History Supports Ahmadiyyat Part 2 (Finality of Prophethood)
Holy Prophet Muhammad(sa)
First Hadith
Second Hadith
Third Hadith
The Incident with Hadrat Ibrahim ibn Muhammad(as) shows that a Prophet coming after Holy Prophet(saw) was not contrary to what they viewed Khatam Nabiyeen meant. Along with quoting the relevant ahadith I will also quote True-Concept-of-Khatm-e-Nubuwwat by Khalifatul Masih the Fourth.
Hadrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad(rh) explains this hadith saying:
The hadith, as noted above, states: ‘Had he lived he would have been a true Prophet…’ Our opponents contend that God in His wisdom caused him to die lest he should become a Prophet. The fact is there is no wisdom in this. It is an attack on the intelligence and eloquence of the Holy Prophet(sa).Let us consider the background of the hadith. The verse containing Khataman-Nabiyyin was revealed in the year 5 A.H. Hadrat Ibrahim, the son of the Holy Prophet(sa), died in the beginning of the year 9 A.H. If the Holy Prophet (sa) understood Khataman-Nabiyyin to mean that no Prophet of any kind could ever come again, he would not have made a statement like the one mentioned in the hadith above. He could have said that although Ibrahim was a pure soul, even if he had lived for a thousand years, he would not become a Prophet, since the door to prophethood is closed.
That is the most that a Prophet, who has been informed that there would be no Prophet after him, could have said: ‘The boy has a pure soul, but since Allah has informed me that there is no Prophet after me, he would not have become a Prophet’; but he did not say that.
[True Insights into the Concept of Khatm-e-Nubuwwat page 53]
There is another tradition of Ahadith which settles this matter once and for all.
Hadrat ‘Ali was a member of the family, therefore, his narration is fuller and more descriptive.
While the original page of the book does not use the pages I have screenshotted, it uses the same refrences and therefore I have included them in the quote. Hadrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad(rh) continues:
The Real Significance of Hadith La Nabiyya Ba‘di
The above event took place about four years after the verse Khataman-Nabiyyin was revealed. Holy men and scholars in the past must have read this hadith and the hadith containing La Nabiyya ba‘di that has been previously mentioned. If we look for the interpretation of these ahadith, we note Hadrat Mulla ‘Ali al-Qari (died 1014 A.H.) writing:
What a clear and unambiguous interpretation it is, and how he repudiates the argument being put forward by today’s so called scholars. Bear in mind that he is a top scholar among the Ahle-Sunnat. The ‘White Paper’ of the Pakistani Government contends, that the ulema from the past, without exception, held the same erroneous belief that the present day ulema hold, namely, that KhatamunNabiyyin does not have any meaning other that complete cessation of prophethood. It is obvious that this assertion is a blatant lie. The top scholars have given La Nabiyya ba‘di the same interpretation as we give.
Although I have presented extensive evidence to repudiate the claim of our opponents that Khatamun-Nabiyyin means the end of prophethood, some may suggest that these holy men and eminent scholars (God forbid) were not familiar with the hadith in the words La Nabiyya ba‘di, hence, they did not talk about it. The fact of the matter is that they were learned people, and were familiar with all aspects of Khatm-e-Nubuwwat and La Nabiyya ba‘di. Let us now see what they wrote.
[True Insights into the Concept of Khatm-e-Nubuwwat page 54-56]
The Sahaba
Imam Farhan Iqbal in his book 'With Love to Muhammadsa - The Khatam Nabiyeen" states:
We reinforce our position with the opinion of the sahābara. In our research, we have discovered that there were at least six sahābara who interpreted the phrase Khātam-un-Nabiyyīn in exactly the same way as the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamā‘at. No one can deny this interpretation because it was promoted by those sahābara who were held in high esteem among the companionsra of the Holy Prophet Muhammadsa. The next four pages are an extract of Ad-Durr-ul-Manthūr, which is basically a book containing prophetic narrations in commentary of verses of the Holy Qur’ān. It was compiled by Hazrat Imām Jalāl-udDīn Suyūtī(rh), mujaddid of the 9th century after Hegira.
Hazrat Imām Jalāl-udDīn Suyūtī(rh)'s book:
The ahādīth compiled by Hazrat Imām Jalāl-ud-Dīn Suyūtīrh show that the following six sahabara interpreted the phrase Khātam-an-Nabiyyīn exactly in accordance with the interpretation of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamā‘at.
1. Hazrat Ayeshara
Say that he was Khātam-un-Nabiyyīn, but do not say that there will be no prophet after him.
2. Hazrat Mughīrahra
A man in the company of Al-Mughīrah bin Abī Shu‘bah said, “May Allāh bless Muhammad, the Seal of the Prophets, there is no prophet after him.” Al-Mughīrah said, “It was enough for you when you said, ‘The Seal of the Prophets,’ for we used to discuss that ‘Īsāas shall appear. So, when he appears, he shall be before him [the Prophet Muhammad sa] and after him”.
3. Hazrat ‘Alīra
4. Hazrat Abū ‘Abd-ur-Rahmān Al-Sulamiyyara,-the teacher of Hazrat Imām Hassanra and Imām Hussainra
5. Hazrat Imām Hassanra
6. Hazrat Imām Hussainra
Hazrat Abū ‘Abd-ur-Rahmān Al-Sulamiyyara said, “I was appointed to teach Hassanra and Hussainra [the Holy Qur’ān]. Then, once, Hazrat ‘Alī bin Abī Tālibra passed by me and I was teaching them to read, ‘wa Khātim-an-Nabiyyīn.’ Then, he [Hazrat ‘Alī ra] said to me, ‘Teach them to recite, ‘wa Khātaman-Nabiyyīn’ with the fatah on tā.’”
