Intro
This entire entry is taken from Farhan Khan’s book on Ahmadiyya—With Love to the Ahmadi’s of the World by Farhan Khan (2010).

After 1915, the 2nd Khalifa of Ahmadiyya began creating false arguments in his attempt to substantiate the prophethood of his father, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.  Mirza Mahmud Ahmad (the caliph), twisted many writings of Ibn Arabi and many other hadith, as he lied about the possibility of additional prophets. Mahmud Ahmad mentioned this false argument in 1915 and then later in 1922-ish.

Muhammad Ali refuted all of the new arguments of Mahmud Ahmad in 1915, he published 2-3 books on the topic in that year. “Last Prophet” and “Prophethood in Islam” are some good ones that prove the lies of Mahmud Ahmad. The ROR of Sep-1935 gave the same line of argumentation. The Sarda Act is mentioned by the 2nd Khalifa in the ROR of Dec-1932.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________The hadith of Aisha

Mahmud Ahmad presented this hadith in his book, “Invitatation to Ahmadiyya”.

It is as follows:

 ٤ّجخ ػ ػبئ خْ هٙ ٢ الله ػ ٜ٘ب هب ذُ: هٞ ُٞا فبر ا جُ٘ ٤٤ ،ٖ ٝلا روٞ ُٞا لا جٗ ٢ ثؼلٙ ٝأفوط اث أث ٢
It is reported by Ibn Abi Shaybah that A‟isha, may Allah be pleased with her, said, “Say [he is] the seal of the prophets, but do not say no prophet after him.”
_______________________________________________________________________________________________The hadīth immediately below

The Ahmadis quote the narration that seems to support their beliefs and creates a divide between khātam al-nabīyīn and lā nabī ba‟dahu. However, what they conveniently fail to report is the hadīth immediately below the hadīth of A‟isha هٙ ٢ الله ػ ٜ٘ب in Al-Dūr Al-Manthūr, which explains the narration of Aisha هٙ ٢ الله ػ ٜ٘ب . It is as follows: ٤ّجخ ػ ا ؼُْج ٢ هٙ ٢ الله ػ ٚ٘ هب :ٍ هب هع ػ ل٘ ا ُٔ ٤وح ث أث ٢ ؼّجخ ٠ِٕ الله ػ ٠ِ ؾٓ لٔ فبر ٝأفوط اث أث ٢
اا جٗ ٤بء لا جٗ ٢ ثؼلٙ كوب ا ُٔ ٤وح: ؽ جَي اما ه ذِ فبر اا جٗ ٤بء، كب بٗ بً٘ ؾٗلس أ ػ ٠َ ٤ ػ ٤ِٚ ا لَُا فبهط، كب ٛٞ
فوط كول بً هج ِٚ ٝثؼلٙ

Ibn Abi Shaybah reported that Al-Sha‟abī said, “A man at [the company of] Al-Mughīrah ibn Abī Shu’ubah said, „May Allah bless Muhammad, the seal of the prophets; there is no prophet after him.‟ So Al-Mughīrah said, „It is enough for you to say „the seal of the prophets‟, for we were being told that „Esā will be appearing. So, when he appears, he [„Esā] would be before him and after him‟.”

Seal of the prophets and no prophets after him have the same fundamental meaning. However, Al-Mughīrah هٙ ٢ الله ػ ٚ٘ preferred seal of the prophets over no prophets after him because the latter may create the impression that not even „Esā bin Marīam will return.

Al-Mughīrah said, “So, when he appears, he [„Esā] would be before him and after him.” „Esā bin Marīam ػ ٤ِٚ ا لَُاّ is before Muhammad ٠ِٕ الله ػ ٤ِٚ ٝ in the sense that he was made a prophet before him, and he is after him in the sense that he returns after the Prophet Muhammad. Both are correct statements, but Al-Mughīrah preferred seal of the prophets, because no prophets after him may create the impression that „Esā bin Marīam will not return. The same analysis is expanded to the statement of A‟isha bint Abū Bakr هٙ ٢ الله ػ ٜ٘ب . Lā nabī ba‟dahu and khātam al-nabīyīn are both correct statements in their own right, but A‟isha هٙ ٢ الله ػ ٜ٘ب and al-Mughīrah هٙ ٢ الله ػ ٚ٘ both preferred one over the other to express the finality of prophethood.

