Selasa, 03 Desember 2013

A Simple Refutation

نحمده ونصلي على رسوله الكريم
   بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
وعلى عبده المسيح الموعود

A Simple Refutation


One of the most fundamental distinctions between Aḥmadiyyat and mainstream Muslims is that we believe in the continuity of non law-bearing prophethood after the demise of the Holy Prophet MuḥammadSAW which is specialized only for his umma. This belief is not at all against the teachings of both the Qur’ān and ḥadīth, it is instead what both of them actually express. A number of arguments are available to access. Readers who want to know deeper can read books authored by the Holy Founder of this Jamā‘at, his Caliphs, or Aḥmadī scholars on this subject.

On this occasion, I am not to elaborate all the elaborations. I am just here to refute an allegation made by the opponents regarding the famous ḥadīth, “Abū Bakrra is the best after me except, if there will be a prophet.” And, of course its relation with the second coming of Jesusas. May it be useful and beneficial for all of us. Āmīn!

The Ḥadīth

There are two kinds of the matan (text) of the ḥadīth. The first is as written below:


“‘Umar b. Yūnus al-Yamāmī narrated to us; Abū Sa‘īd al-Bakrī narrated to us; from Ibn Jurayj, from ‘Aṭā’, from Ḥaḍrat Abū Dardā’ra, that Ḥaḍrat RasūlulāhSAW said: Sun never rises neither it does go down upon someone who is more superior or better than Abū Bakrra, except if there will be a prophet.”

[Musnad ‘Abd ibn Ḥumaid, Musnad Ḥaḍrat Abī Dardā’ra, no. 212]

This ḥadīth is too mentioned by Jalāl al-Dīn al-Suyūṭī in Tārīkh al-khulafā’ p. 40.

The profiles of the narrators (ruwāt):

1. ‘Umar b. Yūnus al-Yamāmī:

Al-Mizzī wrote he was thiqa (reliable), and so said Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Yaḥyā b. Ma‘īn, and al-Nasā’ī [Tahdhīb al-kamāl, 7/121].

2. Abū Sa‘īd al-Bakrī

His actual name is ‘Abdullāh b. Shayba b. Khālid. Ibn Abī Ḥātim classified him thiqa [al-Jarḥ wa al-ta‘dīl2/83].

3. Ibn Jurayj

His actual name is ‘Abd al-Malik b. ‘Abd al-‘Azīz b. Jurayj al-Makkī. Ibn Ḥibbān included him in al-Thiqāt [al-Thiqāt, 7/95]. Al-Ḥāfiẓ wrote that he was counted as one of the prominent Qurrā’ (reciters) and Ḥuffāẓ (memorizers) in Hejaz, but indicted with tadlīs (concealment). It was true that he was a mudallis, but he did tadlīs only from majrūḥ (criticized) people such as Ibrāhīm b. Abī Yaḥyā and Mūsā b. ‘Ubayda. His ḥadīth from ‘Aṭā’ was valid, as Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal said ابن جريج أثبت الناس في عطاء, “Ibn Jurayj was the firmest man on the authority of ‘Aṭā’. He himself said that he had accompanied ‘Aṭā’ ibn Abī Rabāḥ and attended his majlis (class) for seventeen (or eighteen) years. ‘Aṭā’ also made his will that Ibn Juraij should be his successor after his death. Ibn Khirāsh categorized him ṣadūq (truthful), while al-‘Ijlī stated he was thiqa [Tahdhīb al-tahdhīb, 2/618].

4. ‘Aṭā’

His full name is ‘Aṭā’ b. Abī Rabāḥ. Ibn Ḥajar said he was thiqa, faqīh (Islamic jusrist), and fāḍil (noble) [Taqrīb al-tahdhīb, 677]. Ibn Sa‘d, as quoted by al-Mizzī, stated him as faqīh, thiqa, and ‘ālim (knowledgeable). Abū Ḥanīfa said ما رأيت فيمن لقيت أفضل من عطاء بن أبي رباح, “I never saw among the people I had ever met who was more superior than ‘Aṭā’ ibn Abī Rabāḥ,” [Tahdhīb al-kamāl, 6/357]. Abū Ja‘far Al-Bāqirrh said ما رأيت فيمن لقيت أفقه منه, “I never saw among the people I had ever met who was more faqīh than him,” [al-Bidāya wa al-nihāya, 10/148].

