Can a Prophet come after Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)?
Qadiani Jamaat accepts Beliefs Rejected
by Dr. Zahid Aziz
The Light (UK), February 2007 Issue (pp. 7–8)
After the early period of Islamic history, a wrong belief had crept up among Muslims to the effect that the prophet Jesus was alive in heaven and would descend among Muslims in the remote future. Islamic scholars were then faced with the difficulty that the coming of a prophet conflicted with the teaching that the Holy Prophet Muhammad was the Khatam-un-Nabiyyin or
خَاتَمَ النَّبِیّٖنَ ؕ
“the Seal of the Prophets” (The Holy Quran, 33:40),
which the Holy Prophet had himself explained as meaning the Last of the Prophets. So, these scholars, writing over many centuries, made the coming of Jesus an exception to the rule that no prophet could come after the Holy Prophet, and they asserted that he could come because he would not appear as an independent prophet but as a follower of the Prophet Muhammad.
When Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad began his reform work as Mujaddid [Reformer] of the Muslim Umma [Muslim nation], God illuminated his mind with the knowledge that, according to Islam, Jesus is dead, not alive, and will not return to this world. Among the reasons Hazrat Mirza sahib put forward as to why Jesus cannot return is that no prophet can come after the Holy Prophet Muhammad. Hazrat Mirza sahib declared that the finality of prophethood of the Holy Prophet Muhammad was an absolute, unconditional and unbreakable principle, and it could not be compromised by creating exceptions or loopholes to circumvent it. Therefore, he interpreted the so-called “return of Jesus” as the arising of a Mujaddid and saint of the Muslims who would not be a prophet. It was, thus, as a non-prophet that Hazrat Mirza sahib made his claim to be the “Promised Messiah”.
When the builders of the Qadiani Jamaat, shortly after the death of Hazrat Mirza sahib, devised the notion that he was a prophet, they sought support in the interpretations of those Muslim scholars of the past who were trying to allow the return of Jesus. These were the interpretations that were rejected by Hazrat Mirza sahib. When these scholars regarded it as permissible for a prophet to come after the Holy Prophet Muhammad, they meant that Jesus could return. The Qadiani Jamaat presents their views as if they said that a prophet would emerge from among the Muslims.
This background brings us to a recent article in the Qadiani Jamaat organ Al-Fazl International dated 15–21 December 2006 by one Zafarullah Khan Tahir, teacher at the Ahmadiyya Jamia, Rabwah, written in reply to an anti-Ahmadiyya critic. Discussing the Holy Prophet being the Khatam-un-Nabiyyin, he writes:
“All Muslim sects believe that after the Holy Prophet Muhammad no such prophet can come who can abrogate the law of the Quran or establish his own authority. Along with this, the entire Umma is agreed that in the last ages when most of the Umma becomes misguided and divided into sects, at that time for the reform of the Umma a Messiah, prophet of God, must come and his coming is most certainly not against the verse of Khatam-un-Nabiyyin nor would it make any difference to the Holy Prophet’s finality of prophethood. Exactly this is also the belief of the Ahmadiyya community.” (p. 9, col. 3)
It is a completely false impression created by the Qadiani Jamaat, as in this extract, that Muslims believed that some figure called a Messiah would arise who would have to be a prophet. It was not some unspecified Messiah, prophet of God, that Muslims thought would come but they believed that the prophet Jesus himself would come.
The above writer goes on to say that his Jamaat believes in the Holy Prophet as Khatam-un-Nabiyyin, and in support he quotes the following statement by Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad:
“Our belief, which we hold in this life, and upon which by the grace of God we shall depart from this world, is that our leader and master, Muhammad mustafa, may peace and the blessings of God be upon him, is the Khatam-un-Nabiyyin and the best of the messengers…” (Izala Auham)
What the writer does not know, or perhaps is not willing to disclose, is that in the above book Hazrat Mirza sahib not only affirmed that he and his followers believe the Holy Prophet to be Khatam-un-Nabiyyin but he has also explained the meaning of this term. In this same book Izala Auham, he quotes the Khatam-un-Nabiyyin verse of the Quran (33:40), and then translates it into Urdu as follows:
“Muhammad is not the father of any man from among you, but he is the Messenger of Allah, and the one to end the prophets [Urdu: khatam karnai wala hai nabiyon ka].” (p. 614; bolding ours)
and he continues:
“This verse also clearly argues that, after our Holy Prophet, no messenger shall come into the world.”
This book contains many other such statements:
“Every wise person can understand that if God is true to His promise, and the promise given in the Khatam-un-Nabiyyin verse, which has been explicitly mentioned in the Hadith … then no person at all can come as a messenger after our Holy Prophet.” (p. 577)
“The fact that our Holy Prophet is the Khatam-un-Nabiyyin prohibits the coming of any other prophet.” (p. 575)
“The Holy Quran does not permit the coming of any messenger after the Khatam-un-Nabiyyin, whether a new one or an old one.” (p. 761)
“God the Most High would never tolerate such disgrace and humiliation for this Umma, nor such an insult and affront to His chosen Prophet, the Khatam-ul-Anbiya,1 that by sending a messenger with whom it is essential that angel Gabriel must come, He should oust the religion of Islam,while He has promised not to send any messenger after the Holy Prophet Muhammad. The readers of Hadith have certainly made a serious error in presuming, by seeing the word ‘Jesus’ or ‘son of Mary’, that that very same son of Mary who was a messenger of Allah shall descend from heaven. It did not occur to them that his coming would be tantamount to the demise of Islam from the world.” (p. 586)
The writer of this article quotes Hazrat Mirza sahib to prove that he believed the Holy Prophet to be the Khatam-un-Nabiyyin, but he completely rejects the meaning of this term given by Hazrat Mirza sahib in the very same book! This is typical of the misleading arguments used by the Qadiani Jamaat. They take terms used by Hazrat Mirza sahib and give them a meaning quite oppositeto the meaning that he has clearly explained.
Also in the same book Hazrat Mirza sahib answers the objection that he was claiming to be a prophet. He writes:
“There is no claim of prophethood. On the contrary, the claim is of sainthood which has been advanced by the command of God.” (Izala Auham, pp. 421–422)
The writer goes on to say:
“No one, even up to today, has considered that the coming of the Messiah, prophet of God, after the Holy Prophet Muhammad, in the days of the decline of his Umma, is contrary to the verse about Khatam-un-Nabiyyin, or declared it as being against the concept of the finality of prophethood as taught in the Quran and Hadith”.
No one up to today? It was, in fact, Hazrat Mirza sahib who wrote as follows:
“The Ulama of this age of corruption suffer from severe misconceptions in comprehending the real and true meaning of this prophecy, and due to gross misunderstanding they have gathered embarrassing contradictions in their beliefs. … on the one hand they declared the Holy Prophet Muhammad as the Khatam-ul-Anbiya while on the other hand they also maintained the belief that after the Holy Prophet a prophet is yet to come…” (Kitab-ul-Bariyya, p. 188–189)
It is, according to Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, an “embarrassing contradiction” in the beliefs of the Ulama that they considered that a prophet could come after the Holy Prophet Muhammad while calling the Holy Prophet as Khatam-un-Nabiyyin!
Footnotes:
- Khatam-ul-Anbiya is the same term as Khatam-un-Nabiyyin. ↩︎