Concerning the last tradition mentioned in the previous chapter, the Qadiani missionary had written to me:
"Imam Muhammad Tahir Gujrati has written in his Takmila Majma-ul-Bihar (p.85) that meaning of is that no such prophet will come after me who will abrogate my Shari'ah"
I wrote in reply:
"First of all, all such writers refer to the second coming of Prophet Jesus; son of Mary (a.s.) who's Nubuwwah (Prophethood) was some 600 years before the advent of our Holy Prophet. They mean that if a previous prophet re-appears after the Holy Prophet it is not against the 'Finality of Prophethood', because even when he will come he will follow the Shari'ah of our Holy Prophet.
Not only this; he will refrain even from leading the prayers, and will pray behind the Imam of the Muslims, Thus he will live just like other Muslims - he will not call people to believe in his own Nubuwwah; he will not bring any revelation; he will not establish any new community, separate from all the Muslims. 'Khatam un-Nabiyyin' has closed the door of prophet hood so far as the newcomers are concerned.
But it has not stripped the previous Prophets of their prophethood, this meaning has clearly been written in 'Mishkat-ul-Masabih' in a note under the wording of the Holy Prophet "and the prophets were ended with me" which says "i.e. creation of the prophets; thus no prophet will be created after me. This edition of Mishkat was printed in 1307 A.H., long before the claim of prophethood by Mirza Qadiani.
So you must understand that the Muslim writers do not say that a new prophet can come after the Holy Prophet, calling the people to believe in himself. When they say Isa bin Mariam they do mean Isa bin Mariam; they do not even dream of any Masil (likeness) of Masih or any Ghulam Ahmad bin Ghulam Murtaza of Qadian.
"If, as you believe, Prophet Isa bin Mariam has died and is not to come again, then all the writings of Muslim scholars in this respect would be worthless: you cannot fasten them on Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani who surely was not born before the Holy Prophet, and who was not born without father and whose mother was Chiragh bibi and, not Mariam bint Imran.
Look at in this way. Either the writings of these scholars about re-coming of Prophet Isa (a.s.) are correct or are wrong. If they are correct, then they refer to Isa bin Mariam, not to Ghulam Ahmad bin Ghulam Murtaza. And if these writings are wrong, then how can you prove your ideas with a wrong assertion? Frankly speaking, this twisting of the writings of scholars cannot do you any good.
"Moreover, why do you say that no Sahib ash-Shari’ah prophet can come after the Holy Prophet of Islam?" According to your interpretations, there is nothing in the Qur'an to prove that the Holy Prophet of Islam was the Last Prophet; Khatam un-Nabiyyin means just a "seal of the Prophets" or "the supreme most prophet", and shows just the supremacy of the Holy Prophet over all the other prophets, Sahib ash-Shari’ah and non Sahib ash-Shari’ah alike; La Nabiyya Ba'adi means only that no Sahib ash-Shari’ah prophet will come afterwards.
Alright, what is the trouble if a Sahib ash-Shari’ah Nabi, like Prophet Moses (a.s.), comes after the Holy Prophet and whose grade is below that of the Holy Prophet?
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani wrote in several places that "is it not ridiculous to think that in this Ummah Siddiqs, Martyrs, and Pious people will come but no prophet will come? Well, is not prophethood a grace of Allah? Why this grace should be withdrawn from this Ummah which was to be the best of all Ummahs?"
Well, now tell me: Why a Sahib ash-Shari’ah prophet should not come into this Ummah? Is not Sahib ash-Shari’ah prophethood more perfect than the prophethood without a new Shari'ah? Why this superior grace of Allah' has been withheld from this Ummah?"
Once you say that Muhammad Al-Mustafa (S) was not the Last Prophet, you cannot say that a Sahib ash-Shari’ah prophet cannot come into this Ummah."
And following your trend of thinking, the idol-worshippers may easily say: 'La Illah IllAllah', does not mean that there is no other god. It just means that there are many other gods, but they're under Allah, their god ship is inferior to Allah; and their inferior god ship is not against the belief in the Unity of God, because these gods are only His followers."
Qadiani also claim that Sheikh Muhyiddin Ibn al-‘Arabi of Spain has said that 'it is possible for a Muslim saint (Wali) to attain in his spiritual evolution prophetic revelations.' Before going further it's necessary to remind the Qadianis that Sheikh Muhyiddin Ibn al-‘Arabi was a believer in 'Wahdat-ul-wujud' (The Unity of Being): he believed that everything is He (i.e., God).
