Intro
This is an essay wherein I have collected all the utterances of MGA in terms of the famous hadith “La Nabiyya Badi”.
In 1893, MGA alleged that “La Nabiya Badi” was the commentary for 33:40 of the Quran (See Hamamatul Bushra, via Maulvi Muhammad Ali, Prophethood in Islam, 1915).
In 1898, via “Kitab-al-Bariyya” (see page 32, online English abridged edition), MGA argued that the famous hadith of “La Nabiya Baadi” (No Prophet After Me) was so well-known that no
one had any doubt regarding its authenticity. And the Holy Quran, every single word of which is absolute, in its noble verse “he is the Messenger of Allah and the Kha¯tam an-nabiyyı¯n”, had also confirmed that prophethood has, in fact, ended with our Holy Prophet. Then how could it be possible that any prophet should come after the Holy Prophet Muhammad, according to
the real meaning of prophethood? This would have destroyed the entire fabric of Islam. MGA also argued that in Hadith, had settled the matter that no prophet can come after the Holy Prophet (Saw), in terms of the real meaning of prophethood.
In 1898, via Ayyam-e-Sulh, page 47, Via Prophethood in Islam, MGA and his team argued that the famous hadith of “La Nabiyya Badi” stops Eisa (As) from physically descending to Earth. MGA also argued that “La Nabiyya Badi” stops the phenomenon of the “independent-prophets”.
In 1901 (Nov), MGA quoted the famous hadiths wherein “La Nabiya Badi” is mentioned (See page 3, “Eik Ghalti Ka Izala”), MGA did this right after quoting 33:40 (33:41 in the Kadiani Koran), MGA was arguing that it is sinful to believe that Eisa (as) will physically return as the same prophet and was using this hadith as evidence.
In 1947, A.R. Dard argued that “La Nabiyya Badi” means, “No prophet with him” (See “Life of Ahmad” by Dard, page 839). Dard also argued that via Ibn Arabi, that there shall be no Prophet who will cancel or go against the Islamic law of Muhammad (Saw).
Continue reading “Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and the famous hadith of “La Nabiya Baadi” (No Prophet After Me)” →