Challenge to Sunnis: Ghayba of Ibn Mariam عليهما السلام

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

You haven't proven that at all, i.e., that the Qawl of a Sahabi is a Hujjah in the Religion, and why you completely overlooked the Athar of Ibn Abbas about the 7 Earths which each Earth having a Prophet like our Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم

I mentioned two conditions that first it should be authentic second it shouldn't contradict marfoo hadeeth or Jamhoor sahab's view.

As for the evidence of the Qawl of Sahabi beinng Hujjah, then I'll quote some references out of many from the book, "Hal Qowl as-Sahabah Hujjah fi Deen", by Sheikh Omar Bakri Muhammad.

(i). It  has  been  reported  in  the  book, “Usul  Madhab  Imaam  Ahmed” that :

Ishaaq Bin Ibraheem Bin Haani asked Imaam Ahmed,  “I  asked  Abu  Abdullah,  ‘Which  one  is  more  preferable  to  you,  a hadith  attributed  to  the  Messenger  Muhammad  (saw)  by  a trustworthy  Tabi’  (i.e.  hadith  mursal)  or  a hadith attributed  to  a Sahabi by a sound chain that the Sahabi said (i.e. hadith mawqouf).’ He said, ‘If the hadith is connected to the Sahabi it is dearer to me. (Usul Madhab Imam Ahmed, pg. 435-436 ) [Hal Qowl as-Sahabah Hujjah fi Deen, page, 58]

(ii). It  is  reported  by  Imaam  Shaafi’i  in  his  book  Kitaab ul-Umm  that  he said,

“Whatever  is  mentioned  in  the  Qur’an  and  the  Sunnah  leaves  no excuse for anyone who hears it but to follow it. If such a matter is not mentioned  within  them  we  (then)  go  to  the  sayings  of  the Companions of the Messenger Muhammad (saw) even (to a single) one from amongst them. We follow the sayings of the four Khulafaah; we imitate them and we do not question for this is dearer to us if we don’t find any sign of disagreement among the four. If they differ, we take whoever is nearest to the Qur’an and Sunnah and who was the first to embrace Islaam. If we do not find it among the Sahabah, we seek the ‘Ilm from those who used to follow the Attba of them i.e. the Tabi’een.  “The ‘Ilm is five levels: (i) Kitaab (Qur’an) and Sunnah which has been confirmed (ii) Ijmaa as-Sahabah about things never mentioned in the Qur’an and the Sunnah (iii) If some of the Sahabah or (even) one  of  them  said  something  and  we  do  not  know  of  anyone  who disagrees with it, then it is ‘Ilm (knowledge about the deen) and we take it (iv) If the companions disagree, we will take the one who is the higher level (i.e. entered Islaam first) (v) The analogy on the Qur’an and the Sunnah. (ash-Shaafi’i, Kitaab ul-Umm, Vol. 7 pg. 265). [Hal Qowl as-Sahabah Hujjah fi Deen, page 55-56]

(iii). It  has  been  reported  from  Imaam  Al-Saymari  in  his  book, “Akhbaar Abu Haneefah wa Ashaabu” that Imaam Abu Haneefah said:

“I will follow the Qur’an (firstly) if I find the evidence and if I am unable to find it in the Qur’an I will take go to the Sunnah of the Messenger Muhammad (saw) which has been transmitted amongst the trustworthy from the trustworthy. If I did not find it in the book or Allah (swt) or in the Sunnah of the Messenger Muhammad (saw) I will take the opinion of any one of them (Sahabah) and leave the opinion of anyone else amongst them. (And) I will not depart from their  sayings  to  anyone  who  followed  after  them.  If  the  matter reached  Ibraheem  and  Al-Shu’bi  al-Hassan,  Ibn  Sireen,  Saeed  Bin Jubayr or Sa’eed Bin Musayyab, I have the right to make Ijtihad in the same way they did. (Saymari, Akhbaar Abu Haneefah wa Ashaabu, pg. 10). [Hal Qowl as-Sahabah Hujjah fi Deen, Page 50-51]

(iv). It has also been reported by Imaam Shaybaani in his book, “Sharh Adab Al-Qadhi” that Imaam Abu Haneefah said, “Whatever  reached  me  that  the  Sahabi  said  I  will  make  Taqleed (following)  for  it,  imitate  it,  and  I  do  not  permit  (doing)  this  for anyone else.(Shaybaani, Sharh Adab Al-Qadhi, Vol. 1 pg. 185-187 ). [Hal Qowl as-Sahabah Hujjah fi Deen, page 51]

https://duaat.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/qawl1.pdf

As usual you are just copying and pasting what Waqar Akbar Cheema has written polemically without bothering to verify anything. Hafiz Ibn Hajar himself after reviewing all the different views regarding Ajlah b. Abd Allah concluded by declaring him Saduq:[/size][/font]





Here you can read a more detailed analysis of the narrator Ajlah b. Abd Allah b. Hujayyah al Kindi
http://asmaur-rijaal.blogspot.ca/2013/01/ajlah-bin-abdullah-bin-hujayyah-al-kindi.html

The conclusion:

1-    Shaykh Ahmed Shaakir said: “He is Thiqah, some people have criticized him for no reason”
[Tahqeeq Tafseer at-Tabari: 5/169]

2-    Shaykh Sulemaan bin Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhaab authenticated his hadeeth and said: “All its narrators are Thiqaat”
[Tayseer al-Azeez al-Hameed fi Sharh Kitaab at-Tawheed: 1/521]

3-    Haafidh Ibn Ahmed bin Ali al-Hukmi (D. 1377) while commenting on a hadeeth, said: “Al-Ajlah…. Is Sadooq Shi’i as said in al-Taqreeb, and the remaining narrators are Thiqaat, narrators of Shaykhayn, therefore the chain is Hasan…”
[A’laam al-Sunnah al-Manshoorah: 1/22]

4-    Shaykh Naasir ud-Deen Albaani declared him Hasan ul-Hadeeth
[Silsilah as-Saheehah: 139]

5-    Husayn Saleem Asam authenticated his hadeeth saying: “Its chain is Hasan”
[Tahqeeq Musnad Abi Ya’la: 2639, 7239]

6-    Shaykh Abdullah bin Deefullah al-Raheeli said: “The conclusion is that he is differed upon, and apparently he is Hasan ul-Hadeeth, and evidence is not taken from him in that which accords his Bid’ah”
[Tahqeeq Man Takallam feehi of Dhahabi: 1/74]

7-    Shaykh Abu Taahir Zubayr Alee Za’ee mentioned him in “Al-Sa’ee al-Mashkoor Feeman Waththaqah ul-Jumhoor (Those who are Thiqah according to the Jumhoor)”
[Tahqeeqi Maqaalaat: P. 349]

Truly, such an argument is not convincing since these are three very late scholars. And the views of Mutaqaddimeen(early scholars) takes over the view of Muta'khireen(later scholars).

Ironically, when going back to Fath Al-Bari, in the chapter of “باب: أحل لكم الصيد الطيب” we find that al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar weakens Al-Ajlah.

Similarly, Al-Albani mentions that al-Ajlah is one of the reasons that he weakened a Hadith in his book Al-Silsila Al-Dha`eefa #1570.

al-Ajlah was weakened by Al-Qattan, Abu Hatim, Al-Nasa’ee, Al-Jawzajani, Abu Dawud, Ibn Sa’ad, Al-Uqaili, Ibn Hibban, Al-Saji, Ibn Jarud, and Abu Al-Arab. See Ikmal Mughlatay and Ibn Hajar’s Tahtheeb.

Even those that strengthened him didn’t strengthen him completely. For example, Yaqoub bin Sufyan Al-Fasawi, who made tawtheeq of him said that his hadith is soft. Ibn Ma’een, who referred to him as a thiqa, used other wordings like salih and la ba’asa bihi, implying that he isn’t a top tier narrator. Ibn Adi also referred to him as a shi’ee. Regardless, the majority of the scholars have weakened him, as we can see, so his narration is rejected.


SECONDLY, if for arguments sake, if we consider al-Ajlah is Saduq, even then there remains a possibility of a saduq narrator reporting munkar report.

Sadooq, which means someone who was 'aadil but his dhabt is not well established, when he alone narrates a report from some famous Muhaddith, then it is counted among Munkar, in many cases.

Imam al-Dhahabi said:

 الذهبي : وهو ما انفرد الراوي الضعيفُ به. وقد يُعَدُّ مُفْرَدُ الصَّدُوقِ منكَراً.
(Al-Mawqiza fi ilm Mustalah al-hadeeth, by Imam Dhahabi)
http://shamela.ws/browse.php/book-8195/page-21

The matn(text) of this hadeeth is Munkar, since it does contradicts the correctly reported hadeeth:

We read in Al-Hakim’s collection;

حدثنا الأستاذ أبو الوليد الهيثم بن خلف الدوري ، ثنا سوار بن عبد الله العنبري ، ثنا المعتمر قال : قال أبي : حدثنا الحريث بن مخشي ، أن عليا قتل صبيحة إحدى وعشرين من رمضان ، قال : فسمعت الحسن بن علي يقول ، وهو يخطب وذكر مناقب علي ، فقال : « قتل ليلة أنزل القرآن ، وليلة أسري  بعيسى ، وليلة قبض موسى »

Abu Al-Waleed Al-Haitham narrated from Sawar bin ‘Abdullah Al-Anbari; he said, Mu’tamar narrated to us; he said: ‘My father said’; Harith bin Makhshi narrated: ‘Ali (RA) was murdered the morning of 21st Ramadan. He said; I heard Hassan bin ‘Ali (RA) speaking. He was making an address and talking of the virtues of ‘Ali (RA); he said: ‘He has been killed the night Qur’an was revealed, the night ‘Eisa (AS) was moved and the night Musa (AS) died.’ (Mustadrak Hakim, Hadith 4671. Hakim said it is Sahih).

It doesn't mention the odd, wordings which is narrated through the route of al-Ajlah, hence without a shadow of doubt that hadeeth is Munkar(denounced).

