Intro
A few days ago, a debate took place between Saleem Meer and Bro Imtiaz. Part-1 was published by me and this is Part-2, from 1:32:35 mark to 2:13:25.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
At 1:32:37, Bro Imtiaz starts, he says that the allegations that I didn’t even touch a topic is incorrect, I have 2 mins to quickly make an argument. Imtiaz reminds Saleem that he presented the verse (3:55) wherein it is stated that Eisa (as) was lifted towards Allah, the promised was about Eisa (as). Allah completed this promised in 4:157-159. Imtiaz tells Saleem that he must come to the verses, specifically 4:157-159. The only way Saleem’s point is valid is if even argues that only the mention of Eisa (as)(in all of these verses) is only a mention of his soul and not his body (jism). *Imtiaz is explaining how when Allah addressed Eisa (as) in 3:55 and 4:157–4:159, his soul and body were connected. Imtiaz explains how Saleem must return to these verses and correct himself (and his blunders). Imtiaz explains that Saleem must prove how the body and soul of Eisa (as) was disconnected in these verses and somehow, this is about the raising of rank. Imtiaz says that Saleem isn’t answering. Saleem needs to explain how Rafa’a only applies to the soul for Eisa (as), but for everyone else it includes the soul and body. Imtiaz says that he has asked for 4 turns, in this case and how “Darjat boland karay ga apnee janab may”= “rank will be elevated for my sir” for “wa Rafay oka elay-aa” in 3:55. Bro Imtiaz keeps asking what words (of 3:55 or 4:157–159) this is being applied to. Bro Imtiaz alleges that Saleem hasn’t explained the meanings of Rafa’a. Again, Imtiaz asks for clarification on “Darjat boland karay ga apnee janab may”= “rank will be elevated for my sir” for “wa Rafay oka elay-aa” in 3:55 and if Saleem wants to break the argument (zameer) of Imtiaz then he needs to do it via these same verses.
At 1:35:00, Saleem speaks, the 2 min constraint is Imtiaz’s incorrect explanation (ghalt bayanee), Saleem alleges to have answered the issue of “Bal Rafa’a hoo”, the hoo being a masculine noun used for Eisa (as), if Imtiaz forgot it, then it’s not my fault, Saleem alleges to have even repeated his answer (wazahat). Saleem protests to Imtiaz asking for an answer from either 3:55 or 4:157-159, this is against common sense (la ayanee). Saleem says that Imtiaz is a well-educated person, not a person who walks the streets and has never seen the inside of any classroom, who Saleem who have to educate on the basics. Saleem argues that the best commentary of the Quran is from the Quran. Saleem says that he is showing Imtiaz a verse from the Quran (2:156)(which explains everything in dispute). Saleem says that Imtiaz isn’t even touching it. Saleem argues again that in 2:156, only the Ruh (soul) goes towards Allah. Saleem says that this verse (2:156) proves that no one can go towards Allah with their physical body. Saleem says if, “Bal Rafa’a hoo”, the hoo being a masculine noun used for Eisa (as) means that Eisa (as) went physically, then in 2:156 that also has to mean physically (towards the heavens with physical body). Saleem argues that there are 10 million+ (croray aur urbay) examples of only the ruh (soul) going towards Allah. Saleem says instead of changing their (Muslims in general) beliefs on Eisa (as), they change the Quran to suit their beliefs. Saleem says that this is why they don’t change their beliefs on Eisa (as), instead they change the Quran, however, Muslims can’t do this as long as Jamaat-e-Ahmadiyya is amongst them. Saleem says that he asked a question in terms of Tarteeb (adjustment), but Imtiaz hasn’t answered. Saleem says that he doesn’t have to answer anything and won’t. Saleem reminds Imtiaz that he is the questioner and Imtiaz the respondent. Saleem says instead of asking me to answer you, you should answer me!
