Challenge to Sunnis: Ghayba of Ibn Mariam عليهما السلام

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

Note: In the chain of Tabaraani, there is a narrator named “Abdullah bin Yazeed al-Askandari”. However, the correct name is “Abdullah bin Yazeed al-Muqri” as affirmed by Shaikh Albaani [Silsilah as-Saheehah: 5/338].

This idea is not based on any definite fact or certainty, but the opinion of some Ulama, as Shaykh Zubair Ali Zaee stated:

بعض علماء کا خیال ہے کہ الاسکندرانی سے مراد عبد اللہ بن یزید المقری ہیں
"Some Ulama think [Khayaal] that al-Iskandaraani is Abd Allah b. Yazeed al-Muqri"
(Fadaa'il Durood o Salaam p.22)




The science of authenticating Ahadeeth requires certainty and definiteness, and cannot be based on assumptions or opinions. This is why Zubair Ali Zaee has declared the Hadeeth weak because the Sanad contains Shubah (Doubt), which is enough to weaken it.

The Muhadditeen  are like Jewellers, its their expertise in the field of Asma al-rijaal through which they are able to identify the mistakes of in the names of narrators. And examples for such cases are many. Its quite unlikely that there were two different narrators with the same initial name (Abdullah bin Yazeed) who narrated from Haywat bin Shurayh, the exact same hadeeth. Interestingly, you won't find Abdullah bin Yazeed al-iskandaraani listed as the student of Haywat bin Shurayh. So, it was based on his vast experience that Sheikh al-Albani concluded that “Abdullah bin Yazeed al-Askandari's" correct name is “Abdullah bin Yazeed al-Muqri”. Hence we accept it, and I say this because of the experience I gained regarding how the scholars would know the mistakes in the names of narrators. Moreover, several other scholars attested the authenticity of its chain, some of them were quoted by Albani.

(i). Ibn Hajar said in "Fath" Rijaal Thiqaat(Its men are Trustworthy)

(ii). Al-Hafidh al-Iraaqi in Takhreej al-Ihya said Sana Jayyid(chain is strong).

(iii). Nawawi said in al-Riyadh Isnaad Sahih(chain is authentic).

[ZulFiqar]

The Muhadditeen  are like Jewellers, its their expertise in the field of Asma al-rijaal through which they are able to identify the mistakes of in the names of narrators. And examples for such cases are many. Its quite unlikely that there were two different narrators with the same initial name (Abdullah bin Yazeed) who narrated from Haywat bin Shurayh, the exact same hadeeth. Interestingly, you won't find Abdullah bin Yazeed al-iskandaraani listed as the student of Haywat bin Shurayh. So, it was based on his vast experience that Sheikh al-Albani concluded that “Abdullah bin Yazeed al-Askandari's" correct name is “Abdullah bin Yazeed al-Muqri”. Hence we accept it, and I say this because of the experience I gained regarding how the scholars would know the mistakes in the names of narrators. Moreover, several other scholars attested the authenticity of its chain, some of them were quoted by Albani.

(i). Ibn Hajar said in "Fath" Rijaal Thiqaat(Its men are Trustworthy)

(ii). Al-Hafidh al-Iraaqi in Takhreej al-Ihya said Sana Jayyid(chain is strong).

(iii). Nawawi said in al-Riyadh Isnaad Sahih(chain is authentic).

The Hadith does not mean the Prophet's soul is returned to his body in his grave in this Dunya. It is from the affair of al-Barzakh. Albani put it under the heading من حياته صلى الله عليه وسلم في البرزخ

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

Mere mention of clouds and wings of Angels doesn't necessarily meant descent from the sky. Only someone blinded by literalism and not understanding religious symbolism will assert this.

This is the view of Ahlusunnah that Isa(as) would descend from heaven, did you forget that quote from Aqeedah Tahawiyyah, which exposed your hypocrisy.

Secondly, it's the Prophetic ahadeeth which says Isa(as) would descend from heaven, hence the statement of scholars will be explained in the light of the Aqeedah of Ahlesunnah, and also the ahadeeth of Prophet(saws).

