenting on this aayat say that Isaa (alayhis salaam) will be a sign of Qiyaamah. This aayat conveys the information of his descent  from Heaven in close proximity to Qiyaamah.. Hadhrat Ibn Abbaas, the eminent Sahaabi who is known as Raeesul Mufassireen, narrated regarding this statement of Allah Ta’ala:  “(It means) the emergence of Isaa (alayhis salaam) before the Day of Qiyaamah.” 

The Nuzool  of Hadhrat Isaa (alayhis salaam) presupposes him being alive in the Heaven.The unanimous Belief of the Mu’mineen is that Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam) was raised bodily into heaven while he was alive; that he is alive in Heaven; that he will return to earth before Qiyaamah. There is complete unanimity of the People of Islam on these beliefs. Only munaafiqeen and mulhideen deny these unanimous beliefs of the Mu’mineen. 

Also declaring that Hadhrat Isaa (alayhis salaam) was not killed and that he was raised up bodily into the Heaven, the Qur’aan states:

“O Isaa! I shall cause you to die, and I shall raise you to Me, and I shall exonerate you from the unbelievers…”    (Surah Aale-Imraan, aayat 55) 

There is complete unanimity of the Mufassireen and Authorities of Islam regarding the meaning of this aayat. They all state without any difference that Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam) was lifted alive and physically into the Heaven. The Authorities of Islam unanimously aver that  Allah “will cause Hadhrat Isaa to die” before Qiyaamah after his descent to earth. It is only mulhideen who have taken up the cause of the Qadiani impostor, Mirza Gulam Ahmad. After thirteen centuries of complete unanimity in the beliefs pertaining to Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam), Mirza, the impostor  presented his kufr misinterpretation and opinion of Isaa’s death, etc. The mulhideen in our day are all the muqallideen of the dajjaal, Mirza of Qadian.

THE SUNNAH 

The proofs of the Sunnah are overwhelming. Only a total  kaafir –  one who  has been destined for Jahannum from the moment he was conceived  – denies the Sunnah with its vast volume of authentic Ahaadith which the Qur’aan Majeed imposes on Muslims to accept and obey as an integral part of Imaan, without which, Imaan is not valid. In many Qur’aanic aayaat, Allah Ta’ala commands:

“Obey Allah and obey the Rasool….. 

This is an oft-repeated aayat and theme of the Qur’aan. In another aayat, the Qur’aan states:   “Whatever the Rasool brings to you, hold on firmly to it, and whatever he forbids you of, abstain from it.” 

Obedience to Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) with the axiomatic consequence of accepting and submitting to the  Saheeh  Ahaadith is denied only by those who have no share in Imaan. Refutation of the Ahaadith is precisely denial of the Qur’aan which commands obedience to the Rasool. The teachings, instructions, commands, prohibitions and beliefs delivered and explained by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) are all encapsulated in the  Saheeh  Ahaadith. Denial of these Ahaadith is denial of  Allah Ta’ala and Islam because it is Allah Ta’ala Who in the Qur’aan Majeed commands acceptance and obedience to the Ahaadith of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). That the  Saheeh  Ahaadith are part of  Wahi  revealed by Allah Ta’ala, is confirmed by the aayat:   “He (Muhammad) does not speak of desire (whim, fancy and personal opinion). It (his speech) is nothing but Wahi which is revealed to him (from Allah Ta’ala).”  

If one stupid Mulhid today refutes without being able to furnish the slightest vestige of Shar’i evidence the beliefs pertaining to Hadhrat Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam), then on the basis of the stupid ‘logic’ of Mulhid No.1, tomorrow Mulhid  No.2 can contend that the daily five Salaat are not Fardh because this perculiar institution of Salaat is the product of the apocryphal traditions of the Jews and Christians. The Qur’aan is silent on the number of times, viz.5,  that Salaat has to be performed daily. It is even more silent on the number of raka’ts and the multitude of  masaa-il  related to Salaat.  By the same shaitaani token, Mulhid No.3 can claim that the one fortieth annual Zakaat tax which the Jurists have fixed is based on apocryphal traditions of the Jews and Christians because the Qur’aan is silent on this issue. In fact, the Qur’aan does not even say that Zakaat means payment of money annually. The literal meaning of Zakaat is NOT payment of annual tax. In this way, the multitude of mulhidsmunaafiqs and zindeeqs who lay  hidden among the ranks of the Mu’mineen can torpedo and extinguish the whole of Islam. In fact, this is precisely the conspiracy of the West which is in progress at this moment. The satanic  plot is being spread like mines  and being planted, to bring about total change in the Immutable Shariah by means of “internal initiatives”. This plot is being  applied in different dimensions of Islam. Every mulhid is a cog in this plot.

