Ahl al Hadith Muhaddith Proves Two Sendings of Prophet (Alaihis salam) from Quran Surah Jumuah

The great scholar and Muhaddith of the Ahl al Hadith school, Muhammad b. Abdur Rahman al-Mubarakfuri (d. 1483 H), in explaining the verse of the Holy Qur'an

وَّ اٰخَرِیۡنَ مِنۡہُمۡ لَمَّا یَلۡحَقُوۡا بِہِمۡ ؕ وَ ہُوَ الۡعَزِیۡزُ الۡحَکِیۡمُ

“And others among them who have not met them. And He (Allah) is the Mighty, the Wise.” (Surah 62:3)

The Muhaddith explains the verse as indicating that the Prophet (Sallallaho alaihi wasallam) has been sent with two sendings, one sending (بعث) to the Ummiyyeen, meaning the unlettered Arabs among whom the Prophet (Sallallaho alaihi wasallam) was born and raised, and a second seconding to the Akhireen, meaning those people who will come after during the latter days, particularly the non-Arabs. Mubarakfuri writes:

قوله وآخرين منهم

مَجْرُورٌ عَطْفًا عَلَى الْأُمِّيِّينَ أَيْ بَعَثَهُ فِي الْأُمِّيِّينَ الَّذِينَ عَلَى عَهْدِهِ وَبَعَثَهُ فِي آخَرِينَ مِنْهُمْ

meaning that the “Akhireen” are in addition and continuation of what has been said about the Ummiyyeen. That is, the Prophet (Sallallaho alaihi wasallam) has been sent among the Ummiyyeen who were in his time, and he has been sent among the Akhireen from among them.

Al-Mubarakfuri, like many other commentators and scholars, has affirmed the fact that this passage of the Holy Quran proves a sort of second coming or sending of the Prophet (Sallallaho alaihi wasallam) in the latter days but in a metaphoric sense. This fact is further elucidated by the authentic Hadith about faith being brought back from the Pleiades by a man from the people of Salman al-Farisi (R.A).

Reference: Tuhfat al-Ahwadhi; v.9, p.209

 

Ahl-i-Hadith Maulana Muhammad Hussain Batalwi Praise of Hadrat Mirza sahib and Affirmation of His Ilham

The student of Allama Nadhir Hussain of Delhi, Ahl-i-Hadith scholar Maulana Muhammad Hussain Batalawi (1840-1920), was a bitter opponent of Hadrat Mirza sahib after the latter claimed to be the Promised Messiah and Mahdi. However, it is worth mentioning that before Hadrat Mirza announced such claims about himself on the basis of divine inspiration, Maulana Muhammad Hussain Batalawi praised him excessively for having rendered incomparable services to Islam, and additionally praised his personal character and morals. Batalawi wrote:ہ

ہماری نظر میں یہ کتاب اس زمانہ میں اور موجودہ حالات کی نظرسے ایسی کتاب ہے جس کی نظیر آج تک اسلام میں تالیف نہیں ہوئی ۔۔۔ اور اس کا مو ء لف بھی اسلام کی مالی و جانی و قلمی ولسانی و حالی و قالی نصرت میں ایسا ثابت قدم نکلا ہے جس کی نظیر پہلے مسلمانوں میں بہت ہی کم پائی جاتی ہے ۔ ہمارے ان الفاظ کو کوئی ایشیائی مبالغہ سمجھے تو ہم کو کم سے کم ایک کتاب بتادے جس میں جملہ فرقہ ہائے مخالفین اسلام خصوصاً آریہ و برہم سماج سے اس زور شورسے مقابلہ پایا جاتا ہو اور دو چار ایسے اشخاص انصار اسلام کی نشاندہی کرے جنہوں نے اسلام کی نصرت مالی وجانی و قلمی و لسانی کے علاوہ حالی نصرت کا بھی بیڑہ اٹھالیا ہو اور مخالفین اسلام اور منکرین الہام کے مقابلہ میں مردانہ تحدّی کے ساتھ یہ دعویٰ کیا ہو کہ جسکو وجود الہام کا شک ہو وہ ہمارے پاس آکر اس کا تجربہ و مشاھدہ کر لے اور اس تجربہ ومشاھدہ کا اقوام غیر کو مزہ بھی چکہا دیا ہو۔