At 1:37:09, Imtiaz starts, Imtiaz says he has 2 “Mutalbaa” (requests) with Saleem. Saleem must tell Imtiaz about the zameer of “hoo” in 4:158. Imtiaz explains how “hoo” was also used in 4:157 to show that Allah was talking about the physical body of Eisa (as) not being killed or crucified (hung, salaboo-hoo). In the same verse it then says “wa ma qataloo-hoo yaqeena”, in other words “hoo” (he) wasn’t killed with certainty (yaqeenan), and what happended after that? The word “Bal” (which is also used in Urdu as balkay, meaning, “instead”) is then used and again “Rafa’a’ hoo”, “hoo” being a masculine word used for Eisa (as) is repeated in 4 sentences over 2 verses (4:157-158). In Saleem’s turn he needs to explain why the masculine pronoun “hoo” was repeated as such. Imtiaz tells Saleem that he needs to explain how Ahmadi’s believe that the masculine pronoun “hoo” in 4:157 refers to the jism (body) of Eisa (as) 3 times, however, in the very next verse wherein “hoo” is used in a similar way doesn’t refer to the jism (body) of Eisa (as). Furthermore, Saleem needs to explain how the hoo in 4:158 doesn’t refer to the body of Eisa (as)(this was repeated by Imtiaz). Imtiaz also says that Saleem needs to explain why “Bal” (instead) is used in 4:158, since in the Ahmadi interpretation makes it pointless. Imtiaz says if “Bal” wasn’t used to clarify a previous thought, then what’s the point? Imtiaz says that Saleem keeps alleging that he “lote” (answered?) or something. Imtiaz reminds Saleem that he is asking for the 7th time for Saleem to explain this: “Darjat boland karay ga apnee janab may”= “rank will be elevated for my sir” for “wa Rafay oka elay-aa” in 3:55. Bro Imtiaz keeps asking what words (of 3:55 or 4:157–159) this is being applied to. Why won’t Saleem explain where he got this argument from? Imtiaz accuses Saleem of doing an incorrect interpretation (turjama) and changing the Quran (tahreef-e-Quran). Imtiaz asks Saleem to come and explain.
At 1:39:11, Saleem starts, he says that Imtiaz said a dangerous thing when he said that doing an incorrect interpretation (turjama)= changing the Quran (tahreef-e-Quran). Saleem says that ALL of the interpretations of the Quran in existence today contradict each other and thus Saleem accuses Imtiaz of accusing ALL Muslim’s of this. Saleem says that in Pakistan, the government has accused Ahmadi’s of this. Saleem says again that Imtiaz has disrespected ALL Muslims in the world by saying this. Saleem advises Imtiaz to think before he talks. Saleem says that here is no benefit in talking like this. Saleem says that Imtiaz wants him to answer for the “hoo” as used in 4:157-4:148. Saleem says he doesn’t understand if Imtiaz is listening or not. Saleem says that if anyone is going to go towards Allah, they cannot go with their jism (body). Saleem says he has presented 2:156 as a proof in this regard. Interestingly, Saleem mis-pronounces the D in Arabic as Z. Saleem says that people that are alive is being discussed in 2:156. Saleem says that people who are alive say this, not the dead. Saleem says that he has explained (wazahat) 10 times, and Imtiaz has not answered. Saleem presents 2:156 again and says that this is in terms of living people, not the dead. Saleem says that his is his point, Imtiaz can oppose (radd) it.
At 1:41:21, Imtiaz starts, Imtiaz explains that if Saleem can differentiate (namasalat) between these 2 things, then he might have a case. Allah told us in 4:157-158, that Eisa (as) wasn’t killed (qatal), wasn’t given the saleeb (put on the cross), instead (bal), Allah raised him towards himself. Imtiaz says that Saleem isn’t understanding that these 2 things didn’t happen (killed, hung), instead (bal). Imtiaz tells Saleem that under the Ahmadiyya understanding, bal is meaningless at the beginning of 4:158. Imtiaz tells Saleem that when he quotes 2:156, bal (instead) isn’t even there, thus, it’s meaningless to present this verse. Imtiaz tells Saleem to understand the Muslims position. Imtiaz tells Saleem that he needs to present an argument which explains bal (instead) in 4:158. Imtiaz says that he has given his first answer on 2:156 and now listen to his second argument. The first argument was that in 4:158, bal is used as a tarqeeb (target). Saleem needs to figure out and explain how bal (instead) connects these 2 verses (4:157 and 4:158). Imtiaz explains again, Allah told us that he didn’t allow Eisa (as) to be killed, given the saleeb (cross), BAL (instead), Allah raised him (rafa’a-hoo) towards himself. Imtiaz says that he has now answered 2:156 in one way, however, Imtiaz has asked roughly 15 times about “Darjat boland karay ga apnee janab may”= “rank will be elevated for my sir” for “wa Rafay oka elay-aa” in 3:55. Imtiaz says that maybe this accidentally came out of Saleem’s mouth, however, it is too late. Furthermore, Saleem can’t prove this argument, this is why he has totally abandoned this. Imtiaz explains how Saleem had argued that Muslims have differing beliefs (mukhtalaf turjuma) of Eisa (as), this is wrong (Imtiaz never said this), Imtiaz had said “Ghalt Turjuma”, Imtiaz was explaining how Muslims have never did a wrong interpretation, Imtiaz explains “Ikhtalaf e Tanavo”, which means diversity, not opposing or differing as Saleem tried to change the words of Imtiaz. Imtiaz says here we are talking about “Ikhlataf e Tazad” (different and contradictory). Imtiaz says that the interpretation of Ahmadi’s is against the Quran.
