Accordion

It is the custom of Allah the Almighty that whenever He sends a Prophet for the establishment of a divine community, the Prophet and his community are always confronted with fierce opposition. The following verse of the Holy Qur’an alludes to this very point: The following verse of the Holy Qur’an alludes to this very point:

يَا حَسْرَةً عَلَى الْعِبَادِ مَا يَأْتِيهِمْ مِنْ رَسُولٍ إِلَّا كَانُوا بِهِ يَسْتَهْزِئُونَ

The following verse of the Holy Qur’an alludes to this very point: Meaning,

“Alas for My servants! there comes not a Messenger to them but they mock at him.”

History testifies to the fact that the very same people who once referred to that Prophet as the pinnacle of purity and virtue would begin to raise countless objections and allegations upon the pure person of the Prophet. They would raise allegations upon their status and family background, upon their honesty and sincerity, upon the truth of their claim, upon the fulfillment of their prophecies, upon the authenticity of their divine revelation and the list goes on.

The Promised Messiah (as) appeared in an era when the onslaught against Islam had reached its peak. In an era when God had been forgotten, the name of Islam was being attacked at all fronts, and the pure and pristine character of our Beloved Master was becoming the target of mockery. Indeed, Islam was in a dire state. Various religious divines among the Muslims who felt pain for Islam would attempt to respond to these allegations against Islam, but ultimately they would be confronted with defeat. The primary reason for this defeat was due to the false religious ideologies they ascribed to. The life of Jesus (as) for example was a false belief among the Muslims, which was becoming an enormous hinderance in Christian-Muslim debates. Christian priests would cunningly pose the question that, ‘If there are two ships. One ship is lead by a living captain and the other by a captain who is dead, which ship would you prefer to board?’ Upon this, the obvious answer would be, ‘The ship with a living captain of course.’ Upon this, the Christian priests would say, ‘Why then do you follow Islam, when Muhammad (sa) is dead, but you believe yourself that Jesus (as) is a living captain and leader.’ It was merely with this argument that thousands of Muslims were being converted to Christianity. Christian priests began to raise arrogant slogans affirming that the time was near when the cross would reign supreme over the Ka‘bah in Mecca and Islam would be completely wiped out from the face of the earth. This Christian onslaught took on the form of a devastating fire, which was destroying the beautiful lush green garden of Islam. It was at this difficult juncture that the Promised Messiah (as) courageously entered the field of battle like a fearless General and valiantly fought a four-fronted spiritual war of religious ideology in defense of Islam. The Promised Messiah (as) claimed that Jesus (as) who was a Prophet of the Bani Isra’il had died a natural death at the age of 120. Moreover, contrary to the belief of mainstream Muslims and on the basis of divine revelation he firmly announced that Jesus (as) did not physically ascend into the heavens, nor would he physically descend in the latter days. Moreover, he affirmed that if there is any prophet who lives to this day through his spiritual Grace, then it is Prophet Muhammad (sa), who is the Chief and Master of the Prophets. The Promised Messiah (as) claimed on the basis of divine revelation that he was a second manifestation of ‘Isa bin Maryam, who was to appear in the latter days as a Prophet of God according to the prophecies of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa). As such, through irrefutable argumentation, logic, rationality, philosophy and most of all, divine succor, the Promised Messiah (as) established the superiority of Islam not only over Christianity, but all the religions of the world. Those very Christians who once raised arrogant slogans against the religion of Islam, fled the field of battle and began to abstain from entering into debates with the Promised Messiah (as) despite his many challenges.

In 1889, Hadrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian claimed that he was that divinely appointed Reformer whose advent was awaited upon by all the world faiths and laid the foundation of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, the True Islam - the Islam which had been long forgotten. When the Promised Messiah (as) made this announcement, the Maulawis and religious clerics stood up against this divinely appointed Reformer and raised a huge hue and cry. They opposed the Promised Messiah (as) ferociously and vehemently. Edicts of disbelief were issued against the Promised Messiah (as) and this animosity grew to such an extent that the Muslim leaders became thirsty for his blood. It is unfortunate that instead of supporting the Promised Messiah (as) in his service and defense of Islam, the Muslims exerted their utmost efforts to uproot this divinely planted community and its Holy Founder. If the history of that era is studied, it becomes evident that it was due to the tireless work of the Promised Messiah (as) that the Muslims were once again able to hold their head high in the face of non-Muslims. Were it not for the pure and pristine Islam presented by the Promised Messiah (as), which is in actuality the True Islam, the Muslims would have no choice but to take an apologetic stance before the allegations of non-Muslims; and in fact they were, until the Promised Messiah (as) appeared. Even to this day, those Muslims who do not attach themselves to the True Islam presented by the Promised Messiah (as) have no response whatsoever to the allegations of non-Muslims against Islam, and they are forced to hold their heads down in shame. Strangely enough, history shows that Muslims would readily side with the Hindus and Christians in their opposition of the Promised Messiah (as), yet they could not for the last 120 years find it in their hearts to side with the Promised Messiah (as) in defense of Islam against the false ideologies and attacks of the non-Muslims. It seems as if their greatest service to Islam is to prove that Ahmadiyyat is false, and the Promised Messiah (as) is not a true Prophet of God. May Allah have Mercy. In any case, the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community continues its service of Islam. Today, under the leadership of a rightly guided Khilafat, the mission of the Promised Messiah (as), which was actually a continuation of the mission of the Holy Prophet (sa) is being propagated throughout the world. However, instead of joining this holy mission, our opponents are preoccupied in opposing Ahmadiyyat - a community they believe to be a great threat to Islam. With respect to ideology, the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community is distinct from the mainstream Muslims primarily in three areas: Death of Jesus, (as) Khatm-e-Nubuwwat (Seal of Prophethood) and the Truthfulness of the Promised Messiah (as).

Mainstream Muslims are of the general belief that Jesus (as) physically ascended into the heavens and is currently alive. Moreover, in the latter days, he would physically descend from the heavens. The Ahmadiyya viewpoint on this issue, as presented by the Promised Messiah (as) throughout his writings is that Jesus (as) has passed away a natural death. In support of this assertion, Ahmadis not only present irrefutable argumentation from the Holy Qur’an and the Ahadith, but also appeal to the logic and common sense of all people. Does the common sense of any person entertain the belief that a man could remain alive for thousands of years with his physical body? Of course not. There is not a single example in the history of mankind to support such an illogical assertion. And if this was a first, then Allah should have revealed numerous verses in the Holy Qur’an openly announcing the life of Jesus (as). However, a study of the Holy Qur’an shows that this is not the case.

Secondly, the issue of Khatm-e-Nubuwwat or Seal of Prophethood is a contentious issue between Ahmadis and non-Ahmadis as well. Non-Ahmadis allege that Ahmadis do not accept the finality of the Holy Prophet (sa) because they believe in a Prophet to have appeared after Prophet Muhammad (sa). Undoubtedly, Ahmadis do not believe in the finality of the Holy Prophet (sa) as non-Ahmadis would like. However, the fact of the matter is that practically, Ahmadis and non-Ahmadis are not at a disagreement as far as the concept of Khatm-e-Nubuwwat is concerned at all. The reason being that both believe in the advent of Jesus (as) in the latter days, who would be a prophet of God. Furthermore, both agree that the advent of Jesus (as) as a Prophet of God in the latter days does not violate the finality of the Holy Prophet (sa). The only debate therefore, is with respect to the identity of that person who is to come in the latter days. It is for this reason that Ahmadis stress that Khatm-e-Nubuwwat is not a primary point of debate. Rather, the real question is whether Jesus (as) of the Bani Isra’il has passed away or not. If it is established that he is still alive then obviously, he can come in the latter days as well. However, if it is proven that he has died a natural death, then it must also be accepted that someone else would come in the person of Jesus (as). Otherwise, the prophecies regarding the re-advent of Jesus (as) would prove false. Furthermore, after it is established that someone else would appear to fulfill this prophecy, only then can it be discussed as to whether Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (as) fulfills the requirements of this divine office. Non-Ahmadis often emphasize the importance of first discussing Khatm-e-Nubuwwat, but when it comes to discussing this topic, they cannot present a single argument which supports their flawed ideology. The only verse they present in support of the ‘so-called’ unconditional finality of the Holy Prophet (sa), is the famous verse of Khatamun-Nabiyyin from Surah Al-Ahzab, which is in itself a verse that attracts varying interpretations. Any fair-minded individual would concur that such a verse cannot become the foundation of an entire theological belief. If the non-Ahmadi belief on the unconditional finality of the Holy Prophet (sa) was correct, there should have been countless verses in the Holy Qur’an to support this idea. However, non-Ahmadis cannot present more than a single verse and the few others they present in desperation do not prove anything either.

The third topic which is essential in discussions between Ahmadis and non-Ahmadi Muslims is the truthfulness of the Promised Messiah (as). However, this topic is only relevant once the first two have been settled. As such, there is no doubt that the truthfulness of the Promised Messiah (as) can be conclusively established by the Holy Qur’an and the Ahadith. Unfortunately, the countless allegations which are raised against the Promised Messiah (as) are less academic and more influenced by prejudice and malice. There is perhaps not a single allegation leveled against the Promised Messiah (as) which does not resemble an allegation leveled against our Master, the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa).

Hence, after an overview and explanation of the relationship between these three subjects, I shall briefly highlight the methodology of this work. This thesis has been divided into three parts: Death of Jesus (as), Seal of Prophethood and Truthfulness of the Promised Messiah (as). The first part is divided into four sections. The first two sections relate to the Ahmadi argumentation from the Holy Qur’an and the Ahadith. The following two sections are based on a rebuttal of the non-Ahmadi argumentation presented from the Holy Qur’an and the Ahadith. The second part is also divided in the same manner, except that there is an introduction section as well. Therefore, part two has a total of five sections. With respect to the truthfulness of the Promised Messiah (as), this final part is divided into six sections. The first two sections present argumentation in support of the Promised Messiah (as) from the Holy Qur’an and the Ahadith. The remaining four sections present a rebuttal to the allegations leveled against the Promised Messiah (as). Each section relates to a specific type of allegation, i.e., the character of the Promised Messiah (as), his prophecies, his revelations/visions and finally his writings.

Since the inception of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, these three subjects have always been discussed and debated. For the last 120 years, the stalwarts of Ahmadiyyat have not only beautifully expounded the stance of the Jama’at on these issues, but have always provided irrefutable argumentation in response to the allegations leveled by our opponents as well. Today, even after 120 years, the allegations remain the same. On this subject, our scholars have left a treasure-chest of knowledge behind and there is perhaps not a single allegation which remains unanswered. Hadrat Mirza Bashir Ahmad M.A. (ra) has written extensively on this subject and his manner of argumentation is indeed distinct. The speeches and writings of Qazi Nazir Ahmad Sahib (rh) are invaluable gems. Then of course, the magnificent works of our Khalidin-e-Ahmadiyyat, Hadrat Maulana Abul-‘Ata Sahib and Malik ‘Abdur-Rahman Khadim Sahib (rh) are no less than an encyclopedia in the field of ‘Ilmul-Kalam. However, all of these gems, have been handed down to us in the Urdu language. I have immensely benefited from these works in the preparation of this thesis and have made a humble attempt to combine the various points presented by our scholars in this work.

Until now, no comprehensive work on these three subjects had been written in the English language. As such, it was imperative that in light of the propaganda which is now being spread against Ahmadiyyat (focusing particularly on the Muslim youth) that a work on this subject be prepared in English as well. Hence, this thesis topic afforded me the opportunity to make this humble contribution. The content covered in this thesis is only a first step to completion. Due to the limited time at my disposal and the vastness of these three subjects it was impossible for me to cover everything. Even one subject out of the three covered in this thesis could become a separate thesis in itself. As such only a few topics have been covered in each of the three parts by way of example. The topics covered in this thesis are therefore, by no way exhaustive. There is still much room for addition and Inshallah, it my desire to build upon each part of this thesis individually, so that in the near future, a comprehensive source can be prepared for our English speaking brothers and sisters. I especially felt that in part three which relates to the ‘Truthfulness of the Promised Messiah (as)’ many things have been left out. Especially when it came to a rebuttal of allegations - the list is so endless that it was impossible for me to cover everything in this short period of time. However, this is a subject which can undoubtedly be further developed under the guidance and directive of Hudur-e-Anwar (aba).

During a Mulaqat with Hadrat Khalifatul Masih V (aba), whilst inquiring about the topic which had been assigned to me, Hudur-e-Anwar asked how much of my thesis I had completed. I humbly stated to Hudur-e-Anwar (aba) that I have completed about half. Moreover, I stated that I had been given three vast subjects to discuss, which could perhaps each become a thesis in their own right, and therefore, I would exceed the minimum number of words specified for my thesis. Upon this, Hudur-e-Anwar (aba) smiled and said, “Do not worry about the number of words. Even if you were to begin compiling references of the Promised Messiah (as), only those references would well exceed your specified word-count.” From this statement, I inferred that my Beloved Hudur (aba) desires that quotations of the Promised Messiah (as) should be included wherever possible to further strengthen the argumentation presented in my thesis. Undoubtedly, there can be no words which are more powerful than those of the Promised Messiah (as) himself. Hence, a humble attempt has been made to include references from the books of the Promised Messiah (as) throughout this work. As such, there are many references which have been translated into English for the first time and God-willing, shall prove to be greatly beneficial to English-speaking readers. However, as I have mentioned before, there is still much to be added before the soul feels somewhat saturated.

Another thing which is important to point out regarding my thesis is that in his supervisor comments, Imam Sahib has stated that there are a few references which still need to be added. By the Grace of Allah and the guidance of Respected Imam Sahib, I have now included these references in my final thesis as well. Alhamdulillah.

In the end, it is my earnest prayer that Allah the Almighty accepts this humble effort and makes this a stepping stone in the field of ‘Ilmul-Kalam, as the first comprehensive work in the English language. May this work take on the form of a sharp spiritual sword which destroys the allegations of our opponents in defense of the Promised Messiah (as). All of the knowledge, wisdom and argumentation presented in this work is due to no quality of my own. I have merely presented the gems, rubies and emeralds of the Promised Messiah (as) and his Khulafa’. For it was this very spiritual treasure which the Promised Messiah and Mahdi was to distribute throughout the world. And it was this spiritual treasure which the people would refuse to accept, as foretold by our Beloved Master, the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa). However, today, if our opponents desire salvation, they have no choice but to attach themselves to this ‘Lamp of Truth,’ the Lamp of Muhammad (sa) and the Lamp of Allah, Who is the Light of the Heavens and the Earth.

In the Holy Qur’an, Allah the Almighty states:

وَإِذْ قَالَ اللَّهُ يَا عِيسَى ابْنَ مَرْيَمَ أَأَنْتَ قُلْتَ لِلنَّاسِ اتَّخِذُونِي وَأُمِّيَ إِلَهَيْنِ مِنْ دُونِ اللَّهِ قَالَ سُبْحَانَكَ مَا يَكُونُ لِي أَنْ أَقُولَ مَا لَيْسَ لِي بِحَقٍّ إِنْ كُنْتُ قُلْتُهُ فَقَدْ عَلِمْتَهُ تَعْلَمُ مَا فِي نَفْسِي وَلَا أَعْلَمُ مَا فِي نَفْسِكَ إِنَّكَ أَنْتَ عَلَّامُ الْغُيُوبِ (117) مَا قُلْتُ لَهُمْ إِلَّا مَا أَمَرْتَنِي بِهِ أَنِ اعْبُدُوا اللَّهَ رَبِّي وَرَبَّكُمْ وَكُنْتُ عَلَيْهِمْ شَهِيدًا مَا دُمْتُ فِيهِمْ فَلَمَّا تَوَفَّيْتَنِي كُنْتَ أَنْتَ الرَّقِيبَ عَلَيْهِمْ وَأَنْتَ عَلَى كُلِّ شَيْءٍ شَهِيدٌ (118)

Meaning,

“And when Allah will say, “O Jesus, son of Mary, didst thou say to men, ‘Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah?’”, he will answer, “Holy art Thou. I could never say that to which I had no right. If I had said it, Thou wouldst have surely known it. Thou knowest what is in my mind and I know not what is in Thy mind. It is only Thou Who art the Knower of hidden things. I said nothing to them except that which Thou didst command me - ‘Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord.’ And I was a witness over them as long as I remained among them, but since Thou didst cause me to die, Thou hast been the Watcher over them; and Thou art Witness over all things.”

In these two verses of the Holy Qur’an, a dialogue between Allah the Almighty and Jesus (as) has been recorded. Allah inquires of Jesus (as) as to whether he was the one who taught his Allah inquires of Jesus (as) as to whether he was the one who taught his followers to take Jesus (as) and his mother as gods. Jesus (as) responds to this question posed by Allah the Almighty by stating that,

‘I was a witness over them as long as I remained among them.’

In this brief statement, Jesus (as) takes full responsibility for his community while he was alive and a guardian over them. He assures Allah the Almighty that for as long as he was present among his people, he ensured that they followed the right path, and believed in only one God. However, in the next part of his response, Jesus (as) states that he cannot be held responsible for his people’s misguidance after Allah caused him to die, because he was no longer among them to correct their false beliefs. Jesus (as) explains his lack of knowledge in regards to what transpired following his demise and states that, O Allah,

‘Since Thou didst cause me to die, Thou hast been the Watcher over them.’

In this scenario, the word Tawaffaitani can mean nothing other than death. Moreover, this also naturally leads to the conclusion, that the physical descent of Jesus (as) in the latter days is also an ideology which the Holy Qur’an does not support. For if we were to accept that Jesus (as) physically ascended into the heavens 2000 years ago, and shall physically descend in the latter days, then this response of Jesus (as), as mentioned in the verse under discussion, would not hold true. If Jesus (as) is to descend in the latter days, how then can he express his complete lack of knowledge as to the false ideologies of his followers before God the Almighty on the day of Judgement, when this question is asked of him? For it is obvious that when Jesus (as) claims that Allah was a watcher over his people after his departing from the physical world, this means that he is unaware of the path of misguidance which his people began to follow in his absence. If we were to suppose that Jesus (as) physically returns in the latter days then most definitely, he shall be fully aware of his nation’s misguidance, and in such a case, for Jesus (as) to answer Allah by saying that I have no idea as to what happened after me, is a lie, God forbid.

Therefore, if we analyse this verse logically and rationally, there are only two options. The first option is that in light of the context of this verse, we must interpret the word Tawaffaitani to mean death. This is because, if we accept that Jesus (as) has passed away, and he shall not return to this physical world again, then, and only then, can Jesus (as) express his lack of knowledge before God with regards to the polytheistic ideologies of his people on the day of resurrection. In the second case, if we accept the non-Ahmadi interpretation of this verse, which purports that Jesus (as) will return physically in the latter days to reform mankind, then Jesus (as) cannot express his lack of knowledge before God, with regards to his nation’s polytheistic views, which hold Jesus (as) to be God. The reason for this is because Jesus (as) will have seen and witnessed the dire state of his people during his second advent. As such, in this case, the above-mentioned verses would lose their meaning completely, and the statement of Jesus (as) that he is not aware of what transpired after him would prove to be a lie. The latter is not an option for the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, because we believe that Jesus (as) is indeed a beloved and truthful prophet of God and it does not behoove a prophet of God to lie before his Lord.

If Jesus (as) was to return in the latter days, he would have spoken of his second coming and physical descent, as well as his preaching endeavors, etc. He would explain to Allah the steps he took towards reforming his nation and the efforts he exerted in bringing them back to the concept of unity. He would state that I was a watcher over them not only once prior to my Tawaffi but also a second time, after my Tawaffi. He would not simply refer to his demise and then state that Allah was a Watcher over his people until the day of resurrection after his own demise.

Our opponents assert that the meaning of the word Tawaffi in this verse does not mean death, rather, it means ‘the taking of something in its physical entirety’, and thus, alludes to the bodily ascension of Jesus (as) into the heavens. We have already proven by means of logic and rationality that the context of these verses clearly prove that the word Tawaffaitani can mean nothing other then death. If we are to accept that this word alludes to the bodily ascension of Jesus (as) and that he shall descend in the latter days, the verse would fail to make sense. If however, the word Tawaffaitani as used in this verse is taken to mean death, the subject matter of the verse makes perfect sense. We shall discuss the meaning of this word from a linguistic perspective later on. However, at this instance it seems most appropriate to present a very authentic Hadith of the Holy Prophet (sa) which sheds light on the true meaning of the word Tawaffi in this verse as understood by the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa) himself.

There is no doubt that the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa) upon whom the Holy Qur’an was revealed, possessed the greatest and most profound knowledge of the Holy Qur’an. If it is proven that the Holy Prophet (sa) also understood the word Tawaffaitani to mean ‘death’ in this verse, then the matter becomes clear. There is no need for any further verdict.

عن ابن عباس انہ یجاء برجال من امتی فیؤخذ بھم ذات الشمال فاقول یا رب اصیحابی فیقال انك لا تدری ما احدث بعدك فاقول كما قال العبد الصالح و كنت علیھم شھیدا ما دمت فیھم فلما توفیتنی كنت انت الرقیب علیھم فیقال ان ھاؤلاء لم یزالوا مرتدین علی اعقابھم منذ فارقتھم

Meaning,

“Verily! Some men from my followers will be brought and then (the angels) will drive them to the left side (Hell-fire). I will say, ‘O my Lord! (They are) my Companions!’ A reply will come, ‘You do not know what they did after you.’ Then I will say as the pious slave (Jesusas) said: ‘... And I was a witness over them as long as I remained among them, but since Thou didst cause me to die, Thou hast been the Watcher over them’ (Al-Ma’idah, Verse 118) “Then it will be said, “These people continued as apostates since you left them.’”

From this Hadith we can clearly understand that the Holy Prophet (sa) has made reference to the dialogue of Jesus (as) as mentioned in these two verses of Surah Al-Ma’idah. The scenario which has been presented in this Hadith is of the day of resurrection. This Hadith clearly proves that the Holy Prophet (sa) has quoted the phrase of Jesus (as) as mentioned in the verse under discussion; and in doing so the Holy Prophet (sa) has used the word Tawaffaitani for himself in the context of ‘death.’ It is very obvious, that in this Hadith, the word Tawaffaitani does not mean that the Holy Prophet (sa) is referring to his being physically lifted into the heavens. The scenario which has been presented here rejects such an illogical notion. There is no doubt that the Holy Prophet (sa) has passed away. As such, when the Holy Prophet (sa) has used the same words as Jesus (as) and it is an accepted fact that the Holy Prophet (sa) has passed away, then why would the same words when used by Jesus (as) in the Holy Qur’an imply a different meaning?

With little reflection it becomes evident that Hadrat Imam Bukhari (rh) has placed this Hadith in his Kitabut-Tafsir, under verse 118 of Surah Al-Ma’idah in order to allude to his own belief that the word Tawaffi in this verse means ‘death,’ and not physical ascension. Furthermore, as mentioned earlier, this Hadith substantiates the fact that the Holy Prophet (sa) also understood this verse to allude to the natural demise of Jesus (as) as well.

The Holy Prophet (sa) was the most eloquent of the Arabs, and his knowledge of Arabic was second to none. If the Holy Prophet (sa) understood this word to mean ‘physical ascension’ or the ‘taking of something in its physical entirety,’ he would not have used this word for himself in the context of death, whilst referring to a scenario of the day of resurrection in the above-mentioned Hadith.

In the verse presented above, there is no doubt that the word Tawaffi has been used to mean ‘death.’ The word Tawaffi is the infinitive form of the verb Tawaffa. When this verb appears in the form known as Bab Tafa‘-‘ul,1 the subject is Allah or the Angels, the object upon which the verb is applied possesses a soul, and there is no specific mention of night or sleep, the meaning always infers death. Hence, in accordance with this principal the word Tawaffi has been used numerous times throughout the Holy Qur’an to infer death.2 Even if one puts the Holy Qur’an and the Ahadith to one side and merely studies the word Tawaffi in its common understanding, the word infers a meaning of death. For example, in Arabic and in the Urdu language as well, the word Mutawaffa refers to a ‘deceased person’. Similarly, in the funeral prayer we are taught by the Holy Prophet (sa) to recite the following words:

و من توفّیتَہ منّا فتوفّہ علی الایمان

Meaning, “And whoever you cause to die from among us, grant him death upon belief.” In Qamus it is written:

الوَفَاةُ الموت و تَوَفَّاہُ اللّٰہُ قبض روحہ

Meaning,

“Al-Wafatu means ‘death’ and Tawaffahullahu means ‘to subdue the soul, i.e., death’”

In Tajul-‘Urus it is written:

تَوَفّاہُ اللّٰہُ عزّ و جلّ اذا قبض نفسہ

Meaning,

“Tawaffahullahu ‘azzawajall means ‘when Allah subdues the soul, i.e., causes death.”

Hadrat Ibni ‘Abbas has also understood the word Tawaffi to mean ‘death’. It is for this reason that in Sahih Bukhari, Kitabut-Tafsir, under the verse Falamma tawaffaitani, Hadrat Imam Bukhari has quoted the following statement of Hadrat Ibni ‘Abbas, with relation to this verse:

قال ابن عبّاس متوفیك ممیتك

Meaning,

“Ibni ‘Abbas (ra) states, ‘Mutawaffika means we caused you to die.’”

Hadrat Ibni ‘Abbas was a great commentator of the Holy Qur’an. He was from among the greatest of companions, and was granted special knowledge and insight into the hidden secrets of the Holy Qur’an by Allah the Almighty. The reason for his breadth of knowledge and deep insight into the Holy Qur’an was due to a prayer of the Holy Prophet (sa) for Hadrat Ibni ‘Abbas. Therefore, his statement cannot be ignored or casually overlooked to hold little or no value. This statement of Hadrat Ibni ‘Abbas is a great proof of the fact that the word Mutawaffika means ‘death’.

Our opponents often try to disprove this argument by stating that Ahmadis misrepresent Hadrat Ibni ‘Abbas by quoting a single reference but leave out all of the other references where Hadrat Ibni ‘Abbas has clearly spoken of the physical ascension and descent of Jesus (as). These other narrations contain the words ilas-sama’ (i.e., from the heaven), bi jasadihi (with his physical body), etc. However, this is very weak rebuttal. Non-Ahmadis forget one very crucial point when they present these alternate references. They believe these references to be an irrefutable proof of the physical ascension of Jesus, but unfortunately, for them of course, this is not the case.

The narration of Hadrat Ibni ‘Abbas which is presented by Ahmadis is quoted in Sahih Bukhari which is:

اصح الكتب بعد كتاب اللّٰہ

Meaning,

“The most authentic of all books after the Book of Allah”

However, the other quotations of Hadrat Ibni ‘Abbas, which apparently show him to have believed in the physical ascension and descent of Jesus (as) are not quoted in Sahih Bukhari or any other book from the Sihah Sittah for that matter. These references are taken from various Tafasir or commentaries of the Holy Qur’an and anyone who possesses even elementary knowledge of the science of Hadith knows full well that narrations of Sirat and Tafsir are not as authentic as narrations of the Sihah Sittah. Moreover, those narrations which are attributed to Hadrat Ibni ‘Abbas in books such as Tafsir Ibni ‘Abbas are also not an authentic source by which to deduce the true belief of Hadrat Ibni ‘Abbas, because the scholars are at an agreement that these are fabricated narrations. Imam Shaukani states:

و من جملة التفاسیر التی لا یؤثق بھا تفسیر ابن عباس فانہ مروی من طریق الكذابین

Meaning,

“Among the various commentaries which are unauthentic, one such commentary is that of Ibni ‘Abbas, because it is related by a chain of narrators which are liars.”

Therefore, the reference of Ibni ‘Abbas, which is presented by Ahmadis is a true representation of the belief of Hadrat Ibni ‘Abbas. However, the references which are presented by non-Ahmadis are not authentic and therefore cannot be deemed a true representation of the belief of Hadrat Ibni ‘Abbas.

It seems very appropriate to conclude this linguistic analysis of the word Tawaffi with an open challenge of the Promised Messiah (as). He states:

“If anyone can cite a single instance from the Holy Qur’an or Hadith, or from ancient or modern Arabic poetry and prose, that the word Tawaffi, when applied to a human being, God being the subject, has been used in any connotation other than death and taking possession of the soul, for instance, in the connotation of the taking the body, I bind myself on oath that I shall pay that person one thousand rupees in cash by selling some of my property and shall always hold him in high esteem as a great scholar of the Holy Qur’an and Hadith.”

In the Holy Qur’an, Allah the Almighty states:

إِذْ قَالَ اللَّهُ يَا عِيسَى إِنِّي مُتَوَفِّيكَ وَرَافِعُكَ إِلَيَّ وَمُطَهِّرُكَ مِنَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا وَجَاعِلُ الَّذِينَ اتَّبَعُوكَ فَوْقَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا إِلَى يَوْمِ الْقِيَامَةِ ثُمَّ إِلَيَّ مَرْجِعُكُمْ فَأَحْكُمُ بَيْنَكُمْ فِيمَا كُنْتُمْ فِيهِ تَخْتَلِفُونَ (56)

Meaning,

“And when Allah said, ‘O Jesus, I will cause thee to die a natural death and will exalt thee to Myself, and will clear from thee charges of those who disbelieve, and will place those who follow thee above those who disbelieve, until the Day of Resurrection; then to Me shall be your return, and I will judge between you concerning that wherein you differ.’”

This is another crystal-clear verse of the Holy Qur’an which evidently proves the death of Jesus (as). From the outset, even a quick reading of this verse would prove this fact without a shadow of doubt. In this verse, Allah the Almighty has mentioned the word, Mutawaffika (i.e., I will cause thee to die a natural death) first, and the word Rafi‘uka (i.e., I shall exalt thee) has been mentioned afterwards. In this verse, Allah has alluded to a natural phenomenon of life and death which is not specific to Jesus (as) alone, rather, every individual experiences this natural system as set in place by Allah. Since the Arabic word Mutawaffika (i.e., I will cause thee to die a natural death) has been mentioned first, we must accept that Jesus (as) died a natural death, before he was lifted into the heavens. We have no right to change or alter the order of events as stipulated by Allah Himself in this verse. It is not within our jurisdiction to assert that Jesus (as) would ascend into the heavens first, and die later (i.e., after his second advent). For if this was the case and Jesus (as) was to ascend For if this was the case and Jesus (as) was to ascend into the heavens first and die after his physical descent and second advent, then this verse should have read as such:

اذ قال اللّٰہ یٰعیسیٰ انی رافعك الی و متوفیك

However, as we can see, Allah the Almighty, did not adopt this order of events in the above-mentioned verse of the Holy Qur’an. Therefore, we are bound to accept the order which Allah has chosen Himself in this verse.

The importance of following the order which Allah the Almighty has set out is extremely important. There is a narration in which the companions of the Holy Prophet (sa) inquired of him at one occasion as to whether he would begin his running between Safa and Marwah from Safa first or Marwah. In response to this, the Holy Prophet (sa) responded:

ابدآ بما بدآ اللّٰہ

“I shall begin from where Allah has begun.”

Therefore, in order to understand the true meaning of this verse, we must comprehend it in light of the systematic order which Allah the Almighty has employed herein. It is not appropriate that we alter the natural order which Allah the Almighty has stipulated in this verse. However, as our non-Ahmadi opponents assert, if we are to accept that Jesus (as) has physically ascended into the heavens and would die after his physical descent, then we would have to accept that the order as stipulated in this verse does not accord with the transpiring of the actual events of the life of Jesus (as). This is something which cannot be accepted, because this would justify a lack of wisdom on the part of Allah in the textual arrangement of this verse.

If we were to accept that our non-Ahmadi opponents are correct in their claim that Jesus (as) has physically ascended into the heavens and would return in the latter days and die thereafter, we are, in affect, altering the order of the events stipulated in the verse. And of course, this is not permitted. If this was permitted, we would open up a pandoras box. For example, in the Holy Qur’an, Allah the Almighty has taught the manner in which to perform ablution in the following words:

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آَمَنُوا إِذَا قُمْتُمْ إِلَى الصَّلَاةِ فَاغْسِلُوا وُجُوهَكُمْ وَأَيْدِيَكُمْ إِلَى الْمَرَافِقِ وَامْسَحُوا بِرُءُوسِكُمْ وَأَرْجُلَكُمْ إِلَى الْكَعْبَيْنِ

Meaning,

“O ye who believe! when you stand up for Prayer, wash your faces, and your hands up to the elbows, and pass your wet hands over your heads, and wash your feet to the ankles.”

We now ask our opponents, that is it permissible for someone to perform ablution in a manner where he first washes his feet to the ankles, then passes his wet hands over his head, then washes his hands to the elbows, and finally washes his face? Would any scholar consider such an ablution to be in accordance with the Holy Qur’an? Most definitely not. It is an assumed fact that wherever Allah has mentioned a process, practice or phenomenon which comprises various events or actions, He has done so in a correct order. Why then, should we disrupt that order? Just as it is not permissible to alter the order of the ablution so too it is impermissible to present an ideology with regards to the life and death of Jesus (as) which does not accord to the order as specified in the verse under discussion.

Our opponents also raise the objection that the word Mutawaffika does not mean ‘death,’ rather, it implies the complete physical ascension of Jesus (as) into the heavens. They assert that the word Mutawaffi means ‘the taking of something in its physical entirety.’ This is a very interesting argument, but alas, it is completely bereft of even the most rudimentary logic and rationality.

We shall discuss the word Tawaffa from a linguistic perspective shortly hereafter. However, we would like to take up this argument from the perspective of logic and common sense first.

If the word Mutawaffika refers to the physical ascension of Jesus (as) as our non-Ahmadi opponents assert, then why would Allah the Almighty use the words Rafi‘uka ilaiyya after it? The physical ascension ideology does not hold true to this verse, because in such a case, there would be unnecessary repetition in this verse. If the word Mutawaffika is understood as our non-Ahmadi opponents would like, the translation of this verse would be as follows,

‘And when Allah said, ‘O Jesus, I will cause thee to physically ascend with thy body and soul1 and will exalt thee to Myself...’

Now, the obvious question is that, if the word Mutawaffika refers to the ascension of Jesus (as) into the heavens, with body and soul, then what more is left? After having reached God, is there a further point of ascension for which the Arabic words Rafi‘uka ilaiyya was required? The non-Ahmadis are very adamant in their assertion that the word Mutawaffika does not mean death. They state that this word refers to the taking of something completely, and therefore, Jesus (as) went into the heavens whole. If this is the case, then, the word Mutawaffika should have been enough. Allah would not have used the words Rafi‘uka ilaiyya after the word Mutawaffika. Do our opponents suggest the notion that Allah has used unnecessary repetition in this verse? Such redundancy can be found in the writings of man, but not in the revelation of Allah, the Lord of all the worlds, Who is pure of all weakness.

Non-Ahmadis also raise the issue of Taqdim and Takhir whilst discussing this verse. They claim that it is alright to change the order of the events stipulated in the verse under discussion. As such, although the verse states, Inni mutawaffika wa rafi‘uka, it is alright for these events to transpire in the reverse order. That is to say that Jesus (as) would first undergo his Rafa‘ and then his Mutawaffi. Without getting into a discussion on the subject of Taqdim and Takhir, simply put, keeping in mind the interpretation of non-Ahmadis, this verse does not allow for the events to transpire in the reverse order. The obvious reason for this is because non-Ahmadis understand both the words Mutawaffika and Rafi‘uka to mean more or less the same thing. They interpret Mutawaffika to mean ‘to take someone in his entirety’ and the word Rafi‘uka is interpreted by them to mean ‘physical bodily ascension.’ Therefore, one word was enough to fulfill the purpose of non-Ahmadis. If Allah had simply used the word Rafi ‘uka alone, it would have been enough. Similarly, if Allah had only used the word Mutawaffika, this still would have been enough. What need was there for this What need was there for this unnecessary redundancy? As we have mentioned, such ignorance cannot be attributed to the word of God.

This verse, can only make sense if we understand the word Mutawaffika to mean ‘death.’ In this case, the verse would make perfect sense. As such, the verse would mean that after Allah caused Jesus (as) to die a natural death, his body remained in the world, as all bodies do, but his soul was exalted towards Allah. And as we know, this is the case with all people. They receive a spiritual elevation of the soul after their demise (provided that they are righteous people of course), but their physical body of flesh and bone remains here.

It is important to explain that if this process of physical death and spiritual ascension is a common phenomenon experienced by all righteous men, and if it is in fact Allah, who causes everyone to die through His divine decree, why then, have these two very common actions of Allah been especially attributed to Jesus (as) in this verse of the Holy Qur’an.

In order to understand the wisdom behind Allah attributing a very common and natural phenomenon to Jesus (as), we must understand the context in which this statement is being made. If we study the verses prior to the one under discussion from verse 49 onwards a clear story and chain of events begin to unravel. Allah begins by speaking of the miraculous birth of Jesus (as). After this, the words of Jesus (as) have been recorded, which contain the details of his personality and qualities. Moreover, the words of Jesus (as) are recorded where he invites his people towards Allah and says,

“I come to you with a Sign from your Lord; so fear Allah and obey me.”

In verse 53 it is written that Jesus (as) began to perceive the disbelief and opposition of his people, and called for helpers in the way of Allah. This phenomenon of opposition is faced by all prophets of God, and this was the case with Jesus (as) as well. If we study history, it becomes evident, that the Jews continued to grow in their enmity and animosity towards Jesus (as). Their opposition became so fierce that they wished to crucify Jesus (as). The Jews desired to crucify Jesus (as) in order to prove that he was a false prophet. In the Mosaic law, it is written that anyone who is hung on the cross and killed, dies an accursed death.2 It is for this reason that the Jews wished to prove that God-forbid, Jesus (as) was an accursed man, let alone a prophet of God. The The following verse of the Holy Qur’an, which directly precedes the verse under discussion alludes to this very fact. Allah states:

وَمَكَرُوا وَمَكَرَ اللَّهُ وَاللَّهُ خَيْرُ الْمَاكِرِينَ .

meaning,

“And they planned (i.e., The Jews planned to crucify Jesus (as) and prove that he was, God-forbid, an accursed man), and Allah also planned (i.e., Allah planned to save Jesus (as) from the evil designs of the Jews and protect his prophet from the wrath of the people, as is the custom of Allah for all his beloved ones); and Allah is the Best of planners.”

In light of this context, directly after the above-mentioned verse, Allah states:

إِذْ قَالَ اللَّهُ يَا عِيسَى إِنِّي مُتَوَفِّيكَ وَرَافِعُكَ إِلَيَّ وَمُطَهِّرُكَ مِنَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا .

“When Allah said, ‘O Jesus, I will cause thee to die a natural death and will exalt thee to Myself, and will clear thee from the charges of those who disbelieve.’”

In actuality, this famous verse of the Holy Qur’an, which is used by our opponents in an attempt to prove the physical bodily ascension of Jesus (as) is the direct continuation of many verses preceding it. This verse is part and parcel of an entire context, an entire story, and it must be understood in light of that context. If we separate and isolate this verse from the context in which it has appeared in the Holy Qur’an we will not be able to fully understand the true meaning of this verse.

The Jews wished to crucify Jesus (as) in order to disprove his prophethood and to establish him as a man who was not even worthy of being deemed a righteous man. They wished to crucify him in order to prove that he died an accursed death in accordance with the Mosaic law. However, in response to their evil plan, Allah planned to protect his beloved prophet. Furthermore, Allah went on to state that the Jews can exert all their efforts in an attempt to kill Jesus (as) on the cross in order to send him into a death of damnation and curse, as per the Torah. However, quite the contrary, Allah announces, that it is I, and no one else, who shall cause Jesus (as) to die. Moreover, Allah states that not only would he protect Jesus (as) from the Jews, and cause him to die a natural death, but he would exalt Jesus (as) to himself. In other words, if the Jews wish to degrade the spiritual status of Jesus (as) in the eyes of the people by crucifying him, Allah would do the exact opposite, and elevate the spiritual status of Jesus (as) to that of great honour and prestige.

Therefore, in the verse under discussion, Allah has given a powerful response to the two evil intentions of the Jews:

1. In their enmity and opposition the Jews wished to crucify Jesus (as). However, Allah responded by saying that you would not be able to inflict an accursed death upon my beloved Messenger. It is I who shall cause Jesus (as) to die a natural death.
2. The Jews wished to crucify Jesus (as) in order to prove that he died an accursed death, as per the law of the Torah. However, Allah responded by saying that you will never be able to degrade the spiritual status and rank which I have bestowed upon My servant by way of your filthy intentions. Contrary to what you intend, after having caused Jesus (as) to die a natural death, I shall elevate his soul to Myself and grant him a lofty spiritual status in paradise.

It is for this very reason, and in light of this context, that Allah the Almighty further goes on to state in the verse under discussion that,

‘I shall clear thee from the charges of those who disbelieve.’

What charges exactly was Jesus (as) to be cleared of by Allah the Almighty? Of course, the charges of the Jews which have just been explained above. In actuality, the words,

‘And I shall clear thee from the charges of those who disbelieve,’

is an explanation of the true meaning of the words Mutawaffika and Rafi‘uka ilaiyya. If the physical ascension of Jesus (as) was being alluded to in this verse, as our opponents assert, then what relation do the words,

‘And I shall clear thee from the charges of those who disbelieve,’

have in this context? This statement would seem very much out of place. However, if the definition of the words Mutawaffika and Rafi‘uka ilaiyya are understood in the context we have presented above, then not only does the phrase

‘I shall clear thee from the charges of those who disbelieve,’

fit soundly and perfectly in place, but the verses prior to the one under discussion also seamlessly fit into place as pieces of a puzzle.

In the Holy Qur’an, Allah the Almighty states:

وَمَا مُحَمَّدٌ إِلَّا رَسُولٌ قَدْ خَلَتْ مِنْ قَبْلِهِ الرُّسُلُ أَفَإِنْ مَاتَ أَوْ قُتِلَ انْقَلَبْتُمْ عَلَى أَعْقَابِكُمْ وَمَنْ يَنْقَلِبْ عَلَى عَقِبَيْهِ فَلَنْ يَضُرَّ اللَّهَ شَيْئًا وَسَيَجْزِي اللَّهُ الشَّاكِرِينَ

Meaning,

“And Muhammad is only a Messenger. Verily, all Messengers have passed away before him. If then he die or be slain, will you turn back on your heels? And he who turns back on his heels shall not harm Allah at all. And Allah will certainly reward the grateful.”

In this verse, Allah the Almighty has alluded to a fundamental principle. Allah states that Messengers of God are not immortal like Allah, rather, they are human beings who pass away like the rest of mankind. As a matter of fact, in this verse, Allah states that throughout the course of history, we shall find that all the prophets of God have passed away. When Allah the Almighty states:

قَدْ خَلَتْ مِنْ قَبْلِهِ الرُّسُلُ

Meaning,

“Verily, all Messengers have passed away before him (i.e., before Prophet Muhammad (sa) )

This is a fundamental law of nature, and no exception has been made in this fundamental law of Allah the Almighty. Of course, this means that Prophet Jesus (as) is also a Messenger, and he too has passed away along with all the other Messengers.

Furthermore, it should be understood, that Prophet Muhammad (sa) is the primary subject in this verse. Allah the Almighty wishes to express the fact that Prophet Muhammad (sa) is a human being, who is not free from the confines of mortality and he too shall pass away. In order to substantiate this statement, Allah presents the fundamental logic that

‘All Messengers have passed away before him,’

as an argument to prove the inevitable demise of the Holy Prophet (sa) as well. In this verse, Allah the Almighty states that it is a fundamental principle that all the Messengers before the Holy Prophet (sa) have passed away. Therefore, since Muhammad (sa) is also a Messenger of God, he too shall pass away at some time. It would be most illogical, if Allah the Almighty presented a principle as supporting argumentation to prove the immortality of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa) but that principle was flawed, because one Messenger from the lot was exempt from that rule. Someone could immediately raise the objection that what kind of an argument is this? If there has been even a single Messenger prior to the Holy Prophet (sa) who was exempt from death, then why can Muhammad (sa) not be exempt from this rule of death as well? In such a case, this would not be much of an argument on the part of Allah.

On one hand, Allah is qualifying that since Muhammad (sa) is a Messenger he is bound to pass away, and the argumentation which supports this statement is that,

“Verily, all Messengers before him have also passed away.”

If even one Messenger is deemed to be exempt from this rule, then this entire statement fails to make any logical sense whatsoever, and we cannot say that Allah has presented an effective argument in substantiating his point. An intelligent man never presents a principle as supporting evidence to a claim if that supporting evidence can be proven to hold exceptions. Because, if an exception can be substantiated in the supporting evidence, then the claim can also be proven false and dismissed as an exception.

In this verse of the Holy Qur’an, Allah the Almighty has clearly mentioned that all the Messengers before Prophet Muhammad (sa) have passed away. It is obvious that Jesus (as) is also among those Messengers who appeared before the Holy Prophet (sa). Hence, in light of this verse, we must accept that he too has passed away. If Jesus (as) is exempt from this rule, then we must accept that he is not a Messenger of God, but perhaps something greater. For if he is a Messenger, then in accordance with this verse, he must have passed away.

A further proof of the fact that this verse clearly proves the death of Jesus (as) is the Ijma‘ or unanimous consensus of the Companions of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa) in this regard. If we study Islamic history, we shall find that the very first consensus which ever took place among the companions of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa) after his demise was on the death of Jesus (as). As a matter of fact, this was the only time in the history of Islam when the entire Ummah unanimously agreed on an issue. In order to further elaborate this point, we shall present a famous narration from Bukhari, which is accepted as the most authentic book of Hadith.

When the Holy Prophet (sa) passed away, Hadrat Abu Bakr (ra) was outside of Madinah in a nearby village called As-Sunh. When Hadrat Abu Bakr (ra) heard of the demise of his beloved Master, Prophet Muhammad (sa), he immediately came to Madinah and reached the Masjidun-Nabawi. Upon reaching here, Hadrat Abu Bakr found Hadrat ‘Umar (ra) addressing the people in a very passionate and emotional manner, saying that the Holy Prophet (sa) had not died, and that he had only ascended into the heavens temporarily. He would soon return and inflict punishment upon the hypocrites. Hadrat ‘Umar (ra) said that anyone who claims that the Holy Prophet (sa) has died, I shall sever his head. Since Hadrat Abu Bakr (ra) knew that this was not true, he came to the pavilion of Hadrat ‘A’ishah (ra) and lifted the mantle which had covered the blessed countenance of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa). At this, he bent forward and kissed the forehead of the Holy Prophet (sa). Then he addressed the dead body of his beloved Master and said:

بابی انت و امی، انت طیب حیا و میتا، لن یجمع اللہ علیك موتتین الا موتتك الاولیٰ۔

Meaning,

“May my father and mother be a sacrifice for you. You are pure both in a state of life and death. Allah shall never gather upon you two deaths, except for your first.”

This obviously meant, that the Holy Prophet (sa) would not return to the world a second time. After this, Hadrat Abu Bakr (ra) came outside and said to Hadrat

‘Umar (ra), “O ‘Umar, sit down.”

Hadrat ‘Umar (ra) refused to sit down. However, Hadrat Abu Bakr (ra) turned to the people in order to address them, and they began to pay attention to him. Hadrat Abu Bakr (ra) addressed the congregation in the Masjidun-Nabawi and said:

من كان منكم یعبد محمداً فان محمداً قد مات۔ ومن كان منكم یعبد اللہ فان اللہ حی لا یموت۔

Meaning,

“As for those of you who worship Muhammad (sa), then verily, Muhammad (sa) has passed away. As for those of you who worship Allah, then verily, He is Living and shall never die.”

Then, Hadrat Abu Bakr (ra) recited the following verse of the Holy Qur’an:

َمَا مُحَمَّدٌ إِلَّا رَسُولٌ قَدْ خَلَتْ مِنْ قَبْلِهِ الرُّسُلُ أَفَإِنْ مَاتَ أَوْ قُتِلَ انْقَلَبْتُمْ عَلَى أَعْقَابِكُمْ وَمَنْ يَنْقَلِبْ عَلَى عَقِبَيْهِ فَلَنْ يَضُرَّ اللَّهَ شَيْئًا وَسَيَجْزِي اللَّهُ الشَّاكِرِينَ

Meaning,

“And Muhammad is only a Messenger. Verily, all Messengers have passed away before him. If then he die or be slain, will you turn back on your heels? And he who turns back on his heels shall not harm Allah at all. And Allah will certainly reward the grateful.”

The narrator relates that when Hadrat Abu Bakr (ra) recited this verse, all of the companions of the Holy Prophet (sa) felt as if this verse had been revealed just now. It seemed as if they had forgotten this verse all together. However, when Hadrat Abu Bakr (ra) recited it before them, they were suddenly struck by it, and they began to recite it. Hadrat ‘Umar (ra) states that when I heard this verse from Hadrat Abu Bakr (ra):

فعقرت حتی ما تقلنی رجلای و حتی اھویت علی الارض حین سمعتہ تلاھا ان النبی صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم قد مات

Meaning,

“I became afraid. Both my legs began to tremble, so much so that when I heard that the Holy Prophet (sa) had passed away, I fell to the ground.”

From this narration it becomes evident, without a shadow of doubt, that at this critical and most sensitive time, the companions of the Holy Prophet (sa) in their entirety accepted the fact that Jesus (as) had passed away along with all the past prophets. It is obvious, that at this occasion, Hadrat Abu Bakr presented this verse of the Holy Qur’an to prove and qualify the physical demise of the Holy Prophet (sa). Before Hadrat Abu Bakr made this address, Hadrat ‘Umar was of the belief, that the Holy Prophet (sa) had not passed away, rather, only temporarily left this world and ascended into the heavens, and he would return soon thereafter. If Jesus (as) was in fact physically alive at the time of this occurrence, as the non-Ahmadi ideology asserts, why then, when this verse was presented to prove that the Holy Prophet (sa) had passed away, did Hadrat ‘Umar not object to this so called “erroneous” argument? Why did he not raise the objection in contestation to Hadrat Abu Bakr (ra) that Jesus (as) is still physically alive in the heavens, and therefore, if Jesus (as) can physically ascend into the heavens and return, then so too can my Master, the Seal of the Prophets and the Chief of the Prophets, the Chosen one, Muhammad (sa)? Hadrat ‘Umar (ra) states that when I heard Abu Bakr (ra) present this verse, it suddenly dawned upon me that my beloved Master had indeed parted from this transient world, and just as all the past prophets had passed away, so too has the Holy Prophet (sa).

In addition to Hadrat ‘Umar (ra), the companions of the Holy Prophet (sa) in their entirety also accepted this argument of Hadrat Abu Bakr (ra) as a powerful proof of not only the demise of the Holy Prophet (sa) but of Jesus (as) as well. The companions of the Holy Prophet (sa) were blessed to have learnt the Holy Qur’an by Prophet Muhammad (sa) directly. Their knowledge, their deep insight and their righteousness was such that they had a special knowledge of the book. If they knew of Jesus (as) or any other prophet, prior to the Holy Prophet (sa) to have been alive in the heavens, they would have immediately objected to this erroneous argument of Hadrat Abu Bakr (ra). However, we see that not a single companion of the Holy Prophet (sa) objected to this wonderful and most appropriate argument presented by Hadrat Abu Bakr (ra) substantiating the demise of the Holy Prophet (sa). An interesting point to note is that the Ijma‘ of the companions on the death of Jesus (as) is more strong, authentic and superior to even the Ijma‘ of the companions on the Khilafat of Hadrat Abu Bakr. Not a single narration exists, (not even the weakest of narrations), which even slightly hints towards the fact that a single companion disagreed with Hadrat Abu Bakr (ra) on his interpretation of this verse. However, as far as the Khilafat of Hadrat Abu Bakr (ra) is concerned, we find from various narrations, that some companions disagreed or were reluctant in accepting him as Khalifah. It is written that Hadrat ‘Ali (ra) was also among those who accepted Hadrat Abu Bakr (ra) after some time. However, as far as the Ijma‘ of the companions on this verse of the Holy Qur’an is concerned, not a single companion is recorded to have objected by saying that ‘O Abu Bakr, your argument or interpretation of this verse is incorrect. Jesus (as) is alive in the heavens.’

The companions of the Holy Prophet (sa) were very open and confident in voicing their thoughts, especially if it related to religious understanding. If they truly believed that Hadrat Abu Bakr (ra) had said something incorrect, they surely would have voiced their concern. Especially at a time when their emotions of grief, sorrow, pain and anguish had put them into a state of denial, with regards to the demise of their beloved Master. They definitely would have raised the question that if Jesus (as) can physically ascend into the heavens, then what hinderance is there in the bodily ascension of the Holy Prophet (sa). Therefore, the non-Ahmadi argument is false.

Therefore, in actuality, the very first unanimous consensus which was arrived upon by the companions of the Holy Prophet (sa) was on the death of Jesus (as). For as it has been mentioned, if Jesus (as) had physically ascended into the heavens and had been physically alive at the demise of the Holy Prophet (sa), it would not make any sense at all for Hadrat Abu Bakr (ra) to present this verse to prove the demise of the Holy Prophet (sa). This verse states that Muhammad (sa) is nothing more than a messenger and all the messengers prior to the Holy Prophet (sa) have passed away. This results in the natural conclusion that every single messenger prior to the Holy Prophet (sa), including Jesus (as), must have passed away by that time. If even a single messenger prior to the Holy Prophet (sa) was exempt of this rule, the demise of the Holy Prophet (sa) could never be qualified by this verse. Furthermore, as it has been stated, if Jesus (as) had been alive when this verse was presented by Hadrat Abu Bakr (ra), the ever so wise companions of the Holy Prophet (sa), and more so, Hadrat ‘Umar (ra), who was a man of remarkable intellect, would have definitely raised the point that Jesus (as) is alive in the heavens, and therefore, Prophet Muhammad (sa) has also physically ascended as well; how can this verse prove his demise?

There is another interesting point which can also be derived from this instance. The fact of the matter is that Hadrat Abu Bakr (ra) presented this verse of the Holy Qur’an to prove that the Holy Prophet (sa) had passed away and that he would not return to the physical world, in contrast with the initial view of Hadrat ‘Umar (ra). This sheds light on the prophecy of the second coming of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa) as mentioned in Surah Al-Jumu‘ah as well. Allah the Almighty states:

وَآَخَرِينَ مِنْهُمْ لَمَّا يَلْحَقُوا بِهِمْ وَهُوَ الْعَزِيزُ الْحَكِيمُ

Meaning,

“And among others from among them who have not yet joined them. He is the Mighty the Wise.”

The non-Ahmadi ideology asserts that the Holy Prophet (sa) would return physically in the latter days. However, this is not the case. At this occasion, Hadrat Abu Bakr (ra) taught us by his astounding wisdom that the Holy Prophet (sa) would never return to the world after his demise. Moreover, if there is a prophecy which states that the Holy Prophet (sa) would be raised in the latter days, then in actuality, this means that a man would come in the likeness of the Holy Prophet (sa). He would come with the qualities and attributes of the Holy Prophet (sa) as a perfect reflection of that Master Prophet. He would acquire his qualities and attributes through the spiritual grace and blessings of the Holy Prophet (sa). Therefore, the Muslims are indebted to Hadrat Abu Bakr (ra) for his wisdom and guidance. At this difficult time not only did he clearly prove the demise of Jesus (as), but also established the demise of the Holy Prophet (sa) and that his second advent was to be interpreted metaphorically as a spiritual advent in the person of someone else.

Another argument of desperation which is presented by non-Ahmadis in order to somehow justify the life of Jesus (as) and his physical ascension is that they claim the Arabic word Khalat does not mean ‘death’, rather, it only means ‘to pass by’. Therefore, when Allah states Qad khalat min qablihir-rusul, in actuality, this does not mean that the prophets have died before him, it only means they have passed by in time. Alas, this argument is also devoid of logic and common sense. When the word Khalat is used for someone who possesses a soul, it always implies a meaning of death. Non-Ahmadis often present verses of the Holy Qur’an where the word Khala or Khalat have been used but a meaning of death is not inferred. For example, they present the verse:

قَدْ خَلَتْ مِنْ قَبْلِكُمْ سُنَنٌ فَسِيرُوا فِي الْأَرْضِ فَانْظُروا كَيْفَ كَانَ عَاقِبَةُ الْمُكَذِّبِينَ .

Meaning,

“Surely, there have been many dispensations before you; so travel through the earth and see how evil was the end of those who treated the Prophets as liars.”

Non-Ahmadis state that in this verse the word Khalat has been used but obviously the translation is not of death. However, this example is absolutely erroneous because the subject of this sentence is the word Sunanun which is a noun which does not possess a soul. Our argument does not state that whenever the word Khalat is used it always infers a meaning of death. The argument presented by Ahmadis is that whenever this word is used for ‘someone that possesses a soul’ and there is no specific mention which indicates a ‘physical place’, the meaning always infers death. In the erroneous example presented above, the noun or subject Sunan is not a living thing, therefore this does not help the Non-Ahmadi argument at all. In addition to this, another example presented by non-Ahmadis in an attempt to support their argument is the following verse:

وَإِذَا خَلَوْا إِلَى شَيَاطِينِهِمْ

Meaning,

“And when they retreat to their ringleaders...”

However, this is yet again another erroneous example because in this verse, whenever the word Khalat is followed by the word ila or there is another word to identify a specific meaning, the word can be used to infer the passing by of something in time, or from one place to another. In the above-mentioned example, the word Khalau has been followed by the word ila, therefore, the meaning implied here is not of death. The fact of the matter is that the idiom of ‘passing away’ is not specific to Arabic alone. Even in the English language, when it is said that, ‘So and so has passed away.’ When the word ‘passed’, or ‘passed away’, or ‘passed on’ is used, the implied meaning is always death. However, if it is said that, ‘So and so has passed by that building’, since there is a specific word used to specify exactly where the passing by took place, it can be easily understood that death is not implied here. Similarly, in Urdu when it is said that, ‘Wo guzar gaya’, this means the person has died. However, if it is said, ‘Wo falan jagah say guzar gaya’ (i.e., he passed by such and such place), this clarifies everything. Similarly, in Arabic when the word Khalat is used on its own, this always means death. If we study the classical Arabic lexicons, it shall become evident that when the Arabic word Khalat is used on its own for a human being, the meaning implied is always death. In Lisanul-‘Arab it is written:

خلا فلان ۔۔۔۔ اذا مات

Meaning,

“Khala fulanun, i.e., when he died.”

Then, in Aqrabul-Mawarid it is written:

خلا الرجل۔۔۔۔ ای مات

Meaning,

“Khalar-rajulu - i.e., he died.”

Similarly, Tajul-‘Urus states:

خلا فلان۔۔۔۔ ای مات

Meaning,

“Khala fulanun - i.e., he died.”

The Promised Messiah (as) has given a challenge with regards to the true meaning of the word Khalat. The Promised Messiah (as) states:

“I am prepared to hand over a reward of 1000 rupees to anyone who can prove from the Holy Qur’an, or any authentic, weak or fabricated Hadith, or the statement of any companion, or from a statement of any other Imam, or from the addresses (Khutubat) or (Dawaaween) of the era of the Jahiliyyah; and from all kinds of poetic verses or from the prose or verse of the Islamic (fusaha) that in the definition of Khalat, there is the meaning that an individual can go into the heavens along with his physical body.”

In the Holy Qur’an, Allah the Almighty states:

مَا الْمَسِيحُ ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ إِلَّا رَسُولٌ قَدْ خَلَتْ مِنْ قَبْلِهِ الرُّسُلُ وَأُمُّهُ صِدِّيقَةٌ كَانَا يَأْكُلَانِ الطَّعَامَ انْظُرْ كَيْفَ نُبَيِّنُ لَهُمُ الْآَيَاتِ ثُمَّ انْظُرْ أَنَّى يُؤْفَكُونَ .

Meaning,

“The Messiah, son of Mary, was only a Messenger; surely, Messengers like unto him had indeed passed away before him. And his mother was a truthful woman. They both used to eat food. See how we explain the Signs for their good, and see how they are turned away.”

In this verse of the Holy Qur’an, Allah the Almighty has clearly alluded to the death of Jesus (as). In the first phrase of this verse, Allah the Almighty states that Jesus (as) is a messenger of God. The first portion of this verse does not have anything to do with life or death. It merely qualifies the argument and establishes the ground-work which is to authenticate the argument to be presented in the next part of the verse, which of course, relates to the natural death of Jesus (as), and all Messengers for that matter. In the first portion of this verse, Allah the Almighty states:

مَا الْمَسِيحُ ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ إِلَّا رَسُولٌ

Meaning,

“The Messiah, son of Mary, was only a Messenger.”

In these words, First, Allah the Almighty has negated the concept of the divinity of Christ and clearly established the fact that Jesus (as) was only a Messenger of God, and nothing more. Secondly, after firmly establishing that Jesus (as) is a Messenger, Allah makes the statement that:

قَدْ خَلَتْ مِنْ قَبْلِهِ الرُّسُلُ

Meaning,

“Surely, Messengers like unto him had indeed passed away before him.”

This second statement clearly indicates that just as all of the past Messengers have passed away, so too has Jesus (as), for he too, is a Messenger of Allah. In other words, since Jesus (as) is a Messenger of Allah, the natural law of nature, which applies to all the Messengers of Allah also applies to Jesus (as) as well, and he is not exempt from death. The example of this verse is exactly the same as if it was said that Zaid is nothing but a human being; And all human beings are made of clay. Just as this statement naturally results in the logical conclusion that Zaid too is made of clay, the verse under discussion also proves that Jesus (as) like all the other Messengers (who have passed away) has left this transient world. This is a very straight-forward, common sense and logical concept.

In the next part of this verse, Allah the Almighty further establishes the death of Jesus (as) by stating the following:

وَأُمُّهُ صِدِّيقَةٌ كَانَا يَأْكُلَانِ الطَّعَامَ

Meaning,

“And His mother was a truthful woman. They both used to eat food.”

It is obvious that food is a basic necessity for the sustenance of human life. A human being cannot exist without food and drink. In this verse of the Holy Qur’an, Allah the Almighty has stated that both Jesus (as) and his mother ‘used to eat food.’ This means that at some point in history, Jesus (as) and his mother used to eat food, but now, they do not. This obviously means that since they are no longer eating food, and no longer require sustenance, they have passed away. Food and life are two things which go hand in hand. A person who eats food can be deemed living. A person who does not eat food cannot live, because food is obviously a basic necessity of life. Similarly, it is obvious that a dead person does not eat food. Therefore, when Allah states that Jesus (as) and his mother Mary ‘used to eat food,’ this means that they no longer eat food, and therefore, if they are free from the requirements of human life, then they must be dead. If Jesus (as) was still alive, Allah would have stated that Jesus and his mother, used to eat food before, they still eat food, and shall continue to eat food in the future as well. The fact that this action is no longer taking place proves that Jesus (as) and his mother have died, because the natural result of not eating food for any human being is death. Someone could raise the objection that Jesus (as) is still physically alive in the heavens, but now, Allah the Almighty, due to his infinite power has precluded him from the need to eat food. However, such a notion is not only illogical, it is also in direct contradiction with the Holy Qur’an. The Holy Qur’an clearly states:

وَمَا جَعَلْنَاهُمْ جَسَدًا لَا يَأْكُلُونَ الطَّعَامَ وَمَا كَانُوا خَالِدِينَ

Meaning,

“And We did not give them bodies that ate no food, nor were they to live for ever.”

This verse establishes the fundamental principle that physical bodies require food. Therefore, if Jesus (as) is physically alive and present in the heavens, then as per this verse of the Holy Qur’an, he must also partake of material food. If he is no longer eating food, then he no longer possesses a physical body either, and the absence of a physical body or the separation of the soul from a physical body is but another expression for the word ‘death.’ There is but another complication attached to the notion that Jesus (as) is physically alive in the heavens and that he is receiving physical food in the heavens. If this is the case, then we must accept the mother of Jesus (as) as being a counterpart in this scenario. The reason being that in the verse under discussion, Allah has stated, “They both used to eat food.” This phrase is in the third person dual form, which means, ‘both Jesus (as) and his mother Mary used to eat food.’ If the non-Ahmadis interpret the words Kana ya’kulanit-ta‘am to mean that Jesus (as) used to eat food, and still eats food in the heavens, then his mother must also be present with him in the heavens to partake in that food with him, because Allah has referred to both son and mother as performing this action together in the verse under discussion. It obvious that no non-Ahmadi subscribes to the belief that Mary (as) is also currently alive and present in the heavens with her physical body. Therefore, in light of this very basic and rational linguistic deduction, there are two options available to us:

1. If the words, “They both used to eat food” means that Jesus (as) still eats food, as he sits in the heavens with his physical body, then we must accept that Mary (as) is also present in the heavens with her physical body along with her son Jesus (as). This is because, Allah the Almighty has referred to both Jesus (as) and his mother as participating in this action together. It is not possible for someone to claim that Jesus (as) used to eat food and still eats food, but Mary (as) no longer eats food, as she has passed away. Because the same verb, in the same tense, has been used to refer to both subjects. Therefore, either both of them no longer eat food, and have died, or both of them eat food, and reside in the heavens with their physical bodies.
2. The second option available to us, which is the more logical one is that Jesus (as) and his mother Mary (as) used to eat food, but since they no longer require this basic human necessity, they have passed away from this transient world, and only their souls are alive in the heavens. Furthermore, as it has been stated in Verse 9 of Surah Al-Anbiya’, Allah has created no physical body which can remain without food. Therefore, if the action of eating no longer takes place, there is no other option but to accept that death has overtaken both Jesus (as) and his mother. A physical body requires physical food. If there is no physical food there can be no physical body. The conclusion, therefore, is very simple. Since Jesus (as) and his mother are no longer partaking in physical food, they no longer possess physical bodies.

In the Holy Qur’an, Allah the Almighty states:

وَالَّذِينَ يَدْعُونَ مِنْ دُونِ اللَّهِ لَا يَخْلُقُونَ شَيْئًا وَهُمْ يُخْلَقُونَ )(21) أَمْوَاتٌ غَيْرُ أَحْيَاءٍ وَمَا يَشْعُرُونَ أَيَّانَ يُبْعَثُونَ (22)

Meaning,

“And those on whom they call beside Allah create not anything, but they are themselves created. They are dead, not living; and they know not when they will be raised.”

In these two verses of the Holy Qur’an, Allah the Almighty has clearly mentioned that all those false Gods who are worshipped by the people are dead. In light of this divine statement, if it is established that Jesus (as) is also among such personages who are worshipped by the people and given a status of God, then in accordance with Verse 22, he too must be accepted as having passed away. For in this verse, Allah the Almighty has clearly stated that those people who are called upon besides God “are dead, not living.” There is no doubt that these two verses are most applicable to Jesus (as) because as we know, there is perhaps no other man who has been so widely worshipped by the people as God than him. In the 21st century there are 2.2 billion adherents of Christianity, most of whom believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ. Furthermore, we know that the Christians at the time of the advent of the Holy Prophet (sa) believed in Jesus (as) as God, and worshipped him. As such, in accordance to this verse, Jesus (as) is also among those people who “are dead, not living.”

Therefore, based on these verses of the Holy Qur’an, if we are to accept Jesus (as) as a humble prophet of God, who has been falsely worshipped by his followers, then we must accept him as dead in accordance to this verse. If however, our non-Ahmadi opponents accept Jesus (as) as being alive in the heavens, and exempt from the announcement of death which has been made in this verse, then he must also be a true God. This, of course, is blasphemy and no true Muslim can entertain such a notion. Non-Ahmadis should contemplate that if a Christian raises an objection against the Holy Qur’an that in light of your religious beliefs, the Holy Qur’an proves to be incorrect, what rebuttal would they provide? Christians could raise the allegation that the Holy Qur’an refers to Jesus (as) as ‘Min dunillah,’ or besides Allah. In other words, the Holy Qur’an teaches that Jesus (as) is not a God to be worshipped, rather, he is only a prophet of God. In verse 21-22 of Surah Al-Nahl, Allah the Almighty has categorically stated, without exception, that all those people who are worshipped as Gods beside Allah are not living, rather, they are dead. You however, believe that Jesus son of Mary is alive in the heavens and has not yet died. Furthermore, it is obvious, that when the Holy Qur’an was revealed, Christians believed in Jesus (as) to be God. Therefore, either the Holy Qur’an is incorrect in this statement, or perhaps Jesus (as) is God and therefore exempt from this rule? Therefore, if we are to establish the Holy Qur’an as being true in its statement, and Jesus (as) is not God (as the Muslims rightfully believe), then he must be dead. Based on these verses of the Holy Qur’an, there are only three logical and rational options which can be deduced:

1. If we are to accept the Holy Qur’an as being true in its statement, then Jesus (as) who is worshipped as God by millions and millions of people around the world, must be dead.
2. If however, Jesus (as) is not dead, and currently lives in the heavens as the non-Ahmadi interpretation suggests, then the Holy Qur’an must be false in its claim.
3. If non-Ahmadis assert that the Holy Qur’an is true in its claim, but Jesus (as) is also alive in the heavens, then this would naturally result in the logical deduction that Jesus (as) is God. If we are to accept Jesus (as) as being within the category of Yad‘una min dunillahi (i.e., called upon as God, besides Allah) then he must be dead as specified in this verse by the words Amwatun ghairu ahya’in (i.e., dead and not alive). The only case in which Jesus (as) can be exempt from Amwatun ghairu ahya’in is if he is accepted as God. But of course, no Muslim believes that Jesus (as) is God (although it is a shame that practically they have attributed many Godly characteristics to him like physically giving life to the dead, creating birds and then blowing life into them, etc.)

Therefore, if Jesus (as) is physically alive in the heavens, as the non-Ahmadis fervently assert, then based on this conclusive verse of the Holy Qur’an, he must also be a God. For in this verse, false Gods, which have been worshipped by the people, are Amwatun ghairu ahya’in (i.e., dead and not alive).

When this clear and conclusive verse is presented to non-Ahmadis in order to support the concept of the death of Jesus (as) they present an interesting counter argument. They claim that this verse refers to such idols who the idolatrous people worship. In this verse, Allah is stating that these idols of stone are not living, they are dead. This argument does not hold weight if this verse is analysed from a linguistic perspective. To the end of verse 22, Allah states, “And they know not when they will be raised.” It is obvious that if this verse was referring to idols of stone as our opponents suggest, these words would not be used. For it is obvious that idols of stone are not to be raised. In this verse, those false gods are being referred to who shall be raised at some point in time. It is obvious that this can only allude to human beings, and not inanimate objects.

The Promised Messiah (as) states:

“Look at how explicitly these verses prove the death of the Messiah and all those people whom the Jews, Christians, and various sects among the Arabs held as God and to whom they supplicated. If even still you are not convinced of the death of the Messiah son of Mary, why do you not clearly confess that we hold reservations in believing in the Qur’an all together?”

In the Holy Qur’an, Allah the Almighty states:

وَجَعَلَنِي مُبَارَكًا أَيْنَ مَا كُنْتُ وَأَوْصَانِي بِالصَّلَاةِ وَالزَّكَاةِ مَا دُمْتُ حَيًّا (32) وَبَرًّا بِوَالِدَتِي وَلَمْ يَجْعَلْنِي جَبَّارًا شَقِيًّا (33)

Meaning,

“And He has made me blessed wheresoever I may be, and has enjoined upon me Prayer and almsgiving so long as I life. And He has made me dutiful toward my mother, and He has not made me haughty and unblessed.”

In these verses of Surah Maryam, we have a statement of Jesus (as) where he has mentioned that Allah the Almighty has enjoined upon him certain forms of worship which he must perform as long as he remains alive. From these verses, we find that three commands have been given to Jesus (as) by Allah the Almighty. These three commands are: prayer, almsgiving and being dutiful to his mother.

As it has been mentioned in this verse, these three duties must be performed by Jesus (as) so long as there is life within him. The only case in which these three duties can no longer be performed is when Jesus (as) passes away. It is obvious that if Jesus (as) is still alive in the heavens, as the non-Ahmadi ideology purports, perhaps Jesus (as) is fulfilling these three duties at some place in the heavens? Indeed, what an illogical notion. It is obvious that these three duties could only be performed in this world. Does it not seem to be a matter of wonder that on one hand, Allah the Almighty instructs Jesus (as) to offer prayers, but then himself separates Jesus (as) from the community of believers, the nearness of whom is necessary to perform the duty of congregational prayers? Then, does it not seem strange, that Allah instructs Jesus (as) to pay charity, but then Himself separates Jesus (as) from human life, upon which charity is spent? Where is it in the heavens that he would pay charity and to whom? Are there any poor and needy people in the heavens to whom Jesus (as) pays charity? Furthermore, by separating him from his community, it also becomes impossible for him to enjoin almsgiving upon others. Would the non-Ahmadi scholars assert that Jesus (as) pays charity to a community of souls who reside in the heavens? Is there such thing as poor and less fortunate souls in the heavens as well? Or perhaps there is a community of physical bodies in the heavens, especially placed there by Allah so that Jesus (as) can fulfill this duty until he lives. Similarly, does it not seem odd that Allah would instruct Jesus (as) to be dutiful to his mother, but then Himself, separates Jesus (as) from his mother? Perhaps the non-Ahmadis would remove this apparent contradiction by proposing that the mother of Jesus (as) has also ascended physically into the heavens to remain with her son Jesus (as), and therefore, Jesus (as) is fulfilling his duty to his mother in the heavens. Of course, this would mean that Mary (as) would have to remain alive until the demise of Jesus (as).

