Are Qadianis Muslims?
Q 1 : What is the meaning of a Prophet in Sharī‘ah? What is the meaning of Khatm e Nabuwwat in Sharī‘ah? What is the ruling in Sharī‘ah about a person who claims according to his false presumption, to speak to Allah and call it prophet-hood? What is the ruling in Sharī‘ah of someone who alters/changes the meaning of khatme Nabuwwat and claims himself to be a prophet?
Every religion has a central spiritual figure by which the very basis and core of the religion is established and symbolized. The central figure signifies and embodies certain key principles by which he is distinguished and identified from other normal human beings. For example, the Christian central spiritual figure is the Pope. The central figure in Islam is the prophet who symbolizes the promulgation of the Islamic Law.
The word prophet can have the following two connotations:
- Rasul (messenger): one who has been given a sacred law (Shariah) that is inclusive of the essentials of Islamic creed and the fundamental laws, and who enjoins that they be proclaimed and propagated.(Jāmi‘ al-la’ālī Sharh al-bad’ al-amālī Pg. 135)
- Nabi (envoy): one who has receives divine revelation, but not a sacred law (Shariah), to enjoin the adherence to the sacred message of the Rasūl before him; to propagate its fundamentals and to rule according to its dicates. (Jāmi‘ al-la’ālī Sharh al-bad’ al-amālī Pg. 136)
It is our belief that:
a. Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) is the last and final prophet and,
b. No prophet in the form of Rasūl or Nabī will come after him.
The finality of prophet-hood of Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) is proclaimed in The Holy Qur’an, the most authentic and revered book of Islam, with utmost clarity.
Allah (the most high) says:
مَا كَانَ مُحَمَّدٌ أَبَا أَحَدٍ مِنْ رِجَالِكُمْ وَلَكِنْ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ وَخَاتَمَ النَّبِيِّينَ وَكَانَ اللَّهُ بِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ عَلِيمًا
“Muhammad is not the father of any man among you,
rather he is the Rasūl of Allah and the last (seal) of the Prophets” (Qur’an 33:40).
Authentic prophetic narrations (hadīth) of Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) also establish this seal of prophet-hood leaving no ambiguity in the subject
Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), the final prophet says:
حدثنا عبد الله حدثني أبي ثنا أبو أحمد الزبيري ثنا عبد الله يعني بن حبيب بن أبي ثابت عن حمزة بن عبد الله عن أبيه عن سعد قال لما خرج رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم في غزوة تبوك خلف عليا رضي الله عنه فقال له أتخلفني قال له أما ترضى أن تكون منى بمنزلة هارون من موسى الا انهلانبيبعدي
“…there is no prophet after me” 
It is mentioned in another authentic narration:
“…the messengership (Ar-risālah) and prophethood (An-nabuwwah) has terminated, (hence) there shall be no Rasul after me, nor shall there be any Nabī after me…” 
This creed of “seal of prophet-hood” eliminates the possibility of any future proclamation to the station of either Rasūl or Nabī. This also means that any claim which challenges the clear and unambiguous creed of “seal of prophet-hood” will be seen as a lie, and the claimant will be termed a liar. Hence, anyone who claims to receive divine revelation (wahī) and proclaims prophet-hood by virtue of such revelation will be classified as a disbeliever (kāfir). 
The above is the unanimous view of all Muslims, regardless of which school of thought they belong to or which area of the world they hail from. While it is of utmost importance that we affirm the above criterion for prophet-hood and rulings of false proclamation in light of Qur’ān and Sunnah, it is equally important that we also highlight the criterion of prophet-hood set out by Mirza Ghulam Ahmed Qadiani himself.
Mirza Ghulam Ahmed Qadiani declared himself to be a prophet of Allah at numerous occasions. These proclamations are recorded in his own works.
1. True God is he who sent His messenger (Rasūl) in Qadiyan.
2. I am a true messenger (Rasūl) and a prophet (Nabī), by way of true and perfect reflection of prophet-hood. I am like a mirror which reflects the complete form and prophet-hood of Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him). 