Translation: "In our opinion this book, at this time and in view of the present circumstances, is such that the like of it has not appeared in Islam up to now, while nothing can be said about the future. Its author too has been so constant in the service of Islam, with his money, life, pen and tongue, and personal experience, that very few parallels can be found in the Muslims. If anyone considers our words to be an Asian exaggeration, let him show us at least one such book which so vigorously fights all the opponents of Islam, especially the Arya and Brahamo Samaj, and let him name two or three persons who have supported Islam, not only with their wealth, lives, pen and tongue, but also by personal spiritual experience, and who have boldly thrown the challenge to all the opponents of Islam and the deniers of Divine revelation, that whoever doubts the truth of God speaking to man, he may come and observe it for himself, thus giving other religions a taste of this experience."

Reference: (Isha`at as-Sunna, vol.7, no.6, June to August 1884, pp. 169-170)

Hanafis attribute Durr al Mukhtar to Allah!

Hanafis Attribute the Book “Durr al Mukhtar” to Prophet Muhammad (Sallallaho alaihi wasallam), Angel Gabriel, and Allah!

فَوَیۡلٌ لِّلَّذِیۡنَ یَکۡتُبُوۡنَ الۡکِتٰبَ بِاَیۡدِیۡہِمۡ ٭ ثُمَّ یَقُوۡلُوۡنَ ہٰذَا مِنۡ عِنۡدِ اللّٰہِ لِیَشۡتَرُوۡا بِہٖ ثَمَنًا قَلِیۡلًا ؕ فَوَیۡلٌ لَّہُمۡ مِّمَّا کَتَبَتۡ اَیۡدِیۡہِمۡ وَ وَیۡلٌ لَّہُمۡ مِّمَّا یَکۡسِبُوۡنَ

(Surah 2:79)

The shameless Hanafis themselves fabricated the text of the jurisprudential work known as Durr al-Mukhtar. But in the introduction of this book, its Sanad (chain of narrators) is given, reaching up to the Prophet (Sallallaho alaihi wasallam) through his companion Abdullah b. Mas'ud (Radiyallaho anho). And the Sanad includes Allah Himself, meaning the book is attributed to Allah, as narrated by Angel Gabriel!

عن عبد الله بن مسعود رضي الله تعالى عنه, عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم عن أمين الوحي جبريل عليه السلام, عن الحكم العدل جلّ جلاله وتقدست أسماؤه

Translation: “[this text] is narrated from Abdullah b. Mas'ud (may Allah be pleased with him), from the Prophet (Sallallaho alaihi wasallam), from the trustworthy harbinger of Revelation angel Gabriel peace be upon him, from Al-Hakam [Allah] the Just, Jalla Jalaaluhu, hallowed be His Names.”

Reference: Radd ul Muhtar; v.1 p.74

Barelwi Belief: Yaahowa is the Greatest Name of Allah

The leader and founder of the Barelwi sect, so called “Alaa Hazrat” Ahmad Reza Khan of Bareilly, declares that one of the Names of Allah – in fact His Ism al-Azam (Greatest Name) is ياهو (Yaahowa)

Reference: Shama Shabistan e Raza; part 2, p.46

 

Who was the FIRST Prophet?

Who was the First Prophet?

I have cited literally dozens of Islamic references on my blog proving that the reality of Khatam an-Nabuwwah is that no prophet can come after our beloved Prophet Muhammad (Sallallaho alaihi wasallam) who does not conform to his Shari'ah and does not belong to his Ummah. But leaving aside the issue of who is the Last Prophet for the time being, let us turn to an intimately related question, which is: “Who was the First Prophet?”

If you are a Muslim reading this, the answer has already surfaced in your mind that the first prophet was Adam (peace be upon him). Of course you would not be incorrect. But the fact that the Holy Quran does not explicitly state that Adam was a Nabi or Rasul has resulted in a difference of opinion among some of the scholars and schools of thought. For example, Imam Ibn Kathir cites in his monumental Tafsir the view of Ibn Abbas, Mujahid and Qatadah (may Allah be pleased with them):

فكان أول نَبى بعث نوحاً

“The first prophet to be sent was Noah”

فبعث الله إليهم نوحا, عليه السلام, فكان أول رسول بعثه الله إلى أهل الأرض

“Allah sent unto them Noah, peace be upon him, so he was the first Messenger sent by Allah to the people of the Earth.”