This belief has been termed by Muslim theologians as the biggest paganism, which turns even a dog and pig into a deity. And the second Caliph of the Qadianis, Mirza Mahmud Ahmad, said in his Khutba (sermon) of Friday, printed in the Al-Fazl, dated 20th October,1925 (Vo1.13, No.46) about Ibn al-‘Arabi that 'his knowledge was not complete; therefore, Ibn al-‘Arabi went out to the (belief of) Wahdat-ul-wujud.'
Now, is it not astonishing that they want to base their faith on the alleged views of a man whose knowledge was not complete!
Coming to the views of the said Sheikh Muhyiddin Ibn al-‘Arabi, we may quote from 'Islam and Ahmadism' of Dr. Iqbal. It .should he noted that; Tasawwuf' (Mysticism) was the special subject of Dr. Iqbal.
He writes:"I personally believe this view of the Sheikh Muhyiddin Ibn al-‘Arabi to be psychologically unsound; but assuming it to be correct to Qadiani argument is based on a complete misunderstanding of his position. The Sheikh regards it as a purely private achievement which does not, and in the nature of things cannot, entitle such a saint to declare that all those who do not believe in him are outside the pale of Islam. Indeed, from the Sheikh's point of view there may be more than one saint, living in the same age or country, who may attain to prophetic consciousness.
"The point to be realized is that while it is psychologically possible for a saint to attain to prophetic experience his experience will have no social-political significance making him the center of a new organization and entitling him to declare this organization to be the criterion of the faith or disbelief of the followers of Muhammad.
"Leaving his mystical psychology aside, I am convinced from a careful study of the relevant passages of the Futuhat that the great Spanish mystic is as firm a believer in the Finality of Muhammad as any orthodox Muslim. And if he had seen in his mystical vision that one day in the East some Indian amateur in Sufism would seek to destroy the Holy Prophet's Finality under cover of his mystical psychology, he would have certainly anticipated the Indian Ulema (Muslim scholars) in warning the Muslims of the world against such traitors to Islam."
To make Dr. Iqbal's meaning clear, here are some quotations from the Sufis' books. Sheikh Abdul-Wahhab Sha'arani writes in his 'Al-Yawaqit wal-Jawahir' (p.25 ):
"The difference between them (i.e., Nabi and Rasul) is that the Nabi, when the Spirit (i.e., angel) reveals to him anything, the Nabi keeps that revelation to himself reservedly and he is forbidden to convey that (revelation) to another person." And if he is told to "convey what is sent to you" [either to a special group, as was the case with all the prophets; or to one and all - and this universal prophethood was not given to anyone except Muhammad (S)]. He is called Rusul.
" So if he is not given any such order which is to his own self only (not meant for the Ummah) he is called "Rasul" not "Nabi". And that is the"Tashree'i" prophethood which is not for the "Walis" (saints)."
Thus it is clear that in the language of the Sufis even a Wali is supposed to receive the revelations from God and he is called 'Nabi'; but he is absolutely forbidden to convey that revelation to others. Also, it is clear that all the prophets whom the Muslims call "Nabi", irrespective of whether they brought any new Shari'ah or not (i.e., Sahib ash-Shari’ah and Ghair Sahib ash-Shari’ah both), are called "Rasul" in Sufi terminology, because those prophets were told by Allah to convey the revelations to their Ummah.
It is because of this terminology, which gathers all the prophets under the heading "Rasul" and all the Awliya under the heading "Nabi" that the Sufis of Islam said that the Holy Prophet of Islam closed 'Sahib ash-Shari’ah' prophethood (which term includes all the "prophets" of common Muslim terminology).
But as Dr. Iqbal points out, the "Wali" who according to the Sufis claim, receives revelation is expressly forbidden to call anyone to his fold or to start any new religious group.
How can this fit on Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani who surely called people to believe in him and started a new Ummah?
Sheikh Muhyiddin Ibn al-‘Arabi al-Andalusi has clearly written in Al-Futuhat-ul-Makkiya, using the common terminology:
"The specialty which is found in a Nabi, and not in a Wali is the revelation bringing a new Shari'ah, Because the revelation of Shari'ah is not, but for the Nabi and Rasul."
Thus he claims the revelations for the Awliya’ (saints) after the Holy Prophet of Islam, but that revelation does not entitle that Wali to call people to himself, or to convey that revelation to others.
Also, as there may be hundreds of Wali" (Awliya’ in one time, the Sufis writings cannot fit on Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani who claimed that no one but he himself can become a prophet after Muhammad.
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani thought that a new Nubuwwah (Prophethood) would be a Grace of Allah for this Ummah. But in fact such a Nubuwwah would be opposite of Grace; it would be a Curse. How?