As all the narrators are thiqa, this ḥadīth is undoubtedly ṣaḥīḥ li dhātihi (valid in itself). According to the scholars, a valid ḥadīth must be accepted, our opinion and deed must be based upon it and none can transgress.

Some argue that there are few weaknesses in this ḥadīth. They say there are three ‘an‘ana in the transmission of this ḥadīth. An ‘an‘ana, pursuant to the scholars, transforms a ḥadīth into the kind of mursal, and, thus, it becomes ḍa‘īf (weak). The answer is that if the narrators of ‘an‘ana are contemporaries with whom they narrated from and they are also also lack of tadlīs, their narrations can be accepted as muttaṣil (connected to the Holy ProphetSAW). Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr and Abū ‘Amrū al-Muqri’ al-Dānī once proclaimed it to be the ijmā‘ (consensus) of the scholars of ḥadīth [Muqaddima Ibn Ṣalāḥ, 61]. In the ḥadīth, three ‘an‘anas are read: Abū Sa‘īd al-Bakrī è Ibn Jurayj è ‘Aṭā’ è Ḥaḍrat Abū Dardā’ra. Abū al-Maḥāsin al-‘Alawī wrote that Abū Sa‘īd al-Bakrī and Ibn Jurayj (from the sixth ṭabaqa or generation of the narrators) were contemporaries. Ibn Jurayj passed away in 150 H, as quoted Adh-Dhahabī from Khālid b. Bazzār al-Īlī [Tadhkirat al-uffāẓ, 1/170]. About Ibn Jurayj and ‘Aṭā’, I do not need to explain again. The above-mentioned explanation is quite enough. Nevertheless, I think I am going to add one more. Ibn al-Madīnī said as quoted by al-Dhahabī لم يكن في الأرض أعلم بعطاء من ابن جريج, “There was none of men who was better than Ibn Jurayj in knowing ‘Aṭā’.” Also, if Ibn Juraij used ‘an’ana in his narration from ‘Aṭā’, it meant he directly listened to him. ‘Aṭā’ himself was born in the reign of Sayyidunā ‘Uthmānra, or said to be born in the reign of Sayyidunā ‘Umarra, and died in 114 H or 115 H [Tadhkirat al-uffāẓ, 1/98]. He rose in Mecca. In accordance with that, Ḥaḍrat Abū Dardā’ ‘Uwaymirra died two years before the martyrdom of ‘Uthmān b. ‘Affānra (33 H). Or, as some historians say, he died after the Battle of Ṣiffīn (48/49 H). So, ‘Aṭā’ and Ḥaḍrat Abū Dardā’ra were contemporaries, even if for a short time [al-Istī‘āb fī ma‘rifat al-aṣḥāb, 4/1648]. Ibn Kathīr wrote that ‘Aṭā’ met two hundred Companions [al-Bidāya wa al-nihāya, 10/148]. It meant that he listened to great Companions [al-Nujūm al-zāhira, 1/350]. Sayyidunā Abū Dardā’ra was undoubtedly one of the great Companios. The Holy ProphetSAW even dubbed him the ḥakīm (prudent) of this umma [Musnad al-shāmiyyīn, 2/88, no. 967]. Let alone there was a unequivocal saying from ‘Aṭā’ himself  ما اجتمعت عليه الأمة أقوى عندنا من الإسناد, “This umma will never get together over an isnād (chain of transmission) that is stronger than what belongs to us,” [Ḥilyat al-auliyā’, 3/314]. Thus, the conclusion is, this ḥadīth is infallibly ṣaḥīḥ.

