Seal of the Prophets? – No Gabriel, No Prophethood!
Seal of the Prophets? – No Gabriel, No Prophethood!
Khâtam al-Nabiyyîn
‘Absolute Sealant’; not a ‘Rubber Stamp’ of Validation, without any ifs ands or buts:
This chapter became a necessity to expunge any argument, distraction or polemic tampering with the absolute finality of prophethood, the divine office that ended with Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). The arguments typically put forth are based upon either misread of Qur’ân, misread of dictionary or plain distortions into Qur’ân and even the Hadiths. This topic is to address those who have ascribed prophethood to Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (HMGA) of Qadian, India and subsequently either believe in it or oppose it.
As far as those who believe in literal return of Jesus are concerned, there are other chapters in the book that refute from Qur’ân the in person return of Jesus and that too as a prophet. Since return of Jesus also has bearing on finality of prophethood, HMGA has written quite extensively on it (more on this later). This chapter is focused on those who either assert or allege prophethood to anyone after the prophethood of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).
Any claim to a Divine office starts with being recipient of Divine communication. Qur’ân tells us that Allah communicates with humans in various modalities:
42:51. It is not given to a human being that Allâh should speak to him except by direct revelation or from behind a veil or by sending a messenger (– an angel) who should reveal (to him) by His command what He pleases. Indeed, He is the Most Sublime, the All-Wise.[1] [Note: veil also implies veil of sleep, i.e., dreams as well as visions and divine inspiration, which can be hidden to everyone else, but the recipient]
In Islam, Divine communication is open to non-prophets as well:
3:42. (Recall the time) when the angels said, `O Mary! surely Allâh has chosen you and has rid you of all impurities and has preferred you to the women of all (contemporary) people.[2]
5:111. `And how I revealed to the disciples to believe in Me and in My Messenger, and they said, "We believe, and (O God!) bear witness that we are the submitting ones".[3]
28:7. And We revealed to the mother of Moses (saying), `Give him (– Moses) suck. But when you have fear about him (– his life) cast him (placing him in a chest) into the river and entertain no fear, nor grief (about his welfare). Verily, We shall restore him to you and shall make him (one) of the Messengers.[4]
Unless the medium of communication is Angel Gabriel (see below) the recipient cannot be a prophet. Mary, Disciples of Jesus and mother of Moses as case in point were communicated by God without being conferred prophethood.
Qur’ân outlines the standards that determine the status of prophethood:
26:193. The Spirit, Faithful to the Trust (– Gabriel) has descended with it.
26:194. (Revealing it) to your heart with the result that you [– Muhammad] became of the Warners (– a Prophet of God);[5]
The above verses set in stone the pre-requisites for a Prophet, firstly the Revelation itself and secondly, Gabriel bearing that Revelation as wahy-i nubuwwat, i.e. prophethood-type revelation. It is only after these requirements are met that the recipient becomes a Prophet i.e. with the result that you became of the Warners. History bears witness that no prophethood-type revelation from The High came via Gabriel after it terminated with Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) for about 1426 years by today’s counting. This fact is not even denied by those who question the finality of prophethood after Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).
Elsewhere, Qur’ân reiterates the same principle outlined in verses 26:192-194:
16:102. Say, `The Spirit of Holiness [– Angel Gabriel] has brought this (Qur'ân) down from your Lord to suit the requirement of truth and wisdom, (Allâh has revealed it) so that He may strengthen those who believe in their faith and so that (this may serve as) a guidance and good tidings for Muslims.[6]
In the discussion so far it becomes clear that prophethood is conferred only after receiving prophethood-type revelation through the agency of Angel Gabriel. In Hadiths we find many instances of Gabriel appearing to the Prophet for example when he was pelted and wounded out of the city of Taif and during his Ascension (Miraj), but none of those dialogues find their way into Qur’ân because they were not prophethood-type revelations. It is only the recipient of the revelation who is made known if that revelation is prophethood-type or not.
Non-prophethood type communication, even via Gabriel, can overlap between non-prophets and prophets:
58:22. You will not find a people who believe in Allah and the Last Day [i.e. Muslims] loving those who oppose Allah and His Messenger, even though they be their fathers, or their sons, or their brothers, or their kinsfolk.[7] These are they into whose hearts He has impressed faith, and strengthened them with a Spirit from Himself [8], and He will make them enter Gardens in which rivers flow, abiding in them. Allah is well-pleased with them and they are well-pleased with Him. These are Allah’s party. Now surely it is Allah’s party who are the successful![9]
Interestingly, HMGA too while refuting any claim of prophethood attributed to him – "Our Holy Prophet's being the Khatam an-nabiyyin rules out the coming of any other prophet,"[10] and in congruence to above verses, states:
"And, for the teaching and information of the messengers, the practice of God has been from the beginning that they are taught through the mediation of Gabriel and by means of the descent of divine verses and the words of the Merciful.''[11]
"It is included in the true significance of the office of a messenger that he should obtain the knowledge of spiritual sciences through Gabriel and it has been proved just now that the apostolic revelation (wahy-i risalah) has been cut off (forever) till the day of Judgment"[12]
"And evidently the coming of Gabriel with apostolic revelation after Khâtam al-Nabiyyîn [–Seal of the Prophets] is impossible."[13]
"According to the explanation of the Holy Qur’ân, rasul [i.e. messenger] is he who receives the commands and tenets of the religion through Gabriel. But a seal has been put upon wahy nubuwwat [i.e. prophethood-type revelation] since thirteen hundred years ago. Will this seal then break?"[14]
"If God is true to His promise, and the promise which has been given in the Khatam an-nabiyyin verse [i.e. verse 33:40], and explained clearly in Hadith, namely, that after the death of the Holy Prophet Muhammad the angel Jibra'il [– Gabriel] has been prevented forever from bringing prophethood-type revelation – if all these things are true and correct then there certainly cannot come any person as a messenger after our Holy Prophet."[15]
"Do you not know that the Merciful God has declared our Holy Prophet to be Khatam an-nabiyyin unconditionally? And in commenting on this verse [i.e. verse 33:40] our Holy Prophet has said: There is no prophet after me (La nabiyya ba'di), which is a clear statement for the seekers of truth…How can a prophet come after our Holy Prophet, when revelation has been stopped after his death and God has ended the prophets with him?"[16]
"But the Most High God would never permit such a disgrace and ignominy to come to the share of this ummah or such an insult and affront to fall to the lot of His chosen Prophet, the Khatam al-Anbiya that by sending a messenger with whom the coming of Gabriel is essential, He should let the House of Islam go to rack and ruin when He has already promised that no messenger would be sent after the Holy Prophet (peace and blessing of Allah be upon him)"[17]
"And how was it possible that any prophet could come after the Khâtam al-Nabiyyîn in the complete and perfect, sense, which is one of the conditions of perfect prophethood (nabuwwat-i tammah)? Is it not necessary that the perfect prophethood of such a prophet should contain the essential requisites of revelation and the descent of Gabriel? Because, according to the express teachings of the Qur’ân, a prophet is one who has received the commands and creeds of faith through Gabriel. But a seal has been set on the prophetic revelation for the last thirteen hundred years. Would this seal be broken then? "[18]
"The Holy Qur’ân does not permit the coming of another messenger, whether new or old, after the Khâtam al-Nabiyyîn, because a messenger receives the knowledge of religion (din) through the mediation of Gabriel and the door of the descent of Gabriel with apostolic revelation has been closed. And this is also an impossibility that a messenger should come to the world without apostolic revelation (wahy risalat)."[19]
HMGA after tying the requisite of revelation through Gabriel for prophethood, distances himself from any revelation by Gabriel to him and expunges any possibility of prophethood for himself altogether when he states:
"As it is not possible that there should be no light with the rising of the sun, similarly, it is quite impossible that a messenger should come for the reformation of mankind and there should be no divine communication and Gabriel with him."[20]
To those who await return of Jesus, a prophet, and that too after the final prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), HMGA refutes that in light of the established principle outlined in Qur’ân of requisites of Gabriel with his prophethood-type revelation for a prophet. He states:
"If, in fact, the Messiah came down to earth and for forty-five years Gabriel continued to descend on him with prophetic revelation, then according to this belief, what would be left of the religion of Islam? And would it not constitute a stigma on the finality of prophethood and the finality of the Qur’ânic revelation?"[21]
The above quotes of HMGA in light of Qur’ân are by themselves sufficient to refute any possibility of claim of the former to prophethood after Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). This flies in the face of further allegations of the same that HMGA changed his claim after the year 1901 and declared himself as a prophet. He neither never ever claimed prophethood for himself nor ever claimed any prophethood-like revelations of his own. Thus the bottom line to relationship of prophethood and prophethood-like revelations in Islam is quite simple – No Gabriel, No Prophethood!
There are scores of refutations and disclaims by HMGA of the alleged prophethood ascribed to him, for which the reader is referred to a book – ‘Prophethood in Islam’[22], a pamphlet – ‘Finality of Prophethood’ [23] and Lahore Ahmadiyya websites[24]. These publications and personal communication to this writer by Dr. Zahid Aziz, are sources of quotes of HMGA and various references to Hadiths in the body and footnotes of this chapter.
———-x———-x———x———-x———
‘Khâtam al-Nabiyyîn’
Case Study in Polemics: ‘Seal of Prophets’ is not ‘Seat for Prophets’ to be seated in by any future claimant
There is a section of followers of HMGA belonging to organization – Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, commonly called Qadianis for their earlier organizational headquarters in Qadian, India, who allege that HMGA made claims of being a prophet in literal sense just as the prophets of the yore.
Rest of the discussion from here onwards will essentially center on a working example from literature of the same people. The sample of polemics that assert that prophethood did not end with Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) can be found in the five volume multi-author “The Holy Qur’ân with English Translation and Commentary[25]” published by the same organization. The authors make their case on the following verse as translated by them:
“Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but he is the Messenger of Allah, and the Seal of the Prophets [Khâtam al-Nabiyyîn]; and Allah has full knowledge of all things. (33:41[26])
Before we accept anyone else’s translation or commentary it becomes foremost to seek opinion of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) himself as to how he explained the term Khâtam al-Nabiyyîn that is mentioned in above verse:
"It is reported from Abu Hurairah (Allah be pleased with him) that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: My likeness and the likeness of the prophets before me is the likeness of a person who built a house and he made it beautiful and made it complete except the place of a brick of the corner. So people began to go round about it and to wonder at him and say: Why have you not placed this brick? He (i.e., the Holy Prophet) said: So I am that brick and I am Khâtam al-Nabiyyîn (the Seal of the prophets)." [Al-Sahih al-Bukhari, Kital al-Mandqib, ch. Khâtam al-Nabiyyîn; Al-Muslim; Tirmidhi, Abwab al-Manaqib etc.]
In this Hadith, the Prophet declared himself as the only remaining brick in the prophetic structure that came to this world. Quite logically, after the last brick is put in place, there is no more space or need left for any future brick. The Prophet gives a clear expression that there will be no prophets after him.