ALL the Ahaadith on which are based the Islamic doctrines related to Hadhrat Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam) are of the highest category of authenticity on par in force and strength with Qur’aanic aayaat in the Shariah’s law-formulation process. Ahaadith-e-Mutawaatirah produc ing the effect of  Qatiyuth Thuboot  (Authenticity of such a lofty degree which does not admit the slightest vestige of uncertainty) constitute the basis for these  Aqaaid. There is not a single authentic Hadith of a lesser class, leave alone Israeli fabrications and apocryphal traditions, which forms the basis for the beliefs pertaining to Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam). Only morons, ignoramuses and doomed men with stercoraceous minds will claim that these highly authentic Ahaadith which have the force of Qur’aanic aayat, are the products of the  apocryphal traditions of the Jews and Christians. 

Shayaateen of this ilk imply by their ludicrous opinions that from its very  inception Islam was smothered and it did not attain its pinnacle of perfection to which the Qur’aan attests.
In fact, this noxious opinion of these  juhhaal  leads to the inevitable conclusion that the whole of Islam, in fact the Qur’aan itself, is a fabrication based on Jewish and Christian legend and mythology because it is an irrefutable fact which no sane Muslim or non-Muslim will deny that the authenticity of the Qur’aan is based on Ahaadith-e-Mutawaatirah. Without Hadith there is NO Qur’aan. 

The Qur’aan Kareem makes a brief reference to the physical lifting of Hadhrat Isaa (alayhis salaam) just as it makes a brief reference to Zakaat in its verses, and just as it makes brief references to Salaat in the verses commanding Salaat. The elaboration of these concepts and institutions has been assigned to the Ahaadith. Thus, the Qur’aan Majeed commands:  “Verily whoever has obeyed the Rasool has obeyed Allah.”  

In exactly the same concise style  the Qur’aan refers to the descent of Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam), leaving the explanation to the Ahaadith. These Ahaadith as mentioned earlier are of the  Tawaatur  category, denial of which is kufr of the highest degree. Haafiz Bin Hajar states this fact explicitly in Fathul Baari, Sharh (commentary) of Bukhaari Shareef. The illustrious Mufassir, Haafiz Ibn Katheer confirms these Ahaadith and their category in his famous Tafseer. In  Tal-kheesul Habeer, Haafiz Ibn Hajar states:

“All the authorities of Hadith and Tafseer have concurred  that the ascension of Isaa (alayhis salaam) was a physical ascension.” 

Haafiz Ibn Katheer has compiled in his Tafseer ten big pages full with these Ahaadith which state and describe Hadhrat Isaa’s bodily ascension while he was alive, his presence in the Heaven in his physical state, i.e. with his physical body, and his appearance on earth in close proximity to Qiyaamah. It has been explicitly mentioned that these issues are  Ijmaaee, Qat’i and Ittifaaqi  in which there exists absolutely no difference of opinion. 

The entire life of Hadhrat Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam) was a  Mu’jizah (Divine Miracle). His mother, Hadhrat Maryam (alayhas salaam) was a Virgin. He was born  without the agency of a father. He spoke when he was an infant of a day old proclaiming his Nubuwwat and the Ahkaam of Salaat and Zakaat. He left this world alive in the miraculous state of ascension into the Heavens. He lives there to this day, alive in the way all human beings are alive. His descent to earth will be miraculous. His task of slaying Dajjaal will be miraculous. Are all these irrefutable facts of Imaan the products of the apocryphal traditions of the Jews and Christians? Only men whose kufr was stamped on their hearts when they were still in the wombs of their mothers can have the audacity of denying these  Aqaaid  of incontrovertible truth. 

We supplicate to Allah Ta’ala to preserve our Imaan and to eliminate the kufr from the hearts of the mulhideen in our midst. After all, Allah Ta’ala has the power to eliminate kufr from even the sealed and stamped hearts of zindeeqs. “Verily, Allah has power over all things.”

NUZUL (Decension) of Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam)

By Hazrat Maulana Muhammed Badre-Alam

Common Muslim belief

Muslims believe that Nabi Isaa (Alayhis Salaam) will suffer a natural death after Nuzul  (decension).  They differ with other people only about his previous death.     

