Al-Mahdī and ‘Īsā are One Same Personification

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Al-Mahdī and ‘Īsā are One Same Personification
A Comprehensive Refutation to Waqar Akbar Cheema

I read here just now that, pursuant to Waqar Akbar Cheema, al-Mahdī and al-Masīḥ are different. In order to refute our three arguments presented in a series of Rah-e-Huda, he propounds several narrations from aḥādīth and sayings of classical Muslim scholars. To spellbind the readers, he is actually committing such a deceitful and fraudulent way. He is not fair and honest in giving low-down. I am here therefore feeling summoned to break their shiftiness one by one.

FIRST, in criticizing our argumentation[1], he quotes a narration from Kanz al-‘Ummāl 14/266:

لن تهلك أمة أنا في أولها وعيسى ابن مريم في آخرها، والمهدي في أوسطها.

Al-Muttaqī al-Hindī pens after showing this khabar that it is derived from Abū Nu‘aym’s “Akhbār al-Mahdī” from Ibn ‘Abbāsra (which he changes it to be “Kitāb al-Mahdī”). Unfortunately, there is no such a book by that name authored by Abū Nu‘aym. What is actually existed is “Al-Arba‘ūn Ḥadītsan Fī al-Mahdī”. Perhaps, this is the book Al-Muttaqī al-Hindī actually refers to. But, due to the ignorance of Waqar Sahib, he does not first check out before coming to paper. Abū Nu‘aym chronicles at the last list of the book a sounding ḥadīth:

عن عبد الله بن العبّـاس، قال: قال رسـول الله صلى الله عليه وآله سلم: لن تهلك أُمّـة أنا في أوّلها، وعيـسـى بن مريم في آخرها، والمهديّ في وسطها.

“From Ḥaḍrat ‘Abdu-Llāh ibn al-‘Abbāsra, he said: Ḥadrat Rasūlu-LlāhSAW said: An Ummah, which I am in their beginning, Jesus Son of Maryamas in their end, and al-Mahdīas in their middle, will never perish”.

This narration is also transcribed in ‘Iqd ad-Durar 1/218 with ta‘līq, Tārīkh Dimashq 3/394 and 4/522. All the chains are weak. I am about to discuss it one after one.

Firstly, as stated in Tārīkh Dimashq, we read:

أخبرنا أبو القاسم الشحامي؛ أنبأنا أبو سعد الجنزرودي؛ أنبأنا أبو أحمد محمد بن محمد؛  أخبرني أبو الطيب أحمد بن عبد الله الدارميـ بأنطاكية؛ حدثنا يمان بن سعيد؛ حدثنا خالد بن يزيد القشيري؛ حدثنا محمد بن إبراهيم الهاشمي؛ عن أبي جعفر أمير المؤمنين عبد الله بن محمد، عن أبيه، عن ابن عباس، قال : قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: كيف تهلك أمة أنا أولها وعيسى ابن مريم آخرها، والمهدي من أهل بيتي في وسطها؟

“From Ḥaḍrat ‘Abdu-Llāh ibn al-‘Abbāsra, he said: Ḥadrat Rasūlu-LlāhSAW said: How will an Ummah perish, which I am in their beginning, Jesus Son of Maryamas in their end, and al-Mahdīasfrom my Ahl al-Bayt in their middle”.

The red-coloured persons in the text above are majhūl or unknown of their ḥadīth narration, while the sky-blue signifies weak narrators. Let’s go deeper.

<1> Abū aṭ-Ṭayyib Aḥmad ad-Dārimī

He is majhūl al-ḥāl, nothing is grasped about his profile.

<2> Yamān ibn Sa‘īd al-Maṣṣīṣī

Adh-Dhahabī weakens him and so does ad-Dāruquṭnī [Mīzān al-I‘tidāl 7/289; Dīwān aḍ-Ḍu‘afā’ 1/447]. Ibn al-Jauzī says the same [Aḍ-Ḍu‘afā’ Wa al-Matrūkīn 3/218].

<3> Yazīd ibn Khālid al-Qushayrī

Abū Ḥātim and Yaḥyā ibn Ma‘īn calls him liar. Ibn Ḥibbān writes that he narrates fabricated ḥadīth from athbāt (firmed persons). Al-‘Uqaylī describes him munkar whereas Mūsā ibn Hārūn weakens him [Mīzān al-I‘tidāl 2/433]. It should be cognized that Yazīd ibn Khālid al-Qushayrī here is Abū al-Haytham al-‘Umarī, not Abū al-Walīd al-Makkī who is too flimsy.

<4> Caliph al-Manṣūr

The Caliph is unidentified of his narration in the science of ḥadīth.

Chain of the narration is also mursal as the father of Abū Ja‘far al-Manṣūr does not directly listen to Sayyidunā Ibn ‘Abbāsra. We can thus take a conclusion that this chain is weak.

Morever, the Grand Shaykh of Wahabism, including Waqar, classifies this khabar ḍa‘īf. He says:

“This ḥadīth is to me munkar. Because it seems that there are a plenty of years between al-Mahdīas and Jesusas. Whereas there is another valid narration that both of them will meet each others in Damascus. Jesusas will then conjoin al-Mahdīas. So, how can it be said that al-Mahdīas is in the middle of this Ummah and Jesusasis in their end?” [Silsilah al-Aḥādīth aḍ-Ḍa‘īfah 5/370]

Even though neither we follow nor agree with al-Albānī, Waqar must abide by him as a wahhābī.

We are at  the moment travelling to another chain, still in Tārīkh Dimashq:

كتب إلي أبو طالب الحسين بن محمد بن علي الزينبي؛ وحدثنا أبو طاهر إبراهيم بن الحسن الفقيه؛ عنه، أنا أبو القاسم علي بن المحسن بن علي التنوخي؛ نا أبو الحسين محمد بن المظفر بن موسى من لفظه؛ نا أبو بكر أحمد بن محمد بن عبيد الله الدمشقي؛ أخبرني طاهر بن علي؛ نا علي بن هاشم؛ نا أبو الهيثم بن إبراهيم؛ أن أمير المؤمنين أبا جعفر حدثه؛ عن أبيه؛ عن ابن عباس؛ أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال:كيف تهلك أمة أنا أولها، وعيسى في آخرها، والمهدي من أهل بيتي في وسطها؟

“From Ḥaḍrat ‘Abdu-Llāh ibn al-‘Abbāsra, he said: Ḥadrat Rasūlu-LlāhSAW said: How will an Ummah perish, which I am in their beginning, Jesus Son of Maryamas in their end, and al-Mahdīasfrom my Ahl al-Bayt in their middle”.

<1> Abū Bakr Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad ad-Dimashqī

‘Abd-ul-‘Azīz ibn ‘Alī al-Azajī says that he brings munkar aḥādīth whose isnād can not be taken as ḥujjah.