Reference: Tafsir Ibn Kathir; v.1 p.569

 

Similarly, the Arab scholar Shaikh Abu Bakr al-Jaza’iri also stated that the first prophet was Noah:

ابتدأهمْ بنبيِّهِ نوحٍ

Reference: Minhaj-ul-Muslim; p.24

Perhaps they have based their view on the Hadith of Intercession which described Noah as the first Rasul to be sent by Allah:

يَجْتَمِعُ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ ، فَيَقُولُونَ : لَوِ اسْتَشْفَعْنَا إِلَى رَبِّنَا فَيَأْتُونَ آدَمَ فَيَقُولُونَ : أَنْتَ أَبُو النَّاسِ خَلَقَكَ اللَّهُ بِيَدِهِ وَأَسْجَدَ لَكَ مَلَائِكَتَهُ ، وَعَلَّمَكَ أَسْمَاءَ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ ، فَاشْفَعْ لَنَا عِنْدَ رَبِّكَ حَتَّى يُرِيحَنَا مِنْ مَكَانِنَا هَذَا ، فَيَقُولُ : لَسْتُ هُنَاكُمْ وَيَذْكُرُ ذَنْبَهُ ، فَيَسْتَحِي ائْتُوا نُوحًا ، فَإِنَّهُ أَوَّلُ رَسُولٍ بَعَثَهُ اللَّهُ إِلَى أَهْلِ الْأَرْضِ ،

Translation: “On the Day of Resurrection the believers will assemble and say, 'Let us ask somebody to intercede for us with our Lord.' So they will go to Adam and say, 'You are the father of all the people, and Allah created you with His Own Hands, and ordered the Angels to prostrate to you, and taught you the names of all things; so please intercede for us with your Lord, so that He may relieve us from this place of ours.' Adam will say, 'I am not for for this (i.e., intercession for you).' Then Adam will remember his sin and feel ashamed thereof. He will say, 'Go to Noah, for he was the first Messenger Allah sent to the inhabitants of the Earth.'”

(Sahih al-Bukhari; Kitab al-Tafsir, H.4476)

This Hadith clearly demonstrates that instead of Adam, it is Noah who is described as the first Rasul (Messenger) sent by Allah.

But if someone raises an objection that Noah was the first Rasul (Messenger) but not the first Nabi (Prophet), based on the idea that while every Messenger is a Prophet but not necessarily every Prophet is a Messenger, the fact of the matter is that other versions of this Hadith clearly have the wording that Noah was the first Nabi (Prophet):

يُؤْتَى آدَمُ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةَ فَيُقَالُ لَهُ : اشْفَعْ . فَيَقُولُ : لَسْتُ بِصَاحِبِ ذَلِكَ ، عَلَيْكُمْ بِنُوحٍ فَإِنَّهُ أَوَّلُ الأَنْبِيَاءِ وَأَكْبَرُهُمْ

When Adam is asked to intercede for the Believers on the Day of Resurrection he will refuse, instead saying: “Go to Noah, for he is the First of the Prophets and the eldest of them.” (Musnad al-Bazaar and Al-Tawhid of Ibn Khuzaymah)

According to another version:

وَلَكِنِ ائْتُوا نُوحًا ، أَوَّلَ نَبِيٍّ بَعَثَهُ اللَّهُ إِلَى الْعَالَمِينَ فَيَأْتُونَ نُوحًا

Adam will say: “But go to Noah, the first Prophet Allah sent to the worlds” (Ibid)

Another version:

وَلَكِنِ ائْتُوا نُوحًا ، فَإِنَّهُ رَأْسُ النَّبِيِّينَ ، فَيَأْتُونَ نُوحًا

Adam will say: “Go to Noah for he is the Head of the Prophets” (Musnad of Imam Ahmad)

All of these narrations prove that Noah is the “first Prophet”, the “first of all Prophets”, the “head of the Prophets”, and the “first Prophet sent by Allah to the people of the Earth”.

