Failing to come up with any positive argument in favor of countless claims of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani, Ahmadis resort to raise issues that prove nothing. In fact a deep look invariably proves their being a cult.
They use a narration from Sunan Ibn Majah to contend that Mahdi was to appear after the year 1200 A.H. and the point they try to make is that MGAQ was Mahdi as he was born after the year 1200 A.H.
Let’s have a look at the narration and its merits.
عن أبي قتادة قال قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم الآيات بعد المائتين
Abu Qatada narrates that the Holy Prophet (PBUH) said: “Signs will appear after two hundred years.” (Sunan Ibn Majah, Hadith 4057)
Authenticity of this narration:
Ahmadis will be in a haste to tell us that Hakim in his Mustadrak (H. 8437) quoted this narration and said, ‘This narration is Sahih on the standards of Bukhari and Muslim.’
But the fact is, to anyone who knows the science of classification of Ahadith and their narrators it is clear that Al-Hakim was too lax in his approach and many times authenticated weak narrations.
Al-Sakhawi, recognized as Mujaddid by Ahmadis, has said the same about Al-Hakim. See Al-‘ilan bi l-Taubih li man zamm al-Tarikh p. 168. Also see Abdul Hayy Lakhnawi’s Al-Rafa wal Takmil 1/291
Dr. G.F. Haddad has briefly given the opinions of scholars about his leniency HERE.
The most prominent scholar to comment about the narrations of Hakim’s Mustadrak is Imam al-Dhahbi. He writes in his comment to this narration:
“I deem it to be Mawdhu” i.e. fabricated. (See Mustadrak Al-Hakim ma’ Taliqat al-Dhahbi fil Takhlis, Hadith 8319)
Imam Bukhari also criticized this narration. He said;
هذا حديث منكر
“This is a rejected narration.” (Faidh Al-Qadir 3/206 Hadith 3029)
Ibn Jawzi writes in his al-Mawdhu’at 3/198
هذا حديث موضوع على رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم
“This Hadith is fabricated [and ascribed] to the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him.”
Ibn Jawzi has been recognized as Mujaddid by Ahmadis.
Hafiz Suyuti writes in his commentary to Sunan Ibn Majah;
قَالَ بن كثير هَذَا الحَدِيث لَا يَصح
“Ibn Kathir said this Hadith is not Sahih.” (Sharah Sunan Ibn Majah 1/294)
Al-‘Ajluni in his Kashaf al-Khafa writes:
باب ظهور الآيات بعد المائتين لم يثبت فيه شئ
“Chapter on the appearance of signs after two hundred years: There is nothing proved in it.” (Kashaf al-Khafa 2/423)
Others early scholars:
Al-Manawi in his Taysir bi-Sharah al-Jami’ al-Saghir writes;
صَححهُ الْحَاكِم فأنكروا عَلَيْهِ وَقَالُوا واه جدا بل قيل بِوَضْعِهِ
“Hakim authenticated it, while many have rejected it and called it extremely absurd. Nay! They spoke of its being fabricated.” (Taysir bi-Sharah al-Jami’ al-Saghir 1/420)
Among recent scholars Shaykh Nasiruddin Albani has classified it as Mawdhu’ (fabricated) in his Sahih wa Da’if Sunan Ibn Majah (H. 4057) and Silsala Ahadith Da’ifa wa Mawdhu’a (H. 1966)
What does the Hadith mean?
Having clarified the actual value of this narration, let’s analyze its text;
1- Is Mahdi mentioned in this narration?
Can you, the reader, please find any reference to Mahdi in this narration? You can find it only if you are a die-hard, closed-eyed and brain-locked Ahmadi.