Imaam Ahmed bin Hanbal said:

من رد حديث رسول الله صلي الله عليه وسلم فهو علي شفاهلكة

“The one who rejects the hadeeth of Allaah’s Apostle(sallahu alaihi wa sallam), is at the edge of destruction”

[Manaaqib Ahmed: P. 182, Chain Hasan; Tabaqaat al-Hanaabilah: 2/15]

In the Quraan al-Kareem, Allah Azza wa Jall makes mention of the descent of al-Manna wal-Salwaa. In explaining the Ayah:

وَظَلَّلْنَا عَلَيْكُمُ الْغَمَامَ وَأَنزَلْنَا عَلَيْكُمُ الْمَنَّ وَالسَّلْوَىٰ
And We shaded you with Clouds and sent down upon you al-Manna was-Salwaa

Wahb b. Munabbih said: ]فإن الريح تأتـيكم به، وكانت الريح تأتـيهم بـالسلوى]
"The wind brought with it to them as-Salwaa" (Tafseer Ibn Jareer).

عن عكرمة : أما السلوى فطير كطير يكون بالجنة أكبر من العصفور ، أو نحو ذلك
Ikrimah said that the Salwa is a bird in Paradise about the size of a sparrow. (Tafseer ibn Katheer)

So obviously, al-Manna was-Salwaa (quails) didn't just drop out of the sky from outer space. Rather, Allah facilitated this provision from the Children of Israel through natural means.

Your desperation is pathetic. You are comparing apples with oranges out of desperation, which the readers can notice. The statement of scholars of Ahlus-sunnah will be explained in the light of the Aqeedah of Ahlesunnah[Like Tahawiyyah, etc], and also the ahadeeth of Prophet(saws), which clearly mention that Isa(as) would descend from heaven.

Your analogy about cops arresting a criminal is flawed. The only reason cops accompany a criminal to prison is to ensure that he doesn't escape. What is the need for Angels to accompany the soul to the Heavens if the soul can ascend to the Heavens without them?

And the Ahadeeth make it clear that the Angels aren't just there to accompany the soul through its journey into the Heavens, but to actually take hold of it and carry it up.

Angels take the Ruh to the destination, A Ruh wouldn't know by its own the destination, the doors of heaven. If you aren't able to grasp the example, then I'll give you another example: "My friend took me to his house" this doesn't mean My friend became my vehicle.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

The Muhadditeen  are like Jewellers, its their expertise in the field of Asma al-rijaal through which they are able to identify the mistakes of in the names of narrators. And examples for such cases are many. Its quite unlikely that there were two different narrators with the same initial name (Abdullah bin Yazeed) who narrated from Haywat bin Shurayh, the exact same hadeeth. Interestingly, you won't find Abdullah bin Yazeed al-iskandaraani listed as the student of Haywat bin Shurayh. So, it was based on his vast experience that Sheikh al-Albani concluded that “Abdullah bin Yazeed al-Askandari's" correct name is “Abdullah bin Yazeed al-Muqri”. Hence we accept it, and I say this because of the experience I gained regarding how the scholars would know the mistakes in the names of narrators. Moreover, several other scholars attested the authenticity of its chain, some of them were quoted by Albani.

(i). Ibn Hajar said in "Fath" Rijaal Thiqaat(Its men are Trustworthy)

(ii). Al-Hafidh al-Iraaqi in Takhreej al-Ihya said Sana Jayyid(chain is strong).

(iii). Nawawi said in al-Riyadh Isnaad Sahih(chain is authentic).

The Hadith does not mean the Prophet's soul is returned to his body in his grave in this Dunya. It is from the affair of al-Barzakh. Albani put it under the heading من حياته صلى الله عليه وسلم في البرزخ

This is exactly how it was explained in the link I gave, which apparently you didn't care to read. If you did, then there is no point in repeating it. The point was to show you the significance of Salam with Khitaab, near the grave of Prophet(saws). The difference between Salaam Tahiyyah and Salam Ma’moor.

[ZulFiqar]

This is exactly how it was explained in the link I gave, which apparently you didn't care to read. If you did, then there is no point in repeating it. The point was to show you the significance of Salam with Khitaab, near the grave of Prophet(saws). The difference between Salaam Tahiyyah and Salam Ma’moor.

