Talhah bin al-Baraa: A Young Boy Who Kissed the Prophet's Feet

 بِسۡمِ اللّٰہِ الرَّحۡمٰنِ الرَّحِیۡمِ 

In the Name of Allah, the Rahman, the Merciful

الصلاة والسلام عليك يا سيدي يا رسول الله

The Companions of the Holy Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, were extremely devoted to him and would unhesitatingly obey his every command.

One of his Companions was Talhah bin al-Baraa, may Allah be pleased with him, a young boy who died of illness shortly after encountering the Holy Prophet, peace be upon him. When he met his Master, he immediately kissed his feet:

أَنَّ طَلْحَةَ بْنَ الْبَرَاءِ لَمَّا لَقِيَ النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فَجَعَلَ يَلْصَقُ بِرَسُولِ اللهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ وَيُقَبِّلُ قَدَمَيْهِ فَقَالَ يَا رَسُولَ اللهِ مُرْنِي بِمَا أَحْبَبْتَ لَا أَعْصِي لَكَ أَمْرًا فَضَحِكَ لِذَلِكَ رَسُولُ اللهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ وَهُوَ غُلَامٌ حَدَثٌ فَقَالَ لَهُ عِنْدَ ذَلِكَ اذْهَبِ اذْهَبْ فَاقْتُلْ أَبَاكَ قَالَ فَخَرَجَ مُوَلِّيًا لِيَفْعَلَ فَدَعَاهُ النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فَقَالَ  إِنِّي لَمْ أُبْعَثْ بِقَطِيعَةِ رَحِمٍ

When Talhah bin al-Baraa met the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم he began to cling to the Apostle of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم and kiss his feet. He said, “O Apostle of Allah! Order me with what you love, I shall not disobey your command.” So the Apostle of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم began to laugh at that, as he [Talhah] was a young boy, so he said to him, “Go, go, kill your father!” So he [Talhah] went out to do that, but the Apostle of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم summoned him back and said, “Verily, I have not been sent to cut the ties of kinship.” (Ma’rifat us-Sahabah li-Abi Nu’aym; p.842, #2203, p.1552, #3930)

The Holy Prophet, peace be upon him, tested the loyalty and devotion that Talhah bin al-Baraa apparently expressed, to determine if it was substantive and not merely performative. Otherwise, he did not really intend for Talhah bin al-Baraa to kill his father.

That this young boy Talhah was unhesitating and willing to act on the Prophet’s initial order to kill his own father demonstrated his perfect faith, reflecting the submissiveness of Abraham and Isaac and their perfect faith.

This episode also proves the Sunni Islamic practice of kissing the feet of the Holy Prophet, peace be upon him, and by extension, it being permissible to kiss the feet of pious and saintly Muslims.

Martyrdom of Yahya (John the Baptist) and its Reason

 بِسۡمِ اللّٰہِ الرَّحۡمٰنِ الرَّحِیۡمِ 

In the Name of Allah, the Rahman, the Merciful

الصلاة والسلام عليك يا سيدي يا رسول الله

The great Prophet John the Baptist, called Yahya in the Holy Quran, was undoubtedly one of those Prophets who was murdered by the Jews. Allah says:

قُلۡ فَلِمَ تَقۡتُلُوۡنَ اَنۡۢبِیَآءَ اللّٰہِ مِنۡ قَبۡلُ اِنۡ کُنۡتُمۡ مُّؤۡمِنِیۡنَ

Say [My beloved Muhammad], “So why did you kill Prophets of Allah from before if you are Believers?”

(Surah 2, Ayah 91)

History bears witness that John the Baptist was not only a historical individual, but that he was martyred at the hand of the evil King Herod Antipas. This fact is recorded by Flavius Josephus in addition to being recorded in the Gospels.

Commenting on the crushing defeat of Herod’s army in a battle against the Nabatean king Aretas IV Philopatris which happened in 36 CE, Josephus says:

“Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod’s army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness. Now when [many] others came in crowds about him, for they were very greatly moved [or pleased] by hearing his words, Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion, [for they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise,] thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it would be too late. Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod’s suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death. Now the Jews had an opinion that the destruction of this army was sent as a punishment upon Herod, and a mark of God’s displeasure to him.” (Antiquities of the Jews; Book XVIII, Chapter 5:2)

John the Baptist was a Jewish prophet in 1st century CE. The Holy Quran names him Yahya, which may possibly correspond to the name Jehiah. This is an extremely rare name in the Bible, mentioned only once as the name of one of the Levites assigned to guard the Ark (1 Chronicles 15:24).

