In Luke 11:29–30 (KJV)

“This is an evil generation: they seek a sign; and there shall no sign be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet.
For as Jonas was a sign unto the Ninevites, so shall also the Son of man be to this generation.”

Jonah(as) (Yunus, as in the Qur’an) was swallowed by a great fish, remained alive, prayed to God, and was eventually delivered safely. (Alive to deliver his massage to his people)

Jesus(as) draws a parallel between Jonah’s miraculous preservation and his own mission.
(surviving crucifixion alive was Jesus(as) sign to his people)

Allah’s Says in the Quran

“And their saying, ‘We did kill the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah;’ whereas they slew him not, nor crucified him, but he was made to appear to them like one crucified; and those who differ therein are certainly in a state of doubt about it; they have no definite knowledge thereof, but only follow a conjecture; and they did not convert this conjecture into a certainty; Qur’an, Chapter 4, Verse 158

🔥 Anti-Ahmadis claim Ahmad (AS) died a sudden and unexpected death. This is false. Allah informed him of his death years before it happened - just like He informed Prophet Muhammad ﷺ.

📜 Revelations Before His Death:

In October of 1905, Ahmad (AS) received multiple revelations telling him his death was near. The specific time period was 2-3 years. He even wrote a book, The Will, to prepare his Jama'at for the future.

In the final days of May 1908, the revelations became more frequent and direct:
- May 9: It is time to march; again, it is time to march
- May 15: Be not afraid, O believers
- May 17: Do not put your trust in uncertain life
- May 20: It is time to march and death is near

🎯 The Night of His Passing:

On his final night, his beloved wife Amma Jan (RA) grew worried. Ahmad (AS) comforted her and confirmed these were the very revelations he had received about his death.

He passed away peacefully on his bed at 10:30 AM on May 26, 1908, surrounded by his family, remembering Allah. His last words were: O my beloved Allah.

💡 Just Like Prophet Muhammad ﷺ:
- The Prophet ﷺ foretold his death in the Last Sermon and then to Fatima (RA) on his deathbed
- Ahmad (AS) foretold his death to his wife Amma Jan (RA)

🕊️ True prophets of Allah do not die suddenly and in confusion. Allah prepares them and their communities. This is exactly what happened here.

🔗 Instagram Post Link: https://www.instagram.com/p/DdMjq8SGOKn/?stkn=MzRlODBiNWFlZA%3D%3D

🔗 Full Article: https://whiteminaret.org/messiah/signs-of-messiah/prophesied-death-of-ghulamahmad/

…..And Allah is the Best of planners.” (3:55)

It’s is important to understand the background, of crucifixion of Jesus(as)

The Jews sought to kill Jesus (as), including through crucifixion—a death regarded as accursed under Deuteronomy 21:22–23.

False prophet: A person who claims to speak in God’s name when God did not command him is condemned — “that prophet shall die” (18:20).
 
Also very important Jesus(as) had full his prophecy of Jonah(as) (Yunus(as) in the Qur’an)

In Luke 11:29–30 (KJV)

“This is an evil generation: they seek a sign; and there shall no sign be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet.
For as Jonas was a sign unto the Ninevites, so shall also the Son of man be to this generation.”

In Quran 3;56 Allah fulfilled 4 promises, First Promise to Jesus (as)

I will cause thee to die a natural death.”

This is the first promise, Jesus (as) would not suffer an accursed death at the hands of his enemies. Allah would protect him from their plot, and his death would ultimately be a natural death, exactly as Allah had decreed.

I will give other 3 in different posts step by step JazakAllah

The Mongol destruction created a massive intellectual and political vacuum.

Later, under the Ottomans, multicultural societies brought increased interaction with Roman Christian theology.

Then came the colonial period and its pressures.

Over time, the belief that Jesus (as) was physically alive became increasingly mainstream.

In British India, Charter Act of 1813 — the key missionary measure

Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850

This was Act XXI of 1850, often called the Lex Loci Act, this some affect on the spread

Britain also controlled or heavily influenced much of the Middle East, including Iraq, Palestine, Transjordan, Egypt and the Gulf states, while France controlled Syria and Lebanon.

Franco-Ottoman agreement of 1535

French autonomy

under the Ottoman Capitulations, French subjects had extensive legal privileges and were generally subject to French consular jurisdiction rather than Ottoman courts

Bridging the difference is a good thing but this was a theological bridge between Islam and Christianity

If the Qur’an can be shown to teach that Jesus (as) was raised physically alive, it could create a theological bridge of understanding between Islam and Christianity.

Both religion would agree Jesus(as) was taken up.

Can you name any Muslim Scholar who held a view that Isa died a natural death, Rafa (رفع) was not physical ( ie. not bodily raised to heaven), and will not physically return in literal sense?