If per chance, in violation of Khâtam al-Nabiyyîn, HMGA or for that matter anyone claimed prophethood for himself, then such claimant will be a falsifier for the mere fact that last brick has already been laid down in person of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). The following Hadith states the obvious that any future claim to prophethood will be a lie:
"The Day of Judgement will not he set up unless some tribes of my ummah join the polytheists and they start worshipping the idols. And surely there shall be among my followers thirty liars, every one of them asserting that he is a prophet, but I am Khâtam al-Nabiyyîn (the Seal of the prophets), there is no prophet after met." [Al-Sahih al-Bukhari, Kitab al-Tawhid; Al-Muslim; Tirmidhi, Abwab al-Fitan]
It seems obvious that the said authors are even oblivious of HMGA’s own assertions for the same term Khâtam al-Nabiyyîn and the same verse, some of which are reproduced as follows:
"Because this is against the sayings of God Almighty, 'Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but he is the Messenger of Allah and Khatam al-Nabiyyin (Seal of the Prophets).' Don't you know that God, the Bountiful, the Beneficent has declared our Holy Prophet to be Khatam al-Nabiyyin without strings and our Holy Prophet has interpreted this verse with la nabbiya ba‘di (there is no prophet after me).”[27]
"For the seekers of truth it is evident that if, after our Holy Prophet, we accept the lawfulness (jawaz) of the coming of another prophet it means that we have opened the door of prophetic revelation (wahy nubuwwah) which was closed and this is against the established principles as is not unknown to the Muslims. And can there be a prophet after our Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) when revelation has been cut off with his death and God has brought an end to prophets with him"[28]
"Can an ill-fated fabricator who claims to be a messenger and a prophet have any faith in the Qur’ân? And can such a person, who believes in the Qur’ân and considers the verse “but he is messenger of Allah and Khatam al-Nabiyyin” as revelation of God, say that he is a messenger and a prophet after the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)?"[29]
With the authorities of the Qur’ân (in previous section) and Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and the explanations of HMGA about the term Khâtam al-Nabiyyîn out of the way, all of which mean absolute finality of prophethood and closure of office of prophethood forever, we address the said authors.
While referring to Khâtam al-Nabiyyîn verse (33:41 by their enumeration) from their own translation, the said authors take a detoured justification with a synthesized logic via Surah Kausar[30] under its footnote 3106:
(Note: Arabic script from original has been replaced with English spelled words in italics. Reader is encouraged to refer to the original text for any unintentional error on part of this writer)
Important Words:Khâtam al-Nabiyyîn (Seal of the Prophets). Khatam is derived from Khatam.They say Khatam al-shayee au khatam alay, i.e. he sealed, stamped, impressed or imprinted the thing or he put the seal on it. This is the primary signification of this word. Or the primary signification of khatmun is the act of covering over the thing. It also signifies the protecting of what is in a writing by marking or stamping a piece of clay upon it, or by means of a seal of any kind. Khatam al-shayee also means, he reached the end of the thing. Khatam al-Qur’ân means, he recited the whole of the Qur’ân. This is the secondary meaning of the word. Thus khatam means, a signet-ring; a seal or stamp and a mark; the end or last part or portion and result or issue of a thing; the hollow of the back of the neck. The words khatmun and khatam (khatim and khatam) are almost synonymous and mean a signet. khatam also signifies, embellishment or ornament, the best and most perfect (Lane, Aqrab, Mufradat. Fatb & Zurqani). So the expression Khâtam al-Nabiyyîn would mean, the Seal of the Prophets; the best and most perfect of the Prophets; the embellishment and ornament of the Prophets. Secondarily, the expression may also mean, the last of the Prophets.
Commentary: Much confusion and misunderstanding seems to prevail as to what is the real spiritual status and position of the Holy Prophet as indicated by the expression Khâtam al-Nabiyyîn i.e. the Seal of the Prophets. A careful study of the context however, removes the prevalent misconception. At Mecca when all the Holy Prophet's male children died in their childhood, his enemies taunted him with being abtar (one who has no male issue), meaning that in the absence of male heirs to succeed him his Movement would sooner or later come to an end (Muhit). In answer to this taunt of disbelievers it was emphatically declared in Sura Kausar (Al-Kauthar) that not the Holy Prophet but his enemies would remain issueless. After the revelation of Sura Kausar the idea naturally found favour with the early Muslims that the Holy Prophet would be blessed with sons who would live to an adult age. The verse under comment removed that misconception inasmuch as it declared that the Prophet is not, never was, nor will ever be the father of any grownup young men. Rajal meaning grown-up young men. The verse under comment while appearing to be in conflict with Sura Kausar in which not the Holy Prophet but his enemies have been threatened with being issueless, in reality seeks to set at rest doubts and misgivings to which this seeming contradiction gives rise. It says that the Holy Prophet is rasul ullah i.e. the spiritual father of a whole Ummat and he is also Khâtam al-Nabiyyîn signifying that he is the spiritual father of all the past and future Prophets. So when he is the spiritual father of all the believers and all Prophets, how can he be said to be abtar i.e. issueless. But if the expression Khâtam al-Nabiyyîn be taken to mean that the Holy Prophet is the last of the Prophets and that no Prophet will come after him, then the verse appears to be out of tune with the context and instead of refuting the objection of disbelievers that the Holy Prophet was issueless, supports and reinforces it.
Briefly, according to the meaning of the word khatam, the expression Khâtam al-Nabiyyîn can have four possible meanings:
(1) That the Holy Prophet was the Seal of the Prophets, i.e., no Prophet, past or future, can be regarded as true unless his prophethood bears the seal of the Holy Prophet. The prophethood of every past Prophet must be confirmed and testified to by the Holy Prophet and nobody can attain to prophethood after him except by being his ummati (follower). All claims to prophethood must be judged and tested by reference to the revelation received by the Holy Prophet and to his teachings.
(2) That the Holy Prophet was the best, the noblest and the most perfect of all the Prophets and that he was also a source of embellishment for them (Zurqani, Sharah, Mawahib al-Ladunniyya).
(3) That the Holy Prophet was the last of the Law-bearing Prophets. This interpretation has been accepted by many eminent Muslim theologians, saints and savants such as Ibn 'Arabi, Shah Wali-Ullah, Imam 'Ali Qari, Mujaddid Alf Thani, etc. According to these great scholars and saints no Prophet can come after the Holy Prophet who should abrogate his Millat or should not be in his Ummat (Futuhat, Tafhimat, Mukatabat & Yawaqit wa'l Jawahir). 'A'ishah, the talented spouse of the Holy Prophet, has removed all ambiguity about the meaning of the expression Khâtam al-Nabiyyîn . She is reported to have said: i.e. Say that he (the Holy Prophet) is Khâtam al-Nabiyyîn but do not say that there will be no Prophet after him (Manthur). This saying of 'A'ishah makes it quite clear that the expression Khâtam al-Nabiyyîn and la nabiyya ba‘di were considered by her to be contradictory to each other in meaning and significance.
(4) That the Holy Prophet was the last of the Prophets, but only in this sense that all the qualities and attributes of prophethood found their most perfect and complete consummation and expression in him; khatam in the sense of being the last word in excellence and perfection is of common use. Moreover, the Qur’ân clearly speaks of the advent of Prophets after the Holy Prophet. The following two verses leave no ambiguity on this point:-
And whoso obeys Allah and this Messenger of His shall be among those on whom Allah has bestowed His blessings, namely, the Prophets, the Truthful, the Martyrs and the Righteous. And excellent companions are these (4:70).
O children of Adam! if Messengers come to you from among yourselves, rehearsing My Signs come unto you, then whoso shall fear God and do good deeds, on them shall come no fear nor shall they grieve (7:36).
The Holy Prophet himself was clear in his mind as to the continuity of prophethood after him. He is reported to have said: "If Abraham (his son) had lived long, he would have been a Prophet" (Maja, kitab al-Janai'z), and, "Abu Bakr is best of men after me, except that a Prophet should appear" (Kanz al-'Ummal).
The above is the crux of arguments of the proponents of non-finality of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) that they have inserted in their commentary of the Holy Qur’ân. Their case if summarized contains the following premises in their claim:
- Meaning of Khâtam al-Nabiyyîn.
- Connection between Surah Kausar and verse of Khâtam al-Nabiyyîn.
- Holy Prophet was the Seal of the Prophets, i.e., no Prophet, past or future, can be regarded as true unless his prophethood bears the seal of the Holy Prophet.
- Holy Prophet was the last of the Law-bearing Prophets, whereas those after him will not be so.
- Verse of Prophets, the Truthful, the Martyrs and the Righteous.
- Verse of O children of Adam! if Messengers come to you.
- Hadiths about ‘possibility’ of prophethood of prophet’s son Abraham, and Companion Abu Bakr.
- 'A'ishah and the expression Khâtam al-Nabiyyîn.
We will address each of these premises below.
Meaning of the term Khâtam al-Nabiyyîn
Before we take on the challenges to finality of prophethood of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), it is important to be clear about the meaning of the core issue of ‘Khâtam al-Nabiyyîn’ in the Holy Qur’ân:
Khatama – To seal; put a signet upon; stamp; imprint; end; complete a thing. Khâtama ‘alâ qalbihî: To seal the heart; harden it; finish. Khâtim: Seal; Signet-ring; Stamp; Last. Khâtam: Seal; The best; The most perfect; Last; The embellishment and ornament. The Holy Qur’ân has adopted the word Khâtam and not Khâtim because a deeper significance carried in the phrase Khâtam (seal) than mere Khâtim (last). The difference between Khâtim and Khâtam is that the meaning of Khâtim is last part or portion, but the word Khatam means that last part or portion of a thing that is the best, thus this indicates finality combined with perfection and continuation of its blessings. Thus Khâtam al-Nabiyyîn means the closer of the long line of Prophets. He is not only a prophet but the final, the best and the most perfect Prophet, with continuation of his blessings. Khitâm: Sealing; Musk; Wax; Clay or any other substances used in sealing. Makhtûm: Sealed one; Stamped one.[31] [Emphasis added]
Khatama (prf. 3rd p.m. sing.): He sealed. Yakhtimu (imp. 3rd p. m. sing.): He seals. Nakhtimu (imp. 1st p. plu.): We sealed. Khâtam (n.): Seal; Last and best. Khitâm (n.): Sealing. Makhtûm (pact. pic. m. sing.): Sealed one. (L; T; R; Zurqânî; Asâs; LL)[32]
On a closer look the phrase Khâtam al-Nabiyyîn has a two layered ‘finality’. Firstly, the literal finality of the word Khâtam, and secondly the perfection implied in it has in itself the finality built into it, else the imperfection would make a case for perfection yet to be achieved by a subsequent prophet after Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).
