This Ahmadi argument stems from The True Meaning of
Khatame-Nabbuwat (Finality of Prophethood) under the section titled “Advent
of a prophet from the Ummah is not in conflict with ‘Khatame-Nabbuwat’”.
Ahmadi Argument:
Of the greatest masters of Islam is Shaykh al-Akbar Ibn ‘Arabi. Ibn ‘Arabi possessed a deeper insight into the spiritual issues of Islam than any modern-day mullah. Ibn ‘Arabi clearly states in his book Al-Futuhāt al-Makkiyyah (The Makkan Revelations):
Prophethood will continue in mankind till the Day of Resurrection
although prophethood bearing a new shariah or law has come to an end. It must
be realized, however, that bringing a new law is one of the many duties of
prophethood”
(Fatoohat-i-Makkiyya vol. 2, ch. 23, pg- 100).
It is apparent from the quote above that this great master of the Islamic sciences clearly states that after Muhammad, there can be other prophets. In accordance with Ahmadi doctrine, these new prophets will be subordinate prophets to the master Prophet Muhammad. They will not bring forth new laws, but will enforce the laws originally brought by Muhammad in his revelation. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s claim falls exactly in line with this. He claimed to be one of the prophets, subordinate to Muhammad, just as Ibn ‘Arabi specified.
Muslim Response:
The response to the quote of Ibn 'Arabi is the most in-depth and detailed of all of the refutations. This is primarily because of the language Ibn 'Arabi chose to employ. He did not write his book with conventional definitions to Islamic vocabulary used by most non-Arabs. Often, he would employ terms according to his custom understanding or its linguistic definition, demanding an active, contemplative reader.
Imām Abdul Wahab Sha'rānī, an authoritative commentator on Al-Futuhāt Al-Makiyya, wrote that Ibn 'Arabī spoke of two different kinds of revelation: wahī tashri'ī and wahī ilhām. Wahī tashri'ī is revelation from Allah to the prophets, such as the revelation to Nūh, Ibrahīm, Mūsā, ‘Esā, and Muhammad صلى الله عليهم و سلم. Linguistically, wahī tashri'ī means law-bearing revelation. The implication is that all prophets received law-bearing revelation[1][2]. Then, he defined wahī ilhām (revelatory inspiration) as revelation sent to non-prophets. Two examples are the mother of Mūsā[3] and the Hawariyeen[4]. Both groups received wahī from Allah, and thus Ibn 'Arabi termed both groups as nabīs according to the linguistic meaning of nabī, meaning one who brings news of the unseen [from Allah].
To differentiate between these two different kinds of nabīs, he termed the former as nubuwwah at-tashri'i (prophethood of laws) and the latter as nubuwwah al-'aamah (prophethood of the commoners). The latter category is essentially the same as the high station of the awliya' (the saints), non-prophets who are closely connected to Allah.
Let us consider that Ibn 'Arabi specifically refers to their laws. This is for two reasons. First, while both groups receive wahī (revelation) from Allah, the awliya' do not receive revelation bearing a new law. Bringing forth a new law is only one component of prophethood, just as true dreams are only one part of prophethood.[5] [6] Ibn ‘Arabi specified that new legal revelations have ended. Just as true dreams will continue and thus its recipients can be termed as nabīs according to the linguistic definition of the term, (not prophets according to the common understanding of the term), likewise, those who receive other forms of wahī ilhām can be termed as nabīs, but are not prophets according to the common understanding of the term. They only receive one component of prophethood.
With this in mind, let us turn to the full context of the quote that Mirza Tahir Ahmad chose to excerpt from.
Therefore,
Nubuwwah continues till the Day of Qiyama among the people, even though
tashre'e (the formulation of a system of life and a way of worship of Allah) is
cut off. Tashre'e is a part, or aspect (juz') of the constituent parts of
Nubuwwa. Otherwise, it is impossible for the [sending of] information (khabar)
to become cut-off from the world, for if that flow were to be cut-off, then
there would be no more nourishment for the world and its existence would not
continue. Allah said: “Had the sea been ink with which to write the Words of my
Lord, then the sea would run dry before the Words of my Lord would end, even if
we added another sea (of ink)” (Q18:109), and “had all the trees on the earth
been pens and the ocean - with seven other oceans added - been ink, then still
yet the Words of Allah would not finish" (Q31:27). And Allah has stated
that He does not will anything into existence except that He says "be
(kun)." So the flow of inspiration of these Words from Allah does not
cease, and this is in reality the true nourishment of all contingent beings
(mawjudat). This, then, is one part
(juz') from the parts of Nubuwwa that continues on and does not cease, so
where are you in relation to the other parts of Nubuwwa?