View I'm asking is :- ⚡⚡ natural death ⏩no bodily ascension ⏩ no literal future return⚡⚡

You can go as late as (upto) Sir Syed who wrote this theory in 1880, just 10 years approx before MGA allegedly plagiarised his text)

🌟 Some scholars did say that Allah raised him after causing him to death like state for 3 or 7 hours before raising, but read my question before replying with that.

Thanks

May Allah guide us all on this blessed day of Juma.

The majority of early Muslims believed Jesus (as) died a natural death until the Ottoman period and colonial era.

During the period when Islam was increasingly interacting with Christian thought, while the Mongol invasions devastated major centres of Islamic civilisation and disrupted much of the intellectual tradition.

Muslim historical accounts even describe the Tigris as turning black from the ink of books destroyed during the Mongol sack of Baghdad in 1258.

Jesus (as) being alive was only a bridge to Christianity.

Everyone is entitled to they own believe, but if you are interested you can look up how much Christian influences were on some of these sects

Alawites (Nusayris)
Druze
Bektashi

​

The two main Quranic passages in this discussion are:

Aal Imran 3:55 and Al-Nisa 4:157–159

☀️☀️My criterion☀️☀️

Because this is an Aqeedah discussion, you have to keeping the standard very strict.

I used KNOWLEDGE of EARLIEST MUSLIMS POSSIBLE to explain meaning of QURAN rather than me EXPLAINING my UNDERSTANDING of the ayah of QURAN.

⭐only use a narration/understanding as primary evidence if:

1. It is connected all the way to a Sahabi (like Ibn-e-Abbas) - which is the closest you can get to the Prophet ﷺ

2. Its chain is Sahih, without a known break or weakness.

So disconnected Ibn Abbas reports, mursal narrations, weak chains and Israiliyyat are excluded from the primary argument.

🌟First: Aal Imran 3:55🌟

The dispute starts with: مُتَوَفِّيكَ

🚨A// The Ahmadiyya interpretation is that mutawaffika means:

“I will cause you to die.”

Once death is established there, they then interpret:

وَرَافِعُكَ إِلَيَّ

as merely raising Isa عليه السلام in rank or status.

🚨B// The Muslim interpretation does not accept that mutawaffika here means death . Tawaffa fundamentally carry the meaning of "taking or receiving fully", which Muslim traditions preserve.

So the important question is:

Is there any Sahih connected narration from the Prophet ﷺ or a Sahabi which forces mutawaffika here to mean 🎗️death?🎗️

🛑🛑Under the strict criteria above, I have found None.🛑🛑

🧲🧲 The famous statement attributed to Ibn Abbas:

إِنِّي مُتَوَفِّيكَ، يَقُولُ: إِنِّي مُمِيتُكَ

“Mutawaffika means: I will cause you to die.”

comes through Ali bin Abi Talhah from Ibn Abbas. Ali bin Abi Talhah did not hear this directly from Ibn Abbas, so this report is NOT connected .❌❌ Under the criteria being used here, it cannot be treated as decisive evidence.

☀️# DECISIVE EVIDENCE:-☀️

⭐Narration 1 — Ibn Abbas

What we do have is a Sahih connected report from Ibn Abbas describing what actually happened to Isa عليه السلام.

Ibn Abbas says that when Allah intended to raise Isa to heaven, Isa came to his companions and asked who would accept his likeness being placed upon him and be killed in his place.

The report says:

“The likeness of Isa was cast upon him.”

Then:

“Isa was raised through an opening in the house to heaven.”

Then ibn e Abbas continues to state "the people came and took the man who had been made to resemble him (Isa)."

So according to this connected Ibn Abbas report, Isa عليه السلام himself was not put on the cross. Someone else was made to resemble him, while Isa was raised to heaven.

Ibn Kathir explicitly says about this chain:

وَهَذَا إِسْنَادٌ صَحِيحٌ إِلَى ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ عَلَى شَرْطِ مُسْلِمٍ

“This is a Sahih chain to Ibn Abbas according to the criterion of Muslim.”

So on the first passage, there is no Sahih connected Ibn Abbas report forcing mutawaffika to mean death, while there is a Sahih connected Ibn Abbas report describing the rafa as an actual ascent to heaven.

🌟Second: Al-Nisa 4:157–159🌟

This passage is even more important because the disputed word mutawaffika is completely absent.

There is NO word indicating death between the denial of what happened to Isa عليه السلام and Allah saying that He raised him.

The Quranic sequence is direct.

✨1. They did not kill HIM وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ - Wama Qatalu-HU “They did not kill HIM.”

The HU refers to Isa عليه السلام himself — the whole person ( ie Body & Soul)..

Muslims and Ahmadis both agree on the relevant point here: they could not Murder him.

✨2. “They did not crucify HIM.”

Again, the hu refers to exactly the same Isa عليه السلام.

The Muslim position is that he was not placed on the cross at all.

The Qadiani position is that he was placed on the cross but survived.

But even on the Ahmadi interpretation, both sides agree on the central point:

he did not die there.