At 1:43:27, Saleem starts, he says that Imtiaz as unsuccessful (na-kam) in terms of accusing Ahmadi’s of tahreef (changing the Quran). He says there was no benefit to Imtiaz by doing this. Imtiaz is still standing in the same place. Saleem talks about “Ikhtalaf e Tanavo” vs. “Ikhlataf e Tazad”, Saleem alleges that he can give countless references from people who Imtiaz thinks to be Muslim, who have done “Mutazad turjuma” (contradictory interpretations). And they are munassar to this. Saleem says that Imtiaz has thus accused all of those who have done “Mutazad turjuma” (contradictory interpretations) of tahreef. However, which people are being accused, it’s currently unknown. Saleem than says that Imtiaz alleged to have given an answer to 2:156. However, Imtiaz didn’t even read the verse, or Saleem’s ears didn’t hear it. He wants Imitaz to explain “inna” in 2:156. Saleem says that Imtiaz presented “hoo” (in 4:157-158) as his “bunyadee taleem” (foundational information). Saleem says that Imtiaz presented “hoo” (in 4:157-158) as evidence that Eisa (as) was physically lifted to heaven with body and soul. Saleem says that Imtiaz has abandoned this daleel (explanation). Saleem says that Imtiaz has switched his daleel (explanation) to arguing over the usage of bal (instead), thus, changing your main explanation, this proves that Saleem has successfully refuted that explanation that “hoo” doesn’t mean body and soul going towards Allah. Saleem says you must do “wazahat” (explanation) with 2:156, does Inna in this verse mean body and soul? Does 2:156 only mean the ruh (soul) only or not? Saleem says this is what you need to prove or disprove, but you aren’t. Saleem says that Imtiaz isn’t addressing this entire issue.
At 1:45:31, Imtiaz starts, he says that Saleem alleged to have broken Imtiaz’s “bunyadee taleem” (foundational information), Imtiaz says these are extra words that no place in this discussion. Imtiaz says that ever since this debate has been going on he has been presenting the word bal (instead), to bring to the attention of Ahmadi’s and the world, Imtiaz re-iterates that Allah told us that the enemies of Eisa (as) were not able to kill him (qatal), give him the cross (saleeb), bal (instead), Allah lifted Eisa (as) towards himself (4:158). At 1:46:14, something fishy happened with Imtiaz’s mic. Imtiaz reminds Saleem that he started with bal (instead) as his main argument and placed it as his main argument. Imtiaz reiterates that he started with Bal (instead, in 4:158) and explained how this is what happened to Eisa (As) instead of Qataloo-hoo and Salaboo-hoo (4:157). Saleem hasn’t even touched it this argument. Imtiaz says again, BAL in 4:158 negates Qataloo-hoo and Salaboo-hoo (4:157). Saleem has totally ignored this line of argumentation. Imtiaz says that he asked Saleem to give daleel on “Darjat boland karay ga apnee janab may”= “rank will be elevated for my sir” for “wa Rafay oka elay-aa” in 3:55. However, Saleem has not. Imtiaz says that Saleem did something strange, Saleem said that even if Rafa’a-hoo means the physical body and soul of Eisa (as) was lifted towards Allah, he and Ahmadi’s still won’t accept it. Instead of addressing this issue, Saleem has agreed with it. In Saleem’s last turn he admitted that and proven Imtiaz arguments as true.