<2> Ṭāhir ibn ‘Alī

Nothing is possessed about himself. But, he is tabbed somewhere a shī‘ī [Ḥayātu ash-Shaykh Muḥammad ibn Ya‘qūb al-Kulaynī 1/366-367].

<3> ‘Alī ibn Hāshim

Majhūl al-ḥāl.

<4> Caliph al-Manṣūr

He is not a man in the field of ḥadīth.

Similar with the previous chain, this is too mursal as the father of Abū Ja‘far al-Manṣūr does not have a direct simā‘ to Ḥaḍrat Ibn ‘Abbāsra. Furthermore, al-Albāni also says that this sanad is muẓlim (dark) [Silsilah al-Aḥādīth aḍ-Ḍa‘īfah 5/370].

The final illation we can fetch from here is that all the narrations stating that al-Mahdīaswill come in the middle of al-Ummah al-Muṣṭafawiyyah are thoroughly weak.

Pertaining to the quotation of al-Munāwī, we respect him and pray for him (raḥimahu-Llāh) for his services and merits to Islām. Yet, as an ordinary man, everyone is possible to do a mistake, even if he has become a great scholar. We do not therefore agree with his statement. For, the first, it contradicts narrations informing that al-Mahdīas will appear at the last age. The second, it conflicts the use of the وسط word in Arabic language.

The first point: Authentic narrations from Kutub al-Aḥādīth testify the precise time when al-Muntaẓaras will get around.

أخبرني أبو العباس محمد بن أحمد المحبوبي بمرو؛ ثنا سعيد بن مسعود؛ ثنا النضر بن شميل؛ ثنا سليمان بن عبيد؛ ثنا أبو الصديق الناجي؛ عن أبي سعيد الخدري رضي الله عنه، أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم قال: يخرج في آخر أمتي المهدي يسقيه الله الغيث، وتخرج الأرض نباتها، ويعطي المال صحاحا، وتكثر الماشية وتعظم الأمة، يعيش سبعا أو ثمانيا يعني حججا.

“Abū al-‘Abbās Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad al-Maḥbūbī narrated to us in Merv; Sa‘īd ibn Mas‘ūd narrated to us; an-Naḍr ibn Shumayl narrated to us; Sulaymān ibn ‘Ubayd narrated to us; Abū aṣ-Ṣiddīq an-Nājī narrated to us; from Ḥaḍrat Abū Sa‘īd al-Khudrīra, that Ḥadrat Rasūlu-LlāhSAW said: Al-Mahdīaswill come out at the end of my Ummah. Allāh will water for him rainfall, earth therefore will put forth its plant. He will evenly spread wealth, livestock will be abundant, and the Ummah will be glorified. He will live then either seven or eight”. [Al-Mustadrak ‘Alā aṣ-Ṣaḥīḥayn, Kitāb al-Fitan Wa al-Malāḥim, no. 8737, 5/19-20]

Al-Ḥākim categorizes this authentic which al-Bukhārī and Muslim does not mention.
حدثنا أبو معاوية؛ عن داود؛ عن أبي نضرة، عن أبي سعيد رضي الله عنه، عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم، قال: يخرج في آخر الزمان خليفة يعطي المال بغير عدد.

“Abū Mu‘āwiyah narrated to us; from Dāwūd, from Abū Naḍrah, from Ḥaḍrat Abū Sa‘īd al-Khudrīra, from Ḥadrat Rasūlu-LlāhSAW, he said: There will be a Caliph at the end of the age who will afford wealth without counting”. [al-Fitan Li Nu‘aym ibn Ḥammād, no. 1032] – Ṣaḥīḥ Marfū‘

In another riwāyah, we read:

حدثنا أبو معاوية؛ عن داود عن أبي نضرة؛ عن أبي سعيد؛ عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قال: يخرج في آخر الزمان خليفة يعطي الحق بغير عدد.

“Abū Mu‘āwiyah narrated to us; from Dāwūd, from Abū Naḍrah, from Ḥaḍrat Abū Sa‘īd al-Khudrīra, from Ḥadrat Rasūlu-LlāhSAW, he said: There will be a Caliph at the end of the age who will afford truth without counting”. [al-Muṣannaf, Kitāb al-Fitan, no. 38654] – Ṣaḥīḥ Marfū‘

Waqar is bizarre. Earlier, he claims that al-Mahdīaswill come in the middle of al-Ummah al-Muḥammadiyyah. Later, he announces that al-Mahdīas is a person from the lineage of the Holy ProphetSAW who to appear near the end of of the time. Waqar, if only you were a bit more consistent.

The second point: Build upon the application of Arabian people, the word وسط always shows middle, whatsoever between two sides. Ibn Manẓūr cites a poet:

إذا رحلت فاجعلوني وسطا، إني كبير، لا أطيق العندا أي اجعلوني وسطا لكم ترفقون بي وتحفظونني، فإني أخاف إذا كنت وحدي متقدما لكم أو متأخرا عنكم أن تفرط دابتي أو ناقتي فتصرعني.

“I.e. If you journey, make me in the middle of you (wasaṭan). So, you can accompany alongside me and safeguard me. For I fear if I outdistance before you or fall behind you exclusively, my animal or my camel will overdo then hurtle me”. [Lisān al-‘Arab 7/426]

It is vivid from the light that the word means middle, not frontier nor rearward. The people of Arab usually say too وسط الحياة to express the epoch between the outset of human life and its finale [Mu‘jam al-Luġah al-‘Arabiyyah al-Muāṣirah 3/2436]. ‘Aṣr prayer is accordingly named aṣ-Ṣalāt al-Wuṣṭā in the Holy Qur’ān, for it takes time between Fajr-Ẓuhr and Maġrib-‘Ishā’. Also, the finger located between index finger (as-sabābah) with ring finger (al-binṣir) is called middle finger (al-wuṣṭā).

If Waqar is still being stubborn after reading this obvious explanation, let him be so. Let him kill Jesusas when he descends from heaven. As an “Ahl al-Ḥadīth”, he must implement every khabar al-wāḥīd whether it is ṣaḥīḥ or ḥasan. It comes from Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim:

وحدثني وهب بن بقية الواسطي؛ حدثنا خالد بن عبد الله؛ عن الجريري، عن أبي نضرة، عن أبي سعيد الخدري، قال: قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: إذا بويع لخليفتين فاقتلوا الآخر منهما.

“Wahb ibn Baqiyyah al-Wāṣiṭī narrated to us; Khālid ibn ‘Abdi-Llāh narrated to us; from al-Jarīrī, from Abū Naḍrah, from Ḥaḍrat Abū Sa‘īd al-Khudrīra, he said: Ḥadrat Rasūlu-LlāhSAWsaid: If two caliphs are given allegiance, murder then the last of the two”. [Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, Kitāb al-Imārah, Bāb Idhā Būyi‘a Li Khalīfatayn, no. 1853]

According to several aḥādīth, al-Mahdīas is denominated a Caliph of Allāh[2]. In another place, al-Masīḥas is named the caliph of my Ummah[3]. So, due to al-Masīḥas’s late coming, he must be killed pursuant to the teaching of ḥadīth. Will Waqar Sahib execute this sacred task?

