The Refutation of Rashid Rida and Shaltut’s Denial of the Descent of 'Isa (peace be upon him) and the Emergence of the Mahdi.

The Shaykh : ... Excuse me, I made the digression very long. I was speaking about Sayyid Rashid Rida and how I benefited from him, but I noticed some deviations in his views. One of them is due to his refutation of the Qadiyyah. The Qadiyyah claim, among their false claims, that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad al-Qadiyani is the 'Isa foretold in the hadiths. This is also part of their false ta'wil (figurative interpretation). The intended meaning is not 'Isa, but rather a deleted modifier, estimated to be "a counterpart to 'Isa"; a twist and turn; who is this counterpart? Mirza Ghulam Ahmad al-Qadiyani. So, Sayyid Rashid Rida (may Allah have mercy on him) seemed to feel that he could not establish a decisive, overwhelming argument against them except by casting doubt on the hadiths regarding the descent of 'Isa (peace be upon him). For what purpose? To save the public who are influenced by the Qadiyyah; so there is no 'Isa and no Mahdi. Similarly, we said regarding his knowledge and learning:
"Sa'd mentioned it, and Sa'd is wrapped in it *** This is not how, O Sa'd, you lead the camels to water."
And I have written in some of my authored books that the way in all these examples and others is not ta'wil (figurative interpretation), which is the brother of ta'til (denial of the divine attributes), but rather understanding the texts well as Muslims, so that they do not fall into negative or positive deviation. We return to the issue of qadar (divine decree), which is the problem of problems in reality, from the day the Mu'tazilah were born until today. The Mu'tazilah say: if we say that Allah (Mighty and Majestic) decreed for man faith and disbelief, good and evil, this means he is compelled and does not possess harm or benefit for himself. What is their way out? No qadar (divine decree). If so, what do we say about the verses that affirmed qadar (divine decree)? We interpret them with the meaning you heard, knowledge, yes. But they did not benefit from this denial; because there is no difference between all the believers who believe in divine knowledge and most of the believers who also believe in divine qadar (divine decree) regarding the problem raised by the Mu'tazilah. There is no difference between the two beliefs: the belief in eternal divine knowledge and the belief in divine qadar (divine decree); there is no difference regarding the problem. What is the problem? They said: if we say that Allah decreed and wrote faith and disbelief, and good and evil, it necessitates compulsion. Similarly, we say: there is no doubt and no ambiguity for all believers in divine qadar (divine decree) that it is in accordance with divine knowledge. Similarly, the divine writing in its multiple stages, as explained by Imam Ibn al-Qayyim in his great book called what? "Al-Hikmah wa al-Qadar wa al-Ta'lil" (The Wisdom, Decree, and Causation), yes, "Shifa' al-Ghalil" (The Cure for the Grief), yes, you have done well. So, there are stages to the writing. All this, the first and last writing, and the one with the child in the womb, naturally in accordance with divine knowledge. So, the objection they raised remains valid, in the sense that we have now removed from our minds what they removed from their beliefs, which is divine qadar (divine decree). We have temporarily closed the page on it. Similarly, the divine writing, and let us agree with them there on knowledge, or they agree with us. Well, it was established in divine knowledge that so-and-so will disbelieve. Can divine knowledge change? Of course not. Can the divine writing change? No. Can divine qadar (divine decree) change? No. So, what did you benefit from saying "no qadar (divine decree)"? Is it clear? If so, it is obligatory to believe in everything that came regarding knowledge, writing, and qadar (divine decree), and to interpret that in a way that agrees with the other evidence.
Yes, my lord, we had reached the Mu'tazilah in our discussion of the hadith. So, what did they gain from their denial of divine decree (qadar) on the grounds that if the decree does not change, then the obligated person is compelled? We say to them: Does divine knowledge change? The answer will be that divine knowledge does not change. So, their answer will be that it does not change. Has it not already been established in divine knowledge that so-and-so is happy and so-and-so is wretched? Since they say that He has encompassed all things in knowledge, and it does not change, what is your answer regarding divine knowledge that does not change? That is our answer regarding divine decree that does not change. As you know, this is a dialectical answer, but it is the truth. However, I have another answer: What has preceded in divine knowledge or divine decree undoubtedly corresponds to what will occur; it does not differ by a hair's breadth. If that is the case, we respond to both groups, the Mu'tazilah and their opponents, the Jabriyyah; the answer covers both groups together. Then we return to the Jabriyyah with a detail that the Mu'tazilah do not need. They agree with us that divine knowledge knows events as they are in their clear reality. We know from the reality of obligated persons that their actions and lives contain things in which they are choosing by necessity, and things in which they are also compelled. We begin with the action of the heart: in the action of the heart, they are compelled, because it is from the creation of Allah, in which humans have no choice. Therefore, if Allah (Mighty and Majestic) wills, He stops this movement by killing its owner. Likewise, we say regarding the fact that Zayd among people is tall, while another is short, fat, thin, and so on. Here, the saying of Allah the Exalted is true: But there are other matters concerning this person who is compelled from this angle; there are other matters that issue from him by his choice. Now, I am speaking and you are listening, and sometimes you also speak with us. Are you, O people of the Mu'tazilah—of course, the Jabriyyah have a different address, as we said earlier—are you, O people of the Mu'tazilah, saying that we are now choosing in this speech, or are we compelled? Their answer will be that we are choosing. Good. In the first case, or in the other examples, are we choosing or compelled? That is, in the movement of the heart, and in the fact that one person is tall and another is short, white and black, and brown, and so on, are we choosing or compelled? They cannot say that we are choosing. So, this reality, with its two parts and its two forms, preceded in the