This Hadith has nothing to do with the grave of the Prophet Sallallahu alaihi wasallam. There is no proof that giving Salam near the grave of the Prophet Sallallahu alaihi wasallam is any different than giving Salam to him from afar. The Angels convey the Salam to him in all instances because he has no awareness of anything from this Dunya; nor can he hear anything from this Dunya; nor is he present in his grave in Medina; rather the grave in Medina only contains his bones. (Sallallahu alaihi wasallam).

[ZulFiqar]

Angels take the Ruh to the destination, A Ruh wouldn't know by its own the destination, the doors of heaven. If you aren't able to grasp the example, then I'll give you another example: "My friend took me to his house" this doesn't mean My friend became my vehicle.

Your original point was that the Prophet ﷺ ascended into Heaven in his earthen body, and so he required a mount (al-Buraq). If he ascended in spirit only he would not need a mount or vehicle. Hudaifa b. al-Yaman (Radi Allahu anhu) narrates that both the Prophet and Angel Gabriel were riding upon the back of al-Buraq:

فَمَا زَايَلاَ ظَهْرَ الْبُرَاقِ
(Tirmidhi)

Now the question is do the Angels also require al-Buraq in order to ascend into the Heavens?

Furthermore did sayyidina Eesaa alaihis salaam ride on al-Buraq when he ascended into Heaven in his Jasad? You never brought any narration to this effect. You brought weak narration about him ascending to Heaven from the top of a building on the Mount of Olives, but there is no mention of al-Buraq

[ZulFiqar]

*Wrong thread

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

This Hadith has nothing to do with the grave of the Prophet Sallallahu alaihi wasallam. There is no proof that giving Salam near the grave of the Prophet Sallallahu alaihi wasallam is any different than giving Salam to him from afar. The Angels convey the Salam to him in all instances because he has no awareness of anything from this Dunya; nor can he hear anything from this Dunya; nor is he present in his grave in Medina; rather the grave in Medina only contains his bones. (Sallallahu alaihi wasallam).

I'll quote the scholars and let the readers judge.

Shaikh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah writes: “The scholars have understood [from this hadeeth] that this salaam [regarding which it is said that Prophet’s soul returns to his body] is only that which is said near the Prophet’s grave, this hadeeth is not a proof for the one [sending salaam] from far away” [Ar-Radd Ala al-Bakri: 1/107]

He further said: “This is the hadeeth upon which the Scholars like Ahmed and Abu Dawood trusted on the issue of saying salaam from near the Prophet’s grave.” [Ar-Radd Ala al-Bakri: 1/107]

Imaam Ibn Abdul Haadi also considers this hadeeth on saying salaam from nearby according to many Scholars. [As-Saarim al-Munki: 1/115]

Allaamah Shanqeeti writes: “All [Scholars] are agreed upon that this [Prophet’s returning of Salaam] is only achieved by one who says salaam to him from close….” [Adhwaa ul-Bayaan: 8/838]

Abu Tayyib Shams ul-Haqq al-Adheemaabaadee (rahimahullah) writes: “The correct opinion is that this hadeeth is concerning the one who visits the [grave of the] Prophet (peace be upon him), as for those who are far away, then the angels convey his salaam to him (and Allaah answers this salaam with 10 blessings).” [Awn al-Ma’bood fi Sharh Sunan Abi Dawood: 6/22]

Abul Hassan Ubaydullah bin Muhammad Rehmaani al-Mubaarakpoori (rahimahullah) writes: “The correct opinion is that what is meant from this hadeeth is the salaam that is said close to the grave of the Prophet (peace be upon him), as is understood by many other Scholars.” [Mir’aat ul-Mafateeh Sharh Mishkaat ul-Masabeeh: 3/263]

When this much is understood then it should also be kept in mind that Salaam Tahiyyah used to be said during the life of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and he (peace be upon him) used to answer it; and it is also said today so its answer is also given by the Prophet (peace be upon him) himself, as is proven from the hadeeth.

This is also made clear that just like Salaam Tahiyyah used to be said from close during the life of the Prophet (peace be upon him), similarly, it would be said to him today also from close. You have already read the action of Ibn Umar (radiallah anhu) that whenever he would come from a Journey, he would say this salaam in the apartment of Aa’ishah from close to the grave. On the contrary, Salaam Ma’moor was used to be said by all the Sahaabah in the prayer wherever they were, so why was there a need to come close to the grave upon returning from the journey? If He (peace be upon him) answered this salaam even from the person far away, then why would Sayyidunah Ibn Umar (radiallah anhu) come close to the grave of the Prophet (peace be upon him)??

