This argument was taken from The True Meaning of Khatame-Nabbuwwat (Finality of Prophethood), page 23.
حدثنا
محمد بن سنان
حدثنا
سليم بن حيان
حدثنا
سعيد بن
ميناء عن
جابر بن عبد
الله رضي
الله عنهما
قال
قال النبي
صلى الله
عليه وسلم
مثلي ومثل
الأنبياء
كرجل بنى دارا
فأكملها
وأحسنها إلا
موضع لبنة
فجعل الناس
يدخلونها
ويتعجبون
ويقولون لولا
موضع
اللبنة
Recorded in Sahīh Bukhārī, Volume 4, Book 56, Number 734[1]:
Narrated Jābir bin 'Abdullah:
The Prophet said, “My similitude
in comparison with the other prophets is that of a man who has built a house
completely and excellently except for a place of one brick. When the people
enter the house, they admire its beauty and say, 'But for the place of this
brick (how splendid the house will be)!’”
حدثنا
عمرو بن محمد
الناقد
حدثنا سفيان
بن عيينة
عن أبي
الزناد عن
الأعرج
عن أبي
هريرة
عن النبي
صلى الله
عليه وسلم
قال مثلي
ومثل
الأنبياء
كمثل رجل بنى
بنيانا
فأحسنه
وأجمله فجعل
الناس يطيفون
به يقولون ما
رأينا بنيانا
أحسن من هذا
إلا هذه اللبنة
فكنت أنا
تلك اللبنة
Recorded in Sahīh Muslim, Book 30, Number 5673[2]:
Abū Huraira reported Allah's
Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying, “The similitude of mine and that
of the Apostles (before me) is that of a person who constructed a building, and
he built it fine and well, and the people went round it saying, 'Never have we
seen a building more imposing than this, but for one brick, and I am that brick
(with which you give the finishing touch to the building).'”
Ahmadi
Argument:
The Muslims argue that this hadīth is clear, unambiguous proof that there are no prophets after Muhammad . However, this hadīth is not speaking about the finality of prophethood. It is speaking about the finality of laws that came after the prophethood of Muhammad. This interpretation comes from two places.
The first place is Ibn Hajr Al-Asqalānī’s commentary on this hadīth in Fatḥ Al-Bāri, where he writes:
“Completion of the Palace means that with the advent of Muhammadi
Shariah, the divine law was perfected.”
Second, Ibn Khaldun writes in his Al-Muqaddimah concerning this hadīth:
“People interpret ‘Khatamun Nabbiyeen’ to mean the brick that completed
the palace. However, it means that the prophet with whose advent prophethood
was perfected has come.”
Both of these explanations of the hadīth show that this narration has to do with the finality of laws, not prophets.
This interpretation goes along perfectly with metaphorical interpretations of the hadīth. One can metaphorically interpret the house being built as the laws of Islam. Just as the final shari’ah is the shari’ah of Muhammad عليه الصلاة والسلام, the final brick is the law of Muhammad.
Despite the apparent meaning, this hadīth has nothing to do with the finality of prophethood.
Muslim Response:
Before being presented with the full refutation, it is important for one to re-read the text of the hadīth from an unbiased perspective and note that the Prophet Muhammad عليه الصلاة والسلام is comparing himself to all of the prophets, not his law to other laws.
In his goal to justify the Ahmadi position, Mirza Tahir Ahmad quoted Ibn Hajr al-Asqalani out of context in regards to the rest of his statement. Below is the full entry by Ibn Hajr in Fatḥ al-Bāri.
قَوْله : (
مَثَلِي
وَمَثَل
الْأَنْبِيَاء
كَرَجُلٍ
بَنَى دَارًا
)
قِيلَ :
الْمُشَبَّه
بِهِ وَاحِد
وَالْمُشَبَّه
جَمَاعَة
فَكَيْف
صَحَّ
التَّشْبِيهُ
؟ وَجَوَابه
أَنَّهُ
جَعَلَ
الْأَنْبِيَاء
كَرَجُلٍ
وَاحِد ,
لِأَنَّهُ
لَا يَتِمّ مَا
أَرَادَ مِنْ
التَّشْبِيه
إِلَّا بِاعْتِبَارِ
الْكُلّ ,
وَكَذَلِكَ
الدَّار لَا
تَتِمّ
إِلَّا
بِاجْتِمَاعِ
الْبُنْيَان ,
وَيَحْتَمِل
أَنْ يَكُون
مِنْ التَّشْبِيه
التَّمْثِيلِيّ
وَهُوَ أَنْ
يُوجَد وَصْف
مِنْ
أَوْصَاف
الْمُشَبَّه
وَيُشَبَّه
بِمِثْلِهِ
مِنْ
أَحْوَال
الْمُشَبَّه
بِهِ ,
فَكَأَنَّهُ
شَبَّهَ
الْأَنْبِيَاء
وَمَا بُعِثُوا
بِهِ مِنْ
إِرْشَاد
النَّاس
بِبَيْتٍ أُسِّسَتْ
قَوَاعِده
وَرُفِعَ
بُنْيَانه وَبَقِيَ
مِنْهُ
مَوْضِع بِهِ
يَتِمّ صَلَاح
ذَلِكَ
الْبَيْت ,
وَزَعَمَ
اِبْن الْعَرَبِيّ
أَنَّ
اللَّبِنَة
الْمُشَار
إِلَيْهَا
كَانَتْ فِي
أُسّ الدَّار
الْمَذْكُورَة
وَأَنَّهَا لَوْلَا
وَضْعهَا
لَانْقَضَّتْ
تِلْكَ الدَّار
, قَالَ :
وَبِهَذَا
يَتِمّ
الْمُرَاد مِنْ
التَّشْبِيه
الْمَذْكُور
اِنْتَهَى .
