Intro
Ahmadi’s are academically dishonest, that much is obvious, they lie about the Quran, hadith and the books of MGA. They give interpretations which try to prove that MGA was an honest man, in fact, that is their entire motivation.
Nevertheless, they also quote Ibn Hazm, and assert that Ibn Hazm believed that Esa (as) died. However, they don’t show the full beliefs of Ibn Hazm. They fail to show that Muslims only believed that Esa (As) will die in terms of his second coming or that Eisa (as) had died for a few hours and was then RAFFA (lifted) towards Allah. Even Imam Malik claimed that Eisa (as) had died for just a few hours. Furthermore, Muslims like Ibn Abbas and Shah Wali Ullah opined that 3:55 of the Quran and specifically the word Mutawafeeka could be out of sequence, and could* mean death, however, only in terms of how Esa (as) would die after his second coming. Finally, Ibn Hazm considered #Ahmadis as Kafirs (Wajib ul Qatl), since they believe that Eisa (as) was partially crucified.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Who is Ibn Hazm?
Abū Muḥammad ʿAlī ibn Aḥmad ibn Saʿīd ibn Ḥazm (Arabic: أبو محمد علي بن احمد بن سعيد بن حزم; also sometimes known as al-Andalusī aẓ-Ẓāhirī; 7 November 994 – 15 August 1064, [456 AH]) was an Andalusian Muslim polymath, historian, jurist, philosopher, and theologian, born in the Caliphate of Córdoba, present-day Spain. Described as one of the strictest hadith interpreters, Ibn Hazm was a leading proponent and codifier of the Zahiri school of Islamic thought and produced a reported 400 works, of which only 40 still survive. In all, his written works amounted to some 80 000 pages. The Encyclopaedia of Islam refers to him as having been one of the leading thinkers of the Muslim world, and he is widely acknowledged as the father of comparative religious studies alongside al-Biruni.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
What is the Zahiri school of thought?
The Ẓāhirī school enjoyed its widest expansion and prestige in the fourth Islamic century, especially through the works of Ibn al-Mughallis, but in the fifth century it lost ground to the Hanbalite school.[20] Even after the Zahiri school became extinct in Baghdad, it continued to have some followers in Shiraz.[21] Ẓāhirism maintained its prestige in Syria until 788 A.H. and had an even longer and deeper impact in Egypt.[20] In the 14th century C.E., the Zahiri Revolt marked both a brief rekindling of interest in the school’s ideas as well as affirmation of its status as a non-mainstream ideology.[citation needed] Al-Muhalla, a Medieval manual on Ẓāhirī jurisprudence, served in part as inspiration for the revolt and as a primary source of the school’s positions.[22][failed verification] However, soon afterwards the school ceased to function and in the 14th century Ibn Khaldun considered it to be extinct.[23][24] With the Reconquista and the loss of Iberia to Christian rule, most works of Ẓāhirī law and legal theory were lost as well, with the school only being carried on by individual scholars, once again on the periphery.[citation needed]
Wael Hallaq has argued that the rejection of qiyas (analogical reasoning) in Ẓāhirī methodology led to exclusion of the school from the Sunni juridical consensus and ultimately its extinction in the pre-modern era.[25] Christopher Melchert suggests that the association of the Ẓāhirī school with Mu’tazilite theology, its difficulty in attracting the right patronage, and its reliance on outmoded methods of teaching have all contributed to its decline.[26]
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Who do the Qadiani’s quote?
https://www.muslim.org/islam/deathj-4.htm
“Jesus, peace be upon him, was neither killed nor crucified, but God caused him to die and then raised him. The Almighty has said: ‘They did not kill him or crucify him’; and ‘I will cause thee to die and exalt thee’; and ‘I (Jesus) was a witness of them so long as I was among them, but when Thou didst cause me to die Thou wert the Watcher over them’ and ‘Allah takes souls (yatawaffa) at the time of death’. Thus there are two kinds of wafat: sleep and death. Jesus in his words ‘When Thou didst cause me to die (falamma tawaffaita-ni)’ was not referring to sleep, but it is correct that by wafat he meant death.”