John the Baptist was the son of Zechariah, a priest and prophet of God. According to the Gospel of Luke, Elizabeth was his mother and named him John, but the people were surprised and claimed no one had this name among her relatives (Luke 1:61). Yet, among the Kohens or Jewish priestly caste the name John was quite common, and among Jews in general was one of the top most common names.

The Holy Quran, however, says that his actual name was Yahya, and that none were divinely bestowed this name before him:

اسْمُهُ يَحْيَىٰ لَمْ نَجْعَل لَّهُ مِن قَبْلُ سَمِيًّا

His name is Yahya, for whom We did not make for anyone before [this] name

(Surah 19, Ayah 7)

Both the Gospels and Josephus serve to attest that John the Baptist was known for his prophetic ministry focusing on baptism. In addition, the Gospels describe him as a prophet in the mould of Elijah: “And the same John had his raiment of camel’s hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins; and his meat was locusts and wild honey.” (Matthew 3:4; Mark 1:6)

John the Baptist almost certainly adapted the clothing style and lifestyle associated with the earlier great Prophet Elijah, who “wore a garment of hair, with a belt of leather about his waist” (2 Kings 1:8)

Even the choice of location for John the Baptist, who baptized people in the wilderness by the River Jordan, was in following the footsteps, quite literally, of Elijah who was instructed by God, “Get thee hence, and turn thee eastward, and hide thyself by the brook Cherith, that is before Jordan” (1 Kings 17:3)

But why was Yahya—John the Baptist—executed by Herod Antipas? According to the Gospels, he condemned Herod Antipas for having married his half brother’s (Herod II Boethus) wife, Herodias.

According to the Mosaic Law, it is forbidden for a man to marry his brother’s wife (Leviticus 18:16; 20:21), even if he divorces her or dies. The only exception is a levirate marriage (Deuteronomy 25:5), in which a man marries his brother’s widow if the brother died childless. 

Therefore, John the Baptist condemned Herod Antipas for having married his brother’s wife Herodias when his brother was still alive, “For Herod himself had sent forth and laid hold upon John, and bound him in prison for Herodias’ sake, his brother Philip’s wife: for he had married her. For John had said unto Herod, It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother’s wife” (Mark 6:17-18)

Interestingly, it seems the author of Mark’s Gospel confused Philip the Tetrarch with Herod II, the actual half brother of Herod that was married to Herodias. Philip the Tetrarch was never married to Herodias, so this appears to be yet another error in the Christian Bible.

Yet it seems to me that while the Mosaic Law generally forbids marrying the ex-wife of one’s brother, the real reason John the Baptist condemned Herod Antipas for marrying Herodias was because she was still married to his brother, Herod II, and a valid divorce had not occurred between them. Herodias simply abandoned her husband and eloped with his half brother Herod Antipas, as Josephus says:

“However, he fell in love with Herodias, this last Herod’s wife, who was the daughter of Aristobulus their brother, and the sister of Agrippa the Great. This man ventured to talk to her about a marriage between them; which address, when she admitted, an agreement was made for her to change her habitation, and come to him as soon as he should return from Rome.” (Antiquities of the Jews, Book XVIII, Chapter 5:1) 

Therefore, the union between Herod Antipas and Herodias was adulterous and this is the real reason it was condemned by John the Baptist, who continued to recognize Herodias as the legal wife of Herod II and not a divorced woman, “It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother's wife” (Mark 6:18)

It is noteworthy that Herodias was the niece of the brothers Herod Antipas and Herod Boethus, being the daughter of their brother Aristobulus IV, all three being sons of Herod the Great, but by different mothers. While avunculate marriage between a man and his niece is lawful in the Mosaic Law, it is expressly prohibited in the Islamic Shariah. So the marriage between Herodias with her paternal uncle Herod II would not have been licit had it occurred in this dispensation.

