Face Switch of Isa عليه السلام ?
The authentic ahadith which speak of the descent of Hadhrat Isaas, do not mention descending from the heavens. However, even if the ahadith did mention heavens, it would not support the false notion that Hadhrat Isaas is alive, as the Qur’an states:
هُوَ الَّذِي يُرِيكُمْ آيَاتِهِ وَيُنَزِّلُ لَكُمْ مِنَ السَّمَاءِ رِزْقًا ۚ وَمَا يَتَذَكَّرُ إِلَّا مَنْ يُنِيبُ {14}
He it is Who shows you His Signs, and sends down provision for you from heaven; but none pays heed save he who turns to God.(Chapter 40 verse 14)
In this verse, Allah Uses the word heavens for the sending down of provisions which is not physical. The authentic ahadith do not mention that Hadhrat Isaas would ascend from the heavens. There are many narrations today, over 100 years after the passing of Hadhrat Ahmadas which mention the word heavens or sky, but were never brought up during his time. These narrations are all weak. The non Ahmadi Muslims often accuse us of quoting weak ahadith. However, in reality they not only quote weak ahadith, but also ahadith which contradict the Holy Qur’an. Majority of these narrations are not even ahadith, rather falsely attributed to the companions of the Prophet Muhammadsaw.
The main narration quoted to prove that Hadhrat Isaas is alive in the heavens, is found in the Tafsir of Ibn Kathir. It is stated:
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 Isaas to the heavens, he went to his companions… and Isaas ascended to the heavens through an opening in the top of the house” (Tafsir Ibn Kathir)
The full narration explains that Isaas ascended alive to the heavens and the Jews crucified someone else in his place. Firstly, this should be rejected as it is not present in any book of ahadith and contradicts authentic ahadith of Sahih Bukhari. Secondly, it is not found in the earlier ahadith books like Bukhari or Muslim nor in the early commentary books, but seven centuries later appears in Tafsir ibn-e-Kathir. These long commentaries and references attributed to Hadhrat Ibn Abbas are not worthy of any attention. Hadhrat Allama Suyuti wrote:
وهذه التفاسير الطوال، التي أسندوها إلى ابن عباس غير مرضية، ورواتها مجاهيل، كتفسير جويبر، عن الضحاك، عن ابن عباس.
Meaning, that “And these long commentaries that people have attributed to Hadhrat Ibn Abbas are unacceptable. The narrators of these references are unknown. There are, for example, a large number of such references from Juwaybir, Dhahak, and Ibn Jurayj” (al-Itqaan fi Uloomil Qur’an, Page 880)
This applies to the narrations found in the tafseer of Ibn Kathir as well. It is not authentic.
The non Ahmadi Muslims often quote that Imam Nasai had included this in his collection, which is part of the Sahih Sittah. Unfortunately, they have not studied the actual story and are unaware of what took place. The story in reality is that Imam Nasai narrated this in his “Al-Kubra” which was his previous collection. A story of Imam Nasai is as follows:
“His famous book known as Sunan al-Nasa’i which is taught around the world in every Islamic institute and which possesses a virtue of being one of the Kutub Sittah (the six books generally taught in hadith). In reality when the Imam had finished compiling Sunan Al-Kubra he presented to the governor of Ramalah so the governor asked him “Is it all sahih?” He replied in the negative, thus the governor suggested and requested that he compile another book and gather in there the Sahih Hadith.” (Taken from the official Hadith Website of the Non Ahmadi Muslims, Sunnah.com)
After he was told to make a book which is better and more sahih, this so called athaar is nowhere to be found. This narration is weak and contradicts the true opinion of Hadhrat Ibn Abbas which we find in Sahih Bukhari.
The anti Ahmadis hide the chain of narration for this falsely attributed athaar. Here is the chain of narration:
حَدَّثَنَا أَحْمَدُ بْنُ سِنَان، حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو مُعَاوِيَةَ، عَنِ الْأَعْمَشِ، عَنْ المِنْهَال بْنِ عَمْرٍو، عَنْ سَعِيدِ بْنِ جُبَيْرٍ، عَنِ ابن عباس قال: لَمَّا أَرَادَ اللَّهُ أَنْ يَرْفَعَ عِيسَى إِلَى السَّمَاءِ، خَرَجَ عَلَى أَصْحَابِهِ
Perhaps they are unaware of the narrators or hide them on purpose, because they are aware that this narration becomes completely unreliable, once the narrators are known.
Imam Ibn Kathir was totally wrong in his analysis of this narration. He claimed that this chain is authentic matching the criteria of Imam Muslim, which is totally false.