Ibn 'Arabi rejecting the
continuation of prophethood
Below is an excerpt from Futuhāt al-Makiyyah, Chapter 14, that conclusively says there will be no prophets after Muhammad عليه صلاة الله:
Know that Allah crushed the backs of the Awliya' by
cutting off Nubuwwa and Risala after the passing of Muhammad (alayhi salat wa
salam), meaning the end of Lordly revelation (Wahī Rabbani), which is the nourishment of
their souls. So if any one of the Awliya' were to occupy the station of the
previous prophets, let alone be better than them, then his back would not be
crushed, nor would he be in need of the wahī that came through their tongues. Rather, the highest degree of kindness that
Allah shows to His Awliya' is that He allowed a part of Nubuwwah to remain with
them, such as receiving inspiration through true visions, so that they can
at least be comforted with the scent of revelation (wahī).
Below is another excerpt from Futuhāt al-Makiyyah, Chapter 38, where he explicitly says that no new prophets or messengers will come and provides further elaboration:
It is
established that the Messenger of Allah has said “Risala and Nubuwwa have
ended, so there is no Rasul after me, nor nabī”. This hadīth is among the most bitter
of truths that the Awliya’ had to swallow, because it is a barrier that comes
between the human and his attainment of complete and ultimate servanthood
('ubudiyyah). And if a human is barred from achieving complete servanthood,
then it means he is barred from any direct connection between the human and
Allah Most High. For to the degree that a servant is unfulfilled in his servanthood,
to that same degree is he distanced from his Master [meaning like the more
arrogant you are for example, the farther you get from Allah], because in that
case he is competing with Allah about His Divine Names and Qualities. And the
least form of competition is to attach to yourself the same name.
So He maintained for us the name Wali
(saint) and it is also among His Names (Most Exalted is He), whereas this Name
He stripped from His Messenger, (then bestowed it upon him), and named him
"slave and messenger," and it is not fitting for Allah to be called
"messenger." Therefore, this name is wholly specified (only) for the
slaves, so it is confined to the reality of servanthood ('ubudiyya) and can
never be applied to the Lord (Rabb).
The reason for generalizing this name
"risala" (in the hadīth above)
is because the existence of risala (messengerhood) as it relates to being the
direct messenger of Allah has ceased and become cut-off; therefore, this name
can no longer be applied to anyone in that sense anymore. And when the
Messenger knew that among his ummah there would exist those who would drink
this bitter cup (of there being no hope for any future messenger), and knew of
the pain they would experience because of this in themselves, he had pity on them,
so he apportioned for them a share of this name, by saying to the sahaba, "Let those present among you
convey the message to those absent." So he commanded them to convey the
message, just as he in turn was commanded by Allah to convey the message, so that
the name of "messenger" could in one way apply to them, a name which
can only be appropriate for servants (meaning that, in this way the Awliya' can
depthen their dimension of servanthood, which is the goal they are reaching
for).
He (blessings and peace of Allah be upon
him) said, "May Allah have mercy on the one who heard my words and
comprehended them, then conveyed them exactly as he heard them," meaning
letter by letter. So this title cannot be applied except on those who convey
the revelation (whether Qur’ān or Sunna) in its exact original wording,
and so it only applies to the transmitters of revelation among the Qur’ān
scholars (muqri'een) and hadīth masters
(muhaddithin). The fuqaha or those who transmit the meaning of a hadīth (and not its exact wording) - as permitted
by Sufyan Thawri and some others - can have no share of this name ('rasul'),
because the one who conveys the meaning of the hadīth
is only transmitting his own understanding and comprehension, and whoever
transmits to us (only) his understanding, then he is only the rasul of himself,
and will not be resurrected among those who convey the exact wording of the
revelation (waḥī) as he heard it; in contrast to the
Muqri' and Muhaddith, those who transmit the waḥī in
its exact wording, who will be resurrected with the Rusul (messengers of Allah,
alayhim salat wa salam).
So if the ṣaḥaba transmit the revelation in its original
wording, then they become the messengers of the messenger of Allah, blessings
and peace be upon him, and the Tabi'in become the messengers of the ṣaḥaba, and
so on generation after generation till the Day of Qiyama. So if we wish, we
could justifiably name the transmitter of revelation to us "the messenger
of Allah" or we could ascribe him to his immediate predecessor
("messenger of the ṣaḥaba"). We are only permitting
"removing the middle-men" because it was the angel Jibril who would
bring the revelation to Muhammad (alayhi salat wa salam), yet we do not call
him the "rasul of Jibril," but the "rasul of Allah"...
So this is the degree of (servanthood)
'ubudiyya that the Awliya still have access to, and it is a great good, which
Allah has granted them. But as long as a person does not transmit the
revelation exactly in its original wording as it came, then he has no share in
this, nor can he even smell its scent from afar, and he would be considered
among those Awliya who "compete" with some of the Names of Allah
(such as "Wali"), and thus be deficient in utter servitude to that
degree. For this reason, the title of "muhaddath" ("spoken
to"; referring to the hadīth in
Bukhārī: In the past nations there were those who were not prophets,
but “spoken to" meaning inspired) - which can be applied on the former -
is nobler than the title of "wali". Therefore, the station of Risala
(prophethood) is unattainable - after the Messenger of Allah (alayhi salat wa
salam) - except in the degree we described above.