So now the question arises concerning the status of Prophet Adam (peace be upon him). Should it be accepted that chronologically the first Prophet was Noah, therefore Adam was not a prophet? In fact, we Muslims believe that Adam's son Seth (peace be upon him) was also a Prophet, and similarly, the Holy Qur'an declares that Idris (Enoch) was a Prophet. These three figures (Adam, Seth and Idris) all came before Prophet Noah. It seems there is a major inconsistency here that is begging to be resolved.

So first of all, let us see whether Adam truly is a Prophet. His Prophethood is proven from the Hadith of Abu Umamah (may Allah be pleased with him):

أَنَّ رَجُلًَا ، قَالَ : يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ ، أَنَبِيٌّ كَانَ آدَمُ ؟ ، قَالَ : " نَعَمْ ، مُكَلَّمٌ " ، قَالَ : فَكَمْ كَانَ بَيْنَهُ وَبَيْنَ نُوحٍ ؟ ، قَالَ : " عَشَرَةُ قُرُونٍ

A man said: “O Messenger of Allah, was Adam a Prophet?” [The Messenger of Allah Sallallaho alaihi wasallam) said: “Yes, a Mukallam [a prophet who converses with Allah]. The man asked: “What was the period between him and Noah?” The Messenger of Allah (Sallallaho alaihi wasallam) said: “Ten generations.” (Sahih Ibn Hibban; Kitab al-Tarikh)

Pay attention to this critical Hadith because it has just resolved our little dilemma! How can both Adam and Noah be the “first Prophet”? The answer is that Noah is the “First Prophet” in the sense of being specifically sent to a people with a fresh Risalah [message] from Allah and with a comprehensive Shari’ah. Prophet Adam is the first prophet in a chronological sense, although he is described as being a Mukallam meaning a specific type of Prophet who, though not receiving a comprehensive Shari’ah or being spent to an actual nation of people to deliver a fresh message of Allah to them, is nevertheless a Prophet in the sense of receiving divine communication from Allah. It is in this sense which the other prophets (Sheth and Idris) who preceded Noah must also be considered as Prophets.

A third point of view relevant to this discussion is that in fact the first Prophet is our beloved Prophet Muhammad (Sallallaho alaihi wasallam)! That is based on the well known Hadith:

إِنِّي عَبْدُ اللَّهِ لَخَاتَمُ النَّبِيِّينَ ، وَإِنَّ آدَمَ عَلَيْهِ السَّلَام لَمُنْجَدِلٌ فِي طِينَتِهِ

“I am the servant Allah, the Seal of the Prophets [while] Adam peace be upon him was still clay.” [Musnad Ahmad bin Hanbal]

And the Hadith of Abi Hurairah (may Allah be pleased with him):

قَالَ : قَالُوا : يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ مَتَى وَجَبَتْ لَكَ النُّبُوَّةُ ؟ قَالَ : " وَآدَمُ بَيْنَ الرُّوحِ وَالْجَسَدِ "

Abi Hurairah said: “O Messenger of Allah, when was Nubuwwah [Prophethood] made obligatory upon you?” The Messenger of Allah (Sallallaho alaihi wasallam) said: “While Adam was between spirit and body.” [Jami at-Tirmidhi]

Similarly, there is the Hadith:

وَجَعَلْتُكَ أَوَّلَ النَّبِيِّينَ خَلْقًا وَآخِرَهُمْ بَعْثًا

Prophet Muhammad (Sallallaho alaihi wasallam) is the first of the Prophets to be created and the last of them to be sent. [Al-Sunnah of Ibn al Khallal]

These Ahadith reveal the fact that there are at least three different Prophets who can be considered as the “First” Prophet but each in a different sense. For example, Adam is the first Prophet in the sense that he is the father of mankind and that he was conversant with Allah, hence a Mukallam. Noah is the first Prophet in the sense of being the first one to be sent by Allah to the people of the Earth with a Message and a comprehensive Shari'ah. And our beloved Prophet Muhammad (Sallallaho alaihi wasallam) can also be considered as the “First” Prophet in the sense of being the First one to be written as a Prophet in the sight of Allah, while the creation of Adam was not yet complete.

In summary, just as there can be a different point of view regarding the significance of who exactly is the “First” Prophet, I invite the reader to consider the fact that the question of who is the “Last” Prophet and what is the reality of Khaatam an-Nabiyyeen can likewise be examined from another perspective.

