Intro
Mahmud Shaltut made huge mistakes in terms of the Qadiani’s and Shia’s. Mahmud Shaltut was clearly affected by colonialism and people like Allama Iqbal Maulana Abu Kalamazad and Rashid Rida. Mahmud Shaltut also alleged that the view that the Quran speaks only of otherworldly punishment for apostasy was also held by the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar (1958–1963) Mahmud Shaltut, who held that the prescription of death penalty for apostasy found in hadith was aimed at prevention of aggression against Muslims and sedition against the state. Mahmood Shaltut is certain of Jesus’ literal death. He cites two verses that mention Jesus’ forthcoming death and report his death (4:157 and 3:55, respectively). Several contemporary interpreters posit an energy-matter relationship, but provide no supporting evidence. According to them, Jesus had such a strong spiritual stature that his physical body became energy (spirit) and ascended to the heavens, similar to Muhammad’s Ascension. Mutawaffika naturally would refer to his death as tawaffa, “to call in a loan at the end of its term,” and is commonly used in that sense. But the verb also is used for nightly slumber. Therefore we cannot be certain that actual death is implied here. Shaltut does not accept the second and third verses as indisputable evidence, but rather prefers al-Tabari’s interpretation that Jesus’ virgin birth is itself a sign of the Hour of Judgment. This verse addresses those who deny the Hereafter. This miraculous birth is offered to provide evidence of the Hereafter to unbelievers. According to al-Kawthari, who diametrically opposes Shaltut, pertinent Qur’anic verses and traditions necessitate a belief in the second coming. He does not respond directly to Shaltut’s views; rather, he accepts the majority view by faith without insisting on concrete evidence. The contemporary scholar Ibn ‘Ashur, who also opposes the majority view, fails to offer any convincing supporting evidence. Unlike most interpreters, Shaltut opines that all such proofs violate the verses’ literal meaning, and that interpreters devised such meanings to avoid conflict with some second-coming traditions narrated by such famous Companions as Abu Hurayra. Therefore, he believes that the Qur’an and the Sunnah provide no trustworthy evidence for this event. The Syrian scholar al-Buty claims that Shaltut changed his view, adopted the majority view during his last illness, and then buried all documents connected with his old views (See Sa’id Ramadan al-Buty, Kubra al-Yaqiniyyat, (Beirut: 1994), 352). But why did Shaltut deny the second coming despite all the proofs mentioned above? It seems to me that he viewed the majority interpretation as unreasonable and against general Islamic principles. He thinks that a person cannot come from heaven, and therefore denies such statements. They based their evidence on God’s power, saying: He is able to do all things (67:1) and therefore He can bring Jesus. They think of bodily descent. Is the descent of Jesus from heaven to be considered materially?
In 1940, Hassan al-Banna began working vs. the Qadiani’s, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, when he took the editorship of al-Manār in 1940. Though by 1939 an Ahmadi source had placed the number of Ahmadis in Egypt at 100.
In 1942, in response to a question put forward by an Indian Ahmadi to Mahmud Shaltut, a teacher (later shaykh) of Al-Azhar, as to whether, according to the Quran and sunnah, Jesus was alive or dead, and whether or not he will return at the end of time, Shaltut issued a fatwa in 1942 stating that according to the Quran, Jesus had died and that it contained no indication that he lives on in heaven. As to the hadith material concerning his return, Shaltut questioned their soundness and concluded that a good Muslim did not have to believe in Jesus’ return. Although the fatwa—and the ensuing discussion surrounding it—has been seen, in the Egyptian context, as indicating that Ahmadi interpretations were not necessarily ruled out as heretical during this period, scholarly opinion on this issue was far from consensual and the fatwa met with immediate resistance from other teachers at Al-Azhar such as Siddiq al-Ghumari who issued a statement strongly upholding the traditional Muslim belief in Jesus’ physical ascension, arguing for the soundness of hadith literature concerning his return and declaring it among the fundamentals of Islam. Other scholars at Al-Azhar took a neutral position and declared that both views were “thoroughly Islamic”.
In 1984, the famous Al-Azhar university issued a Fatwa of Kufr for all groups of Ahmadi’s.
In 2025, the Qadiani-Ahmadi’s quoted Mahmud Shaltut and argued that some Muslims believe that Eisa (as) died a natural death and his body did not ascend. this group is not waiting for anyone to come. This was View #7.
In 2026, Sheikh Asrar Rashid mentioned the mistakes of Mahmud Shaltut.
In 2026 (Jul-4), Sheikh Asrar Rashid explained how Shaltut and other Al-Azhar scholars (like Mustafa al-Maraghi and Mufti Muhammad Abduh) rejected hadith on the physical nuzul of Eisa (as)(11:52 time stamp)(and 29:40) and made other mistakes. In fact, “In the Tafsir al-Manar, the teacher and Imam (Muhammad Abduh), after taking the apparent meaning of the verse, has stated that tawaffa bears its obvious significance, i.e., causing to die. The raising (raf‘) comes after that, and it is spiritual elevation.” (Qasas al-Anbiya by Abdul Wahab al-Najar, p. 428). ii. “Tawaffa here means causing to die, as in the obvious and comprehensible significance.” (Al-Manar)(See also Tafsir al-Maraghi, part iii, p. 165).
Continue reading “The catastrophic mistakes of Mahmud Shaltut on the alleged death of Eisa (as) and the support of Qadianism” →
