Is "Qadian" or “Kadi” or “Kadia” mentioned in Hadith?

The founder of the Ahmadiyya religion, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani, quotes a narration which seems to mention the village where the Mahdi will appear is called “Kadi” or “Kadia”. Similar is mentioned in “The Second Coming of Jesus” (pg 71) by Hasanat Ahmad Syed, and many pro-Ahmadiyya sites quote it with excitement.

The Second Coming of Jesus by Hasanat Ahmad Syed: Page 71 (Direct link to the page)

In the following lines we will clearly expose this lie and twisting done by Ahmadis.

1) Actual Word

The fact is that “kadi” or “kadia” is not mentioned in any Hadith. The actual word is كرعة “Kari” or “Karia”, and this is not the first time we have seen the Mirzais change the letter “raa” to “daal” when it comes to Hadith literature (Mirza Qadiani also did this trick to a hadith in Kanzul Ummal regarding the Dajjal, even if it was a typo, as a “prophet”, he should have known). Other versions of this narration say “Kari” is a village in Yemen, such as in Mu’jam al-Buldaan and other works:

“Abdullah Ibn Amr ibn Aas said that the Prophet (PBUH) said: The Mahdi will emerge from a village in Yemen called Kari’a or Kara’at”.

The following books also contain such narrations but ALL of them mention “Kara’t” or “Kari’a” and not “Kadi” or “Kadia”:

المعجم لابن المقرئ

الإيماء إلى زوائد الأمالي والأجزاء

الأربعون حديثا في المهدي

ذخيرة الحفاظ

الحاوي للفتاوي

الفتاوى الحديثية

a) From Jawahir ul Asrar

Another source many Ahmadi sites quote from is Jawahir-ul-Asrar, and the author of the book (Ali Malik al-Tusi) quotes from “Arbaeen” (Abu Nu’aym Asbahani’s book Arbaoon Hadithan fil Mahdi), and again there is no mention of “kadia” in this hadith either, rather it clearly says on page 9 (of Abu Nu’aym’s book):

However, there are two version of this manuscript (Jawahir ul Asrar), the older looking manuscript says Kari’a and the latter one seems to say Kadia:

Manuscript 1:

Manuscript 2:

Keeping in mind that this was hand written, it can even be a “raa” since “daal” and “raa” look very similar and it is unclear what the later scribe intended, or it was a typo by the later scribe. But the fact of the matter is that the author Ali Malik al-Tusi quotes from another source and he does not give his own chain or authority.

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani:

We do not know which version Mirza Qadiani had access to, but as a “prophet” he should have known that it was a typo or at least referred to the original Hadith and not from a secondary source with no chain and unclear writing, Mirza mistakenly quotes is as (or misleadingly):

- Ruhani Khazain - Vol 11, Page 325 (Direct link to the page)

b) Kitaab al-Bayaan:

An Arabic Ahmadiyya page on Facebook says that the word “kadia” is in a book named “Kitaab al-Bayaan”. They do not provide the proper reference and page number intentionally so as to make it very difficult for one to double check. They were however referring to Al-Bayaan fi Akhbaar Saahib az-Zaman by al-Kanji as-Shafi, and the hadith is there on page 44, but it does not have the word “Kadia” or “Kadi”, and this was a clear lie.

2) Chain of Narrators:

The chain of narrators (isnaad) of these narrations are as follows:

حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ تَمَّامِ بْنِ صَالِحٍ الْحِمْصِيُّ، بِحِمْصَ، حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الْوَهَّابِ بْنُ الضَّحَّاكِ، حَدَّثَنَا إِسْمَاعِيلُ بْنُ عَيَّاشٍ، عَنْ صَفْوَانَ بْنِ عَمْرٍو، عَنْ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنِ جُبَيْرِ بْنِ نُفَيْرٍ، عَنْ كَثِيرِ بْنِ مُرَّةَ، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ عَمْرِو بْنِ الْعَاصِ

حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمد بْنُ عُبَيد اللَّهِ بن فضيل، حَدَّثَنا عَبد الْوَهَّابِ بْنُ الضَّحَّاكِ، حَدَّثَنا إِسْمَاعِيلُ بْنُ عَيَّاشٍ عَنْ صَفْوَانَ بْنِ عَمْرو عَنْ عَبد الرَّحْمَنِ بْنِ جُبَيْرِ بْنِ نُفَيْرٍ عَنْ كَثِيرِ بْنِ مُرَّةَ عَنِ عَبد اللَّهِ بْنِ عَمْرو بْنِ الْعَاصِ

In both chains a big liar by the name of Abdul Wahab bin Dahhak is present, whom the scholars of hadith have severely criticized for his forgery and fabrications and concluded that he is matrook (rejected). See Tahdheeb al-Tahdheeb of Ibn Hajar for the scholarly opinions of this man. Therefore, these narrations are extremely weak.

3) Word Analysis and Comparison:

If we break down the word “Qadian” or “Qadia” and the words “Kari’a” and “Kara’t” we get the following letters:

   a) ق ا د ي ا ن

   b) ك ر ع ة

These words are etymologically totally unrelated, and they do not have a single letter that is the same, not even the “daal” as Ahmadis would like people to believe.

Summary:

1. The word “Kadi” or “Kadia” does not exist in any narration, and Mirza Qadiani and the Qadianis based this entire narration off of a secondary source with unclear script. The version which seems older of Jawahir ul Asrar mentions Karia, while another version contains a typo or is unclear. In any case, Ali Malik was quoting from another source which we deemed to be from Abu Nu’aym’s book which has a chain, but does not mention Kadia.
   
   
2. Another narration says the village “Kari” or “Kari’a” or “Kara’t” where the Mahdi will emerge will be in Yemen, which is also a dubious narration.
   
   
3. All these narrations about the Mahdi coming from such a village are extremely weak and Muslims do not believe that the Mahdi will come from Yemen as it contradicts more authentic narrations.
   
   
4. This name mentioned in the narrations have absolutely no resemblance to the word “Qadian’, not a single letter is the same.
   
   

And Allah knows best!