Firstly, Hadhrat Ibn Hazm stated in regards to al-Minhal Ibn Amar:
وقال ابن حزم ليس بالقوي
Meaning, he is not strong.
Hadhrat Ahmad ibn Hanbal stated that Shu’bah rejected al-Minhal ibn Amr:
ترك شعبة المنهال بن عمر
Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal also stated: “Abu Bishr is more dearer to me and more authentic than al-Minhal:
قال عبد الله بن أحمد سمعت أبي يقول أبو بشر أحب إلي من المنهال
al-Mufaddal ibn Ghassan al-Ghalabi said: “I heard Yahya ibn Ma’in, while he was mentioning ahadith that al-A’mash narrated from al-Minhal ibn Amr and Yahya ibn Ma’in was putting down his status
و قال المفضل بن غسان الغلابى : سمعت يحيى بن معين ، و ذكر حديث الأعمش عن المنهال بن عمرو ، و كان يحيى بن معين يضع من شأن منهال بن عمرو
The narration from Ibn Kathir falls into this category as it is al-Amash narrating from al Minhal.
It is also said in another place that Yahya criticized al-Minhal ibn Amr:
ذم يحيى المنهال بن عمرو
Minhaal bin Amr is declared weak. Abu Mu’aawiyah bin Abdur Rahman is reliable. However, A’mash has produced such unique ahadith attributed to him that are considered munkir. Abu Haatim does not condone taking any arguments from his testimony. A’mash has also produced this reference of Abu Muaawiyah and thus it is munkir (Tahzeebut-Tahzeeb by Imam Ibn al-Hajar al Asqalani, volume 3, Page 351)
Such narrations are also weak according to Imam Shaukani who stated:
“ومن جملة التفاسير التي لا يوثق بها: تفسير ابن عباس. فإنه مروي من طرق الكذابين كالكلبي، والسدي، ومقاتل.” (الفوائد المجموعة في الأحاديث الموضوعة، محمد بن علي الشوكاني، ص 316)
It is true that some believed he was strong, but many also declared him weak. Ibn Hajar stated that he is truthful but had erred at times. Muhammad ibn Umar al Hanafi said that he is a story teller and is questionable as well.
In Tahzeebut Tahzeeb vol. 3, p. 205, we see that Minhaal bin Amr is declared weak.
Then the other narrator is Abu Muawiyyah bin Abdur Rahman who is reliable. But Amash has produced such unique ahadith to him which are considered munkir.
Abu Haatim does not condone taking any arguments from his testimony. Amash has also produced this reference of Abu Muawiya and thus it is munkir (Tahzeebut Tahzeeb, vo. 3, p. 351)
Furthermore, this narration is not linked to the Holy Prophet Muhammadsaw, rather falsely attributed to a companion or perhaps the companion was narrating from Isra’illiyat traditions.
al-Imam Ahmad Shakir also criticized these narrations in his edited version of Imam Ibn Kathir’s tafsir :
Imam al-Razi also mentioned them in his Tafsir-al-Kabir and after he had mentioned them, he rejected them.
If were to assume that Allah put the looks of Hadhrat Isaas onto someone else, there would be many questions that may be raised. Firstly, why would Allah have to secretly raise a Prophet from the earth, up to the heavens? This would mean that Allah was forced to remove His Prophet from his mission, in fear of the Jews which God Forbid defeated him. Allah States Clearly in the Qur’an:
كَتَبَ اللَّهُ لَأَغْلِبَنَّ أَنَا وَرُسُلِي ۚ إِنَّ اللَّهَ قَوِيٌّ عَزِيزٌ {22}
Allah has decreed: ‘Most surely I will prevail, I and My Messengers.’ Verily, Allah is Powerful, Mighty. (Chapter 58 Verse 22)
How can one then believe that the Jews prevailed and the Messenger of Allah failed in his mission? Secondly, why would Allah let an innocent person die for no reason? The traditions themselves are full of contradictions. Many famous scholars have rejected these narrations in our age as well.
It also contradicts the Qur’an and makes a mockery out of Islam.
Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (as) states:
In which hadith—that can be traced directly to the Holy Prophetsas and has an uninterrupted chain of narrators—can you find recorded that Hadrat ‘Isa, having torn apart the roof [of his house], ascended to Heaven, and that one of his disciples, or an
enemy, was crucified in his place to become accursed? If the person was a disciple of ‘Isa, then, in view of the Torah, this believer became accursed as he was crucified. Can such an abominable act be ascribed to God? On the other hand, if the person was a Jewish man, why did he remain silent when he was being crucified? Had his wife and other relatives already passed away? Or was he dumb that he was unable to say anything to prove his innocence? (The Miracle of Ahmad, Page 50)