Death of the Prophet’s عليه الصلاة والسلام Son Ibrahīm

This argument was taken from “A Misunderstanding Removed - Ahmadis Do Believe in the Holy Prophet (saw) as Khataman Nabiyeen” from Synopsis of Religious Preaching by A. U. Kaleem

Ahmadi Argument

Of the most evident proofs that there can be prophets after Muhammad was an incident that occurred after the death of the Prophet’s son Ibrahīm عليه السلام. When Ibrahīm عليه السلام passed away, the Prophet stood over his grave and is reported to have said the following:

"If Ibrahim (his son) had lived, he would have been a prophet" (Ibn Majah, Vol. I, p. 237).

Clearly, one can see from the statement above that Ibrahīm عليه السلام would have been a prophet if he survived. In other words, the only reason that Ibrahīm عليه السلام did not become a prophet was because he died. His death was the only barrier between him and prophethood, but the Prophet still implicitly left the door of prophethood open by saying, “If…he would have been a prophet.” Therefore, the door of prophethood is still open.

Muslim Response

The death of Ibrahīm عليه السلام serves only to cement the finality of prophethood even further.

The entire statement is enclosed in an if-statement. An if-statement does not necessarily mean that something is possible. If the Ahmadis believe that an if-statement implies that something is still possible, then this would create major problems in their theology. For example, in Sūrah Bani Isra'īl, verse 43, Allah says:

قُل لَّوْ كَانَ مَعَهُ آلِهَةٌ كَمَا يَقُولُونَ إِذًا لاَّبْتَغَوْاْ إِلَى ذِي الْعَرْشِ سَبِيلاً

Say: If there had been (other) gods with Him, as they say,- behold, they would certainly have sought out a way to the Lord of the Throne!

Based on this verse, the Ahmadis would have to accept that it is possible for there to be other deities worthy of worship besides Allah because the same if-statement is used. According to Ahmadi logic, if-statements denote the possibility of something occurring, so therefore, they must accept that there can be other deities.

Either they accept that an if-statement denotes the possibility of something occurring, and believe that there can be other prophets after Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سلم and there are other deities besides Allah, or they accept the finality of prophethood and believe that no other deity is worthy of worship except Allah.

Rather, an if-statement when used in the past tense explicitly means that the event did not occur. Had he survived and been a prophet, then the Ahmadi position would carry more weight. However, Ibrahīm عليه السلام did not survive, and he was not made a prophet. This incident does not support the Ahmadi position.

The Ahmadis present the narrations that seem to support their position, but do not present those statements that directly refute their beliefs, even if they are recorded in the authentic books of hadīth. Regarding the death of the son of the Prophet Muhammad عليه الصلاة والسلام, in Sahīh Bukhārī, Volume 8, Book 73, Number 214, the following is reported:

حدثنا ابن نمير حدثنا محمد بن بشر حدثنا إسماعيل قلت لابن أبي أوفى

رأيت إبراهيم ابن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قال مات صغيرا ولو قضي أن يكون بعد محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم نبي عاش ابنه ولكن لا نبي بعده

Narrated by Isma'īl:

I asked Abi Aufa, "Did you see Ibrahim, the son of the Prophet?" He said, "Yes, but he died in his early childhood. Had there been a Prophet after Muhammad, then his son would have lived, but there is no Prophet after him."

In no ambiguous terms, Abi Aufa confirmed the finality of prophethood by saying “but there is no Prophet after him.” It was the decree of Allah that his son would pass away, thus proving that no more prophets could come. This narration serves as proof that the companions agreed on the finality of prophethood.

Questions to ask the Murabbis

1. Do if-statements imply the possibility of something occurring? If so, how do we deal with Sūrah Bani Isra'īl verse 43?

2. Why would the companion Abi Aufa رضي الله عنه say there are no prophets after Muhammad عليه صلاة الله if there are prophets after Muhammad صلى الله عليه و على آل و سلم?

3. If this was only his personal interpretation, how is it possible that someone who lived with the messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه و آل و سلم could have made such a grievous mistake in belief?