During Muhammad’s (Saw) famous night journey, he met Esa (As) and asked him about the final hour (See 43:61) and Esa (As) responded by saying that he had no knowledge of the final hour, all he knew was that his mission was incomplete and he had a few tasks left. This simple statement proves that Esa (as) will physically descend as mentioned in 4:159 and convert 99.9% of Christians to Islam (only the most wicked would remain) in 40 years time and the final hour would then approach.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________Reference : Sunan Ibn Majah 4081
In-book reference : Book 36, Hadith 156
English translation : Vol. 5, Book 36, Hadith 4081
It was narrated that ‘Abdullah bin Mas’ud said:
_____________________________________________________________________________________________Clarifying Qadiani Lies – The Hadith in Sunan Majah is Authentic
When debating a Qadiani online they will present to you the following response whenever someone brings up the above-linked hadith.
Below is the screenshot with their full “refutation”. We will respond to their points in the refutation one by one.
1. Albani (d. 1420 AH.) and Arna’ut (d. 1438 AH.) declared this hadith weak!
To summarise, the Qadianis bring up a ruling from Albani with regards to this hadith.
When doing so, they refuse to show why Albani (d. 1420 AH.) or even Arna’ut (d. 1438 AH.) have said this hadith was weak. The reason both muhaddithin gave was that Mu’thir bin ʿAfazah is majhul (unknown).
They base this decision of theirs on the following. That Mu’thir bin ʿAfazah was not documented by anyone except Ibn Hibban (d. 354 AH.) and al-Ajali (d. 261 AH.), and down to such he can be considered (according to them) from among the unknowns.
NOTE: Notice how neither Albani (d. 1420 AH.) and Arna’ut (d. 1438 AH.) gave the reason that the other narrator who they chose to attack later, Muhammad bin Bashshar, is weak or a liar to reject this hadith as these deceiving Qadianis make it out to be in the second point.
Response to 1:
Now when it comes down to the reasons of Albani (d. 1420 AH.) and Arnaut (d. 1438 AH.), we can see that Albani (d. 1420 AH.) and Arnaut’s (d. 1438 AH.) claim that Mu’thir bin ʿAfazah is unknown has a number of holes.
First of all, Mu’thir bin ʿAfazah wasn’t just seen as trustworthy by ibn Hibban (d. 354 AH.) and al-Ajali (d. 261 AH.)
Because Adh-Dhahabi (d. 748 AH.) and Ibn Hajar (d. 852 AH.) also said that he is accepted and Hakim al-Nishapuri (d. 405 AH.) said that a number of the Tabiʿin have narrated from him.
Points to note:
– If he was unknown, how could they see him as trustworthy?
– If he were unknown, how could Hakim al-Nishapuri (d.405 AH.) say that a number of Tabiʿin have narrated from him?
– If he were unknown and was not documented but only by Ibn Hibban (d. 354 AH.) and al-Ajali (d. 261 AH.), why do we see Hakim al-Nishapuri (d.405 AH.) say that a number of Tabiʿin have narrated from him but beyond that, how is it we see Adh-Dhahabi (d. 748 AH.) Ibn Hajar (d. 852 AH.) also say that he is accepted?
If he were unknown, then surely Hakim al-Nishapuri (d.405 AH.) and Adh-Dhahabi (d. 748 AH), who are greater and far earlier Muhaddithin than Albani (d. 1420 AH.) and Arnaut (d. 1438 AH.), would have pointed that out.
Thus you have the following big scholars that have authenticated and seen him as acceptable/trustworthy. Not one of those who knew him has said even the remotest critique against Mu’thir bin ʿAfazah.
1. Ibn Hibban (d. 354 AH.)
2. Al-Ajali (d. 261 AH.)
3. Adh-Dhahabi (d. 748 AH.)
4. Ibn Hajar (d. 852 AH.)
5. Abu al-ʿAbbas al-Buѕiri (d. 840 A.H,)
6. Muhammad ibn ʿAbdul Hadi as-Sindi (d. 1138 A.H.)
All these names are pre-MGA.
Furthermore, there are themselves a few scholars post-MGA who have stuck with the past muhaddithin and accepted this hadith or the same hadith but with a slight variant.
1. Ahmad Shakir (d. 1377 AH.)
2. Muhammad ʿAwwamah (still living)
It is reasonable to assume Albani (d. 1420 AH) and Arnaut (d. 1438 AH) were wrong in their grading of the hadith, but more so it is clear their reason for rejecting it is problematic for Mu’thir bin ʿAfazah is not unknown.
2. Ibn Hajar (d. 852 AH.) said there is a consensus against Muḥammad bin Bashshār and Yahya Ibn Ma’in (d. 233 AH.) called him weak or a liar!
Response to 2:
First of all, I alluded to how Albani (d. 1420 AH.) and Arnaut (d. 1438 AH.) did not say anything bad about Muhammad bin Bashshar when they graded it weak but rather focused on Mu’thir bin ʿAfazah and said he is amongst the unknown. This serves as the first point in refutation against their lie.
Secondly, their quote from Lisan al-Mizan only helps us. Here it is in full:
“محمد” بن بشار بن عثمان العبدي ابو بكر البصري الحافظ بندار احد اوعية السنة عن المعتمر ويزيد بن زريع وغندر والقطان وعنه ابن خزيمة وابن صاعد وخلق قال الذهبي انعقد الاجماع بعد على الاحتجاج ببندار.
[Lisan al-Mizan 7/353 n. 7548, pub. Mu’assasat al-Aʿlami lil-Matbuʿat – Beirut, 2nd edition, 1390 A.H/1971 C.E]
Adh-Dhahabi (d. 748 AH.) said that consensus was made on Ihtijaj on Bandar (Muhammad bin Bashshar).