(Mahalli fil-Fiqh, p. 23)
“Imam Ibn Hazm adopted the apparent significance of the verse, and believed in his (Jesus’) death.”
(Jalalain, under verse 3:55)
Scans
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
1896-1901
In the 1896–1901 era, Ahmadiyya sources tell us that MGA and his team of writers wrote about Ibn Hazm as they explained the claims of MGA to the Afghani King.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
1923
Review Of Religions – January, February & March 1923 Edition | The Review of Religions
Jan-Feb-March-ROR
See Page 36
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
1942
Ibn Hazam is mentioned in the ROR of Jan-1942 (see page 2), MGA claimed in Malfuzat that Ibn Hazam claimed to have become Muhammad (Saw)(naozobilah), and MGA was claiming that same. MGA argues that anyone can become like Muhammad (Saw)(astagfarullah).
______________________________________________________________________________________________
The crucifixion of the Messiah between Islam and Christianity – Islam Question & Answer (islamqa.info)
Imam Ibn Hazm (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
We looked at those who reported the crucifixion of the Messiah (peace be upon him), and we found a large number who were no doubt truthful in their transmission of it, generation after generation, all the way back to those who claimed to have witnessed his crucifixion. Then when it comes to that group, it is a different story, as they are no more than guards who were there under orders, and you could expect them to lie and accept bribes in return for saying something false.
The Christians affirm that they were not able to capture him by day for fear of the masses, and that they could only capture him at night when the people had dispersed following the Passover; and that he was only on the cross for six hours of the day, after which he was taken down; and that he was only crucified in a place outside the city, in a potter’s field that was used only for obtaining clay, and was not a place that was known for the carrying out of crucifixions and was not allocated for that purpose. Moreover, the guards were bribed to say that his companions stole his body, so they did that. Furthermore, Mary Magdalene – who was a woman of the common people – did not come close to the site of his crucifixion; rather she was standing and watching from afar. All of this is to be found in the text of the Gospel that they have. Therefore it cannot be true that the story of the crucifixion was transmitted via a process of tawaatur. Rather the apparent meaning of the story, as it was narrated, indicates that there was some discretion and concealment, and prior agreement on what story was to be told. On that night, the disciples – according to the Gospel text – were in a state of fear and were absent from the scene, having fled for their lives and hidden themselves, even though Simon Peter had entered the house of the priest Caiaphas by day, where the priest said to him: You are one of his followers, but Peter denied it and fled from the house.
Therefore you cannot find anyone who transmitted the report of his crucifixion that you can be sure is telling the truth. So how could anyone say that it was transmitted via a process of tawaatur (narrated by so many from so many)?
End quote from al-Fasl fi’l-Milal wa’l-Ahwaa’ wa’n-Nihal (1/55-56).
______________________________________________________________________________________________
The crucifixion of the Messiah between Islam and Christianity – Islam Question & Answer (islamqa.info)
Imam Ibn Hazm (d. 456 AH – may Allah have mercy on him) said:
Before the Quran was revealed, people were not obliged to believe in any of that [i.e., with regard to the crucifixion], either affirming or denying it. Rather it was a story that was not so well-founded that there was no excuse for not believing it, nor was it established by definitive proof so that one who narrated it could be regarded as telling the truth, as many prophets before him had been killed, and it is possible that the narrator was lying when he told that story…
Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, did not send down any books before the Quran that either affirmed or denied the crucifixion of the Messiah (peace be upon him). Rather, after the Quran was revealed, it became obligatory to reject all reports that spoke of his being crucified.
End quote from al-Fasl fi’l-Milal wa’l-Ahwaa’ wa’n-Nahal (1/57).
______________________________________________________________________________________________
The crucifixion of the Messiah between Islam and Christianity – Islam Question & Answer (islamqa.info)
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
If it is said that the disciples, or some of them, or many of the People of the Book, or most of them, used to believe that the Messiah himself had been crucified, they were mistaken, but this mistake did not undermine their belief in the Messiah, if they believed in what he brought, and it would not cause them to enter the fire, because the Gospels that the People of the Book have mention the crucifixion of the Messiah. They believe that these Gospels were written by four men – Matthew, Mark, Luke and John – none of whom witnessed the crucifixion of the Messiah, and none of his disciples saw it. In fact, none of his followers witnessed his crucifixion; rather those who witnessed the crucifixion were a group of Jews.