According to common Muslim  belief Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam) has been taken up to the heavens bodily alive and that he will return to this world and die a natural death.  There are no sectarian differences among Muslims on these points from the early days of Islam.  Not to speak of many other incidents of his life which strongly disprove the Divinity of Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam), the belief about future death stands out almost as final repudiation of  such  divinity. Consequently, once you believe in his physical birth and death there remains absolutely no risk of conceding even a shadow of divinity though you also believe that  he had ascended safely to the heavens.      

Here we may refer to the interpretation of  “I shall receive you” as “I will cause  you to die”  which has been given by Hazrat Ibne Abbas and so it is no way inconsistent with beliefs entertained by Muslims.  The suggested interpretation can neither be correctly to the great commentator of  Qur’aan nor has it been countenanced by any Muslim authority of repute.  In fact there are several other traditions on the authority of Hazrat Ibne Abbas which unequivocally affirm the common Muslim belief that Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam) will descend into this world and thereafter die a natural death.        

“KITAABUT  TAFSEER” AND “CONSTRUCTION OF WORDS” IN “KITABUL TAFSEER” BY IMAM BUKHARI THE CHAPTER RELATION TO “CONSTRUCTION OF WORDS” HAS NOT BEEN WRITTEN BY HIM BUT WAS COMPILED BY IMAM UBAIDA IBNE HAZM.    

People of deficient knowledge have fallen victim to serious mis understanding in that the single version of Hazrat Ibne-Abass referred to, occurs in the compilation of Imam Bukhari which fact leads to an inference that the latter also agreed with it. Besides the foregoing comments, it may not be overlooked that in this very compilation elsewhere specific traditions relating to “Nuzul” are included.  How then can it be argued that death of  Nabi Isa (alayhis salaam) mentioned in the version in dispute signifies a foregoing one.  Since in the other traditions the views of Hazrat Ibne Abass are clearly brought out,  why not infer that Imam Bukhari held the same belief, knowing as we do that Bukhari itself records numerous traditions to that effect and the Imam must be supposed to have taken full responsibility for the authenticity of these traditions.     

Another authority who is often quoted in  support of the view of previous death is Ibne Hazm.  The uncorroborated opinion of a single authority of medium rank can hardly have any weight against the unanimous pronouncements of leading Ulama. And Ibne Hazm is already notorious in holding arbitrary views on different subjects.  He too in certain places has clearly opined that Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam) is destined to descend to the earth towards  the end.  In his well- known book,  Al Muhalla, page 391, he has described the doctrine of “Nuzul” as one of the basic beliefs of  the majority of Muslims.  The same opinion has been expressed by him in  Kitaabul-Fasl,  see pages 23, 55, 73, 77 and 87.  One such extract from the book runs as follows:     

“The reliable narrators who  have conveyed to us the doctrines of prophethood of our Holy Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) proclaimed that no new Prophet will appear after him except Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam).  The prediction of his “Nuzul” is embodied in authentic traditions.  It is the same apostle of Allah who had been sent unto Bani Israel and whom the Jews claimed to have killed by crucifixion.  Hence it is incumbent upon us to believe in these things. And it is proved from reliable sources that no new Nubuwwat will exist after the passing away of our Holy Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

Qadiani Dajjali Religion

The followers of Mirza Ghulam  Ahmad of Qadian are Qadiani whether they belong to the Qadiani jamaat of Rabwah or  the Lahori jamaat of Qadianis. But they call themselves “Ahmadi” pleading  that Mirza Ghulam  Ahmad (a.k.a Dajjaal) befits the verse “Ismahu Ahmad” in the Holy Qur’an  whereas according to the muslims  this Qur’anic verse relates to the holy prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). 

Taking undue advantage of the word, Ahmad  in his name  Mirza Ghulam Ahmad twisted the meaning of the above verse in his favour and claimed prophethood on this basis, though his name  actually means, “slave of  Ahmad”. According to the Holy Qur’an both Ahmad and Muhammad are the holy name  of our Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  Therefore, the application of the said Qur’anic verse to Mirza Ghulam  Ahmad of Qadian is a  deliberate alteration of  the Holy  Qur’an.  On this basis calling Qadianis as Ahmadis is “haraam”  (forbidden) and unlawful. 

QADIANIS DEBASE THE ISLAMIC KALIMAH

This article draws special attention of  the reader to the fact that the Qadianis deem  Mirza Ghulam  Ahmad as a Prophet incarnate through reincarnation, i.e  rebirth of the holy Prophet of Islam  in Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s person. Thus they have rebelled against Islam  and seceded from  it. They have infact given  the pretender a place  higher than that of the holy Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). 