Compare the case made by the said authors in their commentary with that of Maulana Muhammad Ali for the same verse of Khâtam al-Nabiyyîn (33:41 by their enumeration):
The word khatam means a seal or the last part or portion of a thing, the latter being the primary significance of the word khatim. The words khatam al-qaum always means the last of the people — akhiru-hum. Though the Holy Prophet was admittedly the last of the prophets, and even history shows that no prophet appeared after him in the world, yet the Qur’ân has adopted the word khatam and not khatim, because a deeper significance is carried in the phrase Seal of the prophets than mere finality. It indicates finality combined with perfection of prophethood, along with a continuance among his followers of certain blessings of prophethood. He is the Seal of the prophets because with him the object of prophethood, the manifestation of Divine will in Laws which should guide humanity, was finally accomplished in the revelation of a perfect law in the Holy Qur’ân, and he is also the Seal of the prophets because certain favours bestowed on prophets were forever to continue among his followers. The office of the prophet was only necessary to guide people, either by giving them a law or by removing the imperfections of a previously existing law, or by giving certain new directions to meet the requirements of the time or place. Hence prophets were constantly raised. But through the Holy Prophet a perfect law was given, suiting the requirements of all ages and all countries, and this law was guarded against all corruption, and the office of the prophet was therefore no more required. But this did not mean that the Divine favours bestowed on His chosen servants were to be denied to the chosen ones among the Muslims. The highest of these favours is Divine inspiration, and it is recognized by Islam that the Divine Being speaks to His chosen ones now as He spoke in the past, but such people are not prophets in the real sense of the word. According to a most reliable hadith, the Prophet said “there will be in my community”, i.e., among the Muslims, “men who will be spoken to (by God), though they will not be prophets” (Bukhari, 62:6). According to another version of the same hadith, such people are given the name muhaddath.
There is also a saying of the Holy Prophet: Nothing has remained of prophethood except mubashsharat, i.e., good news. And being asked what was meant by mubashsharat, or good news, he said: “True visions” (Bukhari, 91:5). According to another hadith: “The vision of the believer is one of the forty-six parts of prophethood” (Bukhari, 91:4). Prophethood itself has gone, but one of its blessings remains, and will exist forever among the followers of the Holy Prophet.[33]
Connection between Surah Kausar and verse of Khâtam al-Nabiyyîn
The authors try to create a logical connection between Surah Kausar and verse of Khâtam al-Nabiyyîn as if the latter was revealed in the requirement of the former. They base their argument upon an imagined history in an effort to create basis of the latter verse for a derived meaning and interpretation suiting their doctrine. The authors obviously have their timeline wrong.
It is generally accepted that the event of Miraj (Ascension) happened in 12th year of Makkan period, i.e. a year before Migration to Medina. Various Hadiths about Miraj mention the stream of Kausar (also written as Kauthar), which makes revelation of Surah Kausar before Miraj. It is also accepted that Surah Kausar was revealed in Makkah, if nothing else but for its subject matter. At the time Prophet Muhammad was mocked for weak numbers of his followers and doubts were created by his enemies about survival of his mission and his legacy because he had no male heir. Surah Kausar addresses such enemies of then specifically and those in future generally.
What these commentators do not know is that the said verse of Khâtam al-Nabiyyîn (33:41 by their enumeration) under discussion was revealed in late Medina period when the Prophet had already married Mary (the Copt) of Egypt and their son Ibrahim had died at an age of one and one-half year, whose death coincided with a solar eclipse that is mentioned in Hadiths[34] when Prophet along with his Companions offered supererogatory prayers[35]. As per NASA, that solar eclipse occurred on Jan 27, 632 CE[36] which falls on last day of month of Shawwal in year 10 Hijrah. It was the time when Zainab, Prophet’s cousin, was already divorced by her husband, Zaid bin Harith, Prophet’s adopted son, and Prophet had subsequently married her[37] (more on this later).
Additionally, if we take the statement of the authors as its face value – “The verse under comment removed that misconception inasmuch as it declared that the Prophet is not, never was, nor will ever be the father of any grownup young men,” and tie it with various Hadiths that show that the Prophet grieved and even wept on death of his son[38], Ibrahim, then the time of revelation of verse under discussion is naturally after death of Ibrahim for the mere fact that had this verse been there before Ibrahim’s death, the Prophet would had known of this as Allah’s Will which expectedly would had removed any cause for his sorrow. Secondly, the said verse specifically precludes any son of the Prophet to grow up into adulthood. This in itself removes the possibility of its revelation before death of Ibrahim because no one expected his death ahead of time as there is no collateral information in Hadiths or history where anyone expected him to die in his childhood.
Thus Surah Kausar and the verse of Khâtam al-Nabiyyîn (33:41 by their enumeration) are separated by at least eleven years if not more in their time of revelation. This time gap removes any linkage between the two. It would be preposterous to imagine that there were any lingering anxieties in the minds of Muslims at the time of revelation of verse of Khâtam al-Nabiyyîn, or they needed consolation about survival of Islam through progeny of the Prophet as by then Makkah had already been conquered two years earlier and whole of Arabia had converted to Islam. The premise for erecting preambles for invented roots of Khâtam al-Nabiyyîn in Surah Kausar by Qadianis in their above commentary does not carry water in light of facts of history alone.
The full context of Khâtam al-Nabiyyîn verse is brought to light by Maulana Muhammad Ali in his book “Prophethood in Islam”:
The Holy Prophet's son, Ibrahim, had died. Zaid, son of Harithah, was known among people as the Holy Prophet's adopted son, who divorced his wife Zainab. The Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) married her under divine command.[39] Whatever relationship of fatherhood he had with Zaid vanished from the minds of the people after her remarriage. This was the right time that such a verse should be revealed to the Holy Prophet that God had not sent him so that his physical lineage should continue through his male descendants, but that He had made him the last prophet so that the order of his spiritual descendants should never be cut off in the world. Since he had been given a great order of spiritual offsprings, therefore, to show that physical descendants and physical relations are of no value in the sight of God, it had been mentioned, "Muhammad is not the father of any of your men (33:40)."[40] God has given him countless spiritual descendants and had extended this order till the Day of Resurrection; therefore, if having a son was of any value in His sight, He could not have deprived him of this favour.[41]
The context that is identified by Maulana Muhammad Ali above is validated by Qur’ân itself in which location of verse of Khâtam al-Nabiyyîn is logically subsequent to the same events:
33:37-40. And when you said to him (Zaid) to whom Allah had shown favour and to whom you had shown a favour: Keep your wife [–Zainab] to yourself and keep your duty to Allah; and you concealed in your heart what Allah would bring to light, and you feared people, while Allah has a greater right that you should fear Him. So when Zaid dissolved her marriage-tie, We gave her to you as a wife, so that there should be no difficulty for the believers about the wives of their adopted sons, when they have dissolved their (wives’) marriage-tie. And Allah’s command is ever performed. There is no harm for the Prophet in what Allah has ordained for him. Such has been the way of Allah with those who have gone before. And the command of Allah is a decree that is made absolute — those who deliver the messages of Allah and fear Him, and fear none but Allah. And Allah is sufficient to take account. Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but he is the Messenger of Allah and the Seal of the prophets [Khâtam al-Nabiyyîn] And Allah is ever Knower of all things.[42][Emphasis added]
Additionally, continuation of the subject matter of Prophet’s marriages in above verses reaches verse 33:52 which prohibits the Prophet from taking more wives:
33:52. It is not allowed to you to take wives after this, nor to change them for other wives, though their beauty be pleasing to you, except those whom your right hand (already) possesses. And Allah is ever Watchful over all things. [43]
Thus, we see the timeline of the verse of Khâtam al-Nabiyyîn bracketed between divorce of Zaid and prohibition of further marriages for the Prophet.
It is also obvious that verse of Khâtam al-Nabiyyîn in Qur’ân is sandwiched in the verses 33:37-52. All the juxtaposed verses are related to Prophet’s marriages and the relevance of the said verse is in context of continuation of spiritual progeny rather than bloodline of the Prophet till the end of times. This subject matter has no relation to Surah Kausar in the manner that the authors tried to create.
To re-use the words of the authors, it rather seems that it is their commentary that ‘appears to be out of tune with the context’. It creates contradiction where there is none. If biological facts are to be taken into account then the authors have only proven Surah Kausar wrong by their alleging an implied anxiety of the Companions of the Prophet because fact is that the Prophet never had a male survivor. Survival of movement through sons is essentially a doctrine of Qadianis where it is a family lineage that is running its seat of succession over four generations[44]. In context of Surah Kausar, it is the opponents of the Prophet who were actually anxious from emerging success of the Prophet and were expressing taunts to an apparent heirless prophet, which to them was a sign of failure. Whereas, the Companions knew very well that the successors of the Prophet were they themselves, his spiritual followers. The Companions were given the prophecy of their success concurrent to Byzantines as early as sixth year of the call to which Abu Bakr (RA) reportedly affixed prize money to be paid if Qur’ân turns out to be wrong, in light of following verses:
30:3. In the land nearby (- Syria and Palestine); and they after their defeat shall overpower (their enemies, the Persians)
30:4. Within three to nine years. The power belongs to Allâh after (their defeat) as (it belonged to Him) before it. And on that day the believers (too) will rejoice
30:5. Over the victory (given to them) by Allâh. He gives victory to whom He will, and He is the All-Mighty, the Ever Merciful.
30:6. (This is) Allâh's promise. It is far from Allâh to break His promise. Yet most of the people do not know (this).[45]
The prophecy of Qur’ân full filled in the same year when Heraclius defeated Persians and Makkans were defeated in Badr by handful of Muslims. These are only a few verses which in themselves refute any possibility of anxiety of Companions; rather they must have eagerly awaited their victory. We have even not taken into account the presence of the Prophet amongst his Companions and the individual faith of each Companion which would not let any anxiety creep in their minds or fringe on their resolve.
The said authors for logic best known to them link the apparently heirless prophet (in Surah Kausar) to Khâtam al-Nabiyyîn verse under discussion (33:41 by their enumeration) with an apologetic consolation that since “the Holy Prophet is rasul ullah i.e. the spiritual father of a whole Ummah and he is also Khâtam al-Nabiyyîn” and then suddenly they throw in the interpretation that “Khâtam al-Nabiyyîn signifying that he is the spiritual father of all the past and future Prophets.” This deduction of theirs is totally out of thin air. One is left aghast as to where the “future Prophets” popped out from. This is an obvious fabrication by the said authors. To their invented meaning of Khâtam al-Nabiyyîn they quote no direct source or authority, neither from Qur’ân, nor Hadith. How could they? Whatever authorities they have scrambled for will be fully addressed.
To the reader the narrative of the authors gives the logical conclusion that the authors have clearly accepted a preconceived notion of prophets after Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), and then they make the assumption that the said verse (33:41 by their enumeration) implies the same, a classic case of placing cart before the horse in which they are obviously laboring hard in creating, to quote them: “much confusion and misunderstanding…as to what the real spiritual status and position of the Holy Prophet as indicated by the expression Khâtam al-Nabiyyîn i.e. the Seal of the Prophets” is.
In full context of Qur’ân, Hadiths and the history that followed, and what HMGA explained, and if Surah Kausar is to be bridged at all to the verse of Khâtam al-Nabiyyîn, as asserted by the authors, then it makes more logic in the following parenthetical view:
“[Contrary to those who believe in lineage as a means of survival of a legacy] Muhammad is not [supposed to be] the father of any of your men [as his mission is global and lasting which in due course is supposed to bring out the best of mankind and their leadership from all corners of the world, while it cannot be limited by an apparent male progeny], but he is the Messenger of Allah, and the Seal of the Prophets [Khâtam al-Nabiyyîn, because of his everlasting blessed and perfect example]; and Allah has full knowledge of all things [– of past, present and future and how the blessings and teaching of the Last Prophet will succeed and last forever – e.g. see verses 5:3, 2:2, 2.143, 34.28 below].