3. I swear by the God who controls my life in His Hands, He is the one who Has sent me, and He has named me prophet. 
4. Since I have witnessed 150 prophecies (towards me) from God fulfilled with my own eyes then how can I deny the connection between me and the title “prophet” or “messenger”? When God Himself has given me these names, then why should I reject them, and why should I fear anyone except Him? 
5. God has made me a manifestation of all prophets and ascribed the names of all prophets to me. I am Adam (‘alayh salām), I am Shīth (‘alayh salām), I am Nūh (‘alayh salām), I am Ibrahīm (‘alayh salām), I am Ishāq (‘alayh salām), I am Ismā’īl (‘alayh salām), I am Yaqūb (‘alayh salām), I am Yūsuf (‘alayh salām), I am Eīsā (‘alayh salām), I am Mūsa (‘alayh salām), I am Dawūd (‘alayh salām), and I am the perfect manifestation of Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), i.e. I am the projection (reflection) of Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) and Ahmad (peace and blessings be upon him). 
6. “I am the very Krishna.” 
7. Qur’ān was revealed near Qadiyan. The detail of this revelation is “That in fact we revealed Qur’ān close to Damascus on the eastern side on the white minaret’ as I live on the eastern end of the river. 
8. We asked as to where Qur’ān is? Had there been any Qur’ān, there would have been no need for another messenger. The problem is that Qur’ān does not exist now. That is the cause of Muhammad (Mirza Qadiani) being sent again as ‘Berozi’ in the world so that Qur’ān may be revealed to him. 
9. I swear upon God that I have so firm a faith in these revelations as I have faith in Qur’ān and God’s other Books. And as I believe the Qur’ān as the words of God, in the same way the words that are revealed to me I take them as God’s words or speech. 
Any person who makes a claim to prophet-hood will be judged according to the criteria of prophet-hood. We have already established Mirza Ghulam Ahmed’s claims of prophet-hood to be contrary to that of Qur’ān and Sunnah. We further press that Mirza Ghulam Ahmed’s claim of prophet-hood also fails criteria he himself lays down.
Mirza Ghulam Ahmed states:
a. The best criterion to evaluate my truth or falsehood is my foretelling” 
b. If one is proven to be a liar in a matter then he should not be relied upon for other matters as well.” 
In view of the above criterion, let us examin the truth or falsehood of Mirza Ghulam Ahmed claim to prophet-hood. We present hereunder some of the prophecies and foretelling of Mirza Ghulam Ahmed along with the factual outcomes of those prophecies:
1. Death in Mecca or Madina: “I shall die either in Mecca or Medina.” 
The prophecy did not materialize. Mirza Ghulam Ahmed died of Cholera in the Ahmedia Building, Brandreth Road, Lahore and his dead-body was taken to Qadiyan in a Train fearing the spread of an epidemic.
2. Marraige with a widow: “It is God’s will that I will be married with two women; one of them will be a virgin and the other will be a widow. So, the prediction about the virgin has already come to pass and by the grace of God I have four sons from this wife. I am waiting for the prediction about the widow. 
Mirza Ghulam Ahmed died before he could marry a widow.
3. Death of Priest Athum: Mirza Qadiani had debated with a Christian priest Athum which lasted for many days without any result. At last Mirza wrote in his paper that God has told him that priest Abdullah Athum would die within fifteen months from the date of publishing of the paper (i.e. 5th June 1893).
He stated in clears terms, “I acknowledge that if this prediction proves false or if the person who is a liar in God’s eyes does not die within fifteen months of this date, I am ready for any type of punishment and disgrace. I am even prepared to be hanged. I swear that he will certainly die within this period. Come what may, this will happen…… If I am a liar then prepare a gibbet for me and consider me the worst of all the Satans and the wicked.” 
Abdullah Athum did not die and travelled to Amretsar on September 6th, 1894. The Christians welcomed him while Mirza Qadiani was disgraced due to his false prophecy.