Heck, do you even know that a hadeeth can even have authentic chain, but the Matn(text) of it will be faulty.

mam Ibn Katheer said:

” الحكم بالصحة أو الحسن على الإسناد لا يلزم منه الحكم بذلك على المتن ، إذ قد يكون شاذاً أو معللاً “

The fact that the Isnaad(chain) is deemed to be Sahih or Hasan does not necessarily mean that the same applies to the text, because it may be shaadhdh (odd) or mu’allal (faulty). [Ikhtisaar ‘Uloom al-Hadeeth (p. 43).]

And the procedure to check this, is by comparing it with other reports, and this is what Waqar cheema did, he compared it with other reports and when he did that it was apparent that the wordings in the hadeeth of al-Ajlah were odd and hence Munkar, due to the weakness of al-Ajlah.

قال الخطيب البغدادي: "السبيل إلى معرفة علة الحديث أن يجمع بين طرقه، وينظر في اختلاف رواته، ويعتبر بمكانهم في الحفظ، ومنزلتهم في الإتقان والضبط"
ABu Bakr al-Khatib said,"The way to discover the defect of a hadith is to collect the lines of transmission, examine the differences of its transmitters and examine their position in regard to retention and their status in regard to exactitude and precision [Uloom al Hadeeth, page 82]

How strange is it you dismissed the Hadith I quoted as being weak (and it isn't weak as I've proven that Ajlah b. Abd Allah is declared as acceptable in Hadith), and now you are quoting narrations from Mulla Baqir Majlisi and Shi'ite books? How unfair is this?!

Come out of Imaginations, the hadeeth you used is Munkar , I have proven it by the help of Allah. And quoting a shia hadeeth is not unfair, since it's just a supportive evidence. I have already quoted the hadeeth from Mustadrak al Hakim, which seems didn't go down your throat.

What! You dismiss the narration I bring because it is Mursal despite being authentically established until Ikrima, but then you quote a narration that is truly weak. It contains the matrook narrator Muhammad b. Umar al-Waqidi, he is severely weak.

As, I said before you are just clutching at straws, the report which you used, which I weakened since Ikrima couldn't be a witness to that event and heard from some unknown narrator, then that hadeeth in itself is any categorical evidence.

Firstly, Sahaba were in a state of shock, it wasn't under normal circumstances. Secondly, they could have used the example of Musa(as) because he had returned in a short time, unlike Isa(as) who would return at the end of time, obviously Sahaba used an example, in which they wouldn't be a long gap for absence of Prophet(saws) among them.

You see all you need is some common sense to discard all your spider's web like arguments.

Don't you realise these above 2 Athar you cited are contradicting each other? Did Eisa عليه السلام ascend to heaven on the Mount of Olives or from the roof of a house?

If Allah provided you some wisdom, you can use it to reconcile these reports. It's easy.  The house could have been on the mount of olives from where Isa(as) was ascended to heaven.

Hadith 3
إن أبا هريرة رضي الله عنه قال : قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم : « كيف أنتم إذا نزل ابن مريم من السماء فيكم
Narrated Abu Huraira, may Allah be pleased with him: Allah’s Messenger, may Allah bless him, said “What will be your condition when the son of Maryam (i.e. ‘Eisa) will descend amongst you from the heavens…?” (Baihaqi’s Asmaa wal Sifaat 2/432 Hadith 855; Shaykh Abdullah bin Muhammad al-Hashidi has classified the narration as Sahih))

The narration is Shaadh in its wording, because more authentic narrations such as from Sahihayn don't mention the word "sky".

It would be considered as ziyadah not shaadh. And it is accepted by scholars of hadeeth. That is why Shaykh Abdullah bin Muhammad al-Hashidi has classified the narration as Sahih. But due to lack of knowledge you make these despo kind of silly arguments.

but even if these narrations about descending from the sky are authentic, it does not necessarily prove that Jesus was raised to the sky in his body, or that at present he is living in the sky in his Jasad without being fed.

Atleast believe, that Isa(As) will descend from heaven, with body, as I proved it from the hadeeth of Sahih Muslim, showing he will take support by placing his hands on the wings of Angels, wearing clothes, and beads of water will fall from his hair, which clearly proves as a body. Not just soul.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

This is the same Ibn Abbas رضى الله عنه who said in explaining the Verse: "Allah is the One who created the Seven Heavens and of the Earth a similar (number)"

سَبْعَ أَرْضِينَ ، فِي كُلِّ أَرْضٍ نَبِيٌّ كَنَبِيِّكُمْ ، وَآدَمُ كَآدَمَ ، وَنُوحٌ كَنُوحٍ ، وَإِبْرَاهِيمُ كَإِبْرَاهِيمَ ، وَعِيسَى كَعِيسَى
"In the Seven Earths, in every Earth there is a Nabi like your Nabi, an Adam like your Adam, a Noah like your Noah, an Abraham like your Abraham, and a Jesus like your Jesus."

The question is will any Muslim adapt this belief simply because Ibn Abbas said it and it is something from the matter of the unseen? Are you prepared to believe that there are 6 other Prophet Muhammads like our Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم without any evidence of that from the Quran and Ahadith an Nabawi?

The hadeeth you quoted is unreliable.

Allama  Al-Mu‘allimi Al-Yamaani said:
ليس سنده صحيحا، لأنه من طريق شريك عن عطاء بن السائب عن أبي الضحى عن ابن عباس، وشريك يخطئ كثيراً ويدلس، وعطاء بن السائب اختلط قبل موته بمدة، وسماع شريك منه بعد الاختلاط
“Its chain of narration is not authentic because it was narrated on the authority of Shareek, from ‘Ataa’ ibn As-Saa’ib, from Abu Adh-Dhuha, from Ibn ‘Abbaas. Shareek is known for making many mistakes in narration as well as Tadlees (narrating a hadeeth that he did not hear directly from his shaykh without mentioning the name of the third party from whom he heard it). Before his death, ‘Ataa’ ibn As-Saa’ib became feeble-minded (in old age) and was labeled a Mukhtalit (confused in his narration due to poor memory), and Shareek heard reports from him after he (‘Ataa’) was labeled a Mukhtalit.” [Al-Anwaar Al-Kaashifah, p. 127]

I meant whose "Nutfah", the Nutfah decides who is your biological mother and father. Every person is born from the nutfah of their biological mother and father. Ibn Taymiyyah was born was from the nutfah of his biological mother and father- Abdal Haleem, etc. So I asked the question in this sense.

First you referred to Nutfah as meaning male sperm, now you are talking about the Nutfah of a biological mother? Did not Eisa عليه السلام have a biological mother?

But the meaning of the Ayah is that Insan is created from the Nutfah of Adam. That is the Nutfah through which all humanity originated including sayyidina Isa عليه السلام

I was referring to this verse of Quran when I mentioned mother AND father, not just mother, as you misunderstood asusual.

إِنَّا خَلَقْنَا الْإِنسَانَ مِن نُّطْفَةٍ أَمْشَاجٍ نَّبْتَلِيهِ فَجَعَلْنَاهُ سَمِيعًا بَصِيرًا
“Verily We created Man from a drop of mingled sperm, in order to try him. So We gave him Hearing and Sight.” [76:2]

We read in Tafseer ibn Katheer:

Verily, We have created man from Nutfah Amshaj,) meaning, mixed. The words Mashaj and Mashij mean something that is mixed together.

Ibn `Abbas said concerning Allah's statement, (مِن نُّطْفَةٍ أَمْشَاجٍ)(from Nutfah Amshaj,) "This means the fluid of the man and the fluid of the woman when they meet and mix.'' Then man changes after this from stage to stage, condition to condition and color to color. `Ikrimah, Mujahid, Al-Hasan and Ar-Rabi` bin Anas all made statements similar to this. They said, "Amshaj is the mixing of the man's fluid with the woman's fluid. [Tafseer Ibn Katheer]

So the mention is general, referring to all the people born in the world, it refers to biological father and mother of a person. So stop fooling yourself by beating behind the bush.

Nuzul (descent) does not always mean in the sense of coming down from Heaven. Allah says He sent down 8 pairs of cattle وَأَنزَلَ لَكُم مِّنَ الْأَنْعَامِ ثَمَانِيَةَ أَزْوَاجٍ did these 8 pairs of cattle come down from the sky? Coming with two Angels is not exclusive to Jesus, even our Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم was accompanied by 2 Angels (Gabriel and Michael). Sometimes they were visible to the Sahaba, like during the Battle of Badr:
Sa`d reported that on the Day of Uhud I saw on the right side of Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) and on his left side two persons dressed in white clothes and whom I did not see before nor after that, and they were Gabriel and Michael peace be upon them both (Sahih Muslim)
قَالَ خَرَجَ عَلَيْنَا رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم يَوْمًا فَقَالَ ‏ "‏ إِنِّي رَأَيْتُ فِي الْمَنَامِ كَأَنَّ جِبْرِيلَ عِنْدَ رَأْسِي وَمِيكَائِيلَ عِنْدَ رِجْلَىَّ
The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said that he saw in a dream that Gabriel is at his head and Michael is at at his foot (Tirmidhi)

Firstly, I have provided you SAHIH Marfu reports that Isa(as) will descend from heaven, so there remains no escape door for you. So, now when it is established that Isa(As) will descend from heaven, taking support from he wings of angels by placing his hands on angels, wearing clothes and When he would lower his head, there would fall beads of perspiration from his head, and when he would raise it up, beads like pearls would scatter from it. Then this is without a shadow of doubt, a physical body.

So Alhamdulillah, Hujjah have been established on you, on the day of Judgement you will be certainly question, if you reject this out of arrogance. May Allah guide you. I'm certain that you are gonna bring the argument of Isa(as) being alive with his body in heaven, but atleast believe in what has been proven, that Isa(as) is alive and will descend from heaven with a body.

Atleast believe, that Isa(As) will descend from heaven, with body, as I proved it from the hadeeth of Sahih Muslim, showing he will take support by placing his hands on the wings of Angels, wearing clothes, and beads of water will fall from his hair, which clearly proves as a body. Not just soul.

[ZulFiqar]

Sheikh Omar Bakri Muhammad

This "Sheikh" has no credibility. Apart from being a contemporary and not an authority, he is in fact a caller to the way of Khawarij and extremely discredited if you know anything about him.

Furthermore, the quotes you bring from these Fuqaha are regarding jurisprudential issues. In the madhhab of Imam Ahmad the saying of a Sahabi is given preference to Qiyas.

