Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal (RH) (d. 241H) is one of the greatest scholars of Islamic history. He is the founder of the Hanbali school of thought and is widely known as 1 of the 4 most prominent Imams of Sunni Islam. More importantly though, Imam Ahmad (RH) is a shining example of steadfastness in faith during times of severe trials. He lived through the infamous Mihnat Khalaq al-Qur’an: a period when the ruling authorities (Abbasid Caliphate) tried to force the belief that the Qur’an was created, a clear deviation from the truth.

During this time, the majority of people, including judges, muftis, and even the caliph and his followers, sided with falsehood under pressure. Imam Ahmad (RH) stood alone, refusing to compromise on the truth, and his small group of followers remained steadfast with him.

This was the reality: Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal (RH) himself was the Jama’ah, together with his small band of loyal followers, while the so-called ‘majority’ had fallen into misguidance.

The Reality of Modern Sunni Islam

Sunni muslims today claim to be part of Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah, often boasting of being a large, unified community. They proudly say that because they are the majority, they are upon the Haqq. However, these Non-Ahmadis choose to live in blissful ignorance as countless sects exist within Sunni Islam – all of whom constantly accuse one another of deviation and openly declare takfir.

Where is the unity in this? There is no single Imam guiding them with authority, no central leadership, and no consensus even on core issues of faith. The Qur’an itself makes clear that the majority is not a measure of truth [Quran 6:117], and Prophet (ﷺ) prophesied that in the latter days the majority would be misguided, not guided. So how can mere numbers be used as proof of being the Jama’ah? How can this be called Jama’ah?

Scholars Affirm: Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal Alone Was the Jama’ah

Both Imam Ad-Dhahabi (RH) and Ibn al-Qayyim (RH) explicitly affirm in the following statements that Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal (RH) and his small band of followers were the true Jama’ah. These statements by two of the most renowned scholars in Islamic history make it clear: the Jama’ah is not determined by the majority. Being part of the true Jama’ah does not mean being part of the largest group; it means following the truth, even if only a few remain steadfast.

Imam Ad-Dhahabi (RH) (d. 748H)

“All the people deviated during the time (Mihnat Khalaq al Qur’ãn) of Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal except for a small group, they were the Jammah, at that time the Judges, Muftis, the Caliph and his followers were all deviant and Imãm Ahmad alone was the Jamã’ah.”

_{[إعلام الموقعين عن رب العالمين, p. 389]}

Ibn Al-Qayyim (RH) (d. 751H)

“All the people went astray during the time of Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, except for a few individuals; thus, they were the Jamāʿah (the main body of the Muslims), while the judges, the Muftīs, the Khalīfah, and his followers were the ones who deviated and Imām Aḥmad alone was the Jamāʿah.”

_{‏[ 4/399 معلومات للذين يكتبون نيابة عن رب العالمين]}

True Jama’ah as Explained by the Sahaba

Abdullah Ibn Mas’ūd رضي الله عنهما (d. 32 AH), one of the closest and most knowledgeable companions of the Holy Prophet ﷺ, repeatedly emphasized in various accounts that true Jama’ah is not determined by the majority:

Abdullah Ibn Mas’ūd رضي الله عنهما said:

“The Jamā’ah is (whatever agrees with) the Book and the Sunnah, even if you are alone.”

In another narration:

“The Jamā’ah is the people of the truth, even if you are alone.”

_{[al-Faqīh wa’l-Mutafaqqih, Dār Ibn al-Jawzī edition, p. 303]}

ʿAbdullāh ibn Masʿūd said,

“The Jamāʿah is whoever obeys Allāh, even if they are a single person.”

_{[Aitaqad Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah, p. 181]}

Ibn al-Qayyim reported: Abdullah Ibn Mas’ud, may Allah be pleased with him, said,

“The united community is that which adheres to the truth, even if you are alone.”

Nuaym ibn Hammad said,

“If the community becomes corrupted, you must adhere to its practice before it became corrupt. Even if you are alone, you by yourself would be the united community.”

_{[3/308 إعلام الموقعين عن رب العالمين]}

‘Amr ibn Maymun reported: Abdullah ibn Mas’ud, may Allah be pleased with him, said,

“Verily, the majority of groups have left the united community. The united community is only the one that conforms to the obedience of Allah, even if you are by yourself.”

_{[Sharḥ Uṣūl I’tiqād Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jamā’ah 160]}

True Jama’ah in the Words of the Scholars

Ibn Al-Qayyim (RH) (d. 751H)

Ibn al-Qayyim (RH) is again on record saying that you can be upon the truth even if the entire ummah is against you or opposes you, therefore, you should not be fooled by the majority:

“Do not be deceived by the large number of this kind of people, for thousands upon thousands of them are not equal to one person of knowledge. And a single scholar is equal to the whole earth full of them. Know that consensus, proof, and the true majority is the scholar who possesses the truth—even if he is alone, even if the people of the whole world oppose him. […] Then I accompanied after him the most knowledgeable of people, ʿAbdullāh ibn Masʿūd, and I heard him say: “Hold fast to the community (al-jamāʿah), for indeed the Hand of Allah is with the community.” […] He said: “O ʿAmr ibn Maymūn, I used to think you were among the most knowledgeable people of this village. Do you know what the community (al-jamāʿah) is?” I said: “No.” He said: “The majority of people have in fact separated from the community. The community is whatever agrees with the truth—even if you are alone.” In another wording: He struck my thigh and said: “Woe to you! The majority of people have separated from the community, and the community is that which accords with obedience to Allah, the Mighty and Majestic.” And Nuʿaym ibn Ḥammād said: “If the community becomes corrupt, then hold to what the community was upon before they became corrupt—even if you are alone, for you are then the community.” Both al-Bayhaqī and others narrated this.“

_{‏[ p.396-398, معلومات للذين يكتبون نيابة عن رب العالمين]}

Muhammad Ibn Abd Al-Wahhab (RH) (d. 1206H)