4. Death of Dr Abdul Hakeem: Dr. Abdul Hakeem Khan predicted that Mirza Qadiani would die during his life time by August 4, 1908. At this Mirza prophesized:
“Dr. Abdul Hakeem has foretold that I will die during his life time by August 4, 1908, but against this prediction God has informed me that he himself will suffer and that God will cause his death, while I will remain safe from his evil. So, this is the case whose decree will be made by God. There is no doubt in that God always helps a true person. (Chashm e Ma‘ārifat Pg. 322; Rūhanī Khazā’in Vol. 23: Pg. 336-337)
According to the prediction of Dr. Abdul Hakeem, Mirza Qadiani died on May 26, 1908 two months before August 4, 1908. Dr. Abdul Hakeem lived for another eleven years.
5. Plague: When Plague spread in India, Mirza Qadiani said that it was in accordance with his prediction. He claimed that the Plague had come for his enemies and would not enter Qadiyan, and any person with plague who enters Qadiyan would be cured. After some time Plague entered Qadiyan. Mirza Qadiani prophesized that it would not afflict his home and his followers would remain safe, but in the aftermath many of Mirza’s close companions died because of the plague. The plague also afflicted his house also and he had to leave his home for Bāgh.
6. Earthquake: Mirza Qadiani prophesized that an earthquake of extreme magnitude would hit the area. Mirza Qadiani named it “The earthquake doomsday” and circulated numerous pamphlets about it. He wrote: “The prediction about the next earthquake is not an ordinary prophecy. If it proves to be something menial or it does not occur in my life, then it would mean that I have not been sent by God.” 
7. Birth of a Son: Mirān Manzūr Muhammad was a well-known figure of Qadiyan. His wife’s name was also Muhammadi Begum. She got pregnant in 1906. Mirza wrote about her: “On 7th of June 1906, it was revealed to me that Muhammadi Begum would give birth to a son, who would have two names (1) Bashīr ud Dola, (2) Alam Kabāb.” 
Subsequently, on 19th of June, 1906 he claimed: The son born to Mirān Manzūr Muhammad who will be a sign from God shall have the following names:
(1) Kalimat ul Azīz
(2) Kalimat ullah Khan
(4) Bashīr ud Dola
(5) Shādi Khan
(6) Alam Kabāb
(7) Nasir ud Dīn
(8) Fateh ud-dīn
(9) Haza Youm e Mubārak.
After 27 days of his revelation a daughter was born to Muhammadi Begum on July 17, 1906. After some days both the daughter and the mother died.
It is abundantly clear from the above false prophecies that Mirza Ghulam Ahmed’s failed his own criteria of prophet-hood and cannot be accepted as a messenger.
Q 2 : What is the ruling in Sharī‘ah of someone who claims to have received revelation on him, Qur’ān Majīd as book of Allah, [but] words of his mouth also insult the prophets?
We have addressed the issue of someone who claims to have received the revelation in the previous question. Here we wish answer the latter part of this question. The Islamic scholars are unanimous that one who vilifies and insults the prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) is an apostate and cannot be classified a muslim.
This consensus was narrated by many great scholars such as Imaam Ishaaq ibn Raahawayh, Ibn al-Mundhir, al-Qaadi ‘Iyaad, al-Khattaabi and others.
This ruling is furthermore indicated in the Qur’aan. It is mentioned in the Qur’aan:
يَحْذَرُ الْمُنَافِقُونَ أَنْ تُنَزَّلَ عَلَيْهِمْ سُورَةٌ تُنَبِّئُهُمْ بِمَا فِي قُلُوبِهِمْ قُلِ اسْتَهْزِئُوا إِنَّ اللَّهَ مُخْرِجٌ مَا تَحْذَرُونَ (64) وَلَئِنْ سَأَلْتَهُمْ لَيَقُولُنَّ إِنَّمَا كُنَّا نَخُوضُ وَنَلْعَبُ قُلْ أَبِاللَّهِ وَآيَاتِهِ وَرَسُولِهِ كُنْتُمْ تَسْتَهْزِئُونَ (65) لَا تَعْتَذِرُوا قَدْ كَفَرْتُمْ بَعْدَ إِيمَانِكُمْ إِنْ نَعْفُ عَنْ طَائِفَةٍ مِنْكُمْ نُعَذِّبْ طَائِفَةً بِأَنَّهُمْ كَانُوا مُجْرِمِينَ (66)
“The hypocrites fear lest a Surah (chapter of the Qur’aan) should be revealed about them, showing them what is in their hearts. Say: ‘(Go ahead and) mock! But certainly Allah will bring to light all that you fear.’ If you ask them (about this), they declare: ‘We were only talking idly and joking.’ Say: ‘Was it at Allah, and His Ayaat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) and His Messenger that you were mocking?’ Make no excuse; you disbelieved after you had believed” (Qur’ān 9:64-66)
The adherent of any faith who insults and vilifies the key symbols and embodiments of the very faith is regarded with contempt and apostasy. What would happen if a Christian vilifies Jesus (peace and blessings be upon him)? We can well imagine the end result of a Hindu who vilifies and insults the Hindu God, Krishna. Would any other religion be willing to tolerate anyone vilifying and hurling absurdities against the fundamental symbols and embodiments of its faith?
