Last of the Law-Bearing Prophets

 

Last Revelation to Humanity

 

The justification of the finality of “law-bearing” prophets is in many sources, including Revelation, Rationality, Knowledge & Truth by Mirza Tahir Ahmad (under Part VII: Future of Revelation under the section “The Rationale of Finality”) and from “The Concept of Revelation in Islam” by Maulana Abul-Ata (under the section “Do We Need a Further Law After the Holy Qur’an?”).

 

Ahmadi Argument:

 

It is universally accepted that the last book of revelation sent to humanity is the Qur’ān. Its universality precludes the need for Allah to send another book of revelation. Therefore, revelatory scripture containing laws has come to an end. Additionally, Sūrah Al-Nisā’, verse 70 speaks about the continuation of prophethood. When this ayah is taken into consideration along with Sūrah Al-Ahzab verse 41 (where Allah says khātam al-nabīyīn), this truly means the last of the law-bearing prophets.

 

Muslim Response:

 

            First of all, it is true that the Qur’ān is the last book to humanity. However, nowhere in the Qur’ān is this explicitly mentioned. Instead, this is an understood fact because Muhammad is the last prophet, and only prophets receive revelation from Allah; from this statement, one can logically conclude that his book is the last book of revelation. Nevertheless, there is no explicit verse of the Qur’ān that states this fact. Therefore, if someone rejects the finality of prophethood, he cannot state with any certainty that the Qur’ān is the last book of revelation to humanity.

            Second, the argument that Sūrah Al-Nisā’, verse 70 confirms the continuation of prophethood is invalid and is refuted in Chapter 1, Sūrah Al-Nisā’, Verse 70.

            Third, let us assume that the Ahmadis are able to prove that the Qur’ān is the last book of revelation to humanity and that Sūrah Al-Nisā’, verse 70, speaks about the continuation of prophethood. When they argue that khātam al-nabīyīn means last law-bearing prophet, they implicitly accept that khātam can mean last and al-nabīyīn means the Prophets. The words law-bearing simply do not exist anywhere in the verse, which shows that they basically inserted the words. Last of the Prophets is an absolute, undeniable statement.

            To help illustrate this point, let us consider if someone said, “This is the last guest”. Such a statement would not mean “last law-bearing guest”, “last well-dressed guest”, or “last invited guest”. Each of these may be individually true, but cannot simply be assumed after hearing “last guest.”

            In the same manner, last prophet does not mean last law-bearing prophet.

            The Ahmadi approach is to begin with the belief that Muhammad is only the last law-bearing prophet and then re-interpret the text to conform to their pre-conceived theology. Had Allah only meant last law-bearing prophet instead of last prophet, the Qur’ān would have clearly said khātam al-nabīyīn al-tashri’ī, meaning last law-bearing prophet, rather than leaving humanity a Qur’ānic puzzle to solve or suffer the consequences. This could never have been the case because the Qur’ān is a book of guidance, not misguidance, and its language is clear and simple, not baffling and complex.

Combined with Sūrah Al-Mā'idah

 

In the interest of intellectual honesty and a sincere desire not to set up a straw man fallacy[1] that could easily be refuted, the argument discussed below is not the official argument of Ahmadiyya but is the unique insight of individual Ahmadis I have come across.

 

Ahmadi Argument:

 

            According to the other nine authentic qirā’āt, Sūrah Al-Ahzāb, verse 41, reads khātim al-nabīyīn with a kasra under the tā'. While the Ahmadi position is that khātam, with a fatĥa over the tā', means best, khātim definitely means last or final. This would produce the literal translation of last of the prophets. Likewise, lā nabī ba’adī literally translates to mean no prophets after me.

            While these two statements would seem to imply that there are to be no Prophets after Muhammad عليه صلاة الله, and therefore Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is not a prophet of Allah, this is not the case. After a deep and full analysis of this verse and ahadith in association with other verses of the Qur’ān, one can safely conclude that these are referring to the closure of law-bearing prophethood and not prophethood in general. Therefore, prophets who do not bring forth a new law, but who follow the divine law of the previous law-bearing prophet, can continue to come in the nation of Muhammad عليه صلاة الل.