Muhammad Ibn Abd al-Wahhab (RH) also stated will return to being “strange,” upheld only by a few. He particularly warned against relying on the large number of people or their consensus as a proof of truth, noting that such reasoning was used by the disbelievers of the past to reject the messengers:

[…] the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and his Companions described it before it occurred, warned people against it, and informed that none would adhere to the religion except one after another, and that Islam would become strange as it began. You have known that when ‘Amr ibn ‘Abasah asked the Messenger of Allah ﷺ in the early days of Islam: “Who is with you in this?” He said: “A free man and a slave,” meaning Abu Bakr and Bilal. So if Islam returns as it began, how ignorant is one who argues based on the multitude of people and their consensus, and similar arguments, when faced with doubts that are great in the eyes of their adherents but insignificant before Allah and those of knowledge among His creation, as Allah says: “Rather, they say like what the former peoples said” [Al-Mu’minun: 81]. I know of no argument you use except that Allah has mentioned in His Book that the disbelievers used it to deny the messengers, such as the consensus of people, obedience to the elite, and other such things.

_{[Al-Durar Al-Saniyyah, vol 1, pg. 41]}

Sunni Claims of Majority ≠ True Jama’ah

The above statements of scholars and Sahaba completely dismantles the claim made by many Sunnis today that “we are the majority, therefore we are the Jama’ah.” If size and numbers truly defined truth, then the corrupt Khilāfah of Imam Ahmad’s (RH) time, backed by scholars, judges, and the masses of the time, would have been the true Jama’ah. Yet history tells us the exact opposite: a single Imam and a handful of followers held the truth, while the majority was astray. Unfortunately, this is the sad reality – most reject the Imam of the age, only to recognize him when it is too late.

True Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah: The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community

The example of Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal (RH) shows that true Jama’ah can be small, rejected by most, and steadfastly loyal to the truth. This is exactly the reality of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community today, founded by the Promised Messiah and Imam Mahdi, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (AS) in 1889.

A single Imam, Mirza Masroor Ahmad (ABA) – 5th successor of Messiah and Mahdi, leads the Jama’ah today. Followers remain loyal to him, despite widespread opposition around the world. Ahmadis around the world adhere to the Qur’an and Sunnah, just as Imam Ahmad (RH) and his small group exemplified centuries ago during the time of a monarchial caliphate.

Hazrat Khalīfatul Masīh I, Maulānā Ḥakīm Maulwi Nūrudīn (RA ) states:

“In this age, there is no Ahlus-Sunnah wa’l-Jama’ah on the face of the earth except [for] the Aḥmadīyyah. The Jama’ah will only be the one with an Imām. If we were to line up our opponent Muslims in one row, would they be able to have one Imām? Absolutely Not! [However], yes, it is the unique characteristic of the Aḥmadīyyah Jama’ah that it has an Imām. Thus, at this time, except for Ahmadis no one [else] is from Ahlus-Sunnah wa’l-Jama’ah.“

_{[Al Hakam, Feb 21, 1910, pg. 3]}

In a forthcoming article, we will take a deeper look at how renowned scholars have defined Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamā‘ah — and demonstrate, with references from scholars and Jama‘at literature, how Jama‘at Al-Ahmadiyya uniquely fulfills this title.

Conclusion

• Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal (RH) and his small group of followers were the real Jama’ah, while the majority were in deviation.
• True Jama’ah is NOT determined by the majority. Sunni belief that majority equals Jama’ah has been refuted by both the Sahaba and Scholars.
• Sahaba and Scholars taught that true Jama’ah is defined by steadfastness to the truth, not numbers.
• The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community exemplifies the real Jama’ah today: faithfulness, loyalty, and guidance from a true Imam are what define Jama’ah, not size, popularity, or majority opinion.

Related Article(s)

Introduction

In the realm of Islamic theology, few topics have generated as much discussion and controversy as the fate of Isa (Jesus) after his earthly mission. While many Muslims today believe in the physical ascension and future return of Isa, a closer examination of historical scholarship reveals a more complex and nuanced debate. This article aims to challenge the notion of a unanimous consensus (ijma) on Isa being alive in heaven, exploring the diverse views held by classical scholars and the evolution of this belief over time.

The narrative surrounding Isa’s fate has undergone significant changes throughout Islamic history. While some contemporary Muslims assert a unified stance on this issue, historical evidence suggests a rich tapestry of interpretations among early and classical scholars. From Ibn Abbas to Imam Malik, and from Imam Bukhari to Ibn Hazm, respected figures in Islamic scholarship have presented alternative views on Isa’s earthly conclusion.

This article will delve into the suppression of dissenting opinions, the development of a majority view, and the recent revival of the debate sparked by various movements and scholars. By examining primary sources, academic research, and the contributions of both classical and modern thinkers, we aim to provide a comprehensive overview of this theological question. In doing so, we hope to encourage a more nuanced understanding of Islamic scholarship and foster open dialogue on this significant aspect of Islamic eschatology.

The concept of Isa’s natural death, though often attributed to the Ahmadiyya movement, has roots in classical Islamic scholarship. Renowned figures such as Ibn Abbas, Imam Malik, Imam Bukhari, and Ibn Hazm held views compatible with this interpretation.

Over time, Sunni Islam developed an pseudo-ijma (consensus) on Jesus’s residence in heaven.

It was the Promised Messiah, founder of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, who revived this debate in the late 19th century. He provided a vast array of Hadith and Quranic evidence supporting the concept of Isa’s natural death. This effort was continued by his followers, the Ahmadi Muslims, who have worked to recover and highlight the opinions of earlier scholars on this matter.

The Ahmadi perspective on Isa’s death should be distinguished from that of modernist scholars like Syed Ahmad Khan or Ghulam Ahmad Parwez. While modernists often reject core Islamic beliefs such as the virgin birth or the coming of any Messiah, the Ahmadiyya view aligns more closely with classical scholars in affirming these fundamental aspects of Islamic faith while differing on the specific issue of Isa’s fate.

In Sunni Islam, belief in Isa’s return is considered of utmost importance. Disbelief in his return or his mission as a Prophet is often viewed as going against the Islamic articles of faith. The coming of the Masih is seen as marking the beginning of the end times and the final victory of Islam.