Mirza Ghulam Ahmed Qadiani has at numerous occasions uttered, penned down and proclaimed statements which are extremely offensive to Muslims and Islamic Faith. We present just a few of them.
1. “Like Maryam, Christ’s spirit was infused into me and metaphorically I was conceived. At last after several months, not more than ten months, through revelation that I have stated in the part four page. 556 of Brahīn e Ahmedia, I was made Christ from Mary. In this way I am Ibn e Maryam (son of Mary).” 
2. “The Promised Christ once stated his condition that under the feeling of revelation he felt as if he were a woman and God had intercourse with him.” 
3. “I dreamt that I myself am God. I believed that I was God.” 
4. “In a revelation I saw that I was God and I believed that I was so.” 
5. “And God named me Mary in the book Brahīn e Ahmedia.” 
6. A man kissed my foot I said I am the Black Stone (Hajra e Aswad).” 
7. An outstanding poet, Mirza introduces himself as follows:
I am neither made of clay nor I am any human being’s child
I am really a shame for human beings and I am worth hating. 
8. We also refer to those ‘Hadīths’ that confirm to the Qur’ān and do not contradict my revelation. While to other sayings of the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) (Hadiths) we throw them in dust bin. 
9. Christ had the habit of calling names and abusing. He got furious at petty things; he was a prey to his emotions. And often he used to tell a lie. 
10. It is a matter of shame that he stole the teachings of the mountain that is the crux of the Bible, from the Jews’ Book, Talmud. After this plagiarism he revealed them as his own teachings. 
11. The Christians have written much about Christ’s miracles, but the fact is that he had none. And when he abused people who were demanding miracles, the pious people broke all connections with him. 
12. Christ belonged to a very ‘virtuous’ family. Three of his maternal and paternal grandmothers were adulterers and prostitutes. He had the blood of these women in his veins, but perhaps this was also an eternal requirement. 
13. Taking wine has caused much loss to the Europeans. Perhaps they have the justification that Christ himself took wine; he took wine because of some disease or he was a habitual drinker as the case may be. 
14. Once a friend of mine suggested that opium is good for diabetics. So it is not bad to use it for the sake of treatment. I replied to him, “Thank you for your concern, but if I develop the habit of taking opium, I fear people will laugh and say that the first Christ was a drunkard and the second one an opium-eater”. 
15. God sent His Promised Christ (Masseah–e–Maud) towards the Ummah, who is superior to the first Christ in all respects. He named the second Christ as Ghulam Ahmed. 
16. Some foolish ‘Sahāba’ could get (benefit) nothing from knowledge. 
17. Whoever believes in Qur’ān should throw away the sayings of Abu Hurairah like a useless thing. 
18. What was the status of Abu Bakr and Umar. They were not even worth of untying the laces Hazrat Ghulam Ahmed’s shoes.
19. Do not dispute over caliphate. Now think about the new caliphate. You have a living Ali amongst you. You reject him and reach for the dead Ali. 
20. A verse says ‘I am always visiting Karbalah’. (Hundreds of Husseins are in my pocket) 
21. Oh Christian missionaries! Do not call Christ. Because there is one among you who is greater than Christ. And O Shia people! Do not insist on Hussein, I tell you truly that there is one among you greater than Hussein, 
Q 3: Is it allowed for Qadianis to call themselves Muslims? In view of the information provided can their claim be accepted?