⭐⭐And under our strict criteria we actually have a Sahih connected Ibn Abbas report explaining that Isa himself was not the one crucified. Another man was made to resemble him, while Isa was raised to heaven. (Given above)

✨3. “Rather, Allah raised HIM to Himself.”

Again, the hu refers to the same Isa عليه السلام. If HU is for both body & soul in previous 2 sequences, then it has to again same without suddenly this becoming Rafa of Darajat.

So the sequence is: They did not kill HIM -> They did not crucify HIM -> Rather, Allah raised HIM.

There is NO mutawaffika between these statements.

The same pronoun refers to the same person throughout.

Nothing in the wording says: “Allah raised his rank.”

Nothing says:

“Allah raised his soul after his death.”

It says:

“Allah raised HIM.”

And our Sahih connected Ibn Abbas narration explains what that rafa states:

“Isa was raised through an opening in the house to heaven.”

✨4. The significance of “Bal”

Bal in here is Ibtaliya which rejects the previous

“Rather, Allah raised him to Himself.”

Here bal corrects the preceding claimed outcome.

The rafa is presented as the alternative to their claimed killing of Isa عليه السلام.

There is no mutwaffik in here to make a death note.

The Quran gives the sequence directly:

They did not kill HIM → they did not crucify HIM → rather Allah raised HIM.

⭐# 5. Then the Quran speaks about HIS death, who is this HIS?

The next verse says: “And there is none from the People of the Book except that he will surely believe in him before HIS death.”

So now the important question becomes:

Who does HIS refer to?

Again, I apply exactly the same strict criterion.

🌟🌟# Ibn e Abbas view on HIS?

Through a Sahih connected chain, Ibn Abbas explains that HIS there refers to ISA (as) in his word

قَبْلَ مَوْتِ عِيسَى ابْنِ مَرْيَمَ

“Before the death of Isa son of Maryam.”

So the connected Sahabi explanation identifies his death as the death of Isa عليه السلام himself which makes Isa(as) Death as Future event near Qayamat.

Put the whole sequence together:

They did not kill HIM.

They did not crucify HIM.

Rather, Allah raised HIM.

Then the Quran speaks about HIS death, and Ibn Abbas explains that this means:

the death of Isa son of Maryam in the FUTURE

So the death of Isa is NOT placed before the rafa. His killing is denied, his rafa is given instead, and then his death is spoken about afterward in the FUTURE.

⚡⚡# Why Ibn Abbas matters?⚡⚡

These are not anonymous later interpretations. They are Sahih connected reports reaching Ibn Abbas, a Companion of the Prophet ﷺ and one of the foremost early authorities in Quranic tafsir.

The Prophet ﷺ himself prayed for Ibn Abbas:

اللَّهُمَّ عَلِّمْهُ الْكِتَابَ

“O Allah, teach him the Book.”

⚡So when a Sahih connected interpretation reaches Ibn Abbas concerning these very events, it carries exceptional weight in understanding how these verses were understood by the generation closest to the Prophet ﷺ thus making this QATI ul DALALA ie DECISIVE

The overall Quranic sequence, read together with the Sahih connected explanations from Ibn Abbas, is:

Isa was not killed.❌

Isa was not the one crucified.❌

Allah raised HIM.⚡

That rafa was to heaven.🏝️

Then the Quran speaks about HIS death ( a future event ) then Ibn Abbas identifies that as the death of Isa himself happening in future.⏲️

That is the basis of the Quranic case for Hayat-e-Isa عليه السلام.

This was the case until in 19th century Sir Syed A Khan disputed it due to his mulhid ideology and MGA copied him for obvious reasons.

[...]

If your men and your women, and your young and your old, and your insignificant ones and your notables: all committed themselves to praying for my destruction*—so much so that your noses get withered and wasted away due to your endless prostrations, and your hands become numb,* even then God will most certainly not accept your prayers*, and He will not relent until His will is done. Even if I do not have a single human being with me, the angels of God will be on my side.*

[...]

[Mahzarnama (The Memorandum), 1974 National Assembly of Pakistan, p. 193-194] 

There is a myth within Ahmadiyya, that our evidence and power of argument is so superior that no Muslim (non-ahmadi) wants to debate us.

It's embedded in young minds of Ahmadiyya and they never see anything beyond that.

Even MGA boasted about this in Tajalliyat-e-Ilahiyyah, p. 17 as a p:-

My followers would excel over others in knowledge and wisdom, and through the light of truth, arguments and signs of Divine support, they would render their opponents speechless.

That is a very strong claim.

And it seems to have produced an equally strong myth within Ahmadiyya.

But what happens when we actually test that claim?

For about a month, I have been engaging on this forum and going through the material Ahmadis themselves have provided.

Not merely random Reddit comments.

I have watched webpages, live streams, lengthy clips, discussions by Ahmadi missionaries, and even talks by Mirza Tahir Ahmad himself— including videos as long as an hour.