Some Sunni ulema from Al-Azhar, like Mahmud Shaltut, briefly entertained the Ahmadi concept of Jesus’ death. However, this caused outrage and pushback. Shaltut’s fatwa, issued in response to an Ahmadi Muslim’s question, was disagreed with by other Al-Azhar teachers. They published counter-fatwas, with Al-Ghumari’s being particularly significant in reaffirming the belief in the physical return of a living Isa as a fundamental principle of Sunni Islam.

Promised Messiah AS: There is No Ijma on Isa (AS) being Alive

اگر یہ سوال ہو کہ اس امر پر اجماع ہوا ہے کہ ائمہ اربعہ کے مذاہب کے خلاف عمل نہ کیا جائے تو ہم اجماع کی حقیقت خوب کھول چکے ہیں … امام احمد بن حنبل جو خدا سے ڈرتے تھے اور اس کی اطاعت کرتے تھے اُن کے اس قول کو یاد کرو کہ جو اجماع کا دعویٰ کرے وہ کا ذب ہے۔ بہت سے اختلافات جزئیہ ائمہ اربعہ میں موجود ہیں اور ائمہ کے اجماع سے خارج ہیں اور اگر تم سمجھتے ہو کہ حیات عیسی” پر سند صحیح سے اور واضح بیان سے اجماع ہو چکا ہے تو یہ تمہارا اور تم جیسے دوسرے لوگوں کا افتراء ہے

‘۔ اتمام الحجة – روحانی خزائن جلد 8 صفحه 280 ترجمه از عربی عبارت )’۔ اتمام الحجة – روحانی خزائن جلد 8 صفحه 280 ترجمه از عربی عبارت )

If the question arises that there is a consensus on not acting against the religions of the four Imams, then we have explained the reality of consensus very well… Remember the saying of Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal, who feared God and obeyed Him, that whoever claims consensus is a liar. There are many minor differences among the four Imams, and they are outside the consensus of the Imams. And if you think that there is a consensus on the life of Jesus based on authentic narration and clear statement, then this is your fabrication and that of others like you.

Itmam-e-Hujjah Completion of the Proof – Roohani Khazain Volume 8, page 280 , Urdu Translation [Itmam-e-Hujjat p. 17-18]

“It would, therefore, be a daring invention to say that the bodily ascent of Jesus to heaven and his expected descent has been a matter of consensus.”

(Kitab-ul-Bariyyah, Ruhani Khaza’in, vol. 13, pp. 221 footnote)

We are merely told through coercion and authoritarianism that there is consensus of the entire ummah on this matter. But when we see that there is no agreement between the predecessors and successors on any single matter, why should we accept that there is indeed consensus? Well, if there is consensus on the life of the Messiah, then show one statement in which the predecessors have declared the Messiah’s life as a worldly life and accepted the necessities of worldly life for him while excluding others from it. In fact, the truth is that there seems to be consensus among all predecessors and successors that the Messiah has left this world and joined the people of another world, and his life is in accordance with their life without any addition or subtraction. Although some have ignorantly denied the death of the Messiah, they have nevertheless accepted that he has left this world like those who die and has joined the group of those who have died, becoming entirely like them. Well, any wise person should ask them that if this is not death, then what is it when someone has left the world of this life and reached another world, left the people of this world and become one of the people of the other world. If we don’t call this deceased, then what should we call it?”

Ruhani Khazain volume 3, p. 507-508

Proof that there is No Ijma on Isa AS being Alive

Ibn Hazm RH states:

They [The Ummah] differed regarding Jesus (peace be upon him), whether he will come before the Day of Judgment or not

Maratib al-Ijma p. 173

See our article showing how Tabari showed that the Salaf had 4 different views on the Death and Life of Isa.

No Ijma on Future Events in Hanafi Madhab

AL-BAHARI (d. 1119H) & AL-ANSARI (d. 1325H)

According to the Hanafiyyah there can be no Ijma’ about future events like Signs of the hour and matters of the hereafter because in matters of Ghaib (unseen) there is no role of Ijtihad. This is refutes non Ahmadis who say that there is an Ijma’ that Nuzul (descend) of Isa AS will happen in the literal physical sense.

“As for future matters like the signs of the Hour and affairs of the Hereafter, according to the Hanafis there is no consensus. This means there is no need to use it as proof, not that it is not a proof for them. How could it not be when the evidences are general? Because the unseen has no room for ijtihad (juristic reasoning) and opinion since conjecture is not sufficient for it. There must be a definitive proof indicating it. In that case, there is no need for consensus as proof. The truth is that it is valid to use it as proof for these matters as well, to support the evidences. It is possible they all heard it individually, so they reached consensus on what they heard but did not narrate it due to the existence of this agreement. Therefore, this consensus benefits us, but that definitive proof does not benefit due to the lack of its continuous mass transmission. So the truth is that future matters from reports are like religious rulings in being proven by consensus.” (This) and Allah speaks the truth and guides to the path.”

[Fawātih̩u r-Rah̩mūni, vol 2, pg. 296]

The belief of Jesus being Alive or Death was a Furui (non-fundamental) Issue

Although Promised Messiah AS and Hadhrat Musleh Maud RA said the first topic that to debate with Non-Ahmadi Muslims is on the Death of Isa(AS) however this belief is non a fundamental issue until the rise of the Promised Messiah AS

Promised Messiah AS states in Izala Auham:

اول تو یہ جاننا چاہیے کہ صبح کے نزول کا عقیدہ کوئی ایسا عقیدہ نہیں ہے جو ہماری ایمانیات کی کوئی جز یا ہمارے دین کے رکنوں میں سے کوئی رکن ہو بلکہ صد ہا پیشگوئیوں میں سے یہ ایک پیشگوئی ہے جس کو حقیقت اسلام سے کچھ بھی تعلق نہیں ۔ جس زمانہ تک یہ پیشگوئی بیان نہیں کی گئی تھی اُس زمانہ تک اسلام کچھ ناقص نہیں تھا اور جب بیان کی گئی تو اس سے اسلام کچھ کامل نہیں ہو گیا اور

First, it is important to understand that the belief in the descent of the Messiah is not a belief that is an integral part of our faith (Imaniyyat) or one of the pillars of our religion. Rather, it is one of the many prophecies, and this prophecy has no real connection to the true essence of Islam. Until the time this prophecy was not stated, Islam was not incomplete in any way, and when it was stated, it did not make Islam any more complete

[Ruhani Khazain vol. 3 p. 171]

What Promised Messiah AS means here is that it is not in the 5 pillars of Islam nor the six articles of faith. However he also states that rejection of the Nazul of Masih makes an individual a Mulhid as they are rejecting Mutawatir Ahadith.