There are two types of Salaam. One is a salaam that is said from the near which is Salaam Tahiyyah, and whose answer is given by the Prophet (peace be upon him) himself; while the other salaam is that which is said from far away, the answer to which is not given by the Prophet (peace be upon him) himself, rather Allaah sends blessings on that person instead.

Imaam Ibn Abdul Haadi explains both these types in the following words:

والمقصود هنا أن نعرف ما كان عليه السلف من الفرق بين ما أمر الله به من الصلاة والسلام عليه وبين سلام التحية الموجب للرد الذي يشترك فيه كل مؤمن حي وميت ويرد فيه على الكافر....

“The purpose here is that we know the difference between the salaat and salaam ordained by Allaah, and the salaam of Tahiyyah, the answer to which is obligatory, and in this all living and deceased Muslims are alike, and in which we are to answer the salaam of even a Kaafir…”
[Saarim al-Munki: 1/125]

He further said:

وهذا السلام لا يقتضي رداً من المسلم عليه، بل هو بمنزلة دعاء المؤمن للمؤمنين واستغفاره لهم، فيه الأجر والثواب من الله، ليس على المدعو لهم مثل ذلك الدعاء، بخلاف سلام التحية، فإنه مشروع بالنص والإجماع في حق كل مسلم. وعلى المسلم عليه أن يرد السلام ولو كان المسلم عليه كافراً، فإن هذا من العدل الواجب،ولهذا كان النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم يرد على اليهود إذا سلموا بقول ((وعليكم))

“This salaam (salaam Ma’moor) does not demand an answer for the one who said it, rather it is a Du’aa & Istighfaar of a Mu’min for other Mu’mineen, there is reward of Allaah in it. The one for whom this Du’aa is made, it is not necessary for him to return a du’aa similar to it; as compared to Salaam Tahiyyah for verily it is ordained upon every Muslim from the Nass [of Qur’aan-o-Sunnah] and the Ijmaa of Ummah, it is from the right of every Muslim. And for whom Salaam Tahiyyah is said, it is obligatory for him to reply it, even if he [the one who said the salaam] is a Kaafir. This is why when the Jews would salute the Prophet (peace be upon him), he would reply them with ((Alaikum))”
[Saarim al-Munki: 1/118-119]

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

Your original point was that the Prophet ﷺ ascended into Heaven in his earthen body, and so he required a mount (al-Buraq). If he ascended in spirit only he would not need a mount or vehicle. Hudaifa b. al-Yaman (Radi Allahu anhu) narrates that both the Prophet and Angel Gabriel were riding upon the back of al-Buraq:[/size][/font]

فَمَا زَايَلاَ ظَهْرَ الْبُرَاقِ
(Tirmidhi)

Now the question is do the Angels also require al-Buraq in order to ascend into the Heavens?

The same way even I can raise a counter question to you, if it was soul of Prophet(saws) and angels can carry souls, then why didn't Jibril(as) carry it?

Secondly, there would be multiple reasons as to why both rode on Buraaq, like it could be a ride faster than the flight of Angels, like how in our world a mount is faster than human speed, and the journey of Miraj was to be completed in a very minute time interval, and for it a mount was necessary. Hence a mount was used by both.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

You said that resting his hands on the Wings of Two Angels is proof of literal descent from Heaven to Earth. But I quoted the Hadith about the Vision of Messiah making Tawaaf of the sacred Ka'ba to explain the reality of this. Prophecies are not always literal. A Prophet coming on the Wings of Two Angels is open to interpretation. The Prophet Sallallahu alaihi wasallam told sayyidina Uthmaan Radi Allahu anhu:

يَا عُثْمَانُ إِنَّهُ لَعَلَّ اللَّهَ يُقَمِّصُكَ قَمِيصًا , فَإِنْ أَرَادُوكَ عَلَى خَلْعِهِ فَلَا تَخْلَعْهُ لَهُمْ
O 'Uthman! Indeed Allah may give you a shirt, and if they wish that you take it off, do not take it off for them (Tirmidhi)

Here Qamees symbolises Khilaafa, and was not a literal piece of cloth.

