In their bid to confuse the meanings of Khatam Al-Nubuwwah the Ahmadis try to seek evidences with various weak narrations.
The Ahmadi stand is that Khatamul Anbiya does not mean 'The last of the Prophets' rather they say, it means 'Best of the Prophets'.On these lines they bring forward a narration according to which Holy Prophet (PBUH) said; "I am Khatam ul Anbiya and you O Ali are Khatam ul Awliya."
They argue that as Ali cannot be the Last of the Awliya it means the word Khatam does not mean 'the Last'.
The Truth:
The narration infact comes from Khateeb Baghdadi's Tarikh Al-Baghdad where the exact wording is;
Authenticity of this narration:
The narration is infact weak and not a valid evidence. Two of its key narrators are;
1) Abul Qasim Ubaidullah bin Lu'lu Al-Saaji
2) Umar bin Wasil
Just after quoting this narration Khateeb Al-Baghdadi says;
هذا الحديث موضوع من عمل القصاص وضعه عمر بن واصل أو وضع عليه والله أعلم
"This is a fabricated narration regarding Qisas and was fabricated by Umar bin Wasil or was attributed to him and Allah knows best."
(Khateeb Al-Baghdadi 4/473)
* it is the ending of a longer narration whose initial part relates to Qisas.
Discussing the status of Ubaidullah bin Lu'lu Hafiz Ibn Hajr points to this narration and says in Lisan Al-Mizan;
روى عن عمر بن واصل حديثاً موضوعاً ساقه الخطيب في ترجمته
"He narrated a fabricated narration from Umar in Wasil, Al-Khateeb quoted it in his book." (Lisan Al-Mizan 2/151)
Ibn Jawzi also quoted it in his Al-Mawdhu'aat 1/398
Interestingly Khateeb Baghdadi was recogized as Mujaddid of 4th century Hijrah by Ahmadis, Ibn Jawzi that of 6th century Hijrah and Ibn Hajr that of 8th century Hijrah.
Recently Shaykh Albani called it Mawdhu (fabricated) in Silsala Daeefa Narration 694
Reference of Shiite Tafsir al-Safi:
Well aware of the fact that Al-Khateeb has clarified the actual value of this narration just after quoting Ahmadis now quote it with reference to a Shiite Tafsir Al-Safi by Al-Faiz Al-Kashani. Al-Kashani (d. 1091 A.H.) quotes it under Qur’an 33:40 but without any chain. He writes;
في المناقب عن النبي صلى الله عليه وآله قال أنا خاتم الأنبياء وأنت يا علي خاتم الأوصياء
“[It is narrated] in Al-Manaqib from the Prophet, on whom and his progeny be the blessings of Allah, said; ‘I am Khatamul Anbiya and you, O Ali, are Khatamul Ausiya*.’” (Tafsir Al-Safi 4/193 with research of Shaikh Hussain Al-’Alami)
* the edition I have access to has the words Khatamul Ausiya instead of the alleged Khatamul Auliya.
How can a narration without any chain of narrators be an evidence? It is upon Ahmadis now to show us an unbroken chain of trustworthy narrators before they bring this as evidence.
Conclusion:
The narration as found in Sunni sources like Tarikh Al-Baghdad comes through a liar without any supporting evidence thus it has to be considered a lie and not a Hadith of the Prophet of Allah, peace and blessings of the Almighty be upon him.
The narration as found is Shi’a sources is without any chain of narrators which is as good as any word from hearsay.
This brings to our attention the following words of the great scholar Abdullah bin Mubarak (d. 181 A.H.);
الإسناد عندي من الدين لولا الإسناد لقال من شاء ما شاء وإذا قيل له : من حدثك ؟ بقي
‘Isnaad (chains of narrators) to me are a part of Deen, and if it was not for Isnaad, one would have said whatever hee desired. When it is said (to the one who speaks without Isnaad): Who informed you? He remains silent and bewildered.’ (Khateeb Baghdadi’s Al-Akhlaaq Al-Rawi wa Aadaab A-Sami’ 4/392 Narration 1654)
Isn’t the situation of Ahmadiyya exactly same as the learned Imam described? Truly bewildered!
May Allah bring Ahmadis to true Islam!
Indeed Allah Knows the best!
I am also involved in this discussion and trying to figure out how this word, Khatim, has been understood in the classical Arabic. Whereas I appreciate your quoting references that questioned the validity of thsi tradition, the implication, however, is that it is a valid usage. Nobody objected that it is a grammatically unsound, semantically meaningless sentence. If Khatam Nabiyyen means only 'Last', the first objection should have been on the construction and Arabic of the sentence.
ReplyDeleteActually I feel you have not really got to the real essence of the issue.
ReplyDeleteAs to the lexicography of the word, the Ahmadi position is the weakest. You can please refer to the following work for the details on these lines.
http://www.islamicsearchcenter.com/library/comparative/With_Love_To_Ahmadis.pdf
From p.58 on wards the author has given the meanings of the word 'Khatam' from all the classical lexicons exposing the Ahmadiyya lie.
Now, as to the post above. The Ahamdiyya used this only to maintain that the word does not necessarily mean 'the last' for if Ali (RA) was the last of the Aulia then this is really awkward. And that is what they want us to get. Ali (RA), they say, was obviously not the last of the Aulia but the best of them and thus, they argue, Prophet (saaw) was not the last but just the best and if he is not the best then they find space and the rest of the story must be known to you...
Once they have no proof from the lexicon they seek refuge in this alleged hadith. the point in showing that it is narration is not the word of the Prophet (saaw) is to blow the air of their balloon.
hope you get this all.
And Allah knows the best!