In the Holy Qur’an, Allah the Almighty states:

وَالسَّلَامُ عَلَيَّ يَوْمَ وُلِدْتُ وَيَوْمَ أَمُوتُ وَيَوْمَ أُبْعَثُ حَيًّا

Meaning,

“And peace was on me the day I was born and peace there will be on me the day I shall die, and the day I shall be raised up to life again.”

Three Aspects of the Life of Jesus (as)

The natural question which arises upon studying this verse right from the outset is that if the physical ascension and descent of Jesus (as) was in fact a true occurrence, then it definitely should have been mentioned in this verse of the Holy Qur’an. If the ascension and descent of Jesus (as) was truly supported by the Holy Qur’an then it should have been mentioned because its significance is much more than his birth, death and being raised up on the day of judgement. As far as these three things are concerned, all human beings partake in this. Every individual is born, every individual dies, and every individual is to be raised on the day of resurrection. However, as the non-Ahmadi interpretation asserts, Jesus (as) is the only person in the history of mankind who physically ascended into the heavens and he is the only one who is to descend in the latter days. These two significant and unique aspects of the life of Jesus (as) should have been mentioned in this verse because they are specific to Jesus (as), as our non-Ahmadi opponents purport. It seems strange that Allah would leave out these two very important and unique aspects of the life of Jesus (as) and mention three other aspects which every other individual in the world shares with him. The ascension and descent of Jesus (as) have become a very heated topic of debate in these days. Did Allah the Almighty, God-forbid, not know that such a time would come when people would debate this issue? If He knew, then he should have saved mankind from misguidance, and mentioned that, ‘Listen here, the day that Jesus (as) ascended into the heavens, and the day that he shall descend will also be a source of peace and blessings.’ Did Allah the Almighty exclude the physical ascension and descent of Jesus (as) in this verse because it was not a source of blessings for Jesus (as)? Of course not. The reason Allah the Almighty has excluded these two extraordinary events in this verse and mentioned the three others which are natural occurrences in the life of every individual anyway is to prove and establish, and conclusively indicate that Jesus (as) was a normal human being, who was born and passed away after spending a normal life like all other prophets. Moreover, by excluding these two ‘extraordinary’ points, Allah has clearly indicated that the notion that Jesus (as) ascended into the heavens and shall descend in the latter days is a false notion. If it was true, it most definitely would have been mentioned, because these two aspects of his life were most significant, unique, and extraordinary.

In the Holy Qur’an, Allah the Almighty states:

أَوْ يَكُونَ لَكَ بَيْتٌ مِنْ زُخْرُفٍ أَوْ تَرْقَى فِي السَّمَاءِ وَلَنْ نُؤْمِنَ لِرُقِيِّكَ حَتَّى تُنَزِّلَ عَلَيْنَا كِتَابًا نَقْرَؤُهُ قُلْ سُبْحَانَ رَبِّي هَلْ كُنْتُ إِلَّا بَشَرًا رَسُولًا

Meaning,

“‘Or thou have a house of gold or thou ascend up into heaven; and we will not believe in thy ascension until thou send down to us a book that we can read.’ Say, ‘Holy is my Lord! I am not but a man sent as a Messenger’”

Commentary

In this verse of the Holy Qur’an, a precedent has been established by the Holy Prophet (sa) himself with regards to the physical ascension of human beings. If three verses prior to the one under discussion are studied, it becomes clear that the disbelievers of Makkah, made various demands of the Holy Prophet (sa) to perform various tasks, in order to examine the truth of his prophethood. The disbelievers asked the Holy Prophet (sa) to cause a spring to gush forth from the earth for the people of Makkah, or show that he owned gardens or that he should cause the sky to fall upon them in pieces. Among these demands, the disbelievers of Makkah also demanded that the Holy Prophet (sa) ascend into the heavens and bring forth a book. Upon this, Allah the Almighty instructed the Holy Prophet (sa) to say that, “I am not but a man sent as a Messenger.”

It is obvious that if physical ascension was a possibility then the Holy Prophet (sa) was most deserving of benefiting from this facility. At this occasion, the disbelievers of Makkah were demanding a clear sign as a proof of the truthfulness of his prophethood. If it was a custom of Allah to physically raise up Prophets of God in times of difficulty, as the non-Ahmadi interpretation asserts with regards to Jesus (as), then why did the Holy Prophet (sa) not ascend at this occasion to exhibit the truthfulness of his claim?

The answer which was presented by the Holy Prophet (sa) at this occasion clearly establishes the fact that it is not the custom of Allah to permit physical ascensions into the heavens. The Holy Prophet (sa) was instructed by Allah to inform the disbelieving people of Makkah that since I am a prophet of Allah, and a human being, it is not within my power to physically ascend into the heavens.

Therefore, it is categorically proven that in accordance with this precedent set by the Holy Prophet (sa) in this verse with relation to physical ascension, no human being can ascend into the heavens, not even Jesus (as), though the non-Ahmadis would greatly desire so. If the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa) who was the Chief of the Prophets and the Master of all humanity, was unable to physically ascend into the heavens when the disbelieving people demanded a sign from him, then no other prophet can be deemed more worthy than him in this regard, and be exempt from this rule. As such, it is a false notion to claim that Jesus (as) physically ascended into the heavens and shall return in the latter days. For if physical ascension was a possibility and if it was a phenomenon supported by the Holy Qur’an, then the Holy Prophet (sa) should also have physically ascended into the heavens at this critical time.

In the Holy Qur’an, Allah the Almighty states:

وَمَا جَعَلْنَا لِبَشَرٍ مِنْ قَبْلِكَ الْخُلْدَ أَفَإِنْ مِتَّ فَهُمُ الْخَالِدُونَ

Meaning,

“We granted not everlasting life to any human being before thee. If then thou shouldst die, shall they live here for ever?”

In this verse of the Holy Qur’an, Allah the Almighty has alluded to a fundamental principle or a law of nature which applies to all human beings. That principle is that Allah the Almighty has created no human being with everlasting life. No human being is free from the effects of decay and physical deterioration. Even the Holy Prophet (sa) himself was not immune to death. Of course, Jesus (as), being a human being is also subject to this fundamental law of nature. He too shall die and cannot receive everlasting life. For everlasting life is the sole quality of Allah, the Lord of all the worlds.

Upon reading the English translation of the verse under discussion, someone might raise the objection that the translation of the verse is, “We have granted not everlasting life to any human being.” This does not prove that Jesus (as) has passed away, it only establishes the fact that Jesus (as) shall not receive ‘everlasting life.’ Therefore, as non-Ahamdis, we too believe that Jesus (as) shall die at some point, after his second advent, but currently he has not yet reached that stage. At the current time, Jesus (as) resides in the heavens with his physical body and after his physical descent and the completion of his mission, he shall pass away, in accordance to this verse.

This misconception is due to the fact that the deeper meanings of the Arabic word Khuld have not been understood completely from a linguistic perspective by non-Ahmadis. It is obvious that ‘everlasting life’ is also one of the meanings of the Arabic word Khuld, but the English translation ‘everlasting life’ does not do full justice to the meaning of the Arabic word Khuld. It is for this reason, that in Tafsir-e-Saghir, which is the smaller commentary of the Holy Qur’an, written in Urdu by Hadrat Khalifatul-Masih II (ra), he has translated this verse as follows:

اور ھم نے كسی انسان كو تجھ سے پھلے غیر طبعی عمر نھیں بخشی

Meaning,

“We have not granted anyone before you an unnaturally [prolonged] age.”

If we consult the classical Arabic lexicons the deeper meaning of this word can be fully understood and it shall become evident that this verse does not permit Jesus (as) to remain alive for 2000 years without his physical body having suffered significant decay or deterioration. In Mufridat Imam Raghib, which is a very renowned and trusted dictionary of the Holy Qur’an, the following definition has been given under the Arabic root word Khalada:

الخلود ھو تبری الشیء من اعتراض الفساد وبقاءہ علی الحالة التی ھو علیھا، وكل ما یتبطا عنہ التغییر والفساد تصفہ العرب بالخلود

Meaning,

“Al-Khulud means for something to be preserved from deterioration or corruption and for it to remain upon its original form; and everything with which alteration and decay is removed is given the attribute of Khulud by the Arabs.”

Furthermore, in elaboration of this word, Imam Raghib writes:

و اصل المخلد الذی یبقی مدة طویلة و قیل رجل مخلد لمن ابطا عنہ الشیب

Meaning,

“In truth, the meaning of the word Mukhallid is he who remains or lives for an extraordinarily long time"

The Arabic term ‘Rajulun Mukhalladun’ is used to refer to such a person from whom old age is taken away.” Then, in Aqrabul-Mawarid which is also a very famous and well-trusted Arabic lexicon, it is written:

خلد الرجل۔ ابطا عنہ المشیب و قد اسن

Meaning,

“The Arabic phrase Khaladur-Rajulu means that despite the passing by of many years, the effects of old age were kept away from him.”

In Lisanul-‘Arab it is written:

المخلد من الرجال: الذی اسن ولم یَشِب

Meaning,

“The phrase ‘Al-Mukhalladu minar-rijal’ means he who lives many years but does not grow old.”

Therefore, from the above-mentioned definitions of the word Khulud, it becomes evident, that the true meaning of this word is to refer to that state of man where he is immune from natural physical decay of old age. For this reason, it is obvious that Jesus (as) could not physically have ascended into the heavens, because if this is the case, then in the last 2000 years, the body of Jesus (as) must have undergone a severe physical decay. The verse under discussion clearly states that there is no human being who is immune from the physical affects of old age, and therefore, if Jesus (as) is also a human being as all Muslims believe, then he too must have grown extraordinarily old over the last 2000 years. As a matter of fact, to consider for a moments time that a person can even live to the age of 2000 is complete irrationality. Does it not seem illogical for us to expect that a man of over 2000 years would descend in the latter days for the reformation of the whole of mankind? We see in our daily lives that it is quite rare for someone to reach the age of 100. However, those who are fortunate enough to be blessed with such a long life become very weak and even walking a short distance becomes an arduous task. How then can we expect an old man of 2000 years to be able to perform the task of the reformation of all mankind? Furthermore, it is even more interesting to note that the non-Ahmadi ideology states that when Jesus son of Mary descends in the latter days, he would patrol the earth killing the swine and breaking the cross. If this is the case, it would be a grave injustice to expect an old man, in such a weak state, for whom even walking a short distance is a very difficult task, to run around the world searching the jungles and traveling the corners of the earth to kill the swine and break all the crosses of the world. Therefore, common sense dictates, that since no man can be immune from the physical affects of deterioration and old age, Jesus (as) must have passed away long ago, after living a normal life. Moreover, to expect that an old man of 2000 years would descend in the latter days, is not a logical notion at all.

Moreover, this verse is clear, that no man can be free from this fundamental law of nature. Another interesting rebuttal which is presented by some non-Ahmadis is that when Jesus (as) ascended into the heavens, his age and bodily structure was as if ‘frozen’ by Allah, and when he descends in the latter days, he would descend as a strong, healthy young man of 33 years, and not as a 2000 year-old elderly man. This is absolutely incorrect. If Jesus (as) is alive, then he must undergo physical decay. This verse does not afford any such provision or exception, whereby some are exempt from this fundamental law. This verse clearly states that ‘everyone’ be it Jesus (as) or anyone else, has been created with such a body as undergoes a process of physical decay.

From this conclusive verse of the Holy Qur’an it is evident, that Jesus (as) has passed away a natural death. He did not physically ascend into the heavens, because a period of residence in the heavens for over 2000 years with his physical body is a concept which not only defies the law of nature, but also contradicts the Holy Qur’an.

In addition to this, the next part of this verse expresses the indignation of Allah for the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa). Allah the Almighty states:

أَفَإِنْ مِتَّ فَهُمُ الْخَالِدُونَ

Meaning,

“If then thou shouldst die, shall they live here for ever?”

Allah the Almighty addresses His most beloved servant, Prophet Muhammad (sa) and makes this statement as an expression of love and indignation as to how it is possible that other prophets receive an unnaturally prolonged life but the Holy Prophet (sa), whose spiritual grace was the most powerful of all the prophets, passes away so quickly and is buried into the ground?

Muslims should contemplate this point. Is it not true that if there was any prophet of God who deserved such a long life, then most definitely the Holy Prophet (sa) was most deserving of such a luxury. Is it not true that the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa) was the most beloved Prophet of God, and that he was the most blessed man to have ever walked the face of the earth? If Allah desired to grant anyone such a long life and if this was the custom of Allah, then why should Allah not have chosen the Holy Prophet (sa) for this? After all, this was the man for whom the entire universe was created. He was the ultimate purpose behind the creation of the universe. Do our non-Ahmadi opponents assert that Jesus (as) was more worthy of having received such a long life as compared to the Holy Prophet (sa)? Lets put things into perspective. The non-Ahmadi ideology purports that the primary reason behind the decision of Allah to keep Jesus (as) alive for such a long time is because he is to descend in the latter days for the reformation of mankind. If this was the case, then which greater reformer has ever existed in the history of mankind than the Holy Prophet (sa) himself? If physically ascending into the heavens and receiving such a long life for the future reformation of mankind is something Allah deemed appropriate, then was the Holy Prophet (sa) not more appropriate for this task? Who better to reform mankind in the latter days than our beloved Master, the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa)?

Therefore, to accept that Jesus (as) has been preserved by Allah in body and soul and that our Holy Prophet (sa) the Chief of the Prophets has died a natural death is not only an illogical notion which contradicts the Holy Qur’an, it is a grave insult to the magnificent person of our Master Prophet (sa). The Promised Messiah (as) who was the greatest lover of the Holy Prophet (sa) alludes to this very concept and writes with sincere feelings of pain, anguish and indignation:

غیرت كی جا ھے عیسیٰ زندہ ھو آسماں پر مدفوں ھو زمیں میں شاہ جھاں ھمارا

“It is a matter of indignation that Jesus (as) be alive in the heavens; Our King of the World be buried in the earth.”

In the Holy Qur’an, Allah the Almighty states:

وَإِذْ قَالَ عِيسَى ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ يَا بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ إِنِّي رَسُولُ اللَّهِ إِلَيْكُمْ مُصَدِّقًا لِمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيَّ مِنَ التَّوْرَاةِ وَمُبَشِّرًا بِرَسُولٍ يَأْتِي مِنْ بَعْدِي اسْمُهُ أَحْمَدُ فَلَمَّا جَاءَهُمْ بِالْبَيِّنَاتِ قَالُوا هَذَا سِحْرٌ مُبِينٌ

Meaning,

“And remember when Jesus, son of Mary, said, ‘O children of Israel, surely I am Allah’s Messenger unto you, fulfilling that which is before me of the Torah, and giving glad tidings of a Messenger who will come after me. His name will be Ahmad.’ And when he came to them with clear proofs, they said, ‘This is clear enchantment.’”

In this verse of the Holy Qur’an, Jesus (as) has prophesied the advent of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa). Jesus (as) states that:

مُبَشِّرًا بِرَسُولٍ يَأْتِي مِنْ بَعْدِي اسْمُهُ أَحْمَدُ

Meaning,

“I give glad tidings of a Messenger who will come after me. His name will be Ahmad.”

It is obvious that if Jesus (as) is still alive in the heavens as the non-Ahmadi ideology suggests then the advent of the Holy Prophet (sa) cannot occur. Based on this categorical verse of the Holy Qur’an, in order for the advent of the Holy Prophet (sa) to take place, the death of Jesus (as) must occur first. The reason for this is because Jesus (as) has used the word Ba‘di (i.e., after me). In other words Jesus (as) is announcing that “after my death” a Messenger by the name of Ahmad would appear. If Jesus (as) was to physically ascend into the heavens, and after his physical ascension, the advent of the Holy Prophet (sa) was to occur, Jesus would have stated the following instead:

مبشراً م برسول یاتی من حیاتی اسمہ احمد

i.e., I give thee glad tidings of another Messenger who is to appear ‘during my lifetime’ and his name is Ahmad. However, it is obvious, that Jesus (as) has not used these words. In the verse under discussion, Jesus (as) has not stated that the Prophet Ahmad would appear in his life-time. He states that the Prophet who is to appear shall come after my death.

Therefore, based on this conclusive verse of the Holy Qur’an, we have two options available to us:

1. If this verse of the Holy Qur’an is correct, then we must accept that Jesus (as) has passed away a natural death. The reason for this is because, Prophet Muhammad (sa) whose advent has been prophesied in this verse of the Holy Qur’an by Jesus (as) cannot come until his demise. This is why Jesus (as) has used the word Ba‘di (after me, i.e., after my death) and not Fi hayati (i.e., in my life). If Jesus (as) is still physically alive in the heavens, then this verse of the Holy Qur’an proves to be false.
2. If we are to accept that this verse is correct, but Jesus (as) is still physically alive in the heavens. Then the natural conclusion of such a dangerous ideology would be that our beloved Master the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa) is a false prophet. For this verse clearly states that Ahmad cannot appear until Jesus (as) passes away. And of course, no true Muslim can even remotely entertain the belief that the Holy Prophet (sa) was a prophet whose advent was not in accordance with the Holy Qur’an.

When this argument in presented to prove the death of Jesus (as), non-Ahmadis present an interesting argument, with relates to the definition of the word Ba‘di. Non-Ahmadis claim that it is true that the word Ba‘di has been used with relation to Jesus (as) in this verse, however, it is incorrect to state that the word Ba‘di means “after my death.” The word Ba‘di actually means, “After I leave this world and physically ascend into the heavens.” Therefore, in actuality, the word Ba‘di has been used by Jesus (as) in this verse to refer to a state of absence from the physical world. In other words, in this verse, Jesus (as) is not prophesying the advent of the Holy Prophet (sa) after his “death” so to speak. He is prophesying the advent of the Holy Prophet (sa) to occur in the period of his absence from this world, after his physical ascension.

The fact of the matter is that without a valid argument it cannot be claimed that the word Ba‘di merely infers a meaning of ‘physical absence’ from the world without death. There is no specific word to specify such a meaning in the context of this verse. Therefore, in this verse the word Ba‘di means death, and nothing else. Rationality also dictates that the word Ba‘di cannot be interpreted to mean a temporary physical absence from the world, because if Jesus (as) had ascended into the heavens and was destined to return in the latter days, this verse would be proven false. In this verse, Jesus (as) states that Prophet Muhammad (sa) would come “after me.” If Jesus (as) returns to the world after the demise of the Holy Prophet (sa), then in contradiction to this verse, Jesus (as) would be deemed to appear after the Holy Prophet (sa) and not vice-versa as the verse clearly states. Non-Ahmadis could respond to this argument by saying that when Jesus (as) stated that Ahmad would come “after me”, this means that the Holy Prophet (sa) would be born after me, and therefore, the word Ba‘di in this verse does not prevent the second physical advent of Jesus (as). Even though Jesus (as) shall return in the latter days, the Holy Prophet (sa) would still remain to be “after” Jesus (as), because he was born 600 years after the advent of Jesus (as).

This is an argument which is completely bereft of common sense and logic. First, we ask non-Ahmadis to specify where in this verse Jesus (as) has mentioned the meaning of Ba‘di to mean ‘born’ after me? There is no mention of being ‘born’ before or after. This is an additional meaning which has been unjustly added by non-Ahmadis. The fact of the matter is that until Jesus (as) dies, Prophet Muhammad (sa) cannot come because if we accept Jesus (as) to be physically alive in the heavens, his Ba‘d, as it were, has not yet taken place.

When non-Ahmadis debate with Ahmadis on the issue of Khatm-e-Nubuwwat they often quote the famous Hadith: La nabiyya ba‘di, and they always translate this word to mean ‘death’. In other words, they believe that this Hadith means, ‘After my death, there would be no prophet after me.’ Therefore, in this case as well, non-Ahmadis should have no issue in understanding the word Ba‘d in the context of death.

If Jesus (as) was physically alive and present in the heavens when the Holy Prophet (sa) was sent to the world as a Prophet of God, this would mean that there would have been two prophets of God living at the same time. In this case, although Jesus (as) was not present in the world, he was still alive in the heavens. Therefore, it would be completely unwarranted for Jesus (as) to state that Ahmad would come “after me”, because although he is physically absent from the world, he is still physically present in the heavens. The Holy Prophet (sa) can only be referred to as having come after Jesus (as) in the case that Jesus (as) was no longer physically present anywhere in the universe. This is simple and straightforward.

The example of this is if a father says that the family business would be taken over by my son after me. This statement would be understood by any individual to obviously imply that after the father passes away or retires, his son would take charge of the responsibilities involved in running the business. In both cases, i.e., death or retirement, the father will not return to the company as a director. If for example, the father was going away on holiday and was to return in a month or two, he would never use the words, ‘after me.’ In this case, he would simply state that my son would manage the company in my absence. Similarly, if Jesus (as) was to return in the latter days, he would not have said, “I give thee glad tidings of a Messenger who will come after me. His name will be Ahmad.” Contrary, to this, Jesus (as) would have said, “I give thee glad tidings of a Messenger who would come after my physical ascension or who would come in my absence.”

Therefore, not only does this verse establish the truthfulness of the Holy Prophet (sa), it also categorically proves the death of Jesus (as).

When this argument in presented to prove the death of Jesus (as), non-Ahmadis present an interesting argument, with relates to the definition of the word Ba‘di. Non-Ahmadis claim that it is true that the word Ba‘di has been used with relation to Jesus (as) in this verse, however, it is incorrect to state that the word Ba‘di means “after my death.” The word Ba‘di actually means, “After I leave this world and physically ascend into the heavens.” Therefore, in actuality, the word Ba‘di has been used by Jesus (as) in this verse to refer to a state of absence from the physical world. In other words, in this verse, Jesus (as) is not prophesying the advent of the Holy Prophet (sa) after his “death” so to speak. He is prophesying the advent of the Holy Prophet (sa) to occur in the period of his absence from this world, after his physical ascension.

The fact of the matter is that without a valid argument it cannot be claimed that the word Ba‘di merely infers a meaning of ‘physical absence’ from the world without death. There is no specific word to specify such a meaning in the context of this verse. Therefore, in this verse the word Ba‘di means death, and nothing else.

Rationality also dictates that the word Ba‘di cannot be interpreted to mean a temporary physical absence from the world, because if Jesus (as) had ascended into the heavens and was destined to return in the latter days, this verse would be proven false. In this verse, Jesus (as) states that Prophet Muhammad (sa) would come “after me.” If Jesus (as) returns to the world after the demise of the Holy Prophet (sa), then in contradiction to this verse, Jesus (as) would be deemed to appear after the Holy Prophet (sa) and not vice-versa as the verse clearly states.

Non-Ahmadis could respond to this argument by saying that when Jesus (as) stated that Ahmad would come “after me”, this means that the Holy Prophet (sa) would be born after me, and therefore, the word Ba‘di in this verse does not prevent the second physical advent of Jesus (as). Even though Jesus (as) shall return in the latter days, the Holy Prophet (sa) would still remain to be “after” Jesus (as), because he was born 600 years after the advent of Jesus (as).

This is an argument which is completely bereft of common sense and logic. First, we ask non-Ahmadis to specify where in this verse Jesus (as) has mentioned the meaning of Ba‘di to mean ‘born’ after me? There is no mention of being ‘born’ before or after. This is an additional meaning which has been unjustly added by non-Ahmadis. The fact of the matter is that until Jesus (as) dies, Prophet Muhammad (sa) cannot come because if we accept Jesus (as) to be physically alive in the heavens, his Ba‘d, as it were, has not yet taken place.

When non-Ahmadis debate with Ahmadis on the issue of Khatm-e-Nubuwwat they often quote the famous Hadith: La nabiyya ba‘di, and they always translate this word to mean ‘death’. In other words, they believe that this Hadith means, ‘After my death, there would be no prophet after me.’ Therefore, in this case as well, non-Ahmadis should have no issue in understanding the word Ba‘d in the context of death.

If Jesus (as) was physically alive and present in the heavens when the Holy Prophet (sa) was sent to the world as a Prophet of God, this would mean that there would have been two prophets of God living at the same time. In this case, although Jesus (as) was not present in the world, he was still alive in the heavens. Therefore, it would be completely unwarranted for Jesus (as) to state that Ahmad would come “after me”, because although he is physically absent from the world, he is still physically present in the heavens. The Holy Prophet (sa) can only be referred to as having come after Jesus (as) in the case that Jesus (as) was no longer physically present anywhere in the universe. This is simple and straightforward.

The example of this is if a father says that the family business would be taken over by my son after me. This statement would be understood by any individual to obviously imply that after the father passes away or retires, his son would take charge of the responsibilities involved in running the business. In both cases, i.e., death or retirement, the father will not return to the company as a director. If for example, the father was going away on holiday and was to return in a month or two, he would never use the words, ‘after me.’ In this case, he would simply state that my son would manage the company in my absence. Similarly, if Jesus (as) was to return in the latter days, he would not have said, “I give thee glad tidings of a Messenger who will come after me. His name will be Ahmad.” Contrary, to this, Jesus (as) would have said, “I give thee glad tidings of a Messenger who would come after my physical ascension or who would come in my absence.” Therefore, not only does this verse establish the truthfulness of the Holy Prophet (sa), it also categorically proves the death of Jesus (as).

There is narration of the Holy Prophet (sa) which clearly announces the death of Jesus (as) and Moses (as) together.. The Hadith is as follows:

لو كان موسیٰ و عیسیٰ حیین لما وسعھما الا اتباعی

Meaning,

“If Moses and Jesus were alive, they would have had no choice but to follow me.”

In this narration, the Holy Prophet (sa) has clearly mentioned that if Moses and Jesus (peace be upon them) were alive, they would have had no choice but to follow me. It is very obvious and clear that this statement of the Holy Prophet (sa) proves the death of Jesus (as) without a shadow of doubt. Of course, if these two prophets had been alive in the lifetime of the Holy Prophet (sa) they would have had no choice but to follow our Master Prophet Muhammad (sa). However, since they are no longer alive, and they have both passed away, they cannot do so.

There is another narration to this affect as well of Imam Ibni Qayyim, which is as follows:

لو كان موسیٰ و عیسیٰ فی حیاتھما لكانا من اتباعہ

Meaning,

“If Moses and Jesus had lived in the time of the Holy Prophet (sa), they would have been from among his followers.”

In this narration, Imam Ibni Qayyim has also alluded to the same fact as is mentioned in the first narration. He states that if Moses and Jesus (as) had been alive in the time of the Holy Prophet (sa) they would have been from among the followers of Prophet Muhammad (sa). Obviously, this means that both Moses and Jesus (as) had already passed away before the advent of the Holy Prophet (sa). Therefore, the non-Ahmadi ideology which states that Jesus (as) physically resides in the heavens, and was present there even during the time of the Holy Prophet (sa) is an illogical statement which is not only rejected by the Holy Qur’an, but also in direct contradiction with the narrations of Hadith.

There is another narration in which the Holy Prophet (sa) clearly stated that Jesus (as) lived to the age of 120. The Hadith is as follows:

انہ لم یكن نبی كان بعدہ نبی الا عاش نصف عمر الذی كان قبلہ، و ان عیسیٰ ابن مریم عاش عشرین و مائة و انی لا ارانی الا ذاھبا علی رآس الستین۔

Meaning,

“The Holy Prophet (sa) said, ‘Gabriel informed me that every successive prophet has lived to half the age of his predecessor. And verily Jesus, son of Mary, lived to 120 years. Therefore, I perceive that I may reach the age of 60.”

In this narration, the Holy Prophet (sa) has explicitly stated that Jesus son of Mary lived until the age of 120. Therefore, it is obvious, that Jesus (as) has passed away a natural death. Non-Ahmadis attempt to weaken and disprove the authenticity of this Hadith by raising the objection that this Hadith states that “Every successive prophet has lived to half the age of his predecessor.” They raise the objection that does this mean that if Jesus (as) lived to the age of 120 then the prophet who came before him lived to 240, and the one prior to him to 480, and so on and so forth?

Our opponents present two arguments to invalidate this Hadith. Firstly, as it has been mentioned above, they attempt to logically falsify this Hadith by asking the question that if this Hadith were in fact true, does this mean that every prophet was twice the age of the prophet who came after him? Secondly, they state that this Hadith is also unauthentic because in the chain of narrators, there is a man named Ibni Luhai‘ah, who is not a reliable narrator.

First, we take up the issue which relates to the authenticity and reliability of Ibni Luhai‘ah. This argument does not help the non-Ahmadi viewpoint, because this is not the only chain of narrators through which the above-mentioned Hadith has reached us. There are three other chains through which this Hadith has been narrated, and they are through Hadrat ‘A’ishah (ra), Hadrat Ibni ‘Umar (ra) and Hadrat Fatimah (ra). All three of these people are very reliable and authentic narrators. If for a moment we were to agree that Ibni Luhai‘ah was a completely unreliable narrator, even still, that would not substantiate or justify this Hadith as being unauthentic. The fact that this Hadith has been narrated through three other very authentic and reliable narrators proves that it is an authentic Hadith.

This is why in Hijajul-Kiramah and Al-Mawahibul-Luduniyyah it is written:

اخرج الطبرانی فی الكبیر بسند رجال ثقات

Meaning,

“Imam Tabrani has taken this narration for his ‘Al-Kabir’ from a chain of narrators which is comprised of very reliable and authentic narrators.”

Therefore, it is incorrect to label this Hadith as being unauthentic due to Ibni Luhai‘ah, because this very narration is also supported by Hadrat ‘A’ishah (ra), Hadrat Ibni ‘Umar (ra) and Hadrat Fatimah (ra), the reliability and authenticity of whom cannot be questioned by any intelligent individual.

Now that it has been established that this is an authentic Hadith of the Holy Prophet (sa) we must interpret it in a manner that does not lead to an illogical conclusion. This Hadith does not purport that every prophet lived to an age which was twice the age of the prophet which followed him. In this case, of course, Prophet Moses (as) would have lived to over 1000 years, and Prophet Abraham (as) and Prophet Adam (as) would have lived to many thousands of years. It is obvious that such an illogical statement cannot be attributed to the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa) who was the wisest person to have ever walked the earth. Therefore, if this is proven to be an authentic and reliable statement of the Holy Prophet (sa) we must interpret it in a logical manner. The true meaning of this Hadith is that every prophet receives at least half the age of the prophet who lived prior to him. If the Arabic wording of this Hadith is read, this point is very clear and explicit. The words are:

لم یكن نبی كان بعدہ نبی الا عاش نصف عمر الذی كان قبلہ

Meaning,

“Every successive prophet has lived to half the age of his predecessor”

The Holy Prophet (sa) did not say that, “Every prophet lives to an age which is twice the age of the prophet which appears after.”

Therefore, the illogical interpretation of this statement which the non-Ahmadis present in a futile attempt to disprove the authenticity of this Hadith is not correct. The true intent of this Hadith is as we have just mentioned.

Therefore, it is obvious that this Hadith clearly and explicitly speaks of the death of Jesus (as). Through his God-given knowledge the Holy Prophet (sa) informed his companions that Jesus (as) lived to an age of 120. This should not be a matter of wonder for people of this day and age. In those days, since the air was much less polluted and healthy food was readily available, the life expectancy of people was much greater than now. People of that era were much healthier, and this is why it was a norm for them to travel long distances by foot. It is only now, due to pollution and processed foods that people have become weaker, less healthy and life expectancy has decreased drastically.

In Sahih Bukhari, there are two narrations regarding Jesus son of Mary. In one narration the Holy Prophet (sa) described Jesus (as) as a man with red complexion and curly hair and in another narration he has described Jesus (as) as a man of brown color with long straight hair.

Firstly, the two Ahadith in which the Holy Prophet (sa) has described Jesus (as) to be a man of red complexion shall be presented. The first Hadith of the Holy Prophet (sa) speaks of his meeting the prophets Moses (as), Jesus (as) and Abraham (as) during the Mi‘raj. The relevant portion of the narration which relates to his meeting Jesus (as) is as follows:

قال: ولقیت عیسیٰ ۔ فنعتہ النبی صلی اللہ علیہ و سلم فقال: ربعة احمر كانما خرج من دیماس

Meaning,

“I met Jesus (as).” The Holy Prophet (sa) described him saying, ‘He was one of moderate height and was red-faced as if he had just come out of a bathroom.’”

Then, in the very next Hadith, the Holy Prophet (sa) is reported to have said:

رآیت عیسیٰ و موسیٰ وابراھیم ۔ فاما عیسیٰ فاحمر جعد عریض الصدر

Meaning, “I saw Jesus, Moses and Abraham (as). As for Jesus he was of red complexion, curly hair and a broad chest.”

Immediately after these two narrations, there are two additional narrations, which also appear one after the other, which clearly prove that the Jesus son of Mary who was to kill the Dajjal or Anti-Christ was someone else. These narrations are as follows:

و أرانی اللیلة عند الكعبة فی المنام فاذا رجل آدم كأحسن ما یُریٰ من اُدْم الرجال ، تضرب لمتہ بین منكبیہ ، رجل الشعر یقطر رأسہ ماءً ، واضعاً یدیہ علیٰ منكبی رجلین وھو یطوف بالبیت فقلتُ : مَن ھذا ؟ فقالوا: ھذا المسیح بن مریم ، ثم رأی رجلاً وراء ہ جعد قططاً اعور العین الیمنیٰ كأشبہ مَن رأیت بابن قطن ، واضعاً یدیہ علیٰ منكبی رجل یطوف بالبیت فقلتُ : مَن ھذا ؟ فقالوا : المسیح الدجال

Meaning,

“While sleeping near the Ka‘bah last night I saw in my dream a man of brown colour, the best one can see amongst brown colour, and his hair was so long that it fell between his shoulders. His hair was lank and water was dribbling from his head and he was placing his hands on the shoulders of two men while circumambulating the Ka‘bah. I asked, ‘Who is this?’ They replied, ‘This is Jesus son of Mary’. Behind him I saw a man who had short and curly hair and was blind in the right eye, resembling Ibn Qatan in appearance. He was placing his hands on the shoulders of a person while performing Tawaf around the Ka‘bah. I asked, ‘Who is this?’ They replied, ‘Al-Masihud-Dajjal.’”

In very next Hadith after the one which has just been mentioned, the following narration appears:

بینما انا نائم اطوف بالكعبة فاذا رجل آدم ، سبط الشعر یھادیٰ بین رجلین ینطف رأسہ ماءً او یھراق رأسہ ماءً فقلتُ : مَن ھذا ؟ قالوا : ابن مریم ، فذھبتُ التفتُ فاذا رجل احمر جسیم جعد الرأس اعور عینہ الیمنیٰ كأن عنبة طافیة ، قلتُ : مَن ھذا ؟ قالوا : ھذا الدجال

Meaning,

“While I was sleeping, (in my dream) I saw myself circumambulating the Ka‘bah, suddenly I saw a man of brown complexion and lank hair walking between two men, and water was dropping from his head. I asked ‘Who is this?’ The people said, ‘He is the son of Maryam.’ Then I looked behind and saw a red-complexioned, fat, curly-haired man, blind in the right eye which looked like a bulging out grape. I asked, ‘Who is this?’ They replied, ‘He is Ad-Dajjal.’”

From these narrations, which have been quoted from Sahih Bukhari, Kitabu Ahadithil-Anbiya’, it becomes evident that the Holy Prophet (sa) has referred to two different personalities.

Imam Bukhari (rh) who was a man of great wisdom and knowledge, has arranged these four narrations in which the Holy Prophet (sa) is reported to have described the physical features of Jesus (as) one after the other. In the first two narrations, Jesus son of Mary has been described as a man of red complexion and curly hair. In the next two narrations, Jesus son of Mary has been described as a handsome man of brown complexion and lank hair. It is obvious that these two narrations must be referring to two different personalities. Otherwise, this would naturally mean that there is an obvious contradiction between these four Ahadith. It is obvious, that the same person cannot have two different physical descriptions. Therefore, if we are to remove this apparent contradiction, we must accept that two different personalities altogether are being described here by the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa).

There is another aspect to these narrations which is most interesting. There is internal testimony present in each of these narrations to substantiate the fact that the first two narrations refer to that Jesus (as) who was from the Bani Isra’il and that the following two narrations refer to the Jesus (as) of the latter days. In the first two narrations, the Holy Prophet (sa) spoke of the physical description of Jesus (as) along with Moses (as) and Abraham (as). If one contemplates, there is a special relationship between these three particular prophets of God. Jesus of Nazareth, who was from the Bani Isra’il was a prophet of the Mosaic dispensation. He was a prophet whose claim was that he did not come to add or remove even a jot from the Torah. He was not a prophet who brought a new law. Jesus of Nazareth claimed that he had only come to judge by the Mosaic law. Therefore, since Jesus (as) was a prophet who came in subservience to Moses (as), due to this relationship, he has been mentioned along with the Prophet Moses (as) in the above-mentioned narration. Abraham (as) has been mentioned along with Moses (as) and Jesus (as) because he is the ‘Father of the Prophets,’ and both Jesus (as) and Moses (as) are from the children of Abraham (as). Therefore, it is clear that the Jesus son of Mary who has been mentioned in the first two narrations, is that Jesus (as) who belonged to the Mosaic dispensation and this Jesus (as) has been described as a man of red complexion, curly hair and a broad chest.

In the following two narrations, we find that the Holy Prophet (sa) describes Jesus son of Mary as circumambulating the Ka‘bah and behind him was the Anti-Christ (Al-Masihud-Dajjal. It is obvious from this narration that the Jesus son of Mary who has been mentioned here in these two narrations along with the Anti-Christ is the Jesus of the latter days. The reason for this is simple. The Anti-Christ was to appear in the latter days. And the prophecies of the Holy Prophet (sa) which relate to the latter days indicate that the second advent of Jesus son of Mary would take place when the Anti-Christ appears. As a matter of fact, one of the primary tasks of Jesus son of Mary, as described by the Holy Prophet (sa) is to frustrate the evil designs of the Anti-Christ. Therefore, in the last two Ahadith mentioned above, the Holy Prophet (sa) has described the physical appearance of the second Jesus who is to fight the Anti-Christ in the latter days.

It is obvious, that the Holy Prophet (sa) has given two different descriptions of Jesus (as) in these narrations. The Jesus of the Mosaic dispensation has been mentioned in the first two narrations as a man of red complexion along with the physical descriptions of Moses and Abraham (peace be upon them). The Jesus of the latter days has been described as a man of brown complexion along with the Anti-Christ. If the same Jesus (as) of 2000 years was to physically descend in the latter days to fight the Anti-Christ as the non-Ahmadi ideology asserts, then the Holy Prophet (sa) would have given the same description of Jesus (as) in all four narrations. Therefore, since two different descriptions have been given in these Ahadith, this proves that there are two separate individuals who are to fulfill the role of Jesus son of Mary. The first two narrations refer to the Jesus son of Mary (as) who appeared in the Mosaic dispensation 2000 years ago and the last two narrations refer to another man who would symbolically be raised to fulfill the second advent of Jesus son of Mary in the latter days and fight the Anti-Christ. This man would come as a manifestation of the first Jesus son of Mary. If the same Jesus (as) of 2000 years ago was to physically descend in the latter days, then the same physical description would have been given by the Holy Prophet (sa) in all of these narrations.

In the Holy Qur’an, Allah the Almighty states:

وَقَوْلِهِمْ إِنَّا قَتَلْنَا الْمَسِيحَ عِيسَى ابْنَ مَرْيَمَ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ وَمَا صَلَبُوهُ وَلَكِنْ شُبِّهَ لَهُمْ وَإِنَّ الَّذِينَ اخْتَلَفُوا فِيهِ لَفِي شَكٍّ مِنْهُ مَا لَهُمْ بِهِ مِنْ عِلْمٍ إِلَّا اتِّبَاعَ الظَّنِّ وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ يَقِينًا (158) بَلْ رَفَعَهُ اللَّهُ إِلَيْهِ وَكَانَ اللَّهُ عَزِيزًا حَكِيمًا (159)

Meaning,

“And their saying, ‘We did kill the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah;’ whereas they slew him not, nor crucified him, but he was made to appear to them like one crucified; and those who differ therein are certainly in a state of doubt about it; they have no definite knowledge thereof, but only follow a conjecture; and they did not convert this conjecture into a certainty; on the contrary, Allah exalted him to Himself. And Allah is Mighty, Wise.”

Non-Ahmadis present this verse in an attempt to prove the ideology that Jesus (as) physically ascended in to the heavens and has not died yet. They assert that in this verse, Allah the Almighty has clearly mentioned that Jesus (as) was not killed, nor was he crucified; and therefore he was lifted into the heavens with his physical body. In an attempt to prove this argument from a linguistic perspective they claim that in verse 159, Allah has used the Arabic word Bal, and in this sentence, Allah has used what we call Bal Ibtaliyyah. In Arabic Bal Ibtaliyyah is used to negate the statement which occurs prior to it and affirm the positive occurrence of the statement which follows the Arabic word Bal. Therefore, in these two verses of the Holy Qur’an, Allah the Almighty has negated that Jesus (as) was killed or crucified, and affirmed his physical ascension into the heavens in contrast to the initial negative statement which was made prior to the word Bal. Therefore, Jesus (as) has in fact ascended into the heavens with his physical body.

First it must be understood that this is not a very sound argument, and the logic upon which this argument is based is also flawed. To make the logical deduction that since Jesus (as) was not killed nor was he crucified, therefore, he physically ascended into the heavens makes no sense whatsoever. These two things have no relation to each other. A logical deduction of this nature is flawed because it mixes two completely unrelated things to each other and declares the latter to be the natural result of the first. Just because a man is not killed nor is he crucified, this does not automatically substantiate his having physically ascended into the heavens. Is there no other means by which death may overtake a man? If we are to agree with the non-Ahmadi logic which is presented in this argument, this would mean that all those people who are not killed and are not crucified must have ascended into the heavens. Moses (as) and the Holy Prophet (sa) and many other prophets as well were not killed nor were they crucified. Therefore, does this mean that they also ascended into the heavens with their physical bodies? The fundamental point is that to present the argument that ‘since Jesus (as) was not killed nor crucified,’ and then base an entire argument on this statement is incorrect. This argument if logically analysed results in the erroneous conclusion that all people who are not killed or crucified are by default taken up into the heavens.

As always, the Holy Qur’an must be interpreted and understood in light of its correct context, whether that context be in relation to other verses, or various phrases within a single verse. In order for us to correctly understand this verse, we must understand the evil intentions of the Jews which existed at the time with relation to Jesus (as). When Jesus (as) came to his people calling them towards God, as is the custom, the people began to oppose him. In the case of Jesus (as), the Jews were the greatest opposing force against this truthful prophet of God. Jesus (as) claimed to be that Messiah whose advent was foretold in the Torah. However, the Jews (whose belief on physical descent was similar to the Muslims of today) believed that the Messiah could not come until the Prophet Elijah had physically descended. Therefore, they rejected Jesus (as) and not only rejected him, but waged a fierce war of opposition against him. They became determined to murder him and cause him severe harm. Similarly, they exerted their utmost efforts to disprove his prophethood and in order to do this they hatched a conspiracy to hang Jesus (as) on the cross. The Jews chose to do this because it is written in the Torah that a man who is hung on a tree, or killed on the cross dies an accursed death. So by putting Jesus (as) on the cross, the Jews wished to prove in light of the teachings of the Torah that he was not only a false prophet, but an accursed man (God-forbid). They wished to degrade the status of Jesus (as) to such an extent that he would not even be worthy of being deemed a righteous man, let alone the awaited Messiah and a prophet of God. It is in response to these evil intentions and efforts of the Jews that Allah the Almighty responds by saying that contrary to the belief of the Jews, they could not kill Jesus (as) nor could they crucify him. In other words, although the Jews tried their utmost to publicly humiliate, degrade and invalidate the authenticity of the claim of Jesus (as), Allah the Almighty protected Jesus (as) from the evil plans of the Jews, and saved him from being killed or crucified.

Non-Ahmadis also claim that when the Jews did finally manage to arrest Jesus (as) and were about to place him on the cross, Allah the Almighty saved Jesus (as) from this pain and agony by physically lifting Jesus (as) into the heavens. They claim that the words Wa ma salabuhu, which mean, ‘they crucified him not’ mean that Jesus (as) did not go onto the cross at all, and before the Jews could place him on the cross, Allah lifted him into the heavens. Furthermore, in order to support their story, they state that the words Wa lakin shubbiha lahum mean that Allah the Almighty took another man who was a thief, and miraculously altered his facial structure to resemble that of Jesus (as) and that man was placed on the cross by the Jews and killed instead of the real Jesus (as).

If we logically analyse this claim, we can understand that there are many complications which arise therefrom. First, it is not the custom of Allah the Almighty to physically lift his Messengers into the heavens when they are faced with difficulty or persecution. If we study the history of religions, we will see that all Prophets were persecuted against, but there is not a single example in the life of any Prophet where Allah the Almighty raised him into the heavens in order to save him from persecution. Even the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa) who was the most beloved of Allah was not afforded this luxury. When the Holy Prophet (sa) went to Ta’if to convey the message of Islam, the people of Ta’if chased him out of the city throwing stones at him. The Holy Prophet (sa) was so severely injured, that his entire body became drenched in blood. The blood in his foot dried up in the scorching sun, and it became difficult for our Holy Master to even remove his shoe. Then, at the Battle of Uhud the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa) lost a tooth, his face sustained a severe wound, and he was buried beneath the dead bodies of his companions. There are countless incidents in the life of the Holy Prophet (sa) where pain and torment was inflicted upon him, but Allah the Almighty did not raise him into the heavens to save him from all this. If anyone was deserving of being lifted into the heavens, it was our beloved Master the Holy Prophet (sa), because the level of physical pain and agony which was inflicted upon him is unprecedented in the history of Prophets. Why then would Allah act against this custom and raise Jesus (as) into the heavens to save him from this trial? Now, remains the issue of the thief, whose facial features were miraculously transformed into that of Jesus (as) and him being put on the cross instead of Jesus (as). Non-Ahmadis assert that the words Wa lakin shubbiha lahum mean that another man’s physical features were miraculously likened to that of Jesus (as) and he was placed on the cross instead.

As it has already been mentioned, the Jews wished to crucify Jesus (as) in order to prove that he was a false prophet and an accursed man as per the Torah. If Jesus (as) was lifted into the heavens, and Allah the Almighty allowed for someone else who He transformed into Jesus (as) to be placed on the cross instead, in actuality, the Jews would have succeeded in their purpose. The Jews wished to degrade Jesus (as) in the eyes of the people. Therefore, if another man who seemed like Jesus (as) was to die on the cross in his place, as far as the people are concerned, they saw Jesus (as) die on the cross (the duplicate Jesus (as) of course). As such, in the eyes of the people it would apparently seem that Jesus (as) was a false prophet and therefore died on the cross. They do not know that the real Jesus (as) ascended into the heavens, and therefore, as far as their knowledge dictates, the prophet Jesus (as) died an accursed death in accordance with the Mosaic Law.

Secondly, if another man’s physical features were altered to resemble those of Jesus (as) and the wrong man was being dragged to the cross, would he not raise an outcry to save his life? Would the thief, who non-Ahmadis claim was sacrificed by Allah in lieu of Jesus (as) not inform the Jews that you have got it all wrong and I am not Jesus (as). Would that thief not mention to the Jews that my name is not Jesus, but so and so, and this is my family, and this is where I live. But if we study the biblical account, or historical references for that matter, no where do we find proof of that ‘so called Jesus-double’ raising an outcry in an attempt to announce his true identity. It seems odd for a man to be mistaken for another man, and while he is being dragged to be hanged, he does not utter a word in his defense?

Finally, to attribute such nonsense to Allah, Who is the All-Powerful, the Mighty, the Wise is in complete contradiction with the Pure and Holy Being of Allah. In essence, such an ideology makes it seem as if Allah is a first-class deceiver! Lets assume for a second that Allah physically raised Jesus (as) into the heavens (even though we have conclusively proven that this was not the case), what is the need for Allah to secretly usher Jesus (as) into the heavens and place someone else on the cross instead? In this case, there would be a double charge against Allah. The first charge against Allah in this case would be that He secretly raised Jesus (as) into the heavens, and deceived the Jews into believing that they in fact have become successful in their evil plan. And secondly, that Allah took the life of an innocent person for no reason.

Therefore, the fact of the matter is that Jesus (as) was not physically raised into the heavens and no thief was placed on the cross in his place.

In Verse 159, Allah the Almighty states:

بَلْ رَفَعَهُ اللَّهُ إِلَيْهِ وَكَانَ اللَّهُ عَزِيزًا حَكِيمًا

Meaning,

“Allah exalted him to Himself. And Allah is Might, Wise.”

Non-Ahmadis claim that in verse 158 of Surah Al-Nisa, Allah the Almighty has mentioned that he saved Jesus (as) from the evil plans of the Jews, and in verse 159, Allah has mentioned the means by which he granted Jesus (as) this salvation. Non-Ahmadis claim that this verse of the Holy Qur’an proves that Jesus (as) was physically raised into the heavens by Allah the Almighty when he was saved from the cross.

Although we have already proven above that it is incorrect to state that just because Jesus (as) was not killed nor was he crucified, this substantiates his physical ascension into the heavens, we shall analyse the word Rafa‘a in order to further understand the true purport of this verse.

In Arabic, when the word Rafa‘ is used for a human being, this does not mean that his physical body is lifted upwards. Whenever and wherever this word is used for a human being it refers to the elevation of his status. Non-Ahmadis present an argument in response to this. They claim that since Jesus (as) physically ascended into the heavens and holds a position which is physically close to Allah, therefore, in this respect his ascension can be understood in terms of status as well, but this does not rule out the fact that he physically ascended into the heavens. However, the fact of the matter is that there is no superiority whatsoever if the ascension of Jesus (as) is understood as physical. The reason being that as far as physical nearness to Allah the Almighty is concerned, this is something which even disbelievers possess as well. In the Holy Qur’an, Allah the Almighty states:

نَحْنُ أَقْرَبُ إِلَيْهِ مِنْ حَبْلِ الْوَرِيدِ

Meaning,

“And we are nearer to him that even his jugular vein.”

This means that even disbelievers and atheists possess physical nearness to Allah the Almighty. Allah is always around us irrespective of our moral and spiritual status. However, spiritual nearness is something which only the righteous servants of Allah are granted by their Lord. Hence, if Allah wished to elevate Jesus (as) in terms of spiritual rank, there would be no purpose in lifting up his physical body to himself, because this does not prove anything at all. However, if we are to understand the ascension of Jesus (as) in terms of an elevation of spiritual rank, then we must accept that in this verse of the Holy Qur’an, Allah is not alluding to the ascension of the physical body of Jesus (as) but his soul.

The non-Ahmadis claim that in verse 158 Allah has stated that ‘He elevated Jesus to Himself.’ Therefore, this is conclusive proof of the fact that Jesus (as) physically ascended towards the heavens, in the direction of Allah. However, this ideology is in complete contradiction with the infinite being of Allah. The question is that if the arabic words ilallah are understood to mean physically in the direction of Allah, then this would obviously mean that Allah is a limited Being, Who is confined to a physical area in space. However, the Holy Qur’an clearly rejects such a notion. The residing place of Allah the Almighty is not in the direction of the heavens or the sky. Allah the Almighty is an infinite being which encompasses the whole of the universe. He is an Omnipresent Being, and if the Arabic words ilallah mean that Jesus (as) literally ascended in the direction of Allah then this purpose can be fulfilled here on earth as well, because Allah is present all throughout the earth. The following verses of the Holy Qur’an show that Allah the Almighty is not a limited being who is confined to the heavens:

وَهُوَ اللَّهُ فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَفِي الْأَرْضِ

Meaning,

“And He is Allah, the God, both in the heavens and in the earth.”

فَأَيْنَمَا تُوَلُّوا فَثَمَّ وَجْهُ اللَّهِ

Meaning.

“Whithersoever you turn, there will be the face of Allah.”

نَحْنُ أَقْرَبُ إِلَيْهِ مِنْ حَبْلِ الْوَرِيدِ

Meaning,

“And we are nearer to him than even his jugular vein.”

وَهُوَ مَعَكُمْ أَيْنَ مَا كُنْتُمْ

Meaning,

“And He is with you wheresoever you may be.”

إِنَّ اللَّهَ مَعَ الَّذِينَ اتَّقَوْا وَالَّذِينَ هُمْ مُحْسِنُونَ

Meaning,

“Verily, Allah is with those who are righteous.”

Therefore, as it is evident from the above-mentioned verses, that the being of Allah is not limited to the heavens. Therefore, if we are to interpret the Arabic word ila to literally mean ‘towards Allah’ that is, in the direction of Allah’s Being, this would mean that Jesus (as) is also Omnipresent, because the being of Allah is an Omnipresent one. In this case, what difference would there be between Jesus (as) and Allah the Almighty? Therefore, we must accept that the idiom ‘towards Allah’ as used in this verse of the Holy Qur’an, refers to something other then physical ascension.

Now that we have established that, since Allah is an Omnipresent Being, Who is not confined to a limited area in space, the meaning of Jesus (as) ascending towards Allah must have a spiritual connotation. A physical ascension ‘in the direction’ of Allah is impossible, because this would lead to the illogical conclusion that Jesus (as) is everywhere, along with the Being of Allah. The fact of the matter is that whenever the Holy Qur’an uses the idiom of ‘ascension towards Allah’ or Rafa‘ ilallah, this does not infer a physical ascension in the direction of Allah, rather, it implies an elevation in spiritual status and rank.

In the Holy Qur’an, the idiom ilallah (i.e., towards Allah) has been used for people other then Jesus (as) as well. These verses are as follows:

وَقَالَ إِنِّي ذَاهِبٌ إِلَى رَبِّي سَيَهْدِينِ

Meaning,

“And he said (i.e., Abraham), ‘I am going to my Lord, Who will guide me.’”

قَالَ إِنِّي مُهَاجِرٌ إِلَى رَبِّي

Meaning,

“I shall migrate towards my Lord (and take refuge)”

قَالُوا إِنَّا لِلَّهِ وَإِنَّا إِلَيْهِ رَاجِعُونَ

Meaning,

“They said, ‘To Allah we belong and to him shall we return.’”

يَا أَيَّتُهَا النَّفْسُ الْمُطْمَئِنَّةُ (28) ارْجِعِي إِلَى رَبِّكِ رَاضِيَةً مَرْضِيَّةً (29)

Meaning,

“And thou, O soul at peace! Return to thy Lord well pleased with Him and He well pleased with thee.”

It is obvious from the above-mentioned Qur’anic references, that when the words ilallah are used in Arabic, this denotes either a turning of attention towards Allah, or the spiritual return of the soul towards Allah. No where in these verses is a physical ascension in the direction of Allah implied. Therefore, so too in the verse under discussion, the ascension of Jesus ‘towards’ his Lord, is not implied in a physical meaning, but in the spiritual sense.

If we study the Holy Qur’an, it becomes evident that nowhere in the Holy Qur’an has the word Rafa‘ been used to imply a physical ascension into the heavens. Wherever this word has been used by Allah, it has been used in terms of spiritual rank. For example, Allah the Almighty states:

وَلَوْ شِئْنَا لَرَفَعْنَاهُ بِهَا وَلَكِنَّهُ أَخْلَدَ إِلَى الْأَرْضِ وَاتَّبَعَ هَوَاهُ

Meaning,

“And if We had pleased, We could have exalted him thereby; but he inclined to the earth and followed his evil inclination.”

It is obvious that if the word Rafa‘, as interpreted by non-Ahmadis, was applied to this verse of the Holy Qur’an, this would mean that Allah wished to physically elevate Bal‘am Ba‘ur, towards the sky, but he physically pulled himself towards the earth. As if Allah and Bal‘am had a fierce match of tug of war and then Bal‘am came out victoriously! How can such nonsense be attributed to the Holy Qur’an. It is evident that in this verse of the Holy Qur’an, the word Rafa‘ has been used in terms of spiritual rank. Then, Allah the Almighty states with regards to Prophet Idris (as):

وَرَفَعْنَاهُ مَكَانًا عَلِيًّا

Meaning,

“And We exalted him to a lofty station.”

No one interprets this verse to mean that Prophet Idris (as) physically ascended into the heavens and took his place on a high-chair in the heavens. Hence, if we study the Holy Qur’an it becomes clear that whenever the word Rafa‘ is used for a believer or a righteous man it refers to the elevation of his spiritual rank, and not physical ascension into the heavens. Therefore, since Jesus (as) was a beloved Prophet of God, the words Rafa‘hu ilallah when used in his relation also relate to his lofty spiritual rank and status.

Similarly, if we study the Ahadith, it becomes evident that the same words are used but nowhere is the word Rafa‘ interpreted as physical ascension into the heavens. For example, the Holy Prophet (sa) states:

كل یوم ھو فی شان یغفر ذنبا و یكشف كربا و یرفع قوماً و یضع آخرین

Meaning,

“Every day He reveals Himself in a different state. He forgives sins and removes anguish. He raises a nation while he lowers another.”

There is another narration of the Holy Prophet (sa) in which he states:

اذا تواضع العبد رفعہ اللّٰہ الیٰ السماء السابعة

Meaning,

“When a servant shows humility, Allah elevates him to the seventh heaven.”

This Hadith is a very clear-cut Hadith, which sheds light on the verse under discussion. In this Hadith, Allah is the subject or ‘doer of the verb’, a human being is the object of the verb, the word Rafa‘ has been used, and the preposition ila has also been used. In addition to all this, the words ‘towards the seventh heaven’ have also been specifically mentioned, which clearly indicate a physical direction. As far as the verse under discussion is concerned, the words ‘towards the heaven or sky’ have not even been used. The verb Rafa‘ has only been used to point towards Allah and as we have proven through various Qur’anic references, there is no single direction to Allah. However, in this Hadith, a single direction has been specified. Yet, despite all these things, no one interprets this Hadith to imply that humility leads to the physical ascension of people into the heavens. We have yet to see a man who has physically ascended into the heavens before our eyes. Or perhaps our non-Ahmadi opponents suggest that there is not a single humble person in the whole of the Muslim ummah, upon whom this Hadith can be applied.

There is another Hadith in which the Holy Prophet (sa) is reported to have said:

ما تواضع احد للّٰہ الا رفعہ اللّٰہ

Meaning,

“There is not a single person who fell before Allah in humility and Allah did not elevate him.”

Then, Allah the Almighty states:

لو قلت بسم اللّٰہ لرفعتك الملائكة

Meaning,

“If you say ‘In the name of Allah’, the Angels shall elevate you.”

There is yet another Hadith in which the Holy Prophet (sa) states:

والمیزان بید الرحمٰن یرفع اقواماً و یضع آخرین

Meaning,

“And the scale is in the hand of the Gracious God, He elevates a nation and causes another to fall.”

If the classical Arabic lexicons are studied it becomes evident that whenever the verb Rafa‘ is used by Allah and the object of this verb is a human being, this does not imply the physical ascension of something into the heavens as the non-Ahmadi ideology purports. The following are some references from very noteworthy Arabic lexicons, which shed light on the true meaning of the Arabic word Rafa‘: In Aqrabul-Mawarid it is written:

رفعہ الیٰ السلطان ای قربہ

Meaning,

“He was ‘elevated’ to the King, i.e., he became was brought close or became his intimate.”

In Lisanul-‘Arab it is written:

فی اسماء اللّٰہ تعالیٰ الرافع ۔ ھو الذی یرفع المؤمن بالاسعاد و اولیاءہ بالتقریب ۔ والرفع تقریب الشیء من الشیء

Meaning,

“The name Rafi‘ is among the names of Allah, because he elevates a believer with good-fortune and his friends with nearness. The word Rafa‘ means to bring one thing close to another.”

In Tajul-‘Arus it is written:

الرفع ضد وضع و منہ حدیث الدعاء : اللّٰھم ارفعنی

Meaning,

“The word Ar-Raf‘u is the antonym of Wad‘in (i.e., to put something down), just as there is a prayer in Hadith, that ‘O Allah, elevate me.’”

We have clearly established through examples from the Holy Qur’an, the Ahadith and classical Arabic lexicons, that whenever the verb Rafa‘ is used by Allah and the object of this verb is a human being, the meaning never implies physical ascension into the heavens. In such a case, the meaning always infers spiritual elevation in status and rank. We challenge non-Ahmadi scholars to present even a single example where the verb Rafa‘ has been used by Allah, the object is a human being, and the meaning is of physical ascension into the heavens. Our opponents cannot present a single example of this from the Holy Qur’an, the Ahadith, Arabic literature or from the classical lexicons.

In the Holy Qur’an, Allah the Almighty states:

وَإِنْ مِنْ أَهْلِ الْكِتَابِ إِلَّا لَيُؤْمِنَنَّ بِهِ قَبْلَ مَوْتِهِ وَيَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ يَكُونُ عَلَيْهِمْ شَهِيدًا

Meaning,

“And there is non among the People of the Book but will believe in it before his death; and on the day of Resurrection, he (Jesus) shall be a witness against them.”

Non-Ahmadis present the argument that in this verse Allah the Almighty has stated that there would not be a single person from the People of the Book who would not believe in Jesus (as) prior to his death. Therefore, since all the Jews have not yet believed in Jesus (as) this means that he must be alive. It is only after all the People of the Book believe in Jesus (as) that he can pass away.

First it must be established that never once has it occurred in the history of the Prophets that every single man, woman and child has believed in the truth of that Prophet prior to his demise. It is the custom of Allah that when He sends His Messengers, there is a phase of opposition and people slowly and gradually begin to enter the fold. There always remains a group of people who do not accept the Prophet and thus, they leave this world without the good fortune of having accepted the guidance which was brought by the Prophet. However, this does not imply that the Prophet was unsuccessful in his mission. This is the way of Allah. For example, the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa) who was the greatest of all prophets, even in his life, all of the people in his nation did not believe in him. The Holy Qur’an states:

إِنَّا فَتَحْنَا لَكَ فَتْحًا مُبِينًا

Meaning,

“Verily, We have granted thee a clear victory.”

Then, Allah states in the Holy Qur’an:

كَتَبَ اللَّهُ لَأَغْلِبَنَّ أَنَا وَرُسُلِي

Meaning,

“Verily Allah has ordained that it is I and My Messenger who shall prevail.”

Would it be just, therefore, for anyone to assert that God-forbid the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa) did not receive a clear victory over his enemies? Or perhaps that the Holy Prophet (sa) did not prevail and was unsuccessful in his mission? Of course not. Any intelligent individual knows full well that victory, success, prevalence or dominance is gaged not by number, but by the transformation he brings about in the people. As such, Ahmadis believe that all the Prophets of God leave this world after having attained that victory. Similarly, we believe that Jesus (as) was no exception to the rule. After gaining salvation from the cross, Jesus (as) migrated to Kashmire, were he preached his mission to the remaining 10 tribes of the house of Israel, and passed away a natural death only after the completion of his mission.

In addition to this, it is also incorrect to claim that every single person from the Ahlul-Kitab would believe in Jesus (as), because this contradicts another verse of the Holy Qur’an. In the Holy Qur’an, Allah the Almighty states:

وَجَاعِلُ الَّذِينَ اتَّبَعُوكَ فَوْقَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا إِلَى يَوْمِ الْقِيَامَةِ

Meaning,

“And I will place those who follow thee above those who disbelieve, until the Day of Resurrection.”

It is clear from this verse, that Allah the Almighty has explicitly mentioned that there would always exist a group of people who would remain to be disbelievers until the Day of Resurrection. If all the People of the Book are to believe in Jesus (as) prior to his death, as the non-Ahmadi ideology purports, then how can the followers of Jesus (as) be held above those who disbelieve? In order for such a scenario to be true, we must accept that there would always be a group of people who would not believe in Jesus (as). Therefore, it is an erroneous conclusion to derive from the verse under discussion that Jesus (as) is still alive and that he would not die until all of the People of the Book believe in him.

As with all other verses of the Holy Qur’an, this verse should also be understood in light of its true context. It is obvious, that if a verse is extracted from its correct place and presented in segregated form, the true meaning cannot be understood. If one studies the verses which appear prior to the verse under discussion and those after, it becomes evident that the evils of the disbelieving people among the Jews have been described. From verse 154 onwards, the subject matter which has been described is that the People of the Book ask Prophet Muhammad (sa) to cause a Book to descend from the heaven. Then it is stated that the Jews took the calf for worship and they were also among those people who broke their covenant with Allah and they denied the signs of Allah. Then due to their disbelief they uttered a grievous calumny against Mary (as) the mother of Jesus. Then, their saying that ‘We killed the Messiah, son of Mary,’ is recorded and it is after this that the verse under discussion appears, where Allah states ‘there are none among the People of the Book who will believe in it before his death.’ Similarly, this subject matter continues in the following two verses as well, where Allah speaks of the transgression of the Jews, which include interest and devouring the wealth of others.

If in fact the true meaning of the verse under discussion is that every single person among the Ahlul-Kitab would believe in Jesus son of Mary, does this verse not seem out of place? As we have described in detail, the subject matter which spans verses 154 to 162 of Surah Al-Nisa’ relate to the moral ills of the People of the Book. Does it not seem strange for Allah to spontaneously mention such an extraordinarily righteous deed in the middle of all this? And as per the non-Ahmadi interpretation, this is no ordinary good deed. This is a good deed which is unprecedented in the history of religion! For Allah to mention such a remarkably good deed directly in the middle of a subject matter which relates to exactly the opposite, is something which cannot be fathomed by any like-minded individual. In actual fact, to attribute such nonsense and a lack of wisdom in speech to the Lord of all the worlds is an utter injustice. The example of this would be for someone to say that so and so is a very immoral man, he does not speak the truth, he steals, he is violent, he prays five times daily and also offers his tahajjud prayer, he is very arrogant, he treats his parents with disrespect and he is involved in other moral vices as well. Of course, such speech would not be deemed wise by any individual. Why then do we attribute such lack of wisdom to Allah the Almighty, Who is the Wisest among the wise?

In actuality, this verse is a commentary of the verse which precedes it. The verse under discussion, which is pulled out of context by non-Ahmadis further describes the statement which is made in verse 159 of Surah Al-Nisa’. We present these verses together and shall then elaborate its commentary. Allah the Almighty states:

وَقَوْلِهِمْ إِنَّا قَتَلْنَا الْمَسِيحَ عِيسَى ابْنَ مَرْيَمَ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ وَمَا صَلَبُوهُ وَلَكِنْ شُبِّهَ لَهُمْ وَإِنَّ الَّذِينَ اخْتَلَفُوا فِيهِ لَفِي شَكٍّ مِنْهُ مَا لَهُمْ بِهِ مِنْ عِلْمٍ إِلَّا اتِّبَاعَ الظَّنِّ وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ يَقِينًا (158) بَلْ رَفَعَهُ اللَّهُ إِلَيْهِ وَكَانَ اللَّهُ عَزِيزًا حَكِيمًا (159) وَإِنْ مِنْ أَهْلِ الْكِتَابِ إِلَّا لَيُؤْمِنَنَّ بِهِ قَبْلَ مَوْتِهِ وَيَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ يَكُونُ عَلَيْهِمْ شَهِيدًا (160)

Meaning,

“And their saying, ‘We did kill the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah;’ whereas they slew him not, nor crucified him, but he was made to appear to them like one crucified; and those who differ therein are certainly in a state of doubt about it; they have no definite knowledge thereof, but only follow a conjecture; and they did not convert this conjecture into a certainty; on the contrary, Allah exalted him to Himself. And Allah is Mighty, Wise. And there is non among the People of the Book but will believe in it before his death; and on the day of Resurrection, he (Jesus) shall be a witness against them.”

The meaning of these verses is that the Jews had lost the pleasure of Allah and were indulged in various moral vices. Among these various immoral deeds, one was that they said ‘We did kill the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary’. As it has already been mentioned in the discussion under Verses 158-159 of Surah Al-Nisa’, the Jews wished to crucify Jesus (as) in order to disprove his prophethood. They wished to establish him as (God-forbid) an accursed man, because in the Torah it is written that anyone who is hung on a cross and dies, he dies an accursed death. Allah responds to this false allegation of the Jews by stating that they were not able to kill Jesus (as) nor could they crucify him. Instead, this matter has been put upon them as a doubt so that Allah may manifest the ignorance of the Jews who opposed Jesus (as) and show a manifestation of His Power and Might. Then Allah goes on to state that those people who claim that Jesus (as) has been killed on the cross, they have no definite knowledge or evidence to support this assertion. They only follow a conjecture and they were not able to convert this conjecture into a certainty. Quite the contrary, Allah the Almighty protected Jesus (as) from the evil designs of the Jews, and caused his beloved Messenger to die a natural death, and elevated his status to himself, contrary to the wish of the Jews. Although the Jews wish to degrade the spiritual rank of Jesus (as), Allah granted him a lofty spiritual position in paradise. Then, after all this, Allah the Almighty states that there is not a single person from among the People of the Book who does not believe in the aforementioned statements (which have been made in the previous verse and relate to the views of the People of the Book regarding Jesus) prior to his own death. In other words, before the death of the actual Jew or Christian himself, he would have no choice but to believe in the view which Allah the Almighty has attributed to the People of the Book in the previous verses regarding their views on the crucifixion. What view exactly is being referred to here, about which Allah states that every Jew and Christian would believe in it? The view which states that no one from among the People of the Book know for certain that they managed to crucify Jesus (whether Jews or Christians), and that they are only following a conjecture, this statement of ours is true and no one can reject it.

In light of this beautiful explanation of the verse under discussion, which the Promised Messiah (as) has presented in his magnificent work entitled Izalah-e-Auham the matter becomes clear. In this case, the pronoun hi in La yu’minanna bihi refers to the belief of the Ahlul-Kitab in the Holy Qur’an, as mentioned in the prior verse, which relates to their conjecture as to whether Jesus (as) was actually killed by crucifixion or not. In other words, the belief which is referred to in this verse is not in Prophet Jesus (as), as the non-Ahmadis assert, rather the belief of the Ahlul-Kitab in the veracity of the views expressed in relation to them by Allah in the preceding verse. As such, the pronoun in the word bihi alludes to the occurrence of the crucifixion or the views of the Ahlul-Kitab regarding the crucifixion as mentioned by Allah in the previous verse. Then the words Qabla mautihi do not refer to Jesus (as) as the non-Ahmadi interpretation suggests. Instead, the pronoun in the word mautihi refers to the actual Jew or Christian himself who does not possess definite knowledge with regards to the outcome of the crucifixion. That is to say that prior to the death of every Jew or Christian, he shall testify to the truth of Allah’s claim (whether openly or secretly in his heart) that he does not possess definite knowledge regarding the outcome of the crucifixion (i.e., whether Jesus (as) was in fact killed or saved from death on the cross by Allah).

In comparison to this the non-Ahmadi interpretation purports that the pronoun hi (in La yu’minanna bihi) refers to Jesus (as) and so does the pronoun hi (in Qabla mautihi). However, this interpretation results in many complications, which not only contradict the verse itself, but also the context in which the verse appears. The Ahmadi interpretation presents the solution that the pronoun hi (in La yu’minanna bihi) does not refer to Jesus (as) but the account of the crucifixion, and of course, its outcome (about which the People of the Book are in doubt). Moreover, the pronoun hi (in Qabla mautihi) does not refer to Jesus (as), but to the actual Jew or Christian himself.

Someone could raise the objection that even if we are to accept the non-Ahmadi interpretation of this verse, how can it be proven that every Jew or Christian does in fact believe in or agree with the statement that ‘he is in doubt with regards to the outcome of the crucifixion and does not possess definite knowledge thereof, rather only follows a conjecture.’

The answer to this question is simple and straight forward. If there was in fact even a single person from the People of the Book who believed that the statement which has been attributed to him in verse 158 was incorrect, he would surely contest it. He would have come forward and presented evidence of the fact that he knew for certain that Jesus (as) was killed on the cross by crucifixion. However, history is testimony to the fact that no such person has been able to come forward and present this evidence from among the Ahlul-Kitab. Therefore, their inability to present evidence of this fact is a silent testimony to the fulfillment of this verse. In other words, every single Person of the Book who dies without providing this conclusive evidence relating to the death of Jesus (as) on the cross stamps a silent seal of testimony to the veracity and truth of this verse.

There is another complication in the non-Ahmadi ideology which must be addressed in relation to this verse. As we have mentioned earlier, non-Ahmadis assert that until everyone from among the People of the Book believe in Jesus (as) he cannot die. The fact of the matter is that in this verse ‘every single’ individual from among the People of the Book is implied. The reason being that the words ‘In’ and ‘Min’ have been used together in this verse, which is referred to as Hasr in Arabic grammar to infer the complete and entire inclusion of something. However, it is obvious that many people from among the People of the Book died without having the opportunity to believe in Jesus (as). If the interpretation of this verse which is presented by non-Ahmadis was in fact correct, then Allah would have kept all of the People from the Ahlul-Kitab alive until the second advent of Jesus (as) so that they could believe in him before their own deaths. This is the only case in which the verse holds true, if we are to accept the non-Ahmadi interpretation. The only other option would be for Allah to bring all of the people who have passed away from the People of the Book back to life so that they can believe in Jesus (as). However, such a notion is preposterous.