وَهَذَا إِنْ
كَانَ
مَنْقُولًا
فَهُوَ حَسَن وَإِلَّا
فَلَيْسَ
بِلَازِمٍ ,
نَعَمْ ظَاهِر
السِّيَاق
أَنْ تَكُون
اللَّبِنَة
فِي مَكَان
يَظْهَر
عَدَم
الْكَمَال
فِي الدَّار
بِفَقْدِهَا
وَقَدْ
وَقَعَ فِي
رِوَايَة
هَمَّام عِنْد
مُسْلِم "
إِلَّا
مَوْضِع
لَبِنَة مِنْ
زَاوِيَة
مِنْ
زَوَايَاهَا
" فَيَظْهَر أَنَّ
الْمُرَاد
أَنَّهَا
مُكَمِّلَة
مُحَسِّنَة
وَإِلَّا
لَاسْتَلْزَمَ
أَنْ يَكُون
الْأَمْر بِدُونِهَا
كَانَ
نَاقِصًا ,
وَلَيْسَ
كَذَلِكَ
فَإِنَّ
شَرِيعَة
كُلّ نَبِيّ
بِالنِّسْبَةِ
إِلَيْهِ
كَامِلَة ,
فَالْمُرَاد
هُنَا
النَّظَر
إِلَى
الْأَكْمَل
بِالنِّسْبَةِ
إِلَى
الشَّرِيعَة
الْمُحَمَّدِيَّة
مَعَ مَا
مَضَى مِنْ
الشَّرَائِع
الْكَامِلَة .
One of the questions expressed concerning
this hadīth is that the
thing compared is one, and that which it is compared to is multiple, so how can
the comparison be sound and hold true? The
resolution of this is that he considered all of those prophets as one person,
because the parable demands that all the prophets be included in it and taken
into account, just as the house would not be complete except with all of its
parts being together. [Note: the parable refers primarily to the prophets]
It could also be understood to mean a qualitative comparison, in that an
attribute that is found among all of those prophets is similar to an attribute
found in that one being compared. In other words, it is as if he is comparing
the Prophets and that which they brought
of guidance for the people [Note: again, the parable refers to prophets and
their guidance. Laws are only one part of divine guidance] to a house whose
foundation is set and whose building is erected, and all that is left of it is
a missing brick with which the house would become fully completed. Ibn
al-'Arabi [here referring to the Mālaki scholar Qadhi Abū Bakr Ibn al-'Arabi, not Muhi al-Dīn Ibn 'Arabi] claimed that the
missing brick belongs to the foundation of the mentioned house, and that
without it, the house would crumble, saying that this is how the comparison
should be understood. This explanation, if it was passed down to him from the
past, is a good one, but otherwise, it is not necessary [to the proper
understanding of this hadīth].
The apparent context of the hadīth would demand that the missing space be in an obvious place in the
house, so that when looking at the house, one would readily conclude that it is
incomplete. Also, in the narration of Muslim in his Sahih through Hammam, the
wording is: "except for a missing space of a brick in a corner among its
corners", Therefore, it becomes clear that this missing brick would serve
to complete its perfection and beauty. Otherwise, if it meant that without the
brick, the house would not stand, then this would mean that without that brick,
the house would be fundamentally deficient, and this is not so, for the
Shari'ah of every nabī in relation to him (that nabī) is complete.
So, the intended meaning is in regards to what would be complete in view of the
Muhammadan Shari'ah in relation to the previous complete Shari'ahs [of past prophets].
In his commentary, Ibn Hajr specifically writes that the building refers to all of the prophets as one single unit and their completion. The only trivial issue of discussion is whether, in the analogy, the final brick is a keystone brick or a foundational brick, an issue that does not affect the underlying truth that the hadīth is referring to prophets, not revealed law. Each prophet is a complete prophet and likewise, Ibn Hajr comments that each of their shariahs is independently complete. Just as together, they complete the structure of prophethood, their laws complete the structure of the shariah. However, according to Ibn Hajr, the primary meaning of the parable is prophets, not laws.