When John the Baptist blasted Herod Antipas for his illicit relationship with Herodias, the latter was incensed and desired to have the Prophet killed. She conspired with her daughter, Salome, to achieve this evil objective. After performing an erotic dance for the entertainment of Herod Antipas and his guests, the Jewish King asked her to name anything she desired as a gift from him to her, at which point she asked for the head of John the Baptist. 

The Sahabah and Salaf confirmed that the Prophet Yahya—John the Baptist—was martyred for the sake of an immoral woman. Hence, Asma bint Abi Bakr, may Allah be pleased with her, said on the occasion of the martyrdom by crucifixion of her son Abdullah bin al-Zubayr, may Allah be pleased with him: 

 مَا يَمْنَعُنِي مِنَ الصَّبْرِ وَقَدْ أُهْدِيَ رَأْسُ يَحْيَى بْنُ زَكَرِيَّا إِلَى بَغِيٍّ مِنْ بَغَايَا بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ 

“What prevents me from patience when the head of Yahya son of Zakariyya was gifted to the immoral woman from the immoral women of the Children of Israel.” (Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah; v.6, p.202, #30674)

Urwah bin al-Zubayr narrates:

مَا قُتِلَ يَحْيَى بْنُ زَكَرِيَّا إِلَّا فِي امْرَأَةٍ بَغِيٍّ قَالَتْ لِصَاحِبِهَا لَا أَرْضَى عَنْكَ حَتَّى تَأْتِيَنِي بِرَأْسِهِ قَالَ فَذَبَحَهُ فَأَتَاهَا بِرَأْسِهِ فِي طَشْتٍ

“Yahya son of Zakariyya was not killed except for an immoral woman who said to her companion, ‘I will not be pleased with you until you bring me his head.’ So he slaughtered him and gave her his head in a dish.” (Ibid; v.6, p.345, #31905)

Role of Pir of Golra in Cleansing West Punjab

 بِسۡمِ اللّٰہِ الرَّحۡمٰنِ الرَّحِیۡمِ 

In the Name of Allah, the Rahman, the Merciful

الصلاة والسلام عليك يا سيدي يا رسول الله

The establishment of Pakistan was one of the greatest blessings from Allah to the Muslims in the 20th century. It was also a testament to the brilliance and foresight of the Qaid-i-Azam, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, and those eminent gentlemen under his superb leadership who assisted him in the noble cause.

Credit should especially be given to the spiritual leaders of the Muslims at the time; the Sunni Ulama, the Sufi Mashayikh and Sajjadah Nashins. Men like Pir Jamaat Ali Shah, Pir of Golra Ghulam Muhiuddin Gilani s/o Pir Mehr Ali Shah, Pir of Sial Khwaja Qamaruddin Sialawi, Pir of Sarsina Nitharuddin Ahmad, Pir of Manki Amin ul-Hasanat, Allamah Abd ul-Alim Siddiqi, Allamah Abd ul-Hamid Badayuni, Mawlana Naimuddin Muradabadi and many others.

However, once the movement to establish Pakistan had succeeded, there was still work to be done to ensure its cohesion and future persistence. The areas of West Punjab, Sindh, NWFP and East Bengal were secured for Pakistan. Yet, there were millions of Hindus and Sikhs inhabiting these areas. Their continued presence in Pakistan after its establishment could potentially and likely pose a major threat to the cohesion and persistence of Pakistan. 

Naturally, they could not be expected to remain loyal to a State that was established exclusively for Muslims to fulfill their separate destiny and as a means of deliverance from the tyranny of brute majoritarianism of the Hindu. Thus, any reasonable person would conclude that at that critical juncture in history it was necessary to drive out the millions of non-Muslims from the areas that would compose the future Pakistan to ensure its cohesion and persistence.

Failure to do so would almost certainly have resulted in a dreadful civil war, or at the very least never ending communal strife and riots. The project of Pakistan’s Islamization would surely have been obstructed too—compelling it to be a secular state appeasing every whim and fancy of the large and powerful minorities it would host. The very purpose of Pakistan’s establishment would have been defeated.

With this in mind, the Muslims of West Punjab, especially its northern Potohar region, began a campaign to cleanse the area of Hindus and Sikhs in March 1947—about five months prior to Pakistan and India officially gaining independence. With the presence of lacs of well-armed Hindus and Sikhs concentrated in the city of Rawalpindi it was a tough battle but eventually the Muslims succeeded in cleansing the area. Credit must be given to the Muslim National Guard, the quasi-paramilitary wing of the Muslim League.