Someone could raise the counter argument that those people from among the Ahlul-Kitab who pass away prior to the second advent of Jesus (as) are exempt from this rule. In actuality, only those people are inferred from among the Ahlul-Kitab who would be present at the time Jesus (as) descends.

This argument is also erroneous because no where in the verse is such a specification mentioned. Moreover, as it has been mentioned the Arabic words ‘In’ and ‘Min’ have been used which is known as Hasr in Arabic grammar, and this refers to every single person from the Ahlul-Kitab without question. Furthermore, it is clearly mentioned in a Hadith that 70,000 Jews from Isfahan would be with the Dajjal or Anti-Christ. In addition to this, there is a Hadith in Kanzul-‘Ummal which states that 12,000 Jewish women would be followers of the Messiah (as).

There is but another complication which also arises if this verse is interpreted as the non-Ahmadis desire. In the Holy Qur’an, Allah the Almighty has clearly stated that if this Qur’an was the handiwork of someone other then Allah, there would have been many contradictions in this book. Allah the Almighty states:

أَفَلَا يَتَدَبَّرُونَ الْقُرْآَنَ وَلَوْ كَانَ مِنْ عِنْدِ غَيْرِ اللَّهِ لَوَجَدُوا فِيهِ اخْتِلَافًا كَثِيرًا

Meaning,

“Will they not then mediate upon the Qur’an? Had it been from anyone other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much contradiction.”

Therefore, it is an obvious and easily understandable fact that no interpretation of any verse of the Holy Qur’an, which results in a contradiction with other verses of the Holy Qur’an can be deemed correct. In verse 156 of Surah Al-Nisa’, only four verses prior to the one under discussion, Allah the Almighty refers to the Jews saying:

فَلَا يُؤْمِنُونَ إِلَّا قَلِيلًا

Meaning,

“So they believe not but little.”

If all of the People of the Book are to accept Jesus (as) as the non-Ahmadis claim then the above-mentioned verse of the Holy Qur’an would contradict the verse under discussion. In verse 156, Allah states that there are only a few that believe in Jesus (as).

Non-Ahmadis also present the interpretation of Hadrat Abu Hurairah (ra) which is reported in Bukhari in order to support their own interpretation of the verse under discussion. They claim that Hadrat Abu Hurairah (ra) has presented this verse in support of the Hadith which relates to the Nuzul or descent of Jesus (as). Therefore, this proves that Hadrat Abu Hurairah (ra) also understood this verse to allude to the physical descent of Jesus (as) in the latter days.

The fact of the matter is that this is a conclusion which has been drawn by Hadrat Abu Hurairah (ra). It is not necessary for us to accept the understanding of Hadrat Abu Hurairah (ra), especially when it contradicts the Holy Qur’an. The truth is that Hadrat Abu Hurairah (ra) is a very honourable and worthy companion of the Holy Prophet (sa). Due to the prayer of the Holy Prophet (sa) Allah blessed him with a remarkable memory, and those Ahadith which are narrated by Hadrat Abu Hurairah (ra) are deemed to be very authentic. However, although Hadrat Abu Hurairah (ra) possesses a great status in memory and narration, his depth of understanding was weak. It is for this reason that various companions of the Holy Prophet (sa) would correct Hadrat Abu Hurairah (ra) when he would derive an incorrect conclusion from a narration. Various scholars in the field of the science of Hadith have also alluded to this very fact.

There is a book on the principles of Hadith entitled Usulush-Shashi, which states:

القسم الثانی من الرواة ھم المعروفون بالحفظ والعدالة دون الاجتھاد والفتویٰ كابی ھریرة و انس بن مالك۔

Meaning,

“The second category which exists among the narrators of Hadith is of those who are renowned for their remarkable memory and honesty, but cannot be relied upon for their Ijtihad or religious verdicts, such as, Abu Hurairah (ra) and Anas bin Malik (ra).”

Then, Maulana Thana’ullah Sahib of Panipat writes in his commentary entitled Tafsir-e-Mazhari:

تآویل الایة بارجاع الضمیر الثانی الیٰ عیسیٰ ممنوع انما ھو زعم من ابی ھریرة لیس ذالك فی شیء فی الحدیث

Meaning,

“In the verse under discussion it is incorrect to attribute the second pronoun (i.e., in Qabla mautihi) towards Jesus (as). This is merely a notion of Hadrat Abu Hurairah (ra) and it is not supported by the Hadith at all.”

Therefore, it is clear that although Hadrat Abu Hurairah (ra) possesses a great status in the narration of Hadith, his religious verdicts and theological conclusions are not reliable and cannot be accepted if they contradict clear-cut verses of the Holy Qur’an and Ahadith.

In the Holy Qur’an, Allah the Almighty states:

وَإِنَّهُ لَعِلْمٌ لِلسَّاعَةِ فَلَا تَمْتَرُنَّ بِهَا وَاتَّبِعُونِ هَذَا صِرَاطٌ مُسْتَقِيمٌ

Meaning,

“But verily, it is a sign of the Hour. So have no doubt about it, but follow me. This is the right path.”

Non-Ahmadis present this verse in a futile attempt to substantiate the physical descent of Jesus (as) in the latter days. The non-Ahmadi ideology claims that Jesus (as) is the sign of the hour (i.e., the day of resurrection) as mentioned in this verse. In other words, non-Ahmadis state that since the Hour (or the resurrection) is tied to the person of Jesus (as), therefore, he must descend before the resurrection can take place.

First it should be understood that the argument which is presented by non-Ahmadis is not supported by rationality and common sense. If we are to critically analyse the logic behind this argument it shall become evident that the non-Ahmadi interpretation entails many complications. Non-Ahmadis claim that this verse establishes the physical descent of Jesus (as) in the latter days, who is the sign of the Hour. Therefore, until Jesus (as) descends, the Hour (i.e., resurrection) cannot take place. However, it must be understood that in this verse of the Holy Qur’an, Allah the Almighty has not said that Jesus (as) “shall be” a sign of the Hour, and the Hour is yet to come. If this was the case, Allah the Almighty would have stated the following words instead:

انہ سیكون علماً للساعة

i.e., He shall be a sign of the hour However, Allah the Almighty has not spoken of an event which is only to take place in the future. In Arabic grammar, the verse under discussion would be called a Jumlah Ismiyyah (i.e., a nominal sentence). A nominal sentence in Arabic starts with a noun and is composed of a subject and predicate. In such sentences it is necessary that the sentence also possess a meaning which infers present tense. Therefore, it is necessary that if Allah the Almighty has spoken of a sign of the Hour, that sign must have been present when the Holy Qur’an was revealed in order for this verse to hold true in light of Arabic grammar. It would be incorrect to assert that this sentence is only speaking of an era in time which is yet to come or relates to the future alone. However, the non-Ahmadi interpretation infers a meaning of the future only, because obviously, Jesus (as) has not yet descended, nor was Jesus (as) present in the world when this verse was revealed.

The second part of this verse which states ‘So have no doubt about it (i.e., the Hour),’ also sheds light on the true intent of this verse. It is obvious that Allah the Almighty is addressing the disbelievers by saying that after witnessing this sign, why do you doubt the coming of the hour? In other words, the person or thing (whatever it may be) which is inferred in the pronoun hu in innahu has been presented by Allah the Almighty as an argument or sign in order to establish the truth of the hour. If that sign was not present when this verse was revealed, how could Allah possibly hold the disbelievers responsible for not believing in the hour and why would Allah admonish them by saying, ‘So have no doubt about the hour,’ especially when the sign of the hour has manifested itself? The disbelievers can easily retort that ‘O Allah, how can we be held responsible for not believing in the hour if you have not sent that sign to which you allude in this verse. Since the sign is proof of the coming of the Hour, and we have not seen that sign yet, therefore, we do not have to believe.’ And in this case, the disbelievers would be absolutely correct to raise the objection that if the sign of the hour is not present, how can you tell us not to doubt the coming of the hour? It is obvious, that if the sign is still to descend (as the non-Ahmadis assert) how can it be a source of removing the doubt of the disbelievers of that time. Therefore, it is obvious that this verse does not at all support the notion that Jesus (as) will physically descend in the latter days. As a matter of fact, the physical descent of Jesus (as) has no relation whatsoever to the subject matter which is being discussed in this verse. Moreover, the grammatical structure of this verse must also infer a meaning of present tense. Moreover, assuming the non-Ahmadi interpretation, since the descent of Jesus (as) is an event which is still to occur in the future, the words ‘So have no doubt about the hour,’ would make no sense whatsoever. Because, if the sign of the Hour is not present as proof to establish the truth of the Hour, how can disbelievers be expected not to doubt it.

In addition to this, if the words Innahu actually referred to the physical descent of Jesus (as) in the latter days, as the non-Ahmadis claim, why would Allah state, Wattabi‘uni, meaning, ‘So follow me?’ If the non-Ahmadi interpretation was correct, the verse should have read as follows:

و انہ لعلم للساعة فلا تمترن بھا واتبعوہ

Meaning,

Jesus (as) is the sign of the coming of the Hour (i.e., resurrection).

Therefore, when he comes do not disobey him, and follow him. However, it is clear that in this verse of the Holy Qur’an, Allah the Almighty has stated, ‘So follow me.’ If this verse was referring to a phenomenon which was to take place in the future, as non-Ahmadis would have us believe, then Allah would not have stated that, “Jesus is a Sign of the hour........and believe in me.” Instead, Allah would have stated that Jesus (as) is a Sign of the hour, so when he comes, believe in him.

There are various interpretations of this verse, which do more justice to its meaning than the ideology which purports the physical descent of Jesus (as) in the latter days. Firstly, the pronoun hu in innahu refers to the Holy Qur’an. It is in fact the Holy Qur’an which is being alluded to in this verse as the sign of the Hour. The Holy Qur’an is a sign of the Hour, because it too brings about a spiritual resurrection. Just as people are to be raised up on the day of resurrection from their graves, the Holy Qur’an is a spiritual miracle which grants new life to hearts which are spiritually dead. The Holy Qur’an also alludes to the fact that it is responsible for bringing about a sort of spiritual resurrection and grants new life to those who are spiritually dead. Allah states in the Holy Qur’an:

وَأَنْزَلْنَا مِنَ السَّمَاءِ مَاءً طَهُورًا (49) لِنُحْيِيَ بِهِ بَلْدَةً مَيْتًا ...

Meaning,

“And We send down pure water from the sky, that We may thereby give life to a dead land.”

In support of this, it is written in Tafsir Mu‘alimut-Tanzil:

قال الحسن و جماعة انہ یعنی ان القرآن لعلم للساعة

Meaning,

“Hadrat Imam Hasan (ra) and a community of people state that Innahu infers that the Holy Qur’an is the Sign of the Hour.”

Moreover, in Tafsir Jami‘ul-Bayan it is written:

و قیل الضمیر للقرآن

Meaning,

“Some have said that the pronoun in this verse refers to the Holy Qur’an.”

Furthermore, in Tafsir Majma‘ul-Bayan it is written:

و قیل ان معناہ ان القران لدلیل للساعة لانہ آخر الكتاب

Meaning,

“Some have said that the meaning of this verse is that the Holy Qur’an is a proof of the imminent resurrection, because it is the last book.”

If one looks at the Arab society at the advent of the Holy Prophet (sa), they were a spiritually dead people. Moral ills of many hues had crept into their society and they had completely forgotten their Creator. They were indulged in idol worship and had gone far from the path of righteousness. As it has just been mentioned, the word Sa‘ah, also refers to the resurrection or day of judgement. As such, just as the resurrection refers to the raising up of the dead, in this verse, Allah the Almighty has spoken of a very beautiful and sublime spiritual verity. He states that the Holy Qur’an, which is an unprecedented spiritual miracle has been revealed to resurrect the spiritually dead and breathe a new life into them as it were.

The Holy Prophet (sa) can also be the subject of this verse. Just as the Holy Qur’an was a means of spiritually raising the dead, so too was the person of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa). The Holy Qur’an has clearly alluded to the fact that the Holy Prophet (sa) was a spiritual guide who came to grant new life to those who were spiritually dead. Allah the Almighty states:

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آَمَنُوا اسْتَجِيبُوا لِلَّهِ وَلِلرَّسُولِ إِذَا دَعَاكُمْ لِمَا يُحْيِيكُمْ

Meaning,

“O ye who believe! respond to Allah, and the Messenger when he calls you that he may give you life.”

Therefore, it is clear that the spiritual power of the Holy Prophet (sa) was so great that a people who had completely forgotten their Lord and were indulged in all kinds of sins and vices were granted a spiritual transformation the like of no other. The Holy Prophet (sa) breathed a new life into the people and brought about a truly miraculous revolution. The Promised Messiah (as) beautifully alludes to this very fact in the following words:

“Have you any notion what was the strange event that occurred in the wasteland of Arabia when hundreds of thousands of the dead were revived within a few days, and those who had been misguided through generations exhibited Divine complexion, and those who were blind began to see, and those who had been dumb began to utter words of Divine wisdom, and the world underwent a revolution which no eye had seen before and no ear had heart of. Do you know how all this came about? It was the supplications during dark nights of one who had lost himself in God which caused a revolution in the world, and showed such wonders as could never have been expected from that Unlettered and Helpless one [the Holy Prophet (sa)]. Send down Thy blessings and peace, O Allah, on him and his people according to the amount of pain and anguish he felt for his ummah, and pour down upon him the light of Thy mercy forever.”

Non-Ahmadis raise the objection that in Hamamatul-Bushra and I‘ijaz-e-Ahmadi, the Promised Messiah (as) has written that Innahu can refer to Jesus (as) as well. In response to this, it is true that in these two books, the Promised Messiah (as) has interpreted Innahu to refer to Jesus (as). However, we ask non-Ahmadis the question that did he also write anywhere in these books or any other book for that matter that this infers the physical descent of Jesus (as) in the latter days as well? Not at all. Let us now analyse what the Promised Messiah (as) has actually written in these two books and how he has expounded the verse under discussion if Innahu was to be understood as referring to Jesus (as).

In his book Hamamatul-Bushra the Promised Messiah (as) has explained that Jesus (as) was a sign of the Hour (i.e., the resurrection) for a people who rejected the day of resurrection. These people were a sect from among the Jews which were known as the Sadducees. They did not believe in the resurrection, and therefore, various prophets from among them prophesied that a child would be born among the Bani Isra’il without a father, and this would be a sign from God to establish the truth of the resurrection. In Mark 12:18 it is written:

“Then the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection came to him with a question.”

Similarly, it is also written in Luke 20:27:

“Some of the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to Jesus with a question.”

Therefore, it is clear from even the biblical account that the Sadducees who were a group from among the Jews did not believe in the resurrection. In order to establish that the resurrection was in fact true and that it would take place and that there would be a life after death, Allah the Almighty chose to make a sign out of Jesus (as). As we have mentioned, past Prophets also prophesied that a child would be born without a father, and this would be a sign of the coming of the hour. It is obvious that in this verse, Allah the Almighty has stated that Jesus (as) ‘is’ a sign of the resurrection. Allah has not said that Jesus (as) would be a sign of the resurrection some time in the future. Therefore, as per the non-Ahmadi interpretation, if this verse refers to the descent of Jesus (as) in the latter days as a sign of the Hour then Allah should have said, “Jesus ‘shall be’ a sign of the hour” (in future tense). However, since Allah the Almighty has stated that “Jesus ‘is’ a sign of the hour”, this means that in order for this verse to be correct, that sign must have been present when this verse was revealed. It is to this very fact which the Promised Messiah (as) has alluded to in Hamamatul-Bushra. He states that Jesus (as) was a sign for the Sadducees and that sign has been fulfilled. No where has the Promised Messiah (as) written that since Jesus (as) can also be implied in the pronoun hu, therefore, this substantiates the physical descent of Jesus (as) in the latter days.

For the benefit of the readers, we present a short extract from Hamamatul-Bushra, so that the context in which the Promised Messiah (as) has accepted Jesus (as) as the sign of the Hour may become clear. He states:

“Let it be known that in relation to the Messiah (as), Allah the Almighty states Innahu la‘ilmul-lis-sa‘ati [i.e., Verily he is a sign of the Hour] and not Innahu sayakunu ‘ilman lis-sa‘ati [i.e., Verily he shall be a sign of the Hour]. Hence, this verse indicates that he was a sign of the hour for the very reason that he practically possessed that sign within him, and not because that sign would be proven true in his person later on in time; and the reason he was a sign was because he was born without a father. The detail is that a Jewish sect known as the Sadducees disbelieved in the resurrection. As such, Allah informed them through the words of various Prophets that a boy would be born from among their people without a father; and he would be a Sign for them to establish the truth of the day of resurrection. It is to this very fact that the verse ‘Verily, he is a sign of the Hour’ refers to. Similarly the verse ‘And we made him a sign,’ alludes to the fact that we would make him [i.e., Jesus] a sign for the Sadducee people.”

In Al-Haqq Mubahathah Dehli, the Promised Messiah (as) has commented on this verse as well. In order to further clarify this point, we present an extract here. The Promised Messiah (as) states: Meaning,

“This verse [i.e., the verse under discussion] does not possess even the slightest relation to the descent of Jesus (as). The fact of the matter is that in the time of Jesus (as) there was a sect among the Jews named the Sadducees who did not believe in the resurrection. In the past scriptures it was written by way of prophecy, that in order to teach them, the Messiah would be born without a father, and this would be declared a Sign for them, just as Allah states in another verse:

وَلِنَجْعَلَهُ آَيَةً لِلنَّاسِ

Meaning,

“And we made him a sign for the people.”

At this instance, ‘the people’ refers to this very Sadducee sect who existed in large number during that era. Since, apparently, there seems to be no mention of the resurrection in the Torah, this sect became complete disbelievers in the day of judgement. Even today, it is written in certain scriptures of the Bible that in terms of his birth, the Messiah (as) was a sign of the Hour for those people. Now look, what relation does this verse have with the descent of Jesus?”

Now remains the commentary of this verse which the Promised Messiah (as) has given in I‘ijaz-e-Ahmadi. In his book I‘ijaz-e-Ahmadi, the Promised Messiah (as) has interpreted the word Sa‘ah not to infer the day of resurrection but to allude to that divine chastisement which the Jews received at the hand of Titus the Emperor of Rome, after Jesus (as). Allah the Almighty has alluded to this punishment of the Jews in Surah Bani Isra’il as well. Similarly, Allah the Almighty also states that the children of Israel were cursed by the tongue of Jesus (as) because they disobeyed and would transgress. Allah the Almighty states:

لُعِنَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا مِنْ بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ عَلَى لِسَانِ دَاوُودَ وَعِيسَى ابْنِ مَرْيَمَ ذَلِكَ بِمَا عَصَوْا وَكَانُوا يَعْتَدُونَ

Meaning,

“Those amongst the children of Israel who disbelieved were cursed by the tongue of David, and of Jesus, son of Mary. That was because they disobeyed and used to transgress.”

The Promised Messiah (as) has written that in Qur’anic idiom the word Sa‘ah is used to refer to divine punishment as well. Therefore, in actuality, Jesus (as) was a Sign for the children of Israel in that due to their transgression and disobedience they would be afflicted with As-Sa‘atu or punishment. As such, history clearly testifies that this punishment befell the Jews after Jesus (as), in accordance to this verse of the Holy Qur’an. In July 69 CE, when his father Vespasian was declared Emperor, Titus was given the task of ending the Jewish rebellion. In 70 CE, he laid siege to and destroyed the city and Temple of Jerusalem. Similarly, in that era, the Jews were also afflicted by the plague which resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths and whatever was left of the Jews, migrated to other lands, which is known as the Jewish diaspora. Therefore, the Sa‘ah, which has been referred to in this verse is the punishment which befell the children of Israel, and Jesus (as) was a Sign of its imminent arrival. As we have mentioned, this has already taken place.

In the verse under discussion the word ‘Ilmun has been used in its infinitive form, and from a linguistic perspective, this word can give three meanings: to know, he who knows, that which is known.

If we are to interpret this word as ‘he who knows’ and make Jesus (as) the subject of the verse under discussion, this would mean that Jesus (as) was a prophet of God who possessed firm and certain knowledge of the day of resurrection. He believed in the day of resurrection with such certainty that it was as if he could see it before his eyes. In actuality, all the Prophets of God come and inform their people of the hereafter. Therefore, Jesus (as) also taught his people that the concept of a resurrection is true, which would be followed by a life of the hereafter. As such, those people who believe in Jesus (as) and follow his true teachings would also develop certain belief in the resurrection. They would develop certain knowledge of the life of the hereafter. As such, the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa) also taught that just as the Prophets before me taught their people that preparations should be made for the life which is yet to come in the form of good deeds and righteousness, I too give you the same message; therefore, have no doubt about it. It is thus, very appropriate that the Holy Prophet (sa) states:

بعثتُ أنا والساعة كھاتین

Meaning,

“The resurrection and I are like two fingers.”

In the Holy Qur’an, Allah the Almighty states:

فَمَنْ يَمْلِكُ مِنَ اللَّهِ شَيْئًا إِنْ أَرَادَ أَنْ يُهْلِكَ الْمَسِيحَ ابْنَ مَرْيَمَ

Meaning,

“Who then has any power against Allah, if He wishes to kill the Messiah, son of Mary.”

Non-Ahmadis present the argument that in the above-mentioned verse of the Holy Qur’an, Allah the Almighty has given a challenge to the people that who has the power to stop Allah if he wishes to kill Jesus (as). This proves that Jesus (as) has not yet been put to death by Allah the Almighty, otherwise, Allah would have clearly said, ‘Jesus (as) has indeed been put to death by Allah.’ Non-Ahmadis claim that since this verse is based on a conditional statement which states that “if” Allah desired to kill Jesus (as) no one could stop him, this proves that Jesus (as) is still physically alive in the heavens.

This argument does not strengthen the non-Ahmadi ideology in the least, because there is a serious fault in the argument which has been presented. This verse does not prove the life of Jesus (as), rather, it establishes the Might, Omnipotence and Unity of Allah the Almighty. When non-Ahmadis present this argument, they conveniently select a portion from the middle of the verse (as has been quoted above) and leave out the words which appear before and after. In order to fully understand the true intent of this verse, we must read the entire verse from beginning to end. The entire verse is as follows:

لَقَدْ كَفَرَ الَّذِينَ قَالُوا إِنَّ اللَّهَ هُوَ الْمَسِيحُ ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ قُلْ فَمَنْ يَمْلِكُ مِنَ اللَّهِ شَيْئًا إِنْ أَرَادَ أَنْ يُهْلِكَ الْمَسِيحَ ابْنَ مَرْيَمَ وَأُمَّهُ وَمَنْ فِي الْأَرْضِ جَمِيعًا وَلِلَّهِ مُلْكُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ وَمَا بَيْنَهُمَا يخْلُقُ مَا يَشَاءُ وَاللَّهُ عَلَى كُلِّ شَيْءٍ قَدِيرٌ

Meaning,

“They indeed disbelieved who say, ‘Surely, Allah is none but the Messiah, son of Mary.’ Say, ‘Who then has any power against Allah, if He desire to bring to naught the Messiah, son of Mary, and his mother and all those that are in the earth?’ And to Allah belongs the kingdom of the heavens and the earth and what is between them. He creates what He pleases; and Allah has power to do all things.”

After reading the entire verse, the context in which Allah has made the statement (which non-Ahmadis conveniently extract out of context) becomes clear and evident. This statement does not prove the life of Jesus (as) at all. In this verse, as is evident from the subject matter discussed herein, that Allah is providing a response to those people who falsely claim that Jesus (as) is God. In response to the Christians who consider the Messiah (as) to be God, Allah the Almighty gives a powerful argument. Allah the Almighty states that Jesus (as) cannot be God, because he has no power to protect himself from divine wrath. If Allah, Who is the Lord of the Worlds, decided to destroy Jesus (as) who is there who dare stand in His way? Therefore, since Allah the Almighty has the power to bring Jesus (as) to naught, and Jesus (as) the Messiah cannot contest the power, might and omnipotence of Allah, for this reason, he cannot be God. Hence, it is only Allah the Almighty Who is the One True God.

It is ironic that this verse is a beautiful proof of the Unity of God, yet non-Ahmadis have attempted to use this very verse to support an ideology which attributes Godly characteristics towards Jesus (as). It is this very concept, which Allah the Almighty is negating in this verse. Therefore, contrary to the non-Ahmadi belief, in this verse, Allah the Almighty has refuted the concept of the divinity of Jesus (as) by establishing and announcing his death. If we are to accept that Jesus (as) has not yet died, the Unity of Allah would be lost, because it is only Allah who is free from the confines of mortality. In addition to this, even if we were to hypothetically accept that this verse proves the life of Jesus (as), this still doe not prove that he ascended into the heavens.

There is another fundamental error which needs to be pointed out in the non-Ahmadi logic which has been used to establish this argument. If the statement of Allah that ‘Who then has the power against Allah, if He desire to kill the Messiah,’ proves that Jesus (as) has not yet died, then it must also be accepted that ‘his mother and all those that are in the earth,’ are also alive along with Jesus (as). This verse must be analysed in its entirety. If, this verse substantiates the life of Jesus (as) as our non-Ahmadi opponents assert then the same logic must also be applied to ‘the mother of Jesus and all those that are in the earth.’ However, as non-Ahmadis would agree, this is a most problematic outcome, which naturally arises due to the non-Ahmadi logic which is applied to this verse in a futile attempt to prove the life of Jesus (as).

In the Holy Qur’an, Allah the Almighty states:

وَيُكَلِّمُ النَّاسَ فِي الْمَهْدِ وَكَهْلًا وَمِنَ الصَّالِحِينَ

Meaning,

“‘And he shall speak to the people in the cradle and when of middle age, and he shall be of the righteous.’”

Non-Ahmadis use this verse to present the argument that Jesus (as) spoke to people when he was in the cradle (i.e. fil-mahdi), however, since he ascended into the heavens when he was just 33 years of age, he did not receive the opportunity to address people in his old age (i.e., wa kahla). Therefore, he must return in the latter days, to speak to people in his old age, and thus fulfill the second part of this verse.

The entire misunderstanding which surrounds the non-Ahmadi argument exists due to their failing to understand the true meaning of the Arabic word Kahla. First it must be established that the word Kahla does not mean, ‘old age’, as non-Ahmadis claim. In actuality the Arabic word Kahla refers to the adult age of maturity, where a person no longer remains to be of early age.

In the famous Arabic dictionary known as Al-Munjid, it is written that the period of time which is inferred by the Arabic word Kahla is from thirty years of age to fifty. Similarly in Muntakhibatul-‘Arabiyyah, it is written:

ابن عشرین و ابن ثلٰثین كھل

Meaning,

“A man of age twenty or age thirty is referred to by the word Kahla.”

Therefore, in light of this definition of the word Kahla, it becomes evident that Jesus (as) did in fact speak to the people in his period of Kahla as well. Non-Ahmadis accept that Jesus (as) was raised into the heavens at age 33 and the references which have been presented above explicitly state that this age falls in between the period which is implied in the word Kahla. Hence, there is no need for Jesus (as) to return in the latter days to fulfill the second part of this verse.

It is for this reason that in the English Translation of the Holy Qur’an by Hadrat Maulvi Sher ‘Ali Sahib (ra), he has translated the word Kahla as ‘middle age’.

If it was hypothetically accepted that Jesus (as) has physically ascended into the heavens and that he would return at some time from now, this period would be beyond that of Kahla because by now, Jesus (as) has reached an age above 2000. Therefore, if Jesus (as) is to physically return in the latter days Allah should have used another word, instead of Kahla. In the Holy Qur’an, when Allah the Almighty gave Abraham (as) glad-tidings of the birth of Isaac (as), Sarah responded in the following words:

أَأَلِدُ وَأَنَا عَجُوزٌ وَهَذَا بَعْلِي شَيْخًا

Meaning,

“Shall I bear a child when I am an old woman, and this my husband is an old man?”

When Hadrat Abraham (as) was given glad tidings of the birth of his son Isaac, Abraham (as) was approximately 90 years of age. The word which has been used by the Holy Qur’an to refer to an ‘old man’ is not Kahla, rather it is Shaikh.

As such, in light of the Ahadith, Ahmadis believe that Jesus (as) lived to the age of 120 and in this manner he received the opportunity to speak both in the cradle (i.e., fil-mahdi), in his middle age (i.e., wa kahla) as well as in his old age when he was a ‘Shaikh’.

In the Holy Qur’an, Allah the Almighty states:

وَيُعَلِّمُهُ الْكِتَابَ وَالْحِكْمَةَ وَالتَّوْرَاةَ وَالْإِنْجِيلَ

Meaning,

“‘And He will teach him the Book and the Wisdom and the Torah and the Gospel.’”

Non-Ahmadis present this verse to argue that whenever the words Al-Kitab (i.e., the Book) and Al-Hikmah (i.e., the Wisdom) appear together in a verse, this always refers to the Holy Qur’an and the Ahadith. Therefore, this verse states that Jesus (as) would be taught the Holy Qur’an and Ahadith by Allah the Almighty and since this has not yet occurred, Jesus (as) must physically return in the latter days to fulfill this verse and complete his study.

It must be understood right from the outset, that the conclusion which has been drawn by non-Ahmadis in relation to this verse is incorrect and completely erroneous. The fact of the matter is that all Prophets receive knowledge of the book and divine wisdom. In the Holy Qur’an, Allah the Almighty states:

وَإِذْ أَخَذَ اللَّهُ مِيثَاقَ النَّبِيِّينَ لَمَا آَتَيْتُكُمْ مِنْ كِتَابٍ وَحِكْمَةٍ ثُمَّ جَاءَكُمْ رَسُولٌ مُصَدِّقٌ لِمَا مَعَكُمْ لَتُؤْمِنُنَّ بِهِ وَلَتَنْصُرُنَّهُ

Meaning,

“And remember the time when Allah took a covenant from the people through the Prophets, saying: ‘Whatever I give you of the Book and Wisdom and then there comes to you a Messenger, fulfilling that which is with you, you shall believe in him and help him.’”

Then, Allah states in another verse of the Holy Qur’an that He granted the children of Abraham knowledge of the Book and Wisdom. Allah states:

فَقَدْ آَتَيْنَا آَلَ إِبْرَاهِيمَ الْكِتَابَ وَالْحِكْمَةَ وَآَتَيْنَاهُمْ مُلْكًا عَظِيمًا

Meaning,

“We gave the Book and Wisdom to the children of Abraham also and we also gave them a great kingdom.”

It is obvious that Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, etc., were not taught the Holy Qur’an or Ahadith by Allah the Almighty. If the non-Ahmadi philosophy which is presented in favor of Jesus (as) is applied to this verse of the Holy Qur’an, then someone could claim that these prophets are also physically alive in the heavens, and that they too would return in the latter days to learn the Holy Qur’an and Ahadith. Perhaps all these prophets would return in the latter days to learn the Holy Qur’an and Ahadith in the same class. With even a little contemplation, it quickly becomes apparent how utterly humorous this concept becomes. The non-Ahmadi ideology opens up a pandoras box, and it becomes difficult to prove the death of even a single prophet of God! Therefore, it is evidently established that the words Al-Kitab and Al-Hikmah, when used together do not exclusively refer to the Holy Qur’an and Ahadith. These two things are given to every Prophet of God. The fact of the matter is that in the verse under discussion, Allah the Almighty has only stated that Jesus (as) was taught the Torah and the Gospel. Jesus (as), like his predecessors, was not taught the Holy Qur’an or the Ahadith nor shall these things be taught to him in the future after his physical descent. The advent of Jesus (as) was for the religious teaching of the Torah and the Gospel, therefore, it is these two things which he was taught by Allah the Almighty. As such, if Jesus (as) does not have knowledge of the Holy Qur’an, he cannot come and teach it to the world in his second advent, as the non-Ahmadis claim. The knowledge of Jesus (as) is limited to the Torah and the Gospels. Would the Holy Qur’an be abrogated in the second advent of Jesus (as)? Because as we have already mentioned, Jesus (as) does not known the Holy Qur’an, he is only familiar with the Mosaic law. Obviously, such a notion cannot be accepted by any Muslim. Therefore, it is clear that even if we were to hypothetically accept that Jesus (as) is alive, his physical return in the latter days cannot be possible, because he does not have the theological pre-requisites which are necessary to guide the whole of mankind. It is necessary for the Messiah who is to come in the latter days to possess an in-depth knowledge of the Holy Qur’an. This can only be possible if the Messiah of the latter days is raised from within the ummah of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa) and receives his divine knowledge and deep understanding of the Holy Qur’an through his following the Holy Prophet (sa).

In the Holy Qur’an, Allah the Almighty states: وَإِذْ كَفَفْتُ بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ عَنْكَ إِذْ جِئْتَهُمْ بِالْبَيِّنَاتِ Meaning, “And when I restrained the children of Israel from putting thee to death when thou didst come to them with clear signs.”

Non-Ahmadis present this verse in order to justify that Jesus (as) was never put on the cross, rather, before the Jews could hang him, he ascended into the heavens. They translate the Arabic words Kafaftu ‘anka to mean ‘I restrained them from laying a hand on you [O Jesus (as)].’ They assert that if Jesus (as) was placed on the cross, and if his blood was spilt by the Bani Isra’il then this verse would cease to be correct. Therefore, in order to establish the veracity of this verse, we must accept that Jesus (as) was not touched at all by the Bani Isra’il. As such, before the Jews could put him on the cross, Allah physically lifted him into the heavens in order to save his life.

The fact of the matter is that the translation which non-Ahmadis render of the words Kafaftu ‘an is completely incorrect. These words do not at all infer that Jesus (as) was not touched at all by the Bani Isra’il. In the Holy Qur’an, Allah the Almighty states with relation to the believers:

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آَمَنُوا اذْكُرُوا نِعْمَةَ اللَّهِ عَلَيْكُمْ إِذْ هَمَّ قَوْمٌ أَنْ يَبْسُطُوا إِلَيْكُمْ أَيْدِيَهُمْ فَكَفَّ أَيْدِيَهُمْ عَنْكُمْ وَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ وَعَلَى اللَّهِ فَلْيَتَوَكَّلِ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ

Meaning,

“O ye who believe! remember Allah’s favor upon you when a people intended to stretch out their hands against you, but He withheld their hands from you; and fear Allah. And on Allah should the believers rely.”

In this verse of the Holy Qur’an, Allah the Almighty uses the words Kaffa aiydiyahum ‘ankum, which means, ‘He withheld their hands from you.’ However, if we study the historical account which surrounds the life of our Beloved Prophet (sa), it becomes evident that the believers were persecuted in Mecca, they were compelled into battle and many of them were martyred while others were injured. Even the Holy Prophet (sa) himself was severely wounded in the Battle of Uhud and during his trip to Ta’if.

In actuality, the true meaning of the words Kaffa ‘an is that Allah does not grant complete victory to the enemies of the Prophet, and protects his beloved Messengers from the evil designs of their enemies reaching their ultimate end. This does not mean that the Prophets receive no physical grief from their enemies at all. Even in the case of Jesus (as), non-Ahmadis should be asked the question that when Jesus (as) was arrested by the Jews were no hands laid on Jesus? Therefore, even if we are to hypothetically concur with the notion that Jesus (as) was physically lifted into the heavens before he was put on the cross, the non-Ahmadi argument still does not hold true. The reason being that it is an accepted fact that Jesus (as) was arrested by the Jews, and it is obvious that at this time the Jews did manage to temporarily subdue Jesus (as). They hit him, flogged him and placed a crown of thorns upon his head to humiliate him.

Non-Ahmadis present a Hadith of the Holy Prophet (sa) in which the Holy Prophet (sa) is reported to have said that the Son of Mary would descend. The Hadith is as follows:

كیف انتم اذا نزل ابن مریم فیكم

Meaning,

“What would be your state when the Son of Mary descends among you.”

Non-Ahmadis claim that in this Hadith, the Holy Prophet (sa) has specifically used the words Son of Mary. If a Mathil or another man was to come in the likeness of Jesus (as) the specific name ‘Son of Mary’ would not have been used. Therefore, this proves that the same Jesus (as) of 2000 years, who came to the Bani Isra’il would also come again to guide the Muslims in the latter day. Secondly, they assert that the words Nuzul have been used which literally means ‘to descend.’ Therefore, it is clear that Jesus (as) must have physically ascended into the heavens, otherwise there would be no question of him descending.

It should be understood that in all languages, when it is desired to compare someone to another person or thing in terms of attributes, we use the same name for that person. This does not mean that the person who is given that name to express his likeness or similitude literally becomes that person or thing. For example, Prophet Joseph (as) has become known for his beauty and physical charm. If it is desired to express the beauty of someone, we say that ‘So and so is Joseph.’ Similarly, if we wish to praise someones generosity, we say that ‘So and so is Hatam Ta’i.’ In the same manner, if someone desires to praise another man’s bravery we say that ‘So and so is a lion.’ Of course, this does not imply that the person who is being likened to a lion in his bravery also possesses a mane, four legs and a tail!

Non-Ahmadis raise the objection that if that very same Messiah (as) was not to descend in the latter days and another man was to come in his person, the Holy Prophet (sa) should have said that ‘The like of Jesus Son of Mary (as) would descend among you,’ but since the word ‘like’ has not been used, this means that same Messiah (as) must descend.

As we have already mentioned, even in our own language, when one desires to express the extreme similarity of someone to another person or thing, the word ‘like’ is left out. The Holy Qur’an has also used a similar style as well. Allah the Almighty states:

نِسَاؤُكُمْ حَرْثٌ لَكُمْ

Meaning,

“Your wives are your tilth.’

In this verse of the Holy Qur’an, Allah the Almighty has not said that ‘Your wives are like your tilth,’ He has simply stated, ‘Your wives are your tilth.’ Now it is obvious that if we were to apply the non-Ahmadi logic to this verse, the level to which this verse would become absurd is evident to any like-minded individual. In actuality, what is inferred in this verse is that women possess many qualities which are similar to that of a tilth.

In the same manner, when the Holy Prophet (sa) stated that the Son of Mary would descend, this does not imply that the very same Jesus son of Mary, from the Bani Isra’il would descend. The wisdom in using the name ‘Son of Mary’ is to express the fact that the Messiah of my ummah who is to descend in the latter days would be so similar to Jesus son of Mary in his qualities and attributes that the difference between the two would amount to nothing. Just as the Messiah (as) breathed new life into those who were spiritually dead, so too would be the case with my Messiah (as).

In addition to this, the words Ibni Maryam or ‘Son of Mary,’ should be understood in context. As Ahmadis always advocate, all of the verses of the Holy Qur’an and the Ahadith of the Holy Prophet (sa) should be studied and analysed collectively. It is not correct to isolate a single statement and then draw a one-sided conclusion. In the same manner, it is complete injustice to extract a single Hadith from other Ahadith and interpret it in isolation. Non-Ahmadis assert that the Holy Prophet (sa) used the words Son of Mary, and therefore, this evidently substantiates the coming of the very same Messiah (as) of the Bani Isra’il. In order to support this notion, they were also compelled to create the ideology of the physical ascension of Jesus (as) as well. However, we would humbly like to bring their attention to the fact that the Holy Prophet (sa) himself has also explained as to who is implied by the ‘Son of Mary’. The Holy Prophet (sa) states:

كیف انتم اذا نزل ابن مریم فیكم و امامكم منكم

Meaning,

“What would be your state when the Son of Mary would descend within you and he would be your leader from among you.”

This Hadith clearly explains that the Son of Mary must be from among the Muslim Ummah. If Jesus (as) of the Bani Isra’il was to physically return in the latter days, he could not be referred to as Imamukum minkum by the Holy Prophet (sa) in this Hadith. If the very same Jesus (as) of the Bani Isra’il was to physically descend, as non-Ahmadis state then the words of this Hadith should have been Imamukum mim bani isra’il. The Holy Qur’an clearly refers to Jesus (as) as a prophet who was sent to the Bani Isra’il. Allah the Almighty states:

وَرَسُولًا إِلَى بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ

Meaning,

“And he is a Messenger to the children of Israel”

The simple fact is that it is not within his jurisdiction to lead a nation who is outside the Bani Isra’il. If Jesus (as) of the Bani Isra’il was to physically descend at some point in time, the Muslim scholars would present this verse of the Holy Qur’an before him and contest by saying, ‘How can you be a prophet who has come to judge between the Muslims? Allah has made you a prophet only for the Bani Isra’il. Therefore, your jurisdiction is limited to the Bani Isra’il.’ In this case, what would be the response of Jesus (as)? He could only give three responses. The first response would be that now this verse of the Holy Qur’an has been abrogated. The second response could be that this verse of the Holy Qur’an is incorrect, and that Allah forgot to (God-forbid) clarify this issue. The third response could be that now Allah has expanded my prophethood, and I have now been given the permission to serve as a spiritual guide for the Muslims as well. The first two responses are unacceptable, and even a non-Ahmadi would agree to this. It is completely in contradiction to the perfect and pure nature of Allah to make such a mistake, or for a single word of the Holy Qur’an to be abrogated because this diminishes the authenticity of the Holy Qur’an completely. The third option is perhaps the most viable option for non-Ahmadis to take, and in fact they do actually respond by presenting this argument. However, this third option possesses two complications. If the prophethood of Jesus (as) was to expand in the latter days to include the Muslims and all of mankind as the non-Ahmadis claim, there should have been mention of this in the Holy Qur’an somewhere. We challenge non-Ahmadis to present even a single verse, or even a small portion of a single verse, nay, even a single indirect allusion towards the fact, that although Jesus (as) is a prophet sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, in the latter days, or at some point in the near future his prophethood would be expanded. Non-Ahmadis cannot present any such argumentation from the Holy Qur’an. This is a self-concocted argument, which has no Qur’anic backing whatsoever. The second complication with this stance is that if the prophethood of Jesus (as) was to be expanded in the latter days, this would completely invalidate the argument which non-Ahmadis present in relation to the finality of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa). If the prophethood of Jesus (as) was to be expanded after the Holy Prophet (sa), this in essence, is a new prophethood. However, non-Ahmadis vehemently advocate the concept that the Holy Prophet (sa) is the last and final prophet, and no prophethood can come after him, whether it be law-bearing or non-law-bearing.

Therefore, when the Holy Qur’an has clearly alluded to the death of Jesus (as) who was a prophet only to the Bani Isra’il and the Ahadith also elaborate upon who is truly implied by Jesus Son of Mary, then to stubbornly argue that the very same Jesus (as) of 2000 years ago would return physically from the heavens in the latter days is not the way of righteousness.

In the Hadith under discussion, it is clear that no where has the Holy Prophet (sa) stated that Jesus (as) physically ascended into the heavens. Nor has the Holy Prophet (sa) stated that the Nuzul of Jesus would be minas-sama’i or ‘from the sky.’ Therefore, in this relation it should be understood that the word Nuzul which is rendered as ‘descent’ in the English language does not imply a physical descent from the sky. A traveller who moves from one place to another is called a ‘Nazil’ and a house is called ‘Manzil.’ However, as it is evident, both of these words do not possess even the closest relation to physical descent from the sky. There are many examples in the Holy Qur’an, where the word Nuzul is used for things, which obviously, did not physically descend from the sky. We shall present these examples below.

In the Holy Qur’an, Allah the Almighty has stated that the Holy Prophet (sa) was also sent down by Allah to recite the signs of Allah upon the people. Allah the Almighty states:

قَدْ أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ إِلَيْكُمْ ذِكْرًا (11) رَسُولًا يَتْلُو عَلَيْكُمْ آَيَاتِ اللَّهِ ...

Meaning,

“Allah has indeed sent down to you a Reminder - A Messenger who recites unto you the clear Signs of Allah.

Similarly, Allah the Almighty states:

وَأَنْزَلَ لَكُمْ مِنَ الْأَنْعَامِ ثَمَانِيَةَ أَزْوَاجٍ

Meaning,

“And He has sent down for you eight head of cattle in pairs.”

Moreover, Allah the Almighty states:

يَا بَنِي آَدَمَ قَدْ أَنْزَلْنَا عَلَيْكُمْ لِبَاسًا يُوَارِي سَوْآَتِكُمْ وَرِيشًا

Meaning,

“O children of Adam! We have indeed sent down to you raiment to cover your shame, and to be an elegant dress.”

Then, Allah states:

هُوَ الَّذِي يُرِيكُمْ آَيَاتِهِ وَيُنَزِّلُ لَكُمْ مِنَ السَّمَاءِ رِزْقًا

Meaning,

“He it is Who shows you His Signs, and sends down provision for you from heaven.”

Similarly, Allah the Almighty states:

وَأَنْزَلْنَا الْحَدِيدَ فِيهِ بَأْسٌ شَدِيدٌ وَمَنَافِعُ لِلنَّاسِ

Meaning, “

And We sent down iron, wherein is material for violent warfare and many benefits for mankind.”

Therefore, from all of the verses which have been presented above, it is clear that Allah the Almighty has used the word Nuzul for the Holy Prophet (sa), about whom it is an accepted fact that he did not physically descend from the sky. He was born from the womb of his mother. Similarly, Allah states that he sent down cattle, clothing, iron and provision. However, no one has ever claimed to see cows and bulls falling from the sky. Nor has anyone seen sheets of cloth, kilometers long descending from the sky. In the same manner, no one has ever seen iron blocks descending from the sky. It is also interesting to note that in the verse of Sura Al-Mu’min, which we presented above, in relation to Allah sending down provision, the words minas-sama’i have actually been used in particular. In this verse, Allah has used the word Nuzul and it has been accompanied by the words minas-sama’i. Despite this very specific mention of ‘from the sky,’ it is obvious that no one has ever seen apples, bananas, grapes and oranges falling in clusters from the heavens. As we have mentioned earlier, this is merely a figure of speech, which is used in the Arabic language to allude to the great benefit of something.

The fact of the matter is that since all of the above-mentioned things are greatly beneficial to society and without them our survival would be difficult, and since it is only through the immense blessing of Allah that we have these things, Allah the Almighty has attributed them to himself, as if they have been sent down by Him from on high. Similarly, those things which are promised to mankind by Allah the Almighty also ‘descend’ from the sky as it were. The reason this idiom is employed in Arabic is to specifically express the fact that divine intervention had a hand to play in the manifestation or existence of all these things. That is not to say that the hand of Allah was not involved in other blessings which the world benefits from today. It only means that these things in particular are extraordinary blessings of Allah.

In the same manner, when the word Nuzul is used for Jesus (as), since the Messiah of the Latter Days shall make his claim based on divine revelation and shall fulfill his tasks in light of the revelation he receives from his Lord, and since his mission would be fulfilled through Divine Grace and Mercy, and not through worldly tools, and since his advent is an immense blessing for the entire world, the Holy Prophet (sa) has used the word Nuzul for him as well. And this is in complete accordance with the idiom of the Holy Qur’an and the Arabic language.

If there is still doubt in the heart of anyone as to the correct use of the word Nuzul, there is another verse in the Holy Qur’an, where Allah the Almighty states that everything in the world has been sent down by Allah. He states:

وَإِنْ مِنْ شَيْءٍ إِلَّا عِنْدَنَا خَزَائِنُهُ وَمَا نُنَزِّلُهُ إِلَّا بِقَدَرٍ مَعْلُومٍ

Meaning,

“And there is not a thing but with Us are the treasures thereof and We send it not down except in a known measure.”

Many Non-Ahmadis present a narration of Imam Baihaqi from his book Kitabul-Asma’i was-Sifat, which contains the words Nuzul and minas-sama’i. That narration is as follows:

كیف انتم اذا نزل ابن مریم من السماء فیكم و امامكم منكم

Meaning,

“What would be your state when the Son of Mary descends from heaven among you; and he shall be your leader from among you.”

This is presentied as a very strong argument by non-Ahmadis to substantiate that Jesus (as) would physically descend from the sky. However, in response to this, we would like to draw attention to the verse of Surah Al-Mu’min which we have just presented above. Allah states:

هُوَ الَّذِي يُرِيكُمْ آَيَاتِهِ وَيُنَزِّلُ لَكُمْ مِنَ السَّمَاءِ رِزْقًا

Meaning,

“He it is Who shows you His Signs, and sends down provision for you from heaven.”

The above-mentioned verse also contains the words minas-sama’i for the sending down of provisions. However, this does not cause doubt in the heart of any non-Ahmadi that since the words ‘from the sky’ appear in this verse perhaps food and drink in fact descend from the heavens. So too is the case with this narration of Imam Baihaqi as well (if we are to accept it as an authentic narration that is). However, the fact is that this narration of Imam Baihaqi is not even an authentic narration. After presenting this narration, Imam Baihaqi writes:

رواہ البخاری فی الصحیح عن یحیٰ بن بكر و اخرجہ مسلم من وجہ آخر عن یونس و انما اراد نزولہ من السماء بعد الرفع الیہ

Meaning,

“Bukhari has narrated this Hadith in his Sahih (i.e., authentic collection) from Yahya bin Bakr. And Muslim has taken this Hadith from Yunus for some other reason. And what is implied here regarding the descent of Jesus (as) from the sky is that it would take place after his spiritual ascension.”

However, if we study Sahih Bukhari, the words minas-sama’i have not appeared at even a single instance throughout the entire collection. Similarly, in Sahih Muslim, the words minas-sama’i have not been narrated either. Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim are accepted by scholars as the two most authentic books of Ahadith. Therefore, in comparison to these two renowned and authentic books of Hadith, another narration which appears in a book by Imam Baihaqi cannot be accepted.

The four narrators in the chain of the above-mentioned Hadith (which contains the words minas-sama’i) are not reliable narrators. In Lisanul-Mizan and Tahzibut-Tahzib, which are two famous books on the narrators of Hadith, it is written that Abu Bakr bin Ishaq bin Muhammad Al-Naqid would tend to forget. Similarly, Ahmad bin Ibrahim, Yahya bin ‘Abdullah and Yunus bin Yazid are also weak narrators. Therefore, this narration cannot be accepted as an authentic Hadith.

Non-Ahmadis present a Hadith of the Holy Prophet (sa) in which he is reported to have said that Jesus (as) would be buried in my grave. The Hadith is as follows:

یدفن معی فی قبری

Meaning,

“He shall be buried with me in my grave.”

Non Ahmadis claim that since this Hadith indicates that Jesus (as) was to be buried in the grave of the Holy Prophet (sa), and it is obvious that the Holy Prophet (sa) came many hundreds of years after Jesus (as), therefore it was necessary for Jesus (as) to remain physically alive at least until the demise of the Holy Prophet (sa). However, since we see that Jesus (as) has not yet been buried in the grave of the Holy Prophet (sa), therefore, he has not yet died. As such, when Jesus (as) descends in the latter days, he would complete his mission and then be buried in the grave of the Holy Prophet (sa).

This argument should be analysed from a logical and rational perspective. If we were to hypothetically assume that Jesus (as) physically descends from the heavens and then passes away, which like-minded individual would consider it appropriate to dig the grave of our Beloved Master, the Holy Prophet (sa) and place Jesus (as) there as well. Would it not be a great dishonour to the pure and holy person of Prophet Muhammad (sa) to entertain the belief that his grave would be dug at some time in the future?

Furthermore, if this narration is taken literally, it would be a most illogical argument in favor of the life of Jesus (as) or to support the truthfulness of his claim. This would mean that until Jesus (as) is buried with the Holy Prophet (sa) in his very grave, the truth of the Messiah of the Latter Days would not be established. Because as non-Ahmadis assert, this Hadith must play out literally, and therefore, it is a sign of the truthfulness of Jesus (as). Who then would let Jesus (as) to be buried with the Holy Prophet (sa) without first knowing if he was in fact the true Jesus (as) or not? History has shown that many claimants have come throughout the years, but they were all mocked, opposed, and even killed. There was a man who claimed to be the awaited Messiah (as), and as per another Hadith of the Holy Prophet (sa), he said that my name is Muhammad, my father’s name is ‘Abdullah and my mothers name is Aminah. However, the Saudi Government killed him in the Masjidul-Haram. Therefore, to assume for even a second that Jesus (as) could be buried in the grave of the Holy Prophet (sa) is not only an insult to the Holy Prophet (sa), but also defies common sense. For who would allow a claimant to be buried there so easily?

There is a vision of Hadrat ‘A’ishah (ra) which has been reported by her and recorded in Muwatta Imam Malik. This vision evidently demonstrates that this Hadith cannot be taken in the literal sense. The narration is as follows:

ان عائشة زوج النبی صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم قالت رآیت ثلاثة اقمار سقطن فی حجرتی فقصصت رؤیای علی ابی بكر الصدیق ۔ قالت فلما توفی رسول اللہ صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم و دُفِن فی بیتیھا قال لھا ابو بكر ھذا احد اقمارك و ھو خیرھا۔

Meaning,

“Hadrat ‘A’ishah (ra) the wife of the Holy Prophet (sa) said, ‘I saw in a vision that three moons had fallen in to my pavilion. So I narrated this vision of mine to Abu Bakr Siddiq (ra).’ When the Messenger of Allah passed away and he was buried in my house, Abu Bakr (ra) said to me, ‘This is the first of your three moons, and he is the best of them.’”

History tells us that after the demise of the Holy Prophet (sa), Hadrat Abu Bakr (ra) and Hadrat ‘Umar (ra) were buried in the pavilion of Hadrat ‘A’ishah (ra) alongside their Beloved Master. Therefore, as per the vision of Hadrat ‘A’ishah (ra) three moons have already fallen into her pavilion and her vision has been fulfilled. If a fourth person was also to be buried there, then the vision of Hadrat ‘A’ishah (ra) would prove to be incorrect.

Someone could raise the objection as to what proof there is of the fact that the three moons which appeared to Hadrat ‘A’siah (ra) in her dream actually symbolize the burial of these three magnificent men. Perhaps the interpretation of this is something else? First, if one studies books on the interpretation of dreams, it will become evident that the ‘moon’ symbolizes power, rule, or a leader. Secondly, this dream of Hadrat ‘A’ishah (ra) was not interpreted by an ordinary person. The above-mentioned narration shows that it was Hadrat Abu Bakr (ra) himself who interpreted this dream, and told his daughter that with the burial of the Holy Prophet (sa) in your pavilion, one part of your dream has been fulfilled. Thirdly, this can also be supported by another Hadith as well. In Bukhari it is mentioned that prior to accepting Islam, Hadrat Safiyyah saw in a dream that the moon had fallen in to her lap. When she related this dream to her Jewish father, he became furious and slapped her. Her father reproached her saying, ‘Do you wish to marry the King of the Arabs?’ And of course, we see that later on, Hadrat Safiyyah (ra) did in fact marry the greatest King among the Arabs, that is, our Beloved Master, the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa). Therefore, this is a very baseless objection. It is clear from this narration that the vision of Hadrat ‘A’ishah (ra) was fulfilled when the Holy Prophet (sa), Hadrat Abu Bakr (ra) and Hadrat ‘Umar (ra) were buried in her pavilion. Hadrat ‘A’ishah (ra) did not state that she saw four moons falling into her pavilion. Therefore, in light of the above-mentioned narration of Hadrat ‘A’ishah (ra) it is evident that there is no room for anyone else to be buried with the Holy Prophet (sa) - not Jesus (as) and not anyone else.

There is a narration in Tirmidhi in which the Holy Prophet (sa) is reported to have said:

انا اول من تنشق عنہ الارض ثم ابو بكر ثم عمر ۔۔۔

Meaning,

“I am the first person whose grave shall be opened [on the day of resurrection]. Then Abu Bakr and then ‘Umar.”

If Jesus (as) was to be buried in the grave of the Holy Prophet (sa) then his name should have been mentioned in this narration directly after his own. In this case, the Holy Prophet (sa) should have said that the first grave which would be opened on the day of resurrection is that of Jesus (as) and I. However, nowhere has the Holy Prophet (sa) mentioned the name of Jesus (as). Hence, this clearly and evidently establishes the fact that there is no proof whatsoever that Jesus (as) would be buried in the grave or tomb of the Holy Prophet (sa) in Medina.

There is another narration of Kanzul-‘Ummal which is often quoted by non-Ahmadis in order to raise an allegation against the Promised Messiah (as). That narration is as follows:

ما توفی اللہ نبیا الا دُفِن حیث یقبض

Meaning,

“Allah does not cause any Prophet to die, except that he is buried at the place of his demise.”

Non-Ahmadis raise an allegation against the Promised Messiah (as) that he passed away in Lahore, but was buried in Qadian. Therefore, this proves that God-forbid, he was a false prophet. Although Ahmadis can answer this question, we leave that for now, because it does not relate to our current discussion. However, we would like to bring the attention of our opponents to the Hadith, which they so fervently present against the Promised Messiah (as). In light of the non-Ahmadi belief which asserts that Jesus (as) would be physically buried in the grave of the Holy Prophet (sa) and in light of the Hadith we have just mentioned, does this mean that Jesus (as) would die in the grave of the Holy Prophet (sa)? As per the non-Ahmadi ideology, Jesus (as) would only be considered a true prophet if near the time of his demise, people would (God-forbid) dig the grave of the Holy Prophet (sa), place Jesus (as) in that grave, and then wait for him to part this world. It is absolutely astounding how any sane individual could possibly fathom the remotest possibility of such a strange occurrence. Common sense and logic should not be abandoned completely.

When Ahmadis present this logical explanation, non-Ahmadis often attempt to refute this by saying that Jesus (as) would not be buried in the very grave of the Holy Prophet (sa), rather, he would be buried beside the Holy Prophet (sa). For this reason, they believe that there is a place for one more grave beside the Holy Prophet (sa).

First, as we have already mentioned, this is a completely illogical notion. Whether Jesus (as) is to be buried ‘in’ the grave of the Holy Prophet (sa) or ‘beside’ him, the fact remains that if this Hadith is taken literally, who would allow for a claimant to be buried there? All prophets of God are faced with opposition. Therefore, being buried ‘in’ or ‘beside’ the grave of the Holy Prophet (sa) is not really a strong argument to testify the truth of a claimant. Because as we have mentioned, who would practically allow for a claimant to be buried there? In addition to this, as we have already mentioned, according to the vision of Hadrat ‘A’ishah (ra), there were three moons which were to fall into her pavilion. These three moons were the Holy Prophet (sa), Hadrat Abu Bakr (ra) and Hadrat ‘Umar (ra). There is no room for a fourth moon.

Moreover, if Jesus (as) was to be buried in the pavilion of Hadrat ‘A’ishah (ra), as non-Ahmadis assert, then irrespective of whether we understand the burial of Jesus (as) to be ‘in’ or ‘beside’ the grave of the Holy Prophet (sa), the fact remains that the Holy Prophet (sa) should have mentioned that when his own grave, the grave of Hadrat Abu Bakr (ra) and Hadrat ‘Umar (ra) is opened on the day of resurrection, Jesus (as) would also be among the first to have his grave opened by Allah. However, no such statement has been mentioned.

In actuality, the Hadith under discussion is not to be taken literally. As we have proven, if this Hadith is understood literally this leads to many complications. Not only is this an insult to the grand status and dignity of the Holy Prophet (sa) but also defies common sense and logic.

The true meaning of this Hadith is that the Messiah of the Latter days would possess such a close relationship to the Holy Prophet (sa) that it would be as if he is a complete reflection of Prophet Muhammad (sa) himself. His character and purity would be a reflection of his Beloved Master, the Holy Prophet (sa). His beginning would be identical, his life would be identical and his end would also be identical. Just as the Holy Prophet (sa) left this world successful in his mission, so too, the Messiah of the Muslim Ummah would leave this world victorious in his mission, which in actuality is the mission of the Holy Prophet (sa).

I solemnly believe that Jesus (peace be upon him) is dead and is in the company of the departed ones. And why should I not believe this, when God Almighty has declared him dead in His Mighty Book, the Holy Qur’an. There is no mention anywhere in the Qur’an of his extraordinarily long life or of his second advent. Rather the Holy Qur’an declares him to be dead and says nothing more. I consider it an utterly false and vain notion that he is alive in his physical body and will appear in this world a second time. I believe this, not only on the basis of the revelations vouchsafed to me, but also because I know that it is opposed to the clear, conclusive and certain testimony of the Holy Qur’an.
[Asmani Faislah, Ruhani Khaza’in, vol. 4, p. 315]

…I am the Promised Messiah who is Divinely guided, and who follows the morals of the Messiah (peace be on him.) Everyone should judge me with reference to these morals and should purge his heart of all ill-will concerning me. A careful consideration of the teaching that I have set forth during the last twenty years, from Brahine-Ahmadiyyah to Raz-e-Haqiqat, should testify to my inner purity. I can prove that I have spread these books as far as Arabia, Turkey, Syria and Kabul. I utterly repudiate the doctrine that Jesus will descend from heaven to fight the battles of Islam, or that anyone who calls himself Mahdi, and appears from among the descendants of Hadrat Fatima, will be the monarch of the time, and that the two of them will start a reign of bloodshed. God has revealed to me that all these speculations are false. Jesus (peace be on him) died long ago and lies buried in Mohalla Khanyar in Srinagar, Kashmir. Thus as the descent of the Messiah from heaven is disproved, the appearance of any warrior Mahdi is also falsified. Let him who thirsts for truth accept this.
[Haqiqat-ul-Mahdi, Ruhani Khaza’in, vol. 14, pp. 429-433]

My statement concerning the Promised Messiah, whose descent from heaven and second advent into the world is awaited, which God Almighty has disclosed to me by His grace and mercy, is that there is no mention in the Holy Qur’an of the second advent of Jesus. According to the Holy Qur’an, Jesus has departed from this world forever. Some Ahadith, which are replete with metaphors, predict the second advent of Jesus. Their context indicates that they do not predict the second coming of Jesus, son of Mary, but comprise metaphorical statements which mean that in an age that would resemble the age of Jesus, son of Mary, a person will resemble Jesus, son of Mary, in his temperament, power and function. As Jesus, son of Mary, had revived the religion of Moses (as) and had set forth afresh the true teaching of the Torah, which the Jews had forgotten, in the same way this second Messiah would revive the faith of the Prophet who was like Moses (as) and was the Seal of the Prophets (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him.) This Messiah of the Prophet who was the like of Moses (as) will completely resemble the Messiah of Moses (as) in the events of his life and in all other consequences that his people will experience on account of their obedience to him or their denial of him. God Almighty has revealed to me that I am that Promised Messiah.........One should carefully consider how the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), in order to remove any misunderstanding which may result from the name ‘son of Mary’, goes on to say: Do not take him to be the son of Mary himself, rather:

بل ھو امامكم منكم

[i.e., He would be a leader from among you] The other Hadith, which gives the same indication, is that the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) described the features of the first and the second Messiah differently. His description of the features of the second Messiah fits me exactly. Is the clear distinction between the features of the two not enough to prove that the first and the second Messiah are in fact two distinct personalities?
[Izala-e-Auham, Ruhani Khaza’in, vol. 3, pp. 121-125]

God Almighty has now disclosed the true meaning of the prophecy [physical ascension/descent of Jesus (as)], which is free from all contradictions and unreasonableness. He has thus furnished every fair-minded seeker of truth the opportunity to accept the prophecy and to look for its fulfilment, thus safeguarding himself against rejecting a clear and true prophecy. [Kitab-ul-Bariyyah, Ruhani Khaza’in, vol. 13, pp. 205-211, footnote]

The 'Descent' or the 'Coming' does not mean the coming of the Messiah son of Mary; it is actually a figure of speech signifying the coming of someone resembling the son of Mary; and, in accordance with Divine intimation and revelation, it is the present writer—my own humble self—to whom it applies.
[Taudih-e-Maram, Ruhani Khaza’in, vol. 3, p. 51]

It is asked: how can we reject the clear and obvious statements of the Ahadith which expressly state that Jesus, son of Mary, would descend from heaven near the eastern minaret of Damascus with his hands on the shoulder of two angels? The answer is that descent in this context does not mean descent from heaven in a physical body. The Ahadith do not even employ the word ‘heaven’. The Arabic word Nuzul [descent] is commonly used to connote arrival. A person who arrives at one place from another is described as having descended at that place. For instance, it is said that an army or a camp has descended at such and such a place. This does not mean that the army or the camp have descended from heaven. The Holy Qur’an has also employed the expression Nuzul [descent] for the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). It is also stated in a verse that iron has descended from heaven. It is thus obvious that this descent does not connote what people have imagined.
[Izala-e-Auham, Ruhani Khaza’in, vol. 3, pp. 132-133]

Muslims should beware of the dangerous situation in which the Jews placed themselves by insisting on the literal fulfilment of the prophecy concerning the second coming of Elijah. It is sheer folly to insist upon something of which there has been no instance before and the falsity of which has been repeatedly demonstrated. God Almighty has said:

فَاسْأَلُوا أَهْلَ الذِّكْرِ إِنْ كُنْتُمْ لَا تَعْلَمُونَ

‘Ask the Jews and the Christians for an example of the ways of Allah, if you do not know.’

[Kitab-ul-Bariyyah, Ruhani Khaza’in, vol. 13, p. 43]

We have established fully that the belief that Jesus had ascended bodily to heaven is not supported by the Holy Qur’an and true Ahadith. It seems to be based upon senseless and contradictory speculation. In this philosophical age, which is accompanied by cultured reason and sharpness of intellect, it would be a great mistake to hope for religious success on the basis of such doctrines. If these meaningless speculations were to be presented to the illiterate Bedouins of Arabia, or the inhabitants of the deserts of Africa, or the wild dwellers of the far off islands in the oceans, they might gain some acceptance; but we cannot hope to propagate among educated people such doctrines as are utterly opposed to reason, experience, laws of nature and philosophy. Moreover, they cannot be attributed to the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him); indeed they contradict the Ahadith. Nor can we present such doctrines as a gift to the scholars of Europe and America who are discarding the absurdities of their own respective faiths. How can those, whose hearts and minds have been developed by the light of new kinds of knowledge, accept such concepts which are disrespectful to God Almighty, denigrate His Unity, falsify His Law and abrogate the teachings of His Books? The notion that Jesus will descend bodily from heaven is only a consequence of the concept that he was raised bodily to heaven. Therefore, we should first consider whether or not the primary factor can be established on the basis of the Holy Qur’an and Hadith. If the basic factor is established, we will be able to accept that a person whose bodily ascent to heaven is proved could likewise descend bodily from heaven. But if the basic factor is not established on the authority of the Holy Qur’an and the Hadith and instead contradicts them, we cannot accept the accuracy of the alleged consequence. And if there should be any Ahadith whose purport might be indicative of such consequential proposition, we would try to reconcile them to the basic factor.
[Izala-e-Auham, Ruhani Khaza’in, vol. 3, pp. 235-236]

Hearken all ye people. This is a prophecy of Him Who had created heaven and earth. He will spread this Community of His in all countries and will make it supreme over all, through reason and arguments. The days are coming, indeed, they are near, when this will be the only religion which will be held in honour. God will bestow extraordinary blessings on this religion and Movement. He will frustrate everyone who seeks to destroy it. This supremecy will last till the day of judgement......Remember, that no one will descend from heaven. All our opponents who are alive today will die and no one will see Jesus, son of Mary descending from heaven. Then, their next generation will pass away and not one of them will see this spectacle. Then the generation next after that will pass away without seeing the son of Mary descending from Heaven. Then God will make them anxious that though the time of the superiority of the cross had passed away, and the world had undergone great changes, yet the son of Mary had not descended from heaven. Then the wise people will suddenly discard this belief. The third century after today will not yet have come to a close when those who hold this belief, whether Muslim or Christian, will lose all hope and will give up this idea in disgust. There will then be only one religion that will prevail in the world and only one leader. I have come only to sow the seed, which has been sown by my hand. Now, it will sprout and grow and flourish and no one can arrest its growth.
[Tadhkiratush-Shahadatain, Ruhani Khaza’in, Volume 20, pp. 66-67]

As far as the topic of Khatm-e-Nubuwwat or ‘Seal of Prophethood’ is concerned, there is no real difference of opinion between Ahmadi and non-Ahmadi Muslims. It is quite unfortunate however, that non-Ahmadi scholars present the very issue which is common between both in a very emotional manner and falsely allege that Ahmadis do not believe in the Seal of Prophethood at all. However, this is a grave injustice upon the community. Ahmadis do believe in the Seal of Prophethood, and as we have just mentioned, there is practically no difference of opinion whatsoever.

We all believe that the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa) is Khatamun-Nabiyyin or ‘Seal of the Prophets.’ We all believe that the Holy Prophet brought the last and perfect law and now there would be no prophet who would abrogate an iota of the Islamic Shari‘ah and bring a new law. Moreover, with the exception of the Ahl-e-Qur’an sect of Islam who does not believe in the Ahadith, all Muslims believe that the Holy Prophet (sa) prophecised the advent of a reformer in the latter days who would be the Messiah and a Nabiullah (i.e., Prophet of God). Hence, all Deobandis, Barailawis, Ahl-e-Hadith, Ahl-e-Tashi‘ and Ahl-e-Sunnah, including their sub-branches believe that despite the Holy Prophet (sa) being Khatmun-Nabiyyin, a prophet of God would come in the latter days after the demise of the Holy Prophet (sa) for the reformation of mankind. The only difference is that non-Ahmadis believe that Messiah, Reformer and Prophet of the latter days to be the same Jesus (as) of 2000 years ago. They believe he physically ascended into the heavens and would descend in the latter days. However, Ahmadis believe that it is against the divine custom of Allah and common sense for Almighty to physically raise a person into the heavens. We also believe that the Holy Qur’an clearly speaks of the death of Jesus (as). As such, whoever would come in the latter days would come from the ummah of the Holy Prophet (sa). Therefore, it is evident that Ahmadis do not hold a belief on the Seal of Prophethood which is different from the other Muslims sects. Because the fundamental point which is common to all is that in spite of the Holy Prophet (sa) being Khatmun-Nabiyyin everyone awaits the advent of the Messiah (as) in the latter days, who would appear as a prophet after the demise of Prophet Muhammad (sa) who is the Seal of Prophets. As such, if there is a difference of opinion, it is not one of principle, rather it is a difference in the specification and identification of the person who is to fill the role of the Messiah in the latter days. Non-Ahmadis believe the Messiah of the latter days to be Jesus of Nazereth. However, Ahmadis believe in Hadrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (as) to be the Messiah of the latter days who announced that Allah had informed him through divine revelation that he was the Prophet and Messiah of the age.

Non-Ahmadi Muslims often assert that Jesus (as) is a prophet born and commissioned before the Holy Prophet (sa), therefore, he can reappear, but a new prophet cannot be born after the Holy Prophet (sa). When Jesus (as) returns in the latter days, since he was born before the Holy Prophet (sa), he would not violate the finality of the Holy Prophet (sa) and he would still be considered the ‘Last’ prophet. However, this flawed logic does not accord with common sense. Firstly, if Khatamun-Nabiyyin means ‘Last of the Prophets’ in all respects as our non-Ahmadi friends claim, then be it an old prophet or a new one, his advent would violate the finality of the Holy Prophet (sa). Secondly, if Jesus (as) was to physically descend in the latter days for the reformation of mankind, the Holy Prophet (sa) would cease to be the ‘Last’ Prophet according to the non-Ahmadi belief. In this case, Jesus (as) would be the ‘Last’ prophet. For it is obvious that the ‘Last’ prophet would be he who was last to walk the earth and convey the message of Allah to the people. Being born before or after is completely irrelevant. For example, in a race, the person who crosses the finish line last is considered to be the runner in last place. No one states that the last person to leave the starting line is last place. Last place is always determined by the person who crosses the finish line last, not the starting line. Therefore, it is simple that if Jesus (as) physically descends in the latter days he would violate the unconditional finality of the Holy Prophet (sa) which is so fervently advocated by non-Ahmadis in their discussions. In the verse of Khatmun-Nabiyyin, Allah the Almighty has not referred to the finality of the Holy Prophet (sa) in terms of birth or divine commissioning. Allah the Almighty has simply stated the words Khatamun-Nabiyyin and if non-Ahmadis wish to translate this term to mean ‘Last of the Prophets’ in all respects and without condition, then they must also accept that no prophet can reappear after the Holy Prophet (sa) be it new or old. This however, is at direct odds with their own beliefs on the re-advent of the Messiah (as).

In addition to this it is also worthy to note that with regards to Jesus (as) Allah the Almighty states:

وَرَسُولًا إِلَى بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ

Meaning,

“And he is a Messenger to the children of Israel”

This verse clearly establishes that Jesus (as) is a prophet commissioned to the Bani Isra’il. If Jesus (as) was to come in the latter days, he would be confronted with a dead-end. The reason for this is because if he tried to preach to the Muslims, they would quickly respond to him saying, ‘It is not within your jurisdiction to preach to the Muslim ummah, because Allah the Almighty clearly states that you are a prophet only for the Bani Isra’il.’ If a Muslim were to challenge Jesus of Nazereth (as) with this Qur’anic argument, what response would Jesus (as) be able to give to such a person? This clearly proves that the same Jesus (as) of 2000 years ago would not physically descend in the latter days, rather, another person from among the Muslim ummah would appear in the likeness of Jesus (as) as the Messiah and Mahdi in accordance with the Prophecies of the Holy Prophet (sa). This is why the Holy Prophet (sa) states in Bukhari and Muslim that the Messiah (as) would be ‘A Leader from among you.’ When Ahmadis present this argument, non-Ahmadis state that when Jesus (as) descends in the latter days, Allah would increase the jurisdiction of his prophethood and Jesus (as) would announce that in his second advent he has been sent as a prophet to the entire world. However, in essence, this is a new prophethood. Therefore, if Jesus (as) can descend in the latter days with a new prophethood without violating the finality of the Holy Prophet (sa), why is it not possible for an ummati (follower of the Holy Prophet (sa)) to receive the lofty station of non-law-bearing prophethood through his obedience to Prophet Muhammad (sa)? The advent of a prophet who is a follower of the Holy Prophet (sa) and receives his august office only due to the spiritual grace of his Master, Prophet Muhammad (sa) adds to the greatness and status of the Holy Prophet (sa). However, the advent of a prophet who received his prophetic office independent of the Holy Prophet (sa) for the guidance of the Muslim ummah is an insult to the Holy Prophet (sa).