The same matan from different chain:


“‘Alī narrated to us, he said; ‘Abdullāh b. ‘Abd al-Mu’min narrated to us; ‘Umar b. Yūnus al-Yamāmī Abū Ḥafṣ narrated to us; Abū Bakr collected to us; from Ibn Jurayj, from ‘Aṭā’, from Ḥaḍrat Abū Dardā’ra, he said: Ḥaḍrat RasūlullāhSAW said: Sun never rises upon someone who is more superior than Abū Bakrra, except if there will be a prophet.”

[Faḍā’il al-aḥāba Li Aḥmad ibni Ḥanbal, no. 508]

The profiles of the narrators:

1. ‘Alī

His full name was ‘Alī b. ‘Abdillāh b. Mubashshar al-Wāsiṭī. Al-Dhahabī called him imām and thiqa. He was also utilized by Imām Muslim in his Ṣaḥīḥ [Siyar a‘lām al-nubalā’, 5/25-26].

2. ‘Abdullāh b. ‘Abd al-Mu’min

His complete name was ‘Abdullāh b. ‘Abd al-Mu’min b. ‘Uthmān al-Arḥajī al-Wāsiṭī. Ibn Ḥibbān categorized him thiqa in al-Thiqāt [Tahdhīb al-kamāl, 5/216].

I have already given the profiles of ‘Umar b. Yūnus, Ibn Jurayj, ‘Aṭā’, and Ḥaḍrat Abū Dardā’ra. Therefore, no need to repeat.

3. Abū Bakr

Abū Bakr here is majhūl al-‘ayn (unknown personality), his actual name is not known. However, an unknown narrator’s narration can be accepted on the condition that an Imām who never narrates apart from the thiqāt narrate from him. This is a tawthīq or legitimation for him. There is a principle:  إذا روى إمام –عرف أنه لا يروي إلا عن ثقة- عن راو فهو توثيق للراوي وحكم بعدالته عند ذلك الإمام, “If an Imām, who is recognized that he never narrates apart from thiqa, narrates from a majhūl al-‘ayn narrator, it is then tawthīq for the narrator for his justice in the Imām’s eye.” Moreover, there is another principle:ترتفع جهالة العين برواية ثقة أو راويين عنه, “Status of being majhūl al-‘ayn is released by a narration of one or two thiqa persons from him.” Thus, as ‘Umar b. Yūnus always narrated from none other than the trustworthy and he was too thiqa, his narration from Abū Bakr implies that the latter, pursuant to former’s view, was a thiqa. In addition to this, Abū Bakr had also another shāhid (narrative witness) from the chain of his other teacher, ‘Ikrima b. ‘Ammār, who was thiqa (his profile will be recognized in the next paragraphs). It means that Abū Bakr’s narration is acceptable as it matches ‘Ikrima’s narration.

We can conclude from all this annotations, that this ḥadīth is undeniably ṣaḥīḥ. Based upon the scholars and Imāms of ḥadīth, a ṣaḥīḥ kind of ḥadīth must be accepted and practiced.

The second matan. This text can be found in various books of ḥadīth. We can read it in al-Rauḍ al-‘anīq, al-Muttafiq wa al-muftariq, al-Kāmil fī u‘afā’ al-rijāl, Majma‘ al-zawā’id, al-Jāmi‘ al-aghīr, Fayḍ al-qadīr, al-Fatḥ al-kabīr, Kanz al-‘ummāl, Kashf al-khifā’, Simṭ al-nujūm al-‘awālī, Tārīkh al-khulafā’, and Kunūz al-aqā’iq. I am going to explain one by one.


“From ‘Ikrima b‘Ammār, from Iyās b. Salama, from his father, that Ḥaḍrat RasūlullāhSAW said: Abū Bakrra is the best of mankind after me, except if there will be a prophet.”

[al-Rauḍ al-‘anīq, p. 29, no. 9]

This matan is the same as what written in al-Muttafiq wa al-muftariq. The difference is that there is nothing sort of ‘an‘ana, but ṣīghat al-taḥdīth is used.