As for aqida, when the Ulama say that even a Khabr al Ahad that is Sahih Marfu Hadith cannot be binding then what about the saying of a Sahabi? Khatib al-Baghdadi said:

ولا يقبل خبر الواحد في منافاة حكم العقل وحكم القرآن الثابت المحكم والسنة المعلومة
“A solitary report cannot be accepted if it negates the verdict of the intellect, verdict of the Qur’an, and that of the well-known Sunnah”
Reference: Al-Kifayah fee ‘Ilm al-Riwayah; p. 432



Notice Khatib al Baghdadi said that a Solitary Report cannot even be accepted if it clashes with the intellect. And you are saying it is binding upon the Muslims to accept the saying of a Sahabi that Eisa عليه السلام ascended into Heaven in his Jasad from the Mount of Olives? It is so evident all these sayings are based upon the Israeeliyyat, which are themselves contradictory and hearsay. In fact these Israaeeliyyat are based on Arab misunderstanding of the New Testament. It is from there that this doctrine originates:

So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. (Mark 16:19)

And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven. (Luke 24:51)

And this became part of the Nicene Creed: "He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father"

So now we see where this belief originates from. It has no basis in Quran and Sunna. In fact, even these verses from the New Testament are not explicit in saying he was raised up in his earthen body.

Next you say I only brought the Tawtheeq of Ajlah b. Abd Allah from contemporary Muhadditheen:

1-    Imaam Shu’bah has narrated from him, and it is known that Shu’bah only narrates from those who are Thiqah according to him.
[See, Tahdheeb al-Kamaal (2/276); Taareekh al-Islaam (3/812) etc]

Imaam Dhahabi said: “The teachers of Shu’bah are Jayyaad”
[Meezaan: 4504]

Haafidh Ibn Hajar said while explaining his methodology in Tahdheeb that:

“If it has been proven from the conditions of a narrator that he does not narrate except from Thiqah, then I have mentioned the names of all his Shuyookh or most of them (in Tahdheeb), such as Shu’bah, Maalik and others.”
[Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb: 1/5]

When Imaam Azdi declared Abu Sadaqah Tawbah bin Abdullah to be “La Yuhtajju Bihi”, Imaam Dhahabi said while refuting him: “I say, He is Thiqah, for Shu’bah has narrated from him”
[Meezaan: 3611]

Haafidh Ibn Hajar said about this saying of Imaam Dhahabi that: “I read the writing of Dhahabi (in which he said) he is rather Thiqah for Shu’bah has narrated from him; and the narration of Shu’bah from him is his Tawtheeq”
[Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb: 5161]

Note: Since there is no Jarh from Imaam Shu’bah on Ajlah as compared to his narration from him, we can conclude that Ajlah is Thiqah according to Imaam Shu’bah.

2-    Imaam Yahya ibn Ma’een said: “He is Thiqah”
[Taareekh Ibn Ma’een, narrated by ad-Dauri: 1276]

He also said: “There is nothing wrong in him”
[Taareekh Ibn Ma’een, narrated by ad-Dauri: 2232]

3-    Imaam Ibn Abi Khaythamah narrated the Tawtheeq of Imaam Ibn Ma’een and did not oppose him.
[Taareekh Ibn Abi Khaythamah: 2/382]

4-    Imaam Ya’qoob bin Sufyaan al-Faarsi said: “He is Thiqah, there is leniency (slight weakness) in his hadeeth”
[Al-Ma’rifat wal Taareekh: 3/104]

Shaykh Abdullah bin Yoosuf al-Jadee’ says that such an expression means, his hadeeth is dropped from the level of Saheeh to the level of Hasan (not Da’eef).
[See, Tahreer Uloom ul-Hadeeth: 1/570]

5-    Imaam Abu al-Hasan al-Ijlee said: “He is Thiqah”
[Thiqaat: 1/57]

6-    Imaam Abu Hafs Ibn Shaaheen mentioned him among the Thiqah narrators
[1/262]

7-    Imaam Abu Awaanah has narrated from him in his Saheeh, which denotes that he is Thiqah according to him
[See, Musnad Abu Awaanah H. 847, 951, 2603]

8-    Imaam Abu Ahmed bin Adee al-Jarjaani said: “I did not find anything Munkar in him, which would cross the limit either in chain or text, and I hope there is nothing wrong in him…. And he is Mustaqeem ul-Hadeeth Sadooq according to me”
[Al-Kaamil: 2/140]

9-    Imaam Tirmidhi authenticated his hadeeth to be “Hasan Saheeh” [H. 1753], and “Hasan Ghareeb”

Note: The Authentication of a Lone narration is the authentication of all its narrators.

10-          Imaam Haakim al-Neesaaboori authenticated his hadeeth saying: “This hadeeth is Saheeh ul-Isnaad”
[Mustadrak al-Haakim: H. 2946, 3002, 4249, 4723]

11-          Imaam Zaya al-Maqdisi authenticated his hadeeth by narrating from him in al-Ahaadeeth al-Mukhtaarah [1226]

12-          Haafidh al-Busayri authenticated his hadeeth saying, “Its chain is Hasan”
[Itthaaf al-Khayrah: 4/49, 5/131]

And once he said about a chain containing Ajlah that: “All its narrators are Thiqaat”
[Itthaaf al-Khayrah: 5/308. 7/40]

13-          Haafidh Noor ud-Deen al-Haythami said: “The Majority has done his Tawtheeq”
[Majma az-Zawaaid: 1/189]

14-          Imaam Dhahabi said: “There is nothing wrong in his narration, and some have declared him Layyin”
[Al-Mughni: 224]

Imaam Dhahabi mentioned him in “Man Takallam Feehi Wahuwa Mawthaq” and said: “He is Shi’i Famous (and) Sudooq”
[13]

15-          Abdur Ra’oof al-Manaawi narrates: “Al-Ajlah al-Kindi is declared Thiqah by the Jamhoor”
[Faydh ul-Qadeer: 4/357]

16-          Zayla’ee al-Hanafi authenticated his hadeeth saying: “Its chain is Saalih”
[Takhreej Ahaadeeth al-Kashaaf: 3/229]

[ZulFiqar]

The matn(text) of this hadeeth is Munkar, since it does contradicts the correctly reported hadeeth:

We read in Al-Hakim’s collection;

حدثنا الأستاذ أبو الوليد الهيثم بن خلف الدوري ، ثنا سوار بن عبد الله العنبري ، ثنا المعتمر قال : قال أبي : حدثنا الحريث بن مخشي ، أن عليا قتل صبيحة إحدى وعشرين من رمضان ، قال : فسمعت الحسن بن علي يقول ، وهو يخطب وذكر مناقب علي ، فقال : « قتل ليلة أنزل القرآن ، وليلة أسري  بعيسى ، وليلة قبض موسى »

Abu Al-Waleed Al-Haitham narrated from Sawar bin ‘Abdullah Al-Anbari; he said, Mu’tamar narrated to us; he said: ‘My father said’; Harith bin Makhshi narrated: ‘Ali (RA) was murdered the morning of 21st Ramadan. He said; I heard Hassan bin ‘Ali (RA) speaking. He was making an address and talking of the virtues of ‘Ali (RA); he said: ‘He has been killed the night Qur’an was revealed, the night ‘Eisa (AS) was moved and the night Musa (AS) died.’ (Mustadrak Hakim, Hadith 4671. Hakim said it is Sahih).

You claim this Hadith from al-Hakim is authentic. But once again you failed to verify the chain of narrators. Who is al-Huraith b. Makhshi? He is Majhul, no one authenticated him.

Imam Muqbil رحمه الله brought this out in his checking of the Mustadrak:





Furthermore, the mere wording of this weak Hadith does not prove that sayyidina Eisa عليه السلام was raised up to Heaven in his Jasad earthen flesh and blood body. Nor does it contradict the authentic Hadith I brought from Tabaqat al Kabir of Ibn Sa'd where Imam al-Hassan رضى الله عنه says it was the Ruh of Eisa عليه السلام that ascended.

[ZulFiqar]

The brother who translated it mistakenly put the wordings of Bait al Maqdis in the translation. The reports says on Jabal Afeeq, which is in Syria.

قال ابن عباس: قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: « ((فعند ذلك ينزل أخي عيسى ابن مريم من السماء على جبل أفيق
http://shamela.ws/browse.php/book-8575/page-123

Incorrect sir. The link you gave from Shamela is not the entire Hadith but only a part of it. Kanz ul Ummal is not the primary source. It is taken from a long narration from the Tarikh Dimashq of Ibn Asakir (from a Hadith which itself is Da'if):

وَيَنْحَازُ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ إِلَى بَيْتِ الْمَقْدِسِ . قَالَ ابْنُ عَبَّاسٍ : قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ : " فَعِنْدَ ذَلِكَ يَنْزِلُ أَخِي عِيسَى ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ مِنَ السَّمَاءِ عَلَى جَبَلِ أَفِيقٍ
So Ibn Abbas clearly said "Bait al Maqdis".

Furthermore, if you say Afiq is in Syria, meaning near the town of Fiq, you still have a problem, because that that Fiq is in the al-Qunaitra governorate in modern day Golan region, in no way can that be construed as the "East of Damascus"



So will Jesus descend with 2 bodies, 1 to East of Damascus and 1 to Mount Afiq in the Golan? Or will he descend from the sky twice, first to the white Minaret in Damascus than to Mount Afiq in the Golan?

[ZulFiqar]

Hadith 6
عن ابن عباس { إن تعذبهم فإنهم عبادك } يقول : عبيدك قد استوجبوا العذاب بمقالتهم { وإن تغفر لهم } أي من تركت منهم ومد في عمره حتى أهبط من السماء إلى الأرض يقتل الدجال ، فنزلوا عن مقالتهم ووحدوك
About the verse, ‘If you punish them they are your servants’ Ibn Abbas  said, he [‘Eisa] will say: ‘These slaves of yours have invited your chastisement by what they said [and believed]’. ‘And if you forgive them’ i.e. ‘those whom I left behind me and those who were there when I came down from the Heavens to Earth to kill al-Dajjal and they turned back from what they said [i.e. Trinity] and believed in your Oneness…’
(Durr Manthur 4/27 Under Surah 5 Ayah 118).