It is an integral part for a person to be a Muslim to believe in that which is categorically proven by the Qur’ān and al-Hadīth al-Mutawātir (such a prophetic tradition that is of the highest authenticity). The absolute finality of the prophet-hood of Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) is categorically proven by the Qur’ān and al-Hadīth al-Mutawātir. After the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), any claim of prophet-hood or accepting such a claim to be true is a clear rejection of proven and essential elements of Islām as has been elucidated earlier.
As such, any person who subscribes to the belief that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani is a Prophet is not a Muslim. This is a position held by the overwhelming majority of Muslims.
“On September 17th 1974, the National Assembly of Pakistan declared Qadianis a non-Muslim Minority…On April 26, 1984, the Government of Pakistan issued an ordinance which was published in the Gazette of Pakistan. According to this ordinance, all followers of Mirza Ghulam (Qadiani and Lahoris) were declared to be non-Muslims and were prevented from using Islamic terms and symbols to try to misguide Muslims.”
Furthermore, it is an accepted fact that the issue regarding what constitutes the faith of a Muslim is to be resolved by eminent scholars of Islām. In this regard, it is worth noting that in April 1974, a major conference was held by the Muslim World League in Makkah, which was attended by representatives of Muslim organizations from around the world. This conference announced that the Qadiani sect is beyond the pale of Islam.
In early 1996 the government of South Africa followed suit and declared Qadianism beyond the pale of Islam.
Therefore, Qadianis cannot call themselves Muslims and their claim to be Muslims can never be accepted.
Q 4 & 5 : How can it be allowed for a community whose belief is totally against Islam to call their place of worship as “Masjid/Mosque”? Can these places of worship be regarded under “Muslim Waqf”?
Q 6 : Is it allowed for Ahmediya Muslim Community to write Kalima Tayyibah on their literature and worship places?
Q 7 : Can Ahmadiyyah Muslim community (Qadianies) be allowed to use the pictures of Makkahtul Mukarramah and Madinatul Munawwarah on their literature.
Q 8 : All those identities that are specific to Muslims, can Ahmediyyah Muslim Community (Qadianis) use them?
The fact that the Allah Most High speaks about the salient features (شعائر) four times in the Holy Qur’ān highlights the importance and reverence of them. Muslims are urged to venerate the salient features and cautioned against dishonouring them.
For a Muslim to dishonour, make a mockery of or even trivialise these salient features leads him to be expelled from the fold of Islam. These signs and identities are held dearly in Islam.
The use of the salient features of Islam against its core values is disrespectful and humiliating. Islamic jurisprudence has many laws which demonstrate the reverence of the salient features of Islam.
In reference to Q 4&5, we iterate that a Masjid is a proper noun specifically denoting a place of worship for Muslims. The term has been coined for this specific reason, to the extent that a dictionary references “mosque” as:
a Muslim temple or place of public worship.
Origin: 1600–10; earlier mosquee < Middle French < Italian moschea ≪ Arabic masjid, derivative of sajada to worship, literally, prostrate oneself; the -ee seems to have been taken as diminutive suffix and dropped” 
If a deviant sect or another religion is allowed to use the title of “Masjid” for their places of worship, this will be misguiding and deceptive. A place of worship is open and transparent in its views.
Obviously the Qadianis who would promote their place of worship as “Masjid” will propagate and teach their beliefs which are in complete contrast to the fundamental Islamic Creed. Innocent Muslims who would attend such a place of worship simply because it is called a “Masjid” are bound to be misguided and deceived into believing the Qadiani belief’s to be that of mainstream Islam.
If Muslims begin to build Hindu temples and start teaching Islamic ethos and creed in that temple, would that be acceptable to Hindus? Similarly if Muslims build churches and called the Christian masses to these churches, would this be acceptable to Christians? The very same sentiments are felt by Muslims when Qadianis attribute the term Masjid, to their place of worship and then promote their own creed.
Contemporary world can clearly relate to these sentiments by the Copyright Law which is there to protect the interests of the right holder. No company would sit idle while another infringes on its right to some specific patent and reap benefits off it. It is a violation of the fair business ethos. Similarly, it is completely incorrect for Qadianis to attribute the name “Masjid” to their places of worship. They are not propagating Islam, rather they are deviating true innocent Muslims. Hence, they should never be allowed to use the name “Masjid” for their own benefits.