2- Mulla Ali Qari’s commentary:
Actually Ahmadis base their whole case on the commentary, rather a part of Mulla Ali Qari’s commentary to this, otherwise, false narration. He writes;
" بَعْدَ الْمِائَتَيْنِ " أَيْ: مِنَ الْهِجْرَةِ، أَوْ مِنْ دَوْلَةِ الْإِسْلَامِ، أَوْ مِنْ وَفَاتِهِ - عَلَيْهِ الصَّلَاةُ وَالسَّلَامُ - وَيُحْتَمَلُ أَنْ يَكُونَ اللَّامُ فِي الْمِائَتَيْنِ لِلْعَهْدِ، أَيْ: بَعْدَ الْمِائَتَيْنِ بَعْدَ الْأَلْفِ، وَهُوَ وَقْتُ ظُهُورِ الْمَهْدِيِّ، وَخُرُوجِ الدَّجَّالِ، وَنُزُولِ عِيسَى - عَلَيْهِ الصَّلَاةُ وَالسَّلَامُ
‘After two hundred years’ i.e. :
1) From Hijrah.
2) Or from [establishment of] the Islamic state.
3) Or from the death of the Prophet –on whom be peace and blessings.
4) And it is possible that the article ‘al’ (equivalent to ‘the’) in ‘al-mi’atayn’ makes it a reference to a period of time. That is to say: [it means] two hundred years after the millennium and that is the time of appearance of Mahdi, and that of Dajjal and descent of ‘Eisa –on whom be the peace and blessings.’ (Mirqaat Al-Mafatih Sharah Mishkat Al-Masabih 8/3446 Hadith 5460 Broken down for understanding by the author of this post)
Firstly this commentary shows that Mulla Ali Qari believed Mahdi and Eisa (RA) to be two different fellows. This goes directly in contrast to Ahmadiyya religion’s dogma. If this has to be made the basis of a whole theory, why not accept it in full?
Concerning the issue at hand, he gives four possibilities in his opinion and one of them is picked up by Ahmadiyya and their faith hinges on it. Mulla Ali Qari, though a great scholar, is no evidence when it comes to his conjecture. Ahmadiyya are only aboard the ship of his conjecture sailing in the wild ocean. But this cannot lead them to any destination for the anchor to port this ship, i.e. the narration commented to, is a hoax. So Ahmadiyya please wake up and do not be eager to get drowned!
3- Imam Bukhari’s comments:
هذا حديث منكر. لقد مضى مائتان ولم يكن من الآيات شئ
“This is a rejected narration. Verily two hundred years have passed and nothing of the signs has appeared.” (Faidh Al-Qadir 3/206 Hadith 3029)
4- Hafiz Ibn Kathir’s saying:
Hafiz Suyuti writes:
وَقَالَ بن كثير هَذَا الحَدِيث لَا يَصح وَلَو صَحَّ فَمَحْمُول على مَا وَقع فِي الْفِتْنَة بِسَبَب القَوْل بِخلق الْقُرْآن للامام أَحْمد بن حَنْبَل وَأَصْحَابه من أَئِمَّة الحَدِيث
“Ibn Kathir said this Hadith is not Sahih and [even] if it Sahih it would be taken as a reference to the tribulation caused by the word about Qur’an being a creation at the time of Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal and his companions from amongst the scholars of Hadith.” (Sharah Sunan Ibn Majah 1/294)
This seems quite reasonable if at all the narration is to be accepted.
Ahmadiyya have absolutely no evidence for their claim. The Hadith does not even mention Mahdi, nor does it ask to count two hundred years after the millennium. To run to races with one of the four possibilities according to one single scholar suits only a cult. Ahmadiyya do it while their own ‘prophet’ had said that such statements are no evidence. Not to forget that the same statement of Mulla Ali Qari rejects Ahmadi belief of Mahdi and ‘Eisa (AS) being the same.
And before Ahmadis built their whole case on just a single possibility mentioned by a single scholar they ought to read the following statement of their ‘prophet’;
“Having been put to shame, our opponents resort to the excuse that their elders have said like that only. They do not realize that those elders were not innocent. Infact just as the Jewish elders fell into error concerning prophecies so did they.” (Zamimam Braheen Ahmadiyya part 5 p. 124 included in Rohani Khazain vol. 21 p. 290)
In wake of all of the above mentioned facts, I wonder if it suits Ahmadiyya to use the narration and statement of Mulla Ali Qari for any reason.
Is there not among you a single man of reason?
INDEED ALLAH KNOWS THE BEST!