At 1:47:40, Saleem starts, he alleges that Imtiaz committed a blunder (ghalti) when he said, “bal kee zameer”, Saleem says that Bal is not the zumeer, hoo is the zumeer. Saleem says that when someone gets scared in a debate, these types of mishaps happen. Saleem says it’s not true that Imtiaz has been presenting the issue of “Bal” (instead) since the beginning. Saleem says that Imtiaz only brought up the issue “Bal” (instead) in the last few turns. Saleem alleges that Imtiaz had initially argued that “hoo kee zumeer” is in terms of Eisa (as) and go around as such. Saleem alleges that he has known this counter-argument for many years and even knows the solution (radd) to this (which is 2:156). Saleem alleges that Imtiaz has stopped arguing that hoo kee zumeer is in terms of the soul and body (jism). Saleem tells Imtiaz to carefully write his notes. Saleem says that he never said that “hoo kee zumeer” doesn’t go with Eisa (as)(1:48:21).
Saleem then switches to 2:156, he argues that in 2:156, the body and soul are disconnected? Or is it just the soul (ruh). You aren’t answering this. Saleem alleges that he asked for answers in order (tarteeb) about 3:55 and got none. Saleem says he asked in what order were these promises fulfilled and got no answer. Saleem says that Imtiaz can’t answer, since the answer to this is unacceptable for Imtiaz. Saleem says, OK I will answer your question to Rafa’a, even though I am not the respondent, I am the questioner. Saleem says that you have started to question the questioner. Saleem then quotes 7:176 (7:177 in the Qadiani Quran)(however, Saleem doesn’t realize that he strengthened Imtiaz’s point, since in this verse, the body and soul were raised in rank). Nevertheless, Saleem uses this verse to explain why he used “Darjat boland karay ga apnee janab may”= “rank will be elevated for my sir” for “wa Rafay oka elay-aa” in 3:55 and 4:158.
At 1:50:00, Saleem says 2 hours have elapsed and now they will talk freely. However, 2 minute intervals can be followed and a free discussion.
At 1:50:12, Imtiaz says that it has only been 1 hour and 40 mins. They then argue over the debate being 2 hours vs. Saleem ending it 20 mins earlier. Saleem says it was a 2-hour debate, from beginning to end, Imtiaz says no, 2 hours of debate, not 2 hours total (which includes wrangling). Saleem says no, we agreed to have a 2-hour debate from 8-10pm (UK time), Saleem says NO worries, we can go for another 20 mins. Imtiaz says he is even ready to go beyond the 20 mins if Saleem is OK with it. Saleem says how long? Imtiaz asks for one additional hour. Saleem says 1 hour and 20 mins additional. Imtiaz says as additional hour only.
At 1:52:28, Imtiaz starts again, Imtiaz reminds Saleem that he said that even “if” “Ruh aur jism” (soul and body), hoo kee zumeer (meaning of him) means that Eisa (as) body and soul, then it still doesn’t prove that Eisa (As) went physically towards Allah. Imtiaz says it is thus proven. Imtiaz says that Saleem must answer this. Imtiaz explains how there is something called “Daleel-e-Khaas” (special explanation) vs. “Daleel-e-Aam” (regular explanation). Imtiaz has been giving “Daleel-e-Khaas”. Imtiaz explains that he is giving “Daleel-e-Khaas” about one person (Eisa [as]). Imtiaz says that Saleem is presenting 2:156, however, this verse is amoom. For example, Allah tells us in the Quran that he made humans from sperm (76:2). However, Adam (as) doesn’t fall into this category. Similarly, even Eisa (as) wasn’t born as such, since Ahmadi’s believe that he had no human father (*however, MGA did allege that Yusuf Najjar was the father, naozobillah). Imtiaz explains that this was “Daleel-e-Aam” (regular explanation), Adam (as) was not included. Imtiaz explains how he is giving a “Daleel-e-Khaas” for Eisa (as).
At 1:54:30, Saleem starts again, he accuses Imtiaz of changing the topic. Saleem says that Imtiaz didn’t answer previous questions and is now posing new ones. Saleem tells Imtiaz that he needs to correct his first mistake. Saleem asks again about the 4 promises in 3:55 and how they were completed. He implores Imtiaz to use tarteeb. Saleem says he has proved his case, even though he is the questioner. Saleem says that even though Imtiaz is the respondent, he is asking all of the questions. Saleem says please answer my questions. Saleem says was I simply name the questioner? Saleem says was the promised completed wherein Allah said to Eisa (as), I am gonna take you (mutawafeeka) and raise you (rafa’a elay-aa) and raise you towards me. Saleem says per Imtiaz, the promise has been completed, however, this is incorrect from the Quran. Saleem says when was the 3rd promise made and when was it completed? Saleem says the same about the 4th promise. Saleem is asking for tarteeb on all of this. Saleem says that if Allah is the subject, and Raffa is used, it is only in rank, see “Darjat boland karay ga apnee janab may”= “rank will be elevated for my sir”.