Mamati Deobandi Ahmad Said Multani: "Absolutely Impossible for Dead to Speak" REFUTED

Ahmad Sa’id Khan Multani, the founder of the Chitrori sect known as Markazi Isha’at-i-Tawhid o Sunnah was a Mamati-Deobandi and bigotted follower of the Hanafi madhhab. He wrote his now “infamous” book Quran Muqaddas aur Bukhari Muhaddis in which he shameless and quite audaciously attacked the great Muhaddith Imam Bukhari (rahimahullah), accusing him of having narrated Hadith from “cursed” liars. Being altogether ignorant of the true teachings of the Quran and Sunnah, Ahmad Said Multani boldly asserted in his book that it is impossible for the dead to speak. He quoted two verses of the Holy Quran to that effect:

وَ لَوۡ اَنَّنَا نَزَّلۡنَاۤ اِلَیۡہِمُ الۡمَلٰٓئِکَۃَ وَ کَلَّمَہُمُ الۡمَوۡتٰی

If We had sent down to them the angels, and the dead had spoken to them... (6:111)

اَوۡ کُلِّمَ بِہِ الۡمَوۡتٰی

Or the dead be made to speak...(13:31)

According to Ahmad Said Multani, these verses indicate that it is impossible for the dead to speak:

مردوں کا کلام کرنا محال اور نا ممکن ہے

“It is impossible for the dead to talk”.

Based on this principle he derived from the Holy Quran, Ahmad Said Multani then proceeds to repudiate an authentic Hadith as reported in Sahih al-Bukhari:

إِذَا وُضِعَتِ الْجِنَازَةُ فَاحْتَمَلَهَا الرِّجَالُ عَلَى أَعْنَاقِهِمْ ، فَإِنْ كَانَتْ صَالِحَةً قَالَتْ : قَدِّمُونِي ، وَإِنْ كَانَتْ غَيْرَ صَالِحَةٍ قَالَتْ لِأَهْلِهَا : يَا وَيْلَهَا أَيْنَ يَذْهَبُونَ بِهَا , يَسْمَعُ صَوْتَهَا كُلُّ شَيْءٍ ، إِلَّا الْإِنْسَانَ وَلَوْ سَمِعَ الْإِنْسَانُ لَصَعِقَ

Translation: “When a funeral is ready and the men carry it (the deceased) on their shoulders, if it was pious then it will say, 'Present me quickly (or take me ahead)', and if it was not pious, then it will say, 'Woe to it (me), where are they taking it (me)?' And its voice is audible to everything except a human being and if he heard it he would fall unconcious.”

[Sahih al-Bukhari; Kitab al-Janazah, H. 1316]

So what is the answer to this objection and argument raised by Ahmad Said Multani and company? First of all, the first verse quoted from him clearly says that “if the dead had spoken to them”. So if anything is being denied here, it is not that the dead speak, but specifically that the dead do not speak to them and by “them” is meant human beings. Going back to the Hadith of Bukhari Sharif, we see that it clearly says that although the deceased speaks something upon his funeral bier, it is impossible for any human being to hear him. Therefore, there is at least no contradiction between the Hadith and the first verse cited by Ahmad Said Multani.

As for the second verse, it too is not a proof for an absolute impossibility of the dead to speak. Rather, when read in context, the verse is simply saying that if there were to be a Qur'an through which mountains could be moved, the Earth split asunder, or the dead made to speak.

First of all, it is not an absolute impossibility that the mountains be moved or the Earth be cleft asunder. In fact, the Qur'an itself predicts that the mountains will be moved and the Earth cleft asunder (the earth is cleft asunder whenever an earthquake occurs).

This is why the word بِهِ has been used, a combination of a prefixed preposition and a third person masculine, singular personal pronoun to indicate that if the dead were made to speak “by it” meaning by such a hypothetical Qur'an. By now way can the verse be misconstrued to mean that it is an absolute impossibility for the dead to speak.