شاگرد نے جو پایا استاد كی دولت ھے احمد كو محمد سے تم كیسے جدا سمجھے

Meaning,

“What was attained by the student is actually the wealth of his teacher; How then could you consider Ahmad (as) to be independent of Muhammad (sa).”

Allah the Almighty states that Muslims are the best of people raised for the benefit of mankind. But is it not degrading to the Holy Prophet (sa) for a prophet of the Bani Isra’il to come for the reformation of his ummah? Did the Holy Prophet (sa) not possess enough spiritual influence and grace to elevate even a single person from his ummah to the level of prophethood? How can Muslims possibly be the best of people if this is its down-trodden spiritual state? We seek Allah’s protection from such a notion. Do non-Ahmadis not realize that many prophets were raised among the Bani Isra’il and the Mosaic law was able to produce many prophets throughout the course of history. If we compare this historical fact to the state of the Muslim ummah (as non-Ahmadis believe of course), we have no choice but to accept the superiority of Moses (as) over that of the Holy Prophet (sa). For there were many who followed the teachings of Moses (as) and attained the level of prophethood. But not a single person could attain this lofty station on account of their obedience to the Holy Prophet (sa). Ahmadis believe that the Holy Prophet (sa) is the most superior of all the prophets because his spiritual grace and influence was so unique that now prophetic excellence can only be attained through him. Prior to the advent of the Holy Prophet (sa) prophethood was a divine reward of Allah endowed to those virtuous men who reached the heights of spirituality by their own efforts. Their spiritual reward of prophethood was not on account of their following a past prophet. Prophethood was a reward endowed independently to those people who Allah believed to be deserving. However, after the advent of the Holy Prophet (sa), the Seal of the Prophets, the possibility of the independent acquisition of prophetic excellence was brought to an end and Allah decreed that now this spiritual reward could only be attained by those people who attach themselves to the Holy Prophet (sa) and follow him. A person who separates himself from the Holy Prophet (sa) would not be able to reach the heights of spirituality.

When Ahmadis speak of the continuation of prophethood in the Muslim ummah, non-Ahmadis often raise the objection that why do Ahmadis so emphatically persist on the continuation of prophethood? The fact of the matter is that we are the best ummah and have received the last and perfect law; and now there is no further need for any prophets. The reason there were many prophets after Moses (as) was because the Bani Isra’il needed constant guidance from Allah the Almighty. Just because prophethood has ended in the ummah after the advent of Prophet Muhammad (sa) but it continued in the Mosaic dispensation does not mean that Moses (as) was superior to the Holy Prophet (sa).

This argument is contradictory to the very own beliefs of non-Ahmadis. If the Muslim ummah is the best of nations, and it has received a perfect law, and now there is no further need for the continuation of prophethood within the ummah for the guidance of the Muslims, why then do they believe in the re-advent of Jesus (as) in the latter days? In response to this some non-Ahmadis state that the re-advent of Jesus (as) is not for the guidance of Muslims, because they are already guided through the Holy Qur’an. The need for the re-advent of Jesus (as) in the latter days is for the guidance of the non-Muslims, in order to call them to Islam. However, this notion is clearly against the sayings of the Holy Prophet (sa). The truth is that the Muslims of the latter days would also have gone astray from the right path, and the purpose of the advent of the Messiah and Mahdi in the latter days was for the guidance of not only non-Muslims but Muslims as well. The Holy Prophet (sa) has categorically stated that a time would come when the Muslims would derail from the path of righteousness. The Holy Prophet states:

یوشك ان یآتی علی الناس زمان لا یبقیٰ من الاسلام الا اسمہ ولا یبقیٰ من القراٰن الا رسمہ مساجدھم عامرة و ھی خراب من الھدیٰ علمآئھم شر من تحت ادیم السماء من عندھم تخرج الفتنة و فیھم تعود

Meaning,

“It is nigh that an era would soon dawn upon the people (i.e., the Muslims) when nothing would be left of Islam except its name. Nothing would be left of the Qur’an except its words. Their Mosques would apparently seem to be full of worshippers but they would be bereft of guidance. Their scholars would be the worst creation under the canopy of the earth. Corruption would sprout from them and return to them.”

In another Hadith, alluding to the dark period of Islam, the Holy Prophet (sa) speaks of the misguided Muslims of the time in the following words:

لیآتین علیٰ امتی ما اتیٰ علیٰ بنی اسرائیل حذو النعل بالنعل حتیٰ ان كان منھم من اتیٰ امہ علانیة لكان من امتی من یصنع ذلك و ان بنی اسرائیل تفرقت علی ثنتین و سبعین ملة و تفترق امتی علیٰ ثلاث و سبعین ملة كلھم فی النار الا ملة واحدة ۔ قالو من ھی یا رسول اللہ ۔ قال ما انا علیہ و اصحابی ۔

Meaning,

“Verily, a time would soon come upon my Ummah when it would become like the Bani Isra’il, as if two shoes of the same pair. The similarity would be so striking that if a person of the Bani Isra’il was to commit adultery with his mother, a man from my Ummah would do the same. Verily the Bani Isra’il was divided into 72 sects and my Ummah shall also be divided into 73 sects. All of them would be hell-bound except one. The companions said, ‘Which sect would be paradise-bound?’ The Holy Prophet (sa) responded, ‘They would be like me and my companions.’”

Therefore, in light of these straightforward Ahadith, it is clear that the Muslims would also be in need of divine guidance, because the scholars of the time would be calling people to nothing but evil.

Hence, as we mentioned earlier, non-Ahmadis also accept the need for prophethood in the future as well, this is why they believe in the second advent of Jesus (as). If we interpret Khatamun-Nabiyyin to mean that the Holy Prophet (sa) is unconditionally last in the chain of all types of prophets, the natural question which arises is whether the causes and reasons for which prophets are sent to the world have also ceased to exist. Have those disorders and moral problems which result in the coming of a prophet by divine custom been done away with? However, the moral state of the entire world, including Muslims is an open book. Any pure-hearted individual can testify to the fact that the prophecies of the Holy Prophet (sa) regarding the moral degradation of the Muslims has been fulfilled in letter and spirit. Therefore, if the need for prophethood exists, but the door to prophethood has been closed by Allah then this would be a great objection upon the pure and holy being of Allah the Almighty himself. A true Muslim cannot accept that despite the existence of spiritual illnesses, the door to the advent of spiritual healers has been brought to an end by Allah the Almighty. Such an injustice cannot be attributed to Allah. If corruption exists and moral disorder still remains, but the coming of prophets has been barred by Allah the Almighty, this would be a lack of mercy on the part of Allah the Almighty. How then can Allah the Almighty hold a wrongdoer responsible for his wrongdoing? Such a person would present the excuse before Allah the Almighty that ‘O Allah! I cannot be held responsible for my misguidance, because you did not afford me the divine guidance through prophethood which was necessary for my spiritual well-being.’

A non-Ahmadi may respond to this statement by asserting that it is not necessary for a prophet to always be sent for the guidance of people. Saints and religious scholars can also perform the work of imparting guidance to mankind when it derails from the path of virtue. However, this notion is incorrect. The Holy Qur’an categorically states that when a majority of people, including the religious scholars themselves begin to follow the path of misguidance, the only manner in which righteousness can be reinstated in a people of this nature is by a prophet, who receives divine revelation and guidance from Allah the Almighty. If religious saints and scholars were sufficient, there would be no need for prophets at all. Allah the Almighty states:

وَلَقَدْ ضَلَّ قَبْلَهُمْ أَكْثَرُ الْأَوَّلِينَ (72) وَلَقَدْ أَرْسَلْنَا فِيهِمْ مُنْذِرِينَ (73)

Meaning, “

And most of the ancient peoples had erred before them, And We sent Warners among them.”

Therefore, it is clear from the above discussion that the need of prophethood still exists, and both Ahmadis and non-Ahmadis accept this vital spiritual need. Ahmadis believe that the Holy Prophet (sa) was ‘Last,’ but not such that no prophet would ever come after him. We beleive the Holy Prophet (sa) to be the last of the law-bearing prophets. After his advent and the revelation of the perfect law of the Holy Qur’an, no one can abrogate or alter that law and present a different teaching. Similarly, no one can reach the level of prophethood independent of the Holy Prophet (sa). However, a person who follows the Holy Prophet (sa), benefits from his spiritual grace, derives light from his spiritual light, and preaches the law of Islam can come within the ummah as a non-law-bearing prophet. And such prophethood does not take away from the status of the Holy Prophet (sa), rather, adds to his lofty rank, because the credit of a student’s success is due to his teacher. Undoubtedly, the greatest spiritual teacher is our beloved Master, Prophet Muhammad (sa) and now all spiritual grace and excellence can be attained only by following him. Allah the Almighty states in the Holy Qur’an:

لَقَدْ كَانَ فِي قَصَصِهِمْ عِبْرَةٌ لِأُولِي الْأَلْبَابِ

Meaning,

“Assuredly, in the narratives of the Prophets is a lesson for men of understanding.”

With regards to the Torah, which was revealed to Prophet Moses (as), Allah the Almighty states:

إِنَّا أَنْزَلْنَا التَّوْرَاةَ فِيهَا هُدًى وَنُورٌ يَحْكُمُ بِهَا النَّبِيُّونَ الَّذِينَ أَسْلَمُوا لِلَّذِينَ هَادُوا

Meaning,

“Surely, We sent down the Torah wherein was guidance and light. By it did the Prophets, who were obedient to Us, judge for the Jews.”

In this verse of the Holy Qur’an, Allah the Almighty states that the Torah was a book of guidance and light. This means that the Torah was a book consisting of a perfect law for that specific time period. It was a law which had not been changed or altered and it possessed the solutions which adequately dealt with the problems of the time. However, despite the presence of this law, the people who followed it were in a state of dissension and had lost their unity. Everyone was presenting their own interpretations of this law. Therefore, Allah the Almighty sent Prophets who judged by this very law for the Jews. In other words, Allah the Almighty sent prophets who did not bring a new law, but came to remove the disagreement of the people in their interpretations of the Torah. All of the prophets who appeared after Prophet Moses (as) until Jesus (as) followed the teachings of Moses (as) as it is clearly stated in the above mentioned verse. These prophets would appear and tell the people that ‘Allah the Almighty has taught me through divine revelation that the correct interpretation of the law is what I present before you and not as you understand it.’ Hence, it is obvious from the above-mentioned verse that whenever a people forget the true teachings of their law, it has always been the custom of Allah the Almighty to send non-law-bearing prophets for their guidance. As such, if our ummah was to fall to dispute and forget the true teachings of the Holy Qur’an, as the Holy Prophet (sa) has clearly prophesied in the above-mentioned Ahadith, then a non-law-bearing prophet would come for their guidance.

When the above-mentioned verse of Surah Al-Ma’idah is presented in order to establish the fact that the Holy Qur’an categorically differentiates between law-bearing and non-law-bearing prophethood, non-Ahmadis present a series of very illogical arguments. For the benefit of the readers, we present the verse under discussion below. Allah the Almighty states:

إِنَّا أَنْزَلْنَا التَّوْرَاةَ فِيهَا هُدًى وَنُورٌ يَحْكُمُ بِهَا النَّبِيُّونَ الَّذِينَ أَسْلَمُوا لِلَّذِينَ هَادُوا

Meaning,

“Surely, We sent down the Torah wherein was guidance and light. By it did the Prophets, who were obedient to Us, judge for the Jews.”

Ahmadis state that in this verse, Allah the Almighty has clearly mentioned that the Torah was revealed to Moses (as) who was a law-bearing prophet, and then a long line of prophets appeared who did not bring a new law, but followed the law of the Torah and taught it to the people.

In response to this non-Ahmadis state that Jesus (as) who is accepted as being a non-law-bearing prophet by Ahmadis did follow the Torah but he also modified and altered existing laws. For example, he allowed the use of certain foods that were previously unlawful for the Jews. Therefore, since he modified the existing law of the Torah, this would make him a law-bearing prophet. The reason non-Ahmadis present Jesus (as) as having altered or modified laws of the Torah is in a futile attempt to prove that the Holy Qur’an does not make a distinction between law-bearing and non-law-bearing prophethood. Non-Ahmadis present the following verse in their own support:

وَمُصَدِّقًا لِمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيَّ مِنَ التَّوْرَاةِ وَلِأُحِلَّ لَكُمْ بَعْضَ الَّذِي حُرِّمَ عَلَيْكُمْ وَجِئْتُكُمْ بِآَيَةٍ مِنْ رَبِّكُمْ فَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ وَأَطِيعُونِ

Meaning,

“And I come fulfilling that which is before me, namely, the Torah; and to allow you some of that which was forbidden you; and I come to you with a Sign from your Lord; so fear Allah and obey me.”

However, this verse does not help the non-Ahmadi stance one bit. It is clear that Jesus (as) was a non-law-bearing prophet who came to preach the law of the Torah and reform the Jews, who had forgotten the true teachings of their Holy Book. Jesus (as) did not add, subtract or modify a single commandment o the Torah. In the Bible, Jesus (as) is recorded to have said:

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.”

The statement ‘and to allow you some of that which was forbidden you’ in the above-mentioned verse does not substantiate the modification or alteration of the Mosaic law at all. This statement refers to those things which the Jews had made unlawful for themselves out of their own actions. In two other instances, the Holy Qur’an further elaborates this point by stating:

فَبِظُلْمٍ مِنَ الَّذِينَ هَادُوا حَرَّمْنَا عَلَيْهِمْ طَيِّبَاتٍ أُحِلَّتْ لَهُمْ وَبِصَدِّهِمْ عَنْ سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ كَثِيرًا

Meaning,

“So, because of the transgression of the Jews. We forbade them pure things which had been allowed to them, and also because of their hindering many men from Allah’s way.”

This verse of the Holy Qur’an states that on account of the transgression of the Jews, they were deprived of various blessings and favors of Allah the Almighty. The words ‘we forbade them pure things which had been allowed to them’ does not refer to any physical thing as such, because there was no law-bearing prophet who appeared after Moses (as) who would prohibit or allow material things with the introduction of a new law.

Therefore, when Jesus (as) states that ‘I have come to allow you some of that which was previously made unlawful to you,’ this does not mean that he brought a new law. Quite the contrary, the meaning of this statement is that ‘I have come to once again make you the inheritors of the divine blessings and favors of Allah, which had previously been lost to you on account of your misdeeds and wrongdoings. Therefore, if you desire that these divine blessings be restored to you follow me and obey me.’

Then, Allah states in the Holy Qur’an:

وَلَمَّا جَاءَ عِيسَى بِالْبَيِّنَاتِ قَالَ قَدْ جِئْتُكُمْ بِالْحِكْمَةِ وَلِأُبَيِّنَ لَكُمْ بَعْضَ الَّذِي تَخْتَلِفُونَ فِيهِ فَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ وَأَطِيعُونِ

Meaning,

“And when Jesus came with clear proofs, he said, ‘Truly I am come to you with wisdom, and to make clear to you some of that about which you differ. So fear Allah and obey me.’”

This verse categorically states that among the various sects of the Jews, there were differing views regarding the lawfulness or unlawfulness of certain things. Hence, Jesus (as) came in order to judge between the various sects of the Jews and point out to them where exactly they had deviated from the right path, as specified in the law of the Torah.

Hence, we have conclusively established through the Holy Qur’an that the advent of Jesus (as) was not for the modification or alteration of the Mosaic law. Rather, Jesus (as) appeared as a non-law-bearing prophet in order to restore those blessings which had been lost to the Jews on account of their wrongdoings. Furthermore, he came to decide between the various sects of the Jews who were of opposing views with respect to the lawfulness or unlawfulness of various things.

The concept which we have presented above is also supported by well-known commentaries on the Holy Qur’an as well. Ibni Kathir writes:

“Jesus did not abrogate any portion of the Torah; he simply made lawful to the Jews those things about which they used to disagree among themselves through error.”

Bahrul-Muhit states:

“The words, ‘that which is forbidden to you,’ refer to those things which the learned men after Moses (as) had declared to be unlawful, giving the innovation the force of Law; Jesus (as) restored the true commandments of the Torah, as they had been revealed by God.”

Fathul-Bayan states:

“Jesus (as) followed the Law of Moses. He used to observe the Sabbath, and turn his face to the Temple and he used to say to the Jews, I do not teach you even a single word which is not in accordance which the Law of Moses; I only remove from you the burden laid on you as a result of the innovations you made after Moses.”

As such, it is clear from the above-mentioned discussion that the Holy Qur’an supports the concept of the advent of Prophets only for the purpose of reformation, and not necessarily for the introduction of a new law. The following words of Jesus (as) as recorded in the Bible also allude to his office as a divinely appointed reformer and not as a law-giver. He states:

“The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.”

This reference clearly shows that when Jesus (as) appeared, the law of the Torah was in tact and free from interpolation. The Holy Qur’an also alludes to this when it states that the Torah possessed light and guidance. This is why in the above-mentioned reference of the Bible, Jesus (as) is calling the people to the teachings of the Torah, but warning them of the evil actions of the religious scholars, who at the time had lost a sense of religious direction and virtue. The purpose of the advent of Jesus (as) was to bring the Jews back to the path of righteousness.

It is a commonly held belief among the non-Ahmadis that there is a difference between a Nabi and a Rasul. They state that a Nabi is a prophet who does not bring a new law, but is blessed with divine revelation from Allah the Almighty and is raised for the guidance and reformation of mankind. A Rasul, however, is a Nabi who also brings a book or Shari‘ah and introduces a new law. Therefore, in accordance with the non-Ahmadi belief they assert that every Prophet of God is a Nabi, but not all Prophets are a Rasul. In other words, a Rasul is of a higher status but a Nabi possesses a lower status than that of a Rasul.

Before we get into a discussion on these two terms, we would like to point out the stark contradiction which exists in this non-Ahmadi interpretation. It was just mentioned above that non-Ahmadis do not believe that the Holy Qur’an has differentiated between law-bearing and non-law-bearing prophethood. However, at the same time they believe that a Nabi is a prophet who does not bring a new law, but a Rasul is a prophet who brings a new law. Hence, in the presence of such an interpretation, how can they claim that there is no difference between a law-bearing and non-law-bearing prophet? It seems as if they are breathing both hot and cold air from the same mouth. Non-Ahmadis might attempt to refute this argument by stating that ‘we do not differentiate between Nabi and a Rasul,’ but the fact of the matter is that they do. Procure any commentary on the Holy Qur’an, and it will become evident that non-Ahmadi scholars believe that a Nabi is merely commissioned by Allah for the reformation of mankind, but a Rasul brings a new law.

However, the truth is that there is no difference between a Nabi and a Rasul. These are merely two characteristics of the same divinely appointed individual. In the Holy Qur’an, Allah the Almighty states:

وَاذْكُرْ فِي الْكِتَابِ مُوسَى إِنَّهُ كَانَ مُخْلَصًا وَكَانَ رَسُولًا نَبِيًّا

Meaning,

“And relate the story of moses as mentioned in the Book. He was indeed a chosen one; and he was a Messenger, a Prophet.”

Upon studying this verse, the question which naturally arises is that if a Nabi is a prophet who does not bring a new law, but a Rasul is a prophet who brings a new law, why would Allah the Almighty use these two words in the above-mentioned sequence? In this verse, Allah the Almighty has used the word Rasul first and then Nabi. It is obvious, that according to the non-Ahmadi interpretation, every Rasul must be a Nabi first. Every Nabi is not necessarily a Rasul but every Rasul is always a Nabi. The simple reason for this is because it is not necessary for every divinely appointed Prophet to bring a new law, but a person who brings a new law must obviously be commissioned by Allah the Almighty first. However, in this verse Allah the Almighty has put the word Rasul first and then Nabi, which is a redundant statement, if the non-Ahmadi interpretation is accepted as being correct. If rank or status was inferred in this verse, Allah the Almighty should have stated the word Nabi first and then Rasul. In such a case, Allah the Almighty would have said that ‘Moses was a Nabi (Prophet) who was first commissioned by divine command, and then we also gave him a book, thus making him a Rasul (Messenger).’ However, Allah the Almighty has not used this sequence. He has stated Rasul first and then Nabi. The example of this is if someone were to say, ‘So and so is forty years of age and he was also 10 years of age as well at some point in time.’ Anyone with even the slightest common sense would label this statement the words of an ignorant man. On the contrary, it would be permissible to say, ‘So and so is 10 years of age, but I have been informed by Allah that he would reach the age of 40.’ Therefore, how can we attribute such redundant and ignorant speech to Allah, the Wise, All-knowing. How could Allah state that Moses (as) is a Rasul and a Nabi, when it is obvious that Nubuwwat is an obvious pre-requisite for a Rasul. It is obvious that a person cannot be a Rasul and bring a book, without first being a Nabi.

Therefore, it must be accepted that in this verse, the meaning of these two words is something other then what non-Ahamdis interpret. The correct interpretation of this verse is the one which is presented by Ahmadis. The meaning of Rasul is ‘One who is sent by Allah’ and the meaning of Nabi is ‘One who conveys news (i.e., from Allah) to the people.’ As such, all divinely appointed reformers are first a Rasul and then a Nabi. In other words, first Allah the Almighty commissions them and sends them for the guidance of mankind’ and then these divinely appointed reformers ‘convey the news of Allah to the people’ as they receive them through divine revelation by Allah the Almighty. For example, when Allah the Almighty appointed the Holy Prophet (sa) as a divinely appointed reformer, he became a Rasul and when he began to convey the message of Allah to the people of Makkah calling them to Islam he became a Nabi. When Jesus (as) was commissioned by Allah he became a Rasul and when he began to convey the message of Allah to the Jews, calling them to the law of the Torah he became a Nabi. As such, these two words refer to the two capacities of the same person. It is for this very reason that wherever Allah the Almighty has used these two words in the Holy Qur’an to speak of a divinely appointed reformer, he has placed the word Rasul first and then Nabi. For example, Allah the Almighty states:

الَّذِينَ يَتَّبِعُونَ الرَّسُولَ النَّبِيَّ الْأُمِّيَّ الَّذِي يَجِدُونَهُ مَكْتُوبًا عِنْدَهُمْ فِي التَّوْرَاةِ وَالْإِنْجِيلِ

Meaning,

“Those who follow the Messenger, the Prophet, the unlettered one, whom they find mentioned in the Torah and the Gospel which are with them.”

Then He states:

فَآَمِنُوا بِاللَّهِ وَرَسُولِهِ النَّبِيِّ الْأُمِّيِّ الَّذِي يُؤْمِنُ بِاللَّهِ وَكَلِمَاتِهِ وَاتَّبِعُوهُ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَهْتَدُونَ

Meaning,

“So believe in Allah and His Messenger, the Prophet, the unlettered one, who believes in Allah and His words; and follow him that you may be rightly guided.”

As such, in another verse of Surah Maryam, Allah the Almighty states:

وَاذْكُرْ فِي الْكِتَابِ إِسْمَاعِيلَ إِنَّهُ كَانَ صَادِقَ الْوَعْدِ وَكَانَ رَسُولًا نَبِيًّا

Meaning,

“And relate the story of Ishmael as mentioned in the Book. He was indeed strict in keeping his promise. And he was a Messenger, a Prophet.”

In this verse of the Holy Qur’an, Allah the Almighty has used both the words Rasul and Nabi for Ishmael (as), but it is accepted by everyone that Ishmael (as) did not receive a new law. He followed the law of his father Abraham (as), and the people who followed the Shri‘at of Abraham (as) was limited to Ishmael (as), Isaac (as), Lot (as) and a few of their servants. If Ishmael (as) had received a law directly after Abraham (as) who was it that followed the Shari‘at of Ishmael (as)?

The fact of the matter is that a Nabi and a Rasul are the two characteristics of the same person. These two things are so closely intertwined that one cannot be without the other. A Nabi cannot be a Nabi without being a Rasul, because how can he convey the message of Allah to the people if he has not first been commissioned by Allah to do so? On the same token, how can a Rasul truly be a Rasul if he is not a Nabi? It is obvious that when Allah commissions a person he gives him a message to convey to the people, otherwise his divine appointment would be without purpose.

The Holy Qur’an is the most primary and authentic source of knowledge for all true Muslims. As such, a study of the Holy Qur’an shows that there is not a single verse or word in the Holy Qur’an which alludes to the absolute end of all forms of prophethood. Quite the contrary, there are numerous verses which allude to the continuation of prophethood in the Muslim ummah.

Non-Ahmadis present the famous verse of Surah Al-Ahzab which is known as Ayat Khatamun-Nabiyyin (the verse on Khatamun-Nabiyyin), in an attempt to prove the absolute finality of the Holy Prophet (sa). However, the fact of the matter is that this verse is in itself a verse which attracts varying interpretations. God-willing, we shall substantiate further ahead with irrefutable argumentation and evidence, that this verse does not speak of the absolute finality of the Holy Prophet (sa) as non-Ahmadis assert. Quite the contrary, this verse speaks of the unparalleled status, rank and distinction of our Beloved Master, the Pride of the first and the last, the Chief of the Prophets; and announces the continuation of His infinite grace, blessings and spiritual influence in the form of non-law-bearing prophethood. It prophecies the advent of a subordinate prophet to the Holy Prophet (sa) who would be born within the ummah and come for the service of Islam.

Therefore, before we present our argumentation on the continuation of prophethood we reiterate the point that there is not a single verse of the Holy Qur’an which alludes to the absolute finality of the Holy Prophet (sa). Furthermore, the verse of Khatmun-Nabiyyin does not infer the interpretation which our non-Ahmadi friends wish to forcefully attribute to it. Rather, this famous verse speaks of the lofty and unparalleled rank of our Beloved Master and the continuation of prophetic excellence through obedience to him. Moreover, if the true meaning of the verse of Khatmun-Nabiyyin was that which our non-Ahmadi friends so fervently preach, there should have been countless other verses in the Holy Qur’an which support their claim on the absolute finality of prophethood, in order to support the verse of Khatmun-Nabiyyin. However, the fact of the matter is quite the opposite. With the exception of this one verse, non-Ahmadis are unable to provide a single verse which conclusively and categorically closes the door to prophethood. On the flip side however, Ahmadis present numerous verses which speak of the continuation of non-law-bearing prophethood as we shall soon see ahead.

In the Holy Qur’an, Allah the Almighty states: ا

للَّهُ يَصْطَفِي مِنَ الْمَلَائِكَةِ رُسُلًا وَمِنَ النَّاسِ إِنَّ اللَّهَ سَمِيعٌ بَصِيرٌ

Meaning,

“Allah chooses Messengers and shall continue to chose Messengers from among angels, and from among men. Surely, Allah is All-Hearing, All-Seeing.”

In this verse of the Holy Qur’an, Allah the Almighty has clearly mentioned that it is a divine custom that He chooses Messengers from among angels and men, and that he shall continue to practice this custom whenever the need for prophethood arises in the future. In this verse, the verb Yastafi has been used, which is referred to as Mudari‘ in light of Arabic grammar. In English, there are separate rules to denote present tense and future tense. However, in Arabic, when a verb is conjugated in Mudari‘ form this possesses both a meaning of ‘present’ and ‘future’ tense. All the grammarians are well aware of this fact. Therefore, it is incorrect to state that although Allah used to chose Messengers, now this divine action has come to a halt.

In order to close the door of prophethood after the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa), non-Ahmadis claim that the verb Yastafi does not imply a meaning of future tense, rather, only present tense is implied here. Moreover, they state that the divine appointment of the Holy Prophet (sa) as a Messenger of God has fulfilled the actual intent of this verse, and no other prophets would come after him.

However, even if this verse is analysed from a purely linguistic perspective, the sentence structure of the verse clearly proves that the verb Yastafi does not only imply a meaning of present tense. Rather, the future tense is also implied in the word Yastafi. Therefore, in order for this verse to hold true, Allah must appoint more than one prophet. The reason for this is because in the verse under discussion Allah has used the word Rusul (i.e., Messengers) in plural form. Allah has not used the word Rasul (i.e., One prophet). The word Rusul, in plural form, cannot refer to the Holy Prophet (sa) alone. If this verse only alluded to the divine appointment of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa), and no prophet was to come after him, then Allah would have used the verb in singular form. Therefore, since the verb Yastafi has been used in plural form, this must mean that other prophets in addition to the Holy Prophet (sa) would also be appointed in complete subservience to him. Therefore, the word Rusul (i.e., Messengers) proves that the verb Yastafi not only refers to the present tense, but future tense as well.

In addition to this, there is another proof which refutes the non-Ahmadi interpretation that this verse only refers to the selection of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa) as a Messenger of God and no one after him. If the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa) was the only Messenger referred to in this verse, Allah would not have used the verb in Mudari‘. Quite the contrary, Allah would have used the verb in ‘past tense’. Because, even if we are to accept the non-Ahmadi interpretation which asserts that the verb Yastafi only implies a meaning of present tense, this would pose a serious complication. The natural question which would arise in this case would be that was the Holy Prophet (sa) being chosen as a messenger at the time of the revelation of this verse? Was the Holy Prophet (sa) not already chosen by Allah as a Messenger before the revelation of this verse? Of course he was. The fact of the matter is that this verse of the Holy Qur’an was revealed at the occasion of the Battle of Badr, and it is obvious that the Holy Prophet (sa) had already been appointed by Allah as a Messenger well before this time. As such, in this case, Allah should have used the verb in ‘past tense’ if it was the Holy Prophet (sa) alone who was being referred to in this verse. As such, instead of stating Yastafi, Allah should have said Istafa.

Another point which must be remembered is that in this verse of the Holy Qur’an, the verb Yastafi has been attributed to the person of Allah the Exalted. It is a completely inappropriate notion to suggest that Allah’s attributes become obsolete after some time. This undermines the perfect nature of Allah the Exalted. The fact is that not a single attribute of Allah ever becomes obsolete, because this would mean that Allah loses his qualities. As such, just as Allah does not grow old, so too, His attributes do not leave Him at any time. Allah the Almighty always retains his divine attributes, and this is the beauty of his being. This is why Allah the Almighty states in the Holy Qur’an:

فَلَنْ تَجِدَ لِسُنَّةِ اللَّهِ تَبْدِيلًا وَلَنْ تَجِدَ لِسُنَّةِ اللَّهِ تَحْوِيلًا

Meaning,

“But thou wilt never find any change in the way of Allah; nor wilt thou ever find any alteration in the way of Allah.”

Therefore, just as Allah the Almighty used to appoint Messengers in the past, He shall continue to do so, whenever His Divine Wisdom sees the need to do so.

In addition to this, the verse which appears after the one under discussion also proves that the action of appointing Messengers has not come to a halt, and that Allah shall continue to appoint Messengers whenever the need presents itself. In verse 77 of Surah Al-Hajj, Allah the Almighty states:

يَعْلَمُ مَا بَيْنَ أَيْدِيهِمْ وَمَا خَلْفَهُمْ وَإِلَى اللَّهِ تُرْجَعُ الْأُمُورُ

Meaning,

“He knows what is before them and what is behind them; and to Allah shall all affairs be returned.”

In this verse of the Holy Qur’an, Allah has used the verb Ya‘lamu (i.e., He knows) in Mudari‘ as well. Therefore, if the verb used in this verse is interpreted as per the logic which is applied to the verb Yastafi in the previous verse, that Allah chooses Messengers, but shall not do so in the future, this would mean that Allah possessed knowledge of what was before them and behind them when this verse was revealed, but now He does not possess that knowledge, nor shall He in the future. Therefore, since both the verbs Yastafi and Ya‘lamu are conjugated in the exact same tense, the grammatical interpretation of both must be the same. It is obvious that just as the verb Ya‘lamu in verse 77 clearly infers a meaning of present tense and future tense, so too does the word Yastafi in the previous verse.

When the argument is presented by Ahmadis that the custom of Allah does not change, and that none of his attributes become obsolete, in order to weaken this argument, non-Ahmadis raise the objection that why then has Allah’s custom of sending law-bearing prophets changed? We can see that Allah the Almighty no longer sends law-bearing prophets, however, He used to in the past.

The response to this question is that who said the custom of sending law-bearing prophets has now changed? The custom or Sunnat of Allah the Almighty has not changed at all, whether it be in relation to law-bearing or non-law-bearing prophets. However, one thing which must be remembered is that although Allah the Almighty no longer sends law-bearing prophets, this does not constitute a change in the divine custom of Allah. The custom of Allah is that when an older law becomes distorted, or becomes outdated, and thus fails to address the needs of the current time, Allah the Almighty sends a new law, which contains injunctions that addresses the needs of the time. Since the Holy Qur’an is a perfect and complete law, and it has also received divine protection from distortion, there is no longer a need for any new law. Allah the Almighty clearly states that:

الْيَوْمَ أَكْمَلْتُ لَكُمْ دِينَكُمْ وَأَتْمَمْتُ عَلَيْكُمْ نِعْمَتِي وَرَضِيتُ لَكُمُ الْإِسْلَامَ دِينًا

Meaning,

“This day have I perfected your religion for you and completed My favor upon you and have chosen for you Islam as religion.”

Now, we ask non-Ahmadis that do they entertain the belief that God-forbid, the Holy Qur’an has become inadequate? Of course not. All Muslims accept the fact that the Holy Qur’an is the final, perfect and complete law for mankind, which shall span until the end of time. Therefore, it is in complete accordance with the Sunnat or custom of Allah that He should not send any more law-bearing prophets after the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa), because after the revelation of the Holy Qur’an, the need for a new law no longer exists. However, even with the presence of this complete and perfect law, the Muslims have forgotten the teachings of this pure and holy book. This is a fact which even the Muslim scholars have admitted to. Moreover, even the Holy Qur’an has alluded to the fact that a time would come when the teachings of the Holy Qur’an would be forgotten. As such, in the Holy Qur’an Allah the Almighty states:

وَقَالَ الرَّسُولُ يَا رَبِّ إِنَّ قَوْمِي اتَّخَذُوا هَذَا الْقُرْآَنَ مَهْجُورًا

Meaning,

“And the Messenger will say, ‘O my Lord, my people have indeed treated this Qur’an as a discarded thing.”

Therefore, this verse clearly proves that a time would come when the Muslims would forget the true teachings of the Holy Qur’an, and despite the presence of a perfect law, a divinely appointed teacher would be required to re-establish the law of the Holy Qur’an. As such, it is in complete accordance with the custom of Allah to send non-law-bearing prophets, who would be commissioned by Allah, in complete subservience to the Holy Prophet (sa), to bring humanity back to the teachings of Islam when the true teachings of the Holy Qur’an, would be forgotten. However, due to the revelation of the Holy Qur’an, which is a complete and perfect book, the advent of law-bearing prophets is no longer required. This, is in fact, the custom of Allah.

Another argument which is presented by non-Ahmadis to weaken the argument presented in this verse is that this verse does not substantiate the coming of prophets after the Holy Prophet (sa), rather, this verse has only alluded to a general practice of Allah the Almighty, which used to occur prior to the advent of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa). That is to say that it is the general custom of Allah that he used to send prophets whenever the need presented itself in the past. Moreover, they assert that the verb Yastafi has been used in Mudari‘ form in order to infer a meaning of repetition, because the divine action of the appointment of prophets in the past occurred many times.

In response to this, it must be understood that the verb Yastafi, when used in Mudari‘ form, can only be understood to infer a meaning of repetitive action or to allude to a general custom, which occurred again and again, if it is taken as Istimrarut-Tajaddudi. The term Istimrarut-Tajaddudi is a term of Arabic grammar which is used to refer to such a verb which is conjugated in Mudari‘ form and infers the repetitive occurrence of that particular verb. In Kitabu Qawa‘idul-Lughatil-‘Arabi, it is written:

و قد تفید الاستمرار التجددی بالقرائن اذا كان الفعل مضارعا

Meaning,

“Sometimes when a verb is used in Mudari‘ form, if the context infers, the verb can give a meaning of Istimrarut-Tajaddudi.”

However, in light of the rules of Arabic grammar, when a verb in Mudari‘ form is used as Istimrarut-Tajaddudi, it is necessary that a meaning of future tense also be implied. We challenge non-Ahmadis to present a single example of a verb used as Istimrarut-Tajaddudi which only possesses a meaning of past and present tense, and not of future tense.

As such, two fundamental points must be remembered with regards to Istimrarut-Tajaddudi:

1. infers a meaning of continuous or repetitive action. In other words, the verb occurs again and again, not only once.
2. It always infers a meaning of future tense.

Perhaps a non-Ahmadi may raise the objection that if the verb Yastafi in the verse under discussion is Istimrarut-Tajaddudi and infers the continuous or repetitive action of the verb, then this would mean that Allah should send prophets without break, and this would mean that prophets would be sent by the hour, or perhaps by the minute, even greater still, by the second. However, allegation would only be raised by someone who has no knowledge of Arabic grammar. The fact of the matter is that although Istimrar infers continuity or repetition, this repetition is limited by time and need. For example, in the Holy Qur’an, Allah the Almighty states with regards to Jesus (as) and his mother that:

كَانَا يَأْكُلَانِ الطَّعَامَ

Meaning,

“They both used to eat food.”

In this verse, since the imperfect verb Kana has come before a verb conjugated in present tense, this is known as Madi Istimrari or the ‘Continuous Past Tense.’ That is to say that the action of eating would occur again and again in the past. Does this mean that Jesus (as) and his mother would eat 24 hours a day 7 days a week without break? Of course not. Such a translation of this verse would be very illogical. This verse means that whenever Jesus (as) and his mother felt the need to eat food, they would eat. Similarly, in the verse under discussion, the verb Yastafi has been used in Istimrar, but this does not mean that Allah must send prophets every second of the day. What this means is that whenever the need for a prophet arises, Allah the Almighty would send someone to guide people unto the truth.

Therefore, it is evidently proven from this verse of the Holy Qur’an, that Allah the Almighty not only sent prophets in the past for the guidance of mankind. Rather, in the future, whenever the need for prophethood arises, Allah the Almighty would send a divine reformer in subservience to the Holy Prophet (sa) and the law of the Holy Qur’an, to guide people to the truth. As such, this verse is clear proof of the continuation of non-law-bearing prophethood.

In the Holy Qur’an, Allah the Almighty states:

وَمَنْ يُطِعِ اللَّهَ وَالرَّسُولَ فَأُولَئِكَ مَعَ الَّذِينَ أَنْعَمَ اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِمْ مِنَ النَّبِيِّينَ وَالصِّدِّيقِينَ وَالشُّهَدَاءِ وَالصَّالِحِينَ وَحَسُنَ أُولَئِكَ رَفِيقًا

Meaning,

“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.”

In this verse of the Holy Qur’an, Allah the Almighty has given a wonderful glad-tiding to the sincere followers of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa). Although all of the verses of the Holy Qur’an are full of wisdom and like precious pearls, this verse in particular is a very special one. The reason for this is because, First, this verse of the Holy Qur’an alludes to the lofty status of our beloved Master the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa). It is a verse which testifies to the unique rank and status of our Master Prophet (sa). It sheds light upon the outstanding spiritual heights which can be attained through complete obedience to the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa). These heights are so great, that only by following the Holy Prophet (sa) can these spiritual distinctions be attained. No other prophet has the unique distinction that by following him a believer can attain the lofty rank of prophethood. As such, this is a direct credit to the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa), because the level and status of any teacher is gauged by the level of his students. Hence, one can imagine that if by following the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa) a man can attain the level of prophethood, then how infinately magnificent and lofty would the rank of the Holy Prophet himself be? Secondly, this verse is special because it shows the spiritual level and rank of the Muslim ummah, which is something that the Muslims should be thankful to God for. This verse is a commentary of the verse of the Holy Qur’an which states that the Muslims are the best of people. However, it is unfortunate, that the non-Ahmadis have interpreted this verse in such a manner that both of these unique distinctions are put to dust. This is a very fundamental verse, which proves the continuation of prophethood in the Ummah of the Holy Prophet (sa). As it has just been mentioned, four spiritual rewards have been promised to those fortunate people who obey Allah and the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa). Allah the Almighty clearly states that those people who truly and sincerely obey Allah and His Messenger, they shall be among the An-Nabiyyin (the prophets), As-Siddiqin (the truthful), Ash-Shuhada’ (the martyrs) and As-Salihin (the righteous). In this verse of the Holy Qur’an, Allah the Almighty has mentioned the spiritual ranks which can be attained by the believers and the manner in which to attain them. Allah states that by following the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa) a believer can progress from being a righteous person to such heights that he can even attain the level of prophethood.

As mentioned earlier, this is a distinction which is unique to the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa). The Holy Prophet (sa) is the only prophet, in whose following a person can attain the lofty status of prophethood. In the Holy Qur’an, Allah the Almighty states that by following the past prophets, who appeared prior to the Holy Prophet (sa), a person could at most, reach the level of As-Siddiqin (the truthful). As such, Allah the Almighty states:

وَالَّذِينَ آَمَنُوا بِاللَّهِ وَرُسُلِهِ أُولَئِكَ هُمُ الصِّدِّيقُونَ وَالشُّهَدَاءُ عِنْدَ رَبِّهِمْ لَهُمْ أَجْرُهُمْ وَنُورُهُمْ

Meaning,

“And those who believe in Allah and His Messengers and they are the Truthful and the Witnesses in the sight of their Lord, they will have their reward and their light.”

In the verse under discussion from Surah Al-Nisa’, the word Ar-Rasul has been used with the definite article ‘Al’, which translates into ‘The Messenger’ i.e., the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa). However, in the verse which has just been presented from Surah Al-Hadid the word Rusulihi has been used, which means ‘Messengers’ i.e., all Messengers in general prior to the Holy Prophet (sa).

Therefore, as it has been mentioned above, the verse under discussion clearly states that those people who follow the Holy Prophet (sa) shall be among these four spiritual ranks. As it is evident from this verse, one of these ranks is ‘prophethood’ as well, therefore, it is clear that the door to non-law-bearing prophethood in obedience and complete subservience to the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa) is still open.

When this point is presented, non-Ahmadis raise the objection that this verse does not at all prove that those people who follow the Holy Prophet (sa) would be prophets themselves. Rather, in this verse, the Arabic preposition Ma‘a has been used which means ‘along with’. Therefore, this verse alludes to the fact that those people who believe in the Holy Prophet (sa) and follow him, they would receive the company of the prophets, the truthful, the martyrs and the righteous. They would not actually be among them. Moreover, they assert that this companionship would be reserved for the day of resurrection.

First it is incorrect to assert that in the verse under discussion Allah has used the word Ma‘a which translates into ‘along with’, therefore, the believers would be in the company of these people but not among them. The reason for this is because in this very verse, Allah the Almighty has presented a further commentary of the Arabic word Ma‘a. If the word Ma‘a was used alone, perhaps this argument would hold some weight. However, Allah the Almighty has also used the word Min as well, which explicitly means ‘among’ or ‘from.’ It seems as if Allah was aware that people would raise the objection that this verse only speaks of the mere companionship of these four spiritual classes of people, and therefore, protected this verse from the possibility of misinterpretation. Hence, by using the Arabic word Min, Allah has further emphasized the fact that those people who follow Allah and his Messenger would be the ones to attain these four spiritual ranks. That is to say, they would not only be in the company of these righteous people, but they themselves would be among them. If this was not the case, the use of both the words Ma‘a and Min would be redundant, and of course, we cannot attribute such unnecessary redundancy to Allah, who is pure from all impurity and imperfection. If the true intent of this verse was only that those people who obey Muhammad (sa) would be in the company of these four classes of people but not among them, the word Ma‘a should have sufficed. However, by adding the word Min to further reinforce the word Ma‘a, Allah the Almighty has clearly announced that those people who follow the Messenger shall be among these four spiritual ranks. Secondly, if we were to accept the non-Ahmadi interpretation of this verse, which states that those who follow the Messenger would be in the company of the Prophets, the Truthful, the Martyrs and the Righteous, but not among them, this would mean that the translation of this verse would be as such:

‘Those who obey Allah and His Messenger would be in the company of the Prophets but not Prophets themselves. They would be in the company of the Truthful but not truthful themselves. They would be in the company of the Martyrs but not Martyrs themselves. They would be in the company of the Righteous but not righteous themselves.’

This is a translation which no sincere Muslim can accept. This would mean that Hadrat Abu Bakr (ra) did not receive the spiritual rank of Siddiq. It would mean that Hadrat ‘Umar (ra), Hadrat ‘Uthman and Hadrat ‘Ali did not attain the lofty status of martyrdom. Moreover, it would imply that not a single person within the Muslim Ummah would be a righteous person. This is an utter injustice to the Muslim Ummah. In this case, the Muslims would not be worthy of being deemed the best of the people. They would, God-Forbid, become the worst of people. A non-Ahmadi would raise the objection that how can it be deduced that just because there are no prophets, all of the other spiritual ranks would also be lost to the Muslim Ummah? There is no doubt that there are and always would be righteous people, martyrs and truthful among the Muslim Ummah. Yes, prophethood on the other hand is a spiritual rank which can no longer be attained. The answer is simple and straightforward. If this verse is analysed from a linguistic perspective, it becomes evident that the word Ma‘a and Min govern all four spiritual ranks and not only prophethood alone. Therefore, if a non-Ahmadi asserts that those people who obey the Messenger would be in the company of the Prophets, but not among the Prophets himself, then the very same logic must also be applied to the remaining three ranks as well, because Allah has referred to all four ranks in this verse. There are only two options. It must be accepted that either all of these ranks can be attained by following the Holy Prophet (sa) or none. Of course, the latter is an option which is not only an injustice to the Ummah, but also a grave insult to the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa). This would mean that God-forbid, the Holy Prophet (sa) could not even manage to bring a person to the level of righteousness and what is the use of a prophet if by following him a person cannot even become a righteous man? The non-Ahmadi interpretation is a very dangerous one, and results in numerous complications.

In another verse of the Holy Qur’an, Allah the Almighty states:

إِلَّا الَّذِينَ تَابُوا وَأَصْلَحُوا وَاعْتَصَمُوا بِاللَّهِ وَأَخْلَصُوا دِينَهُمْ لِلَّهِ فَأُولَئِكَ مَعَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ وَسَوْفَ يُؤْتِ اللَّهُ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ أَجْرًا عَظِيمًا

Meaning,

“Except those who repent and amend and hold fast to Allah and are sincere in their obedience to Allah. These are among the believers. And Allah will soon bestow a great reward upon the believers.”

It is a strange coincidence that in this verse of the Holy Qur’an as well, four grades or spiritual ranks have been mentioned: repentance, reformation, holding fast to Allah and sincerity in obedience to Allah. Now, if the non-Ahmadi logic which is used to interpret the verse under discussion is applied to this verse of the Holy Qur’an as well, this would mean that those people who do these four things would not be among the believers, but only in the company of those who believe. Is it fair to say that those people who undertake these four levels of spiritual purification would not be among the believers, and would not receive a great reward? Another interesting point to note is that in this verse of the Holy Qur’an, Allah has not used the word Min anywhere. Only the word Ma‘a has been used. However, despite this fact, all non-Ahmadis interpret this verse to mean that those people who repent, reform themselves, hold fast to Allah and sincerely obey him shall be among the believers. Why then do they claim that in verse 70 of Surah Al-Nisa’ those who obey the Messenger would be in the company but not among the Prophets, the Truthful, the Martyrs and the Righteous, especially when the word Ma‘a has been reinforced with the word Min?

Another interesting argument which is presented by non-Ahmadis in relation to this verse, which was also briefly alluded to above, is that they assert that this verse does not refer to this world at all. They claim that this verse refers to the companionship which a believer would receive in the hereafter due to his obedience to the Holy Prophet (sa). That is to say that if a believer obeys the Holy Prophet (sa), in the next life, he or she would be in the company of these four spiritual classes of people in paradise.

This objection is also easily refuted if only a little attention is given to the grammatical structure of this verse. This verse is what is referred to as a Jumlah Ismiyyah in Arabic grammar. Therefore it cannot be interpreted to refer to a time period which is to come in the future. The rules of grammar stipulate that a Jumlah Ismiyyah must possess a meaning of present tense. For example, Allah states:

وَاللَّهُ عَلِيمٌ حَكِيمٌ

Meaning,

“Allah is All-Knowing, Wise.”

This is also a Jumlah Ismiyyah, which means that Allah is currently, in the present time All-Knowing and Wise. It would be incorrect to assert that Allah is not Omniscient and Wise at the present time, but shall be at some point in the future.

Similarly, there is another verse in which Allah the Almighty states:

مُحَمَّدٌ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ

Meaning,

“Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah”

Obviously, this verse does not mean that the Holy Prophet (sa) was not a Messenger at the time of the revelation of the verse, but would become a Messenger in the hereafter.

In the same manner, the verse under discussion is also a Jumlah Ismiyyah, and must possess a meaning of present tense. It would be in contradiction with the basic rules of Arabic grammar to attribute a meaning of future tense to it alone. This verse must apply to the current time as well, i.e., it must apply to the present life as well, and it is incorrect to assert that this verse only refers to the hereafter.

It is obvious that if this verse is applied to the current life (which it must, as we have just proven in light of Arabic grammar), it is not possible for believers to be among these four classes of righteous people in terms of time or place. The only manner in which a believer can be deemed among the ranks of these four spiritual groups is in terms of status, and the interpretation presented by the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community states this very fact. In addition to this, there is another answer which can also be presented to non-Ahmadis who believe this verse does not refer to the present life, but to the hereafter. If the intent of this verse was to refer to the hereafter alone, in that those people who obey the Messenger, they would receive the companionship of these four groups, the verse under discussion should have read as such:

و من یطع اللہ والرسول فالئك سیكونون مع الذین انعم اللہ علیھم من النبیین والصدیقین والشھداء والصالحین و حسن اولئك رفیقا

Meaning, ‘And whoso obeys Allah and this Messenger of His, in the future, he shall be in the company of those upon whom Allah has bestowed His blessings, namely, the Prophets, the Truthful, the Martyrs and the Righteous. And excellent companions are these.’

If this verse was to refer to the hereafter, the imperfect verb Sayakunu should have been used to denote a future time period. However, Allah the Almighty has stated:

فَأُولَئِكَ مَعَ الَّذِينَ أَنْعَمَ اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِمْ

Meaning,

“They shall be among those on whom Allah has bestowed His blessings [i.e., at present there are people who are among these ranks, and others who follow suit shall also acquire the same ranks in this world].”

The word Ma‘a in the verse under discussion proves to be a very controversial one. Ahmadis and non-Ahmadis present varying interpretations of the word Ma‘a in this verse. Ahmadis state that the word Ma‘a infers a meaning of being ‘among’ or ‘from within’ the four groups which have been mentioned in the verse under discussion. In order to substantiate this claim strong argumentation is provided not only from the verse itself but from other verses of the Holy Qur’an. Furthermore, if this verse is analysed merely from a logical perspective, it becomes evident that in the context of this verse, the word Ma‘a can mean nothing other than ‘among.’ Non-Ahmadis on the other hand believe that the word Ma‘a means ‘in the company of but not among’. With regards to this word, Imam Raghib states:

(مع) یقتضی الاجتماع امّا فی المكان: نحو: ھما معاً فی الدار، او فی الزمان ۔ نحو: وُلِد معاً، او فی المعنَی كالمتضایفین نحو: الاخ والاب، فان احدھما صار اخاً للآخَرِ فی حالِ ما صارَ الاخرُ اخاہُ؛ و امّا فی الشّرف الرُّتْبَةِ ۔ نحو: ھما معاً فی العُلُوِّ

Meaning,

“The word Ma‘a requires the mutual gathering of something. [This can be in four ways]: (i) the gathering of two people at a single place, i.e., they were together in a single house; (ii) or in the same era, i.e., he was born in the same era as someone else; (iii) or in a mutual relationship, i.e., a brother or a father, for verily, one of the two is a brother to the other in a state when the other is also his brother [and in this manner they are both gathered in a single state (i.e., a state of brotherhood)], iv) or in honour and rank, i.e., they were both equivalent in greatness.”

Therefore, Imam Raghib states that the word Ma‘a has four definitions in the Arabic language. Ahmadis do not deny these definitions. It seems as if our opponents believe that we do not accept these varying definitions at all. However, this is not the case. Our argument is that all of these meanings are correct, but the manner in which the word Ma‘a is understood depends on the context of the sentence. Our emphasis is only on the fact that as far as the word Ma‘a is concerned in the verse under discussion, context clearly dictates that the word infers a meaning of ‘equivalence in rank’ and not merely being ‘in the company’ of these four groups. It is obvious that the Muslim Ummah cannot be among these four spiritual groups of people in terms of time and place. Therefore, the only other way in which the Muslims can be among these four groups is in terms of spiritual rank. This standpoint is supported not only by rationality and logic, but also in light of Arabic grammar.

However, in an attempt to disprove this argumentation, many non-Ahmadis present verses from the Holy Qur’an in which the word Ma‘a has been used in relation to Allah the Almighty. For example, they present the following verse:

أَنَّ اللَّهَ مَعَ الْمُتَّقِينَ

Meaning,

“Verily Allah is with the believers”

They pose the objection that does this verse mean that Allah is among the ranks of ordinary believers? Of course not. In this verse the word Ma‘a has been used to infer that Allah the Almighty is ‘with’ the believers, and not a believer Himself.

However, this argument does not prove anything. As we have already mentioned, in accordance with Imam Raghib’s four varying definitions, Ahmadis accept that the word Ma‘a can mean ‘in the company of but not among.’ As such, in the above-mentioned verse which is presented by non-Ahmadis, the word Ma‘a does in fact mean ‘with’ and not ‘among’. However, as we have proven above, in the verse under discussion, the word Ma‘a most definitely means ‘among.’ The reason for this is because, logically if we do not interpret the word Ma‘a in this verse to mean ‘among’ this would deprive the Muslim Ummah of even the most basic rank of spirituality in this world. Secondly, this would be a great insult to the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa), who was the founder and spiritual teacher of this Ummah. Thirdly, Allah has used the word Min in the very same verse to further explain the meaning of the word Ma‘a which appears in the beginning of the verse. Fourthly, the verse under discussion is a Jumlah Ismiyyah, which in light of Arabic grammar, must infer a meaning of present tense, and in the present time the only manner in which the believers can be accepted as being among the ranks of these four spiritual groups of people is in terms of status.

However, in addition to all these arguments, there are other verses of the Holy Qur’an, which also prove that many a time the word Ma‘a is actually used as a synonym of Min (i.e., among) or Fi (i.e., in or among). In the Holy Qur’an, Allah the Almighty states:

فَأُولَئِكَ مَعَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ

Meaning,

“These are among the believers”

As we have mentioned earlier, in this verse of the Holy Qur’an the word Ma‘a has been used to allude to the fact that those people who purify themselves and offer sincere obedience to Allah the Almighty shall be among the believers. If the word Ma‘a in this verse was merely to infer that those who purify themselves would be in the company of those who believe then what would be the meaning of this verse? Would those people who purify themselves only be in the company of those who believe, but not among the believers themselves? Moreover, the last part of this verse which states, “And Allah will soon bestow a great reward upon the believers,” proves that the word Ma‘a means that those who perform the four steps to spiritual purification as mentioned in this verse would most definitely be ‘among’ the believers and receive their reward from Allah. Another point to remember is that what superiority is there in merely being in the company of the righteous if a person is not righteous himself? In all eras, along with the believers, there are enemies of the Prophet and disbelievers in Allah who also coexist with the believers. They live in the same cities, breathe the same air, and cohabit in a single society. Does this make them worthy of any spiritual rank? Not at all. For example, Abu Jahl who was a staunch enemy of Islam lived with the community of believers in Makkah, but the question is that does merely being in the company of the believers make Abu Jahl worthy of any reward? The answer is no, obviously.

Then, in Surah Aal-e-Imraan, Allah the Almighty states that the believers offer the following prayer:

رَبَّنَا فَاغْفِرْ لَنَا ذُنُوبَنَا وَكَفِّرْ عَنَّا سَيِّئَاتِنَا وَتَوَفَّنَا مَعَ الْأَبْرَارِ

Meaning,

“Our Lord, forgive us, therefore, our sins and remove from us our evils, and in death join us with the righteous.”

In this prayer as well, the word Ma‘a has been used. If the word Ma‘a was translated, interpreted and applied to this verse in accordance with the non-Ahmadi ideology, the meaning of this verse would become quite absurd. Is this prayer a supplication before the Lord that when a righteous person passes away, grant us death as well, so that we may die in the company of the righteous? As the non-Ahmadis understand the word Ma‘a to mean ‘along with’ and not ‘among’, the translation of this verse would be that when a righteous person dies, let us die ‘along with’ him. However, everyone is well aware of the fact that this is not the actual purport of this verse. Merely dying in the company of or in the physical proximity of a believer does not make a person righteous. In the time of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa) many companions were martyred. In the very same field of battle there were thousands of disbelievers who also died in battle. Could any like-minded individual claim that both the companions and disbelievers were equal because they died together, in the same battle or in the same field? Of course not. It is obvious, and all Muslims are well aware of the fact, that in the above-mentioned verse of the Holy Qur’an, the word Ma‘a has been used as a synonym of the Arabic words Min or Fi. As such, the correct meaning of this verse would be that ‘O Allah, when we die, grant us a spiritual station amongst those people who were righteous.’ In actuality, this verse is a commentary of the another verse of the Holy Qur’an, which also appears earlier on in this very same Surah. Allah states:

وَلَا تَمُوتُنَّ إِلَّا وَأَنْتُمْ مُسْلِمُونَ

Meaning,

“And let not death overtake you except when you are in a state of submission.”

Therefore, in verse 194 of Surah Aal-e-Imraan, the believers are supplicating to Allah that He grants them death in a state when they are treading the path of righteousness. In other words, before death overtakes them, may Allah make them righteous men and women. It is this point which is being alluded to in this verse. At another instance in the Holy Qur’an, with regards to Satan, Allah the Almighty states:

إِلَّا إِبْلِيسَ أَبَى أَنْ يَكُونَ مَعَ السَّاجِدِينَ

Meaning, “Except Iblis; and he refused to be among those who submit.” In this verse as well, the Arabic word Ma‘a has been used. Of course, merely ‘being in the company’ of those who submit is not implied here. Because as far as Iblis is concerned, he was among the company of those who submitted, but he was not among them, because he refused to obey Allah. As such, Allah the Almighty has further expounded this very verse and beautifully elaborated upon the fact that in this verse the word Ma‘a actually means Min. In Surah Al-A‘raf:

لَمْ يَكُنْ مِنَ السَّاجِدِينَ

Meaning,

“He would not be among those who submit.”

In this verse the disobedience of Satan has been mentioned, in more or less the same words, but the word Min has been used. In another verse of the Holy Qur’an, Allah the Almighty has taught the following prayer to the believers:

رَبَّنَا آَمَنَّا بِمَا أَنْزَلْتَ وَاتَّبَعْنَا الرَّسُولَ فَاكْتُبْنَا مَعَ الشَّاهِدِينَ

Meaning,

“Our Lord, we believe in that which Thou hast sent down and we follow this Messenger. So write us down among those who bear witness.”

Imam Raghib has provided a very insightful explanation of this verse whilst explaining the word Kataba in his Mufridatul-Qur’an. He states:

(فاكتبنا مع الشاھدین) : ای اجعلنا فی زُمرَتِھم اشارةً الیٰ قولہ : (فالئك مع الذین انعم اللہ علیھم ۔۔۔ ) الایة

Meaning,

“The verse Faktubna ma‘ash-shahidin means, O Allah! make us from among their ranks [i.e., of those who bear witness]. This verse alludes to the words of Allah (in another verse of the Holy Qur’an): Fa’ula’ika ma‘alladhina an‘amallahu ‘alaihim...”

In other words, Imam Raghib has mentioned that the word Ma‘a in the verse just presented above is a supplication before Allah the Almighty to make us from among the ranks of those who bear witness. Imam Raghib goes on to further state that this verse is directly related to the famous verse of Surah Al-Nisa’. In other words, a person who supplicates before Allah can attain a position among the ranks of those who bear witness (i.e., the Ash-Shahidin). This door is open due to the four spiritual ranks which have been promised to believers in verse 70 of Surah Al-Nisa’. In his explanation of the verse just presented above, Imam Raghib has specifically used the words Ij‘alna fi zumratihim, which means ‘make us from within or among their ranks.’ This clearly and evidently establishes that Imam Raghib understood the word Ma‘a to infer a meaning of ‘among’ both in Surah Al-Nisa’, verse 70 and in Surah Al-e-‘Imran, verse 54. He understood the word Ma‘a in both of these verses to imply that a person could actually attain these four spiritual ranks and as our non-Ahmadi friends assert, mere ‘companionship’ has not been alluded to here. This is the understanding of one of the most renowned Qur’anic linguists in the history of Islam, with regards to the true meaning of word Ma‘a in the verse under discussion. If a person could not actually attain the four ranks specified in Surah Al-Nisa’, verse 70, why would Imam Raghib present this verse as evidence to substantiate that a person can become among the Ash-Shahidin, whilst explaining verse 54 of Surah Al-e-‘Imran?

As we have already mentioned, one of the meanings of the word Ma‘a is also to ‘be in the company’ of someone, or to be ‘with’ someone and an example of this is a verse which is often presented by non-Ahmadis:

وَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ وَاعْلَمُوا أَنَّ اللَّهَ مَعَ الْمُتَّقِينَ

Meaning, “And fear Allah and know that Allah is with those who fear him.” However, such verses do not help the non-Ahmadi viewpoint at all, because Ahmadis do not deny that one meaning of the word Ma‘a is also to be ‘with’ someone. The argument which is presented by Ahmadis is that in the verse under discussion, the word Ma‘a can mean nothing other than ‘among’ or ‘in the ranks of’ because this would deprive the Muslim Ummah of even the most basic spiritual rank. Furthermore, we state that Allah has Himself expounded the true meaning of the word Ma‘a in this verse to mean ‘among’. This is why He has used the word Min in the same verse after Ma‘a to provide an explanation of what the word Ma‘a in this verse implies, and has therefore, removed any and all possibility of doubt or misinterpretation.

In the Holy Qur’an, Allah the Almighty states:

يَا بَنِي آَدَمَ إِمَّا يَأْتِيَنَّكُمْ رُسُلٌ مِنْكُمْ يَقُصُّونَ عَلَيْكُمْ آَيَاتِي فَمَنِ اتَّقَى وَأَصْلَحَ فَلَا خَوْفٌ عَلَيْهِمْ وَلَا هُمْ يَحْزَنُونَ

Meaning,

“O children of Adam! if Messengers come to you from among yourselves, rehearsing My Signs unto you, then whoso shall fear God and do good deeds, on them shall come no fear nor shall they grieve.”

This is another wonderful verse of the Holy Qur’an, which clearly and explicitly alludes to the coming of prophets within the Muslim Ummah. In this verse, Allah the Almighty has used the words Imma ya’tiyannakum, which translates as ‘Most definitely, they shall come to you (i.e., messengers from among yourselves).’ If Allah was not going to send any Messengers after our Master the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa), then why would he state that whenever Messengers come to you rehearsing divine signs, you should accept them? This would be a pointless statement. Another point to note is that Allah has used the words Minkum (i.e., from among you). That is to say that the Messengers would be from among ‘us’ i.e., the Muslims. The fact of the matter is that Messengers were destined to appear after the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa) in complete obedience to the Holy Prophet (sa). When this argument is presented, non-Ahmadis present the argument that in this verse, the Muslims are not even being addressed. In this verse the ‘Children of Adam (as)’ have been addressed. Therefore, this verse is suggesting that Muslims should believe in all the Messengers who appeared throughout the centuries from Adam (as) to the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa) who is the last and final prophet.

However, even at first sight, this argument can be easily refuted and the flaw which exists in this argument becomes evident. We shall present a number of arguments ahead which disprove the non-Ahmadi stance in relation to this verse.

First, it is incorrect to state that this verse refers to the acceptance of Messengers who appeared from the time of Adam (as) to Prophet Muhammad (sa). The reason for this is very simple. Even if this verse is analyzed from a purely linguistic perspective, it becomes clear that the verbs which have been used throughout are referring to future tense. If this verse actually implied that the messengers who appeared from the time of Adam (as) to Prophet Muhammad (sa) should be accepted, Allah would have simply stated that, ‘Believe in all the Messengers.’ He would not have stated, ‘If Messengers come to you from among yourselves.’ The Arabic word Imma is a Harfush-Shart or ‘conditional word,’ and therefore, this entire sentence is a Jumlah Shartiyyah or ‘Conditional Sentence.’ In the Arabic language, when the ‘conditional word’ Imma is used before a Mudari‘ verb, it is necessary for that condition to be fulfilled in the life of some of its addressees.

This verse can be better understood if it is analysed in light of Arabic grammar. The word Ya’tiyannakum is known as Mu’akkid bi nunith-thakilah in Arabic grammar, which indicates the definite occurrence of that particular verb in the future. The signs of Mu’akkid bi nunith-thaqilah are that the Arabic letter ‘Nun’ is doubled and then added to the end of the verb in Mudari‘ form and the letter ‘Lam’ is added to the beginning of the verb. So the verb Yaf‘alu (which means he does) would be transformed to La yaf‘alanna (He surely will do in the future) when it is brought into Mu’akkid bi nunith-thaqilah form. There are two aspects of Mu’akkid bi nunith-thaqilah:

i. It is a definite and unchangeable fact that the verb shall occur. Therefore, when a verb is conjugated in this form, there is no doubt whatsoever that it shall occur.
ii. The verb especially alludes to the future tense.

However, it should not worry anyone that in this verse the letter ‘Lam’ has not appeared before the verb Ya’tiyannakum, because in books of Arabic grammar it is clearly mentioned that sometimes the letter ‘Lam’ can be replaced with the word Imma. An example of this is:

إِمَّا يَبْلُغَنَّ عِنْدَكَ الْكِبَرَ أَحَدُهُمَا أَوْ كِلَاهُمَا فَلَا تَقُلْ لَهُمَا أُفٍّ

Meaning,

“If one of them or both of them attain old age with thee, never say unto them any word expressive of disgust.”

فَإِمَّا نَذْهَبَنَّ بِكَ فَإِنَّا مِنْهُمْ مُنْتَقِمُونَ

Meaning,

“And if We take thee away, We shall surely exact retribution from them.”

Therefore, in the verse under discussion the letter ‘Nun’ has been doubled and added to the end of a verb in Mudari‘ form and the word Imma has appeared before it. Therefore, the translation of this verse is that Allah the Almighty would most definitely appoint messengers after the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa) from among the Muslims. The reason this selection would take place from among the Muslims is because Allah the Almighty has used the words Minkum (from among you).

Another point to be highlighted at this occasion is that the word Rusul has been used in plural form. In other words, this verse explicitly establishes the fact that non-law-bearing Prophets can come in subservience and obedience to the Holy Prophet (sa). These Messengers would not bring a new law, but come for the establishment and propagation of the Holy Qur’an.

When this argument is presented, the non-Ahmadis assert that the Muslims are not being addressed in this verse. They claim that this address is being made to the children of Adam (as). However, this is a very weak argument, and does not conform even to the most basic level of common sense. We ask non-Ahmadis that if the Muslims are not being referred to in this verse and it is the children of Adam who are being referred to here, what sense would be left in this verse? Would they kindly explain what the meaning of this verse would be in this case? Do they not see that the Holy Qur’an was revealed to the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa) as a book of guidance for the Muslims? Of course, the Holy Qur’an is a book of guidance for all of mankind, but those who believe in this book are in essence, Muslims. Now, if the Muslims are not being addressed here, then perhaps the Jews or Christians? What a senseless notion indeed. It is obvious that as we have already proven the language in this verse is referring to future tense, and if this verse was revealed upon the Holy Prophet (sa) this would naturally mean that the coming of prophets would be a phenomenon which would take place after the revelation of this verse, and in essence after the demise of the Holy Prophet (sa). If the Holy Prophet (sa) was the last and final prophet, then this verse would not have been revealed to him. If the appointment of Prophets was a phenomenon which had come to a complete halt by the advent of the Holy Prophet (sa) as non-Ahmadis assert, that Allah should not have revealed a verse to the Holy Prophet (sa) specifying the coming of prophets in future tense. As such, this verse would have absolutely no meaning whatsoever, until and unless it is accepted that the Muslims were being addressed.

Similarly, the verses prior to this also clearly indicate that the Muslims are being referred to in this verse, and of course, in the verses which appear earlier on. If we begin to read onwards from verse 27, it shall become evident that the instructions and commandments which are being given are for the Muslim Ummah. For example, Allah states:

يَا بَنِي آَدَمَ قَدْ أَنْزَلْنَا عَلَيْكُمْ لِبَاسًا يُوَارِي سَوْآَتِكُمْ وَرِيشًا وَلِبَاسُ التَّقْوَى ذَلِكَ خَيْرٌ ذَلِكَ مِنْ آَيَاتِ اللَّهِ لَعَلَّهُمْ يَذَّكَّرُونَ

Meaning,

“O children of Adam! We have indeed sent down to you raiment to cover your shame, and to be an elegant dress.”

Now, in accordance with the non-Ahmadi logic which is applied to the verse under discussion, would it be fair for an Ahmadi to assert that Muslims are exempt of this instruction and only the past people who were the children of Adam are being referred to here? Of course, the Muslims are also a part of this address. As a matter of fact, they are the primary addressees of this instruction, because the Qur’an is being revealed to them, through the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa) for their guidance and reformation. Then Allah states:

يَا بَنِي آَدَمَ لَا يَفْتِنَنَّكُمُ الشَّيْطَانُ

Meaning,

“O children of Adam! let not Satan seduce you.”

Similarly, this statement also applies to the Muslims, and they have been instructed to protect themselves from the onslaughts of Satan and Satanic forces. Then these instructions continue and in verse 30, Allah the Almighty says:

قُلْ أَمَرَ رَبِّي بِالْقِسْطِ وَأَقِيمُوا وُجُوهَكُمْ عِنْدَ كُلِّ مَسْجِدٍ

Meaning,

“Say, ‘My Lord has enjoined justice. And fix your attention aright at every time and place of worship.”

In this verse, it becomes easier to specify and pinpoint the people who are being referred to by the address Ya bani adama. In the above-mentioned verse, Allah the Almighty says Qul or ‘Say.’ In the Holy Qur’an, wherever this word is used, the Holy Prophet (sa) is directly being addressed by Allah to convey that particular message or instruction of Allah to his nation, i.e., the Muslims. Therefore, it becomes clear that the address Ya bani adama also refers to the Muslims, because the word Qul, which is a direct address to the Holy Prophet (sa) has appeared in this context, more than once.

As we have mentioned already, it would be very illogical for Allah to address a people who had passed away before the revelation of this verse of the Holy Qur’an. Therefore, the people who are addressed in this verse are not nations of the past from among the children of Adam, but the Muslims themselves, who are also the ‘children of Adam.’ It cannot be denied that the Muslims are also the children of Adam, as is the whole of humanity.

When Ahmadis present the argument that this verse proves the coming of Messengers, after the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa) one objection which is raised by non-Ahmadis is that the word Rusul or Messengers encapsulates both law-bearing and non-law-bearing prophethood. Therefore, if this verse is interpreted in a manner that ‘Rusul’ or Messengers can come after the Holy Prophet (sa) this would mean that law-bearing prophets could also come. This is a final attempt which is made by non-Ahmadis to weaken and disprove the sound argumentation presented in this wonderful verse of the Holy Qur’an. When they are unable to defend their standpoint, they resort to stating that even if we were to hypothetically accept that Rusul can come after the Holy Prophet (sa) this would pose the complication that the door of law-bearing prophethood would also open up. Non-Ahmadis believe that a Rasul refers to a law-bearing prophet and a Nabi is a messenger who does not bring a new law. It is perhaps due to this misconception that non-Ahmadis present this argument. This topic has been discussed in detail in the chapter entitled, ‘Is there a Difference Between a Nabi and a Rasul?’ Therefore, the topic shall not be taken up here again. However, this objection can be refuted even studying this very verse. This verse does not open up the door to law-bearing prophethood, because in this verse, it is clearly mentioned that the Messengers who would come, would ‘rehearse the signs of Allah’ to the people. In other words, they would rehearse or teach the verses of the Holy Qur’an to a people who would have forgotten them. Moreover, in the next part of the verse it is mentioned that the purpose of the advent of these Messengers would be to reform people and instill a spirit of righteousness into the people. This is why Allah the Almighty states in the latter part of this verse that when these Messengers come with the true message of the Holy Qur’an and preach it to the people, ‘then whoso shall fear God and do good deeds, on them shall come no fear nor shall they grieve.’ It is for this reason that in Tafsirul-Baidawi in the commentary of this verse it is written:

اتیان الرسل جائز غیر واجب

Meaning,

“The coming of Messengers after the Holy Prophet (sa) is permissible, although it is not necessary.”