Holy Prophet was the Seal of the Prophets, i.e., no Prophet, past or future, can be regarded as true unless his prophethood bears the seal of the Holy Prophet
The proponents of prophethood after Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) base the crux of their entire case while citing the said verse of Khâtam al-Nabiyyîn under discussion (33:41 by their enumeration) in which they imply the meaning of ‘Seal’ in the likes of an ‘official seal’ or ‘stamp of approval’ while skirting away from its actual meaning and usage for termination of chain of Prophets. Their implication is that now Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is the validator of subsequent prophets, whereas before that authority was only with Allah. This is ridiculous. Since when has a prophet made another prophet(s) or approved subsequent one(s)? Vesting of prophethood remains the prerogative of Allah alone:
22:75. Allâh chooses His messengers from among angels and from among men. Verily, Allâh is All-Hearing, All-Seeing.[46]
HMGA also totally negates the presumption that fellowship of a prophet can confer prophethood on that follower or that a prophet can certify prophethood of another prophet:
Although many prophets appeared among the Israelites, their prophethood was not the result of following Moses. In fact, it was directly the gift (mauhibah) of God. The discipleship of Moses did not have the slightest part in it.[47]
The claims of the said proponents about perfection of prophethood of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) ring hollow when they also admit the imperfection of prophet(s) after him, which in turn retorts only to prove imperfection of the teachings of the teacher. Little are they cognizant of that in their propping up newer prophet(s) they factually debase the Insan-e-Kamil himself.
Essentially, by slicing and dicing the above quoted verse (33:41 by their enumeration), the said authors have tried to remove the meaning of ‘Khatam’ from what it stands for and which should be – ‘finality combined with perfection and continuation of its blessings’[48] with a core meaning of closure and finality, and at the same time they tried to replace it with a meaning of – ‘validation’ alone in the manner of a notary putting a seal of certification on a document. In sum total, the authors steer away from the finality of the prophethood in the said verse. If for the sake of argument the said authors are correct in deriving the meaning of ‘Khatam’ which does not include the finality and closure, then how will they reconcile the same word ‘Khatam’ used elsewhere in Qur’ân where it means nothing but finality and closure. For example, the following are the translations and commentaries on verses of Qur’ân from their own pen:
2:8 Allah has set seal [–khatama] on their hearts and their ears, and over their eyes is a covering; and for them is a great punishment.[49]
Footnote by translators: 'Khatam' (set a seal) means, he set a seal on; or he stamped a thing so that there should remain no likelihood of its being regarded as forged…(lit. God has set a seal on his heart) means, God made his heart such that it could neither understand anything nor could anything come out of it, i.e. it could not make itself understood by others.
Thus if we read the word 'Khatam' in above verse – The verse means that their hearts are sealed so that faith does not enter into their hearts and their ears are sealed so they cannot listen to anything that could lead them to faith; thus, the overall sense of word 'Khatam' in this verse is closure. Just as a seal on heart and ears means their closure, similarly a seal on prophethood means its closure.[50]
In another verse from the same translation:
36:66. This day We shall put a seal [–na-khtimu] on their mouths, and their hands will speak to Us, and their feet will bear witness to what they had earned.[51]
Footnote by the translators: The verse means to say that when the guilt of disbelievers will be established and proved to the hilt they will become dumb-founded, their mouths will not be able to say anything in their defence and extenuation of their guilt, and their hands and feet will also bear witness against them – these being the principal instruments of man’s actions, good or bad…
The above verse narrates the account of the day of resurrection. It says that on that day people will not be able to speak because of the seal on their mouths and each part of body will tell whatever it did during mortal life. Here too, the sealing of the mouth means its closure. Similarly sealing of the prophethood means nothing else but its closure.[52]
In another place, and in the same translation:
83:26. They will be given to drink of a pure beverage, sealed [–ma-khtūmin][53].
The verse says that pious people will be given sealed drink in the next life. We use sealed products (like sealed juices and foods) in our daily life. The significance of a proper seal on a product means that the product is in the same form and condition as when it was sealed by the producer, and a broken seal means the opposite. This is why many products contain the warning "return if the seal is broken". It is common knowledge that nothing could be pulled out or added to the sealed product unless the seal is broken. Similarly, the appearance of a prophet (both new and old) is not possible without breaking the seal which Almighty Allah has put on prophethood by calling the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) as 'the Seal of Prophets' (Khâtam al-Nabiyyîn).[54]
Similarly, the word 'khatam' has been used in Qur’ân in these verses: 6:46[55], 45:23[56], and 42:24[57]. In all these places, it has been used in the sense of closure. In a nutshell, the expression ' Khâtam al-Nabiyyîn ' can be rendered as 'last of prophets' and 'seal of prophets' but the sense remains the same in both cases, i.e., prophethood has been brought to an end with Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him).[58]
It is interesting to read HMGA’s own opinion about ‘Khatam’. He has described Jesus as Khatam-ul-anbiya of the Israelites three times in Barahin Ahmadiyya Part 5. In one of these places he writes:
"… Isa (Jesus) is the name of the Khatam-ul-anbiya of the Israelites who came at the end, and Ahmad and Muhammad are the names of the Khatam-ul-anbiya of Islam…"[59]
Can the said authors name a single Israelite prophet after Jesus, or even expect an Israelite successor to him? Answer is plain no. HMGA in the same sentence reaffirms conclusively the similar end of prophethood after Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).
We end this section with a re-quote from HMGA in support of seal meaning closure and not a stamp of validation:
"According to the explanation of the Holy Qur’ân, rasul [i.e. messenger] is he who receives the commands and tenets of the religion through Gabriel. But a seal has been put upon wahy nubuwwat [i.e. prophethood-type revelation] since thirteen hundred years ago. Will this seal then break?"[60]
Holy Prophet was the last of the Law-bearing Prophets whereas those after him will not be so
To add to confusion, the authors also state in their commentary “nobody can attain to prophethood after him [–Prophet Muhammad] except by being his ummati (follower)”. This kind of thinking even creates doubts about previous prophets who were not ummati of a prophet before them. Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is a case in point, who at least till the age of forty had no teaching from a previous prophet for him to follow.
Whereas, according to Qur’ân, each prophet is a leader, not a follower of another prophet:
4:64. And We have sent no Messenger but that he should be obeyed by the leave of Allâh [in the commandments given to the Messenger via the medium of Gabriel v. 26.192-4]…[61]
If every prophet should be obeyed by the leave of Allâh then it leaves no room for a non-law bearing prophet, because each prophet has to have something uniquely his that overrides either the distortion of pervious law or a new law suiting the requirements of his time. This verse clearly tells us that each prophet is law bearing and not a follower of a previous prophet because teacher of each prophet is Allah Himself, whereas, the previous prophet was a mere mortal. It raises simple questions for Qadianis. Let’s assume that HMGA was a prophet then according to Qadianis there is a possibility of a future prophet after him. Are Qadianis willing to accept for that future prophet to bypass HMGA as if what HMGA wrote and spoke had no value? Will they shift their allegiances to that prophet?
For the sake of discussion based upon Qadiani doctrine, let’s assume that ‘A’ was the last law bearing prophet and after him came a series of non-law bearing prophets ‘B,C,D,…..X,Y,Z.’ Since every successive one has to follow the previous one, then it implies that prophet Z will have to follow Y before him. Y in turn follows X and so on till the chain get to C, B before it reaches the last law bearing prophet A. By implication Z will essentially follow each prophet in the chain before him. It makes no sense as there is risk of failure on each step of the way and each successive prophet is ever far removed from the law bearing one. One lifetime is too little to understand, retain and follow the Sunnah of all the previous chain of prophets. Instead of unifying, such a non-sense of non-law bearing prophets is a sure recipe for fragmentation of what is left of the ummah (followers) within a few generations. The end result will be neither a surviving ummah nor any remaining ummati for Qadiani doctrine to have a future prophet.
The said authors complicate the matters further when they expect for the non-law bearing prophets after last law bearing Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) to follow the latter. Even if early on, prophet B (non-law bearing) in above example has his task easier by merely following the revelation of A (the last law-bearing prophet), then B will be in clear violation of injunctions of Qur’ân which mandate a prophet to follow his own revelation only:
6:50. …I indeed follow only what is revealed to me…[62]
7:203. …Say, `I only follow what is revealed to me by my Lord…[63]
10:109. And follow that which is revealed to you…[64]
If per chance B does not follow his own revelations but that of a previous prophet then do so can have severe consequences for him:
29:13. Say, `If I disobey my Lord I have to fear the torment of a dreadful day.'[65]
In the mist of their polemics of law bearer and no-bearer prophets, the authors forgot that every ‘messenger’ and ‘prophet’ was sent a Book of his own:
2:213. Mankind are a single community (but they differed), so Allâh raised (His) Prophets [Arabic: l-nabiyīna] as Bearers of good tidings and as Warners, and with them He revealed the Scriptures containing the truth, that He might judge between various people concerning all their mutual differences.[66][Emphasis added]
57:25. Certainly, We sent Our Messengers [Arabic: rusulanā] with clear proofs and We (also) sent down with them the Code (of Sharî`at – law and justice) and the Balance (- the practice of the Prophet and right use of the Book of God) so that people might conduct themselves with equity and justice…[67] [Emphasis added]
As a corollary, Qur’ân specifically identifies Zabur (Psalms) for David and Evangel (Gospel) for Jesus besides Torah for Moses.
It is generally alleged that while Moses was law bearing, Jesus was not. The alleged classification by the authors of law bearing and non-law bearing prophets is debunked by a simple example from Gospels, in which the apparent non-law bearing prophet Jesus overturns the Law of Moses:
Matthew: 5:38-40. “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also.[68]
This ‘updating’ of shariah of Moses by Jesus as mentioned in Gospels is also alluded to in Qur’ân as well:
3:49. `And (He will appoint him) a Messenger to the Children of Israel (with the Message), "I … inform you as to what you should eat and what you should store in your houses. Behold! these facts will surely serve you as a definite sign if you are believers.