The contents of this text are based on authenic  Qadiani literature  with references  to the relevant book and page. We take full responsibility and do hereby declare that the sources are authentic and correct. 

To Qadianis Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) is  Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Himself

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad claims  that he himself is (na’audhubillah) Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam):

Muhammad is the apostle of Allah. and those who are with him are strong against Unbelievers,  (but) compassionate amongst each other. (HQ 48.29) Mirza said, “In this divine revelation (the above verse) I  have been named Muhammad  as well as the Messenger of  Allah”. (Ek Ghalti Ka Izala, p.3;Roohani Khazain vol.18, p.207). 

The So-Called Two Prophetic Appointments Of Muhammad (Sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)

The reasons  why the Qadianis deem Mirza to  be Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) is that according to the Qadiani belief, `Khatam  un Nabieen’  (the  final Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) had been ordained to be born in Makkah as Muhammad. For the second  time, according to the Qadianis, he was reincarnated  in Qadian  as Mirza Ghulam  Ahmad ! In other words, the spirit of Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) along with his prophetic accomplishments allegedly appeared a second time in the incarnation of Mirza. And we quote:

“And know that just as our holy Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) was born in the 5th century, in the same way he was reborn in the end of 19th century  in the incarnation of  the Promised Masih” (Mirza). (khutbah-e-Ilhamiah,p.180; Roohani Khazain, vol.16,p270)

“The holy Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) had two births as a Prophet. In other words, we may say that it was promised that the holy Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  would be born in the world once and once more reincarnated and this was fulfilled by  the incarnation of the promised Masih and the promised Mahdi” (Mirza). (Tuhfa-e-Golravia, p94; footnote, Roohani Khazian, vol.17,p.249)

Mirza of Qadian Claimed To Be  The Same As Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)

According to Qadiani Dajjali belief Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  with all his excellence was reincarnated in Mirza of Qadian. As such the entity of Mirza of Qadian is (na’audhubillah)the same as the entity of Muhammad  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). Mirza has said:

  “And Allah bestowed upon me  the bounty of the holy Prophet and  made it perfect, and he drew towards me  the kindness and generosity of  that merciful Prophet, so much so that my entity became his entity.  Thus he who joins my  Jamaat really  becomes one of  the Sahaba of my chief who was better then all  the Prophets. It is not  hidden from  those with the ability to think that this is what the words “others of them” mean. The person who makes a difference between me  and Mustafa has neither seen me  nor recoginised me”. (Khutbah-e-Ilhamiah, p.171;  Roohani Khazain, vol.16, pp.258-259).

Mirza of Qadian Claimed That He Posessed All The Virtues And Excellence Of Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)

Once the belief had been  fabricated that the being of Mirza is exactly the being of Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) and that it is Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) himself who was reincarnated in Qadian as Mirza, then it must also be  alleged that all the accomplishments and distinctions of Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) were transferred
to Mirza. Mirza (Dajjal) has said:

“When I am  the holy Prophet incarnate and  when all the accomplishments of Muhammad including the prophethood are reflected in my  mirror of my  shadiness, then who is the man who has claimed prophethood in a seperate being ?” (Ek  Ghalti Ka Izala, p.8; Roohani Khazain, vol.18,p.212)

“The entity of the promised Masih (Mirza), in  the sight of Allah is the entity of  the holy Prophet (Sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). In other words, in the records of Allah there is no duality or difference between the promised Masih and the holy Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). Rather  they both share the same  eminence, the same rank, the same  status and the same  name. Although verbally they are two, yet in reality they are one  and the same”. (Al-Fazl, Qadian, Vol.3, No.37, dated 16th September 1915, as cited in Qadiani Mazhab page 207, 9th edition, Lahore)

Mirza Of Qadian Claimed That He Was The Final Prophet

According to the Qadiani belief, the “Qadiani based” birth of Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) as a prophet took  place in the incarnate AWTAR (na’audhubillah),  Mirza of Qadian. And as he became incarnate of Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) then Mirza becomes the  “final prophet” too ! Mirza (Dajjal) says:

I have told so  many times that according to  the verse: “And others of them..” I am incarnate the last of the Prophets. Twenty  years ago Allah named me in Baraheen-e-Ahamadia, Muhammad and AHmad and declared that I am  the holy Prophets incarnation. (Ek Ghalti Ka Izala, p.8; Roohani Khazain vol.18; p212)

“Blessed is he who has recognised me. Of all the paths to God I am  the last path, and of all his Lights, I am  the last Light. Unfortunate  is he who forsakes me, because without me all is darkness”. (Kashti-e-Nooh, p.56; Roohani Khazain, vol.19, p.61). 