In any case, this verse clearly proves that it is permissible for such messengers to come after the Holy Prophet (sa) who do not bring a new law, but follow the law of the Holy Qur’an.

In the Holy Qur’an, Allah the Almighty states:

اهْدِنَا الصِّرَاطَ الْمُسْتَقِيمَ (6) صِرَاطَ الَّذِينَ أَنْعَمْتَ عَلَيْهِمْ غَيْرِ الْمَغْضُوبِ عَلَيْهِمْ وَلَا الضَّالِّينَ (7)

Meaning,

“Guide us in the right path-The path of those on whom Thou hast bestowed Thy blessings, those who have not incurred displeasure, and those who have not gone astray.”

In these two verses of the Holy Qur’an, Allah has taught a prayer to the believers. Millions of Muslims throughout the world recite this Surah in every single Rak‘at of their prayers. Without the recitation of Surah Al-Fatihah the prayer is not complete, and this is why the Holy Prophet (sa) states:

لا صلاة لمن لم یقرآ بفاتحة الكتاب

Meaning,

“There is no prayer without Surah Fatihah.”

Surah Al-Fatihah, which beautifully encompasses all of the divine wisdoms of the Holy Qur’an, has also clearly alluded to the continuation of prophethood within the Ummah.

In this complete and perfect prayer, Allah the Exalted has taught the believers to supplicate to Him so that He may guide the believers on the path of those upon whom Allah has bestowed His special favors and divine rewards. In verse 7 Allah the Almighty states:

صِرَاطَ الَّذِينَ أَنْعَمْتَ عَلَيْهِمْ

Meaning,

“The path of those on whom Thou hast bestowed Thy blessings.”

In this verse, the Arabic word An‘amta has been used, which literally translates as ‘You bestowed your blessings, or favor, or reward.’ The word An‘amta is derived from the Arabic root Na‘ama. Therefore, it is clear that in these verses, the believers ask Allah to bestow upon them His Ni‘mat, i.e., blessing, reward, or favor. In order to fully understand this argument, the key word An‘amta must be kept in mind.

Now that we have established from the prayer of Surah Al-Fatihah, that Allah the Almighty has taught the believers to seek the spiritual reward or Ni‘mat of Allah in every Rak‘at of the prayer on a daily basis, there is another question which must be addressed. The natural question which now arises is whether Allah the Almighty has provided a more detailed definition of the Ni‘mat or spiritual reward which is sought by the believers in this prayer of Surah Al-Fatihah. In Surah Al-Nisa’, Allah has explicitly mentioned that the fortunate people upon whom Allah has bestowed His reward are divided into four groups. Allah the Almighty states:

وَمَنْ يُطِعِ اللَّهَ وَالرَّسُولَ فَأُولَئِكَ مَعَ الَّذِينَ أَنْعَمَ اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِمْ مِنَ النَّبِيِّينَ وَالصِّدِّيقِينَ وَالشُّهَدَاءِ وَالصَّالِحِينَ وَحَسُنَ أُولَئِكَ رَفِيقًا

Meaning,

“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.”

Therefore, in Surah Al-Fatihah, the believers pray that Allah guides them to the path of those people upon whom Allah has bestowed His favor and reward. As such, in this verse of the Holy Qur’an, Allah the Almighty has defined those people upon whom Allah has bestowed His spiritual favors. Moreover, in both Surah Al-Fatihah and the above-mentioned verse of Surah Al-Nisa’ the root Na‘ama, has been used. As such, the verse of Surah Al-Nisa’ is a further explanation and commentary of the prayer in Surah Al-Fatihah. Hence, the natural conclusion is that in the prayer of Surah Al-Fatihah, the believers are seeking these four rewards from Allah for the Muslim Ummah. If these spiritual stations were unattainable, why would Allah the Almighty teach the Muslims to pray for them?

Indeed, the blessing of prophethood is a reward the like of no other. It is strange that non-Ahmadi Muslims wish to deny the Muslim Ummah this distinct spiritual honour and reward. Do they not realize that by closing the door of prophethood they are doing Islam no favor in the least. By closing the door to prophethood in the Muslim Ummah they are testifying to the spiritual unworthiness of the Muslims. A nation in which Allah raises prophets testifies to the spiritual rank of that nation, because it shows that there are still righteous men present among the nation who are worthy of being given the lofty station of prophethood. However, when a nation spiritually degenerates to such a level that not even a single person remains worthy of this grand office, Allah takes away this blessing from that people. The fact of the matter is that the birth of Jesus (as) without a father was also an allusion to this very fact. If we study history it becomes clear that for many hundreds of years, Allah the Almighty had been appointing prophets from among the Bani Isra’il (who are the children of Isaac (as)). However, when the Jews had forgotten the true teachings which were brought to them by Moses (as), and Allah decided to transfer the blessing of prophethood from the Bani Isra’il to the Bani Isma‘il, the last prophet from the Mosaic dispensation was born without a father. This was an indication from Allah the Almighty to the Bani Isra’il that now, your spiritual state has degenerated to such a level that not a single man from among your people is worthy of fathering a prophet.

This point was briefly alluded to above, and we reiterate it once again. The fact that Allah the Almighty has taught a prayer to the Muslim Ummah in which they supplicate to Allah for the acquisition of these four spiritual rewards, proves that Allah the Almighty desires to bestow these rewards upon them. If these rewards were unattainable, why would Allah teach the Muslims to pray to him for their attainment? Such treatment could not be expected even by a man of little morality. The example of this is if a man tells another person that he should ask him for something, but then refuses to fulfill his request. Why then, should we attribute such injustice to Allah who is the Most Just? Not only is such treatment utter injustice, it also shows a lack of wisdom on the part of Allah. For if Allah had already decided that no more prophets could come, he would not have taught a prayer to the Muslims which was without purpose. There are many instances in the Holy Qur’an, and even in the Ahadith, where a prayer is taught to the believers, and this prayer serves as a prophecy.

When this argument is presented to non-Ahmadis, they respond in a manner of mockery by saying that this is a very far-fetched argument. They claim that this would mean that all those people who follow the way of the Prophets, the Truthful, the Martyrs and the Truthful become them. If this Ahmadi logic is applied to other fields or professions this should mean that a person who follows the way of a viceroy should become a viceroy; and a person who follows the way of a king should become a king; perhaps someone could even become God himself by following God, because Allah states in the Holy Qur’an that Siratallahil-Aziz. Hence, non-Ahmadis assert that if we were to accept the logic of the Ahmadis, a person who follows the way of Allah and his customs should become God.

By reading this argument it seems as if our non-Ahmadi friends have not fully understood the purpose of the prayer taught to the Muslims in Surah Al-Fatihah. The simple answer to this twisted logic is that if Allah the Almighty had decided not to bestow these four spiritual rewards upon the believers, why would He teach a prayer to supplicate for the acquisition of these rewards? The fact that Allah the Almighty has taught the Muslims to pray that Allah guides them to the path of those people upon whom Allah has bestowed His spiritual favors is conclusive evidence of the fact that He wishes to bestow these spiritual rewards upon them. Otherwise, to teach an unattainable prayer would be useless. As far as the argument goes that if a person follows Allah then he should become God, we have no words with which to express our astonishment at such a base level of intellect. We ask non-Ahmadis to present a single verse of the Holy Qur’an in which Allah the Almighty has stated that those who follow Allah would become God. However, in the case of prophethood, Allah the Almighty has explicitly mentioned that those who follow Allah and his Messenger would be ‘among’ the Messengers, the Truthful, the Martyrs and the Righteous. This simple answer is perhaps enough to satisfy anyone who has not lost all fear of Allah.

In the Holy Qur’an, Allah the Almighty states:

وَإِذْ أَخَذَ اللَّهُ مِيثَاقَ النَّبِيِّينَ لَمَا آَتَيْتُكُمْ مِنْ كِتَابٍ وَحِكْمَةٍ ثُمَّ جَاءَكُمْ رَسُولٌ مُصَدِّقٌ لِمَا مَعَكُمْ لَتُؤْمِنُنَّ بِهِ وَلَتَنْصُرُنَّهُ قَالَ أَأَقْرَرْتُمْ وَأَخَذْتُمْ عَلَى ذَلِكُمْ إِصْرِي قَالُوا أَقْرَرْنَا قَالَ فَاشْهَدُوا وَأَنَا مَعَكُمْ مِنَ الشَّاهِدِينَ

Meaning,

“And remember the time when Allah took a covenant from the people through the Prophets saying: ‘Whatever I give you of the Book and Wisdom and then there comes to you a Messenger, fulfilling that which is with you, you shall believe in him and help him.’ And He said, ‘Do you agree, and do you accept the responsibility which I lay upon you in this matter?’ They said, ‘We agree;’ He said, ‘Then bear witness, and I am with you among the witnesses.’”

This is a wonderful verse of the Holy Qur’an, in which Allah the Almighty has alluded to a covenant between Him and His people. Allah the Almighty addresses the believers and reminds them of a covenant He took from the people through the prophets. This covenant states that whenever a Messenger comes to you fulfilling that which is with you, you shall believe in him and help him.

Non-Ahmadi Muslims fervently claim that there is no distinction between law-bearing and non-law-bearing prophets in the Holy Qur’an. They raise the objection that the term ‘non-law-bearing prophethood’ is something which has been concocted in order to support the Ahmadi ideology, and the Holy Qur’an or the Ahadith does not support such a notion. Although this discussion has already been taken up in detail in the chapter ‘Three types of Prophethood,’ however, this verse is another magnificent proof which refutes this non-Ahmadi objection. In this verse of the Holy Qur’an, the following words allude to the fact that non-law-bearing prophethood is also a concept which is firmly supported by the Holy Qur’an. Allah the Almighty states:

لَمَا آَتَيْتُكُمْ مِنْ كِتَابٍ وَحِكْمَةٍ ثُمَّ جَاءَكُمْ رَسُولٌ مُصَدِّقٌ لِمَا مَعَكُمْ لَتُؤْمِنُنَّ بِهِ وَلَتَنْصُرُنَّهُ

Meaning,

“Whatever I give you of the Book and Wisdom and then there comes to you a Messenger, fulfilling that which is with you, you shall believe in him and help him.”

In this portion of the verse Allah the Almighty has initially alluded to the Book and Wisdom. After this, He then speaks of a Messenger fulfilling that which is already with the believers. In other words, the Messenger who would come, would fulfill the prophecies which are given in the Book. Non-Ahmadi scholars raise the objection that this is a promise to the past nations, which has been recorded in the Holy Qur’an, as an admonition to the believers. In other words, Allah the Almighty is reminding the Muslims that just as I took a covenant from the past nations that they believe in their respective prophets, you too, should believe in Muhammad (sa) and do not reject him. They go on to further state that this verse cannot be a means of substantiating non-law-bearing prophets after the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa), because this covenant was a covenant from the past nations. This covenant was not taken from the Muslims through the Holy Prophet (sa).

In light of the non-Ahmadi allegation upon this verse just presented above, we would like to point out that it is incorrect to state that this covenant of the acceptance of Messengers who come testifying to that which is among the believers is merely a thing of the past. It is not correct to state that this covenant was not taken from the Holy Prophet (sa) and therefore, there is no proof of future prophets in the Ummah. In another verse of the Holy Qur’an, Allah the Almighty has specifically alluded to the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa) and stated that we took this ‘covenant’ from you as well, O Muhammad! As such, Allah the Almighty states:

وَإِذْ أَخَذْنَا مِنَ النَّبِيِّينَ مِيثَاقَهُمْ وَمِنْكَ وَمِنْ نُوحٍ وَإِبْرَاهِيمَ وَمُوسَى وَعِيسَى ابْنِ مَرْيَمَ وَأَخَذْنَا مِنْهُمْ مِيثَاقًا غَلِيظًا

Meaning,

“And remember when We took from the Prophets their covenant, and from thee, and from Noah, and Abraham, and Moses, and Jesus, son of Mary, and We indeed took from them a solemn covenant.”

Therefore, from this verse of Surah Al-Ahzab, it becomes evident that the Holy Prophet (sa) was also among those prophets from whom Allah took a solemn covenant. As such, these two verses, when studied together, clearly allude to the fact that Allah the Almighty has taken a firm covenant from the Muslim Ummah through the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa). Just as Allah addressed the past nations, so too, he address the Muslims and instructed that when a prophet comes who testifies to that which is with you, i.e., the teachings and prophecies of the Holy Qur’an, do indeed accept him. Moreover, Allah does not simply say that we should accept that prophet, but goes on to further state that we should do Bai‘at of that Messenger and become his helpers in the propagation and strengthening of the faith. Furthermore, the significance of this covenant can be understood from the fact that in this verse, Allah has asked the believers whether they accept the responsibility he placed upon them, as an expression of confirmation. And the believers said, ‘Yes, O Allah, we agree to bear this responsibility with sincerity, honesty and loyalty.’ This style of ‘question and answer’ is employed by Allah the Almighty in the Holy Qur’an in order to stress the importance and significance of the topic which is being discussed. For example, a dialogue between Allah the Almighty and the souls is recorded in the Holy Qur’an, in the following words:

أَلَسْتُ بِرَبِّكُمْ قَالُوا بَلَى

Meaning,

“Am I not your Lord? They said, ‘Indeed! we do bear witness.”

Similarly, in this verse of the Holy Qur’an, Allah the Almighty has employed the same style. Otherwise, Allah the Almighty could have left the verse simply by saying that ‘Remember the time when We took a covenant from the believers, that when Messengers come to you fulfilling that which is before you, you shall accept them and help them.’ But Allah did not stop at that. By asking the question that, ‘Do you accept the responsibility I lay upon you in this matter,’ and then recording the answer of the believers in the affirmative, in the very same verse, Allah wishes to stress the importance of accepting the prophets, and especially the acceptance of that magnificent prophet which was to come in the latter days among the Muslims for the guidance of all mankind in obedience and subservience to the Greatest Prophet the world has ever seen - i.e., the Master Prophet, the Pride of the Prophets, the Seal of the Prophets, Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him).

In the Holy Qur’an, Allah the Almighty states:

وَإِنْ مِنْ قَرْيَةٍ إِلَّا نَحْنُ مُهْلِكُوهَا قَبْلَ يَوْمِ الْقِيَامَةِ أَوْ مُعَذِّبُوهَا عَذَابًا شَدِيدًا كَانَ ذَلِكَ فِي الْكِتَابِ مَسْطُورًا

Meaning,

“There is not a township but We shall destroy it before the Day of Resurrection, or punish it with a severe punishment. That is written down in the Book.”

In this verse of the Holy Qur’an, Allah the Almighty has stated that there is not a single township which shall not be destroyed or receive severe punishment before the day of judgement.

From various other verses of the Holy Qur’an, it becomes evident that it is the Divine custom of Allah that he does not destroy any township or people before having sent a prophet amongst them. As such, in the Holy Qur’an, Allah the Almighty states:

وَمَا كُنَّا مُعَذِّبِينَ حَتَّى نَبْعَثَ رَسُولًا

Meaning,

“We never punish until We have sent a Messenger.”

Then, at another instance, Allah the Almighty states: وَمَا كَانَ رَبُّكَ مُهْلِكَ الْقُرَى حَتَّى يَبْعَثَ فِي أُمِّهَا رَسُولًا يَتْلُو عَلَيْهِمْ آَيَاتِنَا Meaning,

“And thy Lord would never destroy the towns until He has raised in the mother town thereof a Messengers, reciting unto them Our Signs.”

Moreover, Allah the Almighty states:

وَلَوْ أَنَّا أَهْلَكْنَاهُمْ بِعَذَابٍ مِنْ قَبْلِهِ لَقَالُوا رَبَّنَا لَوْلَا أَرْسَلْتَ إِلَيْنَا رَسُولًا فَنَتَّبِعَ آَيَاتِكَ مِنْ قَبْلِ أَنْ نَذِلَّ وَنَخْزَى

Meaning,

“And if We had destroyed them with a punishment before it they would have surely said, ‘Our Lord, wherefore didst Thou not send to us a Messenger that we might have followed Thy commandments before we were humbled and disgraced?’”

Therefore, the above-mentioned verses of the Holy Qur’an prove that before the towns and cities can be destroyed and the resurrection takes place, it is necessary for Allah, as per his Divine custom, to send prophets to warn and guide people to the truth.

In the Holy Qur’an, Allah the Almighty states: مَا كَانَ اللَّهُ لِيَذَرَ

الْمُؤْمِنِينَ عَلَى مَا أَنْتُمْ عَلَيْهِ حَتَّى يَمِيزَ الْخَبِيثَ مِنَ الطَّيِّبِ وَمَا كَانَ اللَّهُ لِيُطْلِعَكُمْ عَلَى الْغَيْبِ وَلَكِنَّ اللَّهَ يَجْتَبِي مِنْ رُسُلِهِ مَنْ يَشَاءُ فَآَمِنُوا بِاللَّهِ وَرُسُلِهِ وَإِنْ تُؤْمِنُوا وَتَتَّقُوا فَلَكُمْ أَجْرٌ عَظِيمٌ

Meaning,

“Allah would not leave the believers as you are, until He separated the wicked from the good. Nor would Allah reveal to you the unseen. But Allah chooses of His Messengers whom He pleases. Believe, therefore, in Allah and His Messengers. If you believe and be righteous, you shall have a great reward.”

In this verse of the Holy Qur’an, Allah the Almighty has addressed the believers and stated that he would not leave them without having separated the wicked from the good. However, in this verse, Allah the Almighty states that He would not reveal the unseen upon every believer to inform him as to who is righteous and who is wicked. Quite the contrary, Allah the Almighty states that He would appoint a Messenger, and reveal the unseen to him. Furthermore, in this verse of the Holy Qur’an, Allah the Almighty has instructed the believers to accept those Messengers when they are commissioned.

A non-Ahmadi might raise the allegation that this verse refers to the past nations, and not the Muslims. However, there is no room whatsoever for such a doubt because the verse clearly states “Allah would not leave the believers as you are.” Therefore, it is quite obvious that the believers, i.e., the Muslims are being referred to in this verse.

Another point to remember is that the word Yajtabi has been used here, which means ‘He chooses.’ The Arabic word Yajtabi is the imperfect verb or Mudari‘, which contains a meaning of present tense and future tense. A discussion on the Mudari‘ or imperfect verb has already been taken up in great detail in our discussion of Surah Al-Hajj, verse 76, therefore we shall not repeat it here. However, in the verse under discussion, the word Yajtabi has been used as an imperfect verb, and therefore, the divine act of choosing a Messenger implies present tense and future tense. Furthermore, along with this imperfect verb, Allah the Almighty has also used the word Rusul in plural. As such, this means that Allah must choose at least one more Messenger, after the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa) in order for this verse to hold true. Indeed, there can be no contradiction between the word of Allah and the divine actions of Allah. As such, Ahmadis believe that Allah the Almighty chose Hadrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (as) as the Messenger of this age, in complete accordance with the prophecies of the Holy Qur’an and the Ahadith.

In the Holy Qur’an, Allah the Almighty states:

وَإِذِ ابْتَلَى إِبْرَاهِيمَ رَبُّهُ بِكَلِمَاتٍ فَأَتَمَّهُنَّ قَالَ إِنِّي جَاعِلُكَ لِلنَّاسِ إِمَامًا قَالَ وَمِنْ ذُرِّيَّتِي قَالَ لَا يَنَالُ عَهْدِي الظَّالِمِينَ

Meaning,

“And remember when his Lord tried Abraham with certain commands which he fulfilled. He said, ‘I will make thee a Leader of men.’ Abraham asked, ‘And from among my offspring?’ He said, ‘My covenant does not embrace the transgressors.’”

In this verse of the Holy Qur’an, Allah the Almighty has given Prophet Abraham (as) the glad tidings that He would make him a Leader of Men, or an Imam. This was due to the obedience and sincerity of Abraham (as) towards his Lord. As such, as a reward for his outstanding obedience to Allah, he was granted the spiritual reward of being the Leader of Men. Since this was a spiritual reward, when Abraham (as) received this glad tiding from Allah the Almighty, he immediately inquired as to whether this reward would be transferred to his offspring as well. Upon this, Allah the Almighty responded by saying that “My covenant does not embrace the transgressors.” The obvious conclusion which can be deducted from this statement of Allah the Almighty is that, those people from among the children of Abraham who do not become transgressors would also be ones to receive the same divine reward received by their father Abraham (as). Another point to remember is that this also indicates that until the progeny of Prophet Abraham (as) does not become transgressors, this spiritual reward would continue to be inherited by his offspring. Now the question which arises is with regards to that spiritual reward which Prophet Abraham (as) received from Allah the Almighty. A non-Ahmadi could raise the objection that the Arabic word Imam has been used, which translates as ‘leader’ and not ‘prophet’. Therefore, this verse in no way implies that Allah would continue to appoint prophets within the children of Abraham, until they remain righteous.
br In response to this, First, it should be understood that from a linguistic perspective, the word Imam also refers to prophethood. Therefore, to state that Prophet Abraham (as) was only supplicating to Allah that He may create worldly leaders within his offspring is something which does not do justice to the true purport of this verse. The reason for this is because, in this verse of the Holy Qur’an, Abraham (as) is praying for the greatest of spiritual heights to be given to his children as well; and as we know the greatest spiritual reward that Allah can bestow upon a person is the reward of prophethood. Furthermore, it was the most ardent desire of Abraham (as) that Allah continue sending prophets from within his children to become the source of guidance for all of mankind, because he too knew that this is the greatest possible honour which Allah can bestow upon a people. As such, it is for this very reason that in another verse of the Holy Qur’an we find that Abraham (as) specifically supplicated to Allah the Almighty for the reward of prophethood to be given to his children. Allah records the humble prayer of his beloved servant Abraham (as) in the following words:

رَبَّنَا وَابْعَثْ فِيهِمْ رَسُولًا مِنْهُمْ يَتْلُو عَلَيْهِمْ آَيَاتِكَ وَيُعَلِّمُهُمُ الْكِتَابَ وَالْحِكْمَةَ وَيُزَكِّيهِمْ إِنَّكَ أَنْتَ الْعَزِيزُ الْحَكِيمُ

Meaning,

“And, our Lord, raise up among them a Messenger from among themselves, who may recite to them Thy Signs and teach them the Book and Wisdom and may purify them; surely, Thou art the Mighty, the Wise.’”

In accordance to this prayer of the Holy Qur’an, Allah the Almighty raised countless prophets from among the children of Abraham (as). Moreover, Allah the Almighty blessed this prayer of Abraham (as) to such extent that the Chief of the Prophets, Muhammad (sa) was also raised from among the children of Abraham (as).

A non-Ahmadi might raise the objection that in the above-mentioned verse of the Holy Qur’an, the word Rasulan has been used, which connotes a single prophet, i.e., the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa). Therefore, this verse in no way supports the desire of Abraham (as).

In response to this, it should be remembered that Ahmadis are not at odds with the non-Ahmadi statement that the above-mentioned verse of the Holy Qur’an specifically refers to the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa). We also believe that this verse refers to the Holy Prophet (sa). However, this verse sheds light upon something which cannot be neglected. One thing is clear from this verse, and that is the desire of Abraham (as) for the spiritual reward of prophethood to be granted to his children. If this was not the case, why would Abraham (as) offer this prayer? Secondly, we ask non-Ahmadis that do they suggest that Abraham (as) only desired for ‘a single’ man in the entirety of his progeny to be blessed with this outstanding spiritual reward? Do they truly believe that Abraham (as) only desired that a single person from his children receive this reward, and the rest of his children remain deprived from the heights of this spiritual office? The example of this can be understood from the analogy of a father who has ten sons. Would any loving father desire that only one of his ten sons becomes successful in his life and in his relationship with God? Of course, any father would desire that as many sons as possible become successful in all walks of life. Therefore, how can we attribute the illogical belief that Abraham (as) only desired for a single prophet to be raised among his children. In actuality, Abraham (as) who was the loving father of our nation, desired that whenever the need of prophethood arises, and Allah’s divine decree sees the need for sending a radiant sun of guidance to the earth in order to reform the people and dispel the darkness which would have overtaken mankind, Allah raises a prophet from among his progeny, and grants his progeny the honour of leading the world to the One True Lord. It is in complete accordance with this sincere prayer of Abraham (as) that Allah commissioned innumerable prophets from the progeny of Abraham (as), until this honour reached its pinnacle, and the greatest of the prophets was also raised from the children of Abraham (as). Allah the Almighty alludes to this spiritual reward in the children of Abraham in the following verse of the Holy Qur’an:

وَوَهَبْنَا لَهُ إِسْحَاقَ وَيَعْقُوبَ وَجَعَلْنَا فِي ذُرِّيَّتِهِ النُّبُوَّةَ وَالْكِتَابَ وَآَتَيْنَاهُ أَجْرَهُ فِي الدُّنْيَا وَإِنَّهُ فِي الْآَخِرَةِ لَمِنَ الصَّالِحِينَ

Meaning,

“And We bestowed on him Isaac and Jacob, and We placed the gift of prophethood and the Book among his descendants, and We gave him his reward in this life, and in the Hereafter he will surely be among the righteous.”

Now, if we were to accept the non-Ahmadi interpretation which states that the door of prophethood has been closed shut by the advent of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa), this results in numerous complications. First, it would mean that the coming of the Holy Prophet (sa), who was the greatest of all prophets became the source of depriving Abraham (as) of the reward which Allah had bestowed upon him for years upon years. Furthermore, it would also mean that not a single person from among the children of Abraham (as) is righteous, and all of them have become Az-Zalimin or transgressors. The reason being that in the verse under discussion, Allah the Almighty has alluded to the fact that until the children of Abraham (as) do not become transgressors, they would receive the reward of being appointed as Imams, in accordance with the desire of Abraham (as), which has also been mentioned in the same verse. This is a notion which cannot be accepted by any like-minded individual. Therefore, even until a small group from among the children of Abraham remains righteous, the blessing of Imamat or prophethood shall remain within his progeny, and it is not within the jurisdiction of anyone to bring it to an end.

ذَلِكَ فَضْلُ اللَّهِ يُؤْتِيهِ مَنْ يَشَاءُ وَاللَّهُ ذُو الْفَضْلِ الْعَظِيمِ .

This is a blessing of Allah, and he bestows it upon whom he wishes. Who dare take away this divine reward.

Another wonderful point which supports the Ahmadi interpretation, and bears the attestation of our Beloved Master, the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa) are the words of the Durud Sharif. The words of the Durud Sharif have been taught to the Muslims by the Holy Prophet (sa) himself. The words are as follows:

اللھم صل علیٰ محمد و علیٰ اٰل محمد كما صلیت علی ابراھیم و علیٰ اٰل ابراھیم انك حمید مجید ۔۔۔۔۔

Meaning, “O Allah, bless Muhammad and his people, as You did bless Abraham and his people - You are indeed the Praiseworthy, the Exalted.” In these words, the Holy Prophet (sa) has taught the Muslims to invoke salutations upon him and supplicate to Allah that He may bestow upon the Muslims the same reward which was granted to the Prophet Abraham (as). These words are not without wisdom. By the advent of the Pride of the Prophets, Muhammad (sa), the Muslim Ummah has now become the true inheritors of the spiritual rewards and promises which were given to Abraham (as). As such, all those who do not accept the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa) have become Az-Zalimin or transgressors. Therefore, the promise which was given to Abraham (as) by Allah the Almighty that Messengers would be raised from among his children, shall now continue through the Holy Prophet (sa). This reward shall not come to an end as non-Ahmadis falsely assert. These same rewards can be attained by those righteous souls who follow the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa). In other words, the various streams of the spiritual reward of Abraham (as) which were flowing separately before the advent of the Holy Prophet (sa) have now been channeled into the person of the Holy Prophet (sa) after his advent into an enormous ocean, and it is through this spiritual ocean of Muhammad (sa) that Muslims would partake of the rewards and promises which were bequeathed to Abraham (as) by his Lord: namely the reward of Prophethood. By closing the door of prophethood, non-Ahmadis are not only insulting the Holy Prophet (sa), they are also depriving Abraham (as) of a magnificent honour, which Allah bestowed upon him until the end of time.

There is a Hadith of the Holy Prophet (sa) as follows:

تكون النبوة فیكم ما شاء اللہ ان تكون ثم یرفعھا اللہ تعالیٰ ثم تكون خلافة علیٰ منھاج النبوة ما شاء اللہ ان تكون ثم یرفعھا اللہ تعالیٰ ثم تكون ملكاً عاضًا فتكون ما شاء اللہ ان تكون ثم یرفعھا اللہ تعالیٰ ثم تكون ملكاً جبریة فتكون ما شاء اللہ ان تكون ثم یرفعھا اللہ تعالیٰ ثم تكون خلافة علیٰ منھاج النبوة ثم سكت

Meaning,

“Prophethood would remain among you so long as Allah wills. Then Allah the Exalted would raise it up. Then Caliphate on the precepts of Prophethood would be established and remain among you for as long as Allah wills. Then Allah the Exalted would raise it up. Then despotic rule would remain among you for as long as Allah wills. Then Allah the Exalted would raise it up. Then a tyrranous rule would remain among you for as long as Allah wills. Then Allah the Exalted would raise it up. Then Caliphate on the precepts of Prophethood would be established again. Then, the Holy Prophet (sa) remained silent.”

In this Hadith, the Holy Prophet (sa) has presented an outline of the various eras that would dawn upon Islam. First, the Holy Prophet (sa) has given the glad-tiding that after his demise Allah would not leave the Muslims without guidance and divine leadership and the system of Caliphate would be established. The Holy Prophet (sa) has beautifully elaborated upon the fact that this Caliphate would not be a worldly leadership, in which people would be able to take the reigns of leadership in their own hands by force. Quite the contrary, this would be a divinely instituted system of Caliphate, which would be established after the demise of the Holy Prophet (sa). This would be Khilafatun ‘ala minhajin-nubuwwah, i.e., Caliphate on the precepts of prophethood. That is to say that the rightly guided Caliphate which would be established directly after the demise of our Beloved Master would work towards the progress of his mission. As such, in accordance with this prophecy, the system of Caliphate remained among the Muslims for approximately 30 years. Firstly Hadrat Abu Bakr (ra) was appointed the Caliph, then Hadrat ‘Umar (ra), Hadrat ‘Uthman (ra) and Hadrat ‘Ali (ra).

After the completion of this beautiful era of light and guidance, a state of darkness overtook the Ummah and the nation was afflicted with Mulkan ‘Aaddan, in which bloodshed prevailed throughout the land. The holy and pure blood of the beloved grandson of our beloved Master (sa) was spilt by the filthy Yazid and his forces. Similarly, other family members of the Holy Prophet (sa) were also subjected to torture and torment. It was in this very era that the maternal grandson of Hadrat Abu Bakr (ra) whose name was ‘Abdullah bin Zubair was also martyred and Hajjaj bin Yusuf split the blood of thousands of innocent souls. After this dark era of Islam, the Holy Prophet (sa) prophesied that the era of Mulkan Jabariyyan would begin. In this era, although the level of bloodshed and torture would not be equivilant to that of the previous era, but rulers would still come to power on the basis of purely political efforts and the true system of Islam would not be established. Rulers would merely inherit the throne from their ancestors. As such, this system of rule and kingship continued for centuries. After this, the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa) prophesied that in the latter days Caliphate on the precepts of Prophethood would be established once again.

This Caliphate of the latter days would be a complete reflection of the first era, in which Caliphate was established after the demise of the Holy Prophet (sa). The reason for this is because the same words, i.e., Khilafatun ‘ala minhajin-nubuwwah, have been used for both these eras of rightly guided divinely appointed Caliphate. As such, just as Caliphate was established after the blessed system of prophethood, so too, in the latter days, the system of Caliphate would be established after the advent of a prophet. In other words, the Holy Prophet (sa) has given the glad tidings that in the latter days, a non-law-bearing prophet, who would be raised in complete subservience to the Holy Prophet (sa) would be raised and after his demise a system of Caliphate would be established. Then, it is narrated that, “The Holy Prophet (sa) remained silent thereafter.” This statement was an allusion to the fact that this system of Caliphate in the second era of Islam would remain until the end of time, and the final victory of Islam would be attained through this blessed system. There would be no further need of any other kind of leadership, and no ‘dark eras’ of worldly leadership would afflict the Muslims after this Caliphate was established for a second time in the latter days. It is for this reason that in Mishkat, where this Hadith has been recorded, the following words have also been written:

الظاھر ان المراد بہ زمن عیسیٰ والمھدی

Meaning,

“It is obvious that the second era of this Caliphate refers to the time of the Messiah and Mahdi.”

When this Hadith is presented to substantiate the advent of a prophet in the latter days, non-Ahmadis raise the objection that no where in this Hadith have the words ‘prophethood’ been used. Rather, the Holy Prophet (sa) has only alluded to the establishment of Caliphate. Therefore, to use this Hadith to justify the advent of a prophet is something which had no relation to the words of this Hadith.

If we closely study this Hadith, this also alludes to the coming of a prophet in the latter days. The reason being that the Holy Prophet (sa) has clearly mentioned that the rightly guided Caliphate which would be established in the latter days would be Khilafatun ‘ala minhajin-nubuwwah, i.e., Caliphate on the precepts of prophethood, or in other words, that Caliphate which is established after prophethood. That is to say that the manner in which it would be established would be like the initial Caliphate, which was established after the demise of our Beloved Master, Prophet Muhammad (sa). Therefore, as we know, the rightly guided Caliphate which was established at the hand of Hadrat Abu Bakr (ra) was preceded by prophethood. Therefore, if we are to accept that this statement of the Holy Prophet (sa) is correct, and that Khilafatun ‘ala minhajun-nubuwwah (i.e., Caliphate on the precepts of Prophethood) would be established again in the latter days, we must also accept that it too would be preceded by the blessed system of prophethood. If the Caliphate of the latter days is not preceded by prophethood, it would not be “Upon the precepts of prophethood.” Another point which must be remembered is that the Promised Messiah (as) has not claimed an independent prophethood for himself. Rather, he has stated that his status of prophethood is due to his obedience to the Holy Prophet (sa) and is a reflection of the prophetic grace and spiritual light of the Promised Muhammad (sa) in this day and age. In light of this subtle point, there was no need for the Holy Prophet (sa) to allude to ‘prophethood’ separately in this Hadith, since it is assumed that the prophet who would come in the latter days would be a complete and perfect reflection of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa), or a second manifestation of Prophet Muhammad (sa) as it were. As such, in Surah Al-Jumu‘ah, Allah states:

هُوَ الَّذِي بَعَثَ فِي الْأُمِّيِّينَ رَسُولًا مِنْهُمْ .....وَآَخَرِينَ مِنْهُمْ لَمَّا يَلْحَقُوا بِهِمْ وَهُوَ الْعَزِيزُ الْحَكِيمُ

Meaning,

“He it is Who has raised among the Unlettered people a Messenger......And among others from among them who have not yet joined them.”

In these verses of the Holy Qur’an, Allah has foretold the second manifestation of the Holy Prophet (sa) by simply presenting a similarity between the people of the latter days with the companions. Similarly, in the Hadith under discussion, the Holy Prophet (sa) has left out the word ‘prophet’ and only alluded to the Caliphate which would be established in the latter days, and would be exactly the same as that Caliphate which was established in the early period of Islam. The reason for leaving out the mention of a prophet is to allude to the deep wisdom that the Prophet who would come in the latter days would be such a perfect reflection of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa) that it is as if they are one in the same. That prophet would be a servant of the Holy Prophet (sa), and derive his spiritual light from the radiant sun of Muhammad (sa). That prophet would be from the Ummah of Muhammad (sa), because his lofty status of Khatamun-Nabiyyin dictates that now the spiritual reward of prophethood would only be given to those people who attach themselves to Muhammad, the Chief of the Prophets, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him.

Furthermore, even if we were to logically analyse the possibility of the establishment of Caliphate in the latter days, we would come to the conclusion that it would most certainly be impossible to establish it until and unless it was preceded by prophethood. This is because Caliphate is a reward which is bestowed upon the believers for their belief and good works. This is why Allah the Almighty states:

وَعَدَ اللَّهُ الَّذِينَ آَمَنُوا مِنْكُمْ وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ لَيَسْتَخْلِفَنَّهُمْ فِي الْأَرْضِ كَمَا اسْتَخْلَفَ الَّذِينَ مِنْ قَبْلِهِمْ

Meaning,

“Allah has promised to those among you who believe and do good works that He will surely make them Successors in the earth, as He made Successors from among those who were before them.”

Therefore, this verse of the Holy Qur’an clearly expounds the fact that in order for Caliphate to be established, there must be a group of righteous believers present. A community of God-fearing and virtuous believers must exist in order to qualify the system of Caliphate. The system of Caliphate is a conditional promise, which is given to the community of believers. Until the believers fulfill the spiritual requirements of belief and good works, this system shall remain among them. However, if they falter, and fail to meet the requirements of this divine system, Allah takes away this promise from their midst. This is why the system of Caliphate is always established after the advent of a Prophet. The Prophet creates, moulds and nurtures a people into a righteous community. Once this community is developed at the hand of the Prophet, that community then elects a Caliph from among themselves, under divine guidance and inspiration. This is why a virtuous community is a pre-requisite to the divine system of Caliphate. Only a righteous community which has been crafted by the hand of a Prophet possesses the spiritual requisite to appoint a Caliph from among themselves. It is for this very reason that there have been many attempts to establish Caliphate among the mainstream Muslims, but to no avail. This is a divine system which can only be established by the Will of Allah the Exalted, within a community which has been unified at the hand of a prophet. The unity which is required to elect a Caliph can only be established by a Prophet who is commissioned by Allah. For example, if the Sunnis were to elect a Caliph, the Shiites would not accept him. If the Shiites were to appoint a Caliph the Sunnis would not accept him. If the Barelavis were to appoint a leader from among themselves, the others would not accept him. We see that today, the Ummah is in disaccord. It has always been the custom of Allah since time immemorial that whenever there is a break in the system of Caliphate, the disunity and sectarianism which prevails as a result of the loss of Caliphate, Allah reinstates unity through the blessed system of prophethood. The prophet is then succeeded by Caliphate, once a unified community of believers is produced. If non-Ahmadis consider this Hadith to be correct, in that Caliphate on the precepts of prophethood would be established in the latter days, they must also accept the coming of a prophet in the latter days as well. Without prophethood, there can be no Caliphate. The system of Caliphate is not a worldly leadership which can be established by religious committees who deny the reformer of the age. By closing the door of prophethood in this era, non-Ahmadis also deprive themselves of the enormous blessing of Caliphate.

Therefore, in this wonderful Hadith, the Holy Prophet (sa) has prophesied the coming of a prophet who would come as a reflection of the Holy Prophet (sa) and as a humble servant. Then, upon the demise of that prophet, the system of Caliphate would once again be established and the believers would once again be granted the blessings of divinely appointed leadership. This divinely appointed leadership would remain among the Muslims until the end of time, and it is through this very blessed institution that the final victory of Islam would be attained.

There is a Hadith of the Holy Prophet (sa) as follows:

عن ابن عباس رضی اللہ عنہ قال لما مات ابراھیم ابن رسول اللہ صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم و قال ان لہ مرضعا فی الجنة و لو عاش لكان صدیقاً نبیاً ۔

Meaning,

“Ibni ‘Abbas (ra) narrates, when Ibrahim, the son of the Messenger of Allah (sa) passed away, whilst lowering him into the grave, the Holy Prophet (sa) said, ‘And if he (i.e., Ibrahim) had remained alive, he would have been a truthful prophet.’”

This is a very straightforward Hadith of the Holy Prophet (sa) in which it is evidently proven that the door of prophethood is open even after Prophet Muhammad (sa). In the above-mentioned Hadith, the Holy Prophet (sa) has mentioned that if his son Ibrahim had remained alive, he would have become a prophet. The question which we pose to non-Ahmadis who fervently assert that no more prophets can come after the Holy Prophet (sa) is that if the door to prophethood had been closed shut, why would the Holy Prophet (sa) state that his son would become a prophet after him had he remained alive? This statement clearly shows that the Holy Prophet (sa) believed that prophets could come after him, and this is why he stated that had his son remained alive, he would have been granted this spiritual honour as well.

The example of this if someone were to say that had so and so remained alive, he would have become a PhD graduate, because he was an intelligent student who possessed the academic faculties and capabilities to acquire such a distinction. It is obvious that a statement of this nature can only be said if the opportunity to attain a PhD is available. If there was no such thing as a PhD degree or if a PhD was unattainable, only an ignorant person would make the statement that if so and so remained alive, he surely would have attained this academic distinction.

Non-Ahmadis present an argument which is not only illogical, but also implies a lack of wisdom both on the part of Allah and the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa) - (God-forbid). When this argument is presented by Ahmadis, our non-Ahmadi opponents present the argument that it is true that if Ibrahim had remained alive, he would have become a prophet, because he possessed the spiritual qualities of fulfilling the requirements of this divine office. However, since Allah had closed the door of prophethood after Prophet Muhammad (sa) and His Divine Decree had determined that there would be no more prophets, he caused Ibrahim (as) to die.

There are no words with which to express our utter amazement and astonishment at this novel argument. If only non-Ahmadis would stop for a moment and contemplate the severe ramifications of such an illogical argument. If we were to accept the non-Ahmadi argument, this would mean that Allah the Almighty as if, was negligent of the fact that He had closed the door of prophethood, and let Ibrahim (as) come into the world. However, when Allah realized that Ibrahim (as) possessed the qualities and attributes of prophethood, He was confronted with a predicament, and therefore, he caused Ibrahim (as) to die, lest he become a prophet, against the Will of Allah. We seek refuge with Allah from attributing such nonsense to the pure and holy being of Allah, the Omniscient. Secondly, the non-Ahmadi argument also shows the Holy Prophet as being unwise as well, God-Forbid. Did the Holy Prophet (sa), upon whom the Holy Qur’an was revealed, and who was the most well-versed in the deepest wisdoms of the Holy Qur’an, unaware of the fact that Allah had closed the door of prophethood? If the Holy Prophet (sa) knew, then he would not have made such a statement. Therefore, either we must accept that the Holy Prophet (sa) did not know about the Islamic teachings on the concept of prophethood and this is why he made such a statement. However, if we are to accept that the Holy Prophet (sa) knew the Holy Qur’an better than anyone else, and was well aware of Islamic teachings, in light of this Hadith, we must accept that the door of prophethood is open. Indeed, any true Muslim would ascribe themselves to the latter belief. If the door of prophethood was closed as non-Ahmadis assert, then the Holy Prophet (sa) should have stated the following:

لو عاش ابراھیم لما كان نبیاً لانی خاتم النبیین

Meaning,

“Even if Ibrahim remains alive a lifetime, he would never become a prophet, because I am the Seal of the Prophets.”

However, the Holy Prophet (sa) did not make the above-mentioned statement. Quite the contrary, the Holy Prophet (sa) said that Ibrahim (as) surely would have become a prophet had he lived, and the reason for this is because the door of prophethood was still open after the demise of the Holy Prophet (sa).

There is another interesting point to note as well. Non-Ahmadis claim that the verse of Surah Al-Ahzab in which the Holy Prophet (sa) has been given the title of Khatamun-Nabiyyin actually implies the finality of prophethood. This verse of the Holy Qur’an establishes that no more prophets would come after Prophet Muhammad (sa), because Khatamun-Nabiyyin means ‘Last of the Prophets.’

The fact of the matter is that the Hadith in discussion also wonderfully refutes this notion as well. This Hadith conclusively proves that the Holy Prophet (sa) did not understand the verse of Surah Al-Ahzab in the same manner that the non-Ahmadis understand it. No Muslim debates the fact that the Holy Prophet (sa) possessed the greatest knowledge of the Holy Qur’an, because the Qur’an was revealed upon him, and he was appointed by Allah the Almighty to teach the Qur’an to the rest of mankind. As such, we would like to bring to the attention of our non-Ahmadi brothers and sisters that the verse of Surah Al-Ahzab, which they fervently present to prove the finality of prophethood was revealed in 5 A.H. Ibrahim (as) who was the son of the Holy Prophet (sa) passed away 4 years after the revelation of this verse in 9 A.H. If the Holy Prophet (sa) understood the verse of Khatamun-Nabiyyin to imply a finality of all kinds of prophethood, he would never have made this statement. Was the Holy Prophet (sa) unaware of this verse? Did the Holy Prophet (sa) not know that in Surah Al-Ahzab, Allah the Almighty has given him the title of Khatamun-Nabiyyin, which means that no more prophets would come after him? If the verse of Khatamun-Nabiyyin truly implied a meaning of finality in its entirety, the Holy Prophet (sa) surely would have been aware of this fact, and would not have made a statement of this nature. The fact that the Holy Prophet (sa) said what he said, evidently establishes that he did not interpret the famous verse of Khatamun-Nabiyyin to mean that the blessing of prophethood had now come to a complete end with his own advent.

Therefore, Ibrahim (as) did not pass away because the door of prophethood had been closed shut by Allah the Almighty, and if Ibrahim (as) had remained alive, he would have violated the rule of Allah. The door of prophethood was open then, and shall remain open until the day of resurrection, but the demise of Ibrahim (as) prevented him from attaining this lofty spiritual office.

When non-Ahmadis are unable to present a rebuttal to this firm and irrefutable argumentation, they switch their stance and as per their custom, begin to object upon the authenticity of the actual narration itself. They state that this narration is weak, and therefore, proves nothing. First, it should be understood that this narration is taken from Ibni Majah, which is from among the Sihah Sittah.

Therefore, non-Ahmadis cannot escape by simply labeling this Hadith as weak, due to their inability to refute the sound argumentation presented by Ahmadis. Secondly, in Shihab alal-Baidawi with regards to this Hadith it is written:

اما صحة الحدیث فلا شبھة فیہ لانہ رواہ ابن ماجة و غیرہ كما ذكرہ ابن حجر

Meaning,

“There is no doubt in the authenticity of this Hadith, because it has been related by Ibni Majah, and others such as Hafiz Ibni Hajar.”

Thirdly, Imam Mulla ‘Ali Qari, who is a very renowned and reputable Muhaddith states that this narration has been related from three different chains.

لہ طرق ثلاث یقوی بعضھا ببعض

Meaning,

“There are some who claim that this Hadith is Maudu‘ or weak. However, this Hadith is not weak, because it is narrated from three different chains, each of which strengthen the other.”

Imam Mulla ‘Ali Qari goes on to affirm the authenticity if this Hadith in the following words:

فلا یناقص قولہ تعالیٰ خاتم النبیین اذا المعنیٰ انہ لا یاتی نبی بعدہ ینسخ ملتہ و لم یكن من امتہ

Meaning,

“This Hadith does not contradict the word of Allah on Khatamun-Nabiyyin. For the meaning of Khatamun-Nabiyyin is that no prophet can come after the Holy Prophet (sa) who abrogates the law of the Holy Prophet (sa) and is from outside his Ummah.”

Therefore, from these two quotations of Imam Mulla ‘Ali Qari, it becomes evident that the authenticity of this Hadith is not questionable in any way. Moreover, Imam Mulla ‘Ali Qari has further elaborated upon the true concept of Khatamun-Nabiyyin to further substantiate the authenticity of the Hadith. He has mentioned that no one should consider this Hadith to be unauthentic due to the erroneous belief that no more prophet could came after the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa).

As we have already mentioned, this Hadith is related from three different chains of narration. In addition to the narration of Hadrat Ibni ‘Abbas, which has been presented above, this Hadith has also reached us through Hadrat Anas bin Malik and Hadrat Jabir bin ‘Abdullah. As such, Hafiz Ibni Hajar Al-‘Asqalani has referenced Imam Suyuti and states that the narration as related through Hadrat Anas (ra) is also authentic. As such, Hadrat Ibni Hajar Al-‘Asqalani states:

و بین الحافظ السیوطی انہ صح عن انس رضی اللّٰہ عنہ انہ سئل النبی صلی اللّٰہ علیہ و سلم عن ابنہ ابراھیم قال لا ادری رحمة اللّٰہ علیٰ ابراھیم لو عاش لكان صدیقا نبیا

Meaning,

“Hadrat Imam Suyuti (rh) has mentioned that the narration as it has reached us through Hadrat Anas is authentic, that someone inquired of him that did the Holy Prophet (sa) make the statement ‘Had Ibrahim (as) remained alive, he would have been a truthful prophet,’ in response to a question posed by someone? Hadrat Anas (ra) responded, I am unaware as to whether the Holy Prophet (sa) made this statement in response to a question, but may the mercy of Allah be upon Ibrahim, for if he had remained alive, he would have been a truthful prophet.”

As mentioned above, this Hadith is also narrated by Hadrat Jabir (ra), as Hadrat Imam Suyuti states:

و رواہ ابن عساكر عن جابر عن النبی صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم

Meaning,

“Ibni ‘Asakir has related this Hadith from Jabir (ra) who has narrated it from the Holy Prophet (sa).”

There are various other arguments which are also presented by non-Ahmadis in an attempt to weaken this Hadith. These need not be presented here in detail, because we have already established the authenticity of this Hadith not only on the basis of rationality and logic, but also by the statement of two very renowned and famous scholars in the science of Hadith. However, in brief, non-Ahmadis raise objections on the status of some of the narrators in the chain of narration by which this Hadith has reached us. They present certain references in which various narrators have been referred to as weak. However, it must be understood that just because somebody refers to a narrator as weak without providing a reason, this does not make his narrations doubtable. If we study the books of Asma’-ur-Rijal, it shall become evident that all of the narrators in this Hadith are authentic, worthy, honest, and of high moral character. We have already established their authenticity and standing by the quotations of Imam Mulla ‘Ali Qari presented above. The reference which was presented from the book Shihab alal-Baidawi also states that this narration is authentic. Therefore, undoubtedly, this Hadith is authentic and it categorically establishes the possibility of the coming of non-law-bearing prophets within the Ummah.

When this Hadith is presented before non-Ahmadis in order to prove that the Holy Prophet (sa) did not consider the door of prophethood to be closed in all respects, they present an interesting rebuttal.

As it has already been mentioned above, Ahmadis state that in this Hadith, the Holy Prophet (sa) has said that, “If Ibrahim had remained alive, he would have been a prophet.” Now if the door to prophethood was closed completely, there would be no question of Ibrahim (as) being a Prophet of God, had he remained alive. Moreover, Ahmadis state, and rightly so, that the door to prophethood was and still is open, but Ibrahim (as) could not reach that station because he did not remain alive long enough. This logical conclusion is derived from the conditional word ‘Lau’ (i.e., if). That is to say that “if” Ibrahim (as) had remained alive, he would have been a prophet, because the door to prophethood has not been closed shut by Allah completely.

In response to this, non-Ahmadis assert that it is wrong to logically conclude that since the conditional word ‘Lau’ has been used in this phrase, this means that “if” Ibrahim (as) had remained alive, he would have been a Prophet. Rather, they adamantly assert that since the door to prophethood was closed by Allah the Almighty, the death of Ibrahim (as) further substantiates the complete closure of prophethood in all forms. They claim that this Hadith is based on an ‘if-statement,’ and it is not necessary for an ‘if-statement’ to imply that something is possible. In order to support this outstandingly flawed logic, non-Ahmadis present a verse of the Holy Qur’an where the word Lau has also been used. The verse is as follows:

لَوْ كَانَ فِيهِمَا آَلِهَةٌ إِلَّا اللَّهُ لَفَسَدَتَا

Meaning,

“If there had been in both the heaven and the earth gods other than Allah, then both the heaven and the earth would have ended up in chaos.”

Non-Ahmadis state that if a conditional statement implies the possibility of something, Ahmadis would have to accept that in accordance to this verse, there must be the possibility of multiple deities existing as partners with Allah. However, just as in this verse, the word ‘Lau’ has been used, but this does not mean that there can be multiple deities, so too in the case of this Hadith, although the conditional word ‘Lau’ has been used, this does not mean that there can be prophets after the Holy Prophet (sa). As such, this “clearly” demonstrates that whenever the conditional word ‘Lau’ is used in past tense, this categorically proves that the event did not occur. It is absolutely outstanding how illogical this argument truly is. Anyone who stops to contemplate upon the logical foundation of this argument even for a moment would quickly realize the inherent flaw in the conclusion derived from the verse presented above. Anyone who ascribes to the above-mentioned non-Ahmadi deduction has not fully understood the elements of a ‘conditional statement’. A conditional ‘if-then’ statement is based on two elements: the condition ‘if’ and the result ‘then’. In a conditional statement, “if” the condition is fulfilled, “then” the result also carries itself out. However, “if” the initial condition ceases to occur, “then” the result also does not occur. However, this does not at all mean that the result of the conditional statement cannot occur if the stipulated condition is fulfilled. Quite the contrary, if the original condition is fulfilled, then the result will also occur.

Therefore, logically, the occurrence of the stipulated result in the conditional statement always remains possible if the original condition is fulfilled. If the final result or outcome in the conditional statement was not possible, then the entire statement itself would become meaningless and illogical. After all, if the practical fulfillment of the result in the conditional statement is impossible, then what use is there in saying, ‘If this happens, then that will occur.’ If a clear-cut negative statement was desired it would simply be said, ‘This event will never occur.’ In the case of the verse presented above, an “if-then” statement has definitely been used, but this has nothing to do with the possibility of there being multiple Gods. In this verse, Allah the Almighty states that “if” there had been more than one God, “then” the heaven and earth would have ended up in chaos. Now in this “if-then” statement, the result which has been mentioned after the word “then” is possible, “if” the initial condition is fulfilled. However, as we clearly know, from other verses of the Holy Qur’an there is only One God, and history also testifies to this fact. Therefore, the result of the condition stipulated in this verse cannot be fulfilled. That is to say that since there will “never” be more than One God, therefore, there will “never” be chaos in the universe. non-Ahmadis state that when the word ‘Lau’ is used with past tense, this proves that the event did not occur. Irrespective of whether the event occurred or not, this does not mean that the event cannot occur in the future, if the original condition stipulated in the conditional statement is fulfilled. The possibility of the occurrence of the result in the conditional statement always remains open.

As such, in the case of the Hadith under discussion, “if” Ibrahim (as) had remained alive, “then” he would have been a prophet, because the possibility of the ‘occurrence’ of prophethood if you will, remains open, “if” the original condition is fulfilled. Now, in the case of Ibrahim (as) the original condition (i.e., his remaining alive) which was to bring about the final result in the conditional did not occur, therefore he was not a prophet. However, just because Ibrahim (as) was not the one to fulfill the original condition of the conditional statement, this does not mean that the result cannot be fulfilled in the future in the person of someone else. To falsely deduce that just because Ibrahim (as) was not the one to fulfill the condition stipulated in the “if-then” statement does not prove that the result of the statement (i.e., the possibility of prophethood) has come to an end. This is a logical fallacy. The reason our Beloved Master (sa) used this conditional statement is because the possibility of prophethood remains open. If the possibility of prophethood no longer existed, it would be illogical for the Holy Prophet (sa) to make a conditional statement in this manner.

As far as the verse presented by non-Ahmadis is concerned, we have already explained at length that this does not prove the possibility of multiple gods, rather, it proves the possibility of the heaven and earth coming to naught. That is to say that “if” there had been multiple Gods (which there are not, nor will there ever be), then the universe would have erupted in chaos. However, to falsely deduce that since the word ‘Lau’ has been used in the above-mentioned verse therefore, this substantiates the existence of more than One God is a logical fallacy. The reason being that this flawed logic assumes that the possibility of the result in the conditional statement proves and qualifies the fulfillment of the original condition in the sentence. However, this is incorrect, and in a conditional statement, it is actually the reverse which is true. In other words, the possibility of the result does not prove the fulfillment of the original condition, rather, the fulfillment of the original condition qualifies the possibility of the result.

There are two narrations that follow, with relation to Hadrat Abu Bakr, which clearly hint towards the advent of a Prophet in the Ummah. These narrations are as follows:

ابو بكر افضل ھذہ الامة الا ان یكون نبی

Meaning,

“Abu Bakr (ra) is the most superior from among the Ummah, except that a prophet is raised.”

ابو بكر خیر الناس الا ان یكون نبی

Meaning,

“Abu Bakr (ra) is the most superior from among the people, except that a prophet is raised.”

In the two above-mentioned Ahadith, which are pretty much one and the same thing with a minor variation of words, clearly alludes to the continuation of prophethood. In these Ahadith, the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa) has stated that Hadrat Abu Bakr (ra) is the greatest from among the Ummah. However, if a prophet appears, then that prophet would be superior to Hadrat Abu Bakr (ra). For it is obvious that the status of a prophet is superior to a person who has not been granted this status. This clearly means that there is a possibility for the advent of a prophet in the latter days. If this was not the case, the Holy Prophet (sa) would not have left this door open. If prophethood had come to a complete halt by the advent of the Holy Prophet (sa) then what was the need for such an exception? If there were to be no more prophets, the Holy Prophet (sa) simply should have said,

“Abu Bakr is the most superior from among the Ummah.”

These narrations have not been fabricated by Ahmadis. They were present even before the advent of the Promised Messiah (as). Furthermore, these Ahadith have been recorded by two very famous and renowned scholars, whose integrity cannot be doubted even for a moment: Imam Munadi and Imam Suyuti.

Some non-Ahmadis object to these Ahadith and state that these narrations do not substantiate the possibility of prophethood in the Ummah, and the Ahmadi translation of these Ahadith as rendered by the Ahmadis is incorrect. They state that the correct translation of these Ahadith is as follows:

‘Abu Bakr is the most superior from among the Ummah, except that he becomes a prophet himself (which he will not of course, because there are no prophets after me).’

If this allegation is contemplated upon even for a moment the desperation of our non-Ahmadi opponents, and the weakness of this argument becomes evident. First, the translation which our non-Ahmadi opponents suggest is completely incorrect in light of Arabic grammar. In these Ahadith, the Holy Prophet (sa) has not negated the possibility of the prophethood of Hadrat Abu Bakr. If this was the case, the Arabic sentence should have read as such:

ابو بكر افضل ھذہ الامة الا ان یكون نبیاً

However, the Holy Prophet (sa) has not stated this. Furthermore, even if this statement was analysed from a logical perspective, it would prove to be very obscure and make very little sense. If hypothetically, the prophethood of Hadrat Abu Bakr (ra) was the subject of this sentence, what was the use of uttering the words, ‘Except that Abu Bakr (ra) becomes a prophet?’ It is obvious that in both cases Hadrat Abu Bakr (ra) would remain to be the most superior in the Ummah. The use of the word ‘Illa’ (i.e., except that) would not only be unnecessary, it would be grammatically incorrect. In any case, anyone who possesses even the slightest knowledge of Arabic grammar can quickly understand that the translation suggested by non-Ahmadis in this regard is incorrect. The reason for this is because the word Nabiyyun has been used in Marfu‘ form and not Mansub. Nonetheless, the correct translation of this Hadith is:

“Abu Bakr is the most superior from among the Ummah, except that a prophet is raised after me.”

The meaning of this Hadith is so clear and evident that there can be no room for doubt in its actual purport. Yet, our non-Ahmadi opponents have closed their eyes to the truth, and refuse to understand the clear indications given by our beloved Master with regards to the future of our nation. They forcefully desire to close the door, which our Prophet (sa) has opened with his own hand. They wish to put an end to the spiritual rewards and blessings which Allah wishes to grant our people and desire for themselves a state of spiritual deprivation.

Now we shall take up the famous verse of Khatamun-Nabiyyin from Surah Al-Ahzab. In reality, this verse is at the centre of all discussions between Ahmadis and non-Ahmadis. This magnificent verse is as follows:

مَا كَانَ مُحَمَّدٌ أَبَا أَحَدٍ مِنْ رِجَالِكُمْ وَلَكِنْ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ وَخَاتَمَ النَّبِيِّينَ وَكَانَ اللَّهُ بِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ عَلِيمًا

Meaning,

“Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but he is the Messenger of Allah and the Seal of the Prophets; and Allah has full knowledge of all things.”

Our opponents assert that in this verse of the Holy Qur’an, Allah the Almighty has referred to the Holy Prophet (sa) as Khatamun-Nabiyyin, which means ‘the Last of the Prophets.” They understand the title Khatamun-Nabiyyin to infer a meaning of last, final, end or bringing to a close all of the prophets. However, Ahmadis believe that this magnificent verse of the Holy Qur’an is a spiritual crown as it were, which has been placed on the head of our King and Master, Prophet Muhammad (sa), the Chief of the Prophets, the Pride of those who were before him and after, may infinite peace and blessings of Allah be upon him.

We believe that in this verse, Allah the Almighty has honoured our beloved Master with an appellation the like of which has not been afforded to anyone else in the history of mankind. It is a unique medal of distinction which only the Holy Prophet (sa) has received and after him no one shall ever receive it. We do not believe that in this verse the title Khatamun-Nabiyyin implies the end of prophethood as we know it. Such an interpretation not only contradicts other verses of the Holy Qur’an and the Ahadith, but also defies common sense and logic. As a matter of fact, as we shall see ahead, if Khatamun-Nabiyyin is understood to mean, ‘Last of the Prophets,’ as non-Ahmadis assert, this erroneous translation can be easily refuted merely on the basis of rationality, even if we were to analyse the verse under discussion independently. This is because there is sufficient internal evidence present in this verse alone to conclusively establish that the meaning of Khatamun-Nabiyyin is not ‘Last of the Prophets’.

It is a well known-fact that by the decree of Allah, the Holy Prophet (sa) did not have any male progeny. All of the sons that were given to him by Hadrat Khadija (ra) passed away at a young age, and after his migration to Madinah, his son Ibrahim (as) also passed away in infancy. The opponents of Islam would often taunt the Holy Prophet (sa) by saying that he did not have any sons, and after the demise of the Holy Prophet (sa) his religious dispensation would also wither away. In Arabic the word used to refer to someone who is without male progeny is ‘Abtar.’ In response to this allegation, Allah the Almighty revealed the following verses of Surah Al-Kauthar.

إِنَّا أَعْطَيْنَاكَ الْكَوْثَرَ (2) فَصَلِّ لِرَبِّكَ وَانْحَرْ (3) إِنَّ شَانِئَكَ هُوَ الْأَبْتَرُ (4)

Meaning,

“Surely We have given thee abundance of good; So pray to thy Lord, and offer sacrifice. Surely, it is thy enemy who is without issue.”

In these verses, Allah the Almighty has rebutted the allegation that the Holy Prophet (sa) would be without issue and his religious dispensation would be uprooted after his demise, but remember that it is the enemies of Islam who would remain without progeny.

In the above-mentioned verses of Surah Al-Kauthar, which were revealed in Makkah, a rebuttal to the allegation of the disbelievers leveled against the Holy Prophet (sa) has been provided by Allah the Almighty. The allegation of the disbelievers was specifically with relation to the Holy Prophet (sa) not having any sons. This is why Allah the Almighty has used the word ‘Abtar’ in particular whilst responding to their objection. However, this rebuttal would be nothing more than a claim, until and unless it is established that the Holy Prophet (sa) did not remain without issue, and was indeed granted a male heir. On one hand, in Surah Al-Kauthar, Allah the Almighty has responded by saying that it is not the Holy Prophet (sa) who would be without issue, rather, his enemies would confront this grim fate. On the other hand however, in Surah Al-Ahzab Allah the Almighty states that the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa) is not the father of any men. This appears to be a very clear contradiction between these two verses of the Holy Qur’an. How then can this seemingly apparent contradiction be solved?

A uniquely salient feature of the Holy Qur’an is that whenever it makes a claim, it supports it own claim with sound argumentation. If a claim is made in one verse of the Holy Qur’an, its supporting argumentation can be found in another verse of the Holy Qur’an in greater detail. This is why the scholars have said:

القرآن یفسر بعضہ بعضاً

Meaning,

“The Holy Qur’an is such that parts of it are a commentary of other parts.”

In actuality, it is in the famous verse of Khatamun-Nabiyyin that Allah the Almighty has further expounded this topic and categorically affirmed that the Holy Prophet (sa) did not remain without issue and was indeed granted a male offspring. This wonderful verse of the Holy Qur’an explains and elaborates how the Holy Prophet (sa) did not have any biological sons, but was indeed granted a vast male progeny - a spiritual progeny of followers and of prophets.

Before we explain the true purport of the verse under discussion, it is very important to reiterate one fundamental point. This fundamental point should be remembered while reading the commentary of this verse as elaborated below. If the verse of Khatamun-Nabiyyin was interpreted to infer that the Holy Prophet (sa) is not the biological father of any sons and prophethood has also come to an end with his advent, as non-Ahmadis assert, then as we have mentioned above, there would be a very obvious contradiction between the verses of Surah Al-Kauthar and the verse of Khatamun-Nabiyyin. The reason being that in Surah Al-Kauthar, Allah has responded to the allegations of the disbelievers by clearly stating that the Holy Prophet would not remain without male progeny, rather, his enemies would confront this fate. However, in the verse of Khatamun-Nabiyyin Allah the Almighty has stated that “Muhammad (sa) is not the father of any of your men.” Furthermore, history clearly shows that the Holy Prophet (sa) did not receive any male children. We ask our opponents that if a non-Muslim was to raise the objection that in Surah Al-Kauthar Allah claims that the Holy Prophet (sa) would not remain without male progeny, yet history shows that Prophet Muhammad (sa) did not receive any male children. This obviously means that the claim in Surah Al-Kauthar is merely a claim, and the Holy Prophet (sa) (God-forbid) did in fact remain without issue and the allegation of the disbelievers was correct, what response then would our non-Ahmadi opponents provide? Of course, they would have no response, because they themselves believe that the verse of Khatamun-Nabiyyin negates the physical progeny of the Holy Prophet (sa) and also brings all forms of prophethood to a close. Furthermore, they also cannot deny history which is testimony to the fact that the Holy Prophet (sa) did not receive any male children.

Our opponents interpret the verse of Khatamun-Nabiyyin to be a verse of complete negation, in which the male progeny as well as the future possibility of prophethood has been negated completely. However, if the verse of Khatamun-Nabiyyin is understood not merely as a verse of complete negation, but of the affirmation of some sort of male progeny belonging to the Holy Prophet (sa), then the seemingly apparent contradiction between the verse of Khatamun-Nabiyyin and Surah Al-Kauthar is removed and the allegation of the disbelievers that the Holy Prophet (sa) would remain without issue is also conclusively refuted.

Now, let us analyse the manner in which Allah the Almighty has beautifully refuted the allegation of the opponents of Islam against the Holy Prophet (sa), as mentioned above. In the verse of Khatamun-Nabiyyin Allah the Almighty states:

مَا كَانَ مُحَمَّدٌ أَبَا أَحَدٍ مِنْ رِجَالِكُمْ وَلَكِنْ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ وَخَاتَمَ النَّبِيِّينَ وَكَانَ اللَّهُ بِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ عَلِيمًا

Meaning,

“Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but he is the Messenger of Allah and the Seal of the Prophets; and Allah has full knowledge of all things.”

The key to understanding the true purport of this famous verse is the Arabic conjunction ‘Lakin’ which means ‘however,’ or ‘but.’ Arabic grammar teaches us that the conjunction ‘Lakin’ is used for the purpose of ‘Istidrak.’ The word ‘Istidrak’ is derived from ‘Tadaruk’, which literally means to correct, rectify, amend or repair. In this context, the following points should be remembered with relation to the usage of this Arabic conjunction:

i. ‘Lakin’ appears between two statements which are opposed to one another in terms of meaning. If the phrase before the ‘Lakin’ positively affirms something, the phrase after the word ‘Lakin’ shall be negative. If however, the phrase before the ‘Lakin’ is negative, the phrase afterwards will be positive. This principle is equally applicable in the English language as well. For example, in The Oxford Dictionary of English, it is written that ‘but’ is a conjunction which is used to introduce a phrase or clause contrasting with what has already been mentioned. For example, ‘He stumbled but didn’t fall,’ or ‘This is one principle but it is not the only one.’
ii. Another purpose behind the use of this conjunction is to remove a doubt which could have possibly developed by the statement which appeared before the conjunction. For example, if we were to say, ‘Zaid is weak but he is very brave.’ In this example there was a possibility that upon hearing of Zaid’s physical weakness, it could be assumed that perhaps Zaid is also weak of heart. However, by using the conjunction ‘but,’ the statement following the ‘but’ removed this doubt.

It is obvious that two similar statements cannot be used before and after the conjunction ‘but,’ because this defeats the purpose of its usage. For example, it cannot be said that ‘Everyone stood up, but Sa‘id stood up.’ Nor can it be said that, ‘I love apples but love oranges.’ However, it can be said that, ‘Everyone stood up, but Muzammil did not stand up,’ or ‘I love apples but dislike oranges.’ Therefore, as it has been mentioned above, this conjunction is used between two contrasting phrases, or in order to remove a doubt which needs further clarification. This is referred to as ‘Istidrak’ in Arabic grammar and all of the great Arabic lexicons clearly state that ‘Lakin’ is used for this grammatical purpose.

Now, after this very important elaboration, we shall analyse the famous verse under discussion. In this verse, Allah the Alimighty first states, “Muhammad is not the father of any of your men.” In this phrase, Allah the Almighty has negated the physical fatherhood of the Holy Prophet (sa). Then, Allah the Almighty uses the conjunction ‘but’ or ‘Lakin’ and makes another statement in relation to the Holy Prophet (sa). The word ‘Lakin’ categorically tells us that since the biological fatherhood of the Holy Prophet (sa) has been negated in the preceding statement, in the following statement, Allah the Almighty would affirm in some way or another, the fatherhood of the Holy Prophet (sa) in contrast to the first statement. Therefore, after stating that the Holy Prophet (sa) is not the father of any men, in contrast, Allah the Almighty states:

وَلَكِنْ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ

Meaning,

“But, he is the Messenger of Allah.”

These words categorically affirm the spiritual fatherhood of the Holy Prophet (sa) as a father to all of the believers. This is further supported by another verse of Surah Al-Ahzab, in which Allah the Almighty states:

النَّبِيُّ أَوْلَى بِالْمُؤْمِنِينَ مِنْ أَنْفُسِهِمْ وَأَزْوَاجُهُ أُمَّهَاتُهُمْ

Meaning,

“The Prophet is nearer to the believers than their own selves, and his wives are as mothers to them.”

In this verse, Allah the Almighty has referred to the wives of the Holy Prophet (sa) as the mother of the believers, and therefore, the obvious conclusion which can be derived from this is that the Holy Prophet (sa) is the father of the believers. Therefore, in this verse, the words ‘Rasulullahi’ actually refer to the spiritual fatherhood of the Holy Prophet (sa). For as we have seen from the verse which has just been quoted above, the Holy Qur’an has referred to the Holy Prophet (sa) as a father of the believers on account of his office of prophethood.
After these words, Allah goes on to state:

وَخَاتَمَ النَّبِيِّينَ

Meaning,

“And he is the Seal of the Prophets.”

It is important to understand that in this portion of the verse, Allah the Almighty has used the conjunction ‘Wa’ which is referred to as ‘Wau’ul-Atf’ in Arabic grammar, and the purpose of this letter is to further elaborate, describe or explain the subject matter or topic which was being described prior to the conjunction ‘Wa’. Therefore, in this verse, the topic which is being discussed is that the Holy Prophet (sa) is the spiritual father of all the believers and by further stating that the Holy Prophet (sa) is Khatamun-Nabiyyin or the ‘Seal of the Prophets,’ Allah the Almighty has further elaborated that not only is the Holy Prophet (sa) a spiritual father of the believers, but also a spiritual father of the prophets.

Therefore, in summary, Allah the Almighty has first negated the physical fatherhood of the Holy Prophet (sa) in the words

“Muhammad is not the father of any of your men.”