At 1:56:37, Imtiaz starts, Imtiaz says that Saleem accuses him of making false allegations against him. Imtiaz says that he didn’t accuse Saleem of anything, Saleem has withdrawn his statements, and won’t admit to it. Imtiaz reminds Saleem that he said that “in 4:157-158, even if hoo kee zumeer agar, body and soul, it still doesn’t prove that Eisa (As) was physically lifted to heaven. Imtiaz demands that in his next turn, Saleem address this issue. Imtiaz says that if Saleem admits to this, Imtiaz’s muqadma (case) is proven. Imtiaz shows how Saleem quoted 7:167, however, the grammar is not the same as 4:158 (haa vs. hoo). Imtiaz mentions how Saleem mentioned a rule for interpreting Raffa and Waffa, Imtiaz asks where did this rule come from? Imtiaz says in your next turn, show us from where you got this rule. Imtiaz adds, whatever book Saleem quotes, Imtiaz will prove that Eisa (as) was with both body and soul.
At 1:58:40, Saleem starts again. Saleem says that Imtiaz alleges that (a strong argument is) in 7:167 there is “bi-ha”, and in the other place, rafa’ana is with ila. Saleem says first show me this rule, i.e., that if “bi-ha” comes after Rafa’a than the meaning is spiritual? In a sarcastic way, Saleem says Imtiaz is alleging that when “bi-ha” comes after Rafa’a then the meaning should be this or that. Saleem asks what book is this written in? Saleem says that if we go down this route, you will spend the next hour looking through books, that is if I wanted to, I could make you look through books and waste the next hour, the same way you wasted the first hour when you hid your aqida. Saleem says, where did we make up our rule? It’s from the Quran. Saleem asks Imtiaz to explain what is meant in 7:167, when “bi-ha” comes after Rafa’a? Did Allah mean that he wants to physically raise people to the heavens in this verse? Saleem points out that lakin also is here in this verse. Saleem reads out the verse (7:167) and says (that Imtiaz is inferring) “he was raised towards the ground”? What was the purpose of this? Was he stronger than Allah? He had to be careful that Allah lifts to the heavens, was he holding on to some crooked device (on Earth) and thus prevented Allah from lifting him? And then Allah couldn’t lift him? Saleem says stop playing games with the Quran. You accuse us of tahreef? But this is tahreef! I have given examples from the Quran and there are others. Saleem says this is called turning your claim (dava) into daleel. The thing that is your dava, i.e., Rafa’a-hoo means that Eisa (as) went physically to the heavens has turned into your daleel! Pay attention and tell your friends to pay attention, you claim to be on the council of ulema in Australia? How is making your claim (dava) into daleel an intelligent thing to do.
At 2:00:46, Imtiaz starts, he says he will address the last thing first. Imtiaz says I didn’t turn my claim (dava) into daleel. Imtiaz says I presented my Aqida from the Quran, this is not called turning claims (dava) into daleel. Imtiaz said he presented clear cut verses as daleel. Imtiaz addresses the issue of Saleem asking for usool and etc., what is this? When something comes out of your mouth, and it has already left, and when you are stopped about what slipped out, you say this and that. Imtiaz says that Saleem thinks that Imtiaz presented some usool when he presented “hoo” (in 4:157-158) as referring to the physical body of Eisa (as). However, Imtiaz said he never presented anything as a rule, it was Saleem was talking about rules (usool). Thus, Saleem needs to answer as to where he got his rules from. Don’t I have the right (haq) to ask this? The 3rd thing is, you said something about “bi-ha” means something. Imtiaz says listen, the real (haqiqi) meanings of Rafa’a is lifting. Then it is followed by its metaphoric meanings. Imtiaz explains when someone tried to take the metaphoric over the literal. When you go from a literal to a metaphoric explanation, first you need a Qareena (indicator). Imtiaz says, when he mentioned “bi-ha” in 7:176, there is a Qareena there. Imtiaz says he has asked Saleem to address the issue of “Bal” (and the words before and after) which he has avoided since the beginning and for good reason. In terms of Tarteeb, the WOW is not even present in this verse. Remember this! Imtiaz explains that the WOW is used to join things together.