            The evidence for this belief is based on Sūrah Al-Mā'idah, verse 3, where Allah says:

 

حُرِّمَتْ عَلَيْكُمُ الْمَيْتَةُ وَالدَّمُ وَلَحْمُ الْخِنْزِيرِ وَمَا أُهِلَّ لِغَيْرِ اللَّهِ بِهِ وَالْمُنْخَنِقَةُ وَالْمَوْقُوذَةُ وَالْمُتَرَدِّيَةُ وَالنَّطِيحَةُ وَمَا أَكَلَ السَّبُعُ إِلا مَا ذَكَّيْتُمْ وَمَا ذُبِحَ عَلَى النُّصُبِ وَأَنْ تَسْتَقْسِمُوا بِالأزْلامِ ذَلِكُمْ فِسْقٌ الْيَوْمَ يَئِسَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا مِنْ دِينِكُمْ فَلا تَخْشَوْهُمْ وَاخْشَوْنِ الْيَوْمَ أَكْمَلْتُ لَكُمْ دِينَكُمْ وَأَتْمَمْتُ عَلَيْكُمْ نِعْمَتِي وَرَضِيتُ لَكُمُ الإسْلامَ دِينًا فَمَنِ اضْطُرَّ فِي مَخْمَصَةٍ غَيْرَ مُتَجَانِفٍ لإثْمٍ فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ غَفُورٌ رَحِيمٌ

 

Forbidden to you (for food) are: dead meat, blood, the flesh of swine, and that on which hath been invoked the name of other than Allah; that which hath been killed by strangling, or by a violent blow, or by a headlong fall, or by being gored to death; that which hath been (partly) eaten by a wild animal; unless ye are able to slaughter it (in due form); that which is sacrificed on stone (altars); (forbidden) also is the division (of meat) by raffling with arrows: that is impiety. This day have those who reject faith given up all hope of your religion: yet fear them not, but fear Me. This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion. But if any is forced by hunger, with no inclination to transgression, Allah is indeed Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

 

This verse was one of the last verses to be revealed of the Qur’ān. It was revealed towards the end of the life of the Prophet Muhammad, laid out the last of the Qur’ānic laws, and then stated, “On this day, I have completed your religion for you and perfected my favor upon you”, meaning that no more verses of aĥkām (legal rulings) would be revealed. All of the subsequent verses were concerning matters of the heaven, hellfire, death, etc. Therefore, this ayah says Allah will not reveal any additional laws.

Single verses of the Qur’ān or single statements of the Prophet are not taken in isolation. Instead, one must look at all of the verses of the Qur’ān and hadīth in totality and then produce a final interpretation.

If one takes Sūrah Al-Mā'idah, verse 3, and Sūrah Al-Ahzāb, verse 40, and combines them, it would yield a new meaning: no more law-bearing prophets.

This is graphically illustrated below:

 

[No more laws from 5:3] + [No more prophets from 33:40] = [No more law-bearing prophets]

 

When these two statements are added together, the final product is that no new prophets who bring forth laws will come, but prophets who do not bring laws will continue to be sent by Allah. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was a true prophet of Allah, but he was not a law-bearing prophet.

 

Muslim Response:

 

            The premises of this argument are correct, but the final interpretation based on the combination of Sūrah Al-Mā'idah, verse 3, and Sūrah Al-Ahzāb, verse 40, is an incorrect addition of two absolute statements.

            To help in understanding this error in the argument above, let us consider the following scenario. Suppose a grocery store owner was checking his inventory and realized he had overstocked on apples and sweets. Immediately, he put two requests to his local supplier: not to deliver any more apples or any more sweets.

            Next, consider these two statements from the perspective of the supplier. He has been told (1) not to deliver any apples and (2) not to deliver any more sweets. Both of these statements are of an absolute scope and do not allow for any exceptions. Suppose the supplier were to logically combine the two statements together. According to the faulty Ahmadi logic, he would yield the following result:

 

[No more apples] + [No more sweets] = [No more sweet apples]

 

            Based on the above conclusion, the supplier could send the grocery store owner non-sweet apples without violating his instructions.

This analysis is clearly flawed. When two rules are combined, the resulting rule should satisfy the two producing rules individually. However, according to the erroneous rule produced above, the supplier could deliver non-sweet apples. Non-sweet apples are a subset of apples. Statement 1 said no apples, be they sweet or non-sweet. The combination of the two rules is not correct.

The accurate combination of the two rules is below:

 

[No more apples] + [No more sweets] = X

[No more apples] + [No more sweets] = [No more apples] + [No more sweets]

[No more apples] + [No more sweets] = [No more] * ( [apples] + [sweets] )

[No more apples] + [No more sweets] = [No more apples and no more sweets]

(The final statement can be rewritten as [no more apples or sweets])

 

            This is the correct logical combination of the two individual statements, because it fulfills both rules individually without creating a new clause that did not exist in the previous statements.