“Ghaylān b. Muḥammad b. Ibrāhīm al-Simsār informed us; Aḥmad b. ‘Abdullāh b. Ibrāhīm al-Shāfi‘ī narrated to us, he said; Junayd b. Ḥakīm b. Junayd narrated to us; Ismā‘īl b. Ziyād narrated to us; ‘Umar b. Yūnus al-Yamāmī narrated to us; ‘Ikrima b. ‘Ammār narrated to us;  Iyās b. Salama narrated to us, he said; my father narrated to me; that he heard the Holy ProphetSAW say: Abū Bakrra is the best of mankind after me, except if there will be a prophet.”

[al-Muttafiq wa al-muftariq, 1/368, no. 181]

The profiles of the narrators:

1. Ghaylān b. Muḥammad b. Ibrāhīm al-Simsār

His actual name was Ghaylān b. Muḥammad b. Ibrāhīm b. Ghaylān b. al-Ḥakam. His kunya (paedonym) was Abū al-Qāsim al-Hamdānī al-Bazzār [Tārīkh Baghdād, 14/291]. Al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī, as quoted by al-Dhahabī, categorized him thiqa [Tārīkh al-Islām, 28/406].

2. Aḥmad b. ‘Abdullāh b. Ibrāhīm al-Shāfi‘ī

His actual name was Muḥammad b. ‘Abdullāh b. Ibrāhīm b. ‘Abdirabbih (or as some write, ‘Abdiwayh) al-Baghdādī al-Shāfi‘ī al-Bazzār, al-Khaṭīb mistook typing the correct name. He categorized him thiqa thabat, while al-Dāruquṭnī stated him thiqa, ma’mūn (trusted), and jabal (mountainous). Al-Dhahabī dubbed him a ujja (argument), mufīd (beneficial), the muḥaddith of Iraq [Hadiyyat al-‘ārifīn, 2/44; Tadhkirat al-ḥuffāẓ, 3/880].

3. Junayd b. Ḥakīm b. Junayd 

His kunya was Abū Bakr al-Azdī [al-Mūḍiḥ, 2/24]. Al-Dhahabī stated he was also al-Daqqāq [Mīzān al-itidāl, 2/158]. Al-Dāruquṭnī said he was not strong (ليس بالقوي) [Su’ālāt al-Ḥākim, 108]. Some argue with this to prove that this ḥadīth is ḍa‘īf. In fact, it is not the same at all as what they guess. For, it is well-known among the scholars, as quoted by the Shaikh of the Salafis himself, al-Albānī, that if al-Dāruquṭnī dubbed someone ليس بالقوي, it meant he was وسط حسن الحديث (mid, fine of ḥadīth) or, as Ibn Ḥajar al-‘Asqalānī wrote in al-Taqrīb, صدوق فيه لين (veracious, within him is leniency) [al-Naṣīḥa, 92]. In addition to this, al-Dāruquṭnī was also familiarly included by the scholars into the group of mutasāhilūn (permissive or easy-taking ones) in proposing a jarḥ (critic) [al-Mūqiẓa, 110]. So, Junayd b. Ḥakīm was here not weak, but fine (ḥasan). Therefore, the majority of scholars accepted and the mainstream of fuqahā’ made him utilized [al-Mūqiẓa, 23]