The general rule is that Prophecies were made in a literal sense, however there were few cases in which prophesies were made in a metaphorical manner, because Prophet(saws) didn't want the person to know the literal meaning, at that time.

However, in regards to case of the return of Isa(as), then it will be understood in a literal sense, as it was a matter of Emaan(as)[Scholars brought the hadeeth of Nuzool of Isa(as) in the chapters of Emaan(faith)], and Muslim Ummah needed to prepared for it in a literal sense,  just like arrival of Dajjal would be understood in the literal sense, that is his description and about his arrival and his followers, in the same way the Nuzool of Isa(as) and his description would be understood in the literal sense. Thus, it must be believed that Isa(as) would descend from heaven, along with Angels.

[ZulFiqar]

The same way even I can raise a counter question to you, if it was soul of Prophet(saws) and angels can carry souls, then why didn't Jibril(as) carry it?

Secondly, there would be multiple reasons as to why both rode on Buraaq, like it could be a ride faster than the flight of Angels, like how in our world a mount is faster than human speed, and the journey of Miraj was to be completed in a very minute time interval, and for it a mount was necessary. Hence a mount was used by both.

Your argument about speed failed to take into account the great speed of the Angels who ascend up to Allah very fast without the need for Buraq. All of these are creations of Noor which can move through the Heavens at high velocity. It is the earthen flesh and blood body which cannot be moved so fast. Our light speed is 186 thousand miles per second. Can an exposed human body travel at such speed into the Heavens where there is no oxygen?

Then you failed to address how sayyidina Eesaa ascended into Heaven in his physical body apparently without mounting the Buraaq. This means you at least believe it is not necessary for a human body to ascend into the Heavens with a vehicle or mount.

The Prophet Sallallahu alaihi wasallam was given the Buraaq to mount upon as a way of honoring him. Otherwise he could have ascended into Heaven on the wings of an Angel. There are reports in the Tafaseer that sayyidina Idrees alaihis salaam ascended into Heaven on the back of the Angel. To summarize, my point is that your argument that Buraaq was sent for because the Prophet ascended in his body is pure speculation and a very weak argument.

[ZulFiqar]

If you read carefully the narrations about the Mi'raaj and reflect upon them you will understand that it was an ascension of the soul and occurred not in this world but in the Aalam al-Mithaal. Take for instance the fact that the Prophet Sallallahu alaihi wasallam saw an old, decrepit woman decked with jewelry. She was the Dunya, her extreme old age signifying that she is about to die, he jewelry signifying her attempt to allure despite actually being repulsive, etc.

The Prophet Sallallahu alaihi wasallam was presented with a bowl of milk and a bowl of wine. He took the milk signifying his Ummah will be upon the way of the Fitra of Islam; had he taken the wine it would have meant his followers would go astray.

The Prophet Sallallahu alaihi wasallam saw people being punished in Hell despite the fact that from our perspective Judgment Day hasn't occurred yet. All of these and many other factors point to the reality of the Israa and Mi'raaj being a powerful vision that was in the Aalam-al-Mithaal.

[ZulFiqar]

The general rule is that Prophecies were made in a literal sense, however there were few cases in which prophesies were made in a metaphorical manner, because Prophet(saws) didn't want the person to know the literal meaning, at that time.

However, in regards to case of the return of Isa(as), then it will be understood in a literal sense, as it was a matter of Emaan(as)[Scholars brought the hadeeth of Nuzool of Isa(as) in the chapters of Emaan(faith)], and Muslim Ummah needed to prepared for it in a literal sense,  just like arrival of Dajjal would be understood in the literal sense, that is his description and about his arrival and his followers, in the same way the Nuzool of Isa(as) and his description would be understood in the literal sense. Thus, it must be believed that Isa(as) would descend from heaven, along with Angels.

Regrettably you approach the texts of Islam with rigid and dry literalism and without Hikmah and Firaasah, gifts given to the Believer whose heart is filled with Noor.

Are we to understand that Dajjal will literally come mounted on a massive white donkey the span between its ears being 40 cubits, and travel faster than a cloud driven by the wind? And are we to understand that Gog and Magog will literally throw spears into the sky and they will fall back to the Earth smeared in blood? And are we to understand that sayyidina Eesaa alaihis salaam will literally go hunting to slaughter all the pigs in the world, and he will literally break every single cross and crucifix with his own hands?