Here is another authentic khabar apprising us who is the virtual person between the Holy ProphetSAW and Jesusas, i.e. in the middle of this Ummah:

حدثنا أحمد بن إسحاق؛ ثنا عبد الله بن سليمان؛ ثنا محمد بن خلف العسقلاني؛ ثنا الفريابي؛ عن الأوزاعي، عن عروة، قال: قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: خير هذه الأمة أولها وآخرها، أولها فيهم رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وآخرها فيهم عيسى ابن مريم، وبين ذلك ثبج أعوج ليس منك ولست منهم.

“Aḥmad ibn Isḥāq narrated to us; ‘Abdu-Llāh ibn Sulaymān narrated to us; Muḥammad ibn Khalaf al-‘Asqalānī narrated to us; Al-Faryābī narrated tp us; from al-Auzā‘ī, from ‘Urwah, he said: Ḥadrat Rasūlu-LlāhSAWsaid: The best of this Ummah are their beginning and their end. Their beginning is where there is Rasūlu-LlāhSAW and their end is where there is Jesus Son of Maryamas. Between both of them is thabaj a‘waj (the askew middle). They are not from you[4] and I am not from them”. [Ḥilyat al-Auliyā’ no. 8181]

Although this khabar is mursal as ‘Urwah ibn Ruwaym does not directly listen to the Holy ProphetSAW, it is still acceptable as all the narrators are thiqah. Furthermore, Ibn al-Qayyim beautifully explains this ḥadīth in two lines of his poetry:

الطرفين أعني أولا والثاني
ولقد أتى أثر بأن الفضل في
جاء الحديث وليس ذا نكران
والوسط ذو ثبج فأعوج هكذا

“An athar has been derived that the eminence is in; the two parties, the first and the second. Whereas the middle has thabaj a‘waj; With regard to it is a ḥadīth that has no renunciation”. [Al-Kāfiyah ash-Shāfiyah 3/908]

This simply transmutes Waqar (noble) to be Ḥaqar (scurvy) for being dishonest and underhanded in presenting the true situation.

SECOND, Waqar Sahib smacks his opinion with his own statement. I am not here going to discuss one by one every ḥadīth he mentions, because it is not directly related to the essence of our talk, in spite of being mark-hitters more or less.

First and foremost, our argumentation copied by Waqar is ṣaḥīḥ marfū‘ mauṣūl. No need to try to weaken it. As for the issue “Imāman Mahdiyyan”, it should be perceived that it is in the office of ḥāl mubayyinah li aṣ-ṣifah in Arabic grammar (Naḥw) which explicates the status and the job occupied by Jesusashimself. Jesusas will then come as an “Imāman Mahdiyyan” or “Rightly-Guided Imām” and a just ruler. In other words, Jesusas is practically that Imām Mahdī and that just ruler. The first point is attained.

Now, when Jesusas is the rightly-guided leader, why is another man still demanded? For instance: Ahmad el-Tayib fills all the qualifications to be the Grand Sheikh of al-Azhar. His capability is no need to be questioned. When Ahmad el-Tayib meets all the requirements, why do you still search for another Grand Sheikh?

Unfortunately, Waqar Sahib regards al-Mahdīas a personal name (Ism al-‘Alam), whereas aḥādīth lighten us that he is not someone’s name, but a predicate someone bears (even if he presents a ḥadīth indicating the name of al-Mahdīas). I understand Waqar try to say: A is Jesus and B is Mahdī. How can Jesus be Mahdī and vice versa whereas they are described to be separated? It is really a big fallacy. In one perspective, he proudly claims that he finds some people who have been called al-Mahdī, such as the Four Rashidun Caliphsra, Ḥaḍrat Mu‘āwiyah ibn Abī Sufyānra, Ḥaḍrat Jābir ibn ‘Abdi-Llāhra, etc. Yet, why does he deny that Jesusas is also a Mahdī? On the contrary, the use of ḥāl mubayyinah li aṣ-ṣifah in Imāman Mahdiyyan points to the alif lām inserted in al-Mahdī from Ahl al-Bayt. It means, Jesusasis al-Mahdīas of Ahl al-Bayt himself. We read in the most authentic book after the Holy Qur’ān:

حدثنا ابن بكير؛ حدثنا الليث؛ عن يونس، عن ابن شهاب، عن نافع مولى أبي قتادة الأنصاري، أن أبا هريرة قال: قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: كيف أنتم إذا نزل ابن مريم فيكم وإمامكم منكم.

“Ibn Bukayr narrated to us; al-Layts narrated to us; from Yūnus, from Ibn Syihāb, from Nāfi‘ Maulā Ḥaḍrat Abū Qatādah al-Anṣārīra, that Ḥaḍrat Abū Hurayrahra said: Ḥaḍrat Rasūlu-LlāhSAW said: How will you be if Jesusas descends among you and your Imām is from you?”. [Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, Kitāb Aḥādīts al-Anbiyā’, Bāb Nuzūli ‘Īsā Ibn Maryamas, no. 3265]

Look at the green-lined words. It looks that Jesusas comes and an Imām has been available before him. If you think so, you are absolutely false. In another narration, Sayyidunā Khātam-ul-Anbiyā’SAW says:

وحدثنا زهير بن حرب؛ حدثني الوليد بن مسلم؛ حدثنا ابن أبي ذئب؛ عن ابن شهاب، عن نافع مولى أبي قتادة، عن أبي هريرة، أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال:كيف أنتم إذا نزل فيكم ابن مريم فأمكم منكم؟

“Zuhayr ibn Ḥarb narrated to us; al-Walīd ibn Muslim narrated to us; Ibn Abī Dzi’b narrated to us; from Ibn Syihāb, from Nāfi‘ Maulā Ḥaḍrat Abū Qatādah al-Anṣārīra, from Ḥaḍrat Abū Hurayrahra, that Ḥaḍrat Rasūlu-LlāhSAW said: How will you be if Jesusasdescends among you and he will then lead you among you? [Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, Kitāb al-Īmān, Bāb Nuzūli Īsā Ibn Maryamas Ḥākiman Bi Syarī‘ati NabiyyināSAW, no. 228]

It is truly bright from both the aḥādīth that Jesusas will come and he himself will lead and go at the top station as the Imām of the Muslims. It indicates that Jesusas is al-Mahdī himself as al-Mahdī is too called Imām. If al-Mahdīas has been an Imām before the appearance of Jesusas, what is the benefit of this ḥadīth for us? What is the real advantage of the arrival of Jesusas? It nay ruins one of the most substantive Islamic principles as elaborated by the Four Imāms:

أنه لا يجوز أن يكون على المسلمين في وقت واحد في جميع الدنيا إمامان لا متفقان ولا متفرقان.