At 2:02:53, Saleem starts, he accuses of Imtiaz of not listening and given pre-prepared responses. When did I even mention the WOW, where did you get that from? I asked about the promises that you alleged (in 3:55), how were they complete? which ones are completed? Which ones are left? Where is the WOW? I never even mentioned the WOW, you are simply repeating your preprepared responses, think first! I am not even talking about tarteeb, I am simply asking you as a person. I am not even saying if tarteeb is this, then this or that. I am not giving any daleel, you are giving daleel and you mentioned these promises, I am simply asking about these promises. I am asking with what tarteeb are these completed? This is what I asked. You mentioned the WOW, which is part of your pre-prepared responses that you have memorized. Please think and pay attention. Instead you are mentioning those things that you have memorized. Then you mentioned usool and kitab, don’t you see the Quran as a kitab? I have mentioned the Quran and given examples and you have made your claim (dava) into your daleel (explanation). You (Imtiaz) that My rule (usool) is this, that, when Rafa’a occurs with if Allah also comes, and this and that, it means that Hazrat Eisa (as) went physically to the heavens. This is not a rule, this is your daleel (explanation). You have made your claim (dava) into your usool (rule). Your usool is that whenever Hazrat Eisa (as) is mentioned it means he
physically went to the heavens, what is this? What is your dava? What is your daleel? Know one knows anything, you said you will prove him from a clear cut verse of the Quran. What? However, there is nothing, what did you need to prove, that Eisa (As) is alive, however, you haven’t presented anything that can prove that Eisa (as) is alive. You mentioned Raffa, I showed you from the Quran what it means, and you admitted that it means raising in rank (Darjat kee bolandee) and not raising of the jism (body).
At 2:04:56, Imtiaz starts, he says in terms of “bal” (4:157-158), Eisa (as) was not killed, not given the cross (saleeb), balqay, Allah raised him towards himself. Then, I have asked you to join these verses on the screen and tell us that “bal” does (to the words before and after), specifically, why are you not taking “hoo kee zumeer” as proof that this included the body (jism) of Eisa (as), you have not answered any of this. Again, Imtiaz is asking Saleem to put both verses (4:157-158) on the screen and explain the usage of “hoo kee zumeer”. You have not given me any answers on this. Again, put both verses (4:157-158) on the screen and explain the usage of “hoo kee zumeer”. And explain who is meant by “hoo” in these verses. You consistently explain the usage of “hoo” in other cases, however, not in this verse (4:158). So I am asking you to out those verses and give an answer. In terms of 2:156, what answer did I give you? Firstly, there is no “bal”, which cancels what is before it. Again, 2:156, it is a generalized explanation by Allah. I presented verses wherein the usage is “khaas” for Eisa (as). Even if you want to entertain this, then aam and khaas doesn’t break. Imtiaz explains how khaas rules in the Quran don’t break the aam rules.
At 2:07:03, Saleem starts, he says that Imtiaz accuses him of not giving any answer for the issue of the usage of “hoo” (in 4:157-158), but the answer you wanted wasn’t given. Saleem says that if “hoo is the zumeer” and Allah is the direction of travel, then that means that it can’t be with physical body. Which is what you believe in your mind, however, that is not written in the verse. You said you are presenting a clear cut verse, clear cut verse of what? That Eisa (as) is alive! The only way you can prove it is by finding a verse where it states that Eisa (as) is still alive. This would be clear cut. This verse is not clear cut (4:158). Rafa’ay oka can mean raised in rank (darjat kee bolandee), how can I prove it? Saleem says that he is proving from other verses of the Quran (7:176). Saleem says “bi-ha” in 7:176 doesn’t mean anything. This is not what the Qareena means. This doesn’t mean that because some letter/word is there, you must take a specific meaning. Where does this rule occur that if “bi-ha” comes after Rafa’a you must take a specific meaning? It’s not written anywhere! However, the rule that is found in the Quran, and I have given countless examples of it, if Allah is the file…and the word Rafa’a is there (MGA’s famous argument in 1891, which was broken by Imtiaz), then it means that raised in rank (darjat kee bolandee). Saleem says what is “bi-ha”, what is the Qareena here? What does “bi-ha” mean in this case? Saleem says that Imtiaz isn’t giving the reason why he takes Rafa’a to mean physical or metaphoric in 7:176 and other verses. Herein where there is “hoo is the zumeer”, this is because this is going in the direction of Allah. The reason for his is because Allah is a spirit (ruh), Allah doesn’t have a body. Saleem says that the jism (body) can never go towards the spirit (ruh). Wherever Eisa (as) is…Allah is there too (he seems to be insinuating that Allah is everywhere). Saleem says that wherever Eisa (as) was going, Allah was there.