‘Esā bin Marīam ػ ٤ِٚ ا لٍاّ was a prophet from before. When he returns, he is not re-made a prophet. Muhammad ػ ٤ِٚ ا لُٖاح ٝا لَُاّ was the last to be made a prophet. After him, there are no others. But, „Esā bin Marīam’s ػ ٤ِٚ ا لَُاّ status as being a prophet from before allows him to return without contradicting the finality of prophethood. This argument is covered in more detail in the chapter: The Return of „Esā bin Marīam ػ ٤ِٚ
ا لَُاّ .

The Ahmadis intentionally fail to report the second statement to construct their desired theological position. In reality, A‟isha هٙ ٢ الله ػ ٜ٘ب and the other companions accepted that Muhammad ػ ٤ِٚ ا لُٖاح ٝا لَُاّ was the last prophet. Finally, one must take note that the narrator for both ahadīth is Ibn Abī Shaybah. Therefore, he possessed a greater insight into the context of the statements of A‟isha هٙ ٢
الله ػ ٜ٘ب , over the incorrect extractions of Mirzā Bashir-ud-din Mahmud Ahmad.

Next, consider that A‟isha هٙ ٢ الله ػ ٜ٘ب placed these two statements together. According to the Ahmadis, seal of the prophets really means best of the prophets and no prophets after him actually means no prophets after him who will negate or append to the laws that he brought. The Ahmadi interpretations of these two statements have no correlations between them. If these are the true meanings of the quotes of the Prophet
٠ِٕ الله ػ ٤ِٚ ٝ , then A‟isha هٙ ٢ الله ػ ٜ٘ب , who was known for her eloquence in speech, would have no reason to combine two unrelated statements together. Even if one accepts the erroneous interpretation of seal of the prophets and no prophets after me, it does not make sense that A’isha هٙ ٢ الله ػ ٜ٘ب would place two unrelated statements together in such a disjointed manner. Actually, this shows that these are related statements. A‟isha هٙ ٢ الله ػ ٜ٘ب
preferred the verse of the Qur‟ān over the contextual statement of her husband ػ ٤ِٚ ا لُٖاح
ٝا لَُاّ , which might create confusion if not understood properly. But ultimately, they have the same meaning: there are no prophets after Muhammad ػ ٤ِٚ ا لُٖاح ٝا لَُاّ .
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Links and Related Essay’s

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad quotes Ibn Arabi in the 1900-1903 era and some weird comments on prophethood..

The concept of the Ummati-Nabi

Muhammad (saw) is prophet #124,000, Esa (as) is prophet number #123,999

Maulvi Sanuallah acknowledges that MGA claimed prophethood in Nov 1901

MGA explains how he misunderstood his prophethood in 1880 and was confused for 20+ years

Ahmadiyya and 4:69, everything you need to know

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2017/08/03/ahmadiyya-scholars-wrote-about-469-in-1908/

Maulvi Sanuallah acknowledges that MGA claimed prophethood in Nov 1901

The Causes of Internal Dissensions in the Ahmadiyya Movement, By Khwaja Kamaluddin, 1914

“”Prophethood among the Followers of Muhammad”” by Maulana Sayyid Muhammad Ahsan of Amroha, Oct-1913, in Tashhizul Azhan

An Ahmadi claimed prophethood in late-1901 or early 1902, and was boycotted by Ahmadis–Chiragh Din of Jammu (Jamooni)

Maulvi Abdul Karim claims Prophethood per MGA, Maulvi Amrohi disagrees

What is ARBA‘IN? A book by MGA and his team of writers

In 1891, when MGA made his big claims, he denied prophethood–Mufti Sadiq was heavily involved

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was accused of claiming prophethood in the 1879–1884 era

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was considered a Kafir in 1