Mirza of Qadian Claimed He Was The Best Of The Prophets Of Allah

“Many thrones have descended from  heaven but  thy throne has been placed the highest”. (Tazkirah 2nd Ed, p.643) 

“The various accomplishments which were bestowed upon all other Prophets were concentrated  in a greater degree in the  holy Prophet. All those accomplishments have been conferred on me  through the holy Prophets reincarnation in me. That is why I bear the names of Adam, Abraham,  Moses, Noah, Solomon, Jesus, etc. Allthe previous Prophets were the incarnations  of special attributes of the holy Prophet but I am  the the reincarnation of all the attributes of the holy Prophet”.  (Malfoozat-e-Mirza, Vol.3, P.270) 

Mirza of Qadian Claimed That He  Was Superior To Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)

The Qadianis believe that Mirzas reincarnation  was superior to the Prophets first birth in Makkah. Mirza dajjal says: 

One who denies that the orainment of the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) is related to the 6th thousand as it was related to the 5th thousand, denies the truth and the mandate of the Quran. the truth is that the spirituality of the (reincarnated) holy Prophet at  the end of the 6th thousand (ie these days), is much more  stronger, more complete and severe than  in those early years. rathe it is like  the 14th (moonlit) night”.  (Khutbah-e-Ilahmiah, p181; Roohani Khazain, vol.16, pp.271-272) 

The Simile Of “The New Moon” Used For The Holy Prophet (SAW) And That Of “The Full Moon” Used For Mirza Dajjal

The superiority of the Qadiani  incarnation has been expressed in yet another style: viz. During the Mekkan age, the holy Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam),  Islam  was like the Crescent in which there is no light but in his so-called Qadiani Dajjali reincarnation, Islam  became  lighted and illuminated like the full moon. Mirza (Dajjal) said:

“And Islam  started like the crescent which was destined ultimately to become  in the later ages the full moon by the command of God.  Thus Allahs wisdom  willed that Islam should asume the form  of the full moon in that century which sholud resemble the full moon by way of counting”. (Khutbah-e-Ilahmiah, p181; Roohani Khazain, vol.16, p.275)

“To declare those who denied the holy Prophet in his first birth as unbelievers and outside the fold of Islam,  but to regard the deniers of  his second birth as muslim  is an insult to the Prophet and a joke against the signs of  Allah, although the promised Masih has in Khutbah-e-Ilahmiah, compared the mutual relation between the first and the second births of the holy Prophet to the relationship between the crescent and  the full moon”. (Akhbar Al-Fazl, Qadian, Vol.3, No.10, dated 15th July  1915 as cited in Qadiani Mazhab p262) 

Greater Manifest Victory In order to express the superiority of  Mirza it was claimed  that the manifest victory achieved by Mirza was greater then the manifest victory of the holy Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). Thus Mirza said

“It is apparent that the time  of the manifest victory of  the era of the holy Prophet has expired, and the second victory which was to be  much greater and clearer then the first one had yet to be achieved. It was ordained that its time should fall during the times of the promised Masih”. (Khutbah-e-Ilahmiah, pp193-194(Khutbah-e-Ilahmiah; Roohani Khazain, vol.16, p.288) 

SO-CALLED BEGINNING AND  PERFECTION OF MIRZA’S SPIRITUAL EXCELLENCE

It was also claimed that the era of the  Makkan birth of the holy Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) was only the first step  in his progress of  spiritual attainments, whereas his Qadiani reincarnation represents the highest pinnacle of his spiritual development. Thus it is said:

“The spirituality of our holy Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) was conceived 5th thousand (i.e Makki birth) with its precise attributes  and that period was not the the climax of  his spirituality’s development. It was rather the first step  to the highest pinnacle of its perfection. Thereafter this spirituality manifested itself in its full glamour  during the 6th thousand [his rebirth in Qadian] at the present time”. (Khutba-e-llhamiah, p177; Roohani Khazain, Vol.16, p.266) 

THE SO CALLED SUPERIOR MENTAL DEVELOPMENT OF MIRZA

It is also claimed that the mental development of Mirza of Qadian was superior to that of the holy Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). Thus it is said:

“The mental development of the promised Masih (i.e. the Mirza of Qadian) was higher than that of the holy Prophet. And this  is only a part of the superiority which the promised Masih has over the holy Prophet.  The mental faculties of the holy Prophet could not manifest fully owing to the deficiency of civilization; although the ability existed. They have now manifested themselves fully through the promised Masih by virtue of the advancement of civilization.” (Review, May 1929, as cited in Qadiani Mazhab, p.266, ninth edition. Lahore) 

QADIANI KAFIRS TERM REClTERS OF KALIMAH OF  PROPHET MUHAMMAD (SALLALLAAHU ALAYHI WASALLAM) AS KAFIR(!)