Furthermore, the Holy Quran itself proves that the dead speak (though in a limited sense) which is enough to demolish Ahmad Said Khan's false principle that the dead do not speak in an absolute sense. Allah Most High says:

حَتّٰۤی اِذَا جَآءَ اَحَدَہُمُ الۡمَوۡتُ قَالَ رَبِّ ارۡجِعُوۡنِ۞لَعَلِّیۡۤ اَعۡمَلُ صَالِحًا فِیۡمَا تَرَکۡتُ کَلَّا ؕ اِنَّہَا کَلِمَۃٌ ہُوَ قَآئِلُہَا ؕ وَ مِنۡ وَّرَآئِہِمۡ بَرۡزَخٌ اِلٰی یَوۡمِ یُبۡعَثُوۡنَ

Until when death comes to one of them, he will say: “My Lord send me back. So that I may act righteously in that (world) which I have left behind.” Never! It is simply a word he utters, and in front of such people there is a barrier till the day when they will be resurrected

[Holy Quran; Surah 23:99-100]

This verse leaves no room for doubt that the dead do speak after death. The evil from among them plead to Allah to return them to the world. This means they are speaking not in the moment before death, but after death proper, otherwise they would not say “send me back”. And Allah refuses them on account that once they have died it is impossible to return to the world, there is an unseen barrier (Barzakh) between them and the world of the living.

In summary, this passage of the Quran (23:99-100) simply proves Ahmad Said wrong that it is absolutely impossible for the dead to speak, and furthermore shows how misguided he is for rejecting an authentic Hadith due to his ignorance of the Qur'an.

Reference: Quran Muqaddas aur Bukhari Muhaddis; p.47-48

Chishti/Barelwi Pir Mehr Ali Shah of Golra: "Coming of a Prophet without New Shari'ah does not Break Khatam an Nabuwwah"

The Barelwi mulla and pir Mehr Ali Shah of Golra (1859-1937) had a book penned by the name of Saif-i-Chishtiyai in which he attempted to refute Hadrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib of Qadian (alaihis-salaaam). It has already been proven that the fake “Pir” plagiarized this book from the notes of one Maulawi Muhammad Hasan Faidi of Bheen.
Regarding the controversy of Khatam-an-Nabuwwah Pir Mehr Ali Shah explains his point of view in such a way as to validate the claim of Hadrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of being a non-law bearing Prophet. Mehr Ali Shah writes:
میں کہتا ہوں کہ عیسی بن مریم کے بارہ میں بھی سب اہل اسلام کا یہی عقیدہ ہے کہ جدید شرع اپنے ساتھ نہ لائیں گے۔ بلکہ شرع محمّدی علی صاحبہ الصلوۃ والسلام کے مطابق حکم کریں گے۔ جب کہ قادیانی کا نبی ورسول ہونا خاتم النّبیّین کے مفہوم میں بباعث نہ لانے شریعت جدیدہ کے فرق نہیں لاتا تو عیسی بن مریم کا نزول ہمارے عقیدہ کے مطابق خاتم النّبیّین کی مہر کو کس طرح توڑ سکتا ہے۔

Translation: “I say that regarding Jesus son of Mary, all of the people of Islam have the belief that he will not come with a new Shari’ah. Rather, he shall rule in accordance to the Shari’ah of Muhammad peace and blessing be upon him. When the Qadiyani being a Nabi and Rasul [Prophet and Messenger] does not make a difference to the meaning of Khaatam an-Nabiyyeen as a result of him not bringing a new Shari’ah, so how can the descent of Jesus son of Mary, according to our belief, break the seal of Khaatam an-Nabiyyeen?”

*Note: Mehr Ali Shah, in attempting to justify the belief of the second coming of Jesus son of Mary as not violating the Finality of Prophethood, has inadvertently validated the very claim of Hadrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of being a Prophet but without a new Shari’ah! He is saying that his and the people of Islam’s belief concerning the second coming of Jesus does not break the Seal of Khaatam an-Nabiyyeen because Jesus will not come with a new Shari’ah, similar to how Hadrat Mirza’s claim of being a Prophet but without a new Shari’ah does not break the Seal of Khaatam-an-Nabiyyeen.