“It is impermissible for the Muslims at one single time throughout the world to have two divergent Imāms, whether they are concordant nor divergent”.  [Al-Mīzān al-Kubrā 2/131]

Al-Imām an-Nawawī, a shāfi‘ī scholar, speaks in ash-Sharḥ:

واتفق العلماء على أنه لا يجوز أن يعقد الخليفتين في عصر واحد سواء اتسعت دار الإسلام أم لا.

“The scholars have come into an agreement that it is impermissible that two disparate caliphs are appointed at one single period, same either Dār al-Islām expands or not”. [Sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 12/232]

Ibn Ḥazm, aẓ-Ẓāhirī, a 4th Hijrī scholar, writes:

ولا يحل أن يكون في الدنيا إلا إمام واحد.

“It is not legal in the world except only one single Imām”. [al-Muḥallā 9/360]

Al-Imām al-Mawardī, an expert of as-Siyāsah al-Islāmiyyah, makes clear:

وإذا عقدت الإمامة لإمامين في بلدين لم تنعقد إمامتهما لأنه لا يجوز أن يكون للأمة إمامان في وقت واحد.

“If Imāmah is disposed for two Imāms in two variant countries, their Imāmah is not warrantable as it is impermissible for Ummah to have two Imāms at one single time”. [al-Aḥkām as-Sulṭāniyyah 1/10]

All this shining evidences clearly break Waqar’s artfulness. I repeat, if Waqar is still being recalcitrant, I will support him to practice the noble order to kill Jesusas as he will arrive as a Caliph after al-Mahdīas, whereas the unification of two distinct Imāms at one single time is prohibited.

Waqar’s statement that Alif Lām is used only for al-Mahdī of the Last Age is a proof of his ignorance. He copies a moment ago a narration telling that the Four Caliphs are called al-Khulafā’ ar-Rāshīdīn al-Mahdiyyīn. It means that each of them is the greatest Mahdī at his own era. And, if he says that the use of Alif Lām implies superiority of al-Mahdīas of the Last Time over all Mahdīs, I agree with him. But, whom I mean is none except Jesusashimself as Ibn al-Qayyim states:

إنما المهدي عيسى ابن مريم، يعني المهدي الكامل المعصوم.

“Al-Mahdī is only Jesus Son of Maryamas. I.e. the Perfect and Infallible Mahdī”. [al-Manār al-Munīf p. 148]

Too a saying of al-Qurṭubī:

لا مهدي كاملا معصوما إلا عيسى.

“There is no Perfect and Infallible Mahdī except Jesusas”. [at-Tadhkirah 2/723]

The summary of all we are talking about is that our al-Mahdī is none else apart Jesusashimself. I.e. our al-Mahdī will stand to the Messenger of AllāhSAW on the same position as Jesusas’s to al-Kalīm Mūsāas. It is interesting to know what the people of taṣawwuf declare:

لا يكون مهدي إلا المهدي الذي نسبته إلى الشريعة المحمدية نسبة عيسى إلى الشريعة الموسوية في الاتباع و عدم النسخ.

“There will be none of Mahdī except the Mahdī whose relation to the Muḥammadian Law in adherence and absence of abrogation is like the relation of Jesusas to the the Mosaic Law”. [Muqaddimah Ibn Khaldūn, al-Qism ath-Thānī Min al-Faṣl ath-Thālith Wa al-Khamsūn Fī Amr al-Fāṭimī]

We can thus take a conclusion that the correct one is: al-Mahdīasand al-Masīḥas are none else apart one Same Individual from the blessed progeny of Sayyidunā Muḥammad al-MuṣṭafāSAW. He will pick two statuses up, al-Masīḥiyyat and al-Mahdawiyyat. Al-Masīḥiyyat, which represents al-Burūz al-Īsawī, beats the tympanum of lordliness and dignity (Jalāl) to demolish evil. Whilst al-Mahdawiyyat, which represents al-Burūz al-Muḥammadī, blows the saxophone of gracefulness and beauty (Jamāl) to outspread virtue.

THIRD, Waqar Sahib strives to issue a classical issue about that ḥadīth. Okey, we are paying his game. Let us go deeper by following al-Albāni’s reasons to weakens it.

First, tadlīs of al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī. It is a big slander attributed to him. Anas ibn Mālikra is a teacher of al-Ḥasan and he narrates from him [Tahdhīb al-Kamāl 6/97]. So, even though he is a mudallis, it does not harm him. Let alone al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar includes him in al-Martabah ath-Thāniyah of Mudallisīn [Ṭabaqāt al-Mudallisīn p.8]. This al-Martabah ath-Thāniyah is defined as:

من أكثر الأئمة من إخراج حديثه إما لإمامته، أو لكونه قليل التدليس في جنب ما روى من الحديث الكثير، أو أنه كان لا يُدَلِّس إلا عن ثقة.

“Majority of Imāms posts (ikhrāj/takhrīj) his ḥadīth either for his Imāmah or for his status as a lack of concealing (qalīl at-tadlīs) beside a lot of ḥadīth he narrates. Or, he does not use to conceal apart from a thiqah”.

Al-Bazzār says that the ḥadīth of a mudallis who does not narrate except from a thiqah is acceptable.

When it is clear that al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī directly listens to Ḥaḍrat Anas ibn Mālikra and he is also among the Second Martabah, the first problem is gone.

I think, the biggest problem is not located at the tadlīs of al-Ḥasan, but ‘an‘anah he uses in his narration from Anasra. Some state that the ‘an‘anah of a mudallis is unacceptable. Yet, the true is that the ‘an‘anah of a mudallis will be accepted if he is lack of tadlīs and contemporary with the one whom he narrates from. ‘An‘anah itself denotes that the ḥadīth narrated is muttaṣil. Abū ‘Amrū ad-Dānī al-Muqri’ and Ibn ‘Abd-il-Barr proclaimes it to be Ijmā’ Ahl an-Naql. Abū al-Muẓaffar as-Sam‘ānī adds another requirement, length of friendship. Ad-Dānī also speaks that if a mudallis is well-known of his narration from the one he narrates from, his ḥadīth will be definitely accepted. And, as al-Qābisī says, if they have recognized each others a sure recognition [al-Bā‘ith al-Ḥathīth p. 169-170]. Al-Ḥasan, first, was described as a scant of tadlīs. The left requirements are enough with a beautiful narration from Anasra. He is once asked by someone on a matter. He replies that he should ask al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī whilst describing him “Maulānā”. The questioner is later puzzled, then asks why. He answers, “We listen and he too listens, but we forget and he still remembers [al-Muṣannaf, Kitāb az-Zuhd, no. 34908]. It is simply to conclude that the ‘an‘anah of al-Ḥasan is accepted.

Here, al-Albānī’s first accuse is proven to be absolutely false.