It is interesting to note how Hazrat Imām Jalāl-ud-Dīn Suyūtī rh brings these narrations at the end of all the narrations. Apparently, he wanted to indicate his own belief as well. He wanted to show the world that he did not interpret Khātam-un-Nabiyyīn to mean “the end of prophets of all kinds whatsoever.” He himself brought these ahādīth in commentary of the phrase Khātam-anNabiyyīn to show his agreement with them and this also shows his agreement with the understanding of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamā‘at.
7. Hazrat Imām Jalāl-ud-Dīn Suyūtīrh also says the following:
The one who says that Hazrat ‘Īsāas will not be a prophet after his advent, he is most certainly a disbeliever!1
Despite the fact that he [the Promised Messiah] will be a Khalīfa of the ummah of Muhammadsa, he shall remain a Nabī and a respected prophet.2
==============================================================================
1 Hijajul Karāmah, Page 431
2 Hijajul Karāmah, Page 426
Moving further into this discussion, let us now see what some of the ā’immah have said in commentary of the statement of Hazrat Ayeshara above.
8. Hazrat Shaikh Al-Imām Hazrat Ibn Qutaibarh writes in Tāwīl Mukhtalif Al-Ahādīth, Page 236: This statement of hers does not contradict the statement of the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allāh be on him), “Lā nabiyya ba’adī” [There is no prophet after me] because he meant, “There would be no prophet after me, who abrogates what I came with [or who opposes my law].”
9. Hazrat Imam Muhammad Tāhirrh writes in Takmilah Majma‘ul-Bihār, Page 85: This [statement of Hazrat Ayeshara] had reference to the advent of ‘Īsāas. It is also not in contradiction with the hadīth, “There is no prophet after me,” for he intended [to say], “There would be no prophet [after him] who abrogates his law.”
In regards to the saying of Ibn Mughīrah, Hadrat Mirza Bashirudeen Mahmud Ahmadra writes:
The following matters are apparent from this hadīth:
1. According to Al-Mughīrah bin Shu‘bah, the phrase Khātam-un-Nabiyyīn does not mean that no prophets can come after him [the Holy Prophet Muhammadsa]
2. According to him, the words
(there is no prophet after him) are not as authentic as the phrase Khātam-un-Nabiyyīn
3.According to Al-Mughīrah bin Shu‘bah, there was the possibility of the coming of a prophet after the Holy Prophetsa
4. He did not believe that Hazrat ‘Īsāas is alive in heaven. That is why he did not say that Hazrat ‘Īsāas shall descend from heaven. Instead, he says:
(We used to say that he shall appear on land). It appears that he believed that Hazrat ‘Īsāas has died but he shall be sent back after resurrection. This is why he did not say
[‘Īsāas shall] descend from heaven
Instead, he used the word
he shall appear
Source: Tafsīr Kabīr, Volume 10, Page 381
10. Hazrat Imām Ibn Taymiyya(rh), mujaddid of the 7th century of Islām
Imam Farhan Iqbal writes in his book regarding Hazrat Imām Ibn Taymiyya(rh):
To illustrate this, we use the example of Hazrat Imām Ibn Taymiyyarh, mujaddid of the 7th century of Islām. In the same book from which Farhan Khan quoted, that is, Book of Emaan: According to the classical works of Shaikhul Islām Ibn Taymiyya, translated by Dr. Muhammad Naim Yasin, Hazrat Imām Ibn Taymiyya discusses the descent of Jesusas as follows on Page 122:
Some Mu‘tazillah, and those who agree with them, have denied the veracity of those events by claiming that they are negated by the fact that Muhammad is the Last Prophet, something which the entire ummah of Muslims agree upon and to which there is ample evidence in the Qur’ān and Sunnah, as in Allāh’s saying that he is the Khātam Al-Nabiyyīn, and the Hadīth in which the Messenger of Allāhsa said, “There will be no Prophet after me”. But this is a corrupt deduction. The descent of Jesus does not mean that he will bring with him a new Message and Law that will annul our sharī‘ah, which all Muslims agree is the final Law valid until the Day of Judgment. Nothing to this effect is found in the Ahadeeth or anywhere else. Indeed, the Ahadeeth tell us that Jesus will come on earth to rule justly by the sharī‘ah of Islām, reviving its aspects which have been neglected by the people. 227
In the above quotation, Hazrat Ibn Taymiyya interprets the words, “There will be no prophet after me,” exactly how the Ahmadī Muslims do. He says that this statement only means that the latter day Messiah will be a subordinate prophet without a new message or a new law that abrogates the law of the Holy Prophet Muhammadsa. Regarding the correct personality – whether he is ‘Īsāas of the ‘Īsrāelites or another person bearing spiritual resemblance with ‘Īsāas – Hazrat Imām Ibn Taymiyya could not have decided that because he did not see the way the prophecy was fulfilled. In fact, this is something that none of the mujaddidīn could have decided because this prophecy did not come to pass in their lifetimes. Due to this reason, they also cannot be held responsible for holding this opinion. Instead, we are the ones who are responsible in the Eyes of Allāh, the Exalted, because in our time, a person has claimed to be that Messiah and he has shown very clear and powerful signs of his truth and that person is Hazrat Mirzā Ghulām Ahmad Qādiānī as!
227 He quotes from Sarh Al-Nawawī ‘alā Sahīh Muslim, Volume 18, Pages 75-76