4. Ismā‘īl b. Ziyād

A number of scholars were erroneous regarding the presentation of the true profile of this person. Many of them did not differentiate Ismā‘īl b. Ziyād from Ismā‘īl b. Abī Ziyād. Both of them were intermixed to be a single person and then classified ḍa‘īf. On the contrary, there was difference between Ismā‘īl b. Ziyād and Ismā‘īl b. Abī Ziyād, as explained by al-Khaṭīb. The person classified ḍa‘īf was actually Ismā‘īl b. Abī Ziyād, not Ismā‘īl b. Ziyād. He was the weak one said to live in Khurāsān and to be dubbed as the qāḍī (judge) of Mauṣil (Mosul). Pursuant to the saying of al-Mizzī, he was also al-Sakkūnī. Ibn ‘Adī said he was munkar (unfamiliar), while Ibn Ḥibbān called him dajjāl (liar). Al-Khaṭīb  himself weakened him. Yet, he also differentiated the judge of Mosul from the al-Sakkūnī. Speaking of al-Sakkūnī, he said متروك يضع الحديث (forsaken and used to fake ḥadīth) [Tahdhīb al-tahdhīb, 1/152]. Abū Ḥatim dubbed him majhūl, while Ibn Ma‘īn called him kadhdhāb (deceiver) [Mīzān al-i‘tidāl, 1/389]. Al-Khaṭīb mentioned four men with the name of Ismā‘īl b. Ziyād. First, a Kūfī or a resident of Kufa, Iraq. He narrated from Ja‘far al-Ṣādiq, al-Sirrī b. Sharjīl, and al-Ḥakam b. Ẓahīr. They were all contemporaries, lived in the same generation. Second, also a Kūfī, he narrated from Jarīr b. ‘Abd al-Ḥamīd al-Kindī and was among the generation-after. Three, he was the one dubbed as الفأفأ (someone who frequently repeats the letter ف). One again, al-Ubullī (or al-Uyullī). He narrated from Junayd b. Ḥakīm. Afterwards, al-Khaṭīb, as quoted Ibn Ḥajar, did not state any critic to one of them [Tahdhīb al-tahdhīb, 1/152]. Thus, al-Dhahabī was mistaken when he categorized Ismā‘īl b. Ziyād al-Ubullī ḍa‘īf. Interestingly, he himself was doubtful to label the aforementioned ḥadīth (but, from a different ṭarīq or chain) mauḍū‘ (fake). He said:

تفرد به إسماعيل هذا، فإن لم يكن هو واضعه فالآفة من دونه، مع أن المعنى حق.

“Ismā‘īl was mutafarrid (standing alone) in this ḥadīth. If he was not the one who faked it, then the lesion came out from someone apart him. Along with that, the meaning of the ḥadīth was true”. [Mīzān al-i‘tidāl, 1/389]

Ismā‘īl was not here mutafarrid. I have already mentioned above two ḥadīth that were not from the ṭarīq of Ismā‘īl b. Ziyād, but from ‘Abd al-Raḥmān b. Ḥumayd and ‘Abdullāh b. ‘Abd al-Mu’min. If it is said that ‘Umar b. Yūnus was also mutafarrid, the answer will be that tafarrud (lonely standing) of a thiqa is accepted as it is common in the sight of the scholars.

5. ‘Ikrimah ibn ‘Ammār

His full name was ‘Ikrimah ibn ‘Ammār ibn ‘Uqbah ibn Ḥabīb ibn Shihāb ibn Dhubāb ibn Al-Ḥārith ibn Ḥimṣānah ibn Al-As‘ad ibn Judhaima ibn Sa‘d ibn ‘Ijl Al-‘Ijlī. An-Nasā’i said there was no problem with him apart his narration from Yaḥyā ibn Abī Kathīr. Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal said he was tumultuous of ḥadīth (muḍṭarib-ul-ḥadīth) from apart Iyās ibn Salamah, while his narration from Iyās was good (ṣāliḥ). Yaḥyā ibn Ma‘īn dubbed him thiqa thabat ḥāfiẓ. ‘Alī ibn Al-Madīnī and Ya‘qūb ibn Shaiba said he was thiqa thabat. Abū al-Ḥasan Al-‘Ijlī, Abū Dāwūd, Muḥammad ibn ‘Abdillāh ibn ‘Ammār, ‘Alī ibn Muḥammad Aṭ-Ṭanāfisī, Isḥāq ibn Aḥmad, Ad-Dāruquṭnī, Ibn Ḥibbān, and Ibn Shāhīn dubbed him thiqa. Abū Ḥātim, As-Sājī, Ṣāliḥ ibn Muḥammad, and Ibn Khirāsh categorized him ṣadūq. Ibn ‘Adī said he was straight of ḥadīth (mustaqīm-ul-ḥadīth) if he narrated from a thiqa. ‘Āṣim ibn ‘Alī said he was accepted (mustajāb-ud-da‘wah) [Tahdhīb at-Tahdhīb, 3/133-134].