Then, after this negation, Allah the Almighty has used the conjunction ‘Lakin’ and in the next statement, He has removed the doubt which naturally arises from the initial statement. It was possible that someone may have thought that if the Holy Prophet (sa) is not the physical father of any men, perhaps he would never attain fatherhood of any sort. However, Allah the Almighty immediately clarifies this point by stating that no one should think that just because the Holy Prophet (sa) does not possess a physical offspring of male progeny, he is without issue. Rather, the Holy Prophet (sa) is the Messenger of Allah, i.e., he is the spiritual father of all the believers. However, this is not all. In his capacity as Khatamun-Nabiyyin or ‘Seal of the Prophets’, the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa) is not only the father of all the believers, but he is also a father to all the prophets and a spiritual life-giver. What harm is there if Prophet Muhammad (sa) does not possess any physical male progeny. The spiritual progeny of the Holy Prophet (sa) is abundant and shall continue to grow until the day of resurrection. If Khatamun-Nabiyyin meant ‘Last of the Prophets’ in the manner that our opponents suggest and no prophets of any sort can come after the Holy Prophet (sa), the word ‘Lakin’ in this verse would not make sense at all and this verse would fail to meet even the most rudimentary level of logic and rationality. This verse would turn into a vague statement and it would be translated in the following manner: ‘Muhammad is not the father of any of your men but he is the last of the prophets.’ There are two inexplicable aspects to such a translation. Firstly, there is not even the slightest relation between being the last of the prophets and not being the father of any men. Secondly, if this translation is accepted as correct, this would mean that there are two negative statements before and after the conjunction ‘Lakin,’ which is a grammatical impossibility. This would be no different than stating, ‘Everyone stood up but Sa‘id also stood up,’ or stating that, ‘Zaid is weak but he is very cowardly.’ If such illogical and ambiguous speech cannot be attributed to even an unintelligent man, how then, can we attribute such absurdity to Allah the Almighty who is the Lord of All the Worlds?
In this regard the Promised Messiah (as) states:

“The Holy Prophet (sa) has been named Khatamul-Anbiya’ (Seal of the Prophets), which means that after the Holy Prophet (sa) the direct acquisition of prophetic grace has come to an end; and now, the excellences of prophethood would only be attained by such a person whose actions possess the seal of obedience to the Holy Prophet (sa) upon them; and in this manner he would be a son and heir to the Holy Prophet (sa). Hence, from one aspect, in this verse the fatherhood of the Holy Prophet (sa) has been negated but on the other hand his fatherhood has also been affirmed, so that the allegation mentioned in

إِنَّ شَانِئَكَ هُوَ الْأَبْتَرُ

may be refuted. The summary of this verse therefore is that prophethood, even though it be without a new law, has ended such that a person attains the status of prophethood directly. However, it has not been discontinued if that prophethood is acquired and derives its grace from the lamp of the prophethood of Muhammad (sa). In other words, such a possessor of excellence would be an Ummati [follower of the Holy Prophet (sa)] from one aspect and from another aspect, he would also possess within himself the excellences of prophethood due to his deriving the lights of Muhammad (sa).”

Whilst refuting the false interpretation of non-Ahmadis on the verse of Khatamun-Nabiyyin, the Promised Messiah (as) states:

“They believe that he was not only deprived of male issue - who would serve as his physical heir, as mentioned in the verse:

مَا كَانَ مُحَمَّدٌ أَبَا أَحَدٍ مِنْ رِجَالِكُمْ

but that he was also deprived of spiritual offsprings who would inherit his spiritual excellences. Thus they consider God’s words

وَلَكِنْ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ وَخَاتَمَ النَّبِيِّينَ

to be meaningless. Here the Arabic word ‘lakin’ (or but) has obviously been used as a word of rectification, which speaks of the fulfillment in a diferent form of something that has hitherto remained unfulfilled. In this context, the verse means that, though the Holy Prophet (sa) did not have any male offspring, he will have countless spiritual progeny, and that he is ‘the Seal of Prophets’, which means that no one will attain the excellence of Prophethood unless he possesses the certificate of obedience to him. This is the true connotation of this verse, but these people have completely reversed its meaning and have rejected the bounty of Prophethood in the future, even though this implies a criticism of the Holy Prophet (sa) himself.”

Hence, contrary to what our opponents assert, we have clearly proven merely through a logical linguistic analysis of the verse under discussion that the translation of Khatamun-Nabiyyin with a Fathah on the Ta does not mean ‘last’ of the prophets or someone who brings prophethood to an ‘end’. Instead, the meaning of Khatamun-Nabiyyin is ‘Seal of the Prophets’, which purports that the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa) was the Chief of the Prophets and therefore, the most superior of all the prophets. The individual qualities of all the prophets had reached their utmost perfection in the beautiful personage of our beloved Master, the Holy Prophet (sa).

The word Khatam (with a Fathah on the Ta) is derived from the root word Khatama. Anyone who possesses even the most fundamental knowledge of the Arabic language would be able to state that this word does not mean ‘Last’ or ‘Someone who brings to an end.’ Quite the contrary, Arabic grammatical morphology teaches us that this word is known as Ism Ala. The word Alah literally means ‘a tool.’ The formula used in order to make Ism Alah from any root word, is that we insert the letter Alif after the first letter of the root word, and put a Fathah on the second letter of the root word. As such, whenever a root word appears as an Ism Ala, the definition of that word becomes: ‘The tool with which that respective verb is performed.’ Hence, if we were to make Ism Alah from the root word Khatam it would mean:

مَا یُخْتَمُ بِہ

Meaning,

“The tool with which (or in this case the person with whom) a mark is stamped,” or in other words, “A Seal.”

In any case, the meaning of the word Khatam is not, ‘Last’ or ‘One who brings to a close.’

Furthermore, in the Arabic language whenever the word Khatam is used as a Mudaf and it is attributed to a Mudaf Ilaih, which possesses the definite article ‘Al’ and is a plural group of noble character or quality, the word Khatam never infers a meaning of ‘last’ in time. Rather, the person who is being referred to as the Khatam of that group is always understood as being unparalleled in his quality and superiority within that specific group. This is not a mere claim and many examples can be sighted from the Arabic language which support this claim. We shall present examples of this ahead.

We therefore, challenge our opponents to present a single example from the Holy Qur’an, the Ahadith, or Arabic literature, be it poetry or prose in which the word Khatam has been used in the grammatical structure we have just presented above and it infers a meaning of ‘last’ in time. Not a single example can be presented. In such a case, the meaning of Khatam will always be the most superior or best of that respective group. Because as we have mentioned, whenever the word Khatam is used in the manner we have just explained above, the subject matter which is inferred in such a phrase is not of finality in time, but rank, superiority, unparalleled quality and perfection. It is not sufficient for our opponents to merely present a definition of Khatamun-Nabiyyin which states ‘Last of the Prophets,’ from an Arabic lexicon, until and unless the actual usage of that phrase in Arabic literature and idiom is shown by example. The reason for this is because lexicon definitions are not without bias. It is obvious that writers of lexicons hold their own beliefs and it is also inevitable that their religious beliefs and biases find way into their work as well. For example, Al-Munjid is a famous lexicon of the Arabic language written by a Christian. In this lexicon, the writer has translated ‘Thaluth’ to mean ‘Holy Trinity.’ Now the word ‘Holy’ is not the translation of any Arabic word, and it has been inserted by the writer due to his Christian beliefs. Similarly, it is only natural that a person who believes in the unconditional finality of the Holy Prophet (sa) would translate Khatamun-Nabiyyin to mean ‘Last of the Prophets’.

Lexicons are a great source of knowledge no doubt, but there definitions alone cannot be presented as conclusive and categorical evidence to prove that a certain word or phrase means something, until a practical example is presented from the spoken tongue of those who are natives of that language. This is why lexicographers and commentators of the Holy Qur’an often sight poetic verse of the Pre-Islamic Arab era to show the correct usage of Arabic vocabulary and phrases. Because the spoken tongue and idiom of any language as is prevalent among the natives of the language is the most authentic and most correct form of the language.

Allah the Almighty has not revealed the words Khatamun-Nabiyyin in the Holy Qur’an keeping in view the definitions of famous dictionaries, because dictionaries were compiled quite some time after the revelation of the Holy Qur’an. The words, phrases and idioms in the Holy Qur’an were revealed by Allah the Almighty keeping the practical usage of the language by the Arabs in mind. Therefore, if we are to correctly understand the meaning of Khatamun-Nabiyyin, we must identify how the phrase is used by a native Arab and as we have mentioned, whenever the word Khatam is used as a Mudaf and attributed to a plural Mudaf Ilaih, the meaning is always of superiority in rank, status and perfection.

As we have elaborated above, the word Khatam (which is known as Ism Alah) is used to infer a superiority in rank when it appears in the grammatical structure we have highlighted above. The following is a list of some examples as found in the Arabic language:

Name	Title	Reference
Abu Tamam	Khatamush-Shu‘ara	Wafiyatul-A‘ayan
Abu At-Tayyib	Khatamush-Shu‘ara	Muqaddimah Diwanul-Mutanabbi
Abul-‘Ala	Khatamush-Shu‘ara	Muqaddimah Diwanul-Mutanabbi
Hadrat ‘Ali (ra)	Khatamul-Auliya’	Tafsir Safi under the commentary of Surah Al-Ahzab
Imam Shaf‘i	Khatamul-Auliya’	At-Tuhfatus-Sunniyyah
Shaikh Ibni ‘Arabi	Khatamul-Auliya’	Futuhat-e-Makkiyyah
Kafur	Khatamul-Kiram	Sharh Diwanul-Mutanabbi
Imam Suyuti	Khatamatul-Muhaqqiqin	Al-Itqan fi ‘Ulumil-Qur’an

Similarly, other examples of the practical usage of this word are: Khatamul-A’immah, Khatamul-Muhaddithin, Khatamatul-Mujahidin, Khatamatul-Huffaz, Khatamatul-Fuqaha, Khatamul-Mufassirin, Khatamul-Makhluqatil-Jismaniyyah, Khatamul-Hukkam, Khatamul-Kamilin, Khatamul-Mu‘allimin, Khatamatul-Udaba’, Khatamatul-Muta’akhkhirin.

We have already mentioned above that whenever the word Khatam is used in the grammatical structure above it does not infer a meaning of ‘last’ in time, rather, a meaning of superiority in rank. However, there is another meaning of the word Khatam as well and it does not infer a meaning of ‘last.’ Arabic lexicons tell us that the word Khatam means ‘A Seal.’ For example it is written in Tajul-‘Urus:

الخاتَم ما یوضع علی الطینة

Meaning,

“The word Khatam refers to a seal which is stamped on clay or paper.”

Hence, in light of this definition of the word Khatam, the meaning of Khatamun-Nabiyyin, is ‘Seal of the Prophets.’ However, what does it mean when we say the Holy Prophet (sa) is the ‘Seal of the Prophets?’ In order to understand the meaning of this lofty title, we must first understand the purpose of a seal. The fact of the matter is that the purpose of a seal is to attest the authenticity of something. If we study the Ahadith, we find that when the Holy Prophet (sa) intended to send official letters to the great leaders of his time inviting them to Islam, the companions humbly proposed that Prophet Muhammad (sa) fashion an official seal, because letters sent without an official seal are not given any importance by the leaders of various sovereignties. Upon this, the Holy Prophet (sa) had an official seal made which had the words ‘Muhammad Rasulullah’ written on it. Allah was written on the very top, then Rasul was written underneath, and Muhammad was written at the very bottom in the following manner:

Allah
Rasul
Muhammad

This seal was carved on to the head of a silver ring. The purpose of this seal was to attest all the written correspondence which was dispatched by the Holy Prophet (sa) in order to assure that the letter was in fact sent by him. The seal served as a means of official attestation and confirmed the authenticity of the letter being dispatched.

Similarly, in this day and age official seals are used for the same purpose. Whenever official correspondence is sent by a head of state or minister for example, the purpose is to mark and attest the authenticity of the letter being sent. In the same manner, when we say that the Holy Prophet (sa) is Khatamun-Nabiyyin or the ‘Seal of the Prophets’ the true meaning of this is that our Holy Master, Prophet Muhammad (sa) is that uniquely magnificent and distinct prophet who affirms, verifies and attests the truthfulness of all the prophets. Khatamun-Nabiyyin does not mean that there would be no prophets after him as non-Ahmadis so fervently assert. Quite the contrary, what is inferred is that any prophet who comes after the Holy Prophet (sa) must bear the seal of his attestation. Furthermore, as the Seal of the Prophets, the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa) also testified to the truthfulness of the past prophets as well. If it was not for the advent of the Holy Prophet (sa) and the revelation of the Holy Qur’an, the prophethood of many prophets of God could not be substantiated. If the biblical account was the only scripture at our disposal to study the lives of the past prophets, many great prophets of God would not even reach the level of a moral human being, let alone a prophet of God. For example, the Bible projects Abraham (as) as a liar. A study of the Biblical account of Lot (as) causes a person of even little decency to perspire in shame. The story of the illicit relationship between David (as) and Bathsheba as it is recorded in the Bible is also a grave insult upon a prophet of God. Similarily, the Bible unjustly projects Jesus (as) as a man preoccupied with drinking. Hence, if it were not for the advent of the Holy Prophet (sa) who testified to the truthfulness and purity of all these prophets of God and many others, they would never have been acquitted of these unjust allegations. Hence, this was also an immense favor of the Holy Prophet (sa) upon all the past prophets of God, in his capacity as the Seal of the Prophets.

In this context it is obvious that the owner of an official seal only certifies and marks something which belongs to him. Therefore, naturally, an official seal also implies a meaning of ownership. As such, when we say that the Holy Prophet (sa) is the ‘Seal of the Prophets,’ and only such a prophet can come who bears his seal, this also means that only he would be deemed a truthful prophet who comes in subordination to the Holy Prophet (sa) and belongs to him. Only he would be deemed a truthful prophet who is from the Ummah of Prophet Muhammad (sa). Only he would be deemed a truthful prophet who comes as an obedient servant of the Holy Prophet (sa) in order to serve his religion. Only he would be deemed a truthful prophet who receives his prophetic office on account of the spiritual grace of our beloved master, the father of all the prophets.

When we understand the meaning of Khatamun-Nabiyyin in the context of a ‘seal,’ it becomes evident that this lofty appellation does not close the door to prophethood at all. Instead, we find that an official seal is a symbol of ownership, because a seal can only be placed on something which belongs to the possessor of that seal. It is obvious that a person will never stamp his own seal onto a letter which bears the name of someone else. Therefore, just as a letter which bears the seal of an important person shows that the letter belongs to him, so too, a prophet who bears the seal of the Holy Prophet (sa), belongs to him. Hence, as the Seal of all the Prophets, the Holy Prophet (sa) not only testifies to the truthfulness of all the prophets, but a prophet who belongs to him and attains his office through his obedience to the Holy Prophet (sa) is also a blessed fruit of that very seal of the Khatamun-Nabiyyin. As such, the seal of our Holy Prophet (sa) possesses the ability to elevate others to the level of prophethood. It is to this very point that the Promised Messiah (as) alludes in the following words:

“Allah the Almighty made the Holy Prophet (sa) the possessor of a seal, that is to say that He granted him a seal for the dissemination of excellence, which was not given to any other prophet at all. It is for this reason that he was named Khatamun-Nabiyyin. In other words, obedience to the Holy Prophet (sa) endows a person the excellences of prophethood and his spiritual influence fashions prophets as it were.”

Then the Promised Messiah (as) goes on to state:

“With the exception of him (i.e., the Holy Prophet (sa)) no other prophet is the possessor of a seal. It is only he with whose seal such prophethood can be attained for which it is necessary to be an Ummati .”

When the above-mentioned elaboration of the word ‘Seal’ is presented to our opponents, they present the rebuttal that a ‘seal’ does not justify the continuation of prophethood after the Holy Prophet (sa). Rather, a ‘seal’ is used to close something. They present the example of an envelope and say that just as a seal placed on an envelope or package closes it completely and thereafter the contents of the package cannot come out, so too, if we understand the Holy Prophet (sa) to be the Seal of the Prophets, he has closed the coming of any prophet after him, like a seal on an envelope or package, etc.

This is a very interesting argument, but the frailties of this argument can be easily shown with even the slightest contemplation. The fact of the matter is that the example which non-Ahmadis have presented here contradicts there very own belief. If the seal of the Holy Prophet (sa) is the same as a seal which tightly closes a package or envelope, then the obvious implication of this flawed analogy would be that the package or envelope is a metaphor for the prophets of God and the seal which tightly packs them in is the Holy Prophet (sa) himself, who is the Khatamun-Nabiyyin. Non-Ahmadis assert that it is this very seal of the Holy Prophet (sa) which bars the coming of any further prophets after his own advent. We now ask our non-Ahmadi friends to kindly explain whether Jesus (as) who they believe to be physically alive in the heavens to be within this “package” or “envelope” of prophets as it were, or is he outside this figurative “package” of prophets? If our non-Ahmadi friends claim that Jesus (as) is a prophet of God and therefore he is also within the “package” of prophets as it were, then this would mean that when he physically descends in the latter days and re-appears to the world as a universal reformer, he would have to break the seal of the Holy Prophet (sa) in order to escape the “sealed” or “closed” package and re-appear. The reason being that in this analogy our non-Ahmadi friends clearly interpret the word seal to infer the absolute closure of the advent of future prophets. If on the other hand, our non-Ahmadi friends claim that Jesus (as) is outside the figurative package or envelope of prophets because he is still alive and has not died yet and must re-appear in the latter days, then this would mean that the Holy Prophet (sa) is not the seal of “all” the prophets and God-forbid, Jesus (as) is beyond the jurisdiction of the seal of Prophet Muhammad (sa). But as we know, the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa) is the Seal of All the Prophets without exception. Therefore, if we analyse this analogy logically, it does not hold true to common sense.

In response to this our non-Ahmadi friends present the rebuttal that when we speak of a seal of closure, this does not prohibit the second advent of Jesus (as), because he was a prophet born before the Holy Prophet (sa) and an old prophet can come, but a new prophet cannot be born after the advent of the Holy Prophet (sa). Therefore, the “seal of closure” which our non-Ahmadi friends speak of so passionately does not prohibit the coming of prophets born before the Holy Prophet (sa), but somehow restricts the birth of a new prophet after Prophet Muhammad (sa). However, this is merely a claim which is not supported by a single verse of the Holy Qur’an including the verse of Khatamun-Nabiyyin itself. Therefore, it is the responsibility of non-Ahmadis to furnish evidence to substantiate this mere claim. Where do they derive this interpretation from? Where in the verse of Khatamun-Nabiyyin does Allah the Almighty say that a new prophet cannot be ‘born’ after the Holy Prophet (sa)? Where in the verse of Khatamun-Nabiyyin does it say that the Holy Prophet (sa) is only the “seal of closure” for those prophets who are born after him, but not for the ones before him? The verse of Khatamun-Nabiyyin makes no such distinction.

The truth is that Ahmadis are willing to accept any interpretation or translation of the word Khatam but we humbly request our opponents to kindly explain it to us and then reconcile it with the re-advent of Jesus (as). For example, we are willing to accept the word Khatam to mean a ‘seal of closure,’ as our non-Ahmadi friends suggest, but then this ‘seal of closure’ must apply to all the prophets irrespective of when they are born. Because as we have just mentioned, the verse of Khatamun-Nabiyyin does not make any distinction of which prophets the seal applies to. The verse simply states that the Holy Prophet (sa) is the ”Seal of the Prophets” and this obviously applies to all the prophets without condition. This is why the word An-Nabiyyin has been used with the definite article ‘Al.’ Therefore, if our non-Ahmadi friends interpret the word Khatam to mean a seal which closes the advent of future prophets, then Jesus (as) cannot be exempt from this rule, irrespective of whether he is born before or after. If Jesus (as) is a prophet and indeed he is, then the ‘seal of closure’ must also apply to him. Hence, if we interpret the word Khatam as non-Ahmadis propose, this would cause them more harm than benefit and in this case it would become difficult for them to reconcile their own belief on the physical descent of Jesus (as) in the latter days. Moreover, in this case, the re-appearance of Jesus (as) after the demise of Prophet Muhammad (sa) would violate the seal which our non-Ahmadi friends so fervently defend.

However, in contrast, if the word Khatam is understood to be a seal of attestation and a symbol of ownership as we have mentioned above, this allows for the advent of a subordinate prophet, who was to appear in complete accordance with the prophecy of the Holy Prophet (sa). Furthermore, if Khatam is interpreted to mean a seal which closes the advent of prophets, then the verse under discussion would cease to make sense from a logical perspective. We have already written on this above, therefore a reiteration is not required here. Hence, the true meaning of the word Khatam is a seal of attestation as we have presented above. As such, in light of this definition of the word Khatam, the translation of the verse under discussion would be that the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa) is not the father of any men, however, in his capacity as Rasulullah (i.e., the Messenger of Allah) he is the spiritual father of all the believers. Moreover, as Khatamun-Nabiyyin (i.e., the Seal of Prophets) he is even a father to all the prophets and now, after his advent, only such a person would be considered a true prophet who bears the seal of attestation belonging to Prophet Muhammad (sa). That is to say, the Holy Prophet (sa) is a father of the prophets because his seal of attestation, spiritual grace and blessed person can elevate a man to the level of prophethood. Verily, it is this very understanding of Khatamun-Nabiyyin which does justice to the lofty and sublime status of the Holy Prophet (sa) who is the Chief of the Prophets.

The lofty appellation of Khatamun-Nabiyyin which uniquely belongs to our Master the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa) can also be understood from another aspect as well. Thus far, we have elaborated on the various purposes of a seal and shown how they apply to the holy person of Prophet Muhammad (sa). Firstly we mentioned that a seal is used for the purpose of attestation, then we mentioned that a seal is also a symbol of ownership. However, another characteristic of a seal is that it leaves an impression, imprint or mark. As such, if this characteristic of a seal is kept in mind and applied to the person of the Holy Prophet (sa) who is the ‘Seal of Prophets’ this sheds further light on the unparalleled eminence of our Beloved Holy Prophet (sa). Just as a seal leaves a noticeable and lasting impression on the document it is imprinted upon, so too it is necessary for a truthful prophet to bear the hallmark of our beloved Master, Prophet Muhammad (sa) who is the Chief of the Prophets. That is to say that it is a necessary for a true prophet of God to possess prophetic qualities and true prophetic qualities are those which have reached their pinnacle in the Holy Prophet (sa). Therefore, if anyone desires to test or gauge the prophetic qualities of a person who claims to be a prophet he must look to the blessed person of the Holy Prophet (sa) who is the model par excellence. And in this manner, since the being of the Holy Prophet (sa) is that perfect model and precedent by which the prophethood of all the other prophets can be authenticated and gauged, this naturally means that all true prophets of God are a reflection of the Holy Prophet (sa) and thus possess his hallmark or spiritual impression. Moreover, any claimant to prophethood who does not follow in the footsteps of the Holy Prophet (sa) and show a reflection of his qualities within himself cannot be a true prophet.

Now that we have established that it is necessary for all true prophets to follow in the footsteps of the Holy Prophet (sa) and reflect his sublime qualities, we can further understand the verse of Surah Al-Nisa, in which Allah the Almighty has stated:

وَمَنْ يُطِعِ اللَّهَ وَالرَّسُولَ فَأُولَئِكَ مَعَ الَّذِينَ أَنْعَمَ اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِمْ مِنَ النَّبِيِّينَ وَا��صِّدِّيقِينَ وَالشُّهَدَاءِ وَالصَّالِحِينَ وَحَسُنَ أُولَئِكَ رَفِيقًا

Meaning,

“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.”

This verse clearly mentions that all such people who follow the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa) can progress through four stages of virtue, and ultimately reach the status of prophethood through their obedience and subservience to the Holy Prophet (sa). And in actuality, this is the very meaning of the Holy Prophet (sa) as being Khatamun-Nabiyyin or ‘Seal of the Prophets.’ Because as we have mentioned above, all true prophets must emulate the qualities of the Holy Prophet (sa) within themselves and exhibit within themselves a reflection of our Master, the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa). And it is obvious that one cannot become a true reflection of the Holy Prophet (sa) until he follows him in his character, qualities and lofty virtue. Khatamun-Nabiyyin does not at all infer that the Holy Prophet (sa) has brought to a halt the blessed reward of prophethood. Quite the contrary, the true meaning of the Holy Prophet (sa) as the ‘Seal of the Prophets’ is that prophethood can be attained by such people who truly follow the Holy Prophet (sa) and instill within themselves the qualities of our beloved Master. As such, anyone who emulates the Holy Prophet (sa) to such a degree that he becomes a reflection of the lofty and eminent character of Prophet Muhammad (sa) can reach the level of prophethood. And in this case, all those who attain the level of prophethood through their obedience to the Holy Prophet (sa) would be like that visual reflection or imprint which is left behind by a stamp or seal.

As such, it is this very point which the Promised Messiah (as) has stressed throughout his books again and again. The Promised Messiah (as) has emphatically stated that everything which I have received is due to the spiritual grace, influence and blessings of my Master, Prophet Muhammad (sa). He states that if I had separated myself from my Master, I would never have received these spiritual rewards even if my deeds were equivalent to mountains upon mountains.

Therefore, in summary, just as an imprinted stamp shows a reflection of the visual image of the original seal, so too it is necessary for all true prophets if God to exhibit within themselves a reflection of the beautiful image of the prophetic qualities of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa) who is the ‘Seal’ of the Prophets. Only such a person can be deemed a true prophet of God who bears an imprint of the beautiful character of the Holy Prophet (sa). Just as a father leaves an impression of his personality and characteristics upon his son, so too as a father to all the prophets, the Holy Prophet (sa) has left an imprint on all the prophets of God and any prophet who appears after his advent shall also possess his spiritual imprint. A person may object to the above-mentioned elaboration we have presented by stating that our argument is based upon flawed logic. Perhaps someone would assert that if all those who follow the Holy Prophet (sa) eventually become a reflection of him and can reach the station of prophethood and in this manner all true prophets are a reflection of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa) just as the imprint of a seal reflects the original image of the seal, then what about the prophets who appeared before the Holy Prophet? Did the hundreds and thousands of prophets before the Holy Prophet (sa) also receive their office of prophethood by following the Holy Prophet (sa) and becoming a reflection of his ‘Seal’?

The simple answer to this question is: absolutely! There is unquestionably no doubt whatsoever that all the past prophets were also a reflection of the Holy Prophet (sa) and every single one of them bore the seal of our beloved Master. The Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa) has stated:

انی عند اللہ مكتوب خاتم النبیین و ان آدم لمنجدل فی طینتہ

Meaning,

“I was the Seal of the Prophets even when Adam was in the elementary stages of his development.”

This Hadith clearly demonstrates that every single prophet from the time of Adam (as) onwards, bore the seal of the Holy Prophet (sa) and were a reflection of those prophetic qualities which reached their pinnacle in the blessed person of our Master, the Pride of the first and the last, the Chief and Seal of the Prophets (May peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). O Allah! Shower your infinite blessings and salutations upon our Master in equivalence to the pain and grief he felt for the guidance of his Ummah and for all of humanity! Ameen Allahumma Ameen.

When we understand the lofty appellation of the Holy Prophet (sa) in this manner it becomes evident that the status of our beloved Master is most definitely unparalleled in all respects. It becomes clear as broad daylight that Prophet Muhammad (sa) is a radiant sun upon the horizon and all other prophets of God derive their light from him, who is the source of all light and brilliance.

We have just explained in detail that another meaning of Khatamun-Nabiyyin is that just as a seal leaves an impression, so too, the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa) has left his spiritual impression on all of the prophets because he is ‘The Seal of the Prophets.’ Moreover, any prophet who appears after Prophet Muhammad (sa) would bear the spiritual impression of his characteristics, qualities and virtue. Of course, no prophet can supersede the Holy Prophet (sa) in rank, because he is the Chief of all the Prophets, but all true prophets would be a reflection of him. In essence, this naturally means that as Khatamun-Nabiyyin, Allah the Almighty has endowed the Holy Prophet the inherent quality to produce prophetic qualities within those pure-hearted people who follow in his footsteps through the spiritual influence of his ‘Seal.’ Hence, the ‘Seal’ of Prophet Muhammad (sa) is not one of closure, but one of the dissemination of spiritual and prophetic excellence.

Hadrat Imam Raghib Al-Asfahani, who is widely accepted throughout the Muslim world for having written perhaps the most renowned dictionary on the vocabulary of the Holy Qur’an has written the following under the root word Khatama:

الخَتْمُ والطَّبْعُ یقال علی وجھین : مصدر خَتَمْتُ وطَبَعْتُ ، وھو تاثیر الشیء كنقش الخاتَم والطَّابَع ۔ الثانی : الاَثر الحاصل عن النقش ، ویُتجوّز بذلك تارة فی الاستیثاق من الشیء ، والمَنْع منہ اعتباراً بما یحصل من المنْع بالختْم علیٰ الكتب والابواب ، نحوُ : (ختم اللہ علیٰ قلوبھم) ، (و ختم علیٰ سمعہ وقلبہ) ، و تارة فی تحصیل شیء عن شیء اعتباراً بالنقش الحاصل ، و تارةً یُعتَبَرُ منہ بلوغ الآخر ، ومنہ قیل : خَتَمتُ القرآن ، ای : انتھیتُ الیٰ آخرہ

Meaning, “The linguistic usage of the word Al-Khatmu and At-Tab‘u is two-fold. Firstly the words Khatamtu and Taba‘tu are used in the infinitive form of the verb, i.e., to produce the affect of something, for example to imprint the image of a seal or ring. Secondly, the emblem which is left behind by the impression of a seal. If we are to presume a meaning of ‘hinderance’ which is produced in the context of placing a seal upon doors or letters, sometimes it is used to firmly bind or prevent something (as a secondary meaning); as Allah states, Khatamallahu ‘ala qulubihim and Khatama ‘ala sam‘ihi wa qalbihi. Then, as an impression, the word is used in the context of producing the affect of something. And sometimes the meaning of ‘reaching the end’ is also inferred by this word, as it is said, ‘Khatamtul-Qur’an’, i.e., I have reached the end of it.”

In this magnificent academic elaboration of the word Khatam, Hadrat Imam Raghib who is among the greatest of scholars in the field of Qur’anic linguistics, has clearly mentioned that the primary and truly inherent meaning of the word is ‘to produce the affect of something’ or ‘the emblem which is left by the impression of a seal.’ Therefore, when we understand the term Khatamun-Nabiyyin to mean ‘Seal of the Prophets’, this does not infer the closure of prophethood all together, but the continuation of prophethood through the spiritual grace of the Holy Prophet (sa) and the spiritual affect of his seal of impression.

Hadrat Imam Raghib goes on to state that the meanings which suggest the ending, preventing or hindering of something are only a secondary meaning of the word. It is also very interesting to note that where Imam Raghib has mentioned that sometimes the word Khatmu is also used to infer meanings of stopping or ending, he has not presented the word Khatamun-Nabiyyin as an example. Someone might argue that if we read further on, Imam Raghib has clearly stated that Khatamun-Nabiyyin means the ‘Last of Prophets.’ There are two responses to this objection. First, as we have already mentioned above, the translation of the term Khatamun-Nabiyyin as it appears in a lexicon cannot be presented as fundamental argumentation to substantiate the unconditional finality of the Holy Prophet (sa). The reason for this is because the term Khatamun-Nabiyyin is in itself a disputed term and just as other Muslims, so too, writers of various lexicons subscribe to various religious beliefs, be it Muslim or non-Muslim. Therefore, it is only natural that a Muslim lexicographer who believes that the Holy Prophet (sa) is the last prophet or a non-Muslim one who was told this by another Muslim who believed the same would translate the term Khatamun-Nabiyyin to mean ‘Last of the Prophets.’ Non-Ahmadis often raise the allegation that Ahmadis present selective references from classical lexicons which go in their favor but conveniently leave out the translation of Khatamun-Nabiyyin as it appears in various dictionaries. This is because many great lexicographers have translated the term Khatamun-Nabiyyin to mean ‘Last of the Prophets’ and this is directly at odds with the Ahmadi interpretation. However, this allegation is completely baseless because as we have already mentioned, when Ahmadis present references from various classical dictionaries we do so only for the linguistic expertise of the writer and not for their religious or theological understanding.

Now, having established this initial point, even if we were to study the definition of Khatamun-Nabiyyin as it has been presented by Imam Raghib, no where does he write that the Holy Prophet (sa) is Khatamun-Nabiyyin because there are no prophets of any sort after him. The exact words of Imam Raghib are as follows:

(و خَاتَم النبیین) : لانہ خَتَمَ النبوةَ ، ای : تمَّمَھَا بمَجِیئِہ

Meaning,

“Because he brought an end to law-bearing prophethood, i.e., with his coming he completed it.”

Non-Ahmadis might object to our translation of the above-mentioned reference and state that we have dishonestly added the words ‘law-bearing’ prophethood. However, this is a false allegation and the translation which we have rendered of the above-mentioned words is absolutely correct. Imam Raghib has used the word Al-Nubuwwah, with the definite article ‘Al’, which signifies the end of a specific type of prophethood, i.e., law-bearing prophethood. Our translation is supported by the sentence which follows as well. Imam Raghib further elaborates upon his previous statement with the words:

ای تمَّمَھَا بمَجِیئِہ

Meaning,

“He completed prophethood with his advent.”

Therefore, these words clearly elucidate the fact that when Imam Raghib states that the Holy Prophet (sa) brought an end to prophethood, he is specifically referring to law-bearing prophethood. The reason being that with his advent, the prophethood consisting of law was completed and now, there can be no further addition to the last and final law, because it has been perfected and completed at the hand of the Holy Prophet (sa). As a matter of fact, in the above-mentioned statement, Imam Raghib has presented a beautiful explanation of the true meaning of Khatamun-Nabiyyin and the context in which the Holy Prophet (sa) brought an end to prophethood. His bringing an end to prophethood was in the form of the perfection and completion of the law. This is in essence the very same point which has been mentioned in the following verse of the Holy Qur’an:

الْيَوْمَ أَكْمَلْتُ لَكُمْ دِينَكُمْ وَأَتْمَمْتُ عَلَيْكُمْ نِعْمَتِي وَرَضِيتُ لَكُمُ الْإِسْلَامَ دِينًا

Meaning,

“This day have I perfected your religion for you and completed My favor upon you and have chosen for you Islam as religion.”

It is interesting to note that when Imam Raghib explains the true meaning of bringing an end to prophethood in the context of Khatamun-Nabiyyin, he uses the words Ai tammamaha bi-maji‘atihi and in the verse of Surah Al-Ma’idah presented above, the word Atmamtu, which is from the same root, has been used by Allah to refer to the completion and perfection of the law. Therefore, it is clear that in explaining the meaning of Khatamun-Nabiyyin, Imam Raghib has presented an explanation which is fully supported by this verse of the Holy Qur’an. The understanding of Khatamun-Nabiyyin as presented by Imam Raghib is also one of superiority, completion and perfection. If Imam Raghib understood the word Khatamun-Nabiyyin to mean ‘no prophets after the Holy Prophet (sa)’ he would have said:

(خاتم النبیین): ختم النبوة ، ای : لا نبی بعدہ

However, it is obvious that Imam Raghib has made no such statement in explaining the meaning of Khatamun-Nabiyyin in his dictionary of the Holy Qur’an. However, as we have mentioned before, even if he did believe in Khatamun-Nabiyyin to mean ‘last of the prophets’ (which he does not), it is not necessary that his theological understanding must be without flaw. For as we have mentioned many times before, references of lexicographers are presented by Ahmadis for their linguistic expertise, not for their theological understanding. Theological understanding is always swayed by personal bias. Therefore, as we have clearly proven, if the word Khatam is analysed from a purely linguistic perspective, its primary meaning is of leaving an impression or mark, and bringing to an end is only a secondary meaning.

Non-Ahmadis present what they believe to be a very novel argument in their favor. They present the argument of the various Qira’at or readings of the Holy Qur’an. They assert that although the most widely accepted Qira’at, i.e., the Hafs Qira’at, which was the recitation style of the Quraish states Khatam, however the rest of the Qira’at all state Khatim (with a Kasra on the Ta). As such, although the word Khatam infers a meaning of superiority in rank and is also used to mean a seal or ring, but Khatim categorically means ‘one who brings to an end.’ Therefore, since a majority of the Qira’at state Khatim instead of Khatam, and the word Khatim undoubtedly infers a meaning of bring to an end therefore, Khatimun-Nabiyyin means ‘The one who brings an end to the prophets.’

In this regard, First it should be remembered that there is no question as to whether Ahmadis accept the various Qira’at of the Holy Qur’an or not. Most definitely, the authenticity of the various Qira’at is categorically accepted by Ahmadis because it is an undeniable historical fact. We believe that the Holy Qur’an was revealed upon the Holy Prophet in various reading styles so that the various tribes which were present in Arabia at the time of the Holy Prophet (sa) could fully understand the language of the Holy Qur’an. In certain instances there is a variation of words as well, and these words infer varying meanings. However, this is not blemish on the pure and pristine image of the Holy Qur’an nor does it substantiate contradiction within the Qur’anic text. In actuality, the various Qira’at of the Holy Qur’an is a miracle of unprecedented magnitude. It is a miracle because although the Holy Qur’an has been revealed in varying reading styles and in certain places there is a variation of words as well, yet despite this, none of the Qira’at contradict one another in meaning. On the contrary, every Qira’at compliments the second. The varying words in the numerous Qira’at reinforce the meanings of the other words which have appeared in its place. The truth is that all of these Qira’at add to the depth of meaning within the Holy Qur’an and yet not a single word within these various Qira’at contradicts one another. Therefore, although Ahmadis accept the various Qira’at of the Holy Qur’an, we also believe that it is not permissible for anyone to interpret a verse from a particular Qira’at in a manner which contradicts the subject matter of another Qira’at.

In addition to this, before we get into a discussion on the word Khatim as it appears in the various Qira’at we would like to point out another crucial point. Although the other Qira’at are authentic and find their links to the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa), the fact remains that the primary reading style of the Holy Qur’an is the Hafs Qira’at of the Quraish, which was the tribe of the Holy Prophet (sa). All the other Qira’at possess a subordinate position to that primary Qira’at. It is for this reason that in the reign of Hadrat ‘Uthman (ra) when it was thought that the various Qira’at were creating dissension and confusion among the various Muslim tribes, he ordered that all of the other Qira’at be burnt. Hadrat ‘Uthman (ra) ordered that standardized copies of the Holy Qur’an should be prepared in accordance with the Hafs Qira’at which was the reading style of the Quraish and these standardized copies were then sent to the various Islamic provinces. The wisdom behind this administrative action was that in the era of the Holy Prophet (sa) the interaction between the various tribes where varying Qira’at were prevalent was quite minimal. Hence, for the facility of these various tribes, the Holy Prophet (sa) permitted them to recite the Holy Qur’an in the varied language of their tribe and yes, these variations were also revealed to the Holy Prophet (sa), therefore their origins are also divine. However, when the Islamic state grew and interaction between all of these various tribes grew with Madinah, and newer and less informed Muslims began to convert to Islam, they would often become confused with the various reading styles of the Holy Qur’an. People began to think that there were various versions of the Holy Qur’an and this would often put them to dispute. Of course, in such a large state it became very difficult to contain these disputes and resolve the misunderstandings of the less informed. Therefore, in light of these circumstances, Hadrat ‘Uthman (ra) in his wisdom, had the other Qira’at burnt and only the Hafs Qira’at was permitted as the standardized recitation style within the Islamic state. As such, to this very day, the Hafs Qira’at is accepted as the standardized text of the Holy Qur’an. The reason we have mentioned this historical background is so that our readers keep in mind the important point that when studying the various Qira’at it should not be forgotten that the Hafs Qira’at is the primary and standard recitation style of the Holy Qur’an. All of the other Qira’at hold a secondary position in comparison to this Qira’at. Therefore, even though we believe a single Qira’at cannot contradict another, it is especially important for a secondary Qira’at not to contradict the Hafs Qira’at.

After the clarification of this fundamental principle we return to our actual subject matter. As such, it is true that many of the Qira’at of the Holy Qur’an state Khatim instead of Khatam, but as we have just stated above, in understanding the various Qira’at we must be careful to interpret each and every word in such a manner which does not contradict another Qira’at. However, it is unfortunate that the manner in which non-Ahmadis interpret the word Khatim contradicts the Hafs Qira’at which clearly states Khatamun-Nabiyyin. The reason for this is because non-Ahmadis interpret the term Khatimun-Nabiyyin to infer that the Holy Prophet (sa) has brought an end to all the prophets and no prophet can appear after him. However, this interpretation is in direct odds with the term Khatamun-Nabiyyin as it appears in the Hafs Qira’at. This is because just as we have mentioned above in great detail, the title Khatamun-Nabiyyin possesses a meaning of the continuation of prophethood after Prophet Muhammad (sa) due to the power of his spiritual seal of impression.

Nonetheless, Ahmadis are prepared to accept Khatimun-Nabiyyin as it appears in the other Qira’at as well. Furthermore, we are also ready to accept any interpretation of this term, but of course a thorough and logical analysis of that interpretation is necessary to test and gauge its validity. As we have just mentioned non-Ahmadis interpret Khatimun-Nabiyyin to infer that the Holy Prophet (sa) brought an end to the prophets. Let us therefore, examine this viewpoint from a critical perspective. The word Al-Nabiyyin is the plural of ‘Nabi’ and it is clear that it means ‘The Prophets.’ The word Khatim means ‘The one who ends.’ But if non-Ahamdis are correct in their interpretation of Khatimun-Nabiyyin and this term actually means ‘he who brought all the prophets to an end and now no prophets can appear thereafter’ does this definition hold true to the person of the Holy Prophet (sa)?

The fact of the matter is that there are two capacities of every prophet: physical and spiritual. If we cross-examine the non-Ahmadi interpretation of Khatimun-Nabiyyin in light of these two capacities it becomes evident that the Holy Prophet (sa) did not bring any prophet to an end. Not in the manner that non-Ahmadis belief at least. In his physical capacity we find that the Holy Prophet (sa) did not bring any prophet to an end. It is obvious that when the Holy Prophet (sa) appeared, all of the past prophets had already passed away and non-Ahmadis accept this historical fact. There was one prophet who according to the non-Ahmadi belief was still physically alive in the heavens and that was Jesus (as). Prophet Muhammad (sa) could not even bring him to an end. Therefore, the question which naturally arises is that if Khatimun-Nabiyyin means ‘the one who brought the prophets to an end,’ we ask non-Ahmadis to explain which prophet out of 124,000 did the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa) bring to a physical end? None whatsoever. If a Hindu or Christian was to raise this allegation before a non-Ahmadi and allege that you assert that Prophet Muhammad (sa) claimed to bring all the prophets to an end, but which prophet did he bring to an end, when all of the prophets had already passed away, and the one which was alive as per your belief, even he could not be brought to an end? Our non-Ahmadi friends would have no answer to such an allegation. Therefore, this categorically establishes that the meaning of Khatimun-Nabiyyin could not possibly infer the ending of the prophets from a physical aspect.

Now remains the spiritual capacity of the Holy Prophet (sa) as a Messenger of Allah. The truth is that when the Holy Prophet (sa) appeared, the spiritual grace, influence and jurisdiction as it were of the past prophets had come to an end. Obviously, after the advent of the Chief of the Prophets and the revelation of the perfect and final law, a new milestone was set by the blessed person of the Holy Prophet (sa) and all of the spiritual influence of the past prophets was brought to an end. However, non-Ahmadis believe that the spiritual influence, grace and era of preaching of Jesus (as) would continue within the Muslim Ummah even after the advent of the Holy Prophet (sa). Hence, the Holy Prophet (sa) ceases to be Khatimun-Nabiyyin in the true sense of the word if the non-Ahmadi belief on the life of Jesus (as) is accepted as being true. Therefore, what is the correct meaning of Khatimun-Nabiyyin? How is it that the Holy Prophet (sa) brought the prophets to an end? The answer to this question is that the Holy Prophet (sa) brought the past prophets to an end in respect of their religion and spiritual grace and influence. Hence, Allah the Almighty alludes to this very point in the Holy Qur’an as such:

وَمَنْ يَبْتَغِ غَيْرَ الْإِسْلَامِ دِينًا فَلَنْ يُقْبَلَ مِنْهُ وَهُوَ فِي الْآَخِرَةِ مِنَ الْخَاسِرِينَ

Meaning,

“And whoso seeks a religion other than Islam, it shall not be accepted from him, and in the life to come he shall be among the losers.”

In this verse of the Holy Qur’an, Allah the Almighty has clearly stated that now there is only one religion which can lead to Allah and that is the perfect and final religion of Islam brought by the Holy Prophet (sa). Anyone who desires to follow a path other than Islam shall not attain true virtue and righteousness but would be from among the losers. The reason for this is because now, for the guidance of mankind, Allah the Almighty has appointed a single path and that is the path of Islam. Therefore, we also believe that the Holy Prophet (sa) is Khatimun-Nabiyyin but this does not mean that no prophets can come after him. The true meaning of Khatimun-Nabiyyin is that the Holy Prophet (sa) brought an end to the spiritual influence and religions of the past prophets and announced the commencement of his own everlasting spiritual grace. The Holy Prophet brought the religious laws of the past prophets to an end through the introduction of Islam. Therefore, anyone who follows the teachings of another prophet leaving the Holy Prophet (sa) to one side shall never attain the love of Allah. This is why Allah the Almighty states in the Holy Qur’an:

قُلْ إِنْ كُنْتُمْ تُحِبُّونَ اللَّهَ فَاتَّبِعُونِي يُحْبِبْكُمُ اللَّهُ وَيَغْفِرْ لَكُمْ ذُنُوبَكُمْ وَاللَّهُ غَفُورٌ رَحِيمٌ

Meaning,

“Say, ‘If you love Allah, follow me: then will Allah love you and forgive you your faults. And Allah is Most Forgiving, Merciful.’”

This verse of the Holy Qur’an clearly states that there is only one means by which a person can attain the love of Allah and that is by following the Holy Prophet (sa). In another verse of the Holy Qur’an, Allah the Almighty has categorically mentioned that the spiritual rewards which can be attained through obedience to the Holy Prophet (sa) are four:

وَمَنْ يُطِعِ اللَّهَ وَالرَّسُولَ فَأُولَئِكَ مَعَ الَّذِينَ أَنْعَمَ اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِمْ مِنَ النَّبِيِّينَ وَالصِّدِّيقِينَ وَالشُّهَدَاءِ وَالصَّالِحِينَ وَحَسُنَ أُولَئِكَ رَفِيقًا

Meaning,

“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.”

Therefore, the true meaning of Khatimun-Nabiyyin is not that no prophets would come after the advent of the Holy Prophet (sa) because as we have already mentioned above, this interpretation contradicts the very own belief of non-Ahmadis. However, the true meaning of this lofty appellation is that now the various independent streams of prophethood would be brought to an end and all spiritual grace and prophetic excellence would flow through the person of our Beloved Master, Prophet Muhammad (sa) in the form of an ocean of divine grace. As such, after the advent of our Beloved Master, Prophet Muhammad (sa), anyone who desires to attain the heights of spirituality and prophetic excellence, he would quench his spiritual thirst through the ocean of divine grace flowing through the blessed person of the Holy Prophet (sa), the Seal of the Prophets. It is to this very fundamental point that the Promised Messiah (as) alludes to in the following couplet:

ایں چشمہ رواں كہ بخلق خدا دھم یك قطرہ زبحر كمالِ محمدست

Meaning,

“This flowing stream which I give to the creation of Allah, is but a droplet from the ocean of Muhammad’s excellence.”

The Promised Messiah (as) has also beautifully expounded how the Holy Prophet (sa) brought the past prophets to an end. He states:

“All Prophethood has come to an end except the Prophethood of Muhammad (sa). No law-bearing Prophet can come after him. A Prophet who does not bring a new law can come, but he has to be a follower of the Holy Prophet first. On this basis, I am both an Ummati (follower of the Holy Prophet (sa)) and a Prophet. My Prophethood, i.e., my converse with God, is nothing but a reflection of the Prophethood of Muhammad (sa). Apart from this my Prophethood is nothing. It is the same Prophethood of Muhammad (sa) which has manifested itself through me. And, since I am a mere reflection of him as well as his devout follower, this does not in the least diminish the high status of the Holy Prophet (sa).”

When this argument is presented before non-Ahmadis, they shift their stance and state that Khatimun-Nabiyyin does not mean ‘the one who brings the prophets to an end’ but ‘Last of the Prophets.’ However, this rebuttal presented by non-Ahmadis is grammatically incorrect. It must be understood that the word Khatim is known as Ism Fa‘il in Arabic grammar, better known to English grammarians as the ‘subject’ of a sentence. The grammatical characteristic of Ism Fa‘il or the ‘subject’ as it is referred to in English, is that it performs the verb specified in the sentence. For example, if we were to say ‘The boy ran to the park,’ the subject of this sentence is ‘the boy’ and the verb he performed was ‘to run.’ In the Arabic language the Ism Fa‘il fulfills the same purpose and the manner in which Ism Fa‘il is constructed in Arabic morphology is by adding the letter Alif after the first letter of the root word and placing a Kasra on the second letter of the root word. For example: Similarly, the word Khatim literally means ‘the one who ends’ and not ‘last’ as some non-Ahmadis falsely claim. Therefore, if non-Ahmadis claim that a majority of the Qira’at state Khatimun-Nabiyyin, this term must be translated to mean ‘the one who ends the prophets’ and not ‘last of the prophets.’ There is a difference between these two translations. The first one is correct and true to the Arabic text whereas the second one is grammatically incorrect and anyone with even elementary knowledge of the Arabic language cannot deny this.

However, despite this, we are willing to accept this translation of non-Ahmadis as well. As we mentioned earlier numerous times, we are ready to accept any translation of the title Khatamun-Nabiyyin (or Khatimun-Nabiyyin as it appears in the other Qira’at), as long as it conforms to common sense, logic and the teachings of Islam. However, for a moment if we assume that Khatimun-Nabiyyin means ‘Last of the Prophets,’ this would contradict the very own belief of non-Ahmadis on the return of Jesus (as). Obviously, as non-Ahmadis believe, if Jesus (as) is to return in the latter days, everyone is to believe in him, follow him and benefit by his spiritual grace, this would mean that Jesus (as) is the last of the Prophets.

In response to this, non-Ahmadis present the argument (which we already discussed above) that ‘Last of the Prophets’ means that no new prophet can be born or commissioned after the advent of Prophet Muhammad (sa). But since Jesus (as) was a prophet born and commissioned prior to the advent of the Holy Prophet (sa) therefore he can come after. In this way, Prophet Muhammad (sa) would still be deemed the ‘last’ prophet. However, as we mentioned earlier, where does Allah state that the Holy Prophet (sa) is the last prophet in terms of being born and commissioned? There is no such arabic word in the verse of Khatamun-Nabiyyin which suggests such a notion. If these words appear anywhere in the verse of Khatamun-Nabiyyin, we request our non-Ahmadi friends to kindly point them out. However, no such indication has been made.

Moreover, if we were to accept the non-Ahmadi notion on the physical return of Jesus (as) this would mean that the title of Khatamun-Nabiyyin, which Allah the Almighty endowed solely to the Holy Prophet (sa) would be divided between two people. In this case, Jesus (as) would also be a partner in the finality of the Holy Prophet (sa). As far as the birth or commissioning of a new prophet is concerned, the Holy Prophet (sa) would be the last of the prophets. However, as far as teaching, reformation, propagation of Islam and spiritual grace is concerned, Jesus (as) would be the last of the prophets.

In any case, what superiority or distinction is there in being last anyway? None whatsoever. Is there a reward for coming last in a race or scoring at the bottom of the class? Of course not. If this logic was correct and merely coming last in time was worthy of merit this would mean that Prophet Ishmael (as) who appeared after Abraham (as) was greater. Isaac (as) was greater than Ishmael (as), Jacob (as) was greater than Isaac (as), Joseph (as) was greater than Jacob (as). As a matter of fact, Jesus (as) who would return in the latter days at the very end of time would be greater than all the prophets before him, including Prophet Muhammad (sa). And before non-Ahmadis present the standard argument that Jesus (as) was born and commissioned prior to the Holy Prophet (sa), we would kindly request them to save everyone the trouble. For as we have mentioned countless times before, the verse of Khatamun-Nabiyyin makes no distinction of being “born” or “commissioned” before or after. It simply says, Khatamun-Nabiyyin, or Khatimun-Nabiyyin of course, if we are assuming the alternate Qira’at, which would mean ‘Last of the Prophets,’ as our non-Ahmadi friends claim. However, the truth is that there is no superiority whatsoever in being last in time. It is the duty of every true Muslim to interpret and understand the Holy Qur’an in a manner which exhibits the lofty, distinct, magnificent and unparalleled status of our beloved master, the Holy Prophet (sa), the Seal of all the Prophets.

Root Nasara (to help)	Nasir (the one who helps)
Root Sabara (to be patient)	Sabir (the one who is patient)
Root ‘Alima (to know))	‘Alim (the one who knows i.e., a scholar)
Root Sadaqa (to be truthful)	Sadiq (the one who is truthful)
Root Daraba (to hit)	Darib (the one who hits)
Root Daraba (to hit)	Darib (the one who hits)
Root Qatala (to kill)	Qatil (the one who kills, i.e., a murderer)

When all else fails, our non-Ahmadi opponents raise an objection on the writings of the Promised Messiah (as) in order to substantiate their interpretation of the word Khatam to infer a meaning of complete and unconditional finality. They raise the objection that how can Ahmadis argue with us and claim that Khatamun-Nabiyyin does not mean ‘Last of the Prophets,’ when Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (as) himself has used the word Khatam in terms of complete finality.

In response to this, First, as we have stated countless times above, we are ready to accept any translation of the word Khatam. However, that translation must accord to the Holy Qur’an and the Ahadith. Ahmadis do believe that the Holy Prophet (sa) is ‘Last’ of the prophets, but the manner in which we understand him to be ‘Last’ is a bit different than non-Ahmadis. We have provided ample argumentation above to prove that the manner in which Ahmadis interpret the Holy Prophet (sa) to be ‘last’ accords with the teachings of Islam, but the manner in which non-Ahmadis interpret his finality is incorrect and contradictory to their very own beliefs.

As far as those references are concerned where the Promised Messiah (as) has used the word Khatam to infer ‘last,’ it is unfortunate that non-Ahmadis have misunderstood these references. They deal with these references of the Promised Messiah (as) in the same manner as they deal with the verse of Khatamun-Nabiyyin. In both cases, Khatam or Khatim can be translated in any manner and Ahmadis are ready to accept this, but we must ensure that this interpretation does not defy logic and rationality. It is true that the Promised Messiah (as) has used the term ‘Khatamul-Aulad’ to infer a kind of finality, just as the term Khatamun-Nabiyyin also infers a sort of finality and we have explained this above, but neither one of these two terms infer a complete finality in all respects, such that no one can appear thereafter. We present these various references below, before commenting on them. The Promised Messiah (as) states:

“Thirdly, I am also similar to Adam in that Adam was born as a twin and I was also born as a twin. First a girl was born and I was born thereafter; and in this manner I was Khatamul-Walad for my father. No child was born after me.”

Then, he states:

“A girl was born with me whose name was Jannat. First she was born and then I was delivered. After me there was no son or daughter born to my parents and I was Khatamul-Aulad for them.”

Non-Ahmadis present the above-mentioned references and assert that look here, in both of these references, the Promised Messiah (as) has used the terms Khatamul-Walad and Khatamul-Aulad to mean ‘Last of the Children.’ They further assert that Ahmadis cannot present the argument that this infers a meaning of superiority in rank among the children because in the first reference of Barahin-e-Ahmadiyya, the words “No child was born after me” rule out this possibility. Furthermore, in the second reference of Tiryaqul-Qulub the words “After me there was no son or daughter born to my parents” shows that Mirza Sahib (as) has interpreted this to mean unconditional finality in time. Hence, just how there were no additional children born to the parents of Mirza Sahib due to his being Khatamul-Aulad, so too, after the advent of the Khatamun-Nabiyyin, no prophets can be born or commissioned after him.

The simple and straightforward response to this argument is that First none of the above-mentioned references contradict our belief as non-Ahmadis would avidly have us believe. Ahmadis have no qualms whatsoever in accepting the fact that in both instances, the word Khatam means ‘last’, but how do we understand this finality? This is the vital question. We understand the Promised Messiah (as) to be ‘Last of the Children’ in the same manner as we believe the Holy Prophet (sa) to be ‘Last of the Prophets,’ and we have already expounded above as to how we believe the Holy Prophet (sa) to be the ‘Last of Prophets.’ During our earlier discussion on the Holy Prophet (sa) as ‘the one who brought the prophets to an end,’ we mentioned that the Holy Prophet (sa) did not bring the prophets to an end such that no prophets would come after him. Rather, the actual meaning of the Holy Prophet (sa) bringing the prophets to an end was that he brought an end to the spiritual grace of the past prophets and announced the commencement of his own everlasting spiritual grace. If we study history, we find that after the advent of the Holy Prophet (sa) who was Khatamun-Nabiyyin, no independent prophet was born or commissioned by Allah the Almighty in parallel to the Holy Prophet (sa). However, after his demise a prophet was raised who received his office of prophethood through the spiritual grace of the Holy Prophet (sa). This subordinate prophet was a spiritual son of the Holy Prophet (sa) as it were, because he received his lofty rank due to his following the Holy Prophet (sa). Similarly, when the Promised Messiah (as) states that I am Khatamul-Aulad to my parents and there was no child born after me, this does not mean that the Promised Messiah (as) has interpreted the word Khatam to mean unconditional finality such that no child would ever be born after him, because as history tells us, this is factually incorrect. Did the Promised Messiah (as) not have offspring? Of course he did. As a matter of fact, all of his children were born in accordance to divine promises and prophecies and everyone knows that grandchildren are also the children of their grandparents. Therefore, just as after the birth of the Khatamun-Nabiyyin no independent prophets were born or commissioned by Allah the Almighty in parallel to the Holy Prophet (sa) and he was the last in the chain of independently appointed prophets, but subordinate prophethood continued through the spiritual seed of the Holy Prophet (sa); similarly, as Khatamul-Aulad to his parents, although there were no more children born to the parents of the Promised Messiah (as), their physical offspring did continue through the seed of the Promised Messiah (as). As a matter of fact, the Promised Messiah (as) was the only child by whose seed the progeny of his parents continued. History clearly shows that the progeny of Hadrat Mirza Ghulam Murtada, the father of the Promised Messiah (as) did not continue through his other children. In this regard the Promised Messiah (as) received the following revelation:

ینقطع ابائك و یبدء منك

Meaning,

“The genealogical chain of your forefathers would be cut off, and from now on, the chain of descendants will be counted from you.”

Hence, in using the terms Khatamul-Walad and Khatamul-Aulad, the Promised Messiah (as) has inferred a meaning of superiority in rank. The reason he possessed a superiority over the rest of his siblings was because it was he alone who continued the progeny of his parents. Of course, there is no denying the fact that his own inherent virtue and purity also lifted him above the rest of his siblings.

Therefore, when we understand the two above-mentioned excerpts from the writings of the Promised Messiah (as) in this light, the matter becomes clear. Undoubtedly, Ahmadis believe in the finality of the Holy Prophet (sa). However, we understand this finality to infer superiority in rank, because unconditional finality in time (which non-Ahmadis so fervently advocate) simply does not make sense as we have shown above. It contradicts the Holy Qur’an as well as the very own beliefs of non-Ahmadis. Similarly, we accept that the Promised Messiah (as) has alluded to a kind of finality in the phrase Khatamul-Aulad, but like Khatamun-Nabiyyin, this finality is of superiority in rank.

Apparently, it seems as if the words, “No child was born after me” and “After me there was no son or daughter born to my parents” confuse our opponents. For some reason or another, they believe that these two statements automatically rule out the possibility of Khatamul-Aulad inferring a meaning of superiority in rank. These two statements do not mean that the Promised Messiah (as) has used the word Khatamul-Walad or Khatamul-Aulad to mean that he was the last of the children and no children would be born after him. It simply means that he was ‘last’ in the line of siblings and his birth brought an end to the birth of any further siblings, and no further children were born to the parents of the Promised Messiah (as). But since the progeny of his parents continued through his seed, and only him for that matter, the Promised Messiah (as) was Khatamul-Aulad to his parents, i.e., the best of children. This is the exact same manner in which Ahmadis understand the finality of the Holy Prophet (sa). The advent of the Holy Prophet (sa) brought an end to the grace of past prophets, he was ‘last’ in the line of independently appointed prophets of God, but after him, prophethood continued through his spiritual seed.

In addition to this, if we study the Arabic writings of the Promised Messiah (as), wherever he has used the word ‘Khatam’ it has always appeared in a context of superiority in rank. For example, relating a vision of his, the Promised Messiah (as) states:

ما رآیت وجھا احسن منہ فی الدنیا فھو خاتم الحسینین والجمیلین، كما انہ خاتم النبیین والمرسلین۔

Meaning,

“I never saw a countenance more beautiful than his (i.e., the Holy Prophet (sa)) in the world, for he is the Seal of the handsome and beautiful, just as he is the Seal of the Prophets and Messengers.”

This reference clearly shows that the Promised Messiah (as) has used the word Khatam to infer superiority in rank and perfection in quality. Then, in his book Blessings of Prayer, the Promised Messiah (as) has quoted Shaikh ‘Abdul-Qadir Jilani (rh) and then provided an explanatory translation of the original Arabic reference in Urdu. The Arabic reference as it has been quoted by the Promised Messiah (as) is:

فحینئذ تكون وارث كل نبی و رسول و بك تختم الولایة

The beautiful and in-depth Urdu translation of this Arabic excerpt as rendered by the Promised Messiah (as) himself states:

“If you succeed in this your status will be raised beyond people’s imagination, and God shall make you heir to His Prophets and Messengers(as), which means that all their knowledge, wisdom and blessings, which had disappeared into obscurity and oblivion, will be granted afresh to you, and you will reach the highest level of sainthood, and none after you shall be able to rise higher.”

Therefore, it is clear from this reference as well that the Promised Messiah (as) understood the word Khatam to infer a meaning of superiority in rank. Moreover, wherever he used this word Khatam in his Arabic works he has done so with the same meaning in mind.

In concluding our discussion on this verse we would like to present a brief summary of the main topics we have covered in this section. First, it must be remembered that the verse of Khatamun-Nabiyyin is a verse of the Holy Qur’an which is understood differently by Ahmadis and non-Ahmadis. Furthermore, the term Khatamun-Nabiyyin is also a debated term. Hence, non-Ahmadis cannot present a verse which attracts varying interpretations as primary argumentation to substantiate the unconditional finality of the Holy Prophet (sa) in time. We present an open challenge to non-Ahmadis to present a single verse in addition to the verse of Khatamun-Nabiyyin which categorically closes the door to prophethood. Non-Ahmadis will not be able to present a single verse to this affect.

Secondly, as we have explained, the verse of Khatamun-Nabiyyin contains the word ‘Lakin,’ which means ‘but.’ The purpose of this conjunction is to remove the doubt which naturally arises from the statement prior to the ‘Lakin.’ If the statement before the ‘Lakin’ is a positive one, the statement which appears after the ‘Lakin’ must be negative. If however, the statement before the ‘Lakin’ is a negative one, the statement which appears after the ‘Lakin’ would be a positive one. However, the translation of this verse as presented by non-Ahmadis suggests negative statements both before and after the conjunction ‘Lakin,’ which is a grammatical flaw that cannot be attributed to Allah, the Wise, All-Knowing.

Thirdly, if we study the manner in which the word Khatam is used by the Arabs in native idiom, whenever this word is used as a Mudaf and attributed to a Mudaf Ilaihi which consists of a plural group of people of noble quality, the word Khatam always infers a meaning of superiority in rank. Non-Ahmadis generally present references from the various classical lexicons which state that Khatamun-Nabiyyin means, ‘Last of the Prophets,’ or ‘there are no prophets after the Holy Prophet (sa),’ etc., but none of these references can become the basis for sound argumentation. The reason for this is because as we have just mentioned, the translation of the term Khatamun-Nabiyyin is under debate. Although a classical dictionary can be referred to for linguistic expertise, it is not within its jurisdiction to issue a verdict on a theological discussion, because the translation of such religious terms are susceptible to bias. In order to understand the true meaning of this word, we must look to the Holy Qur’an, the Ahadith and native Arabic idiom as it has reached us through classical literature.

Fourthly, the word Khatam means a ‘Seal’ and the purpose of a seal is to attest something. Furthermore, a seal is also a symbol of ownership and it is also an object of impression and it leaves is mark. If all of these characteristics of a seal are applied to the blessed person of the Holy Prophet (sa) we can understand that this title has been uniquely endowed to the Holy Prophet (sa) to express his unparalleled rank, superiority, perfection and prophetic excellence.

Fifthly, we do not deny the various Qira’at or reading styles of the Holy Qur’an, which state Khatim instead of Khatam. However, the manner in which the Holy Prophet (sa) should be understood as the ‘Last of the Prophets’ or ‘bring the prophets to an end’ should conform to common sense, logic and rationality. Furthermore, it should accord to the basic teachings of Islam. It is unfortunate however that the manner in which non-Ahmadis interpret the Holy Prophet (sa) to be the ‘last’ of the prophets, such that no prophets of any sort can come after him not only contradicts their very own belief but is also at odds with the Holy Qur’an and the Ahadith. The manner in which Ahmadis interpret the finality of the Holy Prophet (sa) however, does not contradict the Holy Qur’an and Ahadith, and also exhibits the elevated and lofty status of our Beloved Master, the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa) who is the Chief of the Prophets, the Pride of the First and the Last.

Lastly, wherever the Promised Messiah (as) has used the word Khatam in his Arabic writings, he has used it to infer superiority in rank. Wherever it apparently seems that the Promised Messiah (as) has used this term to infer a meaning of ‘Last’ or ‘Final’, an unconditional finality in all respects is not inferred. Rather, even in such instances, the true intent is to infer superiority in rank, and we have proved this in detail above.

We pray that our Muslim brothers and sisters recognize the true greatness and lofty status of our Beloved Master, Prophet Muhammad (sa) as it has been described in the magnificent verse of Khatamun-Nabiyyin. This is an appellation of such honour that it is unparalleled in the history of mankind. This is a uniquely distinct honour endowed upon Prophet Muhammad (sa) and this title should be understood accordingly. It should be understood as an unprecedented title of praise and merit and to interpret this beautiful title of the Holy Prophet (sa) to imply nothing more than finality in time is a grave injustice to the lofty status of the Holy Prophet (sa). It is an injustice to which Allah shall call to account all those who did not afford the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa) the honour, respect and distinction which Allah manifested to the world through this great title - the title of Khatamun-Nabiyyin.

Non-Ahmadis present a verse of the Holy Qur’an, in order to prove the concept on the unconditional finality of the Holy Prophet (sa). The verse is as follows:

الْيَوْمَ أَكْمَلْتُ لَكُمْ دِينَكُمْ وَأَتْمَمْتُ عَلَيْكُمْ نِعْمَتِي وَرَضِيتُ لَكُمُ الْإِسْلَامَ دِينًا

Meaning,

“This day have I perfected your religion for you and completed My favor upon you and have chosen for you Islam as religion.”

Our opponents claim that in this verse Allah the Almighty has categorically announced that religion has been perfected and the Holy Qur’an which is the ultimate source of guidance has been fully revealed upon the Holy Prophet (sa). Therefore, in the presence of a perfect Shari‘ah and an infinite treasure chest of divine wisdom, there is no need for the advent of a prophet after the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa). Therefore, the claim of Ahmadis that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (as) has appeared as a prophet is completely unwarranted and contradicts this verse of the Holy Qur’an.

Contrary to what our opponents would have us believe, this verse is a wonderful proof of the continuation of prophethood. There is no doubt, that Ahmadis believe in the Holy Qur’an as being the most perfect book. Undoubtedly, until the end of time, it is this very book which has been sent to mankind for their guidance and this is the only book which contains a perfect teaching for all times to come. The Holy Qur’an is the source of infinite guidance and divine wisdom and anyone who desires salvation must follow the teachings of this perfect book.

It is obvious that the purpose behind the revelation of any divine scripture is for the spiritual and moral development of mankind. The purpose of any divine scripture is to develop a living relationship with Allah the Almighty. Therefore, it is only appropriate that a perfect teaching must also possess the ability to enable its followers to develop a perfect relationship between man and God. The Holy Qur’an categorically states, and no true Muslim would object, that there is no spiritual rank which is greater than prophethood. Therefore, if we are to accept that the Holy Qur’an is a perfect book of guidance, we must also accept that it possesses the ability to elevate a man who follows this perfect book to the highest possible level of spirituality - i.e., prophethood.

Do our opponents, who are quick to raise allegations against Ahmadiyyat, not realize that virtuous men of the past were able to attain the lofty station of prophethood by following the law of the Torah? There were many prophets raised among the Bani Isra’il, who practiced and taught the law of the Torah to the people. It is strange that on one hand, our opponents assert that the Holy Qur’an is a perfect law and possesses the means and ways to guide a man to the summit of spirituality, yet no one can attain the station of prophethood by following the Holy Qur’an - this was a quality enjoyed by the Torah, but not the Holy Qur’an. What a grave injustice!

As we have already mentioned, there is no doubt that the Holy Qur’an is a perfect book of guidance, however this does not do away with the need for spiritual teachers or prophets. If the perfect teaching was sufficient why then was there a need for Khulafa’ after the demise of the Holy Prophet (sa)? It cannot be said that the Khulafa’ after the Holy Prophet (sa) were merely political leaders, because the Holy Qur’an clearly refers to this office as a spiritual one. Secondly, after the Khulafa’ why was there a need for the various Imams, who are keenly followed by millions of Muslims throughout the world? Today, our non-Ahmadi friends quote Imam Abu Hanifah, Imam Shaf‘i, Imam Malik and Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal, among others. However, we ask them that if the perfect teaching was enough, what was the need of these religious teachers? As a matter of fact, why then would Allah need to send the Imam Mahdi and Messiah (as) in the latter days at all? There would be no need for the Mujaddidin either. As a matter of fact, if this non-Ahmadi logic is accepted as correct, then there would be no purpose for the advent of even the Holy Prophet (sa) himself. If a perfect book or teaching was enough, and everyone could attain guidance by following that teaching on their own accord, the need for prophets would cease to exist all together. The truth is, that the existence of a perfect teaching in itself is not sufficient, until and unless someone commissioned by Allah is raised to teach the deeper meanings and wisdoms of the book. This is why the Holy Qur’an has stated that one of the prime duties of the Holy Prophet (sa) was to teach the book and expound its wisdom. As such, it is stated in the Holy Qur’an:

هُوَ الَّذِي بَعَثَ فِي الْأُمِّيِّينَ رَسُولًا مِنْهُمْ يَتْلُو عَلَيْهِمْ آَيَاتِهِ وَيُزَكِّيهِمْ وَيُعَلِّمُهُمُ الْكِتَابَ وَالْحِكْمَةَ وَإِنْ كَانُوا مِنْ قَبْلُ لَفِي ضَلَالٍ مُبِينٍ

Meaning,

“He it is Who has raised among the Unlettered people a Messenger from among themselves who recites unto them His Signs, and purifies them, and teaches them the Book and wisdom, although they had been, before, in manifest misguidance.”

This verse of the Holy Qur’an clearly states that there are four main duties of the Holy Prophet (sa) and in essence, for any prophet. The Prophet recites the signs of the Lord before the people. The task of any messenger is to convey the divine word of Allah the Almighty to the people. Secondly, in the above-mentioned verse, the Arabic word Yuzakkihim elaborates the fact that the prime duty of a prophet is to purify the hearts and souls of the people. In other words, we learn from the Holy Qur’an that it is beyond the ability of a person to purify himself without the aid of a divinely appointed messenger. Even if a perfect teaching is present, a divinely appointed spiritual teacher is needed to purify the souls of mankind through the teachings of that perfect book.

Moreover, Allah the Almighty has mentioned in this verse that the Holy Prophet (sa) ‘Teaches them the Book and wisdom, although they had been, before, in manifest misguidance.” Hence, it is clear that the purpose of a prophet is to teach the book and the deeper wisdoms hidden within the book to the common man. The argument which is presented by non-Ahmadis that since the Muslims possess a perfect teaching in the form of the Holy Qur’an, therefore, now there is no need for another prophet to come in the latter days is an seriously flawed argument. Not only does this argument contradict the Holy Qur’an, but also contradicts their own belief. Because if the Holy Qur’an is sufficient, then there would be no need for the Khulafa’, the famous Imams or the Mujaddidin. There would be no need for Jesus (as) to descend in the latter days for the guidance of mankind, or for the advent of any prophet in the history of the world for that matter.

This point can be understood in light of a very simple example. If a perfect teaching, code of conduct, set of rules or knowledge contained in a book was sufficient and no teacher was required then there would be no use for doctors and physicians either. Of course, it is completely illogical to assume that an ill patient, when presented with a medical textbook would be able to diagnose himself and administer the correct medicine for his own illness. Just how a medical textbook is useless without someone qualified and knowledgeable in order to administer the correct medicine, so too spiritual texts cannot fulfill their purpose without a spiritual teacher, who is guided by Allah the Almighty Himself, to administer the correct spiritual medicine.

Therefore, undoubtedly, a new law is not needed in the presence of a perfect law. However, a spiritual guide to teach, propagate and to remove the disagreements between the followers of that perfect law is needed. Hence, a divinely appointed messenger who does not bring a new law can come, and has come in accordance with the prophecy of our beloved Master, the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa). The name of that man is Hadrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian (as) and he is the Promised Messiah and Mahdi of the latter days.

Another verse which is presented by non-Ahmadis in order to substantiate their concept on the finality of prophethood is as follows:

وَمَا أَرْسَلْنَاكَ إِلَّا كَافَّةً لِلنَّاسِ بَشِيرًا وَنَذِيرًا وَلَكِنَّ أَكْثَرَ النَّاسِ لَا يَعْلَمُونَ

Meaning,

“And We have not sent thee but as a bearer of glad tidings and a Warner, for all mankind, but most men know not.”

Our opponents assert that in this verse, Allah the Almighty has clearly alluded to the fact that Prophet Muhammad (sa) has been sent for all of mankind, and therefore, no prophet can appear in any part of the world, because the universality of the Holy Prophet (sa) has fully encompassed all the four corners of the earth. Now, there is no further need for the advent of any prophet, since the Holy Prophet (sa) has already been sent for the whole of mankind.