knowledge of Allah (Mighty and Majestic); it preceded in the knowledge of Allah (Mighty and Majestic); the knowledge encompasses both forms. We now descend to what you denied of the decree. The decree encompasses both as well, because we said that divine decree is in accordance with divine knowledge, so there is no difference between them in that they reveal reality as it is; they reveal reality as it is before it occurs. From this perspective, the decree corresponds to divine knowledge. So, where is the problem? If what Allah decreed is from the first category, I am not asked about it, because I have no will in it. One person being black and dark may be mocked by a white person for the darkness of his skin, for example, but he is not mocked because this is the creation of Allah. So show me what those besides Him have created. But if I deviate or insult, I am mocked, why? Because it is from the other category, in which there is will. So, what is the problem in your denial of the decree, when the decree reveals reality in its two parts? We struck the first category earlier because it is clear, there is absolutely no dispute in it, and it is understood by everyone. Now we strike an example from our actions that issue from our limbs. A person threw a bird and hit a person, killing him. This is accidental killing, but by what action? The person is not by direct divine action, as is the first category. Did this action precede in divine knowledge or not? Yes. And so it was from divine justice that he will not be punished in the Hereafter, because he killed him by accident. Good. Likewise, we say, we who believe in divine decree: divine decree recorded this mistake for me, this killing was a mistake, and so I am not held accountable. But another person, on a moonless night, observed an enemy of his and prepared to kill him, so he shot him with a rifle or stabbed him with his dagger. Are these two equal? No, they are not equal, for example. Yes, this one was intentional, and as they say in the courts today, it was with prior design and determination. Both forms preceded in divine knowledge without a doubt, because He has encompassed all things in knowledge. So, what prevents you, O Mu'tazilah, from saying that this divine knowledge was recorded in the Preserved Tablet and thus became a decree? The decree encompasses reality as it is: if it is compulsion, there is no accountability; and if it is choice, then there is accountability here. So, why do you fear saying in the decree? Is this answer clear? This answer obligates belief in the decree, as does the first answer, but that one is a dialectical answer, and this one confirms that answer. Accordingly, all correct Islamic beliefs must be addressed, including the issue of the descent of 'Isa (peace be upon him). The matter was difficult for Sayyid Rashid Rida (may Allah have mercy on him), and from him we derived this Salafi and hadith-based methodology. It was also difficult for many scholars of al-Azhar, such as Shaltut and his like, who denied the belief in the descent of 'Isa (peace be upon him) at the end of time. Why? They said because many people claimed to be 'Isawiyyah, and this is Ghulam Ahmad al-Qadri, and many of them claimed to be Mahdi, and your neighbor there in Sudan, the Mahdi, is well known, and in Islamic history there are many who claimed to be 'Isawiyyah and claimed to be Mahdi. So, to block the door to these false claims, we would relieve people of the belief in the descent of 'Isa (peace be upon him) and the emergence of the Mahdi. This is a mistake, and treating a mistake with a mistake like it, and worse, is wrong. I said in some of what I wrote in response to these people: I fear most of all that a day will come when some of them will address divinity and deny it, because the Pharaohs have not yet ended, and some of them claim divinity. So, to relieve people of this claim, which is the most false of falsehoods, we would end divinity and the problem would be over. Is this a correct treatment? We say finally: the descent of 'Isa is a correct belief in which the Salaf believed, and the Khalaf followed them on the guidance of their Lord. But in these hadiths, nor in the hadiths of the Mahdi (peace be upon them), is there any indication that Muslims should not work for their Islam and the honor of their religion until 'Isa descends and the Mahdi emerges. There is nothing in all these hadiths that suggests this wrong understanding that occurred in some Muslims. And so some reformers denied these hadiths in order to remove the stumbling block, in their claim, from the path of the common Muslims. There is no benefit, no benefit, that 'Isa will not descend and the Mahdi will not emerge. This is a wrong understanding, just as the Jabriyyah understood the decree, and with them the Mu'tazilah, and then they denied compulsion and denied the decree with them. Since there is nothing in the authentic hadiths that were revealed regarding 'Isa (peace be upon him) and the emergence of the Mahdi that suggests reliance on their coming, it is obligatory for us to work, because if 'Isa descends, he will find the earth prepared for a leader who will lead them. And if 'Isa (peace be upon him) descends and the Muslims are as they are today, I say this while believing in it: 'Isa will not be able to gather the Muslims in an instant, in a day and a night, to gather the righteous among them around his leadership naturally. Because, in my opinion, there will be no one more decisive and more capable of gathering the hearts of people around him than our Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), who stayed among his people for twenty years until he was able to create these seeds, which Allah (Mighty and Majestic) nourished in his strength and knowledge, and then their shadows extended, as you know, in Islamic history. So, if 'Isa (peace be upon him) descends, we must not imagine that he will descend unless the earth has been prepared for his acceptance. So, it should be understood that the hadiths of the descent and the emergence encourage Muslims to work to restore Islam to its former glory, not that they should wait for 'Isa and the Mahdi to restore their former glory for them. If we believe in this way, what is the problem with the hadiths of 'Isa and the emergence of the Mahdi? There is no problem at all. Problems always come from the misinterpretation of texts. And this reality is a very important point regarding the descent of 'Isa (peace be upon him) in the Muslim world, in that they misinterpreted some texts and thereby misinterpreted other texts. And we ask Allah (Mighty and Majestic) to guide us all and you to the correct understanding of Allah and His Messenger.