Some scholars say that they knew that the one who was crucified was someone else, but they deliberately lied when saying that they crucified him, and they made the matter dubious and confused the people to whom they told their lies. This is the view of a number of the scholars of kalaam, the Mu‘tazilah and others. It is also the view of Ibn Hazm and others.
Other scholars say that the matter was made dubious for those who carried out the crucifixion and they were confused. This is the view of most scholars.
The former say that the verse “in fact they had neither slain him nor crucified him but the matter was made dubious to them” [an-Nisa’ 4:157] means that the matter was made dubious to the people and they were confused because of what those who carried out the crucifixion told them.
The majority say that rather the matter was made dubious to those who carried out the crucifixion and they were confused about the identity of the person who was crucified.”(Al-Jawaab as-Saheeh 2/302-304).
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Ibne hazam’s views on Jesus Christ : r/ahmadiyya (reddit.com)
Syed Suleman Nadvi a very well known Sunni Scholar from British India cites Ibne Hazm regarding his belief that Jesus Christ is dead.
He states Ibne Hazm (994 – 1064 ) believed that Jesus Christ was born with out the father but differs with others in that he believed Jesus Christ is dead . On page 171 he cites the name of the book of Ibne Hazm called Mehali from which he is citing.
Refer to page 173 and page 174 of the periodical called Maarif this is the copy from march 1930
https://ia902909.us.archive.org/27/items/Maarif-Magazines/1930_03March_text.pdf
Syed Sulaiman Nadvi : 1884 – 22 November 1953 was a Pakistani historian, writer and scholar of Islam. He co-authored Sirat-un-Nabi and wrote Khutbat-e-Madras. He was a member of the founding committee of Jamia Millia Islamia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulaiman_Nadvi
Abū Muḥammad ʿAlī ibn Aḥmad ibn Saʿīd ibn Ḥazm (Arabic: أبو محمد علي بن احمد بن سعيد بن حزم; also sometimes known as al-Andalusī aẓ-Ẓāhirī; 994 – 1064 was an Andalusian Muslim polymath, historian, muhaddith, jurist, philosopher, and theologian, born in the Caliphate of Córdoba, present-day Spain. Described as one of the strictest hadith interpreters, Ibn Hazm was a leading proponent and codifier of the Zahiri school of Islamic thought and produced a reported 400 works, of which only 40 still survive.In all, his written works amounted to some 80 000 pages. Described as one of the fathers of comparative religion, the Encyclopedia of Islam refers to him as having been one of the leading thinkers of the Muslim world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Hazm
Note : What I was actually searching for a published statement of Syed Suleman Nadvi which reportedly said that Sir syed ahmad Khan was not the first person to have said that Jesus has died but that there were others before him who said the same , I could not find that but instead found this which I am Sharing with those readers who are not familiar with this.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
on page 74 of the journal Marif refer to the link below , Syed Sulaiman Nadvi writes after discussing Ibne Hazm’s views that this shows that even bofore Sir Syed Ahmad Khan people have held the views that Jesus Christ is dead and it is unecessary to make this issue a matter of Kufur and Islam.
Maarif Magazine (1916-1930) : Umair Mirza : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
Page 173
Page 174
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Links and Related Essay’s
100 Years Ago… – A refutation of the book ‘Islam and the Ahmadies’ – Part III (alhakam.org)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Hazm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Muhalla
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shah_Waliullah_Dehlawi
http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ip/rep/H045
Ibn Hazm considered #Ahmadis as Kafirs (Wajib ul Qatl), since they believe that Eisa (as) was partially crucified – ahmadiyyafactcheckblog
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Tags
#ibnhazm #ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog #calipofislam #khalifaofislam #caliphofmessiah
5 Pingback