6. Iyās ibn Salamah

His kunya was Abū Bakr Al-Madanī. Ibn Ḥajar said he was thiqa [Taqrīb at-Tahdhīb, 156]. Yaḥyā ibn Ma‘īn categorized him thiqa [Siyar A‘lām an-Nubalā’, 5/244].

About Ḥaḍrat Salama ibn Akwa‘ra, I do not need to explain further. Even a mediocre student (ṭālib) knows that every Companion is ‘ādil, their narrations are accepted.

From all the informations, we can conclude that this ḥadīth is ṣaḥīḥ li dhātih, or at least ḥasan. You know that either ṣaḥīḥ or ḥasan must be accepted and implemented.


“Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad ibn Hārūn, he said; Aḥmad ibn Haitham narrated to us, he said; Ismā‘īl ibn Ziyād Al-Uyullī (Al-Ubullī) narrated to us, he said; ‘Umar ibn Yūnus narrated to us, from ‘Ikrimah ibn ‘Ammār, he said; my father narrated to me that Ḥaḍrat RasūlullāhSAW said: Abū Bakrra is the best of mankind except if there will be a prophet.”

[Al-Kāmil Fī Ḍu‘afā ar-Rijāl, 6/484]

Ḥadīth with this redaction is too narrated in Majma‘ az-Zawā’id 9/8, Al-Jāmi‘ Aṣ-Ṣaghīr p. 39, Faiḍ al-Qadīr 1/90, Al-Fatḥ Al-Kabīr 1/19, Kanz al-‘Ummāl 11/549, Kashf al-Khifā’ 1/33, Simṭ an-Nujūm al-‘Awālī no. 78, and Tārīkh al-Khulafā’ p. 40. According to Al-Munāwī, the adverb من بعدي came off from the pen of the author (Ibn ‘Adī).

The profiles of the narrators:

1. Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad ibn Hārūn

His full kunya was Abū al-Ḥasan Al-‘Ūdī. Ad-Dāruquṭnī said he was thiqa [Su’ālāt al-Ḥākim, 147].

2. Aḥmad ibn Haitham

His full name was Aḥmad ibn Haitham ibn Khālid. His kunya was Abū Ja‘far Al-Bazzār Al-‘Askarī. He is thiqa [Su’ālāt al-Ḥākim, 90].

Thus, this ḥadīth is irrefutably ṣaḥīḥ wājib-ul-qubūl.

In Kunūz al-Ḥaqā’iq, we read a ḥadīth with the same meaning but differ in the matan.


“Abū Bakrra is the most superior of this Umma, except if there will be a prophet.”

[Kunūz al-Ḥaqā’iq, 1/4]

There are virtually another aḥādīth of such types, but Sayyidunā ‘Umarra is inserted after Sayyidunā Abū Bakrra. We read in Tārīkh Madīnat Dimashq:


“Abū Bakr Muḥammad ibn Shujā‘ informed us; Abū Muḥammad Rizqillāh ibn ‘Abd-il-Wahhāb told us; Abū al-Ḥusain Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad Al-Wā‘iẓ told us; Yūsuf ibn Ya‘qūb ibn Isḥāq ibn Al-Bahlūl narrated to us; Ḥusain ibn ‘Arafa narrated to us; ‘Umar ibn Yūnus Al-Yamāmī narrated to me; from Ṣadaqa ibn Maymūn Al-Qurshī, from Sulaimān ibn Yasār, he said; Ḥaḍrat RasūlullāhSAW said: Abū Bakrra and ‘Umarra are the best of the people of the earth, except if someone will be a prophet.”

[Tārīkh Madīnat ad-Dimashq, 30/103]

This version is too mentioned in Al-Amālī of Abū Bakr ibn Al-Bahlūl no. 105 and As-Sunnah of Abū Bakr al-Khallāl no. 376.