3:50. "And (I come) confirming that which is before me, namely the Torah, and that I declare lawful for you some of the things that had been forbidden to you. I come to you with a sign from your Lord, so take Allâh as a shield and obey me.[69]
Qadianis in their literature hide their muddle by creating smoke screen of alleged non-law bearing Israelite prophets after Moses. Maulana Muhammad Ali clears that also:
At another place it has been mentioned: "And follow what is revealed to thee.'[70] And at the place, where the Holy Prophet is commanded to submit and serve alone what is revealed to him, it has also been stated: "Say: if I disobey my Lord (in my revelation). I fear the chastisement of a grievous day."[71] That is, if a prophet does not follow his revelation, he is, in fact, disobedient to the divine command. Therefore, he does not pay attention to anything else except his revelation, which is such that it alone should be followed, leaving aside all other thoughts and ideas. His faith in previous books and revelations is in a rather abstract and general way. Although he believes that they, too, were from God, yet if on some point his revelation differs from that of some previous prophet, he would only follow his own revelation. This would also hold true when one messenger is the successor of another messenger. For example, after Moses, there was a chain of prophets who followed the Shariah of Moses but when any one of them appeared it was incumbent on him to follow his own revelation in his own age. He acted according to the Torah only inasmuch as his revelation commanded him to do so. Those messengers who came among the Israelites judged according to the Torah, not because that it was Moses' book and they were Moses' followers – in their becoming messengers the following of Moses had not a grain of influence – but because they were themselves directly commanded by their revelations to judge according to the Torah. And, if in some matters, although God had commanded in the Torah differently as compared to their revelation, it was, however; incumbent upon them to follow their own revelations and leave aside the earlier command of the Torah. Or, if a prophet had received a revelation which was against the revelation of some previous prophet or that of the Torah, he was not supposed to follow either of these, but only the revelation which descended on him, no matter whether that revelation was contrary to any of the previous revelations. It was so because in the previous laws (shariah) some of the commands were limited to time and place. Moreover, alterations had also taken place among them, that is to say, they did not remain fully protected. Nevertheless, whenever a prophet appeared in some part of the world or to a particular nation, he followed whatever was commanded to in his revelation. But as revelation has reached its perfection with the Qur’ân, religion has also been made perfect, so has been the guidance (hidayah) for all ages and times and no deficiency at all has been left in the Shariah; therefore, no messenger or prophet can appear after the revelation of the Qur’ân. This means that no such person can come who abandons the Qur’ân and follows his own revelation or accepts the Qur’ân only because his own revelation has commanded him to do so.[72]
The core principles in Qur’ân of independence of revelation, leadership and mission for each prophet are retained even in case of Aaron who was a co-prophet with Moses:
20:90. Aaron had, indeed, said to them before (the return of Moses from the Mount), `My people! you have only been tried by this (calf). Surely, the Most Gracious (God) is your Lord, so follow me and carry out my biddings.'[73]
37:114-120. We did bestow (Our) favours on Moses and Aaron. We delivered them both and their people from the great distress. And We came to their help (against the people of Pharaoh). So it was they who gained clear supremacy. And We gave them both the Manifesting Book. And We guided them both to the right and straight path. And We left behind both of them (a blessed salutation) among the generations to come. `Peace be upon Moses and Aaron!' [74][Emphasis added]
While shedding light on Qur’ân HMGA explains the independent leadership and revelation of each prophet as follows:
"No messenger comes to the world as a follower (ummati) and a subordinate (mahkum). On the other hand, he is a master (muta) and only follows such of his revelation which descend on him through the mediation of Gabriel."[75]
Building upon his argument and the inevitability of a prophet to override some aspects of the previous prophet or scripture, HMGA disassociates himself from any allegation of prophethood attributed to him:
"And this does not beseem Him that He (i.e., God) starts the order of prophethood again after it has been cut off and that He should abrogate some of the Qur’ânic commands or add thereupon and go contrary to His promise or forget the perfection of the Qur’ân."[76]
Maulana Muhammad Ali sums up the arguments of Qur’ân and HMGA as follows:
"…in the divine scheme of things the object of sending prophets was to bring guidance to man, and it has also been mentioned in the Qur’ân that each and every prophet was bearer of guidance (hidayah) and that it was a prerequisite of his mission that he should make the previous guidance perfect. This might have become indispensable for various reasons, perhaps that guidance was unable to help a nation any more to attain perfection, or some defect might have crept into it or it might have been lost or forgotten, or the needs and circumstances of the nation might have changed, so that it had to be abrogated, altered or modified but the raising of a new prophet, however, meant that something was out of order in the previous Shariah.
About other prophets it is an acknowledged fact. But it is sometimes said that the Israelite prophets who came after Moses did not bring a new guidance. The Qur’ân, however, rejects this view. Let us consider the case of the Torah and the Evangel. If it is proved that the Evangel brought new teaching, new guidance and new light, the position of all the prophets coming after Moses becomes clear. At one place in the Qur’ân it has been mentioned: "And He will teach him (i.e., Jesus) the Book and the Wisdom and the Torah and the Gospel,"[77], and at another place in the chapter al-Maidah, where it has first been stated about the Torah, "Surely We revealed the Torah, having guidance and light," and then a mention has been made about the Gospel: "And We gave him (Jesus) the Gospel, containing guidance and light and verifying that which was before it and a guidance and an admonition for the dutiful "(5:46).
Thus, when notwithstanding the presence of the Torah a mention has been made of another prophet who brought guidance and Light, the case of other Israelite prophets must be judged in view of this fact. And it must be admitted that all the prophets who came after Moses brought guidance and light and were instrumental in perfecting the guidance."[78]
Verse of Prophets, the Truthful, the Martyrs and the Righteous
In another place the same authors use a verse of Qur’ân to extend their argument about non-finality of the prophethood with Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). While expanding on the blessings mentioned in Surah Kausar, they state:
And whoso obeys Allah and this Messenger of His shall be among those on whom Allah has bestowed His blessings, namely, the Prophets [nabiyina], the Truthful [sidiqina], the Martyrs [shuhadai] and the Righteous [salihina]. And excellent companions are these. (4:70[79])
Tagging on to the above verse, another author, Dr. Aziz Ahmad Chaudhry, of the same organization in the book “The Promised Messiah and Mahdi” [80] in its chapter ‘The Question of Finality of Prophethood’, makes the following case:
From this verse it is absolute clear that those Muslims who obey Allah and His Prophet – the spiritual sons of the Prophet, will be blessed with spiritual favours by Allah and they will be raised to the following four spiritual status in descending order.
2. The Faithful
3. The Martyrs
4. The Righteous
It is not possible that God Himself should teach this prayer for seeking His blessings and favours and then deny them. The Muslim community, (the umma) has offered this sacred payer frequently for the last 1400 years and continues to do so. These verses of the Holy Qur’ân teach us the doctrine that among Muslims it is possible that a spiritual son of the Prophet – a follower of Allah and the Holy Prophet may be blessed with divine favours and given the spiritual status of the prophet, but he has to be a follower. (Ummati)
The said authors failed to read the context of the verse. Besides others, the verse speaks of the blessed company of Martyrs. We all know that Martyrs are only to be found in the hereafter and not in this world. The four strata identified in the verse are the blessed company in the next world for the righteous of this world. Even if the premise of the said authors is to be accepted, then the status of prophethood attained is for the next world, not in this world, which already has seen its last prophet, Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).
In light of zealotry of the said author, one is constrained to ask the author as to what a pity that it took continuous lifelong prayers of billions of Muslims over 1400 continuous years and only then an alleged prophet arose in the ummah by their assertion, while the alleged prophet denied any claim to his prophethood. Despite their tall claims of perfection of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is it a success or a failure of his teachings when compared with Israeli prophets? Take for example Mary. Not only God spoke to her, but her son (Jesus), cousin (John) and uncle (Zachariah) were all prophets in the same household. Compare that to the claim to fame of only one alleged prophet in 1400 years after our Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). These numbers by themselves prove the finality of Prophethood of Muhammad (peace be upon him) and confirm the empty lip service of perfection that they attribute to him.
Maulana Muhammad Ali in the footnote of his translation of the above verse writes:
Those upon whom Allah has bestowed favours are spoken of as belonging to four classes: (1) the prophets; (2) the truthful — those who are true in their sayings and their belief, and confirm their truth by their deeds or acting; (3) the faithful — those who bear witness to the truth both by words and deeds, and one slain in defence of his religion is included because he too gives evidence of the truth of religion by laying down his life; (4) the righteous or those who stick to the right course in all their deeds, come what may. Those who obey Allah and the Messenger are here told that they are with the perfect ones who belong to these four classes. Thus this verse promises to those who have not attained to perfection the company, in the life to come, of those who have attained to perfection when the former have done their best to obey God and His Messenger. It may be added that no one can become a prophet by obeying the Holy Prophet. If this were true, not only would all the truthful and the faithful and the righteous be prophets, because they perfectly obeyed Allah and His Messenger, but even all those who tried to follow them would also be prophets which is absurd.[81]
To repeat, is it not absurd even to imagine the possibility of prophets in the followers of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) in that the alleged prophet, HMGA, by the said authors is the ‘only and lonely’ one despite presence of Qur’ân and the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) in ummah almost 1400 years? If his line of arguments is to be accepted then by the standards of said authors, the teachings of Islam are so imperfect that not a single Muslim has been able to attain prophethood in almost 1400 years under verse 4:70 (as enumerated in their translation), that includes hundreds of Companions of the Prophet who were personally groomed by him. This is all so because of the absolute finality of Prophet Muhammad:
25:51. If We had so willed We would surely have raised (in place of universal Prophethood) a Warner in every town.[82]
Rather this lack of prophets only proves the true meanings of Khatam an-nabiyyin after the Last of the Prophets – Muhammad (peace be upon him).
The said authors while skewing the verse (4:70 as numerated by them) forgot the fundamental rule in Qur’ân i.e. office of prophethood can never be acquired no matter how much one strives for it; rather it was conferred by Allah at His discretion:
3:73. `Yet avow this belief only for the sake of those who follow your creed.' Say, `Surely, the true guidance is Allâh's guidance', (and they also said, `Do not believe,) that anyone will ever be given the like of that (gift of prophethood) which you have been given, or that they will ever be able to prevail upon you in argument before your Lord.' Say, `Eminence (of prophethood and sovereignty) is entirely in the hands of Allâh. He confers it to whomsoever He will.' And Allâh is All-Embracing, All-Knowing.
3:74. Allâh has singled out for His grace (of the bestowal of Divine revelation) one whom He has pleased, for Allâh is the Lord of great eminence. [83]
6:124. …Allâh knows best whom to entrust His Messengership…[84]
Finally, Allah declares in Qur’ân quite clearly that Islam is a perfected religion via a perfected Messenger and Qur’ân, a perfect book. One wonders what else is there left to be perfected for which a future prophet will be needed:
5:3. …This day have I perfected for you your faith and completed My blessings upon you and have chosen Islam for your religion…[85]
2:2. This is the only perfect Book, wanting in naught, containing nothing doubtful, harmful or destructive, there is no false charge in it. It is a guidance for those who guard against evil;[86]
2:143. And thus have We made you a nation exalted and justly balanced so that you may be a guiding example for all mankind (by carrying to them what you have learnt about Islam), and this perfect Messenger (of God) may be a guiding example for you… [87]
34:28. (Prophet!) We have sent you not but towards entire mankind (till the end of time) as a Bearer of glad-tidings and as a Warner but most people do not know (that the Message of Islam is universal and the Qur'ân the last revealed Book)[88] [Emphasis added]
One of the fundamental role for a prophet is to rectify the deficiency in law or reset the decay of law of the previous prophets, or update the law for the requirements of time or place, which in case of Islam is none because of the everlasting Qur’ân and example of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). To expect any prophet after Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is essentially a declaration of imperfection of Islam and the above declarations of Allah (v 5:3, 2:2, 2.143, 34.28) as void. Can it be so? Never is the only answer.