It is such literalist thinking devoid of wisdom that makes people like you a laughing stock who believe in fables and fairy tales without understanding the reality. They think the final battles prophesied in the Hadith will literally be fought with swords and spears; having no understanding of apocalyptic language and symbolism.

[ZulFiqar]

 عَنْ ثَوْبَانَ، قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏"‏ إِنَّ اللَّهَ زَوَى لِيَ الأَرْضَ ‏"‏ ‏.‏ أَوْ قَالَ ‏"‏ إِنَّ رَبِّي زَوَى لِيَ الأَرْضَ فَرَأَيْتُ مَشَارِقَهَا وَمَغَارِبَهَا وَإِنَّ مُلْكَ أُمَّتِي سَيَبْلُغُ مَا زُوِيَ لِي مِنْهَا وَأُعْطِيتُ الْكَنْزَيْنِ الأَحْمَرَ وَالأَبْيَضَ

Narrated Thawbān (Radi Allāhu ‘Anhu): The Messenger of Allāh ﷺ as saying: “Allāh, the Exalted, folded for me the Earth”, or he said: “My Lord folded for me the Earth, so much so that I saw its easts and wests (i.e. the extremities). The kingdom of my community will reach as far as the Earth was folded for me. The two treasures, the red and the white (peoples) were bestowed on me.” (Sunan Abi Dawud)

*Now did this too occur literally? Or was it a Kashaf (vision) which the Prophet ﷺ was made to behold?

[ZulFiqar]

What greater evidence can there be of the death of Jesus of Nazareth than the discovery of his family tomb and ossuary that actually contained his bones?

[Abu Muhammad]

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.

I hope you won't forget. It has been quite some time now...

[ZulFiqar]

I hope you won't forget. It has been quite some time now...

I believe that Ashāb-al-Kahf as individuals were not asleep continuously for three centuries. Allah alone knows how long they tarried in the cave  (Sūra 18: 26). Likewise, Allah knows best their exact number (Sūra 18: 22). There is no proof from this story that some individuals survived without nourishment of food for three centuries, which was your original point to argue that Jesus of Nazareth can survive in his Jasad in the Heavens for two millennia without food or drink.

[ZulFiqar]

The Ashāb-al-Kahf were not something unusual, extraordinary or strange from among the Signs of Allāh (Sūra 18: 9). Whatever happened with them was totally within the realm of possibility and nature. They were simply youths who retreated from their society in the cave in order to secure their Religion and remain unpolluted from the Shirk of their day. Allāh struck their ears in the cave for a number of years. It is not clear to me if this means literally putting them to sleep, a sleep-like state, or something else. The Qur’ānic expression Darabnā ‘alā ādhānihim simply means ‘We prevented them from hearing’. The implication is that they remained cut off from the outside world and were wholly unaware of what was happening there. Allāh raised them (Ashāb-al-Kahf) up and then mentions two parties (Sūra 18: 12), but it is not immediately clear who these two parties are.

[ZulFiqar]

وَتَحْسَبُهُمْ أَيْقَاظًا وَهُمْ رُقُودٌ

And you would have thought them awake while they were asleep (Sūra 18: 18)

The key to unlocking this mystery is the Ayat:

فَلَمْ تَقْتُلُوهُمْ وَلَـٰكِنَّ اللَّـهَ قَتَلَهُمْ ۚ وَمَا رَمَيْتَ إِذْ رَمَيْتَ وَلَـٰكِنَّ اللَّـهَ رَمَىٰ

You killed them not, but Allāh killed them. And you (O My Prophet ﷺ) threw not when you did throw but Allah threw (Sūra 8: 17).

Allāh Most High negates the apparent with something that is the inner reality. Although it was apparent that the Sahāba killed the polytheists during the battle, but Allāh negates that which is apparent and informs us of the inner reality that it was He Himself who killed them. Likewise, it was apparent that the Prophet ﷺ threw the dust in their faces, but Allāh negates this and informs us of the inner reality, which is that it was He Himself Who threw, and not the Prophet ﷺ.