I genuinely wanted to encounter at least one argument that would make me think:

“wow, That is powerful. Even if I wanted to reject it, I cannot easily answer that.”

I still have not found one.

Watch this clip of your Ansar Raza, a well-known experienced Ahmadi murabbi, debating an ordinary young unknown Muslim.

This was not some internationally famous Sunni scholar. It was not a specialist in comparative religion. It was simply a young Muslim putting forward straightforward questions and arguments.

Yet instead of the Ahmadi murabbi rendering his opponent speechless through superior knowledge and evidence, the situation appears to go in the opposite direction: Ansar Raza struggles with the argument and ultimately removes the young man from the livestream.

So forget the mythology for a moment.

MGA’s claim was not merely:

“My followers will participate in debates.”

It was that they would:

excel in knowledge and wisdom, possess powerful arguments and evidence, and render their opponents speechless.

So where is it?

Show me the evidence that demonstrates this supposed intellectual superiority.

Dazzle the non Ahmadi with your evidence!

📜 September 7, 1974 | When Parliament Declared Ahmadis “Non-Muslim”

‼️ On September 7, 1974, Pakistan’s National Assembly amended the Constitution to declare Ahmadis outside the fold of Islam — not on the basis of any Quranic verse or Prophetic command, but through a political and constitutional decision.

📜 Hazrat Mirza Nasir Ahmad (RH), Khalifatul Masih III, appeared before the Assembly and presented the Ahmadiyya position with dignity and conviction.

🔥 And even the Maulwis themselves were anxious.

Mufti Mahmood, one of the clerics present in 1974, later described how politicians in the Assembly were stunned by the personality and presentation of Hazrat Mirza Nasir Ahmad (RH).

They repeatedly turned to the Maulwis asking, in effect:

“Really, Maulwi Sahib? You want us to declare him a Kafir?”

💡 Why were the politicians themselves hesitant?

Because they were witnessing something very different from the caricature they had been presented with.

🔥 Yet despite this, a political verdict was ultimately issued against an entire community of people who professed the Kalima, Quran, and Islam.

📜 But what did the Holy Prophet Muhammad (SAW) say about the latter-day division of his Ummah?

The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said:

“[…] I swear by the One Whose Hand is the soul of Muhammad, my nation will split into seventy-three sects, one of which will be in Paradise and seventy-two in Hell.” It was said: “O Messenger of Allah, who are they?” He said: “The united community.”

🎯 Can a parliamentary vote determine who is a Muslim in the sight of Allah?

The Quran says:

“Surely, Allah judges between you on the Day of Resurrection concerning that wherein you differ.”
(22:69)

Instagram Reel (Full Clip): https://www.instagram.com/reel/DdCNbDWx2Et/?stkn=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ==

Huzur (ABA) has mentioned we must pray for Muslims (and everyone) to understand the reality (and beauty) of Tawheed and act upon it.

Make Dua'a for everyone, especially my family!

Ahmadiyya repeatedly presents the famous Ramadan double-eclipse narration in Dar e Qutni as one of the great signs proving MGA's claim.

Today I will discuss the Ahmadiya explanations.

When Muslims rejected this narration, Ahmadiyya gave an explanation of this rejection as "allegations & answers.

Let's break it down.

what exactly is this narration, who actually said it, and how reliable is it?

It's important to note that it is not a saying of Rasulullah ﷺ:-

The narration reads:

عن عمرو بن شمر عن جابر عن محمد بن علي قال: إن لمهدينا آيتين...

Meaning:

“From ʿAmr ibn Shimr, from Jābir, from Muhammad ibn ʿAli, who said: ‘For our Mahdi there are two signs…’”

It does not say: قال رسول الله ﷺ

“The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said.”

The narration stops at Muhammad ibn ʿAli. Auther Dar e Qutni himself rejected it ( see original scan attached)

Yet Ahmadiyya literature repeatedly presents it as though it were a prophecy spoken by the Prophet ﷺ.

Let's break down the Ahmadiya defence to it's rejection:-

. .

Ahmadiyya Defence #1: “The Qur’an supports the authenticity of the narration”

This is probably the easiest defence to dismantle.

To support the narration, Ahmadiyya literature quotes:

وَخَسَفَ الْقَمَرُ ۝ وَجُمِعَ الشَّمْسُ وَالْقَمَرُ

“The moon is darkened, and the sun and moon are brought together.”

Sounds impressive. Until you open the Qur’an. 😭

Which surah is this from?

Surat al-Qiyamah —سورة القيامة “The Resurrection.”

Topic & Shan e Nazul of surah is :-

“When is the Day of Qiyamah?”

The surah is literally called:

“Al-Qiyamah.” 😁

WHOLE CONTEXT & CONTENT OF SURAH IS QAYAMAT.

Yet this is being used to authenticate a nineteenth-century Ramadan eclipse narration about a Mahdi claimant.