The comments of HMGA, as related to above verses are:
"And there is no need to follow separately all the prophets and scriptures that have passed before, since the prophethood of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) embraces them all. And besides that, all other paths are closed. All the truths that carry one to God are found therein. Neither shall any new truth come after it nor was there any truth before which is not found in it. Therefore, all prophethoods end with this prophethood and thus it ought to have been, for everything which has a beginning has an end also."[89]
Verse of O children of Adam! if Messengers come to you
In another place the said authors while making a deductive remark based upon their interpretation of verse Khatam an-nabiyyin 33:41 (as enumerated by them), they equate ‘Khâtam al-Nabiyyîn’ with non-finality of prophethood of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), and state:
Moreover, the Qur’ân clearly speaks of the advent of Prophets after the Holy Prophet. The following (one of the two verses) leave no ambiguity on this point:
The said authors self-contradict in the above verse, which is translated by themselves, by what they stated in their commentary earlier i.e. – “the Holy Prophet was the last of the Law-bearing Prophets”, whereas My Signs in the said verse are nothing but the Law given to a prophet (i.e. Sharia). Hence, if their premise is taken to be correct in that there will be prophets after Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) then by the above verse they will be law bearing, which is negation of the premise of the said authors.
Maulana Muhammad Ali clears the fog spread around the above verse by the authors:
It is argued, on the basis of this verse, that the appearance of messengers after Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) is not only permissible but also essential. But in this verse, all the children of Adam are addressed and the verse, in fact, refers to the incident after Adam's story. To think that the address here is to the people coming after Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) is preposterous. The meaning of the verse is clear enough. In the divine scheme of things, Adam received words from his Lord, but for the children of Adam, He would send messengers relating His messages to them. Those who would accept them and act righteously would be saved. It was under this divine law that Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) was sent to the world, who related God's messages (ayat) i.e., the Qur’ân, to the people. The main object of the advent of the messengers, however, was the communication of divine messages, but when this object was fulfilled in the form of the Qur’ân, a complete and perfect message to all nations extending to all ages to the Last Day then there was no need to raise another messenger.
It is indeed a daring step to argue from this verse about the continuity of prophethood as opposed to the plain verses of the Qur’ân, which mention his being Khâtam al-Nabiyyîn[91] and which clearly point out: "This day have I perfected for, you your religion."[92] Those Muslims who draw conclusions from this verse should also ponder over the point that, if continuity of prophethood is established from this verse, it is an argument in the hands of the followers of Bahaism who, unlike Muslims, regard the law of the Qur’ân as abrogated. It is not mentioned here that these messengers would be the followers of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). "Children of Adam" is a general expression which may apply to any nation, Muslims or non-Muslims alike. And then this verse necessitates the revelation of messages on such persons. Anyone who believes in the coming of a messenger must also necessarily believe in the coming of the Shariah. If a new Shariah cannot come, neither can a new messenger come. At another place in the Qur’ân the same subject has been dealt with which makes the whole point more clear:
"Surely there will come to you a guidance from Me, then whoever follows My guidance, no fear shall come upon them, nor shall they grieve."[93]
Thus, if at one place the advent of messengers has been described in the Qur’ân as a general law, at another place in the same words, at the same occasion, the sending of guidance has also been described as a divine practice, if it is correct to argue from one verse about the advent of the messengers after Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), then it would be equally correct to argue from the other the coming of a new guidance.[94]
Additionally, the said authors completely missed the conditional statement in the verse (7:36 by their enumeration) and the use of the word ‘if’. Such conditional statements are variably used in Qur’ân to prove a point and not to mean fulfillment of the hypothetical question. The following examples are only a sampler:
The Holy Qur’ân says about the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him: “Say, surely I fear, if I disobey my Lord, the chastisement of a grevious day” (66:15, 39:13). We humbly ask the said author whether it was possible for the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) to disobey his Lord? The answer, surely, is a big NO. But in spite of that Holy Qur’ân has mentioned it conditionally.[95]
Elsewhere, the Holy Qur’ân says about Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "If thou associate (with Allah), thy work would certainly come to a naught" (39:65). Will the said authors explain if it was possible for the Holy Prophet to indulge in polytheism (shirk)? If not, and certainly not, then on what authority has he invented this rule.[96]
Again the Holy Qur’ân says: "Say then; had the Compassionate a son, I shall be the first of his worshippers" (43:81). Is it possible for God to have a son? Certainly not; it is impossible for God to have a son; but in spite of that it is mentioned here as a condition.[97]
And again the Holy Qur’ân says: "If there were in them (earth and heaven) gods besides Allah, they would both have been in disorder" (21:22). Is it possible that there be two gods? The answer could be nothing but NO; even the Holy Qur’ân mentions it conditionally.[98]
Yet in another place Qur’ân states: “Be sure, those who cry lies to Our Messages and turn away from them disdainfully, the gates of the (spiritual) firmament shall not be opened for them, nor shall they enter Paradise until a camel passes through the eye of a needle…” (7:40)[99]. Should then one assume an actual camel threading a needle? It would be absurd even to imagine so.
All the Qur’ânic verses in above section describe one or another impossible phenomenon in a conditional manner. The testimony of these verses is enough to show that the so-called rule under discussion is very much like clutching at straws.[100]
Similar to Qur’ân, the expression of an impossible phenomenon using ‘if’ or ‘had’ is also found in Hadith as is obvious in the following passage from – ‘Prophethood in Islam’:
It has been reported by 'Aqbah, son of 'Amir, that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah he upon him) said “Had there been a prophet after me it would have been 'Umar.”
This hadith is found in Tirmidhi and, although it has been stated there as gharib (rare or unfamiliar) in another edition of Tirmidhi the word hasan (approved) has also been added to it. Besides this, Imam Ibn Jauzi has recorded it; Ahmad in his Musnad, Hakim in his al-Sahih and Tibrani in his commentary have all reported this saying. And as its subject matter is in conformity with the Qur'ãn and the Hadith, therefore, there can be no objection to accepting it as true. This hadith is also a clear testimony that there can be no prophet in this ummah. If there was any such possibility, then 'Umar would have become one. But as 'Umar was not a prophet, therefore, none other can he a prophet in this ummah.[101]
An interesting observation about Verse of Prophets, the Truthful, the Martyrs and the Righteous – and — Verse of O children of Adam! if Messengers come to you.
The verses which hold the apparent jewel in the crown status in Qadiani literature are 4:70 and 7:36 (by their enumeration) because in them they find keywords Prophets and Messengers on which they build their figment for prophethood after Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) that they then attribute to HMGA. What they forgot is that HMGA never, anywhere presented any such verse to claim that he was a prophet on the basis of that verse. In his book Shahadat-ul-Qur’ân (available in English as Testimony of the Holy Qur’ân) he has quoted verses of the Qur’ân that his claim is based on, the main one being the khilafat verse 24:55. He writes:
If it is said that in the Mosaic order those who were raised for the advocacy of the faith were prophets, and Jesus was also a prophet, the reply is that the prophet [nabi] and the saint [muhaddath] are on a par in terms of being sent [mursal]. Just as God has called prophets as mursal, so has He termed saints as mursal. It is in reference to this that in the Holy Qur’ân occur the words: "We sent after him (Moses) messengers" (2:87), and not "We sent after him prophets". This points to the fact that by "messengers" are meant those who are sent, whether such a one is an apostle [rasul], prophet [nabi] or saint [muhaddath]. As our Master and Apostle, may peace and the blessings of God be upon him, is the last of the prophets [khatam al-anbiya'], and after him there cannot come any prophet, for this reason saints have been substituted for prophets in this religious system. And it is to this that the following verse refers: "A multitude from among the earlier ones, and a multitude from among the later ones" (56:39-40). As the word thulla [multitude] is used equally in both places, it is proved conclusively that the saints of the Muslims, in terms of their number and the length of their order, are equal to the apostles of the Israelites.
Another verse to the same effect is as follows:
"God has promised to those of you who believe and do good that He will surely make them successors in the earth as He made those before them to be successors. And He will surely establish for them their religion, which He has chosen for them, and that He will surely give them security in exchange after their fear. They will serve Me, not associating anything with Me." (24:55)
Now look carefully. This verse also contains a clear reference to the same analogy. And if by this analogy is not meant perfect likeness, then these words become meaningless. For, the chain of successorship in the Mosaic dispensation lasted for fourteen hundred years, not just thirty years; and hundreds of successors [khalifa], spiritual and temporal, appeared, not just four and then the end forever.[102]
Hadiths about ‘possibility’ of prophethood of prophet’s son Abraham, and Companion Abu Bakr
In the same vein that Umar was not a prophet another Hadith quoted by the authors falls in the same category of hypothetical ‘if’:
If Abraham (his son) had lived long, he would have been a Prophet" (Maja, kitab al-Janai'z)
The above hadith raises a fundamental question. Who narrated it? The answer to that we find in Sahih al-Bukhari which is a comment by a Companion and not a saying of the Prophet:
Narrated Isma'il: I asked Abi Aufa, "Did you see Ibrahim, the son of the Prophet?" He said, "Yes, but he died in his early childhood. Had there been a Prophet after Muhammad then his son would have lived, but there is no Prophet after him." (Volume 8, Book 73, Number 214)[103]
The opinion of the Companion is that neither a prophet is expected after Prophet Muhammad, nor his son was expected to survive. Clearly this opinion of the Companion is posthumously as by then the said Companion is expressing his views in light of verse that was revealed after death of Ibrahim, the timeline of which we have established before. That verse is none other than the core issue of this whole paper and we quote it from the translation of the authors:
“Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but he is the Messenger of Allah, and the Seal of the Prophets [Khâtam al-Nabiyyîn]; and Allah has full knowledge of all things. (33:41)
The above is a perfect example of Hadith supplementing Qur’ân and in our case the finality of Prophethood! Both the Hadith and Verse are in a complementary logic.
The said authors towards the end of their commentary state:
The Holy Prophet himself was clear in his mind as to the continuity of prophethood after him. He is reported to have said: … "Abu Bakr is best of men after me, except that a Prophet should appear" (Kanz al-'Ummal).
To statements like these, Maulana Muhammad Ali in ‘Prophethood in Islam’ writes the following:
If it is assumed for the sake of argument, that the order of prophethood has not been suspended but instead of God's raising the prophets this has been entrusted to the 'Seal of the Prophets', then a charge of falsehood is laid against the Holy Prophet Muhammad himself (God forbid us all from such a blasphemy!) that he told one of his companions that if there was any possibility of the advent of a prophet, then he would have become a prophet, and to another he said: "O 'Ali, you stand to me in the same relation as Aaron stood to Moses except that there is no prophet after me," and yet to another he said, "O Abu Bakr, you are the first to enter paradise from among my ummah," but he also did not become a prophet. In short, if a teacher is incompetent because he cannot make a pupil like him and if Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) was the 'Seal of the Prophets' in the sense that he was prophet-making, and now there was no need of prophethood which was directly received from God, and this honour, in a way a divine prerogative, had come in his hands, then how was it possible that he could not make a single prophet like himself?[104]
'A'ishah and the expression Khâtam al-Nabiyyîn
The same proponents make a flimsy case of selective reading while quoting Lady Aishah, wife of the Prophet – Say that he (the Holy Prophet) is Khâtam al-Nabiyyîn but do not say that there will be no Prophet after him (Manthur) – to which Maulana Muhammad Ali in his book “Prophethood in Islam” writes the following[105]:
All these reports [– Hadiths about finality of prophethood] cannot be rejected by saying attributed to Hazrat Aishah, which runs thus:
"Say Khatam al-Anbiya (Seal of the prophets), but do not say, there is no prophet after him." [Majma al-Bihar]
Now it has been established from authentic reports that the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) has explained the term Khâtam al-Nabiyyîn by the words: "I am the Seal of prophets, there is no prophet after me" (ana Khâtam an-Nabiyyîn la nabiyya ba‘di)? Thus, how could the saying of 'A'ishah be accepted, which is entirely opposed to it, except that it should be interpreted in a way so as not to contradict the saying of the Holy Prophet himself? The words apparently mean only this, that the divine sentence 'seal of the prophets' [verse 33:40] is a more comprehensive term than the explanatory statement [of Hadith], 'there is no prophet after me,' the latter being a reference only to one aspect of the finality of prophethood. The explanation of the second aspect is met with in the other reports of the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), such as:
"There is nothing left of prophethood except good news (mubashshirat)."