A complete Sanad is missing. Imam Suyuti narrated it thus:

So where is the chain between Ibn Abbas and Abul Shaykh al-Isfahani?


وأخرج أبو الشيخ عن ابن عباس { إن تعذبهم فإنهم عبادك } يقول: عبيدك قد استوجبوا العذاب بمقالتهم { وإن تغفر لهم } أي من تركت منهم ومد في عمره حتى أهبط من السماء إلى الأرض يقتل الدجال، فنزلوا عن مقالتهم ووحدوك، وأقروا إنا عبيد { وإن تغفر لهم } حيث رجعوا عن مقالتهم { فإنك أنت العزيز الحكيم }

[ZulFiqar]

Hadith 2
عن صفية أم المؤمنين رضي الله عنها أنها كانت إذا زارت بيت المقدس ، وفرغت من الصلاة في المسجد الأقصى صعدت على جبل زيتا فصلت عليه وقالت : هذا الجبل هو الذي رفع منه عيسى عليه السلام إلى السماء
It is narrated from Ummul Momineen Safiya, may Allah be pleased with her, that when she visited Bait Al-Maqdis (i.e. Jerusalem) and finished prayers in Al-Aqsa Mosque she climbed up to Mt. Olives and prayed there as well and said: ‘This is the mountain from where ‘Eisa, may Allah bless him, was raised up to the Heavens.’ (Al-Tasrih bima Tawatar fi Nuzul Al-Masih Hadith 74 cf. Tafsir Fath Al-Aziz Surah 95)

Where is the Sanad for this Hadith? By Tafsir Fath al Aziz if you mean Tafsir Azizi of Shah Abdul Aziz Muhaddith Delhawi, he mentioned this narration in his Tafsir for Surat at-Tin but did not bring a sanad for it.

You yourself quoted that Sanad is the weapon of believer and without Sanad we can't be sure of anything!

[ZulFiqar]

Hadith 8[/b]

عن ابن عباس قال … وإن الله رفعه بجسده، وانه حي الآن، وسيرجع إلى الدنيا فيكون فيها ملكاً، ثم يموت كما يموت الناس
Narrated from Ibn Abbas, he said: “… and verily Allah raised him [Eisa ibn Maryam] with his body while he was alive and he will soon return to this world and will be a ruler therein. Then he will die as other people die.”  (Ibn S’ad’ Tabaqat Al-Kubra 1/53)
Taken from :
http://thecult.info/blog/2011/03/18/eisa-as-did-ascend-and-will-descend-from-the-heavens-above-categorical-ahadith/

ِAs usual you did not quote the sanad from Tabaqat al Kubra:

أخبرنا هشام بن محمد بن السائب عن أبيه عن أبي صالح عن بن عباس

And as for Muhammad b. Saa'ib al-Kalbi, he is a known fabricator
أما الكلبي : فهو محمد بن السائب الكلبي ، أبو النضر الكوفى المفسر ، وهو وضاع مشهور
قال سفيان : قال لى الكلبي : كل ما حدثتك عن أبي صالح فهو كذب .
وقال أحمد بن زهير: قلت لأحمد بن حنبل: يحل النظر في تفسير الكلبى ؟ قال: لا.
وقال ابن حبان: مذهبه في الدين ووضوح الكذب فيه أظهر من أن يحتاج إلى الإغراق في وصفه ، يروى عن أبي صالح عن ابن عباس التفسير ، وأبو صالح لم ير ابن عباس ، ولا سمع الكلبى من أبي صالح إلا الحرف بعد الحرف ، لا يحل ذكره في الكتب، فكيف الاحتجاج به .
"ميزان الاعتدال" (3 /557-559)

So this was the only narration you brought with explicit mention of Jasad being raised up to Heaven but it is Fabricated

[Farid]

1-    Imaam Shu’bah has narrated from him, and it is known that Shu’bah only narrates from those who are Thiqah according to him.
[See, Tahdheeb al-Kamaal (2/276); Taareekh al-Islaam (3/812) etc]

Imaam Dhahabi said: “The teachers of Shu’bah are Jayyaad”
[Meezaan: 4504]

Haafidh Ibn Hajar said while explaining his methodology in Tahdheeb that:

“If it has been proven from the conditions of a narrator that he does not narrate except from Thiqah, then I have mentioned the names of all his Shuyookh or most of them (in Tahdheeb), such as Shu’bah, Maalik and others.”
[Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb: 1/5]

When Imaam Azdi declared Abu Sadaqah Tawbah bin Abdullah to be “La Yuhtajju Bihi”, Imaam Dhahabi said while refuting him: “I say, He is Thiqah, for Shu’bah has narrated from him”
[Meezaan: 3611]

Haafidh Ibn Hajar said about this saying of Imaam Dhahabi that: “I read the writing of Dhahabi (in which he said) he is rather Thiqah for Shu’bah has narrated from him; and the narration of Shu’bah from him is his Tawtheeq”
[Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb: 5161]

Note: Since there is no Jarh from Imaam Shu’bah on Ajlah as compared to his narration from him, we can conclude that Ajlah is Thiqah according to Imaam Shu’bah.

2-    Imaam Yahya ibn Ma’een said: “He is Thiqah”
[Taareekh Ibn Ma’een, narrated by ad-Dauri: 1276]

He also said: “There is nothing wrong in him”
[Taareekh Ibn Ma’een, narrated by ad-Dauri: 2232]

3-    Imaam Ibn Abi Khaythamah narrated the Tawtheeq of Imaam Ibn Ma’een and did not oppose him.
[Taareekh Ibn Abi Khaythamah: 2/382]

4-    Imaam Ya’qoob bin Sufyaan al-Faarsi said: “He is Thiqah, there is leniency (slight weakness) in his hadeeth”
[Al-Ma’rifat wal Taareekh: 3/104]

Shaykh Abdullah bin Yoosuf al-Jadee’ says that such an expression means, his hadeeth is dropped from the level of Saheeh to the level of Hasan (not Da’eef).
[See, Tahreer Uloom ul-Hadeeth: 1/570]

5-    Imaam Abu al-Hasan al-Ijlee said: “He is Thiqah”
[Thiqaat: 1/57]

6-    Imaam Abu Hafs Ibn Shaaheen mentioned him among the Thiqah narrators
[1/262]

7-    Imaam Abu Awaanah has narrated from him in his Saheeh, which denotes that he is Thiqah according to him
[See, Musnad Abu Awaanah H. 847, 951, 2603]

8-    Imaam Abu Ahmed bin Adee al-Jarjaani said: “I did not find anything Munkar in him, which would cross the limit either in chain or text, and I hope there is nothing wrong in him…. And he is Mustaqeem ul-Hadeeth Sadooq according to me”
[Al-Kaamil: 2/140]

9-    Imaam Tirmidhi authenticated his hadeeth to be “Hasan Saheeh” [H. 1753], and “Hasan Ghareeb”

Note: The Authentication of a Lone narration is the authentication of all its narrators.

10-          Imaam Haakim al-Neesaaboori authenticated his hadeeth saying: “This hadeeth is Saheeh ul-Isnaad”
[Mustadrak al-Haakim: H. 2946, 3002, 4249, 4723]

11-          Imaam Zaya al-Maqdisi authenticated his hadeeth by narrating from him in al-Ahaadeeth al-Mukhtaarah [1226]

12-          Haafidh al-Busayri authenticated his hadeeth saying, “Its chain is Hasan”
[Itthaaf al-Khayrah: 4/49, 5/131]

And once he said about a chain containing Ajlah that: “All its narrators are Thiqaat”
[Itthaaf al-Khayrah: 5/308. 7/40]

13-          Haafidh Noor ud-Deen al-Haythami said: “The Majority has done his Tawtheeq”
[Majma az-Zawaaid: 1/189]

14-          Imaam Dhahabi said: “There is nothing wrong in his narration, and some have declared him Layyin”
[Al-Mughni: 224]

Imaam Dhahabi mentioned him in “Man Takallam Feehi Wahuwa Mawthaq” and said: “He is Shi’i Famous (and) Sudooq”
[13]

15-          Abdur Ra’oof al-Manaawi narrates: “Al-Ajlah al-Kindi is declared Thiqah by the Jamhoor”
[Faydh ul-Qadeer: 4/357]

16-          Zayla’ee al-Hanafi authenticated his hadeeth saying: “Its chain is Saalih”
[Takhreej Ahaadeeth al-Kashaaf: 3/229]

I would just like to respond to this here, since it seems like there are some exaggerations in the above that should be pointed out. Firstly, brother Noor has correctly pointed out that numerous early scholars weakened Al-Ajlah.

From the sixteen mentioned in the list above, only ten are early scholars. The rest are not.
Also, I would like to point out that some of these claims of strengthening are not claims at all. For example, Ibn Abi Khaythama quoting Yahya bin Ma'een's tawtheeq, is incorrectly used to point out that Ibn Abi Khaythama is also upon that view. This is inaccurate.
The same can be said about Abu Awana who simply quoted an alternative route to the hadith in Saheeh Muslim. This can barely be used as evidence for the reliability of Al-Ajlah.
Another example of an inaccuracy is what has been attributed to Al-Tirmithi. The narration that he reports is not a sole report, which is why Al-Tirmithi does not refer to it as ghareeb. The tradition can also be found elsewhere with supplementary chains. Instead we find him in Manaqib Ali stating that there is a hadith that was solely narrated by Al-Ajlah, which he refers to as “Hasanun Ghareeb”, instead of Saheeh.
Overall, it seems like most of those that have regarded Al-Ajlah as reliable, did not feel that he was at the level of the thiqaat. This can be seen in the comments of Ya’qoub bin Sufyan, who mentioned that he has some weakness, as well as Ibn Shaheen and Ibn Adi. The same is said about Yahya bin Ma’een in one of his quotes by Al-Duri. The same can be said about Al-Hakim (7037) who says that Al-Ajlah is “not matrook,” instead of saying, “he is thiqa.”
This leaves us with two remaining tawtheeqaat. The first is Shu’ba’s tawtheeq, which isn’t really tawtheeq, but can be used as a qareena of the reliability of Al-Ajlah. The second is that of Al-Ijli, who is infamous for his lenience.
In other words, the most that can be said about him, based on the positive statements, is that he is at the level of a hasan narrator. However, if you place these within the context of those that have weakened him, you would realize that he is closer to weakness than to strength. Add onto that the very specific criticisms that are directed to him by those like Al-Uqaili, who has pointed out his mistakes in hadith by inaccurately reporting names, and this takes precedence over tawtheeqaat as all hadithists know.