Zillī and Buruzi Prophets
In his book A Misconception Removed, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad wrote about the continuation of prophets through the mediums of zill and buruz. If by zill and buruz, Ahmad was referring to the type of nabīs detailed by Ibn ‘Arabi, then the only difference between Ibn ‘Arabi and what Ahmad wrote is semantic. The prophethood he described is someone who receives wahī ilhām, just as the mother of Mūsā did, but is not a prophet in the traditional sense of the term. If this is the case, then this is not a special status nor one special glory or honor beyond the other awliya'.
If he was referring to actual prophets, such as Isma’īl and Isĥāq, who will continue, then Ahmad contradicted himself. He understands khātam al-nabīyīn to mean finality of prophethood[7], but in the same sentence, he says all future prophets will be zillī or buruzi prophets. The finality of prophethood is an unconditional statement leaving no room for exceptions. Zillī or burūzi prophets are a subset of prophets that khātam al-nabīyīn has terminated. This is a contradiction.
The justification Ahmad supposed was from Sūrah Jumu’a, verse 4, which he argues refers to prophets who will come in the future. This is an attempt by Ahmad to change the meaning of a verse of the Qur’ān to conform to his theology. Sūrah Jumu’a, verse 4, does not refer to the continuation of prophets; it refers to those people who will join the Muslims. The following hadīth is reported in Sahīh Muslim, Chapter 59, Book 31, hadīth number 6178:
Abū Huraira reported, “We were sitting in the company of Allah's
Apostle (may peace be upon him) when Sūrah al-Jumu'a was revealed to him,
and when he recited (these words): ‘Others from amongst them who have not yet
joined them,’ a person amongst them (those who were sitting there) said,
‘Allah's Messenger!’ But Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) made no reply,
until he questioned him once, twice or thrice. And there was amongst us Salman
the Persian. The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) placed his hand on
Salman and then said, ‘Even if faith were near the Pleiades, a man from amongst
these would surely find it.’”
This verse is about those from other nations who will join the Muslims. Jalāl al-Dīn al-Suyūti in his Tafsir Jalālayn writes that it refers to the successors (tabi’īn) and all of those who will join the Muslims in times to come. Ibn Kathīr comments that this verse refers to the Persians[8] and the Romans.
Conclusion
The Ahmadi religious establishment has attempted to present this isolated quote by Ibn ‘Arabi to argue that he believed in the continuation of non-law-bearing prophethood. In their attempt to use his reverence to their advantage, they have grossly taken him out of context. Ibn ‘Arabi was speaking about those righteous awliya’ (saints) who were given components of prophethood, such as revelatory inspiration, and therefore can be called nabīs according to the linguistic meaning of the term. Later, Ibn ‘Arabi wrote that the Prophet Muhammad عليه الصلاة والسلام said that there will be no more prophets or messengers of any kind, but because this might bring about spiritual pain to the awliya’, the terms will continue to be applied to those who transmit the Qur’ān (muqri'īn) and prophetic traditions (muhaddithīn).
Questions to ask Murabbis
1. If we accept Ibn 'Arabi as an authority, what do we say when he says there are no prophets after Muhammad صلى الله عليه وعلى آل و سلم?
[1] The Ahmadis do not believe all
prophets received legal revelation. This point is discussed in “Last of the
Law-Bearing Prophet” under the section “No Firm
Basis for the Law-Bearing vs. non-Law-Bearing Prophet Distinction”.
[2] In Futuhāt al-Makiyyah, Chapter 73, Volume 2, Page 41, Ibn 'Arabi wrote that the messengers (rasools) were sent with laws for all humanity, whereas the prophets were only given laws upon themselves, and it was not incumbent upon their communities to follow those laws.
[3] Sūrah Ta-ha, verse 39
[4] Sūrah al-Mā'idah, verse 112
[5] Sahīh Bukhārī, Volume 9, Book 87, Number 116, narrated by 'Ubada ibn as-Samit, “The Prophet said, 'The (good) dreams of a faithful believer is a part of the forty-six parts of prophethood.'”
[6] Sahīh Bukhārī, Volume 9, Book 87, Number 118, narrated by Abū Sa'id al-Khudri, “I heard Allah's Apostle saying, “Nothing is left of prophethood except al-Mubashshirat.” They asked, “What are al-Mubashshirat?” He replied, “The true good dreams (that convey glad tidings).”
[7] Page 18 and page 19
[8] Some Ahmadis argue that Mirza
Ghulam Ahmad was of Persian background and therefore, this verse refers to him.
This is an incorrect understanding of the classical definition of nationality.
Traditionally, nationality was based on where someone lived, not where their
ancestry hailed. For example, Suhayb ar-Roomi’s background was Arab from the
village of ath-Thani. At a young age, he was captured and sold as a slave into
the