When it is admitted, according to the  Qadiani belief, that the Qadiani Mirza is (God forbid) superior to Prophet Muhammad of Arabia (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  in dignity then it must also be necessary to believe that those who recite the Kalimah of the Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) are not Muslims. In other words. the Kalima e Tayyibah, (La Illaha Ill-lah, Muhammadur Rasoolullah), without belief in the Qadiani Mirza becomes false. Thus it is said:

“The point is now quite clear.  If it is ‘Kufr’  to deny the gracious Prophet it must also be ‘Kufr’  to deny the promised Masih, because the promised Masih is in no way a separate being from  the gracious Prophet; rather he  is the same  (Muhammad incarnate). If anyone is not deemed  a Kafir for denying the promised Masih, then anyone  else who denies the gracious Prophet also cannot be considered  a Kafir. How is it possible that denying him in his first birth as Prophet should be  regarded as Kufr, but denying him  in his (reincarnated) second birth as prophet should not be regarded as Kufr, when, as claimed by the promised Masih, his (Mirza’s as Muhammad incarnate) spiritual attainment is stronger, complete and severe.” (Kalimatul Fasl, pages 146-147, as cited in the Review of Religions, dated March-April 1915).
 
“Any person who believes in Moses but does not  believe in Christ, or believes in Christ but does not believe in Muhammad, or believes in Muhammad but does not believe in the promised Masih, is not only a Kafir, but a ‘pakka’ (confirmed) Kafir, and (he is) out of the fold of Islam.” (Kalimatul Fasl, page 110, by Mirza Bashir Ahmad, M.A.)  “The Ahmadi movement bears the same  relationship to Islam as Christianity bears to Judaism.” (Muhammad Ali Lahori Qadiani cited from  Mubahasah Rawalpindi, page 240).

  “All such Muslims as did not swear allegiance to  the promised Masih (Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian), even though  they did not hear the name  of the promised Masih, are Kafir and debarred from  the fold of Islam.” (Aiena-e-Sadaqat, page 35, by Mirza Mahmud Ahmad Qadiani). 

“It is incumbent upon us that we should not  regard non-Ahmadis as Muslims, nor should we offer prayers behind them, because according  to our belief they deny one of the prophets of Allah. This is a matter of faith  None has any discretion  in this.” (Anwar-eKhilafat, page 90, by Mahmud Ahmad Qadiani).

THE SO-CALLED QADIANI KUFRI KALIMAH

It also became  necessary in the Qadiani strategy  to include the Qadiani Mirza in the meaning of the Qadiani Kalimah: Thus it is said:

As a result of  the birth of the promised Masih (the  Qadiani Mirza) a difference has cropped up (in the meaning of the Kalimah). Before the birth of the promised Masih (the Qadiani Mirza) in the world as a prophet,  the words Muhammad ur Rasul Allah) included in their meaning only such prophets as had preceded him;  but after the incarnation of the promised Masih (the Qadiani Mirza) in the world as a prophet, one more prophet has been added to the meaning of Muhammad ur Rasul Allah. Therefore on account of the incarnation of the promised Masih the Kalimah, God forbid, does not become  abolished; it rather  shines more brightly. In short, the same  Kalimah is (effective) even now for embracing Islam,  with the only difference that  the incarnation of  the promised Masih (Mirza Qadiani) has added one more prophet to the meaning of Muhammad ur Rasul Allah”. (Kalimatul Fasl, page 158,  by Mirza Bashir Ahmad Qadiani). 