If anyone argues that this was all immoral and forbidden from a religious perspective, then know that the Pir of Golra, Ghulam Muhiuddin Gilani—may Allah have mercy on him—spearheaded this movement of ethnic cleansing of Hindus and Sikhs from Potohar through his charismatic influence over the Muslims of the region.

Hence, according to a report written shortly after the 1947 Partition violence, published by the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee, the Pir of Golra incited his followers from the countryside to descend upon Rawalpindi and participate in the cleansing of that city of Hindus and Sikhs, “Then a huge Muslim mob from the countryside, incited for attack on Hindu and Sikhs by the Pir of Golra, a Muslim religious head and leader of this area, fell upon the town.” (Muslim League Attack on Sikhs and Hindus in the Punjab 1947, p.78)

Although this report made by the Sikhs in the aftermath of the Partition violence is extremely biased, and much of its account of the violence allegedly perpetrated by Muslims in the Punjab during those days should be considered unreliable information, I believe It is to the credit of the holy Pir of Golra that he incited the ethnic cleansing of Potohar region to help ensure the future cohesion and persistence of Pakistan. 

Tragically, as a consequence of this campaign, the Sikhs in particular reacted viciously in East Punjab, where they butchered hundreds of thousands of innocent Muslims. The number of Muslims killed overall in the Partition violence of Punjab exceeded the combined total of the killings of Hindus and Sikhs.

This is because on the Muslim side in West Punjab the goal was not necessarily to kill non-Muslims but only to drive them out from the area that would come to compose Pakistan, whereas for the furious Sikhs of East Punjab they were only interested in revenge and wanted to kill as many Muslims as they could, rather than merely allow them to flee to Pakistan. 

Some therefore argue that it was wrong for the Muslims to have initiated the violence in 1947, not merely a stance they take based on some moral principle, but also because those Muslims should have anticipated that an equal if not worse fate would be in store for their brethren in Hindu and Sikh dominated areas of Punjab and elsewhere.

But I say that the martyrdom of those hundreds of thousands of Muslims in East Punjab was a necessary sacrifice, and their blood paved the way for the establishment and cohesion of Pakistan. An immense exchange of populations was absolutely necessary to solidify the Muslim majority in Pakistan. Had there been no reaction of the Sikhs in East Punjab, perhaps millions of Muslims in that region would have been content to stay put, thus depriving Pakistan of the needed numbers to cement its foundation. Forcing a mass exodus of Muslims in East Punjab to Pakistan was a positive side effect of the campaign in West Punjab to cleanse it of Hindus and Sikhs.

Before the establishment of Pakistan, the Muslims of Punjab were often saddled with debt owed to ruthless Hindu and Sikh moneylenders. The economic condition of the Muslims was miserable, while Hindus dominated the banking sector and Sikhs disproportionately owned much of the land upon which Muslim peasants toiled for them.

Today, the Republic of India, secular in name only, has become a de facto Hindu Rashtra and Ram Rajya. It is a living nightmare for the hundreds of millions of Muslims who reside within its borders. They are, for all intents and purposes, second class citizens. Kashmir, a Muslim majority state which rightfully belongs to Pakistan, is under the heaviest and one of the most brutal military occupations known to the world.

The principal factor behind the current atmosphere of Islamophobia and Hindu chauvinism in modern-day India is the RSS and its ideology animating the BJP, Modi government. But prior to independence, the RSS was quite active in much of the area that now composes Pakistan. This militant organization since its founding was committed to the extermination of Islam and Muslims from the entirety of the Subcontinent. After the militant Akalis, it was the RSS that played the biggest role in organizing and enacting violence against Muslims in 1947.

The RSS is modeled after fascist parties that emerged in Italy and Germany in the early 20th century. Another such party that emerged prior to the RSS was the Hindu Mahasabha, which was also quite active in pre-Partition Punjab. 

The roots of Hindu communalism and the call for a Hindu Rashtra which sprouted in the Hindu Mahasabha can be traced back to late 19th century Hindu reformism and revivalism, specifically the Arya Samaj sect. Beginning as an intellectual and polemical trend to promote Vedic Hinduism over Islam and Christianity, it rapidly evolved into a political ambition to establish a Hindu religious state in India, in which Muslims would be subjugated and eventually eliminated.