[ZulFiqar]

Below is the complete text of the Hadith and its true ex-planation.

عَنْ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمَا قَالَ خَطَبَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فَقَالَ … وَإِنَّهُ يُجَاءُ بِرِجَالٍ مِنْ أُمَّتِي فَيُؤْخَذُ بِهِمْ ذَاتَ الشِّمَالِ فَأَقُولُ يَا رَبِّ أُصَيْحَابِي فَيُقَالُ إِنَّكَ لَا تَدْرِي مَا أَحْدَثُوا بَعْدَكَ فَأَقُولُ كَمَا قَالَ الْعَبْدُ الصَّالِحُ {وَكُنْتُ عَلَيْهِمْ شَهِيدًا مَا دُمْتُ فِيهِمْ فَلَمَّا تَوَفَّيْتَنِي كُنْتَ أَنْتَ الرَّقِيبَ عَلَيْهِمْ وَأَنْتَ عَلَى كُلِّ شَيْءٍ شَهِيدٌ} فَيُقَالُ إِنَّ هَؤُلَاءِ لَمْ يَزَالُوا مُرْتَدِّينَ عَلَى أَعْقَابِهِمْ مُنْذُ فَارَقْتَهُمْ

Ibn Abbas: The Prophet (صلى الله عليه و سلم) delivered a ser-mon and said, “…Lo! Some men from my followers will be brought and taken towards the left side, whereupon I will say, ‘O Lord, (these are) my companions!’ It will be said, ‘You do not know what new things they introduced (into the religion) after you.’ I will then say as the right-eous pious slave, Jesus, said, ‘I was a witness over them while I dwelt among them when Thou didst take me up Thou wast the Watcher over them, and You are the Wit-ness to all things.’ (5: 117) Then it will be said, ‘(O Mu-hammad) these people never stopped to apostate since you left them.”
(Bukhari, Kitabul Tafsir, Hadith 4259)

Ahmadis argue that as the word تَوَفَّيْتَنِي ‘tawaffaitani‘ with reference to the Holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه و سلم) means phys-ical death, it must have the same meaning with regards to Prophet Jesus (عليه السلام). But this is simply absurd and here I explain why;

1) When Holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه و سلم) said, , ‘I will say just as the pious slave Jesus said..’, clearly he sought a parallel only in the sayings and the not their whole con-text and implications. This is just as if someone who has been extremely successful in debating various religions and cults on a certain forum, when asked to comment about his achievements, pronounces; ‘I would rather say just as Julius Caesar said, ‘I came, I saw, I conquered.’ Most certainly he does not mean that he actually won a battle against the Army of Pharnaces II of Pontus, or does he?

Answer: This analogy is not in your favor because the matter at hand is the meaning of the word Tawaffaitani. In the example you gave of someone winning a debate and quoting the words of Julius Caesar “I came, I saw, I conquered” the meaning of these words remain the same in both instances. The meaning of the verb “conquered” remains the same in both instances, it is only the object and the subject in the sentence which is different. Hence when Jesus says Falamma Tawaffaitanee and when our Prophet ﷺ will say Falamma Tawaffaitanee the meaning of the word is the same in both instances. The only difference is the object (Jesus in the first instance and Muhammad ﷺ in the second). The subject (Allah) remains the same in both instances also.

2) The word كَمَا ‘kama‘ between two phrases does not make them exactly same. For instance, in another Hadith we read;

عن أبي واقد الليثي أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم لما خرج إلى حنين مر بشجرة للمشركين يقال لها ذات أنواط يعلقون عليها أسلحتهم فقالوا يا رسول الله اجعل لنا ذات أنواط كما لهم ذات أنواط فقال النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم سبحان الله هذا كما قال قوم موسى اجعل لنا إلها كما لهم آلهة والذي نفسي بيده لتركبن سنة من كان قبلكم

Abu Waqid Laythi reported that when the Prophet (صلى الله عليه و سلم) went out for the Battle of Hunayn, he passed by a tree belonging to the polytheists. It was known as Dhat Anwat. They used to hang down their weapons over it. The companions said, “O Messenger of Allah, make for us a Dhat Anwat as there is for them a Dhat Anwat.” He said, “Glory be to Allah! This is just as what the people of Moses (عليه السلام) said, ‘Make for us a god as there is for them a god.’ By Him who has my soul in His hand, you will perpetrate the practices of the people gone before you.” (Jami’ Tirmidhi, Kitabul Fitan, Hadith 2180. Alba-ni classified it as Sahih)

In this Hadith Holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه و سلم) termed the wish of the pious companions to have a tree nominated to hang weapons on, akin to the wish of the people of Mo-ses (عليه السلام) to have pagan deity like a certain people. Obviously the Prophet (صلى الله عليه و سلم) did not mean that both wishes were exactly same rather, it only pointed to the same spirit of following the ways of disbelievers.

In the same way the Hadith in question does not mean that both Jesus and Muhammad, peace be upon them both, experienced same kind of ‘tawaffa’. It rather points out to the fact that both were not present among their people when they deviated.

Answer: The word كما in the Hadith of Bukhari under discussion clearly refers to the fact that the words “Falamma Tawaffaytanee” are identical from the mouths of Jesus and Prophet Muhammad. The Hadith concerning the Dhat Anwat tree is therefore a bad example because it’s context makes clear that there the usage of Kama is not to compare wording but similarity of the request of Bani Israel and the Sahaba. So in the Hadith of Bukhari, the word Kama is not used to compare the “kind of ‘tawaffa’” but is used to compare the wording coming out of the mouth of both Jesus and Prophet Muhammad.

3) Further, it is NOT necessary that ‘tawaffaitani’ means the same everywhere. According to linguists and scholars e.g. Abu Al-Baqa and Ibn Taymiya ‘tawaffa‘ has various meanings i.e. 1) To take in full, 2) Sleep and 3) Death.

Answer: This is a circular argument to say that in the case of Jesus ‘tawaffa’ means “to take in full” but in the case of Prophet Muhammad ﷺ is means death. There is no indication of any Tafreeq or discrepancy. The Hadith of Bukhari is a proof that the meaning of Tawaffa is death. As for the meaning of “to take in full” this cannot be if the subject is Allah and the object is a human being. The Holy Qur’an asserts that when Allah is the subject, and human being is the object, the meaning of Tawaffa can only mean either death or sleep (Sura 39:42). And throughout the Holy Qur’an there are a multitude of examples where Allah or the Angels are the subject, human beings are the object, and Tawaffa is the verb. In none of those instances is the meaning “to take in full”.

And the fact that one word may have different meanings for different subjects is proved from Quran. In-fact in Surah Ma’ida’s same passage we read that Jesus (عليه السلام) will say;

فَقَدْ عَلِمْتَهُ تَعْلَمُ مَا فِي نَفْسِي وَلَا أَعْلَمُ مَا فِي نَفْسِكَ
“Thou knowest what is in my heart, Thou I know not what is in Thine [heart].” (Quran 5:116)

Here same word i.e. نَفْسِ ,translated as heart or mind, is used for Allah (سبحانه و تعالى) and Jesus (عليه السلام). Does that mean that نَفْسِ (i.e.heart/mind) of Allah (سبحانه و تعالى) and Jesus (عليه السلام) is exactly of same nature?

Answer: As said before, the matter at hand is the meaning of the word Tawaffaitanee not the modality of how it occurred in the specific instances of Jesus and Prophet Muhammad ﷺ. The meaning of death is the same for everyone, but the modality of each individual’s death is different. Obviously the death of Jesus was different to the death of Prophet Muhammad in terms of cause, location, age, and numerous other factors. But the meaning of the word Tawaffaitanee as “you caused me to die” is the same in both instances. Similarly, the meaning of the word Nafs is Self (not heart or mind). The meaning of this word when applied to Allah and to Jesus is the same, but its modality is obviously different. John is a man and Bob is a man. Obviously, this doesn’t mean that John and Bob are exactly the same in every way, but it doesn’t negate that the dictionary definition of ‘man’ as applied to both John and Bob is the same.

Or as we read in Quran 33:43;

هُوَ الَّذِي يُصَلِّي عَلَيْكُمْ وَمَلَائِكَتُهُ
“He it is who sends salat (His blessings) on you, and his angels too (ask Allah to bless and forgive you)”

Most certainly here صلاة has different meanings with regards to Allah (سبحانه و تعالى) and the angels. Ibn Kathir writes:

والصلاة من الله ثناؤه على العبد عند الملائكة، … وقال غيره: الصلاة من الله: الرحمة … وأما الصلاة من الملائكة، فبمعنى الدعاء للناس والاستغفار
“Allah’s Salah means that He praises His servant before the angels …others said: “Allah’s Salah means mercy.” … Salah from the angels means their supplication and seeking forgiveness for people.” (Ibn Kathir 6/436 under Su-rah 33 Ayah 43)

The crucial element missing in this example is the word كما. It is obvious that the meaning of Yusalli when applied to Allah is different than when it is applied to the Angels. It is the absence of the word Kama which strengthens this idea. Had Allah said: Huwa Lladhee Yusallee Alaykum Kamaa Yusallee Alaykum al-Malaa’ikah then your example would hold water for your argument.

4) On the Ahmadi lines of the argument a Chris-tian may say that perhaps Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم) also died through crucifixion like Jesus as the same word is used for both of them.

This is not only an extremely weak but absolutely absurd argument. There are so many logical fallacies in it I don’t even know where to begin. When was it proven that Tawaffaitanee means to die by crucifixion specifically? Tawaffaitanee simply means “You caused me to die” without specification of ‘how’. I already clarified that the meaning of the word is the same in both instances, but the modality will obviously be different. The flaw in your argument is based on the fact that you fail to make a distinction between المعنى ‘the meaning’ and كيفية ‘modality’.