Promised Messiah AS states:

میں نہیں چاہتا کہ چند الفاظ طوطے کی طرح بیعت کے وقت رٹ لیے جاویں اس سے کچھ فائدہ نہیں ۔ تزکیہ نفس کا علم حاصل کرو کہ ضرورت اسی کی ہے۔ ہماری یہ غرض ہرگز نہیں کہ مسیح کی وفات ، حیات پر جھگڑے اور مباحثہ کرتے پھرو۔ یہ ایک ادنی سی بات ہے اسی پر بس نہیں ہے۔ یہ تو ایک غلطی تھی جس کی ہم نے اصلاح کر دی لیکن ہمارا کام اور ہماری غرض ابھی اس سے بہت دور ہے اور وہ یہ ہے کہ تم اپنے اندر ایک تبدیلی پیدا کرو اور بالکل ایک نئے انسان بن جاؤ اس لیے ہر ایک کو تم میں سے ضروری ہے کہ وہ اس راز کو سمجھے اور ایسی تبدیلی کرے کہ وہ کہہ سکے کہ میں اور ہوں۔ میں پھر کہتا ہوں کہ یقیناً یقیناً جب تک ایک مدت تک ہماری صحبت میں رہ کر کوئی یہ نہ سمجھے کہ میں اور ہو گیا ہوں اسے فائدہ نہیں پہنچتا۔

I do not want that a few words are merely recited like a parrot at the time of initiation (bai’at). That is of no benefit. Acquire the knowledge of self-purification, as that is the real need. Our purpose is never for you to go around quarrelling and debating about the death or life of the Messiah. That is a minor issue, and it is not everything. That was merely a mistake which we have rectified, but our work and aim is still far beyond that. It is for you to bring about a transformation within yourselves and become entirely new persons. Therefore, it is essential for each one of you to understand this secret and undergo such a transformation that you can say, “I have become someone else.” I repeat, undoubtedly, undoubtedly, unless one stays in our company for some time and understands that “I have become someone else,” he does not derive any benefit.

[Malfuzat V. p. 478 (2022 Urdu Edition), Al-Hakam July 28, 1902 p. 5-16]

Prior to the advent of the Promised Messiah AS the life and Death of the Promised Messiah AS was indeed a furui issue but after his advent it indeed became an usuli Issue as he also states his purpose was to “kill a prophet” which can be seen below.

Proof from ‘Sunnis’ that Death of Jesus was originally Furui and there was No Ijma

Ahmad Raza Khan states:

“Qadiani was a denier of hundreds of essential aspects of religion, and his followers raise the debate about the life and death of our master Jesus, the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon our noble Prophet and upon him). This is a secondary (Furui) issue that is itself a matter of disagreement among Muslims, the affirmation or denial of which is not even considered misguidance, let alone disbelief.

(4) At present, the issue of the life and death of Jesus (peace be upon him) has been a matter of disagreement since ancient times, but there is no dispute about his return in the end times and his killing of the accursed Dajjal. This is undoubtedly the unanimous belief of Ahl al-Sunnah. So what benefit did the death of Jesus give to Qadiani, and how could a Mughal child become Jesus, the Messenger of Allah, born without a father, the son of Mary? Qadianis present this disagreement, but do they have any proof that before this Punjabi’s innovation in religion, Muslims believed that Jesus himself would not descend, but someone similar to him would be born, and this was called the descent of Jesus, and he was called the son of Mary? And when this is against the belief of common Muslims, then the verse…”

Fatawa Ridhawiyyah Vol 15. p. 613-615

Ahmadi Muslims Believe in the Nuzul of the Messiah

As for the descent itself, it is true and we do not argue with them about it, nor do we reject it. Rather, we believe in it as they believe, and we are not deniers. We have nothing but submission in this matter.

Whoever denies it has disbelieved in what has come in the traditions and the Book, and they are among the Mulhideen[Atheists]. However, we interpret this descent in a way that is safe from contradictions and free from objections.

It is the manifestational descent, which has been God’s way since the time of the ancients. Our denial is only of the personal descent of Christ from the heavens, for it contradicts God’s ways and the clear signs of the verses.

Indeed, the Quran has made it obligatory for us to believe in the death of Masih and to consider him among the dead.

Therefore, the belief in Masih’s life [on earth] is contrary to the tradition of Allah and the clear verses of the Quran.”

“And his return to the mortal world necessitates denial of the Quran and its clear, decisive verses. None would speak such words except those whose hearts are veiled, who are like the concealed ones and among those who turn away.

The life of Masih and his return to the world necessitates denial of the Quran and its decisive verses. Therefore, only those will speak such words whose hearts are veiled, who are like the concealed ones and among those who turn away.

Should we abandon [the truth] for weak assumptions?”

Ruhani Khazain Volume 11, p. 148-149

Pseudo-Ijma on the Death of Isa

The first thing you should debate with Non Ahmadi Muslims is the Death of Isa (AS)

“Remember that the determination of truth and falsehood between us and our opponents hinges on the life and death of Isa (as). If Isa (as) is truly alive, all our claims are false, and our evidence is futile. However, if he has indeed died according to the Quran, then our opponents are in error. Now, place the Quran between us and contemplate it.”