In fact, Mehr Ali Shah goes on to write that not just Jesus, but every single previous Prophet can return to this world and it would not make any difference to the belief in Khatam an-Nabuwwah:

مگر چنکہ آنحضرت صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم کے دنیا میں تشریف لانے سے پہلے ان کو ملا ہے لہذا خاتم النّبیّین کی مہر کو اگر سارے انبیاء درنیا میں آپ کے بعد آجائیں تو بھی نہیں توڑ سکتے۔

Translation: “Because the previous prophets received [their prophethood] before the Holy Prophet [Muhammad] Sallallaho alaihi wasallam came into the world, therefore if all the prophets were to come into the world after him [Sallallaho alaihi wasallam] it would not break the seal of Khaatam-an-Nabiyyeen.”

*Note: What Mehr Ali Shah has essentially stated is that the coming of any number of Prophets into the world, including all of them, does not affect or break the Khatam an-Nabuwwah so long as those prophets received their prophethood before our beloved Prophet Muhammad (Sallallaho alaihi wasallam). However, the dilemma remains that why can only a previous prophet come and not a new prophet – since Mehr Ali Shah has not explained the wisdom or logic behind his rudimentary and semantic explanation of Khatam an Nabuwwah which only precludes the coming of a new Prophet but not a previous Prophet – although the result in both cases is basically the same that a Prophet comes into the world, receiving revelation acting as a Prophet after the passing away of Prophet Muhammad (Sallallaho alaihi wasallam).

Reference: Saif-i-Chishtiyai; p.22-23

Authentic Hadith Proves that Messiah (A.S) Lived for 120 Years then Died

In an authentic Hadith, whose narrators are all trustworthy according to the Muhadditheen and experts of the science of Ilm al-Rijal, the Prophet (Sallallaho alaihi wasallam) said:

إِنَّهُ لَمْ يُبْعَثْ نَبِيٌّ قَطُّ إِلا عَاشَ نِصْفَ مَا عَاشَ الَّذِي كَانَ قَبْلَهُ

Translation: “Verily, a Prophet was never sent except that he lived for half the lifespan of the Prophet who preceded him.”

Imam Tabarani (Rahimahullah) has reported this Hadith with a chain of narrators going back to the illustrious companion Zaid bin Arqam (Radiyallahu anhu). This is the complete Sanad:

حَدَّثَنَا عَلِيُّ بْنُ عَبْدِ الْعَزِيزِ ، ثنا أَبُو نُعَيْمٍ ، ثنا كَامِلُ أَبُو الْعَلاءِ ، قَالَ : سَمِعْتُ حَبِيبَ بْنَ أَبِي ثَابِتٍ ، يُحَدِّثُ ، عَنْ يَحْيَى بْنِ جَعْدَةَ ، عَنْ زَيْدِ بْنِ أَرْقَمَ

This Hadith proves quite plainly that the Messiah (peace be upon him) has died, since he was the Prophet who preceded our Prophet Muhammad (Sallallaho alaihi wasallam). Our beloved Prophet Muhammad (Sallallaho alaihi wasallam) lived a life of approximately sixty years then passed away. Therefore, according to the purport of this Hadith, the Messiah (alaihis-salaam) must have lived for about 120 years.

*If it is accepted that the Messiah is still alive and has not died, his age would be about two thousand years – which contradicts this Hadith.

Reference: Mu'jam al-Kabir (Imam Tabarani); v.5, p.171-172, H. 4986

 

Ahl-i-Hadith scholar Sanaullah Amritsari and Death of Messiah

The Ahl-i-Hadith scholar, Mawlana Abul Wafaa Sanaullah Khan of Amritsar (d. 1948) accepted the reality of the death of the Messiah (alaihis-salaam) in the pages of his Urdu translation and commentary of the Holy Quran.

Translating the verse (3:55):

اِذۡ قَالَ اللّٰہُ یٰعِیۡسٰۤی اِنِّیۡ مُتَوَفِّیۡکَ

Mawlana Sanaullah Amritsari wrote:

جب اللہ نے کہا اے عیسی میں تجھے فوت کرنے والا

Translation: When Allah said: “O Eesaa! I am going to cause you to die”

Commenting on the reality of this, Sanaullah writes:

اس آیت کے معنی میں انہی کا ترجمہ منظور کیا ہےاور متوفی کے معنی موت دینے والا لکھا ہے۔

Translation: “Regarding the meaning of this Ayat (Verse) their [Ahmadiyya] translation has been accepted and I have written the meaning of Mutawaffi as 'One Giving Death'”

Reference: Tafsir-i-Sanai; v.1, p.211