If hypothetically a Christian were to make such an argument, he would be falling into the logical fallacy of petitio principii because his proposition (“Prophet Muhammad also died through crucifixion”) is based on an unproven and disputed premise (“Jesus died through crucifixion”).

5) As to the fact that Holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه و سلم) has used the past tense, it is because Holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه و سلم) will say this on the Day of Judgment and as the saying of Jesus (عليه السلام) has already been told in the Quran so it was in his and the listeners prior knowledge when he uttered these words.

This argument is completely irrelevant and immaterial to the point.

6) The Holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه و سلم) will recite this verse as the implication is exactly same i.e. neither Jesus (عليه السلام) was present among his people when they got involved in heresies (Trinity etc) nor was Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم) present while some from his Ummah deviated and some even if went out of the pale of Islam by believing in false prophets. Both went away from their people before they were lead astray.

This is to deny the apparent meaning of the Hadith, which is that the Prophet ﷺ will recite the Verse with the only difference being that he is considering himself the object of the phrase Falamma Tawaffaitanee instead of Jesus.

[ZulFiqar]

Hadith 1
عن ابن عباس قال: لما أراد الله أن يرفع عيسى إلى السماء خرج على أصحابه …ورفع عيسى من رَوْزَنَة في البيت إلى السماء
Ibn Abbas said, “When Allah intended to raise ‘Eisa to the heavens, he went to his companions … and ‘Eisa ascended to the Heavens through an opening in the top of the house.”
(Ibn Abi Hatim 4/431 Hadith 6266, Ibn Kathir 2/449. Ibn Kathir graded it Sahih)

قال ابن أبي حاتم : حدثنا أحمد بن سنان ، حدثنا أبو معاوية ، عن الأعمش ، عن المنهال بن عمرو ، عن سعيد بن جبير ، عن ابن عباس قال : لما أراد الله أن يرفع عيسى إلى السماء ، خرج على أصحابه

The sanad contains al-'Amash who is Mudallis narrating 'an'an from al-Minhal b. Amru

[ZulFiqar]

An authentic Hadith from the Mu'jam al-Kabir of Imam Tabarani
http://islamsalvationfromhell.blogspot.ca/2015/10/authentic-hadith-proves-that-messiah-as.html



حَدَّثَنَا عَلِيُّ بْنُ عَبْدِ الْعَزِيزِ ، ثنا أَبُو نُعَيْمٍ ، ثنا كَامِلُ أَبُو الْعَلاءِ ، قَالَ : سَمِعْتُ حَبِيبَ بْنَ أَبِي ثَابِتٍ ، يُحَدِّثُ ، عَنْ يَحْيَى بْنِ جَعْدَةَ ، عَنْ زَيْدِ بْنِ أَرْقَمَ ، قَالَ : خَرَجْنَا مَعَ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ حَتَّى انْتَهَيْنَا إِلَى غَدِيرِ خُمٍّ أَمَرَ بِدُوحٍ ، فَكُسِحَ فِي يَوْمٍ مَا أَتَى عَلَيْنَا يَوْمٌ كَانَ أَشَدَّ حُرًّا مِنْهُ ، فَحَمِدَ اللَّهَ وَأَثْنَى عَلَيْهِ ، وَقَالَ : " يَا أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ ، إِنَّهُ لَمْ يُبْعَثْ نَبِيٌّ قَطُّ إِلا عَاشَ نِصْفَ مَا عَاشَ الَّذِي كَانَ قَبْلَهُ ، وَإِنِّي أُوشِكُ أَنْ أُدْعَى فَأُجِيبَ ، وَإِنِّي تَارِكٌ فِيكُمْ مَا لَنْ تَضِلُّوا بَعْدَهُ كِتَابَ اللَّهِ " ، ثُمَّ قَامَ وَأَخَذَ بِيَدِ عَلِيٍّ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى عَنْهُ ، فَقَالَ : " يَا أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ مَنْ أَوْلَى بِكُمْ مِنْ أَنْفُسِكُمْ ؟ " قَالُوا : اللَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ أَعْلَمُ ، قَالَ : " مَنْ كُنْتُ مَوْلاهُ فَعَلِيٌّ مَوْلاهُ "

"No Prophet is sent except that he lives for half the lifetime of the one who was before him."

The inference here is that Jesus of Nazareth lived for about 120 years, and the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم who proceeded him lived for about 60 years.







And here is a supportive narration:

 أَنَّ جِبْرِيلَ كَانَ يُعَارِضُهُ بِالْقُرْآنِ فِي كُلِّ عَامٍ مَرَّةً ، وَأَنَّهُ عَارَضَنِي بِالْقُرْآنِ الْعَامَ مَرَّتَيْنِ وَأَخْبَرَنِي أَنَّهُ لَمْ يَكُنْ نَبِيٌّ كَانَ بَعْدَهُ نَبِيٌّ إِلا عَاشَ بَعْدَهُ نِصْفَ عُمُرِ الَّذِي كَانَ قَبْلَهُ ، وَأَخْبَرَنِي أَنَّ عِيسَى ابْنَ مَرْيَمَ عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ عَاشَ عِشْرِينَ وَمِائَةَ سَنَةٍ ، فَلا أَرَانِي إِلا ذَاهِبًا عَلَى رَأْسِ السِّتِّينَ " ,
Angel Gabriel came every years to review the Quran with the Prophet. But he came this year to review it twice, and he said: "No Prophet comes after a Prophet except that he lives for half of his lifetime of the one who came before him." And I was told that Jesus son of Mary peace be upon him lived for 120 years, so I think I will live for 60 years."
(Al-Aahad wal Mathani of Ibn Abi Aasim; Dala'il al-Nubuwwah of Baihaqi)

[Abu Muhammad]

I've written the first part, in sha Allah will complete the second part soon:

As promised I am now going to present my understanding of these Verses. But before I do so, I refer you and others to articles I've already written on the subjects:

Companions of the Cave

Dog of the AsHab al-Kahf

Background

The first 10 Ayaat of Surat-al-Kahf are specially designated as a defense and guidance against the tribulation of Dajjal. It is incorrect to think that the content of these Ayaat have no particular guidance for the Muslims concerning the Dajjal and it is merely the recitation of them which will act as an antidote to Dajjal. The lesson to be drawn from them is that the fitna of Dajjal will be the excessive beautification of this world toward the end of time acting as a seduction for people to turn away from their Faith and come to the Dajjal. It is in this context that Allah mentions AsHab-al-Kahf as a model to be followed during the Latter Days in order to secure oneself against the Fitna:

9. أَمْ حَسِبْتَ أَنَّ أَصْحَابَ الْكَهْفِ وَالرَّقِيمِ كَانُوا مِنْ آيَاتِنَا عَجَبًا
Or do you think that the Companions of the Cave and Inscription were among Our Signs something strange?

This first Verse where AsHab-al-Kahf are mentioned is the key to unlocking everything for the one who sees with the Noor of his heart and has been submerged in the knowledge of the Quran al-Karim. This first Verse is an important disclaimer to understand the rest of the story, which is that the reader needs to keep in mind that the story of the AsHab-al-Kahf is not something strange or supernatural.

10. إِذْ أَوَى الْفِتْيَةُ إِلَى الْكَهْفِ فَقَالُوا رَبَّنَا آتِنَا مِن لَّدُنكَ رَحْمَةً وَهَيِّئْ لَنَا مِنْ أَمْرِنَا رَشَدًا
When the youths withdrew to the Cave, they said: "Our Lord, grant us from Yourself Mercy and facilitate for us from our affair Guidance."

This is the last of the 10 Verses that are read to safeguard oneself against the Fitna of Dajjal. It gives us the practice of Awaa and Uzla that is, withdrawing from society into a cave (a remote area) and praying to Allah for mercy and guidance. This is the theme of AsHab-al-Kahf, withdrawal and retreating from the society of Jahiliyya and Fitna.

11. فَضَرَبْنَا عَلَىٰ آذَانِهِمْ فِي الْكَهْفِ سِنِينَ عَدَدًا
So We cast upon their ears in the Cave a number of years

Considering the context of what has already preceded, Allah is saying that He protected the ears of the AsHab al Kahf from hearing about the affairs of the Fitna of the society beyond the cave to where they had withdrawn themselves to.

12. ثُمَّ بَعَثْنَاهُمْ لِنَعْلَمَ أَيُّ الْحِزْبَيْنِ أَحْصَىٰ لِمَا لَبِثُوا أَمَدًا
Then We raised them up to make evident as to which of the two parties best calculated the period they remained

13. نَّحْنُ نَقُصُّ عَلَيْكَ نَبَأَهُم بِالْحَقِّ ۚ إِنَّهُمْ فِتْيَةٌ آمَنُوا بِرَبِّهِمْ وَزِدْنَاهُمْ هُدًى
We relate upon you their News with Truth. Verily they were youths who believed in their Lord and We increased them in guidance

The phrase بالحق "with Truth" means that Allah is going to tell us their story with a purpose and real objective, not merely as a story to pass the time like how the storytellers tell wonderful tales for people's amusement.

14. وَرَبَطْنَا عَلَىٰ قُلُوبِهِمْ إِذْ قَامُوا فَقَالُوا رَبُّنَا رَبُّ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ لَن نَّدْعُوَ مِن دُونِهِ إِلَـٰهًا ۖ لَّقَدْ قُلْنَا إِذًا شَطَطًا
And We made firm their hearts when they stood up and said, "Our Lord is the Lord of the heavens and the earth. Never will we invoke besides Him any deity. We would have certainly spoken, then, an excessive transgression.

This Verse reveals the fact that the fitna of the time of AsHab al Kahf which they were fleeing from was that of a Taghout and so they were seeking to secure their Iman in the Oneness of Allah and to escape this Taghout who was ordering and expecting the people to worship him. This is how the story of AsHab al Kahf is relevant to the Fitna of Dajjal, who is the Taghout to come in the near future with a similar Fitna.

15. هَـٰؤُلَاءِ قَوْمُنَا اتَّخَذُوا مِن دُونِهِ آلِهَةً ۖ لَّوْلَا يَأْتُونَ عَلَيْهِم بِسُلْطَانٍ بَيِّنٍ ۖ فَمَنْ أَظْلَمُ مِمَّنِ افْتَرَىٰ عَلَى اللَّـهِ كَذِبًا
These our people have taken besides Him (Allah) gods. These, our people, have taken besides Him deities. Why do they not bring for [worship of] them a clear authority? And who is more unjust than one who invents about Allah a lie?"