Second, al-Albānī classifies Muḥammad ibn Khālid al-Janadī majhūl. If only he were more scrupulous. Al-Janadī is categorized by Yaḥyā ibn Ma‘īn, Imām al-Jarḥ Wa at-Ta‘dīl and Sayyid al-Ḥuffāẓ, as thiqah [Mīzān al-I‘tidāl 6/133; Tahdhīb al-Kamāl 25/149; Tawālī at-Ta’sīs p. 257; Sharḥ Sunan Ibn Mājah 1/293; aṭ-Ṭuyūriyyāt no. 291]. Conceding this, al-‘Allāmah al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Kathīr lucidly enunciates:

هذا حديث مشهور بمحمد بن خالد الجندي المؤذن شيخ الشافعي، وروى عنه غير واحد أيضا وليس هو بمجهول كما زعمه الحاكم، بل قد روي عن بن معين أنه وثقه.

“This is a renowned ḥadīth through Muḥammad ibn Khālid al-Janadī al-Muadhdhin, Shaykh of ash-Shāfi‘ī. More than one also narrates from him. He is not majhūl as al-Ḥākim presumes, it is nay narrated from Ibn Ma‘īn that he classifies him thiqah”. [Al-Bidāyah Wa an-Nihāyah 19/66]

Thereupon, what is left for you, O Waqar and al-Albānī?

Third, the difference in isnād. It is actually not something that can injure. We know that this ḥadīth is centered in Muḥammad ibn Khālid. From this person, two chains flow: One from Abbān ibn Ṣāliḥ and the other from Ibn Abī ‘Ayyāsh. Abbān ibn Ṣāliḥ is a thiqah. So, even though Ibn Abī ‘Ayyāsh is forsaken (matrūk), he has a mutāba‘ah from Abbān ibn Ṣāliḥ which elevates that chain of him to higher degree. The chain of Ibn Abī ‘Ayyāsh is mursal, as al-Ḥasan does not directly listen to the Holy ProphetSAW. But, in Abbān ibn Ṣāliḥ’s chain, al-Ḥasan virtually transmits the sanad to Anasra then to the ProphetSAW. That transmission of Ibn Abī ‘Ayyāsh is thus uplifted to ḥasan li ġayrihi.

This is the chain of Abbān ibn Ṣāliḥ:

حدثنا يونس بن عبد الأعلى؛ حدثنا محمد بن إدريس الشافعي؛ حدثني محمد بن خالد الجندي؛ عن أبان بن صالح، عن الحسن، عن أنس بن مالك، أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال: لا يزداد الأمر إلا شدة، ولا الدنيا إلا إدبارا، ولا الناس إلا شحا، ولا تقوم الساعة إلا على شرار الناس، ولا المهدي إلا عيسى ابن مريم.

“Yūnus ibn ‘Abd-il-A‘lā narrated to us; Muḥammad ibn Idrīs ash-Shāfi‘ī narrated to us; Muḥammad ibn Khālid al-Janadī narrated to me; from Abbān ibn Ṣāliḥ, from al-Ḥasan, from Ḥaḍrat Anas ibn Mālikra, that Ḥaḍrat Rasūlu-LlāhSAWsaid: The matter will not extend except harshness, nor the world except deterioration, nor the mankind except stinginess. The Doomsday will not take place except upon the worst of the men. There is no Mahdī except Jesus Son of Maryas”. [Sunan Ibn Mājah, Kitāb al-Fitan, Bāb Shiddat az-Zamān, no. 4039]

The chain of Ibn Abī ‘Ayyāsh:

قال صامت بن معاذ: عدلت إلى الجند مسيرة يومين من صنعاء، فدخلت على محدث لهم، فطلبت هذا الحديث، فوجدته عنده، عن محمد بن خالد الجندي، عن أبان بن أبي عياش، عن الحسن، عن النبي صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم مثله.

“Ṣāmit ibn Mu‘ādh says: I travelled to al-Janad for two days trip from Ṣan‘ā’. I later entered a muḥaddith of them. I sought this ḥadīth. I found it in sight of him: from Muḥammad ibn Khālid al-Janadī, from Abbān ibn Abī ‘Ayyāsh, from al-Ḥasan, from the Holy ProphetSAW, similar with that”. [Al-Mustadrak ‘Alā aṣ-Ṣaḥīḥayn, Kitāb al-Fitan Wa al-Malāḥim, no. 8430, 4/607]

To be noted here, Ṣāmit ibn Mu‘ādh used to be illusory (yahimu) and outlandish (yaġribu) [Lisān al-Mīzān 3/178]

If it is asked to me how I can pen such a statement? I will guide you to the same method which al-Albāni himself executes. In Sunan Ibn Mājah with his taḥqīq, al-Albānī grades this khabar as ḥasan:

حدثنا أبو بكر بن أبي شيبة؛ حدثنا وكيع؛ عن مالك بن مغول، عن عبد الرحمن بن سعيد الهمداني، عن عائشة، قالت: قلت: يا رسول الله، ﴿والذين يؤتون ما آتوا وقلوبهم وجلة﴾ أهو يضاف الرجل الذي يزني ويسرق ويشرب الخمر، قال: لا، يا بنت أبي بكر، أو يا بنت الصديق، ولكنه الرجل يصوم ويتصدق ويصلي، وهو يخاف أن لا يتقبل منه.

“Abū Bakr ibn Abī Shaybha narrated to us; Wakī‘ narrated to us; Mālik ibn Miġwal narrated to us; from Abd-ur-Raḥmān ibn Sa‘īd ibn Wahb al-Hamdānī, from Ḥaḍrat ‘Ā’ishahra, she said: I said: O the Messenger of Allāh! And those who give what they give while their hearts are full of fear﴿. Is the inserted man the one who commits adultery, robbery, and drinking of wine? He replied: No, O the daughter of Abū Bakr (or the daughter of aṣ-Ṣiddīq)! He is nay the one who offers fasting, charity, and prayer. Yet, he is still fearful that his deeds will not be accepted”. [Sunan Ibn Mājah, Kitāb az-Zuhd, Bāb at-Tawaqqu‘ Fī al-‘Amal, no. 4918]

Look at the red-lined ‘Abd-ur-Raḥmān ibn Sa‘īd ibn Wahb al-Hamdānī. Abū Ḥātim and an-Nasā’ī classify him thiqah. Al-Bukhārī utilizes him in Adab al-Mufrad, Muslim and at-Tirmidhī also make him reliable [Tahdzīb al-Kamāl, 7/145]. Al-Ḥāfiẓ describes him thiqah [Taqrīb at-Tahdzīb, p. 580]. Ibn Ḥibbān does the same [ath-Thiqāt 7/71]. But, he never meets and behold Umm-ul-Mu’minīnra as explained by Abū Ḥātim. Thus, this ḥadīth is actually munqaṭi‘ [al-Marāsīl p. 127]. Munqaṭi‘ is one of the kinds of the weak narrations. How can the weak become the strong?