            Now, let us apply this same logic to the verses in question. Statement one from Sūrah Maidah, verse 3, is “No more laws”. Statement two from Sūrah Al-Ahzāb, verse 41, or the hadīth lā nabī ba’adī is “No more prophets.” If the combination of the two statements was “No more law-bearing prophets,” this would allow for the possibility of laws to continue to come, which did not come from prophets. The Ahmadi combination of the two statements would allow for the possibility of contradicting statement one, which both Muslims and Ahmadis agree on.

            The correct addition of the two statements is illustrated below:

 

[No more laws] + [No more prophets] = X

[No more laws] + [No more prophets] = [No more laws] + [No more prophets]

[No more laws] + [No more prophets] = [No more] * ( [laws] + [prophets] )

[No more laws] + [No more prophets] = [No more laws and no more prophets]

(The final statement can be rewritten as [no more laws or prophets])

 

This logical addition of the two statements is compliant with the two statements individually and does not add anything that was not present in the component statements. Therefore, it is the correct combination of Sūrah Maidah, verse 3, and Sūrah Al-Ahzāb, verse 41.

            Continuing on, non-law-bearing prophets and law-bearing prophets are the two subsets of prophets in general. Both are categories of prophets. When questioned if non-law-bearing prophets continue to come amongst the followers of Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سلم, based on the rule established above (no more laws and no more prophets), one can logically reply in the negative. A non-law-bearing prophet is still a prophet, and the established rule based on the two ayāt denies the possibility of any prophets from coming, be they law-bearing or non-law-bearing.

No Firm Basis for the Distinction Between Law-Bearing vs. Non-Law-Bearing Prophet

 

The following argument was taken from The Qur’ānic Evidence: Truthfulness of the Promised Messiah by Ansar Raza, from Chapter 3, “The Possibility of Prophethood,” under Question 1.

 

Ahmadi Argument:

 

تِلْكَ الرُّسُلُ فَضَّلْنَا بَعْضَهُمْ عَلَى بَعْضٍ مِّنْهُم مَّن كَلَّمَ اللّهُ وَرَفَعَ بَعْضَهُمْ دَرَجَاتٍ وَآتَيْنَا عِيسَى ابْنَ مَرْيَمَ الْبَيِّنَاتِ وَأَيَّدْنَاهُ بِرُوحِ الْقُدُسِ وَلَوْ شَاء اللّهُ مَا اقْتَتَلَ الَّذِينَ مِن بَعْدِهِم مِّن بَعْدِ مَا جَاءتْهُمُ الْبَيِّنَاتُ وَلَكِنِ اخْتَلَفُواْ فَمِنْهُم مَّنْ آمَنَ وَمِنْهُم مَّن كَفَرَ وَلَوْ شَاء اللّهُ مَا اقْتَتَلُواْ وَلَكِنَّ اللّهَ يَفْعَلُ مَا يُرِيدُ

 

These messengers have We exalted some of them above others; among them there are those to whom Allah spoke; and some of them He exalted in degrees of rank. And We gave Jesus, son of Mary, clear proofs and strengthened him with the spirit of holiness. And if Allah had so willed, those that came after them would not have fought with one another after clear Signs had come to them; but they did disagree. Of them were some who believed, and of them were some who disbelieved. And if Allah had so willed, they would not have fought with one another; but Allah does what He desires.

- Muhammad 'Ali translation, Sūrah Baqarah, verse 254

 

            This verse hints at the two different kinds of prophets: law-bearing and non-law-bearing. It is important to notice where the verse says, “among them there are those to whom Allah spoke”. There is no such thing as a prophet to whom Allah did not speak. So, this part of the verse refers to the laws that certain prophets received. These are the law-bearing prophets. The verse continues by saying “and some of them He exalted in degrees of rank”. This part of the verse refers to non-law-bearing prophets, who were honored by Allah but did not bring forth any laws for their nation to follow. This verse is evidence that the Qur’ān speaks of law-bearing and non-law-bearing prophets.

 

Muslim Response:

 

            The crux of the refutation of this argument lays in an important distinction between the methods Allah employs to communicate with his prophets. What is known from the Qur’ān is that Allah sent inspiration (wahi) to all of the prophets, but did not necessarily speak (kalama) to them all.