(Ruhani Khazain Vol 17 Tufa Golarviya P.264

And the matter under discussion will be the death or life of Jesus. Because this humble one’s claim is based on this very foundation. When the foundation breaks, this claim will automatically fall apart. This is the core issue.”

“Sir, you know well that the main issue in this debate is the death or life of Jesus, son of Mary, and this is also established as the core matter in my revelation. Because the revelation states that “the true son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah, has died, and in accordance with the promise, one has come in his likeness.”

This is the primary and fundamental matter that has been established in the revelation – that Jesus, son of Mary, has died. Now, it’s obvious and any intelligent person can understand that if you prove Jesus to be alive, then just as the first part of the revelation will be invalidated, so will the second part. This is because Allah the Almighty has stated that the condition for the validity of my claim is the death of Jesus.

And according to the principle ‘When the condition fails, the conditional fails,’ with the proof of Jesus’s life, my second claim will automatically be nullified.”

[Maktubat-e-Ahmad vol 1. p. 231-232]

“You already know this and in your view, it’s a trivial matter that Jesus has died, and you have achieved victory using this point. Actually, my existence is for two things, First to KILL ONE PROPHET, and second is to kill Shaytan”

Malfuzat 10 p. 51

The very first point that should be remembered is the issue of the death of the Messiah; the importance of the issue of the death of the Messiah. These people sometimes deceive by saying that there is no need for a discussion on the death of the Messiah, whereas this is the very root of the matter. Through this issue, all Christian actions are nullified, the divinity of حضرت مسیح is broken, and the greatness of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) is established in the world. This is why the Holy Quran has placed great emphasis on the issue of the death of the Messiah, unlike the deaths of other prophets. It has mentioned this subject in more than three verses, as it is clearly mentioned in verses like “O Jesus, I will cause you to die” (یا عیسیٰ انی متوفیک) and “When You took me up” (فلما توفیتنی).

These fools say that he did not die but that God raised him to heaven. These are errors that people have created on their own against the Book of Allah to corrupt the religion. God Almighty does not want His attributes to be given to a helpless human. Then, based on what show of arrogance do they claim to be Muslims? Is Islam the name of this, that it is accepted that some of creation belongs to God and some to the son of God? I say truthfully that by creating such beliefs, these people have corrupted Islam. They have insulted the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) and opposed God Almighty. Alas! Was it this blessing that Islam came into the world with? Was this the name of the completion of the favor?

Malfuzat Vol 3 p.53-54

Musleh Maud RA states:

“Never leave your spot. Don’t believe that if they don’t believe in this, then they will believe in this way. In this manner they have not lost, you have because you could not prove your point and left it. There are many people who say that Non-Ahmadis get irritated by the topic of Death of Isa, let’s leave this topic of Death of Isa and make them accept some other topic. This is wrong. First make them accept the Death of Isa, then present ahead. Present in Sequence.

Anwar-ul-Uloom

Some ignorant claim that the following statement by Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal RH through the narration of Abdullah bin Ahmad is a fabrication attributed to him:

What a man claims as a consensus is a lie. Whoever claims consensus, he is lying.

[Masa’il-ul-Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal RH narrated by his son Abdullah bin Ahmad RH, pg. 438-439]

In this article, we will prove:

• This statement is corroborated by multiple other statements from Imam Ahmad RH
• It is confirmed and explained by numerous scholars of Sunni, specifically, Hanbali madhab

4 statements of Imam Ahmad

The claim of consensus has been mass-transmitted from Imam Ahmad RH, denying it and declaring a liar whoever claims it. While non Ahmadis doubt his narration which has been transmitted through his son, Abdullah, which has already been quoted in the introduction. There are three more narrations which corroborates his statement through his students: al-Marwazi, Abu al-Harith, and Abu Talib. The narrations in Arabic can be all found here.

Narration of al-Marwazi

Al-Marwazi narrated from him that he said: “How can it be permissible for a man to say: ‘They have reached consensus’, when you hear them saying: ‘They have reached consensus’, then accuse them of lying. However, if he said: ‘I do not know of anyone opposing it’, then it would be permissible.

Al-‘Udda 4/1060, Al-Tamheed 3/247, Al-Maswada 2/617, and I‘lam al-Muwaqqi‘in 2/247

Narration of Abu Talib

Abu Talib narrated from him his saying: “This is a lie. How does he know that people have reached consensus? Rather, he should say: ‘I do not know of any disagreement on it’, for that is better than his saying: ‘Consensus of the people.'”

Al-‘Udda 4/1060, Al-Tamheed 3/247, Al-Maswada 2/617, and I‘lam al-Muwaqqi‘in 2/247

Narration of Abu Al-Harith

Abu Al-Harith narrated from him his saying: “It is not proper for anyone to claim consensus, perhaps people have differed.”

Al-‘Udda 4/1060, Al-Tamheed 3/247, Al-Maswada 2/617, and I‘lam al-Muwaqqi‘in 2/247

Sunni Scholars Confirm Imam Ahmad’s Statement

There are numerous scholars who have affirmed that Imam Ahmad’s RH statement surrounding his statement on ijma:

SHAYKH UL-ISLAM IBN TAYMIYA (d. 728H)

Ibn Taymiyyah RH states Imam Ahmad RH was referring to the rejection of the claim of consensus after the companions or perhaps after the first three generations:

“Our Sheikh said: I said: What Ahmad rejects is the claim of consensus of the dissenters after the Companions, or after them and after the Successors, or after the three praiseworthy centuries. Hardly can any argument in his speech be found that relies on consensus after the era of the Successors or after the three centuries. Even though the younger Successors lived until the third century, his speech about the consensus of every era is only about the Successors. Then, this is from him a prohibition against claiming general verbal consensus, which is like silent consensus, or the consensus of the majority without knowledge of the dissenter.”

[al-Musawwada fi usul al-fiqh, pg. 316]

IBN AL-QAYYIM (d. 751H)

Ibn al-Qayyim RH affirms and agrees with the statement of Imam Ahmad RH, he further quotes three corroborating narrations which affirm Imam Ahmad RH rejected the claim of ijma. He also justifies Imam Ahmad’s RH view, stating claim of ijma is not definite and almost impossible to authenticate due to the vast geographic location of scholars, rendering the establishment of an Ijma virtually impossible.