Likewise, in the episode of the Ashāb-al-Kahf, the apparent reality is mentioned first (that if we were to see them we would think they are fully awake and not sleeping), but then we are informed of the inner reality which is that they were in fact asleep. And the inner reality of this sleep is obviously different from the apparent form of sleep; thus it is wrong to analogise this as an example of how a human body can survive for years without nourishment of food and drink in order to substantiate your doubtful ‘aqīda that sayyidina ‘Īsā (‘alayhis-salām) is alive in the Heavens with his corporal body, Jasad, for the past two millennia without eating or drinking.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

What greater evidence can there be of the death of Jesus of Nazareth than the discovery of his family tomb and ossuary that actually contained his bones?

This video is unreliable for the following reasons:

REASON 1

Can the evidence stand up to scrutiny?

The identification of the Talpiot Tomb as the burial site for Jesus' family was made primarily on the basis of the names found on the ossuaries in the tomb: most notably, of course, those of Jesus and Mary.

We can start there. The box that supposedly says "Jesus, son of Joseph" definitely says "son of Joseph," but that first, crucial name is very much in doubt. One scholar suggested that it says Hanun, just to give a sense of how uncertain the reading is.

And the box that supposedly belongs to Mary actually says "Mariam and Mara," which suggests that there were actually two women buried in that single ossuary. It is also a problem that while all the other ossuaries are inscribed in Aramaic, this one is in Greek.

As for the names on the other ossuaries, some of them fit perfectly well into the Jesus story (Joseph, for example, Jesus' younger brother). Others, however, not so much: Matia (Matthew), not a member of Jesus' family according to the Bible, and, more problematically, Yehuda bar Yeshua -- Judas, son of Jesus.

Supporters of the theory regularly point to the remarkably collocation of so many biblical names in a single tomb. But as most every other scholar has pointed out, these were just about the most common names in that period, especially Joseph and Mary.

The evidence from the tomb next door -- the ossuary with the early Christian symbol of Jonah and the fish on it -- is equally hard to swallow.

It seems that the only people who see a fish on that box are those who already thought that Jesus was buried next door; just about everyone else sees an abstract geometric pattern, or perhaps the depiction of a jar.

As for that inscription about God raising someone up, it seems that this was a case of mistaken reading. The Greek most likely says something far less interesting: "Here are bones. I touch them not. Agabus." Agabus would be the name of the deceased, perhaps.

Then there is the James ossuary. The question of the authenticity of the inscription on the box -- the ossuary itself is certainly ancient -- is so fraught that the dealer who owns it was taken to trial for antiquities fraud.

Even if the trial ended without proving claims of forgery, we have no idea where the artifact came from.

What's more, almost every expert in ancient epigraphy has concluded that while the name James seems authentic, the words "brother of Jesus" are patently from a different hand, and most likely a much later, if not modern, addition.

Four problems with the James ossuary story

The newest part of the James ossuary story -- that it might have once been housed in the Talpiot Tomb -- has its own set of issues:

1. It requires that a tomb that has always been thought to have held 10 ossuaries in fact held 11.
2. That this otherwise unknown 11th ossuary happened to be the closest to the entrance to the tomb.
3. That this box closest to the doorway was looted, but all the others left just where they were;
4. That the only box to emerge from the tomb was the James ossuary.

None of this is supported by any evidence.

Finally there is the most recent piece of the puzzle: the soil analysis that seems to link the James ossuary with the Talpiot Tomb.

These lab results have not been published or subject to peer review. And there are reasonable questions to be raised even by non-experts about the process: most notably, only a handful of soil samples were taken, which means that we don't know whether this is a unique relationship or whether many tombs in Jerusalem would show the same correlation.

All of the individual pieces needed to make up the finished puzzle are very much in doubt. It's not clear whether they actually all belong together, or whether they actually produce a meaningful picture when they are combined.

A story that doesn't hold together

The story that is being told about this tomb simply doesn't make much sense.

Even if we were to grant all of this -- that the first generation of Christians buried Jesus and his family and some close followers in these tombs, perhaps secretly for fear of harassment by Jewish authorities -- we would have to believe that the knowledge of this burial spot was lost to early Christians almost immediately.

The idea of the resurrection emerged very early in Christianity -- almost immediately after Jesus' death. This would, in theory, explain the Jonah image (if it were such) on the tomb next door.