In short, the Qadiani Dajjali Religion has retained  the same words of the Kalimah but the Qadiani belief has changed the meaning of  the Kalimah. In the  Kalimah of  the Muslims Muhammad ur Rasul Allah means Muhammad of Arabia (SAW) but in the Qadiani Kalimah Muhammad ur Rasul Allah means  Mirza Qadiani as  Muhammad incarnate, reborn in the world as a prophet for  the second time. Thus it is said:

“Moreover, even if we accept by supposing the impossible that the  sacred  name  of the gracious Prophet has been included in the sacred Kalimah because he is the last  of the Prophets, even then there is no harm  and we do not need a new Kalimah because the promised Masih is not a separate entity from  the gracious Prophet as he (Mirza) himself says: “My being is exactly the being of  Muhammad ur Rasul Allah”. Also, “One who discriminates between me and Mustafa has neither recognized me  nor  seen me”. And the reason for this is Allah Almighty’s promise that He  would reincarnate “Khatam  un Nabieen” in this world once more as a prophet  as is evident from  the verse “And others of them… Thus  the promised Masih (Mirza of Qadian) is himself Muhammad ur Rasulullah, who has been incarnated  in the world  again to  spread Islam.  We do not, therefore, need any new Kalimah. Albeit, a new Kalimah would have been necessary, if some  other person had been reincarnated  instead of Muhammad ur Rasul Allah. So contemplate!” (Kalimatul Fasl, page 158). 

QADIANI DAJJALI BELIEF: PROPHETHOOD  OF MUHAMMAD STANDS ABROGATED AND HIS KALIMAH STANDS CANCELLED

A little thought on the above-cited passages  makes it quite clear that not only do the Qadianis consider Mirza Ghulam  Ahmad to  be a Prophet and Messenger (of Allah) but they also consider Mirza of Qadian a complete incarnation of Prophet Muhammad and as such recite his (Mirza’s) Kalimah. They consider  as Kafirs all those who recite the Kalimah of Muhammad of Arabia (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). This  proves that  for the Qadianis the Kalimah of the Holy Prophet Muhammad of Arabia (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) stands cancelled.  If we look more closely into the issue we shall find that according to  the Qadiani belief like that of the Bahai’s – the period of the Prophethood and Apostleship of Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) has expired and it stands repealed for all practical purposes, because according to  the Qadiani belief the basis of salvation lies in obeying the Qadiani Mirza only. So Mirza said:

 “Say to them: if you love God then come  and  obey me  so that God also may love you”. (Mirza Qadiani’s “revelation  as cited in Haqiqatul  Wahi, Page 79/82, Lahore, 1952; Roohani Khazain. Vol. 22, p. 82. Also see pages 46, 62, 81, 182, 205, 277, 360, 363, 378, 395, 495, 630, 634, in Tazkirah, 2nd Edition). 

“In Baraheen-e-Ahmadia, God has called me  by the name  of Ibrahim,  as He said: “This means: Salutation on Ibrahim  (i.e. this humble  man [Mirza]). We truly made friends with him  and saved him  from every sorrow. And O  ye  who follow, let the place of Ibrahim’s footsteps be the place of your prayers. That  is, obey completely so  that you may attain salvation.” (Arbaeen, Vol. 3, pp. 30-31; Roohani Khazain, Vol. 17, p. 420). 

“As regards the assertion  (verse from  Qur’an regarding Ibraheem)  this is a verse of the holy Quran. Here it means: Perform  your prayers  and hold beliefs on the pattern of Ibrahim (i.e. Mirza Qadiani) who has been sent,  and mould yourself on his model in every matter”. (Arbaeen, Vol. 3, p. 31; Roohani Khazain, Vol. 17, p.42).

“Similar is the verse (same verse quoted above)  which contains a hint that at a time when the Ummat-e-Muhammadia will  become  divided into many sects, then during the last era an Ibrahim  (i.e. Mirza Qadiani) will be born and out of all the sects, the sect which follows this Ibrahim,  (i.e. Mirza!), will be  saved”. (Arbaeen, Vol. 3, page 32; Roohani Khazain, Vol. 17, p. 4213. 

“My teachings contain orders as well as  prohibitions and renovation of important injunctions of the Shari’at. For this reason  God has named my teachings and the ‘wahi’ (revelation) that comes to me  as a ‘boat.  Thus see, God has declared my  ‘wahi’, my teachings and allegiance with me  to be Noah’s  Ark and the basis of salvation for all human beings. Let he who has eyes may see and he who has ears may hear.” (Arbaeen, Vol. 4, footnote of page 6;  Roohani Khazain, Vol. 17, p. 435). 

Thus obedience to Mirza Qadiani’s prophethood, teachings, ‘wahi’  and his renovated Shari’at is allegedly the only basis for salvation for all mankind. This only means, that the Shari’at of Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), his  teachings and wahi are no longer the basis of salvation. In other words, Mirza’s incarnation has rendered all truth of Islam as useless, suspended and abolished for Qadiani Dajjali religion!