At 2:09:07, Imtiaz says you always start with accusations on me, for example, that I turned my claim (dava) into daleel. You just said, if “hoo is the zumeer”, and Allah is the direction, then we can never say that it was with the physical body, in other words, you will running away (doratay) from your dava (claim), and then you have the right (haq), then you say is Allah is the file, blah, blah, blah. But this is your dava (claim)(not his daleel). In both conversations, you have presented your dava (claim). Now listen to what I am saying, you haven’t answered the issue of “hoo” yet. Listen, listen with attentiveness, the story of Eisa (as) was coming along, the “Zumeer of hoo”, hoo herein means “he”. I keep telling you that “hoo kee zumeer” (the meaning of he) is coming from behind (4:157) and extends through 158 (and 159 technically). In 4:157, Ahmadi’s admit that “hoo kee zumeer” (the meaning of he) is the physical body of Eisa (as), as a full person. However, when it goes to the next verse (4:158), in terms of “hoo kee zumeer” (the meaning of he), you totally switch and say Allah only take the ruh (soul). For this (quandry), you have no daleel, in terms of why you take “hoo kee zumeer” (the meaning of he) in 4:157 to mean the full person of Eisa (as) body and soul, however, in 4:158, you switch. And for this you have not given any answer. I am saying that you simply read off your script 2 turns in a row. What I told you about Rafa’a is “Mustaliq”, in reality (haqiqi), Rafa’a means “lifting”(physical) and if any person wants to take it metaphorically (majazi), for example, you want to use raised in rank (darjat kee bolandee), for that you need a Qareena. You are trying to present your aqida based on a Qareena. However, there is no Qareena in 4:158 that could lead someone to interpret this metaphorically. And you are giving no daleel.
At 2:11:18, Saleem starts, he says that in terms of what he said, I gave daleel, the things that Imtiaz said, there was no daleel given. I said that since Allah is the direction of the Rafa’a, and
Allah is the direction of the Rafa’a (*he said it twice) then this could mean that it is a raising of rank (darjat kee bolandee). It can never mean a physical lifting to heaven. Why? The reason is, only the Ruh (soul) can get called towards Allah, never the body (jism), since Allah is a ruh (soul). Allah doesn’t have a body. This is the Qareena, this is the daleel. The other daleel is that if Allah is the file…and etc. Saleem says he doesnt understand why Imtiaz presented 7:176, since in this case, Allah is the file…and etc. Saleem Meer then quotes 19:57 (19:58 in the Qadiani Quran). Saleem meer argues that in 19:57, “hoo kee zumeer” (the meaning of he) is used. However, some Muslims believe this to mean a raising of rank (darjat kee bolandee). Saleem Meer alleges that the Barelvi’s hold an opposing view as compared to Ahmadi’s on 19:57. Saleem says that the Barelvi’s believe that there are 4 prophets still alive (khidr, Idris (as), Eisa (as), and more nabi”, 2 in the sky and 2 in the earth. Saleem says that the Ahl-e-Hadeeth school agrees with Ahmadi’s on 19:57, since they take the usage of “hoo kee zumeer” to mean a raising of rank (darjat kee bolandee). Saleem says that he has also given examples from the Quran that if Allah is the file…and etc. then it means a raising of rank (darjat kee bolandee). Saleem says review this verse and note how it fulfills your criteria of “hoo kee zumeer”.
At 2:13:25, Imtiaz starts…
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Links and Related Essay’s
Saleem Meer vs. Bro Imtiaz-2025-Part-1 (uptil the 1:30:00 mark) – ahmadiyyafactcheckblog
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Tags
#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog #messiahhascome #ahmadiyyat #trueislam #ahmadianswers #mirzaghulamahmad #qadiani #qadianism
1 Pingback