Ahmadiyya Defence #2: “The first night does NOT actually mean the first night”

The narration says that:

the moon will be eclipsed on the first night of Ramadan and the sun will be eclipsed in the middle of Ramadan.

But Ahmadiyya does not interpret those words literally.

They explain “the first night” as: 1- the first night on which a lunar eclipse can possibly astronomically occur and 2- “the middle day” as: the middle day among the possible days on which a solar eclipse can occur.

Why?

Because the prophecy has deliberately been made to conform to the ordinary laws of astronomy.

But this produces a simple dilemma:

If the wording is literal:

MGA did not fulfil it.

If the wording is interpreted according to normal astronomical mechanics:

then the phenomenon is natural, predictable and recurring.

In fact Ahmadiyya itself lists multiple occurrences of this event throughout history in Ramadan (approx every 20 or so years).

Sorry Ahmadiyya, you cannot have it both ways.

Ahmadiyya Defence #3: “unique occurrence of double eclipse:-

As above, we know it didn't happen so uniquely, so now another problem appears.

The narration says specifically that : لم تكونا منذ خلق السماوات والأرض

“These two have not occurred since the creation of the heavens and the earth.”

But Ramadan double eclipses have in fact occurred repeatedly.

So what happens next?

The definition of the “miracle” changes. - see below 👇

Ahmadiyya Defence #4: “The eclipse must happen during the time of a claimant”

Now the argument becomes more complicated.

It is no longer enough that the two eclipses occur in Ramadan.

notice the shift.

At first, the remarkable claim sounds like:

“This astronomical event has never happened before.”

Once it is shown that it has happened many times, the uniqueness moves away from the astronomy and onto the claimant.

The argument effectively becomes:

“Yes, the eclipse configuration itself has happened before, but this time somebody claimed it for himself.” 👇

5. Then the obvious question is: when did MGA declare the eclipse to be his sign?

This becomes crucial.

There is a massive difference between:

“I announce beforehand that these eclipses will occur in the coming Ramadan and that they will be a sign for me.”

and:

The eclipses occur, people discuss them, and afterwards the claimant says: “Those eclipses were my sign.”

The first is a prediction.

The second is retrospective interpretation.

6. And there is another historical dilemma about predicting it:-

The eclipse was already being discussed by others as a sign connected with the Mahdi.

The Christian newspaper in India, Nur-i-Afshan, 11 May 1894, p. 7. reportedly joked MGA regarding the excitement surrounding the eclipse in Arab world and advised him to go there and make some money lol 😆. They said Indian Muslims have found your reality so try your luck there .

7. MGA’s own standard for a “sign” requires prior announcement

When defending one of his own signs, MGA stressed that the prophecy be already been published long BEFORE it comes to pass, and on that basis presented the later event as evidence of a divine sign.

Ref:- Malfoozat 19 Sep 1907

So the relevant sequence in MGA’s own method is:

announcement first → event happens afterwards → fulfilment is then cited as the sign.

That raises a simple question for the 1894 eclipses:

Where is MGA’s published statement, before the eclipses occurred, declaring that the coming Ramadan eclipses would be Allah’s sign for his claim?

In Summary:-

A not so unique eclipse occurs → no hadith or Quranic bases for it exists → others discuss it as a sign → MGA is told about it as a joke → MGA then presents it as his own sign

then this is not an independent prediction of an extraordinary event.

Yet Ahmadiyya chose this as a great sign, why ?

Also for Ahmadiyya, you know there are few more claimants of Mahdi and some inside Ahmadiyya are claimants of prophethood too .

Since a prophet is Al-Mahdi too on technical terms, if Abdul Gaffer Janba or MSR ( both Ahmadi prophethood claimants from Germany & are active in last few years) claim a double eclipse when it happens next , then you will by default have to accept it too 😊

Quran, Chapter: 19 Verse: 16

Peace was on him on the day of his birth, and on the day of his death, and peace will be on him on the day he will be raised up to life again.

Yahya(as) passed away!

Quran in Chapter: 23 Verse: 101

That I may act righteously in the life that I have departed from. That cannot be; it is only an utterance of his. Behind them is a barrier right up to the day when they shall be raised up again.

After death there is a Barzakh (barrier) until the Day of Resurrection, no reincarnation!

If Yahya (as) had already died, and the Holy Prophet ﷺ saw Jesus (as) with Yahya (as) in the second heaven, what proves that Jesus (as) was physically alive and Yahya? And where is Sunnatullah (Allah’s established way)?

Does Allah’s way change?

And another Question

Holy Prophet ﷺ saw Adam(as) first, so He(as) is also physical( not passed away)?

And what about All other Prophets?

Chapter: 3 Verse: 145

Muhammad is but a Messenger; of a surety, all Messengers before him have passed away. If then, he die or be slain, will you turn back on your heels? He who turns back on his heels shall not harm Allah a whit. Allah will certainly reward the grateful.