            For example, in Sūrah Nisa', verses 163 and 164, Allah says:

 

إِنَّا أَوْحَيْنَا إِلَيْكَ كَمَا أَوْحَيْنَا إِلَى نُوحٍ وَالنَّبِيِّينَ مِن بَعْدِهِ وَأَوْحَيْنَا إِلَى إِبْرَاهِيمَ وَإِسْمَاعِيلَ وَإْسْحَقَ وَيَعْقُوبَ وَالأَسْبَاطِ وَعِيسَى وَأَيُّوبَ وَيُونُسَ وَهَارُونَ وَسُلَيْمَانَ وَآتَيْنَا دَاوُودَ زَبُورًا

وَرُسُلاً قَدْ قَصَصْنَاهُمْ عَلَيْكَ مِن قَبْلُ وَرُسُلاً لَّمْ نَقْصُصْهُمْ عَلَيْكَ وَكَلَّمَ اللّهُ مُوسَى تَكْلِيمًا

 

163. Surely, We have sent revelation to thee, as We sent revelation to Noah and the Prophets after him; and We sent revelation to Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and his children and to Jesus and Job and Jonah and Aaron and Solomon, and We gave David a Book.

164. And We sent some Messengers whom We have already mentioned to thee and some Messengers whom We have not mentioned to thee - and to Moses Allah spoke at great length

 

            In verse 163, the Qur’ān says Allah sent revelation (أَوْحَيْنَا) to the prophets. Then, in verse 164, the Qur’ān specifies that Allah spoke to Mūsā (كَلَّمَ اللّهُ مُوسَى). Notice the distinction between revelation and speech. This is because Mūsā عليه السلام was one of the few prophets who spoke to Allah directly, without the intermediary of an angel. For example, Sūrah Ta-Ha, starting from verse 12, describes the entire conversation between Allah and Mūsā. Again in Sūrah Al-Nisā’, verse 164, Allah speaks to Mūsā عليه السلا. Likewise, Allah spoke directly to the Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم during the journey of Al-Mi'rāj and even allowed negotiation that decreased the amount of daily prayers down to five.[2] [3] This is the real meaning when Allah says he spoke directly to some of the prophets.

            The verse continues by saying “and some of them He exalted in degrees of rank.” All prophets are honored, but some are honored above others. For example, Al-Azam min ar-Rusul, the greatest from amongst the prophets, are Muhammad, Ibrahīm عليه السلام, Mūsā, ‘Esā, and Nooh عليهم السلام.

            The Ahmadis have attempted to interpret speech as laws and honored as non-law-bearing. This extrapolation is simply not the meaning of the verse, cannot be implied from the text of the verse, nor was it agreed upon by any of the traditional scholars of Islam.

 

Ahmadi Response:

 

وَمَا كَانَ لِبَشَرٍ أَن يُكَلِّمَهُ اللَّهُ إِلَّا وَحْيًا أَوْ مِن وَرَاء حِجَابٍ أَوْ يُرْسِلَ رَسُولًا فَيُوحِيَ بِإِذْنِهِ مَا يَشَاء إِنَّهُ عَلِيٌّ حَكِيمٌ

 

And it is not for a man that Allah should speak to him except by direct revelation, or from behind a veil, or by sending a messenger to reveal by His command what He pleases. Surely, He is High, Wise.

 

The Qur’ān says that there are only three mediums Allah uses to communicate to humanity: through direct revelation, from behind a veil, and through a messenger (i.e., angel). There is no fourth medium. Consequently, direct speech is not a valid medium of communication between Allah and his prophets. This implies that there was an intermediary between Muhammad and Mūsā عليها السلام in both examples, such as an angel.

 

Muslim Rebuttal:

 

When the Prophet Muhammad عليه الصلاة والسلام spoke to Allah, he did not see him. He could only see the veil of light.[4] This is confirmed by the companion Abū Mūsā al-Ash'ari رضي الله عنه, who said that the veil separating Allah and the Prophet Muhammad عليه الصلاة والسلام was light.[5]

            Similarly, Sūrah Al-A’rāf, verse 143, proves that Mūsā عليه السلام did not see Allah. In addition, Sūrah Ta-Ha does not suggest that there was any sort of angelic intermediary whatsoever.

 

Ahmadi Argument:

 

إِنَّا أَنزَلْنَا التَّوْرَاةَ فِيهَا هُدًى وَنُورٌ يَحْكُمُ بِهَا النَّبِيُّونَ الَّذِينَ أَسْلَمُواْ لِلَّذِينَ هَادُواْ وَالرَّبَّانِيُّونَ وَالأَحْبَارُ بِمَا اسْتُحْفِظُواْ مِن كِتَابِ اللّهِ وَكَانُواْ عَلَيْهِ شُهَدَاء فَلاَ تَخْشَوُاْ النَّاسَ وَاخْشَوْنِ وَلاَ تَشْتَرُواْ بِآيَاتِي ثَمَنًا قَلِيلاً وَمَن لَّمْ يَحْكُم بِمَا أَنزَلَ اللّهُ فَأُوْلَئِكَ هُمُ الْكَافِرُونَ

 

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, as did the godly people and those learned in the Law, because they were required to preserve the Book of Allah, and because they were guardians over it. Therefore fear not men, but fear Me; and barter not My signs for a paltry price. And whoso judges not by that which Allah has sent down, these it is who are the disbelievers.