By the grace of Allah, the emergence of the Pakistan Movement in the 1940s effectively thwarted the diabolical project of Hindu Rashtra and Akhand Bharat, delivering at least two-thirds of the Subcontinent’s Muslims from such a subjugation.

Shia Say Sixth Imam Committed Adultery!

 بِسۡمِ اللّٰہِ الرَّحۡمٰنِ الرَّحِیۡمِ 

In the Name of Allah, the Rahman, the Merciful

الصلاة والسلام عليك يا سيدي يا رسول الله

Twelver Shiites believe the Twelve Imams are infallible—incapable of committing any sin or error. Yet, according to their own literature, Imam Ja’far al-Sadiq committed adultery with the slave-girl of his wife, Umm Isma’il.

In Twelver Shiism, having sex with the slave-girl of one’s wife without her permission is considered adultery. Hence, in the compendium known as Wasa’il al-Shi’ah, compiled by the famous Shiite scholar, al-Hurr al-Amili, under the chapter heading:

باب أن من زنى بجارية زوجته فعليه الرجم مع الاحصان وكذا لو زنى بكافرة وكذا لو وطأ أمته بعدما زوجها

“The One Who Commits Zina With His Wife’s Slave Girl, Upon Him Is The Hadd Of Stoning If He Is Muhsan, And Likewise If He Does Zina With A Non-Muslim Woman, And Likewise If He Has Intercourse With His Own Slave Girl After Having Her Married Off”

there is the following narration:

عن زكريا بن آدم قال سألت الرضا عليه السلام عن رجل وطأ جارية امرأته ولم تهبها له قال هو زان عليه الرجم

From Zakariyya bin Adam, who said: I asked al-Rida, peace be upon him, about a man who had intercourse with his wife’s slave girl without her having gifted her to him. He said: “He is an adulterer, upon him is stoning.” (Wasa’il al-Shi’ah; v.28, pp.79-80)

Now that we have established that it is considered adultery for a man to have intercourse with his wife’s slave-girl without her permission or her having gifted her to him, let us read an incident involving the Sixth Imam, Ja’far al-Sadiq, in a Shiite Hadith:

روى ذلك الحسين بن سعيد عن النضر عن هشام بن سالم عن محمد بن مسلم قال دخلت على أبي عبد الله عليه‌السلام فسطاطه وهو يكلم امرأة فأبطأت عليه فقال ادنه هذه أم إسماعيل جاءت وأنا ازعم ان هذا المكان الذي احبط الله فيه حجها عام أول كنت أردت الاحرام فقلت ضعوا لي الماء في الخبأ فذهبت الجارية بالماء فوضعته فاستخففتها فأصبت منها فقلت اغسلي رأسك وامسحيه مسحا شديدا لا تعلم به مولاتك فإذا أردت الاحرام فاغسلي جسدك ولا تغسلي رأسك فتستريب مولاتك فدخلت فسطاط مولاتها فذهبت تتناول شيئا فمست مولاتها رأسها فإذا لزوجة الماء فحلقت رأسها وضربتها فقلت : لها هذا المكان الذي احبط الله فيه حجك

This was narrated by al-Husayn bin Sa’id, on the authority of al-Nadr, on the authority of Hisham bin Salim, on the authority of Muhammad bin Muslim, who said: I entered upon Abu Abd Allah peace be upon him in his tent while he was speaking to a woman. She was delayed in approaching him, so he said: “Come closer. This is Umm Isma’il. She has come, and I believe that this is the place where Allah nullified her Hajj. Last year, I intended to enter into the state of Ihram, so I said, ‘Put water in the tent for me.’ The servant girl took the water and put it down, and I took advantage of her and had relations with her. I said, ‘Wash your head and wipe it thoroughly so that your mistress does not notice. When you intend to enter into the state of Ihram, wash your body but do not wash your head, lest your mistress become suspicious.’ She entered her mistress’s tent and went to get something. Her mistress touched her head and found wetness, so she shaved her head and struck her. I said to her, ‘This is the place where Allah nullified your Hajj.’” (al-Istibsar, v.1, p.72)

This narration is shocking and disturbing, for according to it the Sixth Imam had intercourse with the slave-girl of his wife, Umm Isma’il, behind her back and then instructed the slave-girl to dry her head properly after taking the required ritual bath for purification after intercourse, so that his wife would not suspect that she had intercourse with him!