“What the Book, the Sunnah, and the statements of the Companions indicate is more worthy, for it is something attainable and commanded. For a mujtahid to know what the Qur’an and Sunnah indicate is much easier for him than knowing the agreement of people in the east and west of the earth on a ruling. This, if not impossible, is the most difficult and arduous thing, except for what is among the necessities of Islam. So how can Allah and His Messenger refer us to what we cannot reach, while leaving the referral to His Book and the Sunnah of His Messenger by which He has guided us, made easy for us, and made an easy path for us to know them from nearby?

Then, what does he know? Perhaps people have differed and he does not know. Not knowing about a dispute is not knowledge of its non-existence. So how can he give precedence to lack of knowledge over the entire basis of knowledge? Then, how can it be permissible for him to abandon the known truth for a matter about which he has no knowledge, the utmost of which is that it is imagined, and the best of its states is that it is doubted with equal or preponderant doubt?…

…When this approach emerged, it led to contradicting the texts with the unknown consensus, opened the door to claiming it, and caused those ignorant muqallids who do not know about disagreements, when argued against with the Qur’an and Sunnah, to say: “This contradicts consensus.” This is what the imams of Islam denounced and condemned from every angle whoever committed it, and they denied whoever claimed it. Imam Ahmad said, as narrated by his son Abdullah: “Whoever claims consensus is lying…He said: “Whoever claims consensus is lying, perhaps people have differed. This is the claim of Bishr al-Marisi and al-Asamm, but he says: ‘We do not know if people differed’ or ‘It did not reach us’.”

And in al-Marwazi’s narration, he said: “How can it be permissible for a man to say: ‘They have reached consensus’? When you hear them saying: ‘They have reached consensus’, then accuse them of lying. If he said: ‘I do not know of anyone opposing’, then it would be permissible.”

And in the narration of Abu Talib, he said: “This is a lie. How does he know that people have reached consensus? Rather, [he should say]: ‘I do not know of any disagreement on it’, for that is better than his saying: ‘Consensus of the people.'”

And in the narration of Abu al-Harith: “It is not proper for anyone to claim consensus, perhaps people have differed”.”

[I’lam al-Muwaqi’in ‘an Rabb il-‘Alamin, vol 3, pg. 558-559]

IBN AL-QAYYIM (d. 751H)

Similarily in another quote in the same book, Ibn al-Qayyim explains Imam Ahmad rejected the notion of consensus being based on lack of knowledge of opposition. He emphasized the supremacy of authentic hadith and the statements of companions over claims of consensus. He explains this rejection was not about denying the existence of consensus in its essence for which it has been already explained previously Imam Ahmad RH accepts the consensus between companions.

“What Imam Ahmad Rejected Regarding Claim of Consensus

He did not give precedence to action, statement, opinion or analogy over an authentic hadith, nor the statement of a Companion, nor lack of knowledge of any opposition – which many people call consensus and give precedence over authentic hadith. Ahmad rejected and belied whoever claimed this consensus, and did not allow giving it precedence over the established hadith. Similarly, al-Shafi’i – also – stated in his new treatise that what has no known opposition cannot be called consensus. His words are: “What has no known opposition is not consensus”.

And Abdullah bin Ahmad bin Hanbal said: I heard my father say: “Whatever a man claims consensus on – this is a lie. Whoever claims consensus is lying, perhaps people have differed. What does he know? It did not reach him? So let him say: ‘We do not know if people differed.’ This is the claim of Bishr al-Marisi and al-Asamm, but he says: ‘We do not know if people differed, or it did not reach me.’ This is his wording.”

The texts of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ are too lofty in the view of Imam Ahmad – and the rest of the hadith imams – for them to give precedence over them to what is imagined to be consensus, the premise of which is lack of knowledge of opposition. If this were permissible, it would render the texts inoperative, and allow anyone who does not know of opposition regarding a ruling to give precedence to his ignorance of opposition over the texts. This is what Imam Ahmad and al-Shafi’i rejected regarding the claim of consensus, not what some people think is denying its existence..”

[I’lam al-Muwaqi’in ‘an Rabb il-‘Alamin, vol 3, pg. 53-54]

Sunni websites confirm Imam Ahmad’s statement

Sunni Salafi website Islamweb.net has done tawil of Imam Ahmad’s statement regarding ijma, showing that Imam Ahmad’s RH statement is acknowledged amongst Salafis. This can be found both in the Arabic and English pages of Islamweb.net.

What has caused some people to have made such claims may be that Imaam Ahmad famously said, “Whoever claims Ijmaaʻ is a liar.” Scholars have explained the intended meaning of that statement and underlined that Imaam Ahmad did not mean to negate the authoritativeness of Ijmaaʻ by this statement.

Related Article(s)

Maulvi Abdul Wafa Sanaullah Amritsari’s View

ثناء اللہ امرتسری مرزائیوں کو اسلامی فرقوں میں شامل کرتے ہوئے لکھتے ہیں کہ ”

‘اسلامی فرقوں میں خواہ کتنا ہی اختلاف ہو مگر آخرکار نقطہ محمدیت پر جو درجہ ہے والذین معہ کا سب شریک ہیں۔۔۔۔۔مرزائیوں کا سب سے زیادہ مخالف میں ہوں مگر نقطہ محمدیت کی وجہ سے میں ان کو بھی اس میں شامل جانتا ہوں۔ (بحوالہ ؛ اخبار اہلحدیث امرتسر ص ۳۔ ۱۶ اپریل ۱۹۱۵)

_{[Ahl-i-Hadith April 23, 1915 page 3]}

ثناء اللہ امرتسری کے نزدیک مرزائی اور شیعہ سب کے پیچھے نماز جائز ہے

ہفت روزہ اہلحدیث،2 اپریل 1915

_{[Ahl-i-Hadith April 2,1915 page 6]}

Unlike Ahmad Raza Khan who said that anyone who doesn’t call Qadiyanis kafir is kafir too, Ahlul Hadith’s “Shaykh ul Islam” Sanuallah Amritsari said that calling a person who doesn’t call Ahmadis kaffir, a kaffir is unecessary.