But if another meaning is sought in the saying attributed to 'A'ishah that the statement, 'there is no prophet after him,' is wrong and opposed to the term 'the Seal of the Prophets,' then in such a case the words of 'A'ishah should be rejected according to the elementary rules of interpretation of Hadith that the saying of a Companion should be rejected, if it goes against the saying of the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). In this particular instance the report of the Holy Prophet is authentic and unanimously accepted and recorded in Sahih al-Bukhari and Muslim whereas 'A'ishah's saying has been quoted without giving the necessary chain of narrators. Thus, such words should either be interpreted according to the authentic hadith or should be rejected.
As a footnote to above Maulana Muhammad Ali continues further:
As compared with this there are other authentic sayings of 'A'ishah which confirm the finality of prophethood. For instance:
It has been reported from 'A'ishah that the Prophet said: No part of prophethood would be left after me except mubashshirat. They (the companions) said: O Messenger of Allah, what are mubashshirat? He replied: true visions (Musnad Ahmad).
It is reported from 'A'ishah that the Prophet said: I am the last of the prophets and my Mosque is the last of the prophets' mosque (Kanz al-Ummal). Tr.
Still if the rubber stampers differ with regards to the interpretation of ‘Seal of Prophets’ then Qur’ân gives the following guideline:
4:59. O you who believe! obey Allâh and obey (His) Messenger and those who are in authority among you (to decide your affairs). And should you differ among yourselves in anything, refer it to Allâh and His Messenger (and judge according to their teachings), if indeed you believe in Allâh and the Last Day. That is (in your) best (interests) and most commendable in the long run.[106]
This verse then naturally leads us to the decisive opinion of the Prophet in his farewell address:
"O people, surely there is no prophet after me, and no Ummah after you" (Musnad Ahmad, vol. ii, p. 391).
———-x———-x———x———-x———
Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad says those who believe in a prophet after Holy Prophet Muhammad are making that prophet into the Khatam al-anbiya[107]
Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad wrote again and again that the meaning of the Holy Prophet Muhammad being Khatam an-nabiyyin (or the synonymous term Khatam al-anbiya) is that he was the Last Prophet after whom no prophet whatsoever can come.
Another evidence showing that Hazrat Mirza took the term Khatam al-anbiya to mean Last Prophet is that he wrote several times that if any other prophet whatsoever were to come after the Holy Prophet Muhammad then that prophet would become the Khatam al-anbiya.
We quote below four of his statements:
— Book Ayyam Sulh, see Ruhani Khaza’in, vol. 14, p. 309.
— Book Ayyam Sulh, see Ruhani Khaza’in, vol. 14, p. 392.
— Book Kitab-ul-Bariyya, see Ruhani Khaza’in, vol. 13, p. 224.
— Book Tuhfa Golarwiya, see Ruhani Khaza’in, vol. 17, p. 174.
According to these statements, if any prophet came after the Holy Prophet Muhammad then that prophet would become the Khatam al-anbiya and the Holy Prophet Muhammad would no longer remain Khatam al-anbiya. Merely by coming after the Holy Prophet, a prophet would become Khatam al-anbiya, whether he was a new prophet or old, whether he was a great prophet or a lesser prophet.
This establishes that Khatam al-anbiya, according to Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, means the Last Prophet.
If, as the Qadianis claim, Khatam al-anbiya means best or greatest prophet, then even if a prophet came after the Holy Prophet, the Holy Prophet could still remain Khatam al-anbiya. But Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad writes that the Holy Prophet Muhammad cannot remain Khatam al-anbiya if a prophet came after him.
———-x———-x———x———-x———
In conclusion, the above is a case study of a phenomenon more mythical than mystical, nothing short of a best seller, in the garb of a garbled religion, a story ‘most’[108] sold, not told, of a “Man Who Mistook a Seat for a Seal”[109] and kept on calling it Seal, while he fully knew that it was a Seat for himself and a family enterprise, minus his father but inclusive of his father-in-law, fully secure under the vice grip of vice itself, and a fellowship which is more emotional than rational.
[1] Al-Shura – The Counsel: Nooruddin
[2] Al-Imran – Family of Amran: Nooruddin
[3] Al-Maidah – The Table Spread with Food: Nooruddin
[4] Al-Qasas – The Narrative: Nooruddin
[5] Al-Shuara – The Poets: Nooruddin
[6] Al-Nahl – The Bee: Nooruddin
[7] Al-Mujadilah – The Pleading Woman: Muhammad Ali – Zahid Aziz. Footnote: In a state of war between the two parties, friendly relations with the hostile tribes were prohibited, and these would have resulted in great harm to the weaker community of the Muslims. As to those who were not actually engaged in hostilities against the Muslims, see the express directions contained in 60:8. [60:8-9. Allah does not forbid you, with regard to those who do not fight you for religion, nor drive you forth from your homes, that you show them kindness and deal with them justly. Surely Allah loves the doers of justice. Allah forbids you only with regard to those who fight you for religion, and drive you forth from your homes and help (others) in your expulsion, that you make friends of them; and whoever makes friends of them, these are the wrongdoers. Al-Mumtahanah – The Woman Tested: Muhammad Ali – Zahid Aziz.]
[8] About the believers it is said in the Qur’ân that God strengthened them with a Spirit from Himself (58:22). 'Spirit' here stands for Gabriel. In the hadith it has been plainly stated that the Holy Prophet had told Hassan ibnThabit: "Reply to the satire of the unbelievers and Gabriel is with you" (Al-Bukhari, 59:6; Mishkat al-Masabih, 4:12). –Prophethood in Islam, by Maulana Muhammad Ali, translated and edited by S. Muhammad Tufail, Chapter – Prophethood and the Founder of The Ahmadiyya Movement, Section – Gabriel did not bring revelation to the founder, August 1992, Footnote 565, p. 388
[9] Al-Mujadilah – The Pleading Woman: Muhammad Ali – Zahid Aziz
[10] Izalah Auham, by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian, India, (3rd Septermber 1891), p. 575.
[11] ibid, p. 584.
[12] ibid, p. 614.
[13] ibid, p. 583
[14] ibid, p. 534; Ruhani Khaza’in 3: 387
[15] ibid, p. 577.
[16] Hamamat al-Bushra, by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian, India, p. 20.
[17] Izalah Auham, by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian, India, (3rd Septermber 1891), p. 586
[18] ibid, p. 575
[19] ibid, p. 761
[20] ibid, p. 578
[21] Tuhfah Golarwiyah, by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian, India, 1st September 1902, p. 84).
[22] Prophethood in Islam, by Maulana Muhammad Ali, translated and edited by S. Muhammad Tufail, August 1992. Link: http://www.aaiil.org/text/books/mali/prophethoodislam/prophethoodislam.shtml
[23] Finality of Prophethood, by Ahmadiyya Anjuman Ishaat-e-Islam Lahore, UK. Link: http://www.aaiil.org/text/books/others/aaiiluk/finalityofprophethood/finalityofprophethood.shtml
[24] http://www.aaiil.org/; http://ahmadiyya.org/; http://www.ahmadiyya.org/noclaim/khatam.htm; http://www.ahmadiyya.org/noclaim/affirms.htm; http://www.muslim.org/; http://www.virtualmosque.co.uk/
[25] Published by Islam International Publications Limited, 1988: Link: http://www.alislam.org/Qur’ân/tafseer/guide.htm?region=E1
[26] Of note is that in the translations of Qur’ân, the Qadianis include the opening phrase Bismilla… at beginning of each surah while enumerating the verse number, hence their verse numbers for any chapter (surah) are one more than others, except for Chapter 9 which does not have Bismillah… before it.
[27] Hamamat al-Bushra, by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian, India, p.20, footnote 293
[28] ibid, p.49
[29] Anjam Athim, by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian, India, (2nd January, 1897), footnote p.27,28
[30] 108:1-3. Verily, We have bestowed upon you (O Muhammad!) abundance of good (both of this life and of the Hereafter). Therefore observe Prayer for the sake of your Lord and offer sacrifice (to Him). Surely, it is your enemy who is cut off entirely [Arabic: Abtar] (from all good and prosperity and is deprived of Spiritual issues). Al-Kauthar – The Abundance of Good: Nooruddin
[31] Dictionary of The Holy Qur’ân, (c) 2010, Abdul Mannan Omar, p. 148
[32] ibid, p. 148
[33] Al-Ahzab – The Allies: Muhammad Ali – Zahid Aziz, footnote to verse 33:40
[34] Sahih Muslim, Book 4, Number 1995. “Ziyad b. 'Ilaqa reported: I heard Mughira b. Shu'ba saying that the sun eclipsed during the lifetime of the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) on the day when Ibrahim died. Upon this the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: Verily the sun and the moon are the two signs among the signs of Allah. They do not eclipse on account of the death of anyone or on account of the birth of anyone. So when you see them, supplicate Allah, and observe prayer till it is over.” Link:http://www.iium.edu.my/deed/hadith/muslim/004c_smt.html
[35] Manual of Hadith, by Maulana Muhammad Ali, B.16:3, B.16:19; p. 186-187
[36] National Aeronautical And Space Administration (NASA) – Solar Eclipses of Historical Interest. Link: http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhistory/SEhistory.html
[37] Ibn Khatir dates Prophet’s marriage to Zainab in 5 A.H. Link: http://www.islamawareness.net/Muhammed/ibn_kathir_wives.html
[38] Sahih al-Bukhari – Volume 2, Book 23, Number 390: Narrated Anas bin Malik: We went with Allah's Apostle (p.b.u.h) to the blacksmith Abu Saif, and he was the husband of the wet-nurse of Ibrahim (the son of the Prophet). Allah's Apostle took Ibrahim and kissed him and smelled him and later we entered Abu Saif's house and at that time Ibrahim was in his last breaths, and the eyes of Allah's Apostle (p.b.u.h) started shedding tears. 'Abdur Rahman bin 'Auf said, "O Allah's Apostle, even you are weeping!" He said, "O Ibn 'Auf, this is mercy." Then he wept more and said, "The eyes are shedding tears and the heart is grieved, and we will not say except what pleases our Lord, O Ibrahim ! Indeed we are grieved by your separation." – Translator Muhsin Khan
[39] 33:37-38. Al-Ahzaab – The Allies: Muhammad Ali – Zahid Aziz
[40] Al-Ahzaab – The Allies: Muhammad Ali
[41] Prophethood in Islam, by Maulana Muhammad Ali, translated and edited by S. Muhammad Tufail, Chapter – Finality of Prophethood, Section – The Holy Prophet became Khâtam al-Nabiyyîn, August 1992, p. 188-189
[42] Al-Ahzaab – The Allies: Muhammad Ali – Zahid Aziz
[43] ibid,
[44] The Ahmadiyya Khilafat. Link: http://www.alislam.org/topics/khilafat/
Note: Nooruddin is falsely shown on this website. Nooruddin like HMGA never ascribed to the non-finality of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). This doctrine of non-finality was established after the death of Nooruddin by Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmood Ahmad who is identified as the second caliph on the website.