Yet, let us take a heed to his reason of affirming it. In his Silsilah al-Aḥādīth aṣ-Ṣaḥīḥah (no. 162), he brings a mutāba‘ah for ‘Abd-ur-Raḥmān ibn Sa‘īd which uplifts that sanad to be higher: From Abd-ur-Raḥmān ibn Sa‘īd ibn Wahb al-Hamdānī, from Abū Ḥāzim, from Ḥaḍrat Abū Hurayrahra [Jāmi‘ al-Bayān, 17/70]. This sanad is muttaṣil and ṣaḥīḥ. That sanad of Sunan Ibn Mājah is thus raised to be ṣaḥīḥ li ġayrihi, as it has mutāba‘ah from the Jāmi‘ al-Bayān’s sanad which is also centered in Abd-ur-Raḥmān ibn Sa‘īd.

The difference of sanad between both the al-Mahdī ḥadīth and the ḥadīth above has the same case. In the deeds ḥadīth of Ibn Mājah, ‘Abd-ur-Raḥmān seems to have inqiṭā‘ with Umm-ul-Mu’minīnra. But, in the version of Tafsīr aṭ-Ṭabarī, ‘Abd-ur-Raḥmān virtually transmits it to Abū Ḥāzim to Ḥaḍrat Abū Hurayrahrato Ḥaḍrat ‘Ā’ishahra to Ḥaḍrat Rasūlu-LlāhSAW (marfū‘ mauṣūl). So, this ḥadīth comes to be ṣaḥīḥ li ġayrihi. Likewise, in the al-Mahdī ḥadīth from Abbān ibn Abī ‘Ayyāsh, al-Ḥasan seems to make irsāl. But, in the chain of Abbān ibn Ṣāliḥ, al-Ḥasan in fact transmits it to Sayyidunā Anasra. This sanad is thus uplifted to be ḥasan li ġayrihi. The status of Ibn Abī ‘Ayyāsh for being matrūk does not wound. As al-Imām Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal says: Ḥadīth from weak narrators can be sometimes taken as ḥujjah occasionally, but what is munkar is munkar forever. Al-Marrūdhī gives an explanation towards it: If a weak narrator narrates a non-munkar narration, it can be benefited as i‘tibār. As for munkar narration, whether it is from weak or strong narrator, it can not be noticed, looked, because the error is obvious within [‘Ilal al-Marrūdhī p. 287; Sharḥ al-‘Ilal Li Ibn Rajab al-Ḥanbalī 1/385].

It should also be taken to heart that this al-Mahdī ḥadīth is not munkar in itself (sanad and matan). Even if some scholars dub Abbān ibn Abī ‘Ayyāsh ḍa‘īf al-ḥadīth, it does not automatically make his ḥadīth munkar. Munkar itself is defined as a ḥadīth narrated by a weak narrator which contradicts what is narrated by the trustworthy. He has mutāba‘ah from Abbān ibn Ṣāliḥ, a thiqah, with the same narration. Thus, this ḥadīth is elevated from ḍa‘īf to ḥasan li ġayrihi. If he were the only one who narrated from Muḥammad ibn Khālid al-Janadī, it then could be graded as munkar. The matan is also non-munkar. It is assumed munkar by scholars due to their ijtihād that al-Mahdī and al-Masīḥ are different. This ijtihād of them, even if it is wrong, is still pardoned as iqāmat al-ḥujjah had not come into being at their period. Why is it non-munkar? A lot of scholars also believe that al-Mahdī is none than al-Masīḥ. Mujāhid ibn Jabr, a prominent student of Ḥaḍrat ‘Alīra and Ḥaḍrat Ibn ‘Abbāsra, states:

حدثنا الوليد بن عتبة؛ عن زائدة، عن ليث، عن مجاهد، قال: المهدي عيسى ابن مريم.

“Al-Walīd ibn ‘Utbah narrated to us; from Zā’idah, from Layth, from Mujāhid, he said: Al-Mahdī is Jesus Son of Maryamas”. [al-Muṣannaf, Kitāb al-Fitan, no. 38660] – Ṣaḥīḥ Maqṭū‘

Al-Walīd ibn Muslim, one of Imāms from Tābi‘īn, narrates:

حدثنا الوليد؛ قال: سمعت رجلا يحدث قوما، فقال: المهديون ثلاثة: مهدي الخير وهو عمر بن عبد العزيز، ومهدي الدم وهو الذي تسكن عليه الدماء، ومهدي الدين عيسى ابن مريم عليه السلام تسلم أمته في زمانه.

“Al-Walīd narrated to us; he said: I once heard of someone talk to a group of people: al-Mahdiyyūn are three. The Mahdī of virtue, he is ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd-il-‘Azīz. The Mahdī of blood, whom blood dwells in. The Mahdī of religion, he is Jesus Son of Maryamas whose Ummah is safe in his time”. [al-Fitan Li Nu‘aym ibn Ḥammād, no. 1043] – Ṣaḥīḥ Maqṭū‘

Al-‘Allāmah ‘Umar aṭ-Ṭibī says:

إن هناك فريقا كبيرا من كبار رجال السنة والجماعة يقولون لا مهدي إلا عيسى.

“There is a large party from the great of Ahl as-Sunnah Wa al-Jamā‘ah who say that there is no Mahdī except Jesusas”. [Jarīdah al-Alif, Bāb ‘Adad, p. 3499]

The scholars of ḥadīh, despite grading it weak, they also try to interpret and utilize qā‘idah al-jam‘. Ibn al-Qayyim states:

إنما المهدي عيسى ابن مريم، يعني المهدي الكامل المعصوم.

“Al-Mahdī is only Jesus Son of Maryamas. I.e. the Perfect and Infallible Mahdī”. [al-Manār al-Munīf p. 148]

Also the light of al-Qurṭubī:
لا مهدي كاملا معصوما إلا عيسى.

“There is no Perfect and Infallible Mahdī except Jesusas”. [at-Tadhkirah 2/723]

Ibn Kathīr says:

وعند التأمل لا يتنافيان، بل يكون المراد من ذلك أن المهدي حقا هو عيسى ابن مريم.

“Both of them do not conflict each others with contemplation. But, the meaning of that is that al-Mahdī in the true sense is Jesus Son of Maryas”. [Al-Bidāyah Wa an-Nihāyah 19/67]

The claim of al-ittifāq is not proven to be correct. I have already granted you a proof that Ibn Kathīr regards it ṣaḥīḥ. Is al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Kathīr ad-Dimashqī not counted among muḥaddithīn? Also, both Mujāhid and al-Walīd aḥādīth coherently express to us that the belief that there is no Mahdī except Jesusashad already been famed, notorious, and widely-known since the early age of Islām. The statement of aṭ-Ṭibī extremely corroborates this fact. It is an undoubted fact which anyone is not capable to deny.