But as it turns out, Umm Isma’il determined that her slave-girl had taken the ritual bath required after intercourse for purification after sensing some moisture upon her head, and flew into a rage, by beating the slave-girl and shaving her head!

Jesus Buried Next to Prophet Muhammad ﷺ

 بِسۡمِ اللّٰہِ الرَّحۡمٰنِ الرَّحِیۡمِ 

In the Name of Allah, the Rahman, the Merciful

الصلاة والسلام عليك يا سيدي يا رسول الله

Believing Muslims eagerly await the second coming of the Messiah Jesus, peace be upon him, and know that as a mortal man he too shall pass away. According to the Hadith, the Messiah Jesus shall be buried next to the Holy Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, in Medina.

Hence, the eminent companion, Abdullah bin Salam, may Allah be pleased with him, said:

مَكْتُوبٌ فِي التَّوْرَاةِ صِفَةُ مُحَمَّدٍ وَعِيسَى ابْنِ مَرْيَمَ يُدْفَنُ مَعَهُ

“The description of Muhammad is written in the Torah, and Jesus son of Mary will be buried with him.”

Commenting on this, the narrator Abu Mawdud, Abd al-Aziz bin Abi Sulayman al-Hudhali, says:

وَقَدْ بَقِيَ فِي الْبَيْتِ مَوْضِعُ قَبْرٍ

“And there remains in the house space for a grave” (Jami al-Tirmidhi, #3617)

Darus Salam, in collaboration with Zubair Ali Zai, graded this narration hasan (sound):

So presently, the blessed garden in which the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, is buried, which was the chamber of his wife Aishah, may Allah be pleased with her, contains three occupied graves and just enough space for a fourth grave which is where the Messiah shall be buried.

According to a weak Hadith, the Prophet, peace be upon him, is reported to have said:

يَنْزِلُ عِيسَى بن مَرْيَمَ إِلَى الْأَرْضِ فَيَتَزَوَّجُ وَيُولَدُ لَهُ وَيَمْكُثُ خَمْسًا وَأَرْبَعِينَ سَنَةً ثُمَّ يَمُوتُ فَيُدْفَنُ مَعِي فِي قَبْرِي فأقوم أَنا وَعِيسَى بن مَرْيَمَ فِي قَبْرٍ وَاحِدٍ بَيْنَ أَبَى بَكْرٍ وَعُمَرَ

“Jesus, son of Mary, will descend to Earth, marry, have children, and live for forty-five years. Then he will die and be buried with me in my grave. So I and Jesus son of Mary will rise from a single grave between Abu Bakr and Umar.” (Mishkat al-Masabih; Kitab al-Fitan, #5508)

Qadianis, who deny the physical and literal second coming of the Messiah Jesus, object to this Hadith, saying that it necessitates the exhuming of the Prophet Muhammad’s grave in order to bury Jesus with him. Such an exhumation would obviously be sacrilegious. 

They argue that the wording of the Hadith “buried with me in my grave” can only mean that Jesus will be buried in the personal grave of the Prophet Muhammad and not buried in a grave next to his grave.

However, such an interpretation of the Hadith is wrong. The term grave does not encompass merely the area in which the body is buried but would also include the area in its immediate vicinity.

Hence, Allah says:

وَلَا تُصَلِّ عَلٰۤی اَحَدٍ مِّنۡہُمۡ مَّاتَ اَبَدًا وَّلَا تَقُمۡ عَلٰی قَبۡرِہٖ

And pray not over any of them who dies, ever, nor stand upon his grave

(Surah 9, Ayah 84)

This blessed Ayah was revealed concerning the chief of the hypocrites, Ibn Ubayy. The implication is that while it is forbidden to stand upon the grave of an unbeliever or a hypocrite in order to pray for his or her forgiveness, the inverse is that it desirable to do so in the case of a Believer.

However, the literal translation of the Ayah is “nor stand on his grave”. Yet, the Prophet peace be upon him would not have stood directly upon the grave under which the corpse was buried, but here to “stand on his grave” would mean to stand next to the grave. It is in fact forbidden in the Shari’ah to stand or sit directly upon any grave.