What these people have assumed is that Ihtijaj is something bad.
What they do not realise is it means to take someone as a hujjah (proof) thus there’s basically a consensus on taking him as a hujjah (proof).
Not only have they pre-empted this by saying in their response that Ibn Hajar (d. 852 AH.) is respected by every Sunni but his quote of Imam Adh-Dhahabi (d. 748 AH.) does not say what they say below.
Moving on, now that we know the two people they would rely on at first, which were Albani (d. 1420 AH.) and Arnā’ūṭ (d. 1438 AH.) couldn’t help them with regards to this shameless attack against Muḥammad bin Bashshār given they did not mention him, but so too didn’t Ibn Ḥajar (d. 852 AH.) and his quote of Imam Adh-Dhahabi (d. 748 AH.).
* Yahya bin main called him weak
عمرو بن علي الفلاس : حلف أن بندارا يكذب فيما يروى عن يحيى
* The narrator مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ بَشَّارٍ has also been labelled as a liar in Tahdhīb al-Tahdhīb
Nonetheless, given we have established he is a trustworthy narrator by consensus of the greatest scholars who the Qadianis themselves admit every Sunni admires. We will also see if any of them commented on these allegations.
Amr bin Ali Al Falas said in the first point that he lied from what he heard from Yahya Ibn Ma’in (d. 233 AH.).
A list of those who deem Muhammad bin Bashshar authentic:
Will we take what Yahya Ibn Ma’in (d. 233 AH.) said over what Imām an-Nasā’ī (d. 303 AH.), Ibn Hajar (d. 852 AH.), Ibn Ḥibbān (d. 354 AH.), Adh-Dhahabi (d. 748 AH.), Ad-Daraqutni (d. 385 AH.), Hakim al-Nishapuri (d.405 AH.), Abu Hatim ar-Razi (d. 277 AH.), Al-Khatib al-Baghdadī (d. 463 AH.), Ibn Khuzaymah (d. 310 AH.) and so on have all said about him?
Here is the first link they want us to have a look at: https://isnad.io/rawi/30160
Just have a look at his students and the books in which he is a narrator deemed trustworthy enough to be included among.
The very next link they share establishes his overall grade as ثقة حافظ (Thiqah Hafidh).
The link: https://tinyurl.com/MuhammadBinBashshar
Nonetheless, these two comments found in the “wounding and modification” section in the above website they shared deal with the claims of Yahya and Al-Falas:
1. Abu al-Fath al-Azdi said: The people have written about him (in an ill manner), and the saying of Yahya [Ibn Ma’in] and al-Qawariri are not from the sayings of criticism (towards Muhammad), and I do not know of anyone except that he has spoken well about him.
2. Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani: Trustworthy And [he] once [said], “One of the well-known [trustworthy people] narrated about him from the six imams and al-Falas didn’t mention the cause of the slander, so they didn’t rely on him.”
So the claim of Falas is unfounded and was rejected, likewise, Yahya Ibn Ma’in (d. 233 AH.) critique is contradicted by many many others and thus he is outweighed.
All in all, the two points which are given against this hadith has been extensively refuted in this piece.
2. حَدَّثَنَا يَزِيدُ بْنُ هَارُونَ (Yazin bin Harun) 🔽
A summary about each narrator:
1. Muhammad bin Bashshar
Al-Qawariri used to not be pleased with him (Muhammad bin Bashshar) and said: [He] was the Companion/Owner of حمام.
[This could either be a name or even mean bathroom]
Yahya bin Maʿin said he used to not care about him and used to deem him weak.
Al-Fallas swore that Bandar lied on what he narrated from Yahya [bin Maʿin?]
People wrote from Bandar (Muhammad bin Bashshar) and have accepted him, and the sayings of Yahya and al-Qawariri are not sayings of criticism (as in they don’t affect Bandar), and I have not seen anyone except that he has mentioned him (Bandar) in a good manner.
Ibn Qaniʿ said that he’s trustworthy and reliable, al-Ajali said that he’s trustworthy and is proven to be reliable in Hadith and that he’s a pious worshipper who has perfected his Ѕalah. Abu Hatim ar-Razi said that he is trustworthy, an Imam, and truthful in Hadith,ʿAli ibn al-Madini said that he didn’t see anyone that memorizes as well as him.
3. Al-ʿAwwam bin Hawshab
5. Mu’thir bin ʿAfazah
Below is a link to an Islamic Discord Server, whose aims are to educate and familiarise Muslim youth and others to respond to the misinformation that the Ahmadiyya Movement is sharing in the name of the beautiful religion of Islam.
Ahmadiyya Fact Check Blog is a Discord server whose main aim is to be a resource centre and a platform for those who want to explore the reality of the Ahmadiyya Movement in an academic manner.
The aims of this server are to ultimately educate and familiarise Muslim youth and others to respond to the misinformation that the Ahmadiyya Movement is sharing in the name of the beautiful religion of Islam. And as such, this server is set up only for truth-seekers of all kinds to join and mainly people who have previously engaged with members of the Ahmadiyya Movement to best share their input and the right approach so as to giving dawah to Ahmadis or for those simply affected by their movements misinformation.
As a server, we’d prefer the quality of the members of the server to be better than the quantity and we will remove any members who are here just to troll or insult any Ahmadi members with no hesitation – therefore the number of servers numbers, mean nothing to us. As a result of the above, any other non-Muslims are not encouraged to join this server as we look to attract solely right-minded Muslims and sincere Ahmadis that wish to debate or discuss our common and not so common beliefs together.
If you have an interest in responding to Ahmadiyya misinformation, have questions about their beliefs, or simply are learning more about the best way in combating their misinformation, this will be a server for you. If you are interested in joining, an invite is below:
Links and Related Essay’s
#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog #messiahhascome #ahmadi