With the finality of prophethood comes the finality of laws and revealed scripture, which is why Ibn Hajr commented on it. Logically, this makes sense because the only ones who have the authority to bring forth new laws are prophets, but if no new prophets can arise in this nation, then clearly there will be no more laws. However, the hadīth itself speaks about prophets, not laws.
Next, the Ahmadis quote Ibn Khaldun in his great work Al-Muqadimmah. Yet, they selectively leave out the part of the excerpt that goes against their beliefs. Below is the full paragraph from Chapter 3, section 51.
In his Kitab
'Anqa' Mughrib, Ibn al-'Arabi al-Hatimi called (the Mahdi) "the Seal of
the Saints." He is known under the name of "the silver
brick," with reference to a tradition reported by al-Bukhārī in
the chapter on the Seal of the Prophets (in the book on Mandqib), which says,
"Muhammad said, 'I and the prophets before me are like a man who built a
house and finished it save for one brick still to be placed. I am this
brick.'" Therefore, the (scholars) interpret "the seal of the
prophets"
as the brick needed for the completion of the building. It means the
prophet who has obtained the perfect prophecy. Sainthood in its different
degrees is compared (by the Sufis) to prophecy. The perfect (saint) is
considered to be the "seal" of the saints, that is, the saint who is
in the possession of the rank that is the final ("sealing") stage of
sainthood, exactly as "the seal of the prophets" was the prophet who
was in possession of the rank that is
the final ("sealing") stage of prophecy. In the tradition quoted, the
Lawgiver (Muhammad) used the phrase, "the brick (that completes) the
house," for that final stage. The two things correspond to each other.
Thus, (they may be compared) to bricks (of different materials). In the case of
prophecy, the brick is gold. In the case of sainthood, the brick is silver. The
difference in importance existing between the two stages corresponds to the difference
(in value) that exists between gold and silver. "Gold brick" is used
as a name for the Prophet, and "silver brick" as a name for the
expected Fatimid saint. The one is "the seal of the prophets," and
the other "the seal of the saints."
Next, suppose the Ahmadis consider Ibn Khaldun an authoritative figure and use his statements as proof of the interpretation of the hadīth. They conveniently fail to quote him when he says that from now until the end of time, there will be no more prophets. In Chapter 3, section 52, Ibn Khaldun writes:
On the authority of Ka'b and
Wahb, it is stated that the entire duration of the world is 6,000 years.
As-Suhayli said, "There is nothing in the two traditions to support his
(at-Tabari's) interpretation (concerning the five-hundred-year duration of
Islam), and what has actually happened has turned out to be different. The
statement of Muhammad, 'God is indeed not unable to have this nation last
longer than half a day,' does not imply that a longer period than half a day is
excluded. And his statement, 'I and the
Hour were sent like these two,' refers to the closeness (of the Hour) and to
the fact that there will be no other prophet and no other religious law (in the
short time) between (Muhammad) and the Hour.
In addition, Ibn Kaldun was a great Islamic personality, especially in the fields of history, economics, and sociology, but he was not a muhaddith, nor was this his specialty. Expertise in social sciences does not automatically translate into expertise in hadīth interpretation. In fact, his most famous work, Al-Muqadimmah, which the Ahmadis are quoting from, is not even a book of hadīth interpretation, but a book of history.
The Ahmadis argue that the house is a metaphor representing the complete law of Islam, and each brick is a law that the prophets brought forth. This analogy is incorrect. While some prophets brought minor modifications in the laws of the previous prophets, other prophets brought entirely new sets of laws that completely abrogated the previous law. This is confirmed by Sūrah Baqarah, verse 106, where Allah says:
مَا
نَنْسَخْ
مِنْ آيَةٍ
أَوْ
نُنْسِهَا نَأْتِ
بِخَيْرٍ
مِنْهَا أَوْ
مِثْلِهَا
أَلَمْ
تَعْلَمْ
أَنَّ
اللَّهَ
عَلَى كُلِّ
شَيْءٍ
قَدِيرٌ
None of Our revelations do We
abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or
similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?
With this predicate considered, the Ahmadi analogy would not make sense, because some prophets did not build onto the existing laws, which is analogous to adding another brick. Some completely removed the previous law altogether and established an entirely new one. For example, while there are striking similarities, the Islamic shari’ah is not based upon the 613 Jewish mitzvahs. The only way those kinds of prophets would fit into the Ahmadi analogy would be if they completely destroyed the structure and started anew.
Now, consider the Islamic understanding. Each brick represents a prophet. The earliest prophets laid the framework for taw’hīd (monotheism), and each successive prophet supports the same message as the previous. The final brick needed to complete the construction of the house of Islam is the brick of the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سلم. Now that that brick has been placed, the building is complete and no more bricks are needed. No more prophets will be sent because Islam is complete.
Questions to Ask the Murabbis
1. Why are we reading the commentary of a third-party if the hadīth of the prophet is clear as-is?
2. If Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani, the third party, is an authoritative scholar in Islam, do we accept him when he says that Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سلم is the last prophet?