The fundamental logic of this argument is also seriously flawed. The universality of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa) does not at all bar the advent of non-law-bearing prophets who appear in subservience to the Holy Prophet (sa) and to serve the law of the Holy Qur’an.

Prophet Moses (as) was a messenger sent for the whole of the Bani Isra’il, but the Holy Qur’an categorically affirms that many prophets appeared after Prophet Moses (as) in order to serve the law of the Torah. For example, there was Prophet David (as), Prophet Solomon (as) and Prophet Jesus (as). Therefore, if the Holy Qur’an teaches us that prophets appeared in the Bani Isra’il, despite the advent of Moses (as) to all of the Bani Isra’il, why can a prophet not be sent to the Muslim ummah in subordination to the Holy Prophet (sa)?

The fact of the matter is that Prophets are sent by Allah the Almighty whenever the need exists. The history of religion bears testimony to the fact that after the demise of a Prophet, the followers of that respective prophet begin to move further and further away from the original teachings and as a result the natural process of degeneration takes it toll. It is at this juncture that Allah the Almighty sends a divinely commissioned leader to reform the people. Hence, just as Allah the Almighty sent many prophets to the Bani Isra’il in order to re-establish the law of the Torah and to reform the people, so too in accordance with the prophecy of the Holy Prophet (sa), when Muslims would have forgotten the Qur’an, a prophet was to be sent for their reformation and for the rejuvenation of Islam. This prophet was to be from among the Ummah of the Holy Prophet (sa).

There is a very famous and oft-repeated Hadith which is fervently presented by non-Ahmadis to prove the finality of the Holy Prophet (sa). The words of the Hadith which are often quoted by non-Ahmadis are as follows:

لا نبی بعدی

Meaning,

“There is no prophet after me.”

Non-Ahmadis simply extract the words La nabiyya ba‘di from the various Ahadith and claim that the Holy Prophet (sa) has clearly mentioned that there would be no more prophets after him. Therefore, the Ahmadi ideology which states that non-law-bearing prophets can come after the Holy Prophet (sa) is a concept which evidently contradicts this clear-cut and unconditional statement of the Holy Prophet (sa).

We shall present strong argumentation ahead in order to prove that the inference which is drawn from this Hadith by non-Ahmadis is incorrect. This Hadith does not mean that no prophets of any sort can appear after the Holy Prophet (sa). However, before getting into a detailed discussion on this Hadith, it would be beneficial to present the complete words of the various narrations in which these words have appeared. These narrations are as follows:

عن سعد بن ابی وقاص قال خلّف رسول اللہ صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم علی بن ابی طالب فی غزوة تبوك فقال یا رسول اللہ تخلّفنی فی النساء والصبیان قال اما ترضی ان تكون منی بمنزلة ھارون من موسی غیر انہ لا نبی بعدی ۔

Meaning,

“It is narrated by Sa‘d bin Abi Waqqas that the Holy Prophet (sa) appointed ‘Ali bin Abi Talib as the leader of Madinah in his absence at the occasion of the Battle of Tubuk. Upon this, Hadrat ‘Ali came to the Holy Prophet (sa) and said, ‘O Messenger of Allah! You have appointed me to watch over the women and children.’ Upon this, the Holy Prophet (sa) responded, ‘Does it not please you that you are to me as Aaron (as) was to Moses (as), except that there is no prophet after me.’”

قال رسول اللہ صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم لعلی انتَ منی بمنزلة ھارون من موسیٰ الا انہ لا نبی بعدی ۔

Meaning,

“The Holy Prophet (sa) said to ‘Ali that, ‘You are unto me as Aaron (as) was to Moses (as), except that there is no prophet after me.’”

وانہ سیكون فی امتی ثلاثون كذابون كلھم انہ نبی و انا خاتم النبیین لا نبی بعدی ۔

Meaning,

“Verily, within my Ummah there would be thirty liars, each of whom would consider himself to be a prophet. And I am the Seal of the Prophets, there is no prophet after me.”

وانہ سیكون فی امتی كذابون ثلاثون كلھم یزعم انہ نبی وانا خاتم النبیین لا نبی بعدی ۔

Meaning,

“Verily, within my Ummah there would be thirty liars, each of whom would consider himself to be a prophet. And I am the Seal of the Prophets, there is no prophet after me.”

Ahmadis do not deny this statement of the Holy Prophet (sa), however, the translation of the words La nabiyya Ba‘di must be understood in context. As such, a brief reflection on the historical context in which this statement was uttered by our Beloved Master (sa) also sheds light on the true intent of this statement and enables a pure-hearted believer to understand the true purport of these words.

The fact of the matter is that this Hadith relates to the Battle of Tubuk. When the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa) was leaving for battle, he appointed Hadrat ‘Ali (ra) as the Amir of Madinah in his absence. The hypocrites of Madinah began to spread mischievous rumors that the Holy Prophet (sa) had decided to leave Hadrat ‘Ali (ra) behind because he did not consider him worthy to take part in the battle and was too weak to be a part of the Muslim Army. These rumors naturally hurt Hadrat ‘Ali (ra) who was a brave and valiant warrior. Hadrat ‘Ali (ra) approached the Holy Prophet (sa) and expressed his grief, and inquired of the Holy Prophet (sa), ‘O Messenger of Allah, have you chosen to leave me to watch over the women and children because I am not worthy of being a part of the Muslim Army in this military endeavor?’ In order to assure Hadrat ‘Ali (ra) that this was not the case, and in order to console him the Holy Prophet (sa) said:

انت منی بمنزلة ھارون من موسیٰ الا انہ لا نبی بعدی

Meaning,

“You are unto me as Aaron (as) was to Moses (as), except that there is no prophet after me.”

When the Holy Prophet (sa) graced Hadrat ‘Ali with these words of honour and love, the heart and soul of Hadrat ‘Ali (ra) was rejuvenated and he happily fulfilled the task which was assigned to him by his Master, Prophet Muhammad (sa).

Therefore, First, it must be understood that this was not a blanket statement made by the Holy Prophet (sa) in which he negated all forms of prophethood by the words La nabiyya ba‘di. Quite the contrary, in this statement, the Holy Prophet (sa) has specifically referred to Hadrat ‘Ali (ra) and negated his prophethood. This clarification was necessary, because in the initial part of this sentence, the Holy Prophet (sa) has likened the relationship between Hadrat ‘Ali (ra) and himself to that of Prophet Moses (as) and Aaron (as). As such, when Moses (as) retreated to the mount of Tur he appointed his brother Aaron as a deputy in his absence to watch over his people. Now Moses (as) and Aaron (as) were both prophets of God, and there was a possibility of the misconception that perhaps the Holy Prophet (sa) was giving the status of prophethood to Hadrat ‘Ali by presenting the example of two prophets of God, one of whom was appointed as a deputy in the absence of another. Therefore, in order to remove this misconception and to negate the prophethood of Hadrat ‘Ali (ra) the Holy Prophet (sa) stated, La nabiyya ba‘di, i.e., O ‘Ali, although you are to me as Aaron (as) was to Moses (as), but remember that you are not a prophet in my absence.

Therefore, in the Hadith under discussion, the word Ba‘di has not negated all forms of prophethood after the demise of the Holy Prophet (sa), rather, this word has been used in the context of the ‘temporary absence’ of the Holy Prophet (sa) from Madinah. Hence, the word Ba‘di means, ‘in my temporary absence.’

Non-Ahmadis present the allegation that in this Hadith the Holy Prophet (sa) has clearly stated La nabiyya ba‘di, and the word La has been used here to denote a complete negation of all kinds of prophethood. However, this allegation is not correct because the Holy Prophet (sa) has used a sentence structure exactly identical to this in relation to the Caesar and Chosroes. The Holy Prophet (sa) is reported to have said:

اذا ھلك كسریٰ فلا كسریٰ بعدہ و اذا ھلك قیصر فلا قیصر بعدہ

Meaning,

“When the Caesar of Rome dies there would be no Caesar after him and when the Chosroes dies there would be no Chosroes after him.”

It is obvious that the Holy Prophet (sa) has used both the words La and Ba‘d with relation to the Caesar and Chosroes, however, history testifies to the fact that there were many Caesars and many a Chosroes after them. As a matter of fact after the death of the Caesar from the era of the Holy Prophet (sa) the Kingdom of Rome remained for about 500 to 600 years. Similarly, there were many a Chosroes which appeared after the demise of the one referred to by the Holy Prophet (sa) in the above-mentioned Hadith. Therefore, what is the correct meaning of this Hadith? The fact of the matter is that all of the historians are at an agreement on the fact that this Hadith of the Holy Prophet (sa) does not imply that not a single Caesar or Chosroes would appear after the demise of the two mentioned above. Instead, the true purport of this Hadith was that no Caesar or Chosroes would appear thereafter who would be equivalent in power, dominance, and in the size of their kingdom. In Fathul-Bari, with regards to this Hadith it is written:

معناہ فلا قیصر بعدہ یملك مثل ما یملك ھو

Meaning,

“The meaning of this Hadith is that there would be no Caesar who would rule in the same manner as this one.”

In the same manner, the word La which has been used in the Hadith under discussion does not completely negate the possibility of all kinds of prophets after the Holy Prophet (sa). Instead, this Hadith proves that no prophet would come after the Holy Prophet (sa) who would be like the Holy Prophet (sa) in greatness, status, rank and spiritual dominion.

There is another Hadith which also sheds light on the true meaning of the word La when used in conjunction with the word Ba‘d. The Holy Prophet (sa) states:

لا ھجرة بعد الفتح

Meaning,

“There is no migration after victory.”

Now, we inquire of non-Ahmadis that was there not a single migration after the victory of Makkah? Indeed, there were many people who migrated even after the victory of Makkah, and until this day, families migrate for numerous reasons. Would this invalidate the above-mentioned statement of the Holy Prophet (sa)? Of course not. A statement of the Holy Prophet (sa) can never be incorrect. It is only the false interpretations of his pearls of wisdom which can be incorrect. Therefore, in this Hadith, the Holy Prophet (sa) has not referred to all types of migrations, rather, he has only alluded to a specific type of migration. As such, whilst expounding the meaning of this Hadith, Imam Razi states the following:

و اما قولہ علیہ السلام لا ھجرة بعد الفتح فالمراد الھجرة المخصوصة

Meaning,

“And as far as the statement of the Holy Prophet, ‘There is no migration after victory,’ this refers to a specific type of migration.”

As such, this statement of the Holy Prophet (sa) does not suggest that the concept of migration would cease to exist after the Victory of Makkah. Rather, only that specific migration has been referred to here which was from Makkah to Madinah, to escape religious persecution and torment in the time of the Holy Prophet (sa). In this Hadith, the Holy Prophet (sa) has elaborated upon the fact that after the Victory of Makkah, there would be no need to migrate from Makkah to Madinah because persecution of Muslims would no longer exist. Moreover, after the Victory of Makkah, migration from Makkah to Madinah would no longer hold the same status and reward in the sight of Allah, because an environment of peace and security would prevail over the land. Those Muhajirin, who were forced to migrate from Makkah to Madinah, despite the immense love they possessed for their homeland, and in a state when they were compelled to leave all their wealth and assets behind, and emigrate empty handed, cannot be equivalent to a person who migrates when such difficult circumstances no longer exist. Therefore, if we closely analyse this Hadith, it becomes evident that migration has not been negated completely, rather, only a specific type of migration has been negated, and even this Hadith refers to status. That is to say that the specific migration between Makkah to Madinah in order to escape religious persecution would no longer exist, and anyone who migrates after the Victory of Makkah, his migration would no longer be of the same status as the migration of those poor souls who were driven out by the fires of force and compulsion. Similarly, in the Hadith under discussion, the Holy Prophet (sa) has not negated all kinds of prophethood after his demise. Rather, the Holy Prophet (sa) has negated such prophets who bring a new law and claim to establish their truth by separating themselves from the Holy Prophet (sa), and do not possess the seal and attestation of the obedience of Muhammad (sa). Moreover, there would be no prophets who would be greater in status than the Holy Prophet (sa), because he is the Seal of the Prophets and the Chief of the Prophets.

As we have proven from the two Ahadith presented above, the word La is not always used as a La Nafi Jins (i.e., a complete negation of the entire group being referred to). Sometimes, the word La is also used to negate the possibility of anyone or anything attaining a superior status to the thing or person being described. As such, there is a famous idiom in the Arabic language:

لا فتیٰ الا علی و لا سیف الا ذو الفقار

Meaning,

“There is no young man except ‘Ali, and no sword except the Dhul-Fiqar.”

Obviously, this does not mean that there are no more young men after Hadrat ‘Ali (ra), and no swords with the exception of his own. Indeed, there have been many a young men who lived after the demise of Hadrat ‘Ali (ra) and countless swords were also forged after the Dhul-Fiqar. As such, in the above-mentioned saying, all the young men and swords of the world have not been negated, rather, the unparalleled status and distinction of Hadrat ‘Ali as a young man and his sword have been alluded to. So too, in the Hadith under discussion, the unparalleled status of the Holy Prophet (sa) has been alluded to. This Hadith does not at all imply the complete negation of prophethood.

Another important word, which is often misconstrued in this Hadith is the Arabic word Ba‘di. It is the varying interpretations and translations of this word which have primarily resulted in great confusion.

As far as the word Ba‘di (i.e., after me) is concerned, this word can be interpreted in three ways:

a) Zarf Makan - When the word Ba‘d is used as a Zarf Makan, this denotes a meaning of being ‘after’ or ‘behind’ another thing in physical terms. For example, this word could be used to refer to a building which is physically situated behind another building. If this word is used in relation to two people, as in the case with the Holy Prophet (sa) and Hadrat ‘Ali, when Prophet Muhammad (sa) was leaving for the Battle of Tubuk, this word would imply a meaning of physical absence or presence, i.e., the physical absence of the Holy Prophet (sa) from Madinah and his presence on earth.
b) Zarf Zamaan - When this word is used as a Zarf Zaman, it implies the coming of something after its predecessor in time.
c) There is a third manner in which the word Ba‘d can be used, which does not denote physical location, nor the appearance of something after in time. The third meaning of the word Ba‘d is ‘aside,’ ‘besides,’ ‘in opposition,’ or ‘against.’

In the Hadith under discussion, it is obvious that the statement La nabiyya ba‘di has been used in a specific context, which has been elaborated upon in detail above. When the Holy Prophet (sa) was leaving for the Battle of Tubuk, and Hadrat ‘Ali was left behind as a deputy of the Holy Prophet (sa) to oversee the affairs of Madinah, the Holy Prophet (sa) likened Hadrat ‘Ali to Aaron (as). However, since Aaron (as) was a prophet in the physical absence of Moses (as), but Hadrat ‘Ali (ra) was not, the Holy Prophet (sa) negated this fact. Therefore, in this Hadith, the word Ba‘d has been used as a Zarf Makan, to negate the prophethood of Hadrat ‘Ali (ra) in the physical absence of the Holy Prophet (sa). If the word Ba‘di is translated and interpreted from the perspective of Hadrat ‘Ali, it would mean that in the physical absence of the Holy Prophet (sa) from Madinah, there can be no prophet. If on the other hand, this word is interpreted from the aspect of the speaker, i.e., the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa) it would mean that in the physical presence of the Holy Prophet (sa) on earth, there can be no other prophet, as was in the case of Moses (as) and Aaron (as). In other words, in this Hadith the Holy Prophet (sa) is stating that during my lifetime, whilst I am present on earth and living, there can be no prophet in addition to me. In the case of Moses (as) and Aaron (as), both were prophets living in the same era, but in my lifetime, it is only I who is a Prophet of God. This word does not imply that there would be absolutely no more prophets after the Holy Prophet (sa).

When this argument is presented to non-Ahmadis, they present the rebuttal that the Holy Prophet (sa) has used the words La nabiyya ba‘di in other contexts as well, where no mention of Hadrat ‘Ali (ra) has been made. We have already quoted these Ahadith above. The Holy Prophet (sa) states:

وانہ سیكون فی امتی ثلاثون كذابون كلھم انہ نبی و انا خاتم النبیین لا نبی بعدی ۔

Meaning,

“Verily, within my Ummah there would be thirty liars, each of whom would consider himself to be a prophet. And I am the Seal of the Prophets, there is no prophet after me.”

After presenting this Hadith, non-Ahmadis present the argument that the Holy Prophet (sa) has clearly stated that there would be thirty liars after me, each of whom would claim prophethood, but there would be no prophets after me. In addition to this, non-Ahmadis object that Ahmadis understand Khatamun-Nabiyyin to mean ‘Seal of the Prophets’ i.e., the Best of the Prophets, but in this Hadith, the Holy Prophet (sa) has himself defined the meaning of Khatamun-Nabiyyin as ‘the Last of Prophets.’ Non-Ahmadis assert that in this Hadith the Holy Prophet (sa) has used the words La nabiyya ba‘di to define the meaning of the title Khatamun-Nabiyyin, therefore, with the presence of such a clear-cut and categorical Hadith, how can Ahmadis claim that there could be prophets after the Holy Prophet (sa)?

It is ironic, that the Hadith which non-Ahmadis present in order to refute the non-Ahmadi ideology on the concept of prophethood, is a wonderful proof in favor of the Ahmadi concept on the continuation of prophethood. We shall discuss this Hadith later on. Ahmadis do not deny this Hadith. We fully appreciate and accept the fact that the Holy Prophet (sa) has used the words La nabiyya ba‘di at other occasions as well. Therefore, we do not pretend to hide behind the Hadith in which the Holy Prophet (sa) used these words specifically in relation to Hadrat ‘Ali (ra). Even if we were to assume that the words La nabiyya ba‘di have nothing to do with the occurrence of the Battle of Tubuk, we can still prove with irrefutable argumentation that the interpretation of the words La nabiyya ba‘di as understood by non-Ahmadis is incorrect. The second meaning in which the word Ba‘d is used is as a Zarf Zaman. That is to say when one appears after the other in time. If we were to interpret the word Ba‘d in terms of time period or era, this wold also make perfect sense, and support the Ahmadi stance on the issue of prophethood. In this case, the Hadith would mean that ‘After the passing away of my era or time, no Prophet would come after me.’ As such, this Hadith would mean that no prophet could come after the Holy Prophet (sa) who would bring the era of his prophethood to an end and start a new and independent era of his own. This is in complete accordance with the Ahmadiyya viewpoint as well, because all Muslims accept the fact that the Holy Prophet (sa) was a universal prophet who brought a law which would last until the end of time. Ahmadis accept the fact that now, after the advent of the Holy Prophet (sa), the spiritual grace and prophetic blessings of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa) would span until the day of resurrection. The Holy Prophet (sa) has mentioned this fact many times. Therefore, if the word Ba‘d is taken to refer to an era of time, the statement La nabiyya ba‘di would mean that no prophet would come who would put an end to the spiritual era of the Holy Prophet (sa). For the spiritual grace and prophetic era of the Holy Prophet (sa) which has been established through the everlasting law of the Holy Qur’an would last until the end of time, and can never be abrogated.

It is unfortunate, however, that non-Ahmadis have incorrectly interpreted the word Ba‘di and limited this word to the physical life of the Holy Prophet (sa). The words La nabiyya ba‘di possess an ocean of wisdom. In actuality, the era which is being referred to in the word Ba‘d is the spiritual era of the Holy Prophet (sa) which would last until the end of time. In these words, the Holy Prophet (sa) is alluding to the subtle point that he has been sent as the perfect prophet, with the perfect law, and this law would remain until the end of time. Therefore, no prophet would come who would put an end to his era, abrogate his law, and begin a new spiritual era independent to the Holy Prophet (sa). Therefore, since the Holy Prophet (sa) is now the spiritual gateway to salvation for all of mankind until the end of time, any prophet who would come, would come in obedience and subservience to the Holy Prophet (sa). By limiting the subject matter of this word merely to the physical life of the Holy Prophet (sa) does not do justice to the spiritual greatness and grandeur of our beloved Master, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him. As true and sincere Muslims it is our duty to translate the words of the Holy Prophet (sa) in the manner which serves to promote the greatness of the Holy Prophet (sa) most. Unfortunately, the interpretation which is presented by non-Ahmadis does not increase the status of the Holy Prophet (sa) in the least, because appearing last in time, is by no means a distinction. However, the interpretation which is presented by Ahmadis not only accords with the teachings of the Holy Qur’an, but also falls precisely in line with the magnificent and lofty status of the Holy Prophet (sa).

The third meaning of the word Ba‘d, which has also been supported by the Holy Qur’an is ‘besides’ or ‘in opposition’ of something. In other words, to leave one thing and prefer another. The Holy Qur’an has used this word as such in the following verses:

فَبِأَيِّ حَدِيثٍ بَعْدَ اللَّهِ وَآَيَاتِهِ يُؤْمِنُونَ

Meaning,

“In what word, then, after (i.e. besides) Allah and His Signs will they believe?”

Then, in the same Surah, Allah the Almighty states:

فَمَنْ يَهْدِيهِ مِنْ بَعْدِ اللَّهِ أَفَلَا تَذَكَّرُونَ

Meaning,

“Who, then, will guide him after (i.e., besides) Allah? Will you not then heed?”

In light of this meaning, the Hadith La nabiyya ba‘di makes perfect sense as well. In this case, the meaning of the Hadith would be that after the advent of the Holy Prophet (sa) there can be no prophet who brings a teaching in opposition to that of the Holy Prophet (sa), or alters and abrogates the perfect teachings of the Holy Prophet (sa).

Therefore, if the only meaning of the word Ba‘d is ‘after me in time,’ as our non-Ahmadi opponents claim, what would be the meaning of the two above-mentioned verses of the Holy Qur’an? Can any true believer entertain the absurd notion that God is limited to a mere life-time? Is there such thing as ‘after the demise of Allah?’ Of course not! It is obvious that in this verse of the Holy Qur’an, the word Ba‘d has been used to mean ‘besides’ Allah. In other words, who can guide a man aside from Allah the Almighty who is the source of all knowledge and divine grace. As such, from the above-mentioned points and these two verses of the Holy Qur’an in which the word Ba‘d has been used in relation to God, it is firmly established that the only meaning of the word Ba‘d is not ‘after me in time’ as non-Ahmadis fervently assert.
In Sahih Bukhari which is accepted as the most authentic book of Hadith, there is a narration which the Holy Prophet (sa) has used the word Ba‘d in the same context as it appears in the above-mentioned verses of Surah Al-Jathiyyah.

بینا انا نائم رآیت فی یدی سوارین من ذھب فاھمّنی شآنھما فاوحی الی فی المنام ان انفخھما فطارا فاوّلتھما كذابین یخرجان بعدی احدھما العنسی والآخر مسیلمة ۔

Meaning,

“While I was sleeping, I saw in a dream that there are two gold bangles on my wrists and this worried me. I was then divinely inspired in my dream to blow upon them and so I did and both the bangles flew away. I interpreted both of them to be two liars (who would claim to be prophets) and would appear after (i.e., besides me). One of them was Aswad Ansi and the other Musailimah Kadhdhab.”

In the above-mentioned narration, the Holy Prophet (sa) has used the exact same word which has appeared in the Hadith under discussion. Whilst referring to two false claimants of prophethood, the Holy Prophet (sa) used the word Ba‘di and stated that these two claimants would appear. Now history clearly shows that both Aswad Ansi and Musailimah Kadhdhab claimed to be prophets in the very lifetime of the Holy Prophet (sa). Therefore, this Hadith categorically proves that the word Ba‘di has been used by the Holy Prophet (sa) in this Hadith to infer a meaning of ‘besides’ or ‘in opposition of.’ So too is the case with the famous Hadith La nabiyya ba‘di.

In accordance with the context of the sentence in which the word is used, there are three meanings of the word Ba‘d. We have already explained the meaning of the words La nabiyya ba‘di in all three cases and we have also established that in all three cases, the meaning of the words La nabiyya ba‘di is not that there would be no prophets of any sort after the demise of the Holy Prophet (sa).

Now, we would like to take up the Hadith from Abu Dawud which is presented by non-Ahmadis as an ‘irrefutable’ argument in support of the non-Ahmadi concept on the finality of prophethood. This Hadith has already been quoted above, but we shall present it again for the ease of our readers. The Holy Prophet (sa) is reported to have said:

وانہ سیكون فی امتی ثلاثون كذابون كلھم انہ نبی و انا خاتم النبیین لا نبی بعدی ۔

Meaning,

“Verily, within my Ummah there would be thirty liars, each of whom would consider himself to be a prophet. And I am the Seal of the Prophets, there is no prophet after me.”

Non-Ahmadis present the argument that in this Hadith, the Holy Prophet (sa) has clearly and categorically closed the door of prophethood by stating that many liars would appear after me, each of whom would claim to be a Prophet. However, remember that I am Khatamun-Nabiyyin and there is no prophet after me. Non-Ahmadis state that in this Hadith the Holy Prophet (sa) has himself provided an explanation of the word Khatamun-Nabiyyin to mean ‘no prophets after me’. If this was not the case, the Holy Prophet (sa) would not have used both of these two things together. Hence, they assert that anyone who claims to be a prophet after the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa) is a liar or Dajjal, and thus, God-forbid, the Promised Messiah (as) is also among those false claimants to prophethood who had been foretold by Prophet Muhammad (sa) himself.

First, it should be kept in mind that in this Hadith, the Holy Prophet (sa) has stated that there would be thirty liars and each of them would falsely claim to be a prophet of God. The Holy Prophet (sa) did not state that anyone who claims to be a prophet after me would be a liar and an Anti-Christ. If this was the case, and the Holy Prophet (sa) was making an unconditional statement to the affect that anyone and everyone who claims to be a prophet after him, he would be a liar, Prophet Muhammad (sa) would not have specified the number thirty in this Hadith. If the non-Ahmadis are correct in their argument, and there are absolutely no prophets after the Holy Prophet (sa), he simply would have stated that there are no prophets after me and anyone who claims to be a prophet after me would be a liar. However, the Holy Prophet (sa) did not state this at all. There is a world of difference between these two statements and anyone who possesses even a little common sense can indeed, quickly discern the difference between the two.

As a matter of fact, in these words of the Holy Prophet (sa), there is a beautiful prophecy that prophethood would continue within the Ummah. In these words of the Holy Prophet (sa), by limiting the number of false prophets to thirty, he has clearly alluded to the fact that there would also be a truthful prophet as well. In this Hadith, these words do not allude to the complete shutting of the door of prophethood. Rather, these words allude to the specification of those claimants to prophethood who would be false. In these words, by specifying the number of false prophets to thirty, the Holy Prophet (sa) has made our task of identifying the truthful prophet of the latter days easier. The Holy Prophet (sa) has explained that although there would be false prophets after him, every single claimant should not be labelled false. For a truthful prophet of God was also destined to appear by the Holy Prophet (sa) himself. By specifying the number thirty, the Holy Prophet (sa) indicated that after these thirty false claimants, a truthful claimant would also appear, and the Muslims should accept him. There is another Hadith in which the Holy Prophet (sa) has said:

لیس بینی و بینہ نبی و انہ نازل

Meaning,

“There would be no prophet between me and him, and he would descend.”

In actuality, this Hadith is a commentary of the Hadith under discussion, in which the number of false claimants has been confined to thirty. In the above-mentioned Hadith, the Holy Prophet (sa) has stated that there would be no prophets between me and that Messiah of the Latter Days who would be raised from among my Ummah. As such, when we analyse both of these Ahadith together, it becomes evident that the Holy Prophet (sa) has mentioned that there would be thirty false claimants to prophethood after me. However, none of those claimants would be truthful in their claim, because there is no prophet between me and that Messiah of mine who would appear in the latter days from within my Ummah as an obedient servant to me. Moreover, when that Messiah appears, do accept him, because he shall be a prophet and my beloved Mahdi. Furthermore, do not place him among those false claimants to prophethood who would have come before him, because every single claimant would not be false. There would only be thirty false claimants. As we have mentioned above, if the door to prophethood was closed completely, the Holy Prophet (sa) would not have specified a number, rather, he simply would have said that there would be no prophets after me, and all those who claim to be prophets of God are liars and Anti-Christs.

It is categorically proven from historical account that thirty false claimants of prophethood did in fact appear prior to the advent of the Promised Messiah (as). ‘Allamah Qastalani states:

قال القاضی عیاض ھذا الحدیث قد ظھر صدقہ فلو عُدّ من تنبآ من زمن النبی صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم الیٰ الآن ممن اشتھر بذلك لوجد ھذا العدد و من طالع كتب التاریخ عرف صحة ھذا۔

Meaning,

“Qadi ‘Ayad states that the truth of this Hadith has been established because if the number of the renowned false claimants of prophethood is counted from the time of the Holy Prophet (sa) to the present time, this number has been fulfilled. Anyone who studies history shall see the truth of this statement.”

When the opponents of the Promised Messiah (as) and the misguided Maulvis of the time continued to mock the Promised Messiah (as) and claim that he was also among those thirty Dajjals about whom the Holy Prophet (sa) had made a prophecy, it was with great grief and indignation, that the Promised Messiah (as) responded in the following awe-inspiring words:

“Some so-called Mullahs raise the allegation upon me that our Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) has given us the glad-tiding that thirty Anti-Christs would appear among you and each one would make a claim to prophethood. The answer to this is: O foolish ones! O unfortunate ones! Were thirty Anti-Christs the only thing written in your destiny and was there no truthful reformer decreed for you? A fifth of the 14th Century is about to reach its end and the moon of Caliphate has completed fourteen stages of its perfection to which the following verse of the Holy Qur’an is also alluding to:

وَالْقَمَرَ قَدَّرْنَاهُ مَنَازِلَ

[i.e., And for the moon we have appointed stages.] The world is at its end, but your Dajjals have not yet come to an end. Perhaps they would stay among you until death overtakes you. O foolish ones! That Dajjal which is known as Satan is in fact within you; and therefore you do not recognize the time. You pay no attention to heavenly signs. But why should one lament upon you, for the one who appeared fourteen centuries after Moses (as) in my likeness was also named a Dajjal by the wretched ones from among the Jews. Your hearts have also become similar. May Allah have Mercy upon you.”

Indeed, these words are such that any sincere believer, who possesses the fear of Allah in his heart would fall in prostration before Allah and seek forgiveness. For if we were to accept that only false prophets, Dajjals and liars would appear within the Ummah, this would indeed be a deplorable state for the Muslims. The Holy Qur’an has referred to the Muslims as the best of people. Why then is it that the best Ummah’s destiny is so grim that only false prophets would appear at different times throughout the course of history, but Allah would not send a truthful prophet from within them. Is the spiritual state of the Muslim Ummah so dire that not a single man possesses the qualities necessary for Allah to bestow upon him the lofty reward of prophethood when the Ummah is in need of guidance?

A non-Ahmadi might raise the objection that this argument is flawed, and does not substantiate a dearth in spirituality within the Ummah, rather proves its lofty spiritual status, because prophets are no longer needed for the reformation of the Muslims after the advent of the perfect prophet and revelation of the perfect law. In response to this, we would remind our non-Ahmadi friends that the Holy Prophet (sa) himself prophecised that a time would come when the Muslims would forget the perfect teachings which were given to them in the form of the Holy Qur’an. After all if there was no need for reformation of the Muslim Ummah, why do non-Ahmadis believe in the advent of Jesus (as) in the latter days? It is obvious that a time would come when the Muslims would forget the true teachings of the Holy Qur’an, and at that time, a reformer, who would be a prophet (as prophesied by the Holy Prophet (sa)) would be needed to redirect the Ummah to the correct path. In the Holy Qur’an, Allah the Almighty states:

وَقَالَ الرَّسُولُ يَا رَبِّ إِنَّ قَوْمِي اتَّخَذُوا هَذَا الْقُرْآَنَ مَهْجُورًا

Meaning,

“And the Messenger will say, ‘O my Lord, my people have indeed treated this Qur’an as a discarded thing.”

Therefore, it is a categorically established fact that a time would come when the Muslims would forget the teachings of the Holy Qur’an, and a prophet would be needed for their reformation.

In response to this, non-Ahmadis might raise the objection that the advent of Jesus (as) in the latter days is not for the reformation of the Muslims, but for the conversion of the disbelievers to Islam. The final victory of Islam would be attained by Jesus (as) in the latter days.

In response to this objection, we would once again, return to our original argument which was just presented above and ask non-Ahmadis that do they suggest that the spiritual state of the Muslim Ummah is so grave that not a single Muslim believer is worthy of fulfilling this honourable role? It seems astoundingly odd that Allah would ‘preserve’, as it were, a prophet from the Bani Isra’il to fulfill the task of bring about the final victory of Islam in the latter days. This is a great insult upon the spiritual grace and majesty of the Holy Prophet (sa) and upon the Ummah itself. This ideology purports that the pure and perfect teachings of the Holy Qur’an and the unparalleled spiritual force of the Holy Prophet (sa) was unable to create even a single believer who was worthy of being appointed to the lofty office of prophethood for the reformation of mankind and the final victory of Islam. We see that in the Bani Isra’il there were many prophets who were raised after Moses (as) for the reformation of the people, but in accordance with the non-Ahmadi ideology, our beloved Master (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) was not able to create even one such honourable man through his perfect teachings and spiritual grace. This is a notion which no true Muslim can accept. Do non-Ahmadis consider Moses (as) to be superior to Prophet Muhammad (sa) in his teachings, spiritual grace and status? Ahmadis believe the Holy Prophet (sa) to be far superior to Moses (as).

Moreover, Ahmadis believe that the spiritual grace and teachings of the Holy Prophet (sa) were so unparalleled that by following him, that magnificent prophet was born, who in his spiritual grace outweighs all the prophets of the Bani Isra’il in their entirety. Yet, despite this lofty status, that prophet is a humble servant of the Master Prophet, our Most Beloved Prophet Muhammad (sa). Moreover, Ahmadis firmly believe that the final victory of Islam would be brought about not by a prophet of the Bani Isra’il, but by a humble servant of Prophet Muhammad (sa) from within his Ummah. This honour would indeed remain within the Ummah.

The Ahmadi interpretation of this Hadith is not only supported by the Holy Qur’an, by the internal testimony present in this Hadith, and by other Ahadith, but also by a statement of Hadrat ‘A’ishah (ra). This statement of Hadrat ‘A’ishah (ra) is replete of such wisdom and far-sightedness as puts a person to awe. The Holy Prophet (sa) has stated that half of religion can be learnt from ‘A’ishah (ra). As such, this statement of the mother of the believers should not be taken lightly. Hadrat ‘A’ishah (ra) states:

قولوا انہ خاتم الانبیاء ولا تقولوا لا نبی بعدہ

Meaning,

“Say that he is the Seal of the Prophets but do not say that there is no prophet after him.”

In this statement Hadrat ‘A’ishah (ra) has spoken of two things. Firstly, she has spoken of that supreme spiritual title of Prophet Muhammad (sa) as presented by Allah the Almighty in the Holy Qur’an. Secondly, she has spoken of that Hadith in which the Holy Prophet (sa) has stated that, ‘There is no prophet after me.’ In presenting these two things, Hadrat ‘A’ishah (ra) has mentioned that the statement of the Holy Qur’an in which the Holy Prophet (sa) has been referred to as Khatamun-Nabiyyin or Seal of the Prophets should be preferred over the Hadith in which the Holy Prophet (sa) had stated that there will be no prophet after me. Hadrat ‘A’ishah (ra) has mentioned that we should say that the Holy Prophet (sa) is the Seal of the Prophets but not that there will be no prophets after him. This statement should not be misunderstood. God-forbid, this statement cannot not be interpreted to infer that Hadrat ‘A’ishah (ra) is rejecting a statement of the Holy Prophet (sa). Such a grave injustice could never be attributed to a righteous lady like Hadrat ‘A’ishah (ra), about whom the Holy Prophet (sa) has stated himself that half of the faith can be learnt from ‘A’ishah (ra). In actuality, the Mother of the Believers has saved the Ummah from a great danger. In this statement, she has mentioned, in a very subtle and beautiful manner that the title ‘Seal of the Prophets’ are the words of God as mentioned in the Holy Qur’an, and the phrase ‘There are no prophets after me’ are the words of Prophet Muhammad (sa) as mentioned in the Ahadith. It was the desire of Hadrat ‘A’ishah (ra) to point out that the phrase ‘There are no prophets after me,’ should not be misinterpreted and understood in a manner as contradict the Holy Qur’an. Hadrat ‘A’ishah (ra) knew full well that the phrase ‘There are no prophets after me,’ could easily be misconstrued by people who were not fully aware of the teachings of the Holy Qur’an. She knew that if these words were propagated without mentioning the background and context in which they were initially stated, many a people may fall victim to the false ideology that all types of prophethood have come to an end with the Holy Prophet (sa). Therefore, in order to save the Ummah from this grave danger, Hadrat ‘A’ishah (ra) has pulled the Ummah towards the Holy Qur’an. In this statement, Hadrat ‘A’ishah has taught us that we should not interpret the words La nabiyya ba‘di in a manner which contradicts the Holy Qur’an. The words La nabiyya ba‘di can be easily misunderstood by an uninformed person, but the title Khatamun-Nabiyyin as mentioned in the Holy Qur’an cannot be misrepresented when understood in light of other verses of the Holy Qur’an.

As such, the verse of the Holy Qur’an in which the Holy Prophet (sa) has been referred to as the Seal of the Prophets or Khatamun-Nabiyyin does not mean that there are no prophets after the Holy Prophet (sa) and that all forms of prophethood have come to an end at the person of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa). The true meaning of the lofty title, ‘Seal of the Prophets’ means that after the Holy Prophet (sa), no prophet who brings a new law or claims to have received the office of prophethood in independance of the Holy Prophet (sa) can now come, because this would break the Seal of Prophethood. However, it is possible for a person to come, who appears as a subordinate, with the stamp of attestation of our beloved Master, Prophet Muhammad (sa), as a reflection of his ever-radiant light and spiritual grace. The reason for this is because, in reality, this is not a new prophethood, rather, it is a continuation of the prophethood of Muhammad (sa), and of that spiritual stream which gushed forth from the barren land of Makkah 1400 years ago.

This famous Hadith is presented by non-Ahmadis in an attempt to substantiate the finality of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa). However, the interesting point to note is that the very Hadith which is presented by non-Ahmadis to justify the complete end of prophethood after Prophet Muhammad (sa), is a cogent argument against the life of Jesus (as), which is also a very fundamental belief of the non-Ahmadis. The key lies in the Arabic word Ba‘di, which has been used in the Hadith under discussion, as well as in the Holy Qur’an.

Allah the Almighty has recorded the statement of Jesus (as) in the following words:

وَإِذْ قَالَ عِيسَى ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ يَا بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ إِنِّي رَسُولُ اللَّهِ إِلَيْكُمْ مُصَدِّقًا لِمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيَّ مِنَ التَّوْرَاةِ وَمُبَشِّرًا بِرَسُولٍ يَأْتِي مِنْ بَعْدِي اسْمُهُ أَحْمَدُ فَلَمَّا جَاءَهُمْ بِالْبَيِّنَاتِ قَالُوا هَذَا سِحْرٌ مُبِينٌ

Meaning,

“And remember when Jesus, son of Mary, said, ‘O children of Israel, surely I am Allah’s Messenger unto you, fulfilling that which is before me in the Torah, and giving glad tidings of a Messenger who will come after me. His name will be Ahmad.’ And when he came to them with clear proofs, they said, ‘This is clear enchantment.’”

In this verse of the Holy Qur’an, Jesus (as) is recorded to have used the word Ba‘d and he has prophesied the advent of a prophet named Ahmad who would come after him. This is a prophecy made by Jesus (as) regarding the advent of Prophet Muhammad (sa). Jesus (as) states that after me, a prophet named Ahmad would appear. Just as the Holy Prophet (sa) has used the word Ba‘di in the Hadith under discussion, so too has Jesus (as) used the word Ba‘di to foretell the advent of Prophet Muhammad (sa) after him. Whenever the Hadith La nabiyya ba‘di is discussed, non-Ahmadis passionately assert that the word Ba‘di means ‘after my demise’. Therefore, if this is truly the meaning of the word Ba‘di, then the logical conclusion which is derived from this verse is that Prophet Muhammad (sa) cannot appear until Jesus (as) dies. The reason being that in this verse, Jesus (as) has mentioned that Ahmad would come ‘after me,’ (i.e., Ba‘di). However, since non-Ahmadis believe Jesus (as) as being alive in the heavens to this day, the advent of Prophet Muhammad (sa) is not possible in accordance with this verse of the Holy Qur’an. Therefore, non-Ahmadis have three options available to them, in light of their very own translation of the word Ba‘di, in the context of this verse:

1. Jesus (as) is still alive in the heavens, the prophethood of the Holy Prophet (sa) is true, but this verse of the Holy Qur’an is incorrect (God-forbid).
2. Jesus (as) is still alive in the heavens, this verse of the Holy Qur’an is true, but the prophethood of the Holy Prophet (sa) is invalid (God-forbid).
3. Jesus (as) has passed away, this verse of the Holy Qur’an is true and the prophethood of the Holy Prophet (sa) is also true.

We are sure that any true Muslim would opt for option three. It is unfortunate that non-Ahmadis subscribe to the narrow-minded interpretation which purports that if the Holy Prophet (sa) has stated that there is no prophet after me, then no prophet can come after him - period. However, the first question which naturally arises in this case would be that if no prophet can come after Prophet Muhammad (sa) then how can Jesus (as) come from the heavens in the latter days? When this very logical question is posed to non-Ahmadis they respond by saying that ‘no new prophet can come,’ but since Jesus (as) is a prophet who was born prior to the Holy Prophet (sa) he is exempt from the statement of the Holy Prophet (sa). The illogical nature of this argument is so very evident, that any like-minded individual who contemplates for even a moments time can quickly realize the absurdity of this argument. When Ahmadis state that the words La nabiyya ba‘di do not purport that all forms of prophethood have come to an end, non-Ahmadis respond with a blanket-statement that in this Hadith, the Holy Prophet (sa) has negated the coming of all prophets, irrespective of their type. But when Ahmadis respond by saying that if you are correct in your assertion and the phrase La nabiyya ba‘di is a blanket statement which negates the coming of any and all prophets, then surely Jesus (as) cannot physically descend in the latter days either, because this would make him a prophet ‘after’ the Holy Prophet (sa), non-Ahmadis begin to attach conditions. Upon this, they respond by saying that he was a prophet born prior to the Holy Prophet (sa), therefore, he can come without violating this Hadith. However, it is irrelevant whether a person is born before or after. No such condition has been mentioned by the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa) in this Hadith. The Holy Prophet (sa) has merely stated that there shall be no prophet after me. As such, if we are to take this statement as is, for its literal meaning and as a blanket statement, as our non-Ahmadi friends suggest, then whether Jesus (as) is born prior to or after the Holy Prophet (sa), in any case, if he returns in the latter days, he would be a prophet who ‘came after’ the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa), and this Hadith states that ‘There are no prophets after me.’ Therefore, if our non-Ahmadi friends insist upon a literal interpretation of this Hadith, their own ideology on the life of Jesus is severely challenged and contradicted. Therefore, it is obvious that this Hadith must be interpreted in accordance with the Holy Qur’an, and other Ahadith.

Therefore, the interpretation of this Hadith, as presented by Ahmadis not only accords to logic and common sense, but is fully supported by the Holy Qur’an and other Ahadith. Moreover, the interpretation presented by Ahamdis does most justice to the lofty status and rank of our Beloved Master, the Holy Prophet (sa).

It is not only Ahmadis who understand the above-mentioned Hadith in the manner elaborated above. Rather, other Saints from among the Ummah have also understood this Hadith in the same manner as presented by Ahmadis. We present some of these examples below. Hadrat Imam Ibni ‘Arabi states:

و ھذا معنی قولہ صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم ان الرسالة والنبوة قد انقطعت فلا رسول بعدی و لا نبی ای لا نبی بعدی یكون علی شرع یخالف شرعی بل اذا كان یكون تحت حكم شریعتی ۔

Meaning,

“The true meaning of the Ahadith ‘Innar-rasalata wan-nubuwwata qad inqata‘at’ and ‘La nabiyya ba‘di’ is that after the Holy Prophet (sa) no such prophet can appear who practices a law which is contradictory to that of Prophet Muhammad (sa). If however, he appears in obedience to the law of Muhammad (sa) then a Prophet may appear.”

Hadrat Imam Shi‘rani states:

قولہ صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم فلا نبی بعدی ولا رسول المراد بہ مشرع بعدی

Meaning,

“The statement of the Holy Prophet (sa) La nabiyya ba‘di wa la rusula implies that there can be no law-bearing prophet after Prophet Muhammad (sa)”

Nawab Nurul-Hasan Khan states:

حدیث لا نبی بعدی بے اصل ھے ۔ ھاں لا نبی بعدی آیا ھے جس كے معنی نزدیك اھل علم كے یہ ھیں كہ میرے بعد كوئی نبی شرع ناسخ نہ لاوے گا۔

Meaning,

“The Hadith ‘There is no revelation after my death’ is unauthentic. The Hadith La nabiyya ba‘di however, has been relayed and its true meaning is that no such prophet would appear after the Holy Prophet (sa) who abrogates his law.”

Hadrat Shah Waliullah Muhaddath Dehlvi states:

و معنی بعدی ایں جا غیری است

Meaning,

“At this place, the word Ba‘di means ‘aside from me.’”

In order to prove that there are no prophets of any sort after the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa) and that the door to prophethood is closed completely, non-Ahmadis present a Hadith which is as follows:

لو كان بعدی نبی لكان عمر

Meaning,

“If there were to be a prophet after me, verily, it would have been ‘Umar.”

Non-Ahmadis present the argument that in this Hadith the Holy Prophet (sa) has elaborated the fact that if the possibility of the advent of further prophets after him had existed, then Hadrat ‘Umar (ra) would have been a prophet after the Holy Prophet (sa). However, since Hadrat ‘Umar (ra) did not become a prophet after the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa) this evidently proves that there can be no more prophets after the Holy Prophet (sa).

The fact of the matter is that the above-mentioned narration which is presented by non-Ahmadis as a strong argument in favor of the finality of prophethood is not even an authentic Hadith. This Hadith has been narrated in Tirmidhi and Mishkat and in both places, after the actual words of the narration have been recorded, it is written that this narration is weak and unreliable. In Tirmidhi, after recording this Hadith, Imam Tirmidhi has written:

ھذا حدیث حسن غریب لا نعرفہ الا من حدیث مشرح بن ھاعان

Meaning,

“This Hadith is weak and unreliable and it has not been related except by Mishrah bin Ha‘an.”

Moreover, with regards to this Hadith, after the words of this narration, it is written in Mishkat:

رواہ الترمذی و قال ھذا حدیث غریب

Meaning,

“Imam Tirmidhi has recorded this Hadith and he has said that, ‘This Hadith is unreliable.”

Someone may pose the question that it is not sufficient to merely declare a narration unreliable without presenting a reason behind such a conclusion. In response to this, First it should be remembered that Imam Tirmidhi, who is among the most renowned and venerable of the Muhaddithin has stated that this narration is unreliable because it has reached us through a single chain of narration, in which Mishrah bin Ha‘an is also a narrator. The status of Imam Tirmidhi is not unknown to anyone and his collection is considered to be among the Sihah Sittah, or six most authentic books of Ahadith. Secondly, if the books of Asma’ur-Rijal are studied we find that the following has been written with regards to the character of Mishrah:

قال ابن حبان فی الضعفاء لا یتابع علیھا فالصواب ترك ما انفرد بہ قال ابن داود انہ كان فی جیش الحجاج الذین حاصروا ابن الزبیر و رموا الكعبة بالمنجنیق۔

Meaning,

“Ibni Habban has declared Mishrah bin Ha‘an as being unreliable and that his narrations are not deemed as being trustworthy. And the truth is that wherever he is the sole-narrator of a Hadith, such a Hadith should be abandoned. Ibni Dawood states that this narrator was a part of that army which laid siege upon Hadrat ‘Abdullah bin Zubair and threw rocks upon the Ka‘bah with catapults.”

Furthermore, Imam Shaukani states:

فی اسنادہ متروكان ھما عبد اللّٰہ بن واقد و مشرح بن ھاعان

Meaning,

“In the chain of narrators, there are two who are worthy of being abandoned, and they are ‘Abdullah bin Waqidi and Mishrah bin Ha‘an.”

Hadrat Imam Suyuti has also stated that this Hadith is unreliable and weak in his book Jami‘us-Saghir.

Therefore, it is clear that the narration which our opponents present is not an authentic narration. Hadrat Imam Tirmidhi has clearly mentioned that since Mishrah bin Ha‘an is the only person to have narrated this Hadith, therefore, it cannot be accepted as reliable. In addition to this, as it has been proven above by references from the books of Asma’ur-Rijal, the moral character of Mishrah is far below the standard which is expected of a reliable narrator. Moreover, other renowned scholars of Hadith, such as Imam Shaukani, Imam Suyuti have also stated that this Hadith is unauthentic. Therefore, this narration cannot become the foundation of any sound theological ideology, nor can it be a means of supporting the non-Ahmadi interpretation on the finality of prophethood.

Although we have proven that the narration which is presented by non-Ahmadis is not authentic, a similar narration is related with a slight variation of words. Although the words are only slightly altered, the meaning is altered drastically. The narration is as follows:

لو لم ابعث لبعثت یا عمر

Meaning,

“Had I not been raised as a prophet, verily, you would have been in my stead O ‘Umar.”

This narration is also related in the following words: لو لم ابعث فیكم لبعث عمر فیكم Meaning,

“Had I not been raised as a prophet among you, ‘Umar would have been appointed as a prophet among you.”

From the two narrations quoted above it is clear that the Holy Prophet (sa) has mentioned that if he had not been appointed as a prophet, Hadrat ‘Umar (ra) would have been appointed to this lofty office, because he possessed the inherent qualities which were necessary for the august office of law-bearing-prophethood. However, since the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa) was appointed by Allah due to his perfect character and sublime status, Hadrat ‘Umar (ra) did not receive the station of prophethood.

Non-Ahmadi Argument

Non-Ahmadis present another Hadith in an attempt to prove that there can be no prophets of any sort after the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa).

ان مثلی و مثل الانبیاء من قبلی كمثل رجل بنی بیتاً فاحسنہ و اجملہ الا موضع لبنة من زوایة فجعل الناس یطوفون بہ و یعجبون لہ و یقولون ھلاً وُضِعَتْ ھذہ اللبنة قال فآنا اللبنة و انا خاتم النبیین۔

Meaning,

“Verily, my example and the example of the prophets before me can be likened to a man who built a house and paid great attention to its beautification and decoration. However, he leaves a place empty for one brick at its corner. People would walk around this house and would become astonished as to why this single place has been left empty. Then, the Holy Prophet (sa) said, ‘I am that brick and I am the Seal of the Prophets.’”

This Hadith is presented by non-Ahmadis in order to prove the finality of the Holy Prophet (sa). Our opponents present this Hadith and assert that the Holy Prophet (sa) has presented the example of a house or a castle, which was very beautiful in all respects, but there was one place empty for a single brick. Prophet Muhammad (sa) has stated that he was that last brick, which was to be placed at the corner of the house or castle, and with his advent, the building has become complete, and now, there is no room for any further bricks (i.e., prophets). Moreover, they claim that in this Hadith the Holy Prophet (sa) has explained the meaning of Khatamun-Nabiyyin to mean ‘Last of the Prophets’, because he has stated that,

“I am that final brick and I am the Seal of the Prophets.”

In other words, the Holy Prophet (sa) has likened his title of Khatamun-Nabiyyin to that final brick in the house, after which there is no further room for any additional bricks. In summary, the building or castle which has been described in this Hadith is a metaphor for the institution of prophethood and the bricks are the prophets of God. The Holy Prophet (sa) was the last brick, and thus, the last prophet.

Lofty Status of the Holy Prophet (sa)

It is very unfortunate that in their desperate attempt to close the door of prophethood, so as to disprove the prophethood of the Promised Messiah (as), our opponents have not even spared our beloved Master, the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa). Those verses of the Holy Qur’an and Ahadith which allude to the lofty status of the Holy Prophet (sa) and his distinction as the Chief of the Prophets have been mixed to dust. So too is the case with the Hadith under discussion. Non-Ahmadis state that in this Hadith, the prophets have been likened to the bricks of a building, castle, or house and that there was space for only a final brick, which was filled by by the Holy Prophet (sa).

However, the truth is that in this Hadith, the Holy Prophet (sa) has alluded to his lofty status as a law-bearing prophet, and has spoken of the distinction of Islam and the perfection and complete nature of the teachings of Islam. The fact of the matter is that in this Hadith, the building does not signify the institution of prophethood, rather, the building which has been alluded to in this Hadith is the building of religious law or Shari‘at. The subject matter which has been elaborated upon in this example by the Holy Prophet (sa) is that prior to his advent, many prophets appeared with religious injunctions and laws for the guidance of their respective people. However, it is obvious that the first law or Shari‘at, which was given to Adam (as) by Allah the Almighty was very basic and fundamental in nature, due to the limited mental faculties of the people at the time. Along with the passage of time, as the mental faculties of mankind progressed, the prophets who were sent to their respective people brought guidance and teachings which were more refined and consolidated than the last. These new and improved teachings, have been likened to bricks in this Hadith by the Holy Prophet (sa). Every new prophet would place his brick in this building figuratively speaking of course, and the building of Shari‘at continued to develop. This continued until there was only one place left for a single brick and the Holy Prophet (sa) was to be commissioned. Upon the advent of the Holy Prophet (sa), the final brick was placed in the building, and the building of religious law was completed. In other words, the Shari‘at was perfected at the hand of the Holy Prophet (sa) and after the placement of this final brick, there would be no room for any further addition or subtraction to the perfect law of Islam. The true purport of this Hadith is not that there would be no more prophets after Prophet Muhammad (sa), rather, that the religion of Islam is the perfect, last, and final law. In actuality, the analogy presented in this Hadith speaks of the religion of Islam as a religion which not only added to and perfected the teachings of the past, but also incorporated such teachings of past religions as were capable of being included in an everlasting law. With regards to this very quality of the Islamic Shari‘at, Allah the Almighty states:

فِيهَا كُتُبٌ قَيِّمَةٌ

Meaning,

“Therein are lasting commandments (i.e., teachings of the past, which are worthy of being included into an everlasting Shari‘at have also been included).”

In the commentary of this Hadith, in Fathul-Bari, which is the most renowned commentary of Sahih Bukhari, it is written:

المراد ھٰھنا النظر الی الاكمل بالنسبة الی الشریعة المحمدیة مع ما مضی من الشرائع الكاملة

Meaning,

“In this Hadith, the purpose is to allude to the perfection of the law of Muhammad (sa) in comparison to the laws of the past.”

If we were to accept the non-Ahmadi interpretation of this Hadith, and assume that the building which is being referred to here signifies the institution of prophethood, and all the prophets are bricks, then this would be a grave insult to the lofty status of the Holy Prophet (sa). In essence, this would mean that the Holy Prophet (sa) possesses no greater distinction over the prophets before him than a brick over another identical brick. As such, in this ‘building of prophets,’ as our opponents suggest, the status, rank, or distinction of the Holy Prophet (sa) is no more than a single brick. Although such an interpretation of the analogy presented by our beloved master would support the non-Ahmadi ideology on the finality of prophethood, but no true Muslim can accept an interpretation which degrades the Holy Prophet (sa) from his lofty status.

The Advent of Future Prophets in Light of this Hadith

As we have already mentioned, our opponents present an incorrect interpretation of this Hadith in order to prove that there shall be no prophets after the Holy Prophet (sa) and in doing so commit a grave injustice upon our beloved Master, Prophet Muhammad (sa). We have already elaborated upon the correct interpretation of this Hadith, however, there is another aspect of this Hadith which also supports the Ahmadi interpretation presented above.

In this Hadith, the Holy Prophet (sa) has given the example of himself and the prophets before him. The Arabic words of the Hadith are as follows:

ان مثلی و مثل الانبیاء من قبلی كقصر

Meaning,

“Verily, my example and the example of the prophets before me can be likened to...”

It is obvious from these words, that in this Hadith, the Holy Prophet (sa) is speaking of the prophets that preceded him. If the actual intent of the Holy Prophet (sa) was to close the door of prophethood all together in this analogy, he would not have said, “My example and the example of the prophets before me can be likened to...” Instead, he would have said:

ان مثلی و مثل كل الانبیاء كقصر

Meaning,

“Verily, my example and the example of all the prophets can be likened to...”

Therefore, in this Hadith, the Holy Prophet (sa) is presenting an analogy which relates only to himself and the prophets of the past, and as we have already mentioned, that analogy relates to the completion and perfection of the Shari‘at, which began with Adam (as) and reached its pinnacle at the hand of Prophet Muhammad (sa). This Hadith does not close the door of non-law-bearing prophethood after the Holy Prophet (sa) as our non-Ahmadi opponents assert. As a matter of fact, this Hadith leaves the possibility open for the advent of non-law-bearing prophets after the Holy Prophet (sa).

An Unreliable Narration

The above-mentioned narration which is presented by non-Ahmadis in an attempt to support the erroneous concept of the finality of prophethood cannot be accepted because it is not an authentic narration. As a matter of fact, this narration is Da‘if or weak with respect to the chain of narrators. This narration is narrated by two chains of narration. In the first chain, there is a narrator called Zuhair bin Muhammad Taimi, who is a weak narrator. With regards to Zuhair bin Muhammad Taimi, it is written:

قال معاویة عن یحییٰ ضعیف و ذكرہ ابو زرعة فی اسامی الضعفاء قال عثمان الدارمی لہ اغالیط كثیرة و قال النسائی ضعیف و فی موضع اٰخر و لیس بالقوی۔

Meaning,

“Mu‘awiyyah states that Yahya and Abu Zar‘ah consider him (i.e., Zuhair bin Muhammad Taimi) to be an unreliable narrator. ‘Uthman Ad-Darmi states that his false narrations are present in abundance. Imam Nisa’i has also declared him to be weak and at another occasion Imam Nisa’i has stated that he is not a reliable narrator.”

From this reference it becomes evident that Zuhair bin Muhammad Taimi’s repute is such that a narration relayed by him cannot be categorized as a reliable narration. It is also worthy to note that from among the scholars who have declared him to be unreliable, the name of Imam Nisa’i is a prominent one. Imam Nisa’i is from among those Muhaddithin, whose collection of Hadith is a part of the Sihah Sittah. He is a Muhaddith of extra-ordinary repute and standing and it is due to his stringent conditions and deep scrutiny that his collection has attained a high position among the books of Ahadith. Therefore, if Imam Nisa’i declares someone to be a weak narrator, this statement cannot be casually overlooked.

The second chain of narration by which this narration is related contains two narrators, ‘Abdullah bin Dinar and Abu Salih Al-Khauzi. ‘Uqaili has stated that the narration of ‘Abdullah bin Dinar is not authentic. Moreover, Ibni Mu‘in has declared Ibni Salih to be a weak narrator.

Non-Ahmadi Argument

Non-Ahmadis present another Hadith in an attempt to prove that there can be no prophets of any sort after the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa).

ان الرسالة والنبوة قد انقطعت فلا رسول بعدی و لا نبی قال فشق ذلك علی الناس فقال لكن المبشرات۔

Meaning,

“Verily apostleship and prophethood have come to an end. For there is no messenger after me and no prophet. This was difficult for the people to bear, so the Holy Prophet (sa) said, ‘However, Mubashirat shall remain’”

Our opponents present this Hadith in order to prove that prophethood has come to an end at the advent of the Holy Prophet (sa). They assert that in this Hadith, not only has the Holy Prophet (sa) mentioned that ‘There is no prophet after me,’ rather, he has also mentioned that, ‘There is no prophethood after me.’ In other words, they claim that in this Hadith, the Holy Prophet (sa) has elaborated upon his statement La nabiyya ba‘di as meaning that there would be no prophethood after me, be it law-bearing or non-law-bearing.

An Unreliable Narration Presented by Non-Ahmadis

First it is important to mention that this narration is not an authentic Hadith. There are four narrators in the chain of narration whose names are Hasan bin Muhammad Az-Za‘farani, ‘Affan bin Muslim, ‘Abdul-Wahid bin Ziyad and Al-Mukhtar bin Filfil and all of them are weak narrators. In other words, except for Hadrat Anas who is the first narrator of this Hadith, the entire chain of narration is based on weak narrators.

With regards to the first narrator Hasan bin Muhammad Az-Za‘farani, Allamah Adh-Dhahabi states:

ضعَّفہ ابن قانع و قال الدار قطنی قد تكلموا فیہ

Meaning,

“Ibni Qani‘ states that he is a weak narrator. Dar Qutni states that with regards to the authenticity of this narrator, the scholars hold reservations.”

Similarly, with regards to the second narrator, ‘Affan bin Muslim, Abu Khaithamah states:

انكرنا عفان

Meaning,

“We do not accept this narrator to be genuine.”

Then, with regards to ‘Abdul-Wahid bin Ziyad it is written:

فقال یحییٰ لیس بشیء

Meaning,

“Yahya states that this narrator is of no value whatsoever.”

یخطی كثیرا تكلم فیہ سلیمانی فعدہ فی روایة المناكیر عن انس

Meaning,

“This narrator often commits mistakes in his narrations. Sulaimani has stated that this narrator is among those who have relayed false narrations from Hadrat Anas. "

Only Law-bearing Prophethood is Implied

We have already proven by clear and straight-forward references of the books of Asma-ur-Rijal that the above-mentioned narration is not an authentic Hadith. However, even if we were to hypothetically accept the narration as correct, unfortunately, the meaning which non-Ahmadis attempt to tie to this narration is not correct.

The fact of the matter is that in this narration, the words Rasalah and Nubuwwah have been used here along with what is called the ‘definite article’ in grammatical terms. Whenever a noun is used in the Arabic language with the definite article ‘Al’, this restricts the definition of the word to something more specific. As such, whereas the word Nubuwwah and Rasalah have appeared in this narration along with the definite article ‘Al’, this does not infer all types of prophethood in general, rather a specific type of prophethood is implied. In this narration, the prophethood which has been referred to as being brought to an end upon the advent of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa) is law-bearing prophethood and independent prophethood. Even a cursory linguistic analysis of this narration evidently demonstrates that all forms of prophethood have not been ruled out here. This narration does not prohibit the advent of non-law-bearing prophethood. If all types of prophethood were inferred in this narration, the words Nubuwwah and Rasalah would have been used without ‘Al’.

Understanding of Scholars of the Past

The fact of the matter is that since the prophecy of the advent of a non-law-bearing prophet who would come in complete obedience to the Holy Prophet (sa) was present in the Ahadith, and of course, the foundation of which is found in the Holy Qur’an, the scholars of the past have also written on the continuation of prophethood. We find that there are numerous scholars of very high repute and virtue who have written in complete accordance with the interpretation presented by the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. It was due to their purity of heart and sincerity, that Allah the Almighty endowed them a deep understanding of the issue at hand, and they openly wrote on the continuation of prophethood. Similarly, in light of this divinely inspired knowledge, they have also presented beautiful interpretations of those Ahadith, which are often misconstrued and misrepresented by our non-Ahmadi opponents.

Hadrat Imam Ibni ‘Arabi who is a renowned scholar of Islam, and highly respected throughout the Muslim world has also presented the same interpretation of this narration. He states in his book Futuhat-e-Makkiyyah:

ان النبوة التی انقطعت بوجود رسول اللّٰہ صلی اللّٰہ علیہ و سلم انما ھی النبوة التشریع لا مقامھا فلا شرع یكون ناسخا لشرعہ صلی اللّٰہ علیہ وسلم ولا یزید فی شرعہ حكما آخر و ھذا معنیٰ قولہ صلی اللّٰہ علیہ و سلم ان الرسالة والنبوة قد انقطعت فلا رسول بعدی و لا نبی ای لا نبی بعدی یكون علی شرع یخالف شرعی بل اذا كان یكون تحت حكم شریعتی۔

Meaning,

“Where it has been said that prophethood has come to an end at the person of the Messenger of Allah (sa), it is law-bearing prophethood which is mentioned not the office of prophethood itself. Now there can be no law which would abrogate the law of the Holy Prophet (sa). Hence now there is no injunction which can be added to his law nor can anything be subtracted. This is the meaning of the statement of the Holy Prophet (sa) ‘Verily apostleship and prophethood have come to an end. For there is no messenger after me and no prophet,’ i.e., there would be no prophet after me upon a Shari‘at which contradicts my Shari‘at. Rather, whenever someone appears, he would come in subservience to my Shari‘at.”

This reference is so explicit and straight-forward that there remains no room for doubt. It is especially noteworthy, that this reference is not from the present-day or even from the time of the Promised Messiah (as). Rather, it is evidence of the deep understanding which Allah the Almighty had bestowed upon the true, sincere and righteous scholars of the past, even prior to the advent of the Promised Messiah (as) with regards to the continuation of prophethood within the Ummah. Hadrat Imam Ibni ‘Arabi appeared nearly 700 years prior to the advent of the Promised Messiah (as), therefore no one can raise the objection that this is a tainted or biased representation. Furthermore, it is also important to note that this is not a reference by an ordinary scholar. Hadrat Imam Ibni ‘Arabi was a saint of very high standing and his righteousness and divine understanding of religious texts is accepted far and wide throughout the Muslim world. Therefore, his statement cannot be casually ruled out as having no value, especially when his interpretation is supported by the Holy Qur’an and other Ahadith.

Therefore, First, it should be remembered by our non-Ahmadi opponents that the Hadith which is presented in support of the non-Ahmadi interpretation on the finality of prophethood is not an acceptable narration, because it has a very weak chain of narrators. As such, it is obvious that a narration which does not meet the basic requirements of authenticity as stipulated in books on the science of Hadith, cannot become the basis or foundation for any sound argumentation or theological interpretation. However, as we have demonstrated above, even if the narration is hypothetically accepted as being correct, even still, the words of this narration refute the false non-Ahmadi interpretation and support the correct Ahmadi ideology on the continuation of non-law-bearing prophethood in subservience to Prophet Muhammad (sa).

Non-Ahmadi Argument

There is another very famous Hadith which is presented by our opponents in support of the non-Ahmadi concept on the finality of prophethood. The narration is as follows:

لم یبق من النبوة الا المبشرات قالوا و ما المبشرات قال الرؤیا الصالحة

Meaning,

“There is nothing left of prophethood except Mubashirat. The companions inquired ‘What are Mubashirat?’ The Holy Prophet (sa) said, ‘True dreams.’”

Our opponents present the above-mentioned narration to prove that prophethood has come to an end without condition after the advent of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa). Furthermore, they assert that in this Hadith the Holy Prophet (sa) has clearly mentioned that of prophethood only true dreams have remained, nothing more.

Rational Analysis of this Hadith

The fact of the matter is that not only does this erroneous concept contradict the Holy Qur’an and other Ahadith, rather, it is also easily refuted by a simple analysis of the above-mentioned Hadith itself. In order to fully comprehend the correct interpretation of this Hadith, there are two words which must be understood in greater depth: Mubashirat and Ar-Ru’ya As-Salihah. If these words are understood in depth it becomes evident that in this Hadith, the Holy Prophet (sa) has not closed the door to prophethood at all. However, before getting into a linguistic analysis of these two words, we shall analyse this Hadith from a merely logical perspective.

As such, if one contemplates upon the wording of the above-mentioned Hadith it becomes clear that all types of prophethood have not been brought to an end by the Holy Prophet (sa) in this statement. Quite the contrary, the concept which has been so eloquently described by our beloved master in this Hadith is that although law-bearing prophethood has come to an end with the advent of the Holy Prophet (sa), the continuation of non-law-bearing prophethood in subservience to the Holy Prophet (sa) still remains.

Now let us analyse the words of the Hadith under discussion. The Holy Prophet (sa) has stated that ‘There is nothing left of prophethood except Mubashirat.’ Contrary to the non-Ahmadi belief, this statement does not close the door of prophethood, rather, it categorically establishes the continuation of non-law-bearing prophethood. In actuality, this Hadith is a wonderful argument in favor of the Ahmadi concept on the continuation of prophethood. For example if someone were to say:

لم یبق من الطعام الا الخبز

Meaning, ‘Nothing is left of the food except bread,’ this would not imply that all of the food has finished in its entirety. Rather, this statement would imply that the fundamental portion of food has remained i.e., bread. As such, if the Holy Prophet (sa) wished to express the idea that prophethood has come to an end in its entirety and without condition, he would not have stated the words ‘...except Mubashirat.’ The Holy Prophet (sa) would have simply stated that, ‘Nothing has remained of prophethood.’ However, in giving the glad-tidings that Mubashirat have remained, this means that a certain aspect of prophethood still remains, and prophethood has not been altogether ruled out by our Beloved Master.

Prophethood is Actually an Abundance of Mubashirat

Now that we have established through common sense and logic that the above-mentioned statement of the Holy Prophet (sa) has not ruled out every aspect of prophethood, and that a certain aspect of prophethood still remains, i.e., Mubashirat, the next question is: What is the meaning of ‘Mubashirat’? The fact of the matter is that the word Mubashirat as mentioned in this Hadith refers to a fundamental characteristic of the office of any prophet. In the Holy Qur’an, Allah the Almighty states:

وَمَا نُرْسِلُ الْمُرْسَلِينَ إِلَّا مُبَشِّرِينَ وَمُنْذِرِينَ

Meaning,

“And We send not the Messengers but as bearers of glad tidings (Mubashirin) and as warners (Mundhirin).”

Therefore, from this verse of the Holy Qur’an, it becomes clear that ‘Mubashirat’ and Mundhirat are a fundamental characteristic of prophethood. It is obvious that when we speak of Mubashirat it is automatically assumed that Mundhirat is also part and parcel, because one cannot be without the other. When these Mubashirat (glad tidings) and Mundhirat (warnings) are endowed to a person in a heightened form and in abundance, such a person is referred to as a Nabi or Prophet. However, a person who partakes of this in a small amount cannot be referred to as such. Only such a person can be referred to as a Nabi or prophet who receives this divine reward from Allah the Almighty in abundance. Just how a person who receives a single revelation cannot be referred to as a prophet, so too a person who partakes in the reward of Mubashirat and Mundhirat to a minor degree cannot be classified as a prophet. A person who does receive these two things in abundance however, is referred to as a prophet. As far as bringing a new law is concerned, this is something completely separate, and not every prophet is required to bring a new law. As a matter of fact, in the history of religion, most prophets were such as they did not bring a new law, but were appointed to the office of prophethood by Allah the Almighty only as Mubashirin and Mundhirin (as bearers of glad-tidings and warners). This in essence, is another way to describe non-law-bearing prophethood. A prophet who merely comes as a Mubashir and Mundhir but does not bring a new law is a non-law-bearing prophet. Therefore, when the Holy Prophet (sa) states that nothing is left of prophethood except Mubashirat, what this statement actually infers is that although law-bearing prophethood has come to an end with my advent, such prophethood which is based only on glad-tidings and warnings (i.e., non-law-bearing prophethood) shall remain.

There is another narration which is presented by non-Ahmadis in an attempt to prove the complete and unconditional finality of prophethood in which the Holy Prophet has stated:

ان الرسالة والنبوة قد انقطعت فلا رسول بعدی و لا نبی قال فشق ذلك علی الناس فقال لكن المبشرات۔

Meaning,

“Verily apostleship and prophethood have come to an end. For there is no messenger after me and no prophet. This was difficult for the people to bear, so the Holy Prophet (sa) said, ‘However, Mubashirat shall remain’”

We have already elaborated upon this narration in the previous chapter. However, there is one aspect of this narration which is directly related to the Hadith under discussion on Mubashirat. It must be remembered that this narration is presented by non-Ahmadis in support of their claim on the finality of prophethood. Although we have our reservations with respect to the authenticity of this narration, if we are to accept it as being authentic, as the non-Ahmadis would desire, this furnishes further proof in favor of the Ahmadi interpretation on the continuation of prophethood. If this narration is hypothetically taken as authentic, not only does it contain internal testimony within itself that supports the Ahmadi viewpoint, but also supports our interpretation on the Hadith under discussion on Mubashirat as well. This narration can also be understood in a new light in conjunction with the Hadith under discussion. In the above-mentioned narration it has been mentioned that apostleship and prophethood have come to an end. However, Mubashirat still remain. As we have mentioned, prophethood which is based on Mubashirat is another way of describing non-law-bearing prophethood. This is why Hadrat Allamah Ibni Hajar Al-’Asqalani who has written perhaps the most renowned commentary on Sahih Bukhari, known as Fathul-Bari has written:

اللام فی النبوة للعھد والمراد نبوتہ و المعنی لم یبقی بعد النبوة المختصة بی الا المبشرات۔

Meaning,

“In this narration, the definite article ‘Al’ is used to indicate a specific time frame and specifically infers the particular prophethood of the Holy Prophet (sa) himself. The true purport is that after me, the prophethood which was specific to me (i.e., law-bearing prophethood) has come to an end, however, Mubashirat (non-law-bearing prophethood) shall remain.”

This statement clearly elaborates the fact that law-bearing prophethood which was specific to Prophet Muhammad (sa) has come to an end and this prophethood was the highest level of prophethood which could be attained by any man. Hence, the law-bearing prophethood which was specific to the Holy Prophet (sa) and has been implied in the above-mentioned narration by the definite article ‘Al’ in this narration has come an end. However, the prophethood of Mubashirat is still present and shall continue until the end of time. The prophethood of Mubashirat refers to non-law-bearing prophethood as we have already explained above.