As for ijtihād of the scholars such as Mullā ‘Alī al-Qārī’, aṭ-Ṭayyibī, Ibn Taimiyyah, etc, every Aḥmadī always respects each and every of them in personal and esteems them in a very honourable place. But, just as ordinary men, it is very possible for them to mistake. So, although their ijtihād is wrong, they still deserve and receive one reward, as enlightened in aḥādīth[5].

Waqar’s claim that Ḥaḍrat Mirzā Ghulām Aḥmad al-Qādiyānīasaccepts that ḥadīth as ḍa‘īf is absolutely a lie and humbug. La‘natu-Llāhi ‘Alā al-Kādhibīn! Curse of Allāh be upon liars! He takes conclusion in a very slapdash and frivolous manner. He does not do a nice and conscientious research. I say, it is a fraudulent trick to deceit lay readers.

Below, I present to readers what is the true view of the Promised Messsiahas regarding this ḥadīth:

“The distinguished ḥadīth Lā Mahdiyya Illā ‘Īsā﴿ mentioned in Sunan Ibn Mājah and also in al-Mustadrak of al-Ḥākim from Abbān ibn Ṣāliḥ, from al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī, from Ḥaḍrat Anas ibn Mālikra, from Ḥaḍrat Rasūlu-LlāhSAW, it just means that any Mahdī will not come except the one who will be on his nature, his quality, and his pathway. Viz. there will none of al-Masīḥ al-Mau‘ūd nor al-Imām al-Mahdī except the one who will manifest on the character of Jesusas, his nature, and his pathway of teaching. In the meaning that he will never counter wickedness with its likeness neither will he fight a war. But, he will spread the guidance with beautiful example and with heavenly signs. This is what another ḥadīth al-Imām al-Bukhārī in his aṣ-Ṣaḥīḥ whose text is Yaḍa‘ al-Ḥarb – He will terminate the war) supports. Viz. al-Mahdī, who is too called al-Masīḥ al-Mau‘ūd, he will definitely finish the war. He will order people not to combat for the sake of religion. But, it is necessary for them to spread religion with the lights of sincerity, the miracles of moral, and the signs of closeness to God. The truth and the truth I declare that someone who combats for the sake of religion, advocates killings, invites to that thing either privately or publicly, or desiderates that thing in his heart, he surely rebels Allāh and His MessengerSAW. He has gone out from their commandments, their limits, and their decreed obligations”. [Ḥaqīqat al-Mahdī, included Rūḥānī-e-Khazā’in, v. 14, p. 431-432]

“Whosoever presumes that al-Mahdī al-Ma‘hūd and al-Masīḥ al-Mau‘ūd are two different persons who will come out as two Mujāhids and unsheathe sword upon Christians and Pagans, he has already calumniated against Allāh and His MessengerSAWthe Seal of the Prophets. He has also said a saying which has no basis from the Holy Qur’ān, ḥadīth, and sayings of the examiners (muḥaqqiq). But, the fixed truth is that there is no Mahdī except Jesusas, no war, and no sword nor alqanā (stick which thereon is arrow) picked. This is what is fixed from our Prophet al-MuṣṭafāSAW. No word is calumniated. Aṣ-Ṣaḥīḥayn had already bore witness to it in the previous centuries by forsaking such aḥādīth. Therein is verily a fix for those who are endued with reason. Look, then, if you are among the possessor of righteousness”. [Ḥaqīqat al-Mahdī, included Rūḥānī-e-Khazā’in, v. 14, p. 455-456]

As for his statement that all the ḥadīth concering al-Mahdīasare ḍa‘īf majrūḥ, he just intends two things: what contradicts al-Qur’ān and what tells us that al-Mahdīas will be invader and fighter. Waqar is not candid in quoting the full statement of the Promised Messiahas. Whereas he elucidates in the next paragraph:

“The conclusion is that these aḥādīth, all of them, are not free from discrepancies and contradictions. Therefore, isolate yourself from them! Return all the contrarieties of ḥadīth to the Qur’ān then make it as judge to them! So, the verity becomes clear for you and you thus transform to be among those who grasp the verity. If you accept aḥādīth along with their strength of difference and contradictions and their degradation from the rank of surety (martabah al-yaqīn), how much you must do to accept al-Qur’ān the Definite the Sure which falsehood can not approach it neither from the front nor from the back, if you desire to follow the tracks of surety”. [Ḥamāmat al-Bushrā, included Rūḥānī-e-Khazā’in, v. 7, p. 315]

If he were a bit honest, there is adverb ḥattā which excludes the khabar Lā Mahdiyya Illā ‘Īsā﴿ to be among the weak-criticized aḥādīth. The adverb ḥattā above settles on the office of illā which means except [Muġnī al-Labīb 2/260]. So, the ḥadīth that there is no Mahdī except Jesusas is exempted.

About the invader and fighter Mahdī, he said:

“Alongside it, it has been fixed that aḥādīth concerning the invader and fighter Mahdī from the lineage of Ḥaḍrat Fāṭimah az-Zahrā’ra are ḍa‘īf majrūḥ all of them, the majority of them are nay fabricated (mauḍū‘), and from the part of calumniation. Their narrators are not trusted, their fixing has been troublesome for the scholars of ḥadīth. Therefore, al-Imām al-Bukhārī, al-Imām Muslim, and the Gallant Imām the Author of al-Muwaṭṭa‘ (Mālik ibn Anas) forsake them and a lot of muḥaddith criticize them”. [Ḥaqīqat al-Mahdī, included Rūḥānī-e-Khazā’in, v. 14, p. 455-456]

Here I give you an example of what the Promised Messiahasrefers to:

حدثنا الوليد؛ عن شيخ، عن الزهري، عن عروة، عن عائشة رضي الله عنها، عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم، قال: هو رجل من عترتي، يقاتل على سنتي كما قاتلت أنا على الوحي.

“Al-Walīd narrated to us; from a Shaykh, from az-Zuhrī, from ‘Urwah, from Ḥaḍrat ‘Ā’ishahra, from the Holy ProphetSAW, he said: He is a man from my progeny. He will combat depend on my Sunnah as I combat depend on revelation”. [al-Fitan Li Nu‘aym ibn Ḥammād, no. 1092]

In that ḥadīth, there are two defects (‘illat):

<1> al-Walīd ibn Muslim

Adh-Dhahabī says on him: He is among the keepers of the knowledge (ḥadīth). He is thiqah ḥāfiẓ, but bad of tadlīs. If he says ḥaddathanā, it can be taken as ḥujjah [Siyar A‘lām an-Nubalā’ 9/212]. In another book, he says: He is thiqah, but performs tadlīs from weak narrators. If he is wanted to be taken as ḥujjah, he must profess with simā‘ (ḥaddathanā, akhbaranā, anba’anā, or sami‘tu). If he says ‘an (from), it can not be taken as ḥujjah [Man Tukullima Fīhi Wa Huwa Muwaththaq p. 533]. He says in another place: He is thiqah mudallis. His ḥadīth should be feared if he says ‘an [Al-Kāshif 2/355] Abū Mushir says: al-Walīd ibn Muslim performs tadlīs from liars. According to ad-Dāruquṭnī, he performs tadlīs from Shuyūkh (teachers) of al-Auzā‘ī who are weak to him [Siyar A‘lām an-Nubalā’ 9/216]. In that ḥadīth, he uses ‘an from an unknown Shaykh. It means, this ḥadīth is nothing.