Akbar Ahl-i-Hadith

Ahle Hadees alim(Shamull Haq) admitted that Sanaullah Amritsari said that it is allowed to pray behind an Ahmadi and

ثناء اللہ امرتسری نے قادیانیوں کے پیچھے نماز جائز ہونے کا فتوی دیا! غیر مقلد شمس الحق عظیم آبادی کا اعتراف اور بٹالوی کو خط

غیر مقلد عالم ثناء اللہ امرتسری نے اپنے رسالہ اہلحدیث میں قادیانیوں کے پیچھے نماز جائز ہونے کا فتوی دیا تھا جس کے آجکل کے غیر مقلد بن منکر ہیں۔ غیر مقلدین کے عالم شمس الحق عظیم آبادی نے اعتراف کیا کہ ثناء اللہ امرتسری نے یہ غلط فتوی دیا تھا اور شمس الحق عظیم آبادی نے محمد حسین بٹالوی کو خط لکھا جس میں شاء اللہ امرتسری کے فتوی کار د کیا گیا اور اس کو گمراہ کہا گیا۔ اس کے ساتھ ساتھ شمس الحق عظیم آبادی نے تسلیم کیا کہ ثناء اللہ امرتسری نے اپنے غلطیوں کو تسلیم نہیں کیا تھا۔ (حیات شمس الحق عظیم آبادی ، صفحہ 129-130)

غیر مقلد و! لگاؤ فتوی اپنے شیخ الاسلام ثناء اللہ امر تسری پہ جو قادیانیوں کے پیچھے نماز کو جائز کہتا تھا۔

ہم کو اس مسئلہ امامت و اقتدا میں جس کو مولوی ثناء اللہ صاحب نے شائع کیا ہے، اور

قادیانی کے اقتدا کے وہ مجوز میں سخت خلاف ہے ۔اب جب یہ حالت پر چہ اہل حدیث کی رفتار کی

ہے کہ قادیانی کو جائز کہ دیا، اور قبل اس کے چند مسائل منکر و شائع کیا ہے، تو اب آ ئند واندیشہ اس کا

ہے کہ نہ معلوم اب کیا مسائل اس میں شائع ہو ۔اب اس کو پر چہ اہل حدیث‘ کہنا خطا ہے۔ یہ سب

اتفاق ہے ۔ بلکہ ہم تو بالا علان اس کو بھی کہتے ہیں کہ مولوی ثناء اللہ صاحب نے اپنے اغلاط کو مکابرین

تسلیم نہیں کیا با وجود ثابت ہو نے براہین قاطعہ علی الاغلاط کے ۔ بلکہ اشاعتہ السنہ کو اشاعتہ المنازعة اس

لئے لکھا تھا کہ آپ نے ہر شخص کو اپنا فریق بنا کر سخت کلامی شروع کر دی، اور سب کو جماعت اہل حدیث سے نکال کر صرف اپنی ذات کو اس کا ایک فردقرار دیا ہے۔ وهل هذا الا دعوى باطلة۔

ابو طیب محمد شمس الحق عظیم آبادی حیات و خدمات (Abu Tayyib Shams ul Haq Azeemabadi Hayat o Khidmat) page 129-130

Book Link

What fatwa will the Ahle Hadith put on their “Shaykh ul Islam” Abdul Wafa Sanaullah Amritsari for not only consideirng Ahmadis Muslims but also considering it valid to pray behind them!

Maulvi Abu Sayyid Muhammad Husayn Batalvi’s Change of Heart
Firstly, lets turn to Tadhkirah:

1893

I saw that this man [Maulavi Muhammad Husain] will acknowledge my being a believer before his death and I saw that he had given up calling me Kafir [disbeliever] and had repented of this position. I saw all this in a dream and I am hoping that my Lord will make it come true *356 . [Hujjatul-Islam, p. 19, Ruhani Khaza’in, vol. 6, p. 59]

• 356 Note by Hadrat Mirza Bashir Ahmad(ra): In 1914, twenty years after this prophecy, Maulavi Muhammad Husain had the following testimony recorded in the court of Magistrate Grade 1, in the District of Gujranwala, with reference to different sects of Islam:

All these sects believe the Holy Qur’an to be the Word of God. Like the Qur’an, all these sects also believe in hadith. A new sect, Ahmadi, started a short time ago ever since Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian made his claim to be the Massiah and Mahdi. This sect also believes equally in the Qur’an and hadith.… My sect certainly does not consider any of the above mentioned sects to be kafir [disbelievers].

[For details see al-Fadl, vol. 1, no. 35, February 11, 1914, p. 3]

[Tadhkirah, pg.305]

More Explanation is given in the book the Great Reformer:

Some people at the time interpreted the prophecy to mean that Maulvi Batalvi would openly become a disciple of Hazrat Mirza. This, however, was an erroneous interpretation because the second part of the prophecy qualified what was stated in the first part. The words “as if” clearly indicated that Maulvi Batalvi’s reassessment of Hazrat Mirza as a believer would be in the form of a cessation of accusatory charges of infidelity and a halt to all such future actions. The prophecy was fulfilled precisely in this manner. After the death of Hazrat Mirza and during the period of Maulana Nur-ud-Din’s leadership, Maulvi Batalvi gave a sworn statement in the court of Judge Lala Devki Nandan of Gujranwala District that the followers of Hazrat Mirza were Muslims. This clearly showed that he had recanted his former position of calling Hazrat Mirza’s followers unbelievers. [The Great Reformer, Vol. 1, pg 456]