This Verse reveals the fact that the people to whom the AsHab al Kahf belonged to were a people devoted to false gods and a false religion, under the pressure of their Taghout ruler.

You didn't get it. Since you do not believe that Ashab Al-Kahfi were youths who were still alive after 300 years without any sustenance, I'm expecting you to construct your own story based on your own understanding of facts in verses 9 until 26. I saw tidbits here and there in your posts (e.g. they were a society and not a few guys, living in isolation, bla bla bla) but never a full and coherent story. I didn't expect you to write a tafseer of those verses, to be honest.

Please remember. The key to your story is that it must be based and inline with the facts available in verses 9 until 26.

[ZulFiqar]

I understand that you want me to summarize my version of this story. However, I will do so after I comment on all the Verses so that it becomes clear to other readers that I am not going against what Quran says.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

This analogy is not in your favor because the matter at hand is the meaning of the word Tawaffaitani. In the example you gave of someone winning a debate and quoting the words of Julius Caesar “I came, I saw, I conquered” the meaning of these words remain the same in both instances. The meaning of the verb “conquered” remains the same in both instances, it is only the object and the subject in the sentence which is different. Hence when Jesus says Falamma Tawaffaitanee and when our Prophet ﷺ will say Falamma Tawaffaitanee the meaning of the word is the same in both instances. The only difference is the object (Jesus in the first instance and Muhammad ﷺ in the second). The subject (Allah) remains the same in both instances also.

You have misunderstood the example brother gave whom i quoted. What he is trying to imply is that the meaning of a "verb" could be different, if a scenario changes. When Julius Caesar used the verb, he meant it to be literal, whereas when someone who is successful in debates uses it, then it is metaphorical.

When Prophet(saws) will use the words of Isa(As) will say: "I dwelt among them when Thou didst take me up" it is to imply unawareness and absence in common between Isa(as) and Prophet(saws).

Secondly, death has nothing to do in this case, rather the essence of it is about absence and unawareness from the evil scenes that occurred, that is why Isa(as) DIDN'T say "when I was alive" rather he said when "I dwelt among them"   because when Prophet Muhammad(saws) was alive there occurred certain crimes from Sahaba for which he wasn't aware, because he was not present at that time amongst them, but when he was made aware about it he disassociated himself from it.It doesn't  mean that since he was alive, he would be held responsible for it. So you see the essence here is being presence and absence and unawareness. Like Prophet(saws) would also use the response of Isa(as) to imply his presence, absence and unawareness.

Narrated Salim's father:The Prophet (ﷺ) sent Khalid bin Al-Walid to the tribe of Jadhima and Khalid invited them to Islam but they could not express themselves by saying, "Aslamna (i.e. we have embraced Islam)," but they started saying "Saba'na! Saba'na (i.e. we have come out of one religion to another)." Khalid kept on killing (some of) them and taking (some of) them as captives and gave every one of us his Captive. When there came the day then Khalid ordered that each man (i.e. Muslim soldier) should kill his captive, I said, "By Allah, I will not kill my captive, and none of my companions will kill his captive." When we reached the Prophet, we mentioned to him the whole story. On that, the Prophet (ﷺ) raised both his hands and said twice, "O Allah! I am free from what Khalid has done."[Sahih al-Bukhari 4339].

Moreover, Prophet(saws) would use the verse in the traditional sense, wherein one cannot change the wordings of the speech of KalamAllah, even though his condition is different. Let me give you an example for better understanding:

حَدَّثَنَا قُتَيْبَةُ بْنُ سَعِيدٍ، حَدَّثَنَا لَيْثٌ، ح وَحَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ رُمْحِ بْنِ الْمُهَاجِرِ، أَخْبَرَنَا اللَّيْثُ، عَنْ أَبِي الزُّبَيْرِ، عَنْ سَعِيدِ بْنِ جُبَيْرٍ، وَعَنْ طَاوُسٍ، عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ، أَنَّهُ قَالَ كَانَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم يُعَلِّمُنَا التَّشَهُّدَ كَمَا يُعَلِّمُنَا السُّورَةَ مِنَ الْقُرْآنِ فَكَانَ يَقُولُ ‏ "‏ التَّحِيَّاتُ الْمُبَارَكَاتُ الصَّلَوَاتُ الطَّيِّبَاتُ لِلَّهِ السَّلاَمُ عَلَيْكَ أَيُّهَا النَّبِيُّ وَرَحْمَةُ اللَّهِ وَبَرَكَاتُهُ السَّلاَمُ عَلَيْنَا وَعَلَى عِبَادِ اللَّهِ الصَّالِحِينَ أَشْهَدُ أَنْ لاَ إِلَهَ إِلاَّ اللَّهُ وَأَشْهَدُ أَنَّ مُحَمَّدًا رَسُولُ اللَّهِ ‏"‏ ‏.‏ وَفِي رِوَايَةِ ابْنِ رُمْحٍ كَمَا يُعَلِّمُنَا الْقُرْآنَ ‏.
Ibn `Abbas reported: The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) used to teach us tashahhud just as he used to teach us a Surah of the Qur'an, and he would say: All services rendered by words, acts of worship, and all good things are due to Allah. Peace be upon you, O Prophet, and Allah's mercy and blessings. Peace be upon us and upon Allah's upright servants. I testify that there is no god but Allah, and I testify that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah. In the narration of Ibn Rumh (the words are): "As he would teach us the Qur'an." [Sahih Muslim 403 a].

In tashahhud,  we say “al-salaamu ‘alayka ayyhu’l-nabiyyu (peace be upon you, O Prophet)”,  even though Prophet(saws) died, and this was also the practise of Majority of Sahaba, we do it in a traditional sense, even though Prophet(saws) died. Likewise Prophet(saws) would use the words of Quran, without changing it in a traditional sense, where in the essence would be unawareness and absence in common between him(saws) and Isa(as).

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

This "Sheikh" has no credibility. Apart from being a contemporary and not an authority, he is in fact a caller to the way of Khawarij and extremely discredited if you know anything about him.

Furthermore, the quotes you bring from these Fuqaha are regarding jurisprudential issues. In the madhhab of Imam Ahmad the saying of a Sahabi is given preference to Qiyas.

As for aqida, when the Ulama say that even a Khabr al Ahad that is Sahih Marfu Hadith cannot be binding then what about the saying of a Sahabi? Khatib al-Baghdadi said:

ولا يقبل خبر الواحد في منافاة حكم العقل وحكم القرآن الثابت المحكم والسنة المعلومة
“A solitary report cannot be accepted if it negates the verdict of the intellect, verdict of the Qur’an, and that of the well-known Sunnah”
Reference: Al-Kifayah fee ‘Ilm al-Riwayah; p. 432[/size][/font]



Notice Khatib al Baghdadi said that a Solitary Report cannot even be accepted if it clashes with the intellect. And you are saying it is binding upon the Muslims to accept the saying of a Sahabi that Eisa عليه السلام ascended into Heaven in his Jasad from the Mount of Olives?

Regardless of his Manhaj, which I'm not aware of, I was quoting the statements from his book which were from classical scholars and there are plenty. And if you aren't aware then you must know that, we have taken ahadeeth from Khawarij, as well as Shias, who were upright, the examples of such can also be found in Sahih Bukhari.

Secondly, as for accepting Ahad reports, then I suggest you to read the book of Shiekh Albani, The Hadith Is Proof Itself in Belief & Laws: Chapter 3 :Ahad Hadiths Must he Accepted in Matters of 'Aqeedah]

Ash-Shafi'i also said: "If anyone is permitted to say that all Muslims, of old an new, have agreed to accept the Ahad Khabar and adhere by it, saying that there is not a Muslim scholar who did not accept of it (Ahad Khabar), I will be that person. However, I say: 'I do not know of any Muslim scholar who disagreed on the matter of accepting the Ahad Khabar'". [The Hadith Is Proof Itself in Belief & Laws by Shaykh Nasir A-Deen Al-Albaanee, page 31]

http://l.b5z.net/i/u/6103974/f/The_Hadith_Is_Proof_Itself_in_Belief___Laws_by_Sheikh_Nasr_Al_Deen_Albani.pdf

It is so evident all these sayings are based upon the Israeeliyyat, which are themselves contradictory and hearsay. In fact these Israaeeliyyat are based on Arab misunderstanding of the New Testament. It is from there that this doctrine originates:

So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. (Mark 16:19)

And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven. (Luke 24:51)

And this became part of the Nicene Creed: "He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father"

So now we see where this belief originates from. It has no basis in Quran and Sunna. In fact, even these verses from the New Testament are not explicit in saying he was raised up in his earthen body.

The belief Muslims formed was based on verses of Quran, and Mutawattir Marfoo ahadeeth about descend of Isa(as). As I explained to you in previous verses that people who die will come out from their graves, but Isa(as) was to descend, which in itself is a proof that he didn't die.

In fact, Ibn Hajar said:
فَلَيْسَ بَيْن عِيسَى وَبَيْن نَبِيّنَا صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ نَبِيّ غَيْره وَلَيْسَ لَهُ قَبْر
there was no Prophet between Jesus (PBUH) and our Prophet [Muhammad], on whom peace and blessings of Allah and Jesus (PBUH) has no grave. (Fath Al-Baari 2/160, Kitabul Salaah).

Next you say I only brought the Tawtheeq of Ajlah b. Abd Allah from contemporary Muhadditheen:[/size][/font]

I was well aware, of those Mutaqaddimeen, who gave him tawtheeq, but as per the rule of Jarh wa tadeel, Jarh Mufassar take precedence over Tadeel. Even those that strengthened him didn’t strengthen him completely. For example, Yaqoub bin Sufyan Al-Fasawi, who made tawtheeq of him said that his hadith is soft. Ibn Ma’een, who referred to him as a thiqa, used other wordings like salih and la ba’asa bihi, implying that he isn’t a top tier narrator. Ibn Adi also referred to him as a shi’ee. Regardless, the majority of the classical scholars have weakened him, as I quoted.