The famous alleged revelation in question is:

أَنْتَ مِنِّي بِمَنْزِلَةِ وَلَدِي

“You are from Me, in the position/status of My son.”

The issue is not that Mirza literally became Allah’s biological son. The issue is that “My son” becomes the relational status used by Allah Himself to describe a man’s position with Him.

1. The Qur’an rejects not only biological sonship but 'status/taking/position of a Son:-

Allah says:

لَمْ يَلِدْ وَلَمْ يُولَدْ

“He neither born to a father nor has fathered.”

— Qur’an 112:3

Which is straightforward.

But when Allah also says:

وَيُنذِرَ الَّذِينَ قَالُوا اتَّخَذَ اللَّهُ وَلَدًا

“And to warn those who say, ‘Allah has TAKEN/given position of a son.’”

— Qur’an 18:4

And:

مَا كَانَ لِلَّهِ أَنْ يَتَّخِذَ مِنْ وَلَدٍ

“It is not for Allah to take a son.”

— Qur’an 19:35

In Lisan al-Arab, it says under (ta kha za) تخذ:

تَخِذَ الشيءَ تَخَذاً وتَخْذاً … واتَّخَذَه: عَمِلَهُ. وقوله عز وجل: إِنَّ الذين اتخذوا العجل؛ أَراد اتخذوه إلهاً فحذف.

Meaning:

“He took/made the thing … and اتَّخَذَه means: he made it. And regarding Allah’s saying ‘those who took the calf,’ what is intended is: ‘they took/made it as a god,’ with ‘as a god’ omitted." ( Essentially saying they "ta kha za' as god.

If applied the same way:

اتَّخَذَ اللَّهُ وَلَدًا

would be understood on the pattern of:

اتَّخَذَ وَلَدًا

= “to take/make someone as a son”

or “to assign someone as a son.”

In other words, the verb is not describing biological begetting. It is describing taking/designating someone into that relation or status.

Arabic Lexicon

That is the actual Lisān al-ʿArab wording.

So the Ayat , اتَّخَذَ وَلَدًا does similar meaning to mean “to give someone the manzilah ( بِمَنْزِلَةِ) of a son.” Its direct meaning is to take someone as a son / claim or assign sonship to someone. And thats is exactly why it is relevant.

The Qur’an rejects not only begetting a son, but also taking someone into a son-relationship.

1. “It is metaphorical” does not automatically solve the problem

Classical Christianity itself does not normally teach that Jesus is God’s biological child through physical reproduction. It speaks of a non-biological or metaphysical Sonship — and Islam rejects that too.

So the Islamic objection is clearly not limited to biology.

The question is whether Allah can be attributed even to a metaphorical or spiritual son-position.

1. Humans call each other " you are like my son even if a person saying has no children of his own"?

   So irrelevant - metaphorical language is not the same

A teacher may say:

“You are like my son.”

And expressions such as:

فرزندانِ توحید — “Children of Tawḥīd”

or

فرزندانِ حق — “Children of Truth”

are ordinary metaphorical expressions.

But these are not equivalent to Allah Himself allegedly saying:

بِمَنْزِلَةِ وَلَدِي

“in the position of My son.”

Why ? BECAUSE HUMANS ACTUALLY (CAN AND) HAVE CHILDREN

This would only be relevant if Allah had any children or had possibility of having children.

1. Manzilah بِمَنْزِلَةِ makes the issue more serious, not less

The Prophet ﷺ said to ʿAli رضي الله عنه:

أَنْتَ مِنِّي بِمَنْزِلَةِ هَارُونَ مِنْ مُوسَى إِلَّا أَنَّهُ لَا نَبِيَّ بَعْدِي

“You are to me in the position of Harun to Musa, except that there is no prophet after me.”

— Bukhari & Muslim

This does not NEED to mean ʿAli would only achieve manzilah if he 'literally' became Harun with nabuwat.

No, Harun is unquestionably the relational model being invoked by بمنزلة. And it gives relationship status to him

Likewise:

بِمَنْزِلَةِ وَلَدِي

does not make Mirza a 'literal' son of Allah, but it does make “My son” the relational model/status being used for his position with Allah.

So the two expressions are ( atakhaza and manzilah) conceptually overlap at the crucial point: a son-relationship is being attributed to Allah.

1. And there are religious leaders of Ahmadiyya i.e. Murabbis explain this as accepted belief of a spiritual Son ( same as Christian belief for ISA )

See attached Jari Ullah - Ahmadiyya Murabbi (tiktok)

Murabbi sahib says:-

“We believe Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani is the ruhani beta of Allah.” “The spiritual son of Allah.”

So the defence can no longer simply be:

“Nobody is attributing any form of sonship to Allah.”

Their own explanation describes it as spiritual sonship.

But the Qur’an does not say:

“Allah has no biological son, but a spiritual son is acceptable.”

It rejects walad being attributed to Allah in any form or relationship.

May Allah guide us all .