Linguistic Analysis of Ar-Ru’ya As-Salihah

Non-Ahmadis present the argument that when the Holy Prophet (sa) was asked as to what is inferred by the word Mubashirat, he defined this word to mean Ar-Ru’ya As-Salihah. This word is often translated as ‘True Dreams’, but the fact of the matter is that this English translation does not do full justice to the complete meaning of this word.

The fact of the matter is that the Arabic word Ru’ya is an immensely rich word which contains various meanings. To falsely conclude that the only meaning of this word is a mere dream is incorrect. The Arabic word Ru’ya is derived from the root word Ra’a. The word Ru’ya is the infinitive form of this root. Dictionaries of the Arabic language tell us that the Arabic word Ru’ya not only refers to dreams that a person sees in his sleep, but also refers to those spiritual experiences which a person sees through the eye of his heart, and this can include dreams, visions, sublime spiritual experiences and even divine communion through revelation. When we look to the Holy Qur’an and the Ahadith to understand the meaning of this Arabic word, we find that this concept is fully supported by the Holy Qur’an. For example, Allah states in the Holy Qur’an:

وَمَا جَعَلْنَا الرُّؤْيَا الَّتِي أَرَيْنَاكَ إِلَّا فِتْنَةً لِلنَّاسِ

Meaning,

“And We made not the vision which We showed thee but as a trial for men.”

Hadrat Ibni ‘Abbas states that this vision refers to the Isra’ of the Holy Prophet (sa) and the entire Muslim community also concurs with this interpretation. If we study the details of the Isra’ as recorded in Bukhari and Muslim it becomes clear that this was an extraordinarily sublime spiritual experience of the Holy Prophet (sa) in which he travelled to Baitul-Maqdas along with Hadrat Gabriel (as), he met the past prophets, led them in congregational prayer, and then proceeded to that lofty spiritual station where even Hadrat Gabriel (as) could not proceed to, and communicated with his Beloved Lord, Allah. It was in the Isra’ that the lofty status of the Holy Prophet (sa) was identified and established. This was a spiritual experience which was unprecedented in the history of prophets, and of course, it was an experience of such greatness and grandeur that only our beloved Master, the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa) was deserving of. Therefore, the term Ar-Ru’ya As-Salihah encompasses everything from dreams to spiritual experiences of the highest order.

Similarly, in another verse of the Holy Qur’an, whilst referring to the Mi‘raj of the Holy Prophet (sa) Allah the Almighty has used the same root word. Allah the Almighty states:

مَا كَذَبَ الْفُؤَادُ مَا رَأَى

Meaning,

“The heart of the Prophet was not untrue to that which it saw.”

Now it is obvious that the heart of a man does not possess physical eyes with which it sees various spectacles. Therefore, this verse of the Holy Qur’an clearly establishes that a Ru’ya can also refer to a spiritual experience which is seen and felt by the heart. Moreover, as we have mentioned, a spiritual experience which is seen and felt by the heart could be a dream, vision, or even divine communion. As such, it is the abundance of these very spiritual experiences which is another name for non-law-bearing prophethood.

Moreover, if we look to the Ahadith for a deeper understanding of the phrase Ar-Ru’ya As-Salihah we find that the commencement of revelation upon the Holy Prophet (sa) which of course, became the basis for his prophethood began with ‘true dreams.’ Hence, Hadrat ‘A’ishah (ra) relates:

اول ما بدی بہ رسول اللہ صلی اللہ علیہ و سلم من الوحی الرؤیا الصالحة

Meaning,

“The commencement of revelation to Allah’s Messenger (sa) was in the form of true dreams.”

Therefore, it is clear from this Hadith that true dreams are also a portion of prophethood. Furthermore, if Allah the Almighty so desires, a righteous person who receives true dreams can be elevated to a status even higher than this, where he begins to receive visions in abundance and begins to communicate with Allah the Almighty. Someone may object to this assertion and claim that it is false to claim that true dreams are also a portion of prophethood. However, we bring the attention of our non-Ahmadi friends to the following Hadith of the Holy Prophet (sa):

الرؤیا الصالحة جزء من ستة و اربعین جزءًا من النبوة

Meaning,

“True dreams are one portion of the forty-six portions of prophethood.”

The fact of the matter is that true dreams are also a part of prophethood. Moreover, as we have already mentioned, if Allah the Almighty wills He can elevate a person to a higher spiritual status where Allah begins to communicate with him by way of revelation. And an abundance of this very communication by way of revelation is but another name for prophethood.

Hence, thus far we have established that the Holy Prophet (sa) has stated that ‘Mubashirat’ which is one aspect of prophethood shall remain after the demise of the Holy Prophet (sa). We categorically established by a verse of the Holy Qur’an that Mubashirat as mentioned in this Hadith is a fundamental characteristic of the office of any prophet. In addition to this, it is also recorded in the Hadith under discussion that the companions inquired of the Holy Prophet (sa) as to what is inferred by ‘Mubashirat’ to which the Holy Prophet (sa) responded that ‘Mubashirat’ were ‘true dreams’ or Ar-Ru’ya As-Salihah. We then mentioned that the Arabic word Ru’ya is a very vast one, which encompasses many meanings, such as dream, vision, revelation, divine communication, etc. Furthermore, we found from the Ahadith that revelation began upon the Holy Prophet (sa) in the form of true dreams as well and this is the first step in the ladder of prophethood. There is no doubt that true dreams are also a form of divine communication, because it is through true dreams that Allah the Almighty informs His servants of future events and conveys hidden messages. Further proof of the fact that true dreams are in fact a portion of prophethood is the Hadith recorded in Bukhari where the Holy Prophet (sa) has stated that true dreams are a single portion of the forty-six portions of prophethood. Therefore, having established that true dreams are the first step out of the many steps or levels of prophethood, it is categorically proven that the door to prophethood has not been closed completely. We have elaborated upon the fact that the Holy Qur’an and the Ahadith clearly mention that true dreams, divine communication and revelation are spiritual rewards which still exist today, and when true dreams progress to heightened spiritual rewards such as visions, divine communication and an abundance of revelation, this is prophethood in essence. Hence, we believe that believers can attain spiritual heights of this nature. However, this spiritual progress can only be attained by the Grace of Allah and through complete submission and obedience to the Holy Prophet (sa).

A Prophecy of the Advent of the Promised Messiah (as)

In addition to the elaboration which has been provided above, there is another subtlety hidden in this Hadith as well. The Hadith under discussion not only speaks of the continuation of prophethood but also contains a prophecy of the advent of the Promised Messiah (as) who was to come in the likeness of Jesus (as) in the latter days. We know for a fact that Jesus (as) was given the Gospel or Injil. In Arabic the word Injil means ‘glad-tidings.’ Therefore, the prophethood of Jesus (as) which was a non-law-bearing prophethood was based on a divine word which was named ‘glad-tidings’ by Allah. The Holy Qur’an categorically supports this claim. Hence, when the Holy Prophet (sa) stated that “Nothing has remained of prophethood except Mubashirat,” in his eloquent speech he beautifully alluded to the hidden verity that although I am about to depart from this world, and with my advent law-bearing prophethood has come to an end, my Ummah shall not be deprived of the blessings of Prophethood. Rather, after my demise, a prophet in the likeness of Jesus (as) who came with the Injil or ‘glad-tidings’ would also be sent for the reformation of my ummah and he would also be accompanied by divine revelation in the form of glad-tidings. In other words, just as Jesus (as) was sent as a Messiah of the Mosaic dispensation for the service of the Mosaic law, and was accompanied by non-law-bearing revelation known as the Injil (literally meaning ‘glad-tidings’), so too the Messiah of the Muslim dispensation who would come to re-establish the forgotten law of the Holy Qur’an would also be accompanied by non-law-bearing prophetic revelation in the form of glad-tidings. It is absolutely remarkable and astonishing how beautiful, simple, yet complex and detailed this eloquence speech of our beloved Master the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa) truly is. It is as if Prophet Muhammad (sa) has encapsulated a sea of divine wisdom and knowledge in a brief phrase. In this simple yet complex masterpiece of eloquent speech, the Holy Prophet (sa) has not only beautifully explained how law-bearing prophet has come to an end, but he has also affirmed the continuation of non-law-bearing prophethood. Rather, not only has he affirmed the continuation of non-law-bearing prophethood, but he has also prophesied the advent of a divine reformer who would appear in the latter days for the reformation of mankind. But this is not all. In this miracle of eloquence, by choosing the most perfect and appropriate words, our Beloved Master has also clarified that the Messiah (as) who was to appear in the latter days in obedience and subservience to Prophet Muhammad (sa) would also be a prophet of God. The reason being that this Messiah would receive abundant non-law-bearing revelation in the form of glad-tidings or ‘Mubashirat’ from Allah the Almighty, by which he would guide the whole of mankind to the one true Lord.

Pearls of Wisdom from the Promised Messiah (as)

The Promised Messiah (as) states:

“The Holy Prophet (sa) says that of the different kinds of Prophethood, nothing remains except Mubashirat - glad tidings. In other words, only one kind of Prophethood is left, namely, spiritual experiences, for example, true dreams, visions and revelations of which the elect of God are the recipients and the accompanying light that illumines the dismal hearts of suffering humanity. Do consider, my sharp and wise critic! How can you ever conclude from this that the door to all kinds of Prophethood is totally closed? On the contrary, this tradition of the Holy Prophet (sa) proves that prophethood of the principal kind containing revealed law has of course been terminated but the Prophethood comprising Mubashirat - true dreams, visions, revelations, etc., continues and will never come to an end till the day of resurrection and shall never be terminated. As you are well aware, and should have also read in books of Ahadith, true dreams constitute one out of the forty six parts of Prophethood, i.e., Prophethood of the perfect kind. Whereas even true dreams partake of the Prophetic station, you can well imagine the exalted quality of the word of God revealed to the hearts of the Muhaddathin. Therefore, do try to understand - and may Allah be your help - that the door to this kind of partial participation in Prophethood is always open. And this kind of prophethood contains nothing but Mubashirat and Mundhirat (glad tidings and warnings) concerning hidden and unseen phenomena, Qur’anic subtleties and Divine knowledge.”

Non-Ahmadi Argument

Another narration which is also presented by non-Ahmadis in order to falsely substantiate the finality of prophethood is as follows:

انا العاقب والعاقب الذی لیس بعدہ نبی

Meaning,

“I am Al-‘Aqib and Al-‘Aqib is he after whom there is no prophet.”

Our opponents assert that in this narration, the Holy Prophet (sa) has referred to himself as Al-‘Aqib and then explicitly defined the title to imply that there are no prophets after him. Therefore, this narration categorically proves that there are no prophets after the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa) and he is the last prophet.

An Unreliable Narration

Unfortunately, like many of the other narrations which are presented by non-Ahmadis in support of the erroneous concept of the finality of prophethood, this narration is also unacceptable because it is not an authentic narration.

This narration is unreliable due to its chain of narration. One of the narrators who is recorded to have relayed this narration is Sufyan bin ‘Uyaiyna. With regards to this narrator it is written in Mizanul-I‘tidal:

كان یدلس قال احمد یخطئ فی نحو من عشرین حدیث عن الزھری عن یحیی بن سعید القطّان قال اشھد ان سفیان بن عیینة اختلط سنة سبع و تسعین و مائة فمن سمع منہ فیھا فسماعہ لا شیء

Meaning,

“He would fabricate (narrations). Imam Ahmad states that this narrator has incorrectly quoted upwards of about twenty narrations from Zuhri. Yahya bin Sa‘id Al-Qattan states that I testify on oath that Sufyan bin ‘Uyaiyna completely lost his senses in 197 A.H. Hence, anyone who takes a narration from his after this time it is unreliable.”

The other narrator of this Hadith named Zuhri is also known to add to narrations on his own accord. With regards to Zuhri it is written:

كان یدلس فی النادر

Meaning,

“He would fabricate (narrations) the odd time.”

As such, in the narration under discussion, the very same narrator, i.e., Az-Zuhri has added the words, ‘And Al-‘Aqib is he after whom there is no prophet.’

The Meaning of Al-‘Aqib

There is also further internal testimony present within the narration itself which categorically proves that this narration is not authentic. It is obvious that the word ‘Aqib is an Arabic word and the companions of the Holy Prophet (sa) were also Arabs. The companions of the Holy Prophet (sa) were not unacquainted with the Arabic language, and therefore, it seems most odd that the Holy Prophet (sa) would use an Arabic word to describe himself, and then translate the word in order to explain to the companions what the word ‘Aqib means. If the meaning of the word ‘Aqib is ‘he after whom there is no prophet,’ as our non-Ahmadi opponents suggest, then the companions would have clearly known this, and the Holy Prophet (sa) would not have been required to explain it.

The fact that this narration contains a translation of the word ‘Aqib obviously demonstrates that these words were later added by someone who was relating this narration to a group of people who were non-Arabs.

Hence, Hadrat Mullah ‘Ali Qari states:

الظاھر ان ھذا تفسیر للصحابی او من بعدہ فی شرح مسلم قال ابن الاعرابی العاقب الذی یخلف فی الخیر من كان قبلہ۔

Meaning,

“It is obvious that the words ‘And Al-‘Aqib is he after whom there is no prophet,’ have been added as a commentary by a companion or someone afterwards. Ibni A‘rabi states that Al-‘Aqib refers to someone who succeeds another person in something good.”

I swear by the honour and majesty of God that I am a believer and a Muslim; and I believe in Allah the Exalted; and in His books; and in His Messengers; and in His angels; and in the hereafter; and I believe that our Messenger, Muhammad, the Chosen One (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) is the most superior of all the Messengers and he is Khatamun-Nabiyyin (the Seal of the Prophets).
[Hamamatul-Bushra’, p. 8]

The allegation which is leveled against myself and my community that we do not believe the Holy Prophet (sa) to be Khatmun-Nabiyyin is a grievous calumny against us. The strength, belief, understanding and insight with which we believe the Holy Prophet (sa) to be Khatmul-Anbiya’, these people [who raise these allegations] do not possess even a hundred thousandth portion of that belief.
[Al-Hakam, 17 March 1905]

The meaning of Khatamun-Nabiyyin is that without the seal of the Holy Prophet (sa) no prophethood can be attested. When a seal is impressed that document becomes authenticated and is thought of as being attested. Similarly, a prophethood which does not bear the seal and attestation of the Holy Prophet (sa) is not genuine.
[Al-Hakam, 17 October 1902]

The summary of our faith is “There is no God but Allah; Muhammad (sa) is the Messenger of Allah.” Our belief, which we hold in this life here on earth and to which we will continue to adhere firmly till the time that we pass on to the next world is that our spiritual leader and master, Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), is the Seal of the Prophets and the Best of the Messengers. At his hands religion has been perfected and blessing of Allah has been consummated which lead man to the right path and further on to God Himself.
[Izalah-e-Auham, p. 170]

It is our belief that our Messenger (the Holy Prophet (sa)) is the best of all Messengers and the most superior of all the Messengers and the Seal of the Prophets. He is greater than every such person who shall come or has passed away.
[Ainah-e-Kamalat-e-Islam, p. 337, Edition 1892]

All praise is due to Allah who is the Lord of all the worlds. May peace and salutations be upon the Chief of His prophets who is the Chosen One of all His beloveds, and the finest of His creation and all that has come into existence; and the Seal of his Prophets; and the Pride of his Saints. He is our Chief and Leader, our Messenger, Muhammad (sa), the Chosen one, who is the Sun of Allah for the illumination of the hearts of the people of the world.
[Nurul-Haqq, p. 2, Edition 1894]

That person who was the most perfect, and was the ‘perfect man’, and perfect prophet, and came with perfect blessings, by whom the first resurrection of the world was manifested, due to a spiritual rising and gathering, and an entire universe, which was dead become alive by his advent, that blessed Prophet is the Seal of the Prophets, the Leader of the Pure, the Seal of the Messengers, the Pride of the Prophets, his Majesty, Muhammad, the Chosen One (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). O beloved God, send such mercy and salutations upon that beloved prophet, the like of which you have never sent upon anyone since the creation of the world. If this magnificent prophet had not appeared in the world, we would have no proof of the truthfulness of the smaller prophets who appeared in the world, like Yunus, Job, the Messiah son of Mary, Malakai, John, Zakaraiya, etc., although they were all Muqarrab and honoured and the beloved of God. It is the favor of that Prophet that all these persons were deemed truthful in the world.
[Ittimamul-Hujjah, Ruhani Khaza’in, Volume 8, p. 308]

I swear by Allah, Exalted be his Magnificence, that I am not a disbeliever. My belief is ‘There is no god but Allah; Muhammad (sa) is the Messenger of Allah’ and with relation to the Holy Prophet (sa) I believe in, ‘But he is the Messenger of Allah and the Seal of the Prophets.’
[Karamatus-Sadiqin, p. 25, Edition 1894]

If your hearts have not become hard, why then such audacity, that for no reason such a person is labelled a disbeliever who believes in the Holy Prophet (sa) as the Seal of the Prophets in light of its true meaning and believes in the Qur’an as the Best of the Books, believes in all the prophets and faces the Ka‘bah, the considers the lawful things of the Shari‘at to be lawful and for the unlawful ones to be impermissible.
[Siraj-e-Munir, p. 4]

It is our belief that our Leader and Master, Prophet Muhammad, the Chosen One (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) is the Seal o the Prophets; And we believe in the angels, miracles and all of the beliefs of the Ahl-e-Sunnah.
[Kitabul-Bariyyah, Footnote, p. 83]

The Holy Qur’an clearly states that the Holy Prophet (sa) is the Seal of the Prophets, but our opponents consider Jesus (as) to be the Seal of the Prophets. They assert that where the Messiah who has been referred to as a Prophet of God in Sahih Muslim, etc., Haqiqi Nubuwwat [independently acquired prophethood] has been inferred. Now it is obvious that if he appears in the world with his own prophethood, how can our Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) be considered the Seal of the Prophets.
[Kitabul-Bariyyah, p. 191 (footnote), Edition 1898]

As far as doctrine is concerned, what Allah desires of you is belief in His oneness and that Muhammad (sa) is his prophet, and the seal of the Prophets, and greatest of all. After him there is no prophet except he who is clothed with the mantle of Muhammad (sa) by way of Buruz, because a servant is not separate from his master, nor is a branch separate from its root. Hence, he who fully absorbs himself in his master and receives the title of Prophet from Allah, is not a breach of Khatm-e-Nubuwwat. Just as when you see your own face in a mirror you cannot become two, but are one, even though apparently there seems to be two, the only difference is of reflection and original.
[Kishti-e-Nuh, Ruhani Kaza’in, Vol. 19, p. 16]

The door is closed only for such a prophethood which brings with it new religious injunctions or a claim [of prophethood] which is made independent to the obedience of the Holy Prophet (sa). However, such a person whom Allah refers to as an Ummati (follower of the Holy Prophet) in His revelation, and on the other hand also names him a prophet, such a claim does not contradict the injunctions of the Holy Qur’an. For such a prophethood is due to following the Holy Prophet (sa) and in actuality, it is a reflection of the prophethood of the Holy Prophet (sa). It is not an independent prophethood.
[Damimah Barahin-e-Ahmadiyya (Part 5), pp. 177-178]

The Holy Prophet (sa) is the Seal of the Prophets, and the Holy Qur’an is the Seal of the Books.
[Paigham-e-Imam, p. 30, Lecture in 1903]

And verily our Prophet is the Seal of the Prophets and there is no prophet after him, except he who is illuminated by his light and his advent is a reflection of his [i.e., Prophet Muhammad (sa)] coming.
[Al-Istifta’, p. 22, Edition 1907]

Allah loves such a person who makes the Holy Qur’an a code of conduct for himself and truly believes in his Messenger to be the Seal of Prophets and considers himself in need of His Grace. Hence, such an individual becomes the beloved of God, and the love of God is that He pulls that person to Himself, and blesses him with Divine communion, and manifests His signs in the support of such a person. When the obedience of that person reaches a state of excellence, a Zilli Nubuwwat [reflection of the prophethood of Muhammad (sa)] is granted to him, which is a reflection of the Prophethood of Muhammad (sa), so that the religion of Islam remains forever revived and so that Islam always remains dominant upon its opponents.
[Chashma-e-Ma‘rifat, p. 340]

The allegation which is leveled against me that I make such a claim of prophethood whereby I cease to possess a relationship with Islam, and which means that I consider myself to be an independent prophet who has no need to follow the Holy Qur’an, and I prescribe my own Kalimah and a separate Qiblah and abrogate the law of Islam and do not follow and obey the Holy Prophet (sa) is not correct. Rather, I consider such a claim of prophethood to be disbelief........The basis upon which I am referred to as a Prophet is only inasmuch that I am honoured with divine communion, and Allah the Almighty speaks to me and communicates with me in abundance and He answers me. He manifests the unseen upon me and discloses secrets of the future to me such that until one develops a special relationship of nearness with Him, He does not disclose these secrets to anyone else. It is therefore, due to the abundance of these things that He has given me the name of Nabi........In this light I am also a Nabi and an Ummati so that the prophecy of our Leader and Master may be fulfilled that the Messiah who is to come would be an Ummati as well as a Nabi. Otherwise, how can Jesus (as) be an Ummati, about whom a false hope and expectation exists among the people that he would return. Would he become a Muslim anew after descending from the sky? At that time, would our Prophet (sa) not be the Seal of the Prophets?
[Letter written on 23 May 1908]

These are extremely unfortunate people who believe God’s attributes to have been suspended, and they are the real enemies of Islam. Their interpretation of Khatm-e-Nubuwwat (Seal of Prophethood) is a negation of Prophethood itself. Can we take Khatm-e-Nubuwwat to mean that all the blessings that could result from obedience to the Holy Prophet (sa) have now been barred, and that it is now futile to wish for Divine converse and dialogue?

لَعْنَةَ اللَّهِ عَلَى الْكَاذِبِينَ

[i.e., may the curse of Allah be upon the liars]

If this is true, can they tell us what then is the use of following the Holy Prophet (sa)? Dead is the religion which possesses only past tales and dead is the religion for which the path of Divine recognition has been closed. But Islam is a living religion. The Holy Qur’an, in Surah Al-Fatihah, declares Muslims to be the heirs to the excellences of all past Prophets, and it teaches them to pray for all the bounties that were given to them. Those who possess only tales of the past cannot be the heirs to these bounties. It is indeed a great pity that the fountain of all blessings has been made to flow before them, but they do not wish to drink even a little out of it!
[Fountain of Christianity, p. 62]

In the Holy Qur’an, Allah the Almighty states:

فَقَدْ لَبِثْتُ فِيكُمْ عُمُرًا مِنْ قَبْلِهِ أَفَلَا تَعْقِلُونَ

Meaning,

“I have indeed lived among you a whole lifetime before this. Will you not then understand?”

In this verse of the Holy Qur’an, Allah the Almighty has stated that the pure and pristine character of a prophet prior to his claim is a categorical proof of his truthfulness. If a person is known to be honest, righteous, virtuous and free from any moral blemish prior to his claim of prophethood it can be easily established that his claim is also honest and truthful. It is obvious that a person who is known to always speak the truth in his personal matters cannot all of a sudden begin to forge lies against the being of Allah.

It is possible that a person may question the logical validity of this argument. However, the fact of the matter is that in the verse under discussion, Allah the Almighty has presented a philosophical argument in support of the truthfulness of all prophets which cannot be refuted by anyone irrespective of religious persuasion. As a matter of fact, this argument is so irrefutable that even an atheist cannot reject its logic and rationality. However, before we discuss whether the Promised Messiah (as) holds true to this Qur’anic argument, we would like to further establish the logical validity of this argument. In the Holy Qur’an Allah the Almighty states:

الَّذِينَ آَتَيْنَاهُمُ الْكِتَابَ يَعْرِفُونَهُ كَمَا يَعْرِفُونَ أَبْنَاءَهُمُ

Meaning,

“Those people who whom We gave the Book (i.e., the people), they recognize the prophet as they recognize their own sons.”

Now the question which arises is, how does a son believe with certainty that so and so is his father? He did not possess the ability to consciously perceive his own birth. However, despite this, he believes with full certainty that so and so is his father. The fact of the matter is that it is the testimony of the mother which affirms this fact for a child. If a mother tells her child that so and so is your father, the child believes this without a shadow of a doubt. For a child, the testimony of his mother is categorically acceptable only because he believes with firm faith that his mother is a chaste woman, and therefore, whoever she declares to be the father of her child is undoubtedly the father. Similarly, just as the purity and chastity of a mother makes her testimony with relation to the father of her own child categorically true to the child, the virtuous character, pure and pristine life of a prophet prior to his claim is irrefutable proof of the fact that when he states that Allah has appointed him to prophethood, he is telling the truth.

As such, if the life of a prophet before his claim is widely known by the people as being pure, virtuous, righteous and honest, this substantiates the validity of his prophethood whenever he makes his claim. For as we mentioned earlier, it cannot be expected of a person who has spoken the truth all his life to suddenly begin lying against Allah. In the verse under discussion, Allah the Almighty has specifically presented the life ‘prior’ to the claim of a prophet as an example before the people to substantiate the truthfulness of a prophet. The reason for this is because, although the life of a prophet is pure in every single phase of his life, but after the claim of a prophet, the people begin to level false allegations against his character in order to weaken his claim. Hence, if we study the life of Hadrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, the Promised Messiah and Mahdi, peace be upon him, we shall see that prior to his claim he was accepted by the people as being an honest, righteous and virtuous man of a pure and pristine character. The Promised Messiah (as) states:

“Now look, Allah has fulfilled his argument upon you such that He has manifested thousands of signs in support of my claim, and thus given you the opportunity to contemplate as to the status of that man who invites you to this dispensation, and how many arguments he presents. You cannot point to any defect or imposture or falsehood or deceit in my early life on the basis of which you might hold that a person who had been given to falsehood and imposture has put forward his claim falsely. Is there anyone from among you who can point to any fault in my life? It is the pure grace of God that from the beginning, He kept me firmly grounded in righteousness and this is proof for those who reflect.”

This open challenge by the Promised Messiah (as) is so powerful that it is in itself a magnificent proof of the truthfulness of the Promised Messiah (as). The truth is that no one can present a single example from the life of the Promised Messiah (as) which is a blemish upon his morality or character. He was a man of such pure and pristine character that even his enemies were compelled to accept this undeniable fact.

Maulawi Muhammad Husain Batalawi who was a staunch enemy of the Promised Messiah (as) was also compelled to accept the spotless character of the Promised Messiah (as). When the Promised Messiah (as) wrote his magnificent work Barahin-e-Ahmadiyyah, Maulawi Sahib wrote a review in his publication Isha‘atus-Sunnah. In this review he wrote:

“The level to which we are aware of the circumstances and thoughts of the writer of Barahin-e-Ahmadiyyah is such that there would perhaps be very few from among our contemporaries who are so knowledgeable. The writer is of the same country as ours, as a matter of fact in our early days (when we would read Qutubi and Sharah Mulla) he studied with us.”

Then he states:

“Now, we desire to express our views on Barahin-e-Ahmadiyyah very briefly and without exaggeration. In our opinion, in light of the state of affairs of this era, this book is such that to this day a book of this stature has not been written in the history of Islam. And the author of this book (i.e., the Promised Messiah (as) has proven his devotion to Islam by such help with money, life, pen, tongue, conduct and writings, the like of which has seldom been found among the Muslims.”

In addition to this, Maulawi Sirajuddin Sahib, who was the father of Maulawi Zafar ‘Ali Sahib, the editor of ‘Zamindar’ states:

“Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Sahib was a clerk near the District Sialkot in 1860 and 1861. At the time his age was about 22 or 23 years. We testify as an eye witness that in his young age he was an extremely righteous, pious and virtuous man.”

Hadrat Sufi Ahmad Jan Sahib of Ludhiana, who was a spiritual leader with a following of thousands has also given a beautiful testimony to the pure character of the Promised Messiah (as). He passed away before the Promised Messiah (as) was appointed to his divine office. He states:

“Mirza Sahib is about 40 or 55 years of age. The original home of his ancestors appears to have been Iran. He is extremely courteous, is beneficent and modest, is handsome and his countenance displays his love of the Divine. I state it most honestly and with complete truthfulness that without the least doubt the Mirza Sahib is the Reformer of the Age, and is a sun for the seekers of the way, and is a Khizar for the misguided, and is a sharp sword for the opponents of Islam and is a conclusive proof for the envious. Be sure that such a time will not recur. Be warned that the time of trial has arrived and divine proof has been established and a perfect guide has been sent with conclusive arguments, bright as the sun, so that he might bestow light upon those who are truthful and lead them out of darkness and error and confound those who are at fault.”

When non-Ahmadis are unable to raise an objection upon the pure and pristine life of the Promised Messiah (as), in order to weaken the strength of this argument all together they present a quotation of the Promised Messiah (as) which states that what seems to be an apparently high level of morality could also possess a hidden aspect of immorality. For example, a person who apparently seems to be of a high moral stature could be immoral in secret.

The verse under discussion clearly refutes such an objection. The fact of the matter is that a person can hide his evil side for some time and apparently seem righteous to the world for some time, but it is not possible for a claimant of prophethood to be inherently immoral and hide it from the world for a long period which extends 30 to 40 years. It is for this reason that in the verse under discussion, Allah the Almighty has not revealed the words, ‘I have indeed lived among you,’ rather, ‘I have indeed lived among you a whole lifetime.’

Another point to remember is that we have not presented the argument that a person who apparently follows the injunctions of Islam is truly righteous and there can be no hidden side to his character. The argument which we have presented in light of this verse of the Holy Qur’an specifically relates to a claimant of prophethood. Our argument purports that it is impossible for anyone to raise an objection on the life of a claimant of prophethood prior to his claim. We have not stated that those people who are referred to by the world as righteous are truly righteous. What we have stated is that even the greatest of enemies cannot raise an objection on the life of a claimant to prophethood prior to his claim.
Moreover, the Promised Messiah (as) has stated that the mere claim of a pure life is not enough for a claimant of prophethood, rather, along with this, distinct divine signs are also necessary to establish the truthfulness of a prophet. Hence, in order to establish the truthfulness of the claim of the Promised Messiah (as) we do not merely present his own claim to purity. In addition to his own claim, we present the testimony of his bitter enemies along with divine signs in order to support and substantiate the truthfulness of his claim. For example, in leading a pious life the hand of man could play a part, but as far as a person’s life or death is concerned, this is beyond the power of man to control or affect. As such, in addition to the argument we have presented here, Allah the Almighty has presented another criterion to judge the truthfulness of a prophet in Surah Al-Haqqah which we shall elaborate further ahead. The Promised Messiah (as) states:

“The virtuous life that I have been blessed with is testified to by heavenly signs and is not a mere claim on my part. It is impossible to prove that a person’s life is truly pious, or to reveal someone’s latent hypocrisy and disbelief, without the help of heavenly testimony.”

In the Holy Qur’an, Allah the Almighty states:

وَلَوْ تَقَوَّلَ عَلَيْنَا بَعْضَ الْأَقَاوِيلِ (45) لَأَخَذْنَا مِنْهُ بِالْيَمِينِ (46) ثُمَّ لَقَطَعْنَا مِنْهُ الْوَتِينَ (47) فَمَا مِنْكُمْ مِنْ أَحَدٍ عَنْهُ حَاجِزِينَ (48)

Meaning,

“And if he had falsely attributed even a trivial statement to Us, We would surely have seized him by the right hand, And then surely We would have severed his jugular vein, And none of you could shield him from Us.”

In these verses of the Holy Qur’an, Allah the Almighty who is the Creator of the heavens and the earth and possesses the power to do all that He wills has presented a very powerful criterion by which the truthfulness of any prophet can be gauged. In these verses, referring to the Holy Prophet (sa), Allah the Almighty has mentioned that if Prophet Muhammad (sa) had attributed false words or statements to Allah the Almighty and claimed that Allah had revealed so and so to me, but in actuality had Allah not done so, the Holy Prophet (sa) would have been seized by Allah and killed. Hence, the fact that the Holy Prophet (sa) received a long life of 23 years after his first claim to have received divine revelation from Allah categorically proves the truthfulness of his claim. For if he was a liar (God-forbid), he would have been dealt with severely by Allah the Almighty and made an example of divine wrath before his opponents. However, there is no doubt that our beloved Master was the most truthful of the truthful ones, and since he lived a life of success and attained progress upon progress after having claimed that he was the recipient of divine revelation, this shows his truthfulness. This is an argument which has been presented by Allah the Almighty himself in favor of the prophethood of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa).

Ahmadis present this verse of the Holy Qur’an in support of the truthfulness of the Promised Messiah (as). However, in order to diminish the value of this argument, our opponents often assert that this verse cannot be used to test the authenticity of all prophets, rather, this verse is specific to the Holy Prophet (sa) alone. Therefore, Ahmadis cannot present this verse as a proof in favor of the Promised Messiah (as).

There is no doubt that our Beloved Master, the Holy Prophet (sa) is the primary addressee in these verses, and Allah the Almighty has revealed these verses as an irrefutable argument in support of his prophethood First. However, if we do not accept these verses to contain a general principle which can be used to test the truthfulness of any prophet, then the prophethood of the Holy Prophet (sa) cannot be substantiated by the argument in these verses either. The fact of the matter is that every single argument presented by the Holy Qur’an is a masterpiece of philosophy and logic. There is not a single verse of the Holy Qur’an which does not possess an ocean of divine wisdom and rationality. As such, if we accept this rebuttal of non-Ahmadis and agree to the fact that this verse specifically relates to the Holy Prophet (sa) alone and cannot be applied to any other prophet, this would make the verses under discussion completely redundant and useless (God-forbid).

The reason being that if a false claimant to divine revelation was to outlive 23 years, which is the span of the revelation of the Holy Prophet (sa), the verse under discussion could not be an argument in favor of the Holy Prophet (sa) either. As we have mentioned earlier, Allah the Almighty has presented this verse as a proof of the truthfulness of the Holy Prophet (sa). Therefore, if we logically and philosophically analyse this verse it is evident that if a false claimant could continue forging lies against Allah for more than 23 years, how could this verse furnish any proof in favor of the Holy Prophet (sa)? In this case, we would have to accept that (God-forbid) Allah the Almighty has presented an argument in favor of the Holy Prophet (sa) which amounts to absolutely nothing and this is a notion which we seek refuge from and can never accept. Allah the Almighty who is the Wisest of the Wise can never make a redundant or pointless statement or present an argument which proves nothing. Until and unless this verse is accepted to be a general rule applicable to all false claimants of divine communion, this verse would be a mere claim with no logical argumentation to support its validity. In this regard, the Promised Messiah (as) states:

“In this regard one of my friends, with the purest of intentions, presented the question that in the verse Lau taqauwwala ‘alaina only the Holy Prophet (sa) has been addressed, and how can it be inferred therefrom that if another person forges a lie [against Allah] then he would also be destroyed? The answer I provided him is that this statement is presented as an argument; and among the many proofs of the truthfulness of prophethood, this is also a proof. As such, the statement of Allah is only proven true if a false claimant [to divine revelation] is destroyed, otherwise this statement cannot be an argument against those who disbelieve, nor can it be established as a proof before him. Rather, he can assert that the Holy Prophet (sa) was not saved from destruction for 23 years because he was truthful. Instead, the reason is because forging a lie against God is not a sin for which He punishes anyone in this world. For if this was a sin and the Sunnah of Allah required that a false claimant be punished in this world, then there should have been examples of this, but you accept that there are no such examples. Quite the contrary, there are many examples where people forged lies against God for 23 years or even more, but they were not destroyed. Now tell us, what would be the response to such an allegation?”

Our opponents wish to falsify a beautiful argument presented in the Holy Qur’an in favor of the Holy Prophet (sa) merely due to their enmity towards the Promised Messiah (as). If the non-Ahmadi interpretation is accepted as correct and this verse only refers to the Holy Prophet (sa), this verse cannot be presented as a logical argument in his favor. In that case, it would be nothing more than a mere claim. Non-Muslims could easily retort that if the Holy Prophet (sa) received a respite of 23 years after claiming to be the recipient of divine revelation, this proves nothing, because so and so who was a false claimant to divine revelation also received the same amount of respite if not more. So what if the claim of the Holy Prophet (sa) was also false? (God-forbid) In this case, what answer would our non-Ahmadi friends give to such a non-Muslim who raises this objection?

Our opponents are very quick to present the names of various people who they believe outlived the 23 year period referred to above despite being false in their claim. However, it is worthy to note that there are various conditions stipulated in the verses under discussion, all of which must apply to a person before he comes under the clutches of these verses.

Firstly, the claimant of divine revelation must be acting out of Takalluf and intentionally. He must be attributing false revelation to Allah whilst completely being in control of his senses. A mad person or someone who is mentally ill does not come under the affects of these verses because his action is not intentional. In light of the teachings of Islam and even basic common sense, such a person is not worthy of punishment, rather, such a poor man is worthy of compassion. In the verse under discussion, the word which has been used is Taqawwala, which is from Bab-e-Tafa‘-‘ul and infers a meaning of ‘intentionally yet falsely performing’ the action of the verb. Therefore, a mad man does not come under this verse and his receiving a respite longer than 23 years does not falsify the argumentation presented in light of these verses of the Holy Qur’an.

Secondly, the claimant must believe in Allah and consider him to be a separate entity and being to whom he attributes his false statements. People who do not believe in Allah at all, or consider themselves to be God Himself do not come under this verse either. The claimant must believe in Allah as a separate being and attribute his false statements to him. This is why Allah the Almighty has used the word Alaina (i.e., upon us).

Thirdly, the claimant must believe in the concept of revelation such that he understands revelation to be the true words of God. People who consider inspiration, thoughts, feelings or things which come from within to be equivalent to revelation do not come within the sphere of this verse. This is why Allah the Almighty has specifically used the words Ba‘dal-aqaweel (i.e., various statements). In other words, the false claimant must attribute specific statements to Allah the Almighty and present them as the words of God Himself before the world.

Fourthly, the claimant must publicly announce these ‘so-called’ revelations before the world and people must fall into his deception as a result of these false revelations. The claimant must be responsible for misguiding people by way of these false revelations. If a person hides his revelations and does not not publicly announce them to the world, he does not fall under the affects of this verse. This point is derived from the words Fa ma minkum min ahadin ‘anhu hajizin (i.e., and none of you could shield him from Us). These words clearly establish that the false claimant must be one to have created a community of followers and helpers around him by publicizing his false revelations. For if he kept his revelations within the confines of his own home, and did not publicize them, there would be no question of people helping him or shielding him from Allah, because no one would know about them. Therefore, the fourth condition is that the false claimant to prophethood and divine revelation must openly propagate his revelations and begin to gather a community of followers behind him in order to come under the wrath of Allah as stipulated in these verses.

Non-Ahmadis often present the example of such false prophets who lived longer than 23 years in an attempt to disprove the argumentation presented by Ahmadis in light of the verse under discussion. Non-Ahmadis assert that there are many examples of false claimants of prophethood who continued preaching falsehood and lived longer than 23 years, therefore, the argumentation presented by Ahmadis in favor of the Promised Messiah (as) is flawed.

This is a common misunderstanding with exists among many people and its reason is a lack of attention to the Arabic wording of this verse. In the verse under discussion, Allah the Almighty does not state that ‘If he had falsely claimed prophethood we would have severed his jugular vein.’ Rather, the verse states, ‘If he had falsely attributed even a trivial statement to us we would have severed his jugular vein.’ The Arabic word used here is Taqawwala (which means to attribute a false statement) and not Tanabba‘a (to falsely claim prophethood). Therefore, it is possible that a person may falsely claim to be a prophet, but as long as he does not attribute false revelation to Allah, he does not come under the grip of this verse. This is a very fine point which must be understood. Only such people come under the wrath of Allah as mentioned in this verse who attribute false statements to him and misguide the people in his name. A person who merely claims to be a prophet, and organizes a community of people in this manner is no different than a worldly leader who formulates a community of followers, and since he does not justify his position by divine revelation, it is not necessary that such a person die in 23 years. It is only when Allah’s name is misused and false revelations are presented to the people in the name of God that Allah takes the severe course of action as mentioned in the verse under discussion.

Opponents often raise the objection that the Promised Messiah (as) claimed to be a prophet in 1901 but died in 1908. Therefore, since the Promised Messiah (as) only lived 7 years after he claimed to be a prophet, as per the verse under discussion, the Promised Messiah (as) was a false prophet. However, as we have mentioned, the verse under discussion does not merely refer to a claimant of prophethood, rather, a claimant of divine revelation. As such, if we study the life of the Promised Messiah (as) we find that he began to receive revelation from the late 1860s. Furthermore, when the Promised Messiah (as) wrote his magnificent work Barahin-e-Ahmadiyyah, which was published in 1880, the Promised Messiah (as) published a large number of his revelations. Therefore, as far as the claim of the Promised Messiah (as) regarding divine revelation is concerned, this is a period of more than 40 years.

Therefore, it is our challenge that not a single example can be presented from the pages of history in which a false claimant to divine revelation lived to 23 years or more. Allah the Almighty never grants such respite to a person who attributes false words to Him. The Promised Messiah (as) states:

“If it is true that a person claims to be a Prophet, Messenger or divinely commissioned, and he openly reads out statements in the name of God to the people and despite being a liar remains alive for 23 years, which is the time span of the revelation of the Holy Prophet (sa), I shall give 500 Rupees cash to such a person who can present an example as per my conditions or the conditions of the Holy Qur’an.”

In the Holy Qur’an, Allah the Almighty states:

هُوَ الَّذِي بَعَثَ فِي الْأُمِّيِّينَ رَسُولًا مِنْهُمْ يَتْلُو عَلَيْهِمْ آَيَاتِهِ وَيُزَكِّيهِمْ وَيُعَلِّمُهُمُ الْكِتَابَ وَالْحِكْمَةَ وَإِنْ كَانُوا مِنْ قَبْلُ لَفِي ضَلَالٍ مُبِينٍ (3) وَآَخَرِينَ مِنْهُمْ لَمَّا يَلْحَقُوا بِهِمْ وَهُوَ الْعَزِيزُ الْحَكِيمُ (4) ذَلِكَ فَضْلُ اللَّهِ يُؤْتِيهِ مَنْ يَشَاءُ وَاللَّهُ ذُو الْفَضْلِ الْعَظِيمِ (5)

Meaning,

“He it is Who has raised among the Unlettered people a Messenger from among themselves who recites unto them His signs, and purifies them, and teaches them the Book and wisdom, although they had been, before, in manifest misguidance. And among others from among them who have not yet joined them. He is the Mighty, the Wise. That is Allah’s grace; He bestows it on whom He pleases; and Allah is the Master of immense grace.”

In these verses of Surah Al-Jumu‘ah, Allah the Almighty has stated that the Holy Prophet (sa) was raised among the Unlettered people as a Messenger in order to recite upon them the signs of Allah, and to purify them and teach them the book and wisdom. Then in verse 4, Allah the Almighty goes on to state, “And among others from among them who have not yet joined them.” That is to say that the Holy Prophet (sa) was also to be raised to perform these very same tasks among another group of people who had not yet joined the Muslims at the time of the revelation of this verse. In other words these verses allude to the fact that the Holy Prophet (sa) would be raised twice, first among the Ummiyyin (Unlettered people of Arabia) and then among the Akharin (the people of the latter days).

The narration, as it appears in Bukhari, Kitabut-Tafsir, which relates to the revelation of these verses and the dialogue of the companions between the Holy Prophet (sa) beautifully illustrates the true meaning of these verses. For who knew the Holy Qur’an better than our Master, the Holy Prophet (sa), the Chosen One upon whom this magnificent word was revealed. The narration is as follows:

عن ابی ھریرة رضی اللہ عنہ قال كنا جلوساً عند النبی صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم اُنزِلتْ علیہ سورة الجمعة واٰخرین منھم لما یلحقوابھم قال قلت من ھم یا رسول اللہ! فلم یراجعہ حتیٰ سآل ثلاثاً وفینا سلمان الفارسیّ ووضع رسول اللہ صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم یدہ علیٰ سلمان ثم قال لو كان الایمان عند الثریا لنالہ رجال او رجل من ھؤلاء ۔

Meaning,

“Hadrat Abu Hurairah (ra) narrates, ‘We were sitting with the Holy Prophet (sa) when Surah Al-Jumu‘ah was revealed and the verse ‘And others from among them who have not yet joined them.’ It was inquired of the Holy Prophet (sa) that, ‘O Messenger of Allah! Who are these people (i.e., the people who have been referred to in the verse ‘and others from among them....’)? The Holy Prophet (sa) did not respond to this question until it was asked of him three times. Hadrat Salman (ra) the Persian, was also sitting in this gathering. The Holy Prophet (sa) placed his hand on the shoulder of Salman (ra) the Persian and said, ‘Even if the faith ascends to the distant star of the Paladies, a man (or various men) of persian descent would bring it back.’”

In this narration, it apparently seems that the question was something else and the answer given by the Holy Prophet (sa) was something quite different. However, if we closely study the narration presented above it becomes evident that the response of the Holy Prophet (sa) was so profound that it not only answered the question which was asked by the companions, but also answered the question they should have asked but did not. The question of the companions related to the identity of the people among whom the Holy Prophet (sa) would to be commissioned a second time, i.e., the Akhirin. The reason for this was because the blind faith, certainty and belief of the companions was so unparalleled that they did not doubt for a moments time that the very same Holy Prophet (sa) who sat in their midst could not appear again. However, the Holy Prophet (sa) knew in his boundless wisdom that he would not return again after his demise with the same body, because it is against the custom of Allah to do such a thing. Therefore, in order to clarify this point, instead of speaking about the identity of the Akhirin, the answer of the Holy Prophet (sa) related to the identity of the actual person who would come in the latter days. Moreover, in doing so, the Holy Prophet (sa) also beautifully painted a vivid picture of the spiritual state of affairs which would be prevalent in the society at the time of the advent of that divinely commissioned person, who would be the second manifestation of the Holy Prophet (sa) as it were. As such, there are four things which can be deduced from this statement of the Holy Prophet (sa):

i. There is a prophecy of the advent of a person, who would be the second coming of the Holy Prophet (sa) as it were. This second manifestation of the Holy Prophet (sa) would not be a physical return of Prophet Muhammad (sa) but the advent of the Messiah and Mahdi in the latter days, who would reflect the beauties and attributes of the Holy Prophet (sa) within him.
ii.The people who would follow him would be like the companions of the Holy Prophet (sa).
iii.The person who would come as the second manifestation of the Holy Prophet (sa) would be of Persian descent.
iv.He would appear in an era when nothing would be left of faith.
v. He would not bring a new law, but invite people to the law of the Holy Qur’an and re-establish that faith which had been lost and ascended to the Paladies as it were.

In the narration under discussion, the Holy Prophet (sa) has alluded to the fact that when the Messiah and Mahdi arrives in the latter days, the faith would have ascended to the Paladies. In other words the true essence of religion would be lost. There is another narration which further elaborates the state of faith in this era of darkness and explicitly describes the misguidance which would be rampant in the era when the Imam Mahdi was to appear. The Holy Prophet (sa) states:

یوشك ان یآتی علی الناس زمان لا یبقیٰ من الاسلام الا اسمہ ولا یبقیٰ من القراٰن الا رسمہ مساجدھم عامرة و ھی خراب من الھدیٰ علمآئھم شر من تحت ادیم السماء من عندھم تخرج الفتنة و فیھم تعود

Meaning,

“It is nigh that an era would soon dawn upon the people (i.e., the Muslims) when nothing would be left of Islam except its name. Nothing would be left of the Qur’an except its words. Their Mosques would be apparently seem to be full of worshippers but they would be bereft of guidance. Their scholars would be the worst creation under the canopy of the earth. Corruption would sprout from them and return to them.”

There is no doubt that these words of our Beloved Master, Prophet Muhammad (sa) are full of immense grief and sorrow. For there was no person in the history of mankind who felt such pain for the well-being of mankind. It was for this reason that Allah the Almighty addressed the Holy Prophet (sa) saying:

لَعَلَّكَ بَاخِعٌ نَفْسَكَ أَلَّا يَكُونُوا مُؤْمِنِينَ

Meaning,

“Will you grieve yourself to death because they believe not?”

However, our Beloved Master did not leave the ummah with mere prophecies of the prevalence of misguidance and darkness. This would indeed be a very grim outlook on the future of religion as we know it. As such, along with these warnings, the Holy Prophet (sa) also prophecised the advent of a reformer, whose advent would be like the second coming of the Holy Prophet (sa) himself for the rejuvenation of faith. Hence, the above-mentioned commentary of the Holy Prophet (sa) regarding these verses of Surah Al-Jumu‘ah are a sign of hope.

Another point to remember is that when the Holy Prophet (sa) was asked by the companions regarding the Akhirin, he remained silent until this question was repeated three times. It is commonly understood that when the Holy Prophet (sa) was unaware of the answer to a certain question, he would remain silent, and during this time, he would wait for Allah the Almighty to inform him, and then he would pass on this divine knowledge to the inquirer. As such, in this narration as well, the Holy Prophet (sa) remained silent, until Allah the Almighty informed him that in the latter days, there would come a time when faith would be lost from the world, and at that time, a man (or various men) of Persian descent would be divinely commissioned by Allah the Almighty to rejuvenate the faith and re-establish the superiority of Islam throughout the world. Therefore, although every single word of the Holy Prophet (sa) contains within it an ocean of divine wisdom, this particular instance possesses extra certainty within it. For it can be said that the answer of the Holy Prophet (sa), which is a commentary of these verses of Surah Al-Jumu‘ah, is also a kind of divine revelation upon the Holy Prophet (sa), because Prophet Muhammad (sa) did not respond to the questioner three times, until Allah directly informed him of the correct answer.

Another point to remember is that in the above-mentioned narration of the Holy Prophet (sa) which has been presented, the Holy Prophet (sa) has used the following words:

لو كان الایمان عند الثریا لنالہ رجال او رجل من ھؤلاء

Meaning,

“Even if the faith ascends to the distant star of the Paladies, a man (or various men) of persian descent would bring it back.”

Hence, it is clear that the person who was to be commissioned by Allah the Almighty in the latter days for the rejuvenation of faith was to be a non-Arab. Many people raise the objection that how can a non-Arab be appointed as a prophet of God and mock the Promised Messiah (as) for being a “Punjabi Prophet” (God-forbid). This shameless mockery is a direct attack on the Holy Prophet (sa) and Allah Himself, therefore, our opponents should refrain from such mockery and abusive behavior. The reason for this is because it was the Holy Prophet (sa) who prophesied that the person who would be appointed in the latter days for the guidance of mankind would not be an Arab. Furthermore, it is Allah’s decision as to who He appoints as a prophet. Being an Arab is not a pre-requisite for prophethood. Hence, Allah the Almighty states in the Holy Qur’an:

اللَّهُ أَعْلَمُ حَيْثُ يَجْعَلُ رِسَالَتَهُ

Meaning, “

Allah knows best where to place His Message.”

Furthermore, even in the verses of Surah Al-Jumu‘ah, where the prophecy of the advent of a non-Arab has been made, Allah the Almighty has removed the possibility for objection. It seems as if Allah the Almighty knew that there would be a group of people in the future who would object to the non-Arab background of the Promised Messiah (as) and therefore stated:

ذَلِكَ فَضْلُ اللَّهِ يُؤْتِيهِ مَنْ يَشَاءُ وَاللَّهُ ذُو الْفَضْلِ الْعَظِيمِ

Meaning,

“That is Allah’s grace; He bestows it on whom He pleases; and Allah is the Master of immense grace.”

In other words, prophethood is a divine grace of Allah the Almighty and he can bestow it upon an Arab or a non-Arab. No one has the right to object against the decision of Allah the Almighty, because He is the Wise, All-knowing.

Another stance which is taken by some in an attempt to prove that the Promised Messiah (as) is not the person referred to in the above-mentioned narration is that this Hadith does not infer that the Messiah and Mahdi (as) would be anyone of persian descent, rather he would be from the physical offspring of Hadrat Salman, the Persian.

In response to this, First it should be remembered that this statement can only be made by someone who believes that Jesus (as) has passed away. This statement assumes that the person who makes this statement does not believe that the same Jesus (as) of Nazereth would physically descend in the latter days, because obviously, he would not and could not be from the physical progeny of Salman, the Persian.

However, in any case, this misunderstanding is developed due to a lack of attention upon the Arabic words of the narration. If the Holy Prophet (sa) wished to state that the Messiah and Mahdi would be from the physical progeny of Salman the Persian, he would have stated:

لو كان الایمان عند الثریا لنالہ رجال او رجل من ھؤلاء

Meaning,

“Even if the faith ascends to the distant star of the Paladies, a man (or various men) from him (i.e., Salman) would bring it back.”

However, as we can see, the Holy Prophet (sa) did not use the Arabic pronoun Hadha (i.e., from him), rather, he has stated, Ha’ula’i (i.e., from them - that is, the Persians). As such, there are other narrations which vary somewhat in wording and clearly allude to the fact that the intent of the Holy Prophet (sa) was to state that the person who was to appear in the latter days would be from among the Persians, and not specifically from the physical progeny of Salman, the Persian.

فقالوا یا رسول اللہ من ھؤلاء الذین ذكرھم اللہ فضرب علیٰ فخذ سلمان فقال قوم ھذا

Meaning,

“The companions said, ‘O Messenger of Allah! Who are the people which have been referred to by Allah?’ The Holy Prophet (sa) placed his hand on the thigh of Salman (the Persian) and said, ‘From his people.’”

The Promised Messiah (as) states:

“People who think in physical terms, sometimes link the Promised One to the progeny of Hasan (ra), sometimes to Husain (ra), and sometimes to ‘Abbas (ra). But what the Holy Prophet (sa) truly meant was that the Promised One would be his heir, just like a son, i.e., he would inherit his name, his character, his knowledge, his spirituality, and would reflect his very image. He will acquire nothing on his own but will acquire everything from the Holy Prophet (sa), and will so lose himself in him as to reflect his very image.”

Therefore, it is clear that in the above-mentioned verses of Surah Al-Jumu‘ah, there is a grand prophecy of the advent of a divinely appointed reformer who would appear in the latter days. This person would be a man of persian descent and his primary task would be to revive the faith and perform the very same tasks which were performed by the Holy Prophet (sa) as stated in the above-mentioned verses of Surah Al-Jumu‘ah. This Chosen One would be a pure reflection of the Holy Prophet (sa) as if Prophet Muhammad (sa) had appeared a second time for the guidance of mankind after an era of darkness and misguidance. Referring to the words “And among others from among them,” the Promised Messiah (as) states:

“There is a beautiful subtlety of expression in this verse. While it clearly mentions the people who will be counted among the Companions (ra), it does not expressly mention the person who was to come as the Buruz, i.e., the Promised Messiah, and through whom those people would come to be counted among the Companions of the Holy Prophet (sa) and considered to be under his guidance. This deliberate omission is intended to signify that the Buruz in his own right would be a non-entity, therefore, his Prophethood or Messengership in the form of Buruz would not break the Seal of Finality. This is why the verse treats him as a non-entity and presents the Holy Prophet (sa) in his place.”

In the Holy Qur’an, Allah the Almighty states:

إِنَّا أَرْسَلْنَا إِلَيْكُمْ رَسُولًا شَاهِدًا عَلَيْكُمْ كَمَا أَرْسَلْنَا إِلَى فِرْعَوْنَ رَسُولً

Meaning,

“Verily, We have sent to you a Messenger, who is a witness over you, even as We sent a Messenger to Pharaoh.”

Another verse of the Holy Qur’an which proves the truthfulness of the Promised Messiah (as) and supports his claim is the above-mentioned verse of Surah Al-Muzzammil. In this verse, Allah the Almighty has stated that Prophet Muhammad (sa) possesses a striking similarity with Moses (as) who was sent to Pharaoh. However, one should not think that Allah the Almighty has only highlighted a similarity between two prophets and nothing more. In addition to the similarity between Moses (as) and the Holy Prophet (sa) at an individual level, Allah the Almighty has also described the inherent similarity between the Mosaic dispensation and the Muslim Ummah as a whole. For it is obvious that a Prophet of God represents an entire community. The person of a prophet and his religious community are so intertwined that they are one in the same thing.

If we study history it becomes evident that there are many similarities between the Holy Prophet (sa) and Moses (as), as mentioned in this verse. Moreover, there is a prophecy in the Bible to the same affect which states that Allah would raise a prophet like unto Moses (as) among the brethren, i.e., the children of Ishmael. The prophecy is as follows:

“I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.”

There are many similarities between the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa) and Moses (as). However, since this is not the main focus of our current discussion, a few are mentioned here for the benefit of the readers. First, both of these prophets were given a divine law. And a new religious foundation was set by their advent. Moses (as) was given the law of the Torah and the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa) was given the Holy Qur’an. Then, both of these prophets were faced with severe opposition. In the case of Moses (as) he was confronted by the opposition of Pharaoh, who was a powerful and tyrannous ruler. Similarly, the Holy Prophet (sa) was faced with the opposition of the great leaders and chieftains of the Quraish, like Abu Jahl for example. Another similarity is that in both instances, the enemy was sent to his destruction by Allah the Almighty in the lifetime of the Prophets. As history tells us, Pharaoh was destroyed before the eyes of Moses (as) and he was victorious. In the same manner, Abu Jahl and various leading Chieftains of the Quraish were sent to their destruction before the Holy Prophet (sa) in the Battle of Badr, and the Holy Prophet (sa) stood victorious.

A Prophecy of the Advent of the Promised Messiah (as)

As we have already mentioned, the verse under discussion has described the similarities which exist between the two dispensations. We have just briefly mentioned some of the aspects in which Moses (as) and the Holy Prophet (sa) are similar to one another. However, another significant aspect of the Mosaic dispensation is that in the 14th Century, Allah the Almighty sent a Messiah to reform the Jews who had forgotten the true teachings of the Torah. His name was Jesus (as) and he was from the Israelites.

Therefore, it was also necessary for a Messiah (as) to be sent in the 14th Century to reform not only the Muslims but the entire world in fact, since the Holy Prophet (sa) is a universal prophet with a universal message. This Messiah (as) would be Mathil-e-Masih (a likeness of Jesus (as)) just as the Holy Prophet (sa) was Mathil-e-Musa (a likeness of Moses (as)). Furthermore, the Messiah would be a prophet of God and he would be from among the Muslims, just as Jesus (as) was from among the Israelites. A study of the Ahadith in which the Holy Prophet (sa) has prophesied the advent of the Messiah (as) also confirms that he would be a Prophet of God and that he would be ‘A leader from among the Muslims’. The narration is as follows:

كیف انتم اذا نزل ابن مریم فیكم وامامكم منكم

Meaning,

“What would be your state when the son of Mary shall descend among you and he will be your leader from among you.’”

Hence, this verse proves that the same Jesus (as) of Nazereth who appeared 2000 years ago, shall not physically descend in the latter days, because in order for the verse under discussion to prove true, and for a similarity to exist between the two dispensations, the Messiah of the Muslim Ummah must be from among the Muslims. However, if Jesus (as) was to descend in the latter days as non-Ahmadis believe, one of the fundamental similarities between the two dispensations would cease to exist. The reason for this is because, Jesus (as) who was the Messiah of the Mosaic dispensation was from among the Israelites. Therefore, the Messiah of the Muslim Ummah must also be from among the Muslims.

In addition to this, the verse under discussion also wonderfully specifies the time in which the Messiah would appear, that is, the 14th Century. Because in order for a similarity to exist between the two dispensations, just as Jesus (as) appeared in the 14th Century, so too, the Promised Messiah (as) appeared in the 14th Century Hijri.

Is Complete Resemblance Necessary Between the Two Dispensations?

It is possible that someone might raise the objection that although the verse under discussion establishes the fact that the Mosaic dispensation and the Muslim Ummah are similar, it is not necessary for there to be a complete and perfect similarity between the two. Just because a Messiah (as) appeared in the 14th Century among the Israelites, this does not necessarily mean that a Messiah from within the Muslim Ummah must also appear in the 14th Century for the likeness of these two dispensations to prove true. There are many other similarities which can be found between these two dispensations, therefore, Ahmadis need not emphasize the point of the Messiah too much.

In response to this, it must be remembered that the advent of the Messiah (as) is a very fundamental characteristic of both dispensations. The Jews were (and many of them still are) awaiting the advent of the Messiah very keenly. Similarly, the advent of the Messiah within the Muslim Ummah is also a very significant belief. Hence, if even this very basic and fundamental aspect does not bear resemblance among the two communities, how can it be said that both dispensations are a likeness of one another?

In addition to this, the Promised Messiah (as) has mentioned a very wonderful point as well. He states that it is necessary for there to be a complete and perfect resemblance between the two dispensations. Otherwise, if there were only minor similarities between the Holy Prophet (sa) and Moses (as), what distinction would the Holy Prophet (sa) possess over other prophets in whose lives we can find minor similarities to Moses (as) as well? There would be no way to prove that the Holy Prophet (sa) is the true likeness of Moses (as) as mentioned in this verse, until and unless there is a complete and perfect resemblance between the two in all respects. Of course, there is no doubt that our Beloved Master, Prophet Muhammad (sa) possesses a status far greater than that of Moses (as) and when it is said that there must be a complete and perfect resemblance between the two, this does not mean that we are (God-forbid) degrading the status of the Holy Prophet (sa) and bringing him down to the level of Prophet Moses (as). All that is intended is to highlight the point that until and unless there is a truly close resemblance between the two, this verse of the Holy Qur’an cannot be proven correct. The Promised Messiah (as) states:

“It is obvious that there is an indication in the word ‘Kama’ that our Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him is the likeness of Moses (as). As such, in the Torah it is also written in Deuteronomy that the Holy Prophet (sa) is the likeness of Moses (as). Furthermore, it is obvious that resemblance infers a complete resemblance and not an incomplete one. For if an incomplete resemblance was inferred, the Holy Prophet (sa) is left with no distinction whatsoever. The reason being that many prophets could be proven to possess this kind of a resemblance, who took up the sword as per the command of Allah, and fought wars like Moses (as), and also acquired miraculous victories. But can they be the fulfillment of this prophecy? Of course not! Hence, the distinction of our Holy Prophet (sa) is preserved only in the case that resemblance infers a complete resemblance; And among the extraordinary characteristics of this complete resemblance, one characteristic is that after honouring Prophet Moses (as) with Prophethood, he established the institution of a Zahiri and Batini Caliphate in his Shari‘at, which spanned an era of approximately 1400 years and ultimately came to an end at Prophet Jesus (as).”

It is possible that someone might raise the objection that if Ahmadis are correct in their statement that a complete resemblance must exist between the two dispensations, then what about the prophets which appeared in the Mosaic dispensation? Were there prophets who appeared between Prophet Muhammad (sa) and the Messiah (as) as was the case in the Mosaic dispensation?

In this regard it must be remembered that the Holy Prophet (sa) has clearly mentioned that there would be no prophet between him and the Messiah who was to come in the latter days. The narration is as follows:

لیس بینی وبینہ نبی وانہ نازل

Meaning,

“There would be no prophet between me and him, and he would descend.”

Furthermore, there is another Hadith which also reconciles this apparent conflict as well. We have already established that the Mosaic dispensation and the Muslim Ummah are similar in their beginning and in their end. The question now remains with regards to the era between the two points. However, before an elaboration is presented in this regard, it must be understood that when it is said that both dispensations must possess a complete resemblance, this does not mean that every single detail to the minutest fine point must be exactly the same in both dispensations. Because after all, we are speaking of a ‘resemblance’ not a ‘carbon copy’. As such, there is no doubt that there is a close resemblance between the two dispensations even in the era which spans between the beginning and the end. We see that many prophets were sent after Moses (as) before the advent of the Messiah in the Mosaic dispensation. Therefore, the first thought which comes to mind is that there should also be prophets after the Holy Prophet (sa) up until the advent of the Promised Messiah (as) in the Muslim Ummah as well in order for there to be a true resemblance. However, the Holy Prophet (sa) has mentioned in a Hadith:

علماء امتی كأنبیاء بنی اسرائیل

Meaning,

“The scholars of my Ummah are like the prophets of the Bani Isra’il.”

In this Hadith, the Holy Prophet (sa) has mentioned that whenever the time would come that guidance is required, Allah the Almighty would raise Mujaddidin (reformers) and spiritual divines for the reformation of the people. This statement not only highlights the lofty status of the Holy Prophet (sa) but also the Muslim Ummah as a whole in comparison to the Bani Isra’il. The truth is that due to the spiritual influence and power of our Beloved Master (sa) and since the Muslim Ummah is the ‘best of people raised for the benefit of mankind,’ reformers and spiritual divines who are righteous scholars can achieve feats equivalent to the prophets of the Bani Isra’il. Hence, although prophets were sent in the Bani Isra’il after Moses (as) and before the advent of Jesus (as) the Messiah, the Muslim Ummah would not require the advent of prophets during this middle era, because of the spiritual grace of our Master, the Holy Prophet (sa) and the blessings of the law of the Holy Qur’an.

Moreover, it must not be forgotten, that in essence, there is no real difference between the middle era of these two dispensations. The truth is that Allah the Almighty sent spiritual divines and saints to serve the law of the Torah and to continuously invite the people towards the true teachings of the law, until Jesus (as) the Messiah finally appeared in the 14th Century. As such, Allah the Almighty states in the Holy Qur’an:

وَلَقَدْ آَتَيْنَا مُوسَى الْكِتَابَ وَقَفَّيْنَا مِنْ بَعْدِهِ بِالرُّسُلِ

Meaning,

“And verily, We gave Moses the Book and caused after him Messengers to follow in his footsteps.”

In the same manner, Allah the Almighty sent countless Mujaddidin and Saints to serve the law of the Holy Qur’an and to continuously invite people towards the law of the Holy Qur’an, until finally, the Promised Messiah (as) appeared in the 14th Century. As such, there is a Hadith of the Holy Prophet (sa) which clearly mentions that Allah would continuously send Mujaddidin within the Ummah to revive the faith.

ان اللہ یبعث لھذہ الامة علی رآس كل مائة سنة من یجددلھا دینھا

Meaning,

“Allah will raise for this Ummah someone at the head of every century who would revive the religion of this Ummah.”

Therefore, it is clear that in the middle era which spans the two dispensations, Allah the Almighty sent spiritual divines for the reformation and rejuvenation of the faith, until finally, the Messiah appeared. Just because prophets were sent to the Bani Isra’il but the Muslim Ummah received Mujaddidin and Saints instead, this does not constitute a lack of resemblance. As mentioned earlier, in essence there is a resemblance between both dispensations, because the purpose of sending prophets in the Bani Isra’il was to revive the faith, and similarly the purpose of raising Mujaddidin and Saints at the head of every century in the Muslim Ummah was also for the same fundamental purpose.

The Promised Messiah (as) has beautifully expounded this issue and answered the above-mentioned question as well. He states:

“And if it is said that Prophets appeared in the defense of religion within the Mosaic dispensation and the Messiah (as) was also a prophet, then the answer is that in their capacity as a Mursal , a Prophet and a Muhaddath possess the same office; and just as God the Exalted has given the name Mursal to Prophets, so too He has given the name Mursal to Muhaddathin as well. In order to allude to this it is written in the Holy Qur’an:

وَقَفَّيْنَا مِنْ بَعْدِهِ بِالرُّسُلِ

and not:

و قفینا من بعدہ بالانبیآء

Hence, this alludes to the very fact that the word ‘Rusul’ implies those people who are sent [by Allah] whether they be a Prophet, Messenger or Muhaddath. Since our Chief and Messenger, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, is the Seal of Prophets and after the Holy Prophet (sa) no prophet can come, therefore in this Shari‘at the Muhaddathin are the representatives of Prophets. It is to this very fact that the following verse alludes to:

ثُلَّةٌ مِنَ الْأَوَّلِينَ (40) وَثُلَّةٌ مِنَ الْآَخِرِينَ (41)

Since the word ‘Thullatun’ has appeared in both statements, this categorically proves that the Muhaddathin of this Ummah would be equivalent to the Messengers of the Mosaic dispensation in their number and lengthy consecutive succession.”

Therefore, it is clear from the above-mentioned explanation that in the verse under discussion, a wonderful prophecy has been made regarding the advent of the Promised Messiah (as), who would be a Messenger, and a follower of the Holy Prophet (sa). Furthermore, this verse has also specified that the Messiah and Mahdi would appear in the 14th Century, in the likeness of the Mosaic Messiah. As such, Hadrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (as), the Promised Messiah and Mahdi appeared at the head of the 14th Century in complete accordance with this verse of the Holy Qur’an. The Promised Messiah (as) was from within the Muslim Ummah and was a Messenger as per the prophecy of the Holy Prophet (sa). As such, the advent of the Promised Messiah (as) at the head of the 14th Century fulfilled the prophecy made in this verse, by completing the resemblance between the Mosaic dispensation and the Muslim Ummah. The Promised Messiah (as) states:

“In short, to establish a complete similarity between the dispensations of Moses (as) and Muhammad (sa), a Promised Messiah was needed who would fulfill all these conditions, so that, just as the Islamic dispensation began with a Prophet resembling Moses (as), it should end with a Prophet resembling Jesus (as), and that the latter part of the dispensation should resemble the earlier part. This too is a proof of the truth of my claim, but it only serves God-fearing people who ponder over it. May Allah have mercy on the Muslims of this age, for most of their religious beliefs have crossed all the limits of equity and justice. They read in the Holy Qur’an that Jesus (as) has died, but they still believe him to be alive; they read in Surah Al-Nur in the Holy Qur’an that all the coming Khulafa’ would be from this Ummah, yet they are waiting for Jesus (as) to descend from heaven; they read in Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim that Jesus (as) who was promised to appear for this dispensation would belong to this very Ummah, yet they are waiting for the Israelite Jesus (as); they read in the Holy Qur’an that Jesus (as) will never return to the world, and yet they want to bring him back to the world. In spite of all this, they call themselves Muslims. They claim that Jesus (as) was physically raised to heaven, but cannot explain as to why he was raised.”

There is a very famous Hadith in Dar Qutni which prophecies that a lunar and solar eclipse would occur in the month of Ramadan in order to support the claim of the Mahdi:

ان لمھدینا آیتین لم تكونا منذ خلق السماوات والارض ، تنكسف القمر لاول لیلة من رمضان ، وتنكسف الشمس فی النصف منہ ، ولم تكونا منذ خلق اللہ السماوات والارض ۔

Meaning,

“Verily, for our Mahdi there are two Signs, which have never occurred before since the creation of the heavens and the earth. The moon will be eclipsed on the first night of Ramadhan (i.e., on the first of the nights on which a lunar eclipse can occur) and the Sun will be eclipsed on the middle day of Ramadhan (i.e., on the middle day on which a solar eclipse can occur) and these Signs have not occurred since the creation of the heavens and the earth.”

In this narration of Dar Qutni, the Holy Prophet (sa) has made a grand prophecy in support of the Promised Messiah (as). The Holy Prophet (sa) has mentioned that the sun and moon would bear witness in the month of Ramadhan to the truth of the Messiah and Mahdi of the Muslim Ummah. However, even before we begin to discuss the details pertinent to this magnificent prophecy one cannot help but notice the extreme love and affection shining in the above-mentioned words of our Beloved Master for his true lover, the Promised Messiah (as). The Holy Prophet (sa) very affectionately stated that,

“Verily for ‘our Mahdi’ there are two signs.”

The phrase ‘Our Mahdi’ is one of great love and regard. In attributing the Mahdi to himself, the Holy Prophet (sa) has expressed the fact that the true Messiah and Mahdi who would come in the latter days would bear a striking resemblance to himself and enjoy a very close relationship with himself.

Furthermore, this also shows that the Messiah of the latter days would be from the Muslim Ummah, and Jesus (as) of Nazereth would not physically return to the world. The reason being that in this Hadith the Holy Prophet (sa) has used the words, ‘Our Mahdi,’ and this phrase is an expression of deep relation. Just as a father affectionately says that so and so is ‘my son,’ the Holy Prophet (sa) has made a similar statement. In this statement, the Holy Prophet (sa) has beautifully alluded to the fact that the Mahdi who would appear in the latter days would be a spiritual son of the Holy Prophet (sa). He would receive his spiritual rank due to his relationship with the Holy Prophet (sa), and his spiritual office would be due to the spiritual grace of Prophet Muhammad (as). If Jesus (as) of the Bani Isra’il was to return in the latter days, he would not possess such a deep relationship with the Holy Prophet (sa) because his spiritual rank of prophethood would not be a result of the spiritual grace of Muhammad (sa), the Chief of the Prophets. However, since it was destined that the Mahdi was to receive his spiritual office due to his obedience to Prophet Muhammad (sa) and deep spiritual relationship to the Holy Prophet (sa), it is for this reason that our Beloved Master (as) used the words ‘Our Mahdi’ to very affectionately refer to his spiritual son.

It is also worthy of mention here that the Messiah and Mahdi are not two different personalities. Rather, both titles refer to the same person. As such, the Holy Prophet (sa) has clearly mentioned:

ولا المھدی الا عیسیٰ بن مریم

Meaning,

“There is no Mahdi except the Messiah.”