But this presents a logical dilemma: We would have a tomb containing Jesus' ossuary -- his bones -- coexisting, temporally and physically, with the belief that his bones shouldn't be in there. And we would have to believe that a year after Jesus died and was supposedly resurrected, his followers went and reburied his decomposed corpse in an ossuary.
What's more, all of the other people from Jesus' family, all those other names on the ossuaries in the Talpiot Tomb, would have been buried there after Jesus, presumably years later.

In other words, early Christians, believing that Jesus was the resurrected son of God, were entering his burial chamber to deposit the bones of his relatives, and no one ever mentioned the place, turned it into a pilgrimage site or marked it for other Jesus followers.

Considering how dangerous the existence of Jesus' burial site -- and bones -- would be for traditional Christian belief, even very early on, we might be surprised that no one, in the years that they must have been returning to the tomb to bury everyone else, didn't think to destroy the best evidence that their central claim was a lie.

The media attention around this story is easy enough to explain: Jesus is hot right now, and this would be a blockbuster if it were true. Unfortunately, the evidence is faulty, and the story doesn't make sense.

Source:
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/04/09/living/jesus-tomb-talpiot-evidence/index.html


REASON 2

It says that there were BONES of Isa(as) in it, however the Islamic belief is that, Earth doesn't consume the body of Prophets, which again proves that this was a fraud attempt by some cunning people. We know from our history the example of Daniyal(as), whose body wasn't consumed by the earth even after centuries.

Ibn Abi Shaybah (7/4) narrated with a saheeh isnaad from Anas that when they conquered Tastar, they found a man whose nose was one cubit long in a coffin, and they used to pray for victory and for rain by virtue of him. Abu Moosa wrote to ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab about that, and ‘Umar wrote back, saying: This man is one of the Prophets; fire does not consume (the bodies of) the Prophets and the earth does not consume (the bodies of) the Prophets. And he wrote instructions saying: You and your companions (meaning the companions of Abu Moosa) should discuss the matter and rebury him in a place that no one knows except you two. He said: So Abu Moosa and I went and reburied him.

Al-Bayhaqi said in Dalaa’il an-Nubuwwah (1/381):

It was narrated from Khaalid ibn Dinaar that Abu’l-‘Aaliyah said: When we conquered Tastar, we found in the treasury of al-Hormuzaan a bier on which was the body of a dead man, and by his head was a scripture of his. We seized the scripture and took it to ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab (may Allah be pleased with him), and he summoned Ka‘b, who translated it into Arabic. I was the first man among the Arabs to read it, and I read it as I read this Qur’an. I said to Abu’l-‘Aaliyah: What was in it? He said: It was about you, your affairs, your religion, your talk, and what will happen after that. I said: What did you do with the man? He said: We dug thirteen different graves during the day, then at night we buried him and we levelled all the graves, so as to conceal its location from the people, so that they would not exhume him. I said: Why would peple do that? He said: If rain was withheld from them, they would take his bier out and they would receive rain. I said: Who do you think the man was? He said: A man called Daniyal. I said: How long ago do you think he died? He said: Three hundred years ago. I said: Had anything of him changed? He said: No, except a few hairs at the back of his head, for the earth does not consume (the bodies of) the Prophets, and wild animals cannot devour them.

Ibn Katheer (may Allah have mercy on him) said:

This is a saheeh isnaad going back to Abu’l-‘Aaliyah, but if the date of this man’s death was recorded as having been three hundred years earlier, then he cannot have been a Prophet; rather he was a righteous man. That is because there was no Prophet between ‘Eesa ibn Maryam and the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), according to the text of the hadith narrated by al-Bukhaari, and the period between them was four hundred years, or six hundred, or six hundred and twenty years. Or the date of his death may have been eight hundred years earlier, which is close to the time of Daniyal, if this was the Daniyal who once lived. Or he may have been some other man, either one of the Prophets or one of the righteous. But it is most likely that he was Daniyal, because Daniyal was taken captive by the king of Persia, and remained with him as a prisoner, as we have seen above. It was narrated with a saheeh isnaad going back to Abu’l-‘Aaliyah that the length of his nose was a handspan, and it was narrated with a saheeh isnaad going back to Anas ibn Maalik that the length of his nose was a cubit. Therefore it is possible that this was one of the earlier Prophets, before the period mentioned above. And Allah knows best.
-End quote from al-Bidaayah wa’n-Nihaayah (2/40)-

Source:
https://islamqa.info/en/233815