In the Name of Allah, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful
All Praise is for Allah, and may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon His Final Messenger Muhammad ﷺ.
One of the cornerstones of Ahmadis argumentation when discussing the alleged death of Isa ﷺ is their false interpretation of the Quran 3:144, where Allah says:
"Muhammad is not but a messenger. [Other] messengers have passed on before him. So if he was to die or be killed, would you turn back on your heels [to unbelief]? And he who turns back on his heels will never harm Allah at all; but Allah will reward the grateful."
- [Quran: Surah Al'Imran, Verse 144]
Ahmadis claim that Abu Bakr (r.a)’s recitation of this ayah upon the death of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, and the subsequent realization of the Sahaba that their beloved had really passed away, proves that the Sahaba had ‘Ijma that ALL messengers of Allah, including Isa ﷺ, had died.
However, if we look at the Hadith narrated in Sahih a-Bukhari regarding this incident, there is absolutely nothing that even hints at the death of Isa ﷺ. Rather, Abu Bakr effectively used this ayah to remind the people that Prophet Muhammad ﷺ was not immune from death:
 |
Although the word "ALL" is not there in the verse but Ahmadis claim that the verse proves that ALL messengers of Allah before Muhammad ﷺ have passed away, without exception, due to the use of the definite article ‘al’ in the word ‘al-Rusul.’
In a recent Twitter conversation I had with an Ahmadi zealot Razi Qudrat who runs AhmadiAnswers website, I told him ‘Al-Rusul' in this Ayah does not necessarily refer to ALL messengers:
This is how he replied:
These replies show a clear lack of basic knowledge of the Arabic language by the owner of AhmadiAnswers Website and his Ahmadi brethren. Let's look at his quote:
"its a definite article akhi stop trying to exclude isa(As).”
Based on that assumption he then said:
"al rasul before Nabi(saw) includes isa(as).sahaba included isa(as) why do you exclude him?"
Razi is saying here that the word ‘al-rusul' necessarily means ALL messengers, due to the fact that the definite article 'al' is present with the noun ‘rusul'. This assumption of his shows that he lacks even the most basic knowledge of Arabic, yet he thinks he can give tafseer based on his whims. What arrogance and delusion!
If it were true that the definite article 'al' with a noun means 'all with no possible exception' as Razi is claiming, then let us apply this Ahmadi rule elsewhere and see what happens:
Let’s open the Quran to 3:42, where Allah says:
وَإِذْ قَالَتِ الْمَلاَئِكَةُ يَا مَرْيَمُ إِنَّ اللّهَ اصْطَفَاكِ وَطَهَّرَكِ وَاصْطَفَاكِ عَلَى نِسَاء الْعَالَمِينَ
"And [mention] when the angels said, "O Mary, indeed Allah has chosen you and purified you and chosen you above the women of the worlds."
According to Razi’s rule, the definite article in ‘Al-Malaaikah’ means we can make NO exceptions, so ‘Al-Malaaikah’ here means ALL the angels, WITHOUT ANY EXCEPTION came to Maryam to give her this news. So according to the Ahmadi understanding of Arabic, this would necessitate that the Angel of Death, Jibreel, Israfil, Mikail, Haroot, Maroot, Malik (the gatekeeper of Jahannam), the two angels on the sides of every human being, and ALL the other angels Allah has created, without exception, came to Maryam to give her these glad tidings, because the definite article 'al' is mentioned with the word ‘Malaaikah’.
So, Ahmadis, do you believe that every single angel Allah created gave this news to Maryam, the mother of Isa (a.s)? Or do you admit that ‘Al-Malaaikah’ does not necessarily mean ALL angels? If so, in the same way, you must concede that ‘Al-Rusul' does not necessarily mean ALL Messengers.
Another example -- Allah says in the Quran 11:119:
و تمت كلمة ربك لأملأن جهنم من الجنة والناس أجمعين
"But the word of your Lord is to be fulfilled that, "I will surely fill Hell with jinn and men all together."
- [Quran: Surah Hud, Verse 119]
Here, Allah uses the words: ‘Al-Naas’ and ‘Al-Jinn’, referring to men and jinn. According to Razi's Arabic, the fact that Allah used the definite article 'al' with the word 'naas' necessitates that ALL human beings will go to Jahannam, without exception! Does this make any sense? Of course not! It is clear that ‘Al-Naas’ does not necessarily mean ALL men, as ‘Al-Malaaikah’ does not necessarily mean ALL angels, as ‘Al-Rusul' doesn't necessarily mean ALL messengers. Very clear.
As for Razi’s statement:
"Do you now claim isa(as) is excluded and is not a rasul? How longer will you reject the ayahs?"
To address this ridiculous accusation, let me draw an analogy that shows how ludicrous Razi's Ahmadi logic is.
Question: Was Umar Ibn Al-Khattab a man?
Answer: Yes, of course.
Question: So is he included in ‘Al-Naas’ in the Ayah:
و تمت كلمة ربك لأملأن جهنم من الجنة والناس أجمعين
Answer: No, of course not.
Someone using Razi’s Ahmadi logic would conclude:
"Do you now claim Umar ibn Al-Khattab (r.a) is excluded and is not a human being? How long will you reject the ayahs?"
This is exactly what Razi did when he said to me:
"Do you now claim isa(as) is excluded and is not a rasul? How longer will you reject the ayahs?"
The facts are crystal clear for anyone who has a mind. Isa ﷺ was a messenger, as Umar ibn Al-Khattab (r.a) was a human being.
Now that it has been linguistically proved that
((قد خلت من قبله الرسل)) is NOT necessarily referring to ALL messengers, the whole Ahmadi claim of Ijma' of the sahaba that Isa ﷺ has died based on this Ayah is proved baseless and without merit.
May the peace and blessings of Allah be upon His Final Messenger Muhammad ﷺ, his family, his companions, and those who follow them until the Last Day.
May ALLAH guide Ahmadis to the right path. Aameen
No comments:
Post a Comment