Just as these places of worship cannot cherish the same status as “masjid/mosque” because they are far from being a Muslim worship place, similarly they cannot benefit from other advantages attached to such a holy site, like being regarded as a “Muslim Waqf”.
In the same line (Q 6), the Kalimah Tayyibah is also the sole right of monotheistic belief of Muslims. The Kalimah Tayyibah لا اله الا الله محمد رسول الله translates to: “There is no God but Allah and Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) is His messenger.”
This is the simple and easy to understand meaning of this Kalimah. However, what these simple words represent is the true monotheistic creed and the beliefs of the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamā‘ah. These beliefs are what our pious predecessors conveyed to us and informed us about after analyzing the Qur’ān and Ahādīth of Rasulullah (peace and blessings be upon him).
These doctrines incorporate the belief of the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) son of Abdullah, born in 571 C.E to be the Rasūl of Allah. Qur’ān, the last wahī (revelation) of Allah Ta’ālā to mankind attests to this in numerous places and thus marks it as a fundamental part of our creed. There can be no addition or subtraction from this creed, whether in wordings or in interpretation. It is not possible for anyone to claim that “محمد رسول الله” (Muhammad rasulullah) is someone besides our Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) son of Abdullah.
Yet the Qadianis use this very Kalimah and add to it their own interpretation of Mirza Ghulam Ahmed being inclusive of the term “محمد رسول الله” (Muhammad rasulullah).
“With the coming of Promised Messiah one difference (in the meaning of Kalima) has occurred and that is that before the advent of Promised Messiah, in the meaning of ‘Mohammad ur Rasoolullah‘ only Prophets of bygone days were included, but with the advent of Promised Messiah, one more prophet has been added to the meaning of mohammadur rasoolullah…thus to enter in Islam it is still the same Kalima, the only difference is that the advent of Promised Messiah has added one more prophet to its meaning…we don’t need a new Kalima, because Promised Messiah is nothing separate from Holy Prophet, as he says: ‘sāra wujūdi wujūdahū (my person became his person)’ and ‘he who differentiates between me and Mustafa has not seen me and not recognizes me’…..thus Promised Messiah is Mohammad Rasoolullah himself who has come again in this world to spread Islam, therefore we do not need any new Kalima. Yes if someone else had come then we may have required it — thus think all of you.”
The guise of the Qadianis to deceive and interpolate the fundamental creed of Islam is crystal clear. It is thus not permissible for them to deceptively use our Kalimah Tayyibah for the propagation of their own beliefs.
Following the same principle ( Q 7 & 8 ) we recognize that Makkah Al-Mukarramah and Madina Al-Munawwarah are two places on earth which are sanctified in Islam. This is where Islam initiated from. Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) started preaching mankind 1,400 years ago from these places. Muslims all across the globe are recognized through the names of these two places.
When Qadianis use pictures related to Islamic faith, and then propagate their own creed, it becomes a form of deception for those who are trying to embrace and convert to Islam with sincere intentions. People who are trying to convert to Islam perceive that what the Qadiani belief is the true Islam whereas the reality is far from it. It is akin to a Christian Church displaying pictures of Vishnu and Rama in their church to preach Christianity to Hindus. This, obviously will be a deception and despised by the Hindus. Similarly it is highly offensive for the Muslims that other non-muslims use pictures related to our faith and use them for propagation of their own beliefs.
The same ruling will apply to any and all salient features of which are used by the Qadianis to promote their creed and interpretations under the guide of Islam.
Q 9: What is the Islamic belief on the return of Eīsā (‘alayh salām)? Explain in the light of Qurān and Hadith. And what is the ruling for those who deny the descent of Eīsā (‘alayh salām)?