Everyone was astonished to read this announcement, including Hazrat Mirza’s own disciples. Was it ever possible that such a dangerous and hardened enemy, who was the architect of the entire opposition, would ever abandon calling Hazrat Mirza an infidel, retract his decree of heresy and consider him a believer? Maulvi Batalvi, too, laughed at the absurdity of this announcement, which only spurred him on to greater opposition. He intensified feeding misinformation to the government and resorted to all means possible to oppose Hazrat Mirza even to the extent of secretly participating in assassination plans. However, Hazrat Mirza repeatedly stated that one day, Maulvi Batalvi would abandon the charge of heresy. This led some of Hazrat Mirza’s disciples to ask him: “Then should we consider him our friend and not our opponent?” Hazrat Mirza replied: “Dealings with a person are conducted according to the current position. What will happen in the future should be left to God.”8

8 Once the prophecy about Maulvi Batalvi was under discussion and Hazrat Mirza said, “There is no doubt that I have forcefully claimed that he will return (to the right course) and Allah has fated it as such. Actually, Muhammad Hussain was a shrewed person but I could see from the beginning that he was self-conceited. Hence, Allah desired to purge him in this way; this is an emetic for him…” Hazrat Mirza further stated, “Allah knows best but he has at least done one (good) thing; he wrote the review of Barahin Ahmadiyya with great sincerity because at the time, his condition was such that he would sometimes pick up my shoes, dust them and put them in front of me. Once he took me inside his house so that it may be blessed and once he insisted on pouring water for my ablution. In short, he used to show great sincerity. Several times he expressed the intention to come and live in Qadian but I advised him that this was not the right time. Then he faced this trial. It would not be strange if God brings him to a good end because of this sincerity.” A brother asked, “What should we consider him now?” He replied, “The present decisions have to be made on the current situation. He is an enemy of this Movement. See, as long as a life-germ stays as such, it is called a life-germ although it can become a person. As it changes states, its name also changes and it becomes a clot (alaqa), a lump of flesh (mudghah) etc. and finally becomes a person at the appointed time. The same applies to him. At present he is an opponent and an enemy of this Movement, and this is how he should be considered.” – Al Hakam, January 17, 1903.

[The Great Reformer Vol 1. pg 799-800]

More information was also presented on what Muhammad Husain Batalvi said in court:

Towards the end of Hazrat Mirza Sahib’s life, Maulvi Batalvi softened somewhat, and the intensity of his opposition declined. Some people thought he was tired but, in fact, he was having a change of heart. He had seen that despite his best efforts to oppose Hazrat Mirza Sahib, God was granting Hazrat Mirza Sahib success and his Movement was growing continuously. Maulvi Batalvi, on the other hand, was facing failure and disappointment on all sides. Hazrat Mirz Sahiba’s reputation was growing exponentially while Maulvi Batalvi’s considerable reputation at the start of his campaign against Hazrat MirzaSahib had totally eroded, and disgrace and humiliation had embraced him on all sides. The final act of this change of heart came in the year 1913, after Hazrat Mirza had passed away and Maulana Nur-udDin was the head of the movement.

A lawsuit was filed in the court of Lala Devki Nandan, Civil Judge First Class, Gujranwala in 1913, which was identified as case #300, Ms. Kareem Bibi daughter of Muhammad-ud-Din Lohar (Plaintiff), versus Rahmat Ullah, son of Abdullah, caste Lohar, resident of Nizamabad (Respondent). Maulvi Batalvi appeared as an expert witness and gave a statement on oath in which he declared members of the Ahmadiyya sect as Muslims and affirmed openly that they were not infidels. A portion of his statement is reproduced below. Giving evidence about the creed of his sect Ahl-e Hadith, Maulvi Batalvi said:

The first sect was Hanafi; it was followed shortly thereafter by the Maliki sect that is attributed to Imam Malik; after that was the Shafai sect and after that was the Hanbali sect that is attributed to Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal. In the beginning, all the followers of Islam had the same religion and it was an era of peace with no internal contentions. There was peace in the period of the Messenger of Allah because of his presence, and after him peace prevailed because of the presence of his Companions and those who followed them. There were no major disputes to cause mutual recrimination or opposition. This period gave way to an era of selfishness and innovations and people began turning to the Imam they loved and in whom they had faith. They became his followers and the sects were established. All these sects consider the Quran to be the word of God, and like the Quran, these sects accept the Hadith.

One sect, the Ahmadiyya has been born recently since Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib of Qadian claimed to be the Messiah and Mahdi. This sect too accepts the Quran and the Hadith alike…our sect does not consider any of the sects mentioned above as entirely heretical.

The court’s understanding of this statement, which was reflected in the judgment, was as follows:

And likewise in the opinion of Maulvi Abdul Hakim sahib, witness for the plaintiff, members of the Ahmadiyya sect, who are followers of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, are infidels although in the opinion of the witness Maulvi Muhammad Hussain they are not infidels.

Once during the period of Maulana Nur-ud-Din sahib, Maulvi Muhammad Hussain sahib came to Simla for fundraising and asked for donations from our Ahmadiyya branch in Simla. When we refused to give him any donations, Maulvi sahib said, “Even Maulana Nur-ud-Din has given me a donation for this religious work and this work is for the welfare of the Muslims generally.”

We then inquired from Qadian and Hazrat Maulana Nur-ud-Din wrote back, “The donations should not be given individually; a collective donation from the party may be given.”

Even the Hanafis acknolwedged that this indeed happened in the book Wahabiyyat Aur Mirzayyat.

Maulvi Abu Syed Muhammad Husayn Batalvi goes against the view of Maulvi Nawab Sideeq Hasan Khan and says that Mahdi will not fight wars but rather

(امام مهدی)

بھی حضرت مسیح موعود کی طرح اپنے مشن میں سیفی جنگ و تلوار و تفنگ سے کام نہ لیں گے بلکہ صرف آسمانی نشانات اور روحانی برکات سے دنیا میں دین اسلام کی اشاعت کریں گے “

(Imam Mahdi)

Like the Promised Messiah, he will not use swords and guns in his mission, but will spread the religion of Islam in the world with heavenly signs and spiritual blessings.

Ishatus-Sunnah Volume 22 , Number 4, page 113 1909

Full Book

Maulana Shibli Nomani