This is ḍa‘īf as this is mursal. Sulaimān ibn Yasār did not directly listen to the Holy ProphetSAW, he was a tābi‘. Depend on its matan, it is also clearly tumultuous (muḍṭarib) as Ḥaḍrat ‘Umarra is mentioned after Aṣ-Ṣiddīq Al-Akbarra with واو العطف which signifies equalization, while no doubt for us that Abū Bakrra is the best of the two.

This ḥadīth (in which ‘Umarra is not appertained) was famously spread in the eye of the scholars. Some had even commented on this narration. One of the most well-known was what elucidated by Al-Munāwī in Faiḍ al-Qadīr. He sai dأي يوجد إلا أن يكون نبي i.e. “Except if there will be a prophet,” meant, “He will be found.” He further said فلا يكون خير الناس أي أفضل الناس إلا نبي و المراد الجنس, “Thus, the best of mankind or the most superior of mankind will be none of man, except a prophet. And the purpose here is the type.” This is very bright that prophet is the most excellent type of mankind and its highest. And that highest type of human being will be definitely found and seen in this Umma as the used fi‘l muḍāri‘ signifies istiqbāliyyat (future tense). Again, وهذه البعدية رتيبة و يكون جعلها زمانية و الاستثناء لإخراج عيسى و كذا الخضر إن قلنا بما عليه الجمهور أنه نبي, “And the adverb بعد (after) here is sorted and the making of it is probably to point to the adverb of time زمانية (not the adverb of place/مكانية) and the exception of bringing forth Jesusas  as well as Khiḍras if we say based on the majority that he is a prophet.” From this commentary, we know that the cognizant scholars have already recognized that the coming Jesusas will not be the same Jesusas sent to the children of Israel. It appears from the use of the verb خرج and أخرج in many of their explanations, which literally means to appear and to bring forth. It actually refers to one verse in the Holy Qur’ān:


“And Allah brought forth you from the wombs of your mothers while you knew nothing, and gave you ears and eyes and hearts, that you might be grateful.”

[Sūrah an-Naḥl {16}:79]

So, the next Jesusas will be born from the womb of a mother, not fly from heaven to earth. He will be a baby, toddler, kid, youth, mature, until he will be given the office of Messiah. Knowing this, Ḥaḍrat Mughīra ibn Shu‘bara said as written in the leaves of history:


“Abū Usāmah narrated to us; from Majālid, he said; ‘Āmir informed us, he said; someone said beside Mughīra ibn Shu‘bara: May Allah bless Muḥammad Khātam-ul-Anbiyā’, Lā Nabiyya Ba‘dahu. Mughīrara said: It is enough for you to you say Khātam-ul-Anbiyā’ because we used to narrate that Jesusas would appear. If he appears, then he was before him and will be after him.”

[Al-Muṣannaf of Ibn Abī Shaiba, Kitāb al-Adab, Bāb Man Kariha An Yaqūla Lā Nabiyya Ba‘da an-NabīSAW, no. 27171, 8/622]

A number of scholars have also been aware of this mystery. They do not mark off between nuzūl and khurūj. Sirāj-ud-Dīn Abū Ḥafṣ ‘Umar ibn Al-Wardī (d. 749 H), a classical jurist, poet, intellectual, and mystic, wrote in his renowned Kharīdat al-‘Ajā’ib p. 190:


“A group of commentators said: The descent of Jesusas is the appearance of someone resembling Jesusas in favor and honor as said upon a good person that he is malak (angle) and upon a wicked person that he is shayṭān (satan), solely to liken the first (the good and the wicked) with the latter (angle and satan), not to mean that they arre differen people (whose names are malak and shayṭān).”

We believe that the person has already arrived and appeared, he is Sayyidunā Mirzā Ghulām Aḥmad of Qadianas. He is the second Aḥmad descended from the heaven as the second wall for the protection of Islam. He himself penned his own words as:


“And He sends down two Aḥmads from the heaven to be like two walls for the earlier and the later ones.” [I‘jāz al-Masīḥ, p. 198]

و آخر دعوانا أن الحمد لله رب العالمين