Eīsā (‘alayh salām)son of Maryam (‘alayha salām) will definitively and conclusively return to this World, i.e., descent from the sky. Allah Ta’āla says in the Qurān:
وَقَوْلِهِمْ إِنَّا قَتَلْنَا الْمَسِيحَ عِيسَى ابْنَ مَرْيَمَ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ وَمَا صَلَبُوهُ وَلَكِنْ شُبِّهَ لَهُمْ وَإِنَّ الَّذِينَ اخْتَلَفُوا فِيهِ لَفِي شَكٍّ مِنْهُ مَا لَهُمْ بِهِ مِنْ عِلْمٍ إِلَّا اتِّبَاعَ الظَّنِّ وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ يَقِينًا
They say (in boast): We killed the Messiah Eīsā, son of Maryam, the Messenger of Allah, but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but the resemblance of Eīsā was put over another man (and they killed that man). (Qur’ān 4:157)
Allah Ta’āla raised Eīsā (‘alayh salām) to the sky. His enemies, the Jews, failed to harm him, let alone kill and crucify him. This is a clear and unambiguous text that carries no room for another interpretation.
It states clearly that Allah Ta’āla raised Eīsā (‘alayh salām) to Himself (bodily and his soul) in order to save him from the Jews murdering and crucifying him. Allah Ta’āla says in the Qur’ān:
بَلْ رَفَعَهُ اللَّهُ إِلَيْهِ وَكَانَ اللَّهُ عَزِيزًا حَكِيمًا
But Allah raised him to Himself. And Allah is ever All-Powerful, All-Wise. (Qur’ān 4:158)
After establishing this point, another Qur’ānic verse follows, Allah Ta’āla says:
كُلُّ نَفْسٍ ذَائِقَةُ الْمَوْتِ
Every soul shale taste death (Qur’ān 3:183)
This verse presents the message of every human being dying in this world and as established above, Eīsā (‘alayh salām) was rasied to Allah himself (bodily and his soul). So in order for the latter verse to be truth Eīsā (‘alayh salām) will have to return in this world and dye a natural death.
Imam Mujahid Rahmatullahi Alayhi has stated that the descent of Hadhrat Eīsā (‘alayh salām) is a sign of Qiyāmah and this has been narrated from Hadhrat Abu Hurayrah Radhiyallahu Anhu and many other senior Sahābah Radhiyallahu Anhum.
Many books have been written on the conclusive nature of the descent of Hadhrat Eīsā Alayhi salām for example, the book “Al- Tasreeh fi ma Tawatara fi nuzool al- Maseeh” and many more.
One who denies the belief that Hadhrat Eīsā (‘alayh salām) will return to the World will be classified as a disbeliever (Kāfir).
And Allah Ta’ala Knows Best,
Muftī Ebrahim Desai
 فأوحي الله الي الرسول رسالة هي: الاسلام المتضمن عقائد الايمان و شريعة اللأحكام و أمره بتبليغها الي من أرسله اليهم (جامع اللألي شرح البدء، ص 135)
 من أوحي الله اليه لا بشرع لكن يأمره باتباع رسالة الرسول الذي سبقه و بتبليغها الي أصحابها و الحكم بها بينهم( جامع اللألي شرح البدء، ص 136) Musnad Imām Ahmad Vol.2 Pg. 398, 412; Vol. 3 Pg. 79, 248; Vol. 4 Pg. 81, 84, 127-128; Vol. 5 Pg. 278; Sahīh al-Bukhārī #3535; Sahīh Muslim #2286; #2287; Sunan Abu Dawūd #4252 etc.