- Sūrah Al-Mā'idah, Verse 44

 

As the verse explains, first Allah sent the Torah (through a law-bearing prophet) that contained the laws for the Jews to follow. Then, he sent a succession of non-law-bearing prophets who judged according to the Torah. This verse implicitly explains the distinction between law-bearing and non-law-bearing prophets.

 

Muslim Response:

 

If this verse was taken in isolation, the Ahmadis would have a tenable position, but further analysis weakens their claims.

According to the Ahmadis, ‘Esā bin Marīam عليه السلام is a non-law-bearing prophet.[6] It is true that he came to confirm the Torah, but it is vital to consider Sūrah Āle 'Imrān, verse 50, where ‘Esā bin Marīam عليه السلام says:

 

وَمُصَدِّقًا لِّمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيَّ مِنَ التَّوْرَاةِ وَلِأُحِلَّ لَكُم بَعْضَ الَّذِي حُرِّمَ عَلَيْكُمْ وَجِئْتُكُم بِآيَةٍ مِّن رَّبِّكُمْ فَاتَّقُواْ اللّهَ وَأَطِيعُونِ

 

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

 

This verse brings forth three objections to the Ahmadi position. First, although ‘Esā bin Marīam عليه السلام fulfills the Torah, per the mandate of Allah, he also modified and altered the existing laws. Some of the scholars of Islam comment that this means he allowed certain foods that were previously impermissible and made work permissible on their Sabbath. Either way, he was authorized to modify law. This would effectively make him a “law-bearing” prophet.

            Second, let us take into consideration the fact that in the Islamic legal system, there are two sources of law: the Qur’ān and the Sunnah of the Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم preserved through the books of hadīth. The obligation to obey the Prophet عليه الصلاة والسلام is outlined in dozens of verses, such as Sūrah Āle 'Imrān, verse 132, where Allah says:

 

وَأَطِيعُواْ اللّهَ وَالرَّسُولَ لَعَلَّكُمْ تُرْحَمُونَ

 

And obey Allah and the Messenger that you may be shown mercy.

 

Allah used the word أَطِيعُواْ, the command form of the word obey, and from this, one can gather that it is legally incumbent upon all Muslims to obey his commandments. Next, consider that this same root-word is used with regards to ‘Esā bin Marīam عليه السلام. He tells Bani Isra’īl to fear Allah and َأَطِيعُونِ (obey me). The obligation upon Bani Isra’īl to obey ‘Esā bin Marīam عليه السلام makes him a “law-bearing” prophet just as the obligation upon the Muslims to obey the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سلم makes him a “law-bearing” prophet.

This analysis is not specific to ‘Esā bin Marīam عليه السلام. Even if not all prophets were given revelatory scriptures, all prophets gave orders, and their commandments were incumbent upon their communities, thus making them all “law-bearing” prophets.[7]

 

Conclusion:

 

            It is entirely possible that there is a distinction between law-bearing and non-law-bearing prophets, and even some modern Muslim scholars have commented on this idea. However, any conclusion thereof stems from rational deduction, not manifest evidence. Conversely, the Qur’ān clearly differentiates between nabīs (prophets) and rasuls (messengers) by name.

            Even if there truly is a distinction between law-bearing and non-law-bearing prophets, there is no concise explanation anywhere in the Qur’ān. But, such a distinction is foundational to Ahmadiyya, as Mirza Ghulam Ahmad claimed to be a non-law-bearing prophet. If Ahmadiyya is the “True Islam,” as they claim, that would mean Allah mistakenly left out a fundamental pillar required to accept one of his later prophets, or ciphered this belief in what seems to be otherwise unrelated verses, effectively dumbfounding the masses of those who believe in the Qur’ān, thus sending them to their doom.

This is not the case because the guidance from Allah is clear. The concept of law-bearing and non-law-bearing prophets does not clearly exist anywhere in the Qur’ān. Any argument that uses this as a pillar rests on weak grounds and is subject to dismissal.

 

Questions to ask Murabbis

1.      If Muhammad is the last law-bearing prophet, why does the Qur'ān say khātam al-nabiyin instead of khātam al-nabiyin al-tashri'i, meaning last law-bearing prophet? That would have specified he was the last law-bearing prophet, instead of simply last prophet.

2.      The concept of law-bearing prophethood and non-law-bearing prophethood is foundational towards accepting the Promised Messiah, but it is not clearly explained anywhere in the Qur'ān. Why not?