Shaikh Muqbil bin Haadee al-Waadi'ee was asked, "When both Jarh and Ta'deel are combined in a person, then which of them is given precedence?"

He replied, "When the Jarh is Mufassar, it is given precedence. However, it is desireable to look at the criticiser (Jaarih), is he one of those that can be relied upon, such as Yahyaa bin Ma'een, Bukhaaree, Ahmad bin Hanbal, Yahyaa al-Qattaan, Abdur-Rahmaan bin Mahdee, Abu Zur'ah and Abu Haatim, so if he is of this type, then it is accepted and it is a Jarh Mufassar. And al-Jarh al-Mufassar is like when someone says, "He errs", "he has errors", "munkar ul-hadeeth", "kadhdhaab", "matrook" All of this is Jarh Mufassar. Similarly, "Da'eef Jiddan". So the likes of this Jarh Mufassar is given precedence over ta'deel." (Ijaabat us-Saa'il Alaa Ahammil-Masaail p.497, Dar ul-Hadeeth, Dammaaj) .

In case of Ajlah, we have example of how he changed or added his own wordings to the text of some other Hadeeths, like in one hadeeth he added the words "Min ba'adi" in Man kuntu Mawla hadeeth, which goes against the hadeeth reported by Thiqaat. Hence undoubtedly the odd narration which you quoted from Hassan(ra) is undoubtedly Munkar.

And since you were keen to declare Ajlah as Sadooq, then I explained that,  Sadooq, which means someone who was 'aadil but his dhabt is not well established, when he alone narrates a report from some famous Muhaddith, then it is counted among Munkar, in many cases.

Imam al-Dhahabi said:

 الذهبي : وهو ما انفرد الراوي الضعيفُ به. وقد يُعَدُّ مُفْرَدُ الصَّدُوقِ منكَراً.
(Al-Mawqiza fi ilm Mustalah al-hadeeth, by Imam Dhahabi) 

Jazak Allah khairan akhee Farid.

I would just like to respond to this here, since it seems like there are some exaggerations in the above that should be pointed out. Firstly, brother Noor has correctly pointed out that numerous early scholars weakened Al-Ajlah.

From the sixteen mentioned in the list above, only ten are early scholars. The rest are not.
Also, I would like to point out that some of these claims of strengthening are not claims at all. For example, Ibn Abi Khaythama quoting Yahya bin Ma'een's tawtheeq, is incorrectly used to point out that Ibn Abi Khaythama is also upon that view. This is inaccurate.

The same can be said about Abu Awana who simply quoted an alternative route to the hadith in Saheeh Muslim. This can barely be used as evidence for the reliability of Al-Ajlah.

Another example of an inaccuracy is what has been attributed to Al-Tirmithi. The narration that he reports is not a sole report, which is why Al-Tirmithi does not refer to it as ghareeb. The tradition can also be found elsewhere with supplementary chains. Instead we find him in Manaqib Ali stating that there is a hadith that was solely narrated by Al-Ajlah, which he refers to as “Hasanun Ghareeb”, instead of Saheeh.

Overall, it seems like most of those that have regarded Al-Ajlah as reliable, did not feel that he was at the level of the thiqaat. This can be seen in the comments of Ya’qoub bin Sufyan, who mentioned that he has some weakness, as well as Ibn Shaheen and Ibn Adi. The same is said about Yahya bin Ma’een in one of his quotes by Al-Duri. The same can be said about Al-Hakim (7037) who says that Al-Ajlah is “not matrook,” instead of saying, “he is thiqa.”

This leaves us with two remaining tawtheeqaat. The first is Shu’ba’s tawtheeq, which isn’t really tawtheeq, but can be used as a qareena of the reliability of Al-Ajlah. The second is that of Al-Ijli, who is infamous for his lenience.

In other words, the most that can be said about him, based on the positive statements, is that he is at the level of a hasan narrator. However, if you place these within the context of those that have weakened him, you would realize that he is closer to weakness than to strength. Add onto that the very specific criticisms that are directed to him by those like Al-Uqaili, who has pointed out his mistakes in hadith by inaccurately reporting names, and this takes precedence over tawtheeqaat as all hadithists know.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

IJMA OF UMMAH was described by a classical scholar about Isa(as) beiing alive in heaven and about his descend.

Ibn Athiya (died in 542 From Hijraa explained in his tafseer “Al Muharrar Al Wajiz”
أجمعت الأمة على ما تضمنه الحديث المتواتر من أن عيسى في السماء حي، وأنه سينزل في آخر الزمان فيقتل الخنزير ويكسر الصليب ويقتل الدجال ويفيض العدل وتظهر به الملة – ملة محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم – ويحج البيت …
(IJMA UMMAH)All muslim agree to have faith upon the content of hadith mutawatir (from plenty of valid chain of narrations) that Prophet Isa is still alive in heaven. He will descend at end of time, kill the hogs, break the cross, kill Dajjal, impose justice, and the religion of Muhammad will win over it’s enemies with his lead, and he also perform hajj…” (Al-Muharrar Al-Wajiz, 3:143)

One person Ibn Atiyya is claiming Ijma and you are taking 1 person's saying as evidence of an Ijma? Do you even know what Ijma is? And you are claiming that all Muslims agree?

(i). Ibn Hajar Asqalani(d. 852 H) said:
وأما رفع عيسى فاتفق أصحاب الأخبار والتفسير على أنه رفع ببدنه حيا وإنما اختلفوا هل مات قبل أن يرفع أو نام فرفع
Regarding the Ascend of Isa(as), there is an agreement between Muhadditeen and Mufassireen that he was raised alive with body. However there is a disagreement that whether before ascend he was given death(for a small time) or he was raised while he was asleep.
(talkheer al Habeer, vol 3, page 214).
http://islamport.com/d/1/krj/1/57/665.html


(ii). Imam Abu al-hassan al-Ashari(d. 324 H) said:
وأجمعت الأمة على أن الله عز وجل رفع عيسى إلى السماء
There is an Ijma al-Ummah that Allah(swt) raised Isa(as) to heaven.
(Al Ibanah fi usool al diyanah, page 222)
[ You are not allowed to view attachments ]

(iii). Imam Ahmed Ibn Taymiyyhah(d 728 H) said, quoted again what Abu al-Hassan al-Ashari said.
[ You are not allowed to view attachments ](Bayan Talbis Jahamiyyah, vol 4, page 457)



You quoted Ali Hujweri.

Personal views of Sufis when they contradict view of Sahabi, they are rejected.

still your so called "Ijma" is further broken.

You quoted Ali Hujweri, I don't think he supports your agenda. He seems to be having different views.

Syed Ali Hajveri (commonly referred to as Daata Ganj Bakhsh), the famous saint buried in Lahore wrote the following in his well known treatise;

"It is related in genuine Traditions that Jesus, son of Mary --God bless him!-- was wearing a muraqqa'a (i.e. patched cloak) when he was taken up to heaven."

(Kashf al-Mahjub, Translation by Prof. Renald A. Nicholson, Zia-ul-Quran Publications, Lahore 2001 p.50)

[ You are not allowed to view attachments ]

[ You are not allowed to view attachments ]
So you see, Alli Hujweri believes that Isa(As) was taken up to heaven, he was wearing a patched cloak, which obviously means he was raised with body. Hence for the quote you brought from him about Isa(As) and other Prophet(Saws) meeting with prophet(saws) on Meraj, in the form of souls, doesn't clearly establishes that he believes in death of Isa(As), since we know of he fact that Allah can take away our soul without us being dead. So unless you bring any categorical quote from him, that he believes Isa(as) is dead, until then your claim gets discarded.

[ZulFiqar]

Regarding the claim of Ijmaa, the great Sunni Islam Ahmad b. Hanbal رحمة الله عليه said:

وقال عبد الله بن أحمد بن حنبل : سمعت أبي يقول : ما يدعي فيه الرجل الإجماع فهو كذب ، من ادعى الإجماع فهو كاذب

and also from Imam ash-Shafi'iee رحمة الله عليه

وقد كذب أحمد من ادعى هذا الإجماع ، ولم يسغ تقديمه على الحديث الثابت ، وكذلك الشافعي أيضا نص في رسالته الجديدة على أن ما لا يعلم فيه بخلاف لا يقال له إجماع ، ولفظه : ما لا يعلم فيه خلاف فليس إجماعا

I'laam al Muwaqi'een of Ibn Qayyim al Jawziyya

Now that I have demonstrated that there isn't a single Marfoo Hadith which explicitly states that sayyidina Eesaa عليه السلام was raised up to Heaven in his Jasad. The Qur'aan al Kareem says Allah raised Eesaa up to Himself (no mention of Heaven or body). The Ahadeeth mention that sayyidina Eesaa عليه السلام will descend to the East of Damascus but there is no mention of him having been raised up to the Heavens in his Jasad. So on what basis is the claim of Ijmaa derived. Such a claim of Ijmaa must be dismissed as a lie according to Imam Ahmad.

[ZulFiqar]

Concerning the use of Khabr ul Waahid to establish something with certainty, Imam al-Sarakhasi denied this because of the possibility of a mistake by a narrator.

[ZulFiqar]

(i). Ibn Hajar Asqalani(d. 852 H) said:
وأما رفع عيسى فاتفق أصحاب الأخبار والتفسير على أنه رفع ببدنه حيا وإنما اختلفوا هل مات قبل أن يرفع أو نام فرفع
Regarding the Ascend of Isa(as), there is an agreement between Muhadditeen and Mufassireen that he was raised alive with body. However there is a disagreement that whether before ascend he was given death(for a small time) or he was raised while he was asleep.
(talkheer al Habeer, vol 3, page 214).
http://islamport.com/d/1/krj/1/57/665.html

This statement is manifestly contradictory. How can there be Ijmaa that Eesaa عليه السلام was raised up to the Heaven in his body when there is disagreement over whether or not he was raised up while in a state of sleep; when the Qur'aan al-Kareem clearly states that sleep is a state in which Allaah takes away the soul (not the body). The body remains behind in the Earth, while the soul is taken. It is the coming out of the soul from the body which makes the body "asleep". So it doesn't make sense to say Eesaa عليه السلام fell asleep while his soul was still in his body as it was being raised up to the Heavens.