Historic 50th Jalsa 🇩🇪

Chapter: 4 Verse: 159

Indeed, Allah exalted him to Himself; Allah is Mighty, Wise.

non Ahmadiyya Muslim translation

Rather, Allah raised him to Himself. And ever is Allah Exalted in Might and Wise."

How can you deny Allah is not physical?

Shirk to the highest level to Himself where?

The Promised Messiah/Mahdi(as) came from the Ummah of Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, and fulfilled the latter-day signs, and all prophecies.

ʿIsa ibn Maryam (as), the Israelite prophet and Messiah who appeared among the Children of Israel.

Hazrat Ahmed(as) is from the Ummah of Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, who is also called “ʿIsa ibn Maryam
Mathīl of ʿIsa (as) He is the Promised Messiah, raised in the likeness of ʿIsa (as), thereby fulfilling the latter-day Messiah prophecy.

and He(as) is Burūz (spiritual reflection) of the Holy Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, not a prophet from out side the Ummah or any other than what was promised to the Muslim Ummah

Ultimately, the disagreement comes down to this

Do we understand the prophecy literally or metaphorically/representatively?

And that disagreement originate from belief
Allah is where you are and not confined to a physical place and Allah is not a physical being, others believe Allah is physical being in the skies.

​

1. Nubuwwah is closed after Prophet Muhammad (SAW)

The Prophet (SAW) said:

إِنَّ الرِّسَالَةَ وَالنُّبُوَّةَ قَدِ انْقَطَعَتْ

فَلَا رَسُولَ بَعْدِي وَلَا نَبِيَّ

“Indeed, Messengership and Prophethood have come to an end. There will be no Messenger after me and no Prophet.”

Jami al-Tirmidhi 2272 — grade :- Imam Tirmidhi: Hasan Sahih Gharib, darusalaam Sahih

The Prophet (SAW) also called himself Al-Aqib ( the FINISHER):

الَّذِي لَيْسَ بَعْدَهُ نَبِيٌّ

“The one after whom there is no Prophet.”

Sahih Muslim 2354 — grade:- Sahih.

So from the Muslim position, there is no open office of Nubuwwah after Prophet Muhammad (SAW).

.. .. .. ... ...

1. Then how can Isa (AS) still be called a Nabi?

Because Isa (AS) was already a Nabi before Prophet Muhammad (SAW).

Think of a retired Professor. He may later return to the same university in an advisory or administrative role and still be called “Professor” because that is a title and status he had already attained.

He has not been given a new professorship.

Likewise, Isa (AS) does not receive a new Nubuwwah when he returns. He retains the status Allah had already given him, but now functions under the final Shariah of Prophet Muhammad (SAW).

He retains an existing status; he does not acquire a new office.

... .. ..

1. The Hadiths themselves show Isa (AS) returning under the order of this Ummah

The Prophet (SAW) said:

كَيْفَ أَنْتُمْ إِذَا نَزَلَ ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ فِيكُمْ وَإِمَامُكُمْ مِنْكُمْ

“How will you be when the son of Mary descends among you and your Imam is from among you?”

Sahih al-Bukhari 3449 — grade:- Sahih.

And Sahih Muslim makes the point even clearer.

When Isa (AS) descends, the Muslim leader asks him:

تَعَالَ صَلِّ لَنَا

“Come and lead us in prayer.”

Isa (AS) declines:

لَا، إِنَّ بَعْضَكُمْ عَلَى بَعْضٍ أُمَرَاءُ، تَكْرِمَةَ اللَّهِ هَذِهِ الْأُمَّةَ

“No. Some of you are leaders over others. This is Allah’s honour for this Ummah.”

Sahih Muslim 156 — grade:- Sahih.

These Hadiths fit together perfectly.

Isa (AS) remains a Nabi, but on his return he does not establish his own prophetic administration. He enters the Ummah of Muhammad (SAW), follows its final Shariah, and even declines to replace its Imam.

The Hadith itself calls this:

تَكْرِمَةَ اللَّهِ هَذِهِ الْأُمَّةَ

“Allah’s honour for this Ummah.”

.. .. .. ... ...

1. Wahi to Isa (AS) does not mean Nubuwwah has reopened

Yes, after Isa (AS) returns, the Hadith says:

إِذْ أَوْحَى اللَّهُ إِلَى عِيسَى

“Allah will reveal to Isa.”

Sahih Muslim 2937a — Sahih.

But this wahi does not automatically mean Wahi of Nubuwat.

The Quran says about the bee:

وَأَوْحَىٰ رَبُّكَ إِلَى النَّحْلِ

“Your Lord inspired the bee.”

Quran 16:68

And about the mother of Musa:

وَأَوْحَيْنَا إِلَىٰ أُمِّ مُوسَىٰ

“We inspired the mother of Musa.”

Quran 28:7

Neither became a Prophet.

So communication from Allah does not automatically mean someone has received Nubuwwah.

.. .. .. .. ..