THE PRE MIRZA ISLAM IS THE ‘DEAD RELIGION

The above-cited quotations confirm  beyond a shadow of doubt that in the opinion of the Qadianis, lslam  without the Qadiani  Mirza is dead. So it is said: 

“Probably in the year 1906, at the proposal  of Khwaja Kamaluddin, Moulvi Muhammad Ali entered into an agreement with the Editor of Akhbar-e-Watan to  the effect that the Review of Religions would publish no articles about the (Qadiani) sect; it would only publish general articles on Islam  and the Editor of the Watan would propagate in his paper for the assistance of the Journal,  Review of Religions. The promised Masih disapproved this proposal and it  was strongly opposed by the  Jamaat also. Hazrat Sahib said: ‘Will you present dead Islam  before the world by excluding me?” (Zikr-e-Habib by Mufti Muhammad Sadiq Qadiani page 146, First Edition, Qadian). 

“We believe that a religion which does not have the chain of prophethood (as in Islam– Compiler) is a dead religion. We  call the religions of the Jews, the Christians and the Hindus dead  only because now there are no prophets in them. If this were the position in Islam  too, we would be no more than mere story-tellers. Why do we regard it superior to other religions?  It must have some  distinction”. (Malfoozat-e-Mirza, Vol. 10, page 127). 

“During the lifetime of the promised Masih  (Mirza Qadiani Dajjal), at the proposal of Moulvi Muhammad Ali and Khwaja Kamaluddin, the  Editor of Akhbar-e-Watan started a fundcollecting scheme  in 1905 for  the purpose of sending copies of the Review of Religions to foreign countries, on the condition that it should not contain the name  of the promised Masih (Mirza Qadiani). But ‘hazrate aqdas’  (Mirza Qadiani) rejected  this proposal saying:
Will you present dead Islam  by excluding me?’  Thereupon, the Editor Watan announced the closure of this fund-collecting scheme”. (Al-Fazl, Qadian, Vol. 16, No. 32, dated 19th  October, 1928, as cited  in Qadiani Mazhab, pages 461-462). 

QADIANIS DENOUNCE ISLAM AS  THE ‘CURSED, SATANIC AND CONTEMIBLE RELIGION (Na’audhubillah)

According to the Qadiani belief, the Religion  of Islam,  without the prophet hood of Mirza Qadiani dajjal, is only a ‘collection of  tales’, it is  a ‘cursed, satanic and contemptible religion’. 

“That religion is no religion and that prophet is no  prophet by following whom  a man does not come  so close to God as to be  honoured with divine conversation (i.e. Prophethood  – Compiler). That religion is cursed and contemptible which  teaches that human progress depends only on a few narrated anecdotes (i.e. the Shari’at-eMuhammadia  which is narrated from the  holy Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) – Compiler) and that the ‘wahi’  has lagged behind instead of going ahead …….. Hence such a religion deserves to be called satanic rather than divine.” (i.e.accordinb to Shaitan Qadiani, Islam is, God forbid, Satanic – Translator). (Zamima-e-Baraheen-e-Ahmadia, Part V, pages 138-139; Roohani Khazain, Vol. 21, p. 306). 

QADIANI  ARROGANCE

“How absurd and false it is to believe that  after the holy Prophet  the door of the divine ‘wahi’ has been closed for ever and there is no hope of it in the future till the Day of Resurrection – only worship tales. Can a  religion having no direct trace of Almighty Allah be called a religion?  I say, by Almighty God, that in this age there is no one more disgusted than myself  with  such a religion. (There is no  doubt about this.- Compiler). I name  such a religion as satanic religion, not  divine (religion)”. (Zamima-e-Braheen-eAhmadia, Part V, page 183;  Roohani Khazain, Vol. 21, p. 354). 

The above-cited incontrovertible proofs  indicate beyond the slightest doubt that Qadianism  is an entirely different religion from  Islam.  The reality of the Qadiani religion is that if you  accept the Qadiani Mirza (Dajjal) as  Prophet then it is all  right, otherwise the Religion of Islam  is abused as being dead, cursed, satanic and contemptible, and the Prophethood and Apostleship of Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) too is denied. May not Almighty Allah deprive anyone of Wisdom and Guidance

******************************

* The Word ‘Dajjal’, meaning a deceiver, is added by me.