[45] Al-Rum – The Byzantines: Nooruddin
[46] Al-Hajj – The Pilgrimage: Nooruddin
[47] Haqiqat al-Wahy, 15th May 1907, p. 97 footnote
[48] See references 31,32
[49] Surah Baqarah – The Holy Qur’ân with English Translation and Commentary, published by Islam International Publications Limited. Pub. 1988.
[50] “The True Significance of ‘Khatam al-Nabiyyin” by Abid Aziz, pub. 2004, Ahmadiyya Anjuman Isha’at-i-Islam (Lahore) Fiji, p. 32,. Link: http://www.aaiil.org/text/books/others/abidaziz/truesignificancekhatamannabiyyin/truesignificancekhatamannabiyyin.shtml
[51] Surah Ya Sin – The Holy Qur’ân with English Translation and Commentary, published by Islam International Publications Limited. Pub. 1988.
[52] “The True Significance of ‘Khatam al-Nabiyyin” by Abid Aziz, pub. 2004, Ahmadiyya Anjuman Isha’at-i-Islam (Lahore) Fiji, p. 33.
[53] Surah Al-Tatfif – The Holy Qur’ân with English Translation and Commentary, published by Islam International Publications Limited. Pub. 1988.
[54] “The True Significance of ‘Khatam al-Nabiyyin” by Abid Aziz, pub. 2004, Ahmadiyya Anjuman Isha’at-i-Islam (Lahore) Fiji, p. 33.
[55] 6:46. Say, `Have you ever considered if Allâh were to take away your hearing and your sight and set a seal upon your hearts, what god other than Allâh can restore these (boons) to you?' See how We expound (multiple) arguments in diverse ways. Yet they turn away thereafter. Al-Anam – The Cattle: Nooruddin
[56] 45:23. Have you considered the case of him who has taken his own low desires for his god and whom Allâh has forsaken and adjudged as lost on the basis of (His infinite) knowledge, and whose ears and heart He has sealed and whose eyes He has covered with a veil? Who then will guide him after Allâh (has condemned him for his being given to evil ways)? Will you then pay no heed? Al-Jathiyah – The Fallen on the Knees: Nooruddin
[57] 42:24. Rather they say, `He has forged a lie against Allâh (by presenting this Qur'ân).' If Allâh so willed He would set a seal (against them) upon your heart. But Allâh eradicates falsehood (through you) and establishes the truth by (dint of) His words (-prophecies and revelation). He is indeed, One knowing full well (even) the innermost thoughts of the hearts. Al-Shura – The Counsel: Nooruddin
[58] “The True Significance of ‘Khatam al-Nabiyyin” by Abid Aziz, p. 33, pub. 2004, Ahmadiyya Anjuman Isha’at-i-Islam (Lahore) Fiji.
[59] Ruhani Khaza’in, by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian, India v. 21, p. 412.
[60] Izalah Auham, by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian, India, (3rd Septermber 1891), p. 534; Ruhani Khaza’in 3: 387
[61] Al-Nisa – The Women: Nooruddin
[62] Al-Anam – The Cattle: Nooruddin
[63] Al-Araf – The Elevated Places: Nooruddin
[64] Yunus – Jonah: Nooruddin
[65] Al-Zumar – The Multitudes: Nooruddin
[66] Al-Baqarah – The Cow: Nooruddin
[67] Al-Hadid – The Iron: Nooruddin
[68] New King James Version. BibleGateway. Link: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:38-40
[69] Al-Imran – Family of Amran: Nooruddin
[70] Jonah – Yunus: Muhammad Ali
[71] Al-Zumar – The Companies: Muhammad Ali
[72] Prophethood in Islam, by Maulana Muhammad Ali, translated and edited by S. Muhammad Tufail, Chapter – Prophetic Revelation, Section – A prophet follows his own revelation, August 1992, p. 106-108
[73] Ta Ha – Perfect Man! be at Rest: Nooruddin
[74] Al-Saffat – Those Ranging in Ranks: Nooruddin
[75] Izalah Auham, by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian, India, (3rd Septermber 1891), p. 576
[76] Ainah Kamalat Islam, by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian, India, (26 February 1893), p. 339
[77] Al-Imran – The Family of Amran: Muhammad Ali, verse 3:48 (corrected from 3:47)
[78] Prophethood in Islam, by Maulana Muhammad Ali, translated and edited by S. Muhammad Tufail, Chapter – Prophetic Revelation, Section – Revelation of a prophet completes guidance, August 1992, p. 139-140
[79] Of note is that in the translations of Qur’ân, the Qadianis count the phrase Bismilla… at beginning of each surah while enumerating the verse number, hence their verse numbers for any chapter (surah) are one more than others, except for Chapter 9 which does not have Bismillah… before it.
[80] The Promised Messiah and Mahdi, by Dr. Aziz Ahmad Chaudhry, Chapter: The Question of Finality of Prophethood, p. 37-45. Islam International Publications Limited. Pub. 1996. Link: http://www.alislam.org/library/books/promisedmessiah/index.htm?page=37#top
[81] Al-Nisa – Women: Muhammad Ali – Zahid Aziz, footnote
[82] Al-Furqan – The Standard of True and False: Nooruddin
[83] Al-Imran – Family of Amran: Nooruddin
[84] Al-Anam – The Cattle: Nooruddin
[85] Al-Maidah – The Table Spread with Food: Nooruddin
[86] Al-Baqarah – The Cow: Nooruddin
[87] ibid,
[88] Saba – Sheba: Nooruddin
[89] Al-Wasiyyah, by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian, India, (2nd January), 1905
[90] Of note is that in the translations of Qur’ân, the Qadianis count the phrase Bismilla… at beginning of each surah while enumerating the verse number, hence their verse numbers for any chapter (surah) are one more than others, except for Chapter 9 which does not have Bismillah… before it.
[91] Al-Ahzab – The Allies: Maulana Muhammad Ali, verse 33:40
[92] Al-Maidah – Food: Maulana Muhammad Ali, verse 5:3
[93] Al-Baqarah – The Cow: Maulana Muhammad Ali, verse 2:38
[94] Prophethood in Islam, by Maulana Muhammad Ali, translated and edited by S. Muhammad Tufail, Chapter – Finality of Prophethood, Section – Qur’ânic verses analysed, August 1992, p. 204-206
[95] “The True Significance of ‘Khatam al-Nabiyyin” by Abid Aziz, pub. 2004, Ahmadiyya Anjuman Isha’at-i-Islam (Lahore) Fiji – edited., p. 19.
[96] ibid,
[97] ibid,
[98] ibid, p.20 .
[99] Al-A`râf – The Elevated Places: Nooruddin
[100] “The True Significance of ‘Khatam al-Nabiyyin” by Abid Aziz, pub. 2004, Ahmadiyya Anjuman Isha’at-i-Islam (Lahore) Fiji , p. 20.
[101] Prophethood in Islam, by Maulana Muhammad Ali, translated and edited by S. Muhammad Tufail, Chapter – Finality of Prophethood, Section – No other prophet in this ummah, August 1992, p. 194
[102] Testimony of the Holy Qur’ân by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Qadian, India, 1893, English Translation by Dr. Zahid Aziz, 1989, p.30-31.
[103] Sahih al-Bukhari, Good Manners and Form (Al-Adab), Translated by Muhsin Khan.
[104] Prophethood in Islam, by Maulana Muhammad Ali, translated and edited by S. Muhammad Tufail, Chapter – Finality of Prophethood, Section – No other prophet in this ummah, August 1992, p. 200
[105] Prophethood in Islam, by Maulana Muhammad Ali, translated and edited by S. Muhammad Tufail, Chapter – Finality of Prophethood, Section – Sayings of 'A'ishah explained, August 1992, p. 192-193
[106] Al-Nisa – The Women: Nooruddin
[107] Reproduced from Link: http://www.ahmadiyya.org/noclaim/khatam.htm
[108] The Greatest Story Ever Told. Wikipedia. Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Greatest_Story_Ever_Told
[109] ‘The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat’ and Other Clinical Tales is a 1985 book by neurologist Oliver Sacks describing the case histories of some of his patients. The title of the book comes from the case study of a man with visual agnosia…The book comprises twenty-four essays split into four sections which each deal with a particular aspect of brain function such as deficits and excesses in the first two sections (with particular emphasis on the right hemisphere of the brain) while the third and fourth describe phenomenological manifestations with reference to spontaneous reminiscences, altered perceptions, and extraordinary qualities of mind found in mentally handicapped people. Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_Who_Mistook_His_Wife_for_a_Hat
From ikram:
I quote two verses from Quran as translated by Qadiani Jamaat and enumerated by them in their five volume translation and commentary (reader may read explanatory footnotes from the source themselves):
4:70. And whoso obeys Allah and this Messenger of His shall be among those on whom Allah has bestowed His blessings, namely, the Prophets, the Truthful, the Martyrs and the Righteous. And excellent companions are these.
2:131. And who will turn away from the religion of Abraham but he who is foolish of mind? Him did We choose in this world, and the next he will surely be among the righteous.
Using verse 4:70 they make the case for elevation of followers of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) to status of Prophets, the Truthful, the Martyrs and the Righteous in this world. This claim of theirs is refuted above (link).
However, when we read verse 2:131, is it not surprising that one of the greatest prophets, Abraham (pbuh) is assured the company of Righteous in the next world?
Unbeknownst to Qadianis, actual prophets found such companionship status in next world, but the prophets of their making find it in this very world.
While keeping in mind that there cannot be any contradiction in Quran, can someone explain this fundamental discrepancy in their interpretation?
From Zahid Aziz:
In the first verse the word for "among" is ma` (which is why Maulana Muhammad Ali has translated it as "with"). In the second verse the word for "among" is min.
We hope Abraham will not lose his status as "prophet" when he is placed among the righteous (saliheen)!
Joesph prayed, long after he became a prophet, saying: "Make me die in submission (muslim-an) and join me (alhiq-ni) with the righteous (saliheen)" (12:101).
Here a prophet is praying and hoping to be joined with the righteous. Is he praying for demotion from a nabi to a salih!?
The point is that by joining, being with, and being among, non-prophets a prophet does not lose his prophethood, and vice versa a non-prophet does not gain prophethood by being with prophets and having something in common with them.