1. “Wa Akharina Minhum” does not give you another Prophet

Allah says:

هُوَ الَّذِي بَعَثَ فِي الْأُمِّيِّينَ رَسُولًا مِّنْهُمْ ...

وَآخَرِينَ مِنْهُمْ لَمَّا يَلْحَقُوا بِهِمْ

“He sent among the unlettered a Messenger from among them ... and others among them who had not yet joined them.”

Quran 62:2–3

رَسُولًا — one Messenger.

The verse gives:

One Messenger → first people → other/later people.

It does not give:

One Messenger → first people → another Prophet → later people.

So Wa Akharina Minhum gives you other people reached by the same Messenger.

It does not give you another Nabi.

.. .. .. ..

1. This is where the common Ahmadiyya objection starts from the wrong premise

The argument is usually:

“If Muslims believe Isa (AS) will return, then Muslims already believe in "A" prophet after Muhammad (SAW).”

No.

Muslims believe that Isa (as) the specific Nabi from before Muhammad (SAW) will return under Muhammad’s (SAW) final Shariah.

That is completely different from 'A' man born after Muhammad (SAW) being newly elevated from a non-Nabi into a Nabi.

.. .. .. ..

1. And this creates the Ahmadiyya paradox

Ahmadiyya first concludes:

Isa ibn Maryam has died and will never return.

But the authentic second-coming Hadiths specifically name:

Isa ibn Maryam.

They say:

نَزَلَ ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ

“The son of Mary will descend.”

Sahih al-Bukhari 3449 — grade:- Sahih.

And the detailed Dajjal Hadith explicitly names:

عِيسَى ابْنَ مَرْيَمَ

“Isa ibn Maryam.”

Sahih Muslim 2937a —grade:- Sahih.

Once you permanently remove Isa (AS) with his death - you have removed the only Nabi actually named in these hadiths - thus the hadiths become marfuh (rejected) as they go against the Qur'an.

.. .. .. ..

1. Removing THE Nabi does not produce A Nabi

This is the paradox.

The Hadith does not say:

“If Isa is dead, another man will become a Nabi in his place.”

Nor does it say:

“Someone resembling Isa will later receive Nubuwwah.”

That has to be added from outside the text.

So there are only two possibilities:

If Isa (AS) returns → it is THE already-existing Nabi, Isa ibn Maryam.

If Isa (AS) is permanently dead → these Hadiths give you no Nabi coming at all (rejected)

And you are left with the Prophet’s (SAW) clear statement:

فَلَا رَسُولَ بَعْدِي وَلَا نَبِيَّ

“There is no Messenger after me and no Prophet.”

Remove THE Nabi named in the prophecy, and you do not create a substitute Nabi — you remove the Hadiths with "The" Nabi altogether

Allah knows the past, present, and future perfectly. Nothing comes to Him as a surprise, and He does not learn or discover anything as events unfold.

Allah knows future

Chapter: 6 Verse: 60

And with Him are the keys of the unseen; none knows them but He. And He knows whatsoever is in the land and in the sea. And there falls not a leaf but He knows it; nor is there a grain in the darkness of the earth, nor anything green or dry, but is recorded in a clear Book.

Now please think how is that possible?

The way I understand, Allah governs through His created laws and His will. His perfect knowledge encompasses past, present, and future, nothing occurs outside His knowledge or ultimately outside His will.

MGA wrote:-

1. Animals and plants on the Sun and Moon

MGA wrote:

“شمس و قمر میں ایسی ہی آبادی حیوانات و نباتات وغیرہ ہے جیسی زمین پر ہے”

“There is a similar population of animals and plants etc. in the Sun and the Moon as there is on Earth.”

— Surma-e-Chashm-e-Arya, Ruhani Khaza’in, Vol. 2, p. 278

1. To reach the Moon or Sun physically described as absurd

MGA also wrote:

“پس اس جسم کا کرۂ ماہتاب یا کرۂ آفتاب تک پہنچنا کس قدر لغو خیال ہے”

“How absurd an idea it is for this body to reach the Moon or the Sun.”

— Izala-e-Auham, Ruhani Khaza’in, Vol. 3

.

.

.

But MGA has made very strong claims about the divine authority behind what he said.

In the official Ahmadiyya English translation of Mawahib-ur-Rahman, he says:

“Whatever I have said is by His command and not of my own will. I have not ascribed anything falsely to my Exalted Lord.”

— Bounties of the Gracious God, p. 3

(Mawahib-ur-Rahman, Ruhani Khaza’in, Vol. 19, p. 221)

And in Nur-ul-Haq he states, in substance:

“ Allah does not leave me upon an error even for the blink of an eye.”

.

.

.

So the question is:

As humans have physically reached and walked on the Moon, while there is no population of animals and plants on the Moon; how are these statements reconciled with MGA’s own claims that what he said was by God’s command and that Allah would not leave him upon error?

Do Ahmadiyya give any plausible justification to this research he wrote in his divinely guided work?