Whenever a Nabi would come in an Ummah, there would automatically argue the question of 'Kufr' (blasphemy) and Iman (faith). Those who will believe in him will become the Ummah; those who will reject his claim will be counted another Ummah.
And the difference between these two Ummahs will not be of an unimportant 'branch' of religion. It will be such a basic difference which will not allow them to unite until one of them leaves its faith and accepts the faith of the other Ummah. Further, the sources of guidance and the references of Shari'ah, for all practical purposes will be quite separate for each of these two Ummahs.
Because one group will take its Shari'ah from the revelation and tradition of the new Nabi; and the other group will totally refute the validity and, authenticity of that supposed revelation and tradition, and will not accept them as the source of Shari'ah. Thus practically, it will be impossible for these two groups to unite in one society.
If we look from this angle, it will be clear that the 'Finality' of the prophethood is one of the greatest mercies of Allah upon this Ummah. Because of this Finality of the prophethood, this Ummah has remained an eternal and universal brotherhood which is unparalleled in the annals of religion and civilizations. This Finality of Prophethood has protected the Muslims from every such basic difference which creates a permanent rift amongst them.
Anybody who believes in Muhammad Al-Mustafa (S) becomes a member of the brotherhood. This unity could never be achieved if the door of Nubuwwah was not closed, because on the arrival of every new Nabi, this unity would have been shattered to the pieces.
If a man thinks with clear mind he will have to accept that when a Nabi has already been, sent for the' whole world, and when through that Nabi the religion is completed perfectly, and when the directions of that Nabi are preserved, protected completely, then the door of the Nubuwwah must be closed, so that the whole world can unite together by following that prophet and can become one Ummah of the believer which is not to be interfered every now and then with the advent of new prophets.
This interference in the unity was understandable when there was really a need to send a prophet, then it is against the wisdom and mercy of Allah to create unnecessary friction amongst the Ummah of Islam.
Thus it is clear that the Seal of the Prophethood which is proved from the Qur'an, is proved from the traditions of the Holy Prophet, is proved from the unanimity of the whole Ummah, is also proved by the intellect and wisdom.
Thus, Qur'an, Sunah, Ijma'a, and Aql; all four basic foundations of Shari'ah and Iman demand that the door of Nubuwwah must remain closed for ever after the advent of the Holy Prophet of Islam.
There is a very simple and interesting question which the Qadianis should ponder upon. Everybody accepts that the question of prophethood is a very serious question. According to the Qur'an, it is in those basic tenets of Islam upon which depends the true belief or the Kufr of a man. If a certain man is a true prophet and one does not accept him one becomes Kafir. On the other hand, if that claimant is not a prophet and someone accepts him as a true prophet he becomes Kafir.
Nobody can think that Allah Ta’ala would behave carelessly and off-handedly in such a serious matter. If there was a Nabi to come after Muhammad Al-Mustafa (S) Allah should nay must, have made the Holy Prophet announce it very clearly in his sayings; and the Holy Prophet of Islam (S) could not have left this world without warning his Ummah in unambiguous terms that there was a prophet to come after him and the Ummah of Islam must accept him.
Naturally Allah and His Prophet had no enmity against the followers of Islam, against us and against our faith; that though the door of Nubuwwah was to remain open after Muhammad Al-Mustafa (S), though there was a Nabi to come after him, still we were kept unaware of that event and that advent. On the contrary; Allah and His Prophet both uttered such sayings which led the whole Ummah, without any sectarian difference and without any exception, to the belief, for fourteen hundred years, that there was no Nabi to come after Muhammad Al-Mustafa (S).
If the door of Nubuwwah is really open, and if a Nabi comes truly from God, still we will refute his claim, we will reject his prophethood without any hesitation, without any fear of reprisal Allah.
When Allah, on the Day of Judgment, will take our account and will ask us why we rejected the prophet sent after Muhammad, we will put the whole record of Qur'an and traditions before Him, and we will say that if we went astray it was because of the book of Allah and traditions of His Rasul. And after the presentation of these records, we are sure Allah cannot mete any punishment to us, because of rejecting a new prophet.
But if the door of Nubuwwah is in fact closed after Muhammad Al-Mustafa (S) and still some one, believes in the claim of a claimant of a new Nubuwwah, he should think beforehand what record will he put in the court of Allah on the Day of Judgment when he will be asked as why did he believe in an imposter when Allah in the Qur'an and Rasul in His traditions had clearly declared several times in different wordings that there was no Nabi to come after Muhammad Al-Mustafa (S).