 2272 – حدثنا الحسن بن محمد الزعفراني قال: حدثنا عفان بن مسلم قال: حدثنا عبد الواحد بن زياد قال: حدثنا المختار بن فلفل قال: حدثنا أنس بن مالك، قال: قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: «إن الرسالة والنبوة قد انقطعت فلا رسول بعدي ولا نبي»، قال: فشق ذلك على الناس فقال: «لكن المبشرات». قالوا: يا رسول الله وما المبشرات؟ قال: «رؤيا المسلم، وهي جزء من أجزاء النبوة» وفي الباب عن أبي هريرة، وحذيفة بن أسيد، وابن عباس، وأم كرز «هذا حديث صحيح غريب من هذا الوجه من حديث المختار بن فلفل» (سنن الترمذي (4/ 533))
 فتاوي محموديه، ج 4، ص 90، محموديه Dāfi‘ul balā’ Pg. 11; Rūhanī Khazā’in Vol. 18 Pg. 231  Nuzūl Masīh of Mirza Mahmūd son of Mirza Ghulam Pg. 3 Footnote; Rūhanī Khazā’in Vol. 18 Pg. 381 Footnote Rūhanī Khazā’in Vol. 22 Pg. 503  Rūhanī Khazā’in Vol. 18 Pg. 210  Rūhanī Khazā’in Vol. 22 Pg. 76 Footnote Tadhkirah Pg. 381  Tadhkirah Majmū‘ah Ilhāmāt Pg. 76, second edition  Kalmāt ul Fasl Pg. 173  Haqīqat al Wahī Pg. 220; Rūhanī Khazā’in Vol. 22, Pg. 220  Ā’ina e Kamalāt e Islām Pg. 28; Rūhanī Khazā’in Vol. 23 Pg. 231  Chashm e Ma‘ārifat Pg. 2; Rūhanī Khazā’in Vol. 23 Pg. 231  Tadhkirah Majmū‘ah Ilhāmāt Pg. 584  Taryaqul Qalub Pg. 73; Rūhanī Khazā’in Vol. 15 Pg. 201  Jang Muqaddas Pg. 211; Rūhanī Khazā’in Vol. 6 Pg. 293  Chashm e Ma‘ārifat Pg. 322; Rūhanī Khazā’in Vol. 23: Pg. 336-337  Haqiqat-ul-wahee Pg. 220, Rūhanī Khazā’in Vol. 22 Pg. 230  Supplement Braheen Ahmed. Part 5. Pg. 92-93  Tadhkirah Majmū‘ah Ilhāmāt Pg. 615  Tadhkirah Majmū‘ah Ilhāmāt Pg. 620  Kashti e Nūh. Pg. 47; Rūhanī Khazā’in Vol. 19. Pg. 50  Islāmi Qurbānī Tract No. 34 by Qazi Yar Muhammad Qadianī  Ā’ina e Kamalāt e Islām Pg. 564; Rūhanī Khazā’in Vol. 5. Pg. 564  Kitāb al Biria Pg. 85; Rūhanī Khazā’in Vol. 3 Pg. 103  Tadhkirah Pg. 40  Tadhkirah Pg. 36  Durre Samīn Pg. 116  Rūhanī Khazā’in: Vol. 19, Pg. 140  Rūhanī Khazā’in: Vol. 11, Pg. 289  Rūhanī Khazā’in: Vol. 11, Pg. 290  Rūhanī Khazā’in: Vol. 11, Pg. 290  Rūhanī Khazā’in: Vol. 11, Pg. 291  Rūhanī Khazā’in: Vol. 19, Pg. 71  Rūhanī Khazā’in: Vol. 19, Pg. 434-435  Rūhanī Khazā’in: Vol. 18, P 233  Rūhanī Khazā’in Vol. 21 Pg. 285  Rūhanī Khazā’in Vol. 21 Pg. 410  Monthly Al Mehdi 3/2, 1905 Pg. 157  Malfūzat e Ahmedia Vol. 1 Pg. 400  Nuzūl al Masīh Pg. 99 Rūhanī Khazā’in Vol. 18 Pg. 477  Rūhanī Khazā’in, Vol. 18 Pg. 233  http://www.irshad.org/exposed/legal/pksumry.php – accessed 5 June 2012  Fatwas and Statements of Islamic Scholars about Ahmadiyya: http://alhafeez.org/rashid/scholars.html – accessed 31 May 2012  http://www.nation.lk/2007/05/27/newsfe4.htm – accessed 5 June 2012  http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mosque?s=t – accessed 6th June 2012  Refer to Q1  Kalimātul Fasl, Pg. 158, by Mirza Bashir Ahmad Qadiani son of Mirza Ghulam Ahmed
 فتاوی محمودیہ 3/250فاروقیہ
 فالايمان بها واجب و الانكار عنها كفر ( فتاوي محموديه مع الحوالة الي عقيدة الاسلام العلامة أنور شاه الكشميري، ص 33