<2> An Unknown Shaykh

This Shaykh is mubham (vague). This ḥadīts thus becomes mubham as this man is therein. Let alone the Shuyūkh whom al-Walīd narrates from are weak liars. Built on the agreement of the scholars of ḥadīth, mubham is considered among weak narrations.

Some say that Ibn Shihāb az-Zuhrī does not directly listen to ‘Urwah ibn az-Zubayrra. But, the correct one is that he narrates from him as narrated by Ibn Kathīr from Ibn Isḥāq [al-Bidāyah Wa an-Nihāyah 9/134]

Bi al-Ākhir, I think it is lovely to mention here a couplet of Ibn al-Qayyim:

فقتالهم بالكذب والبهتان
لا تخش من كيد العدو ومكرهم

“Never be afraid of enemies’ machination and their guile. Their combat is none apart with lie and slander”. [al-Qāṣidah an-Nūniyyah]

[1] This is our argumentation:

كيف تهلك أمة أنا في أولها وعيسى في آخرها

How will an Ummah perish, which I am in their beginning, Jesus Son of Maryamas in their end”. [Tārīkh Dimashq 47/521]

[2] This khabar brightly declares that al-Mahdīas is a Caliph of God.

حدثنا محمد بن يحيى وأحمد بن يوسف؛ قالا: حدثنا عبد الرزاق؛ عن سفيان الثوري، عن خالد الحذاء، عن أبي قلابة، عن أبي أسماء الرحبي، عن ثوبان، قال: قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: يقتتل عند كنزكم ثلاثة، كلهم ابن خليفة، ثم لا يصير إلى واحد منهم، ثم تطلع الرايات السود من قبل المشرق، فيقتلونكم قتلا لم يقتله قوم، ثم ذكر شيئا لا أحفظه، فقال: فإذا رأيتموه فبايعوه، ولو حبوا على الثلج، فإنه خليفة الله المهدي.

“Muḥammad ibn Yaḥyā and Aḥmad ibn Yūsuf narrated to us; both of them said: ‘Abd-ur-Razzāq narrated to us; from Sufyān ath-Thaurī, from Khālid al-Ḥadhdhā’, from Abū Qilābah, from Abū Asmā’ ar-Rajī, from Ḥaḍrat Thaubānra, he said: Ḥaḍrat Rasūlu-LlāhSAW said: Three men will kill each others in sight of your treasure. Everyone of them is a son of a caliph. Afterwards, it will not belong to any of them. Afterwards, the black banners will rise from the east direction. They will thus kill you a killing any people has never killed you. He subsequently mentioned something I did not remember it. He later said: If all of you see him, then give allegiance to him, even if you must crawl on ice, because he is al-Mahdīas the Caliph of Allāh”. [Sunan Ibn Mājah, Kitāb al-Fitan, Bāb Khurūj al-Mahdī, no. 4084] – Ṣaḥīḥ Marfū‘

[3] This ḥadīth shiningly states that al-Masīḥas will be a Caliph in al-Ummah al-Muḥammadiyyah:

حدثنا عيسى بن محمد الصيدلاني؛ قال: نا محمد بن عقبة السدوسي؛ قال: نا محمد بن عثمان بن سنان القرشي؛ قال: نا كعب أبو عبد الله؛ عن قتادة، عن سعيد بن المسيب، عن أبي هريرة، قال: قال النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم: ألا إن عيسى ابن مريم ليس بيني وبينه نبي ولا رسول، ألا إنه خليفتي في أمتي بعدي، ألا إنه يقتل الدجال، ويكسر الصليب، وتضع الحرب أوزارها، ألا فمن أدركه منكم فليقرأ عليه السلام.

“ ‘Īsā ibn Muḥammad aṣ-Ṣaydalānī narrated to us; he said: Muḥammad ibn ‘Uqbah as-Sadūsī narrated to us; he said: Muḥammad ibn ‘Uthmān ibn Sinān al-Qurshī narrated to us; he said: Ka‘b Abū ‘Abdi-Llāh narrated to us; from Qatādah, from Sa‘īd ibn al-Musayyib, from Ḥaḍrat Abū Hurayrahra, he said: Ḥadrat Rasūlu-LlāhSAW said: Cognize! Jesus Son of Maryasis verily none of prophet nor messenger between me and him. Cognize! He will be my Caliph in my Ummah after me. Cognize! He will kill Dajjāl and break cross. War will also relinquish its burdens. Cognize! Whosoever among you meets him, send then to him peace (salām)”. [al-Mu‘jam al-Ausaṭ, Bāb al-‘Ayn, Man Ismuhu ‘Īsā, no. 5040] – Ṣaḥīḥ Marfū‘

[4] It think it is a mistake from one of the narrators. It seems that it should have been “They are not from me”. Allāh knows the best!

[5] This is the khabar:

حدثنا عبد الله بن يزيد المقرئ المكي؛ حدثنا حيوة بن شريح؛ حدثني يزيد بن عبد الله بن الهاد؛ عن محمد بن إبراهيم بن الحارث، عن بسر بن سعيد، عن أبي قيس مولى عمرو بن العاص، عن عمرو بن العاص، أنه سمع رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يقول: إذا حكم الحاكم فاجتهد ثم أصاب فله أجران وإذا حكم فاجتهد ثم أخطأ فله أجر.

“ ‘Abdu-Llāh ibn Yazīd al-Muqri’ al-Makkī narrated to us; Ḥaywah ibn Shurayḥ narrated to us; Yazīd ibn ‘Abdu-Llāh ibn al-Hād narrated to me; from Muḥammad ibn Ibrāhīm ibn al-Ḥārith, from Busr ibn Sa‘īd, from Abū Qays Maulā Ḥadrat ‘Amrū ibn al-‘Āṣra, from Ḥadrat ‘Amrū ibn al-‘Āṣra, that he once listened Ḥadrat Rasūlu-LlāhSAW to say: If a judge judges thereafter makes an ijtihād, if he is correct, he will get two rewards. If he judges thereafter makes an ijtihād, if he is wrong, he will get one reward”. [Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, Kitāb al-I‘tiṣām Bi al-Kitāb Wa as-Sunnah, Bāb Ajr al-Ḥākim, no. 6919]

و آخر دعوانا أن الحمد لله رب السماوات العلى
تم بمننه و كرمه

2 thoughts on “Al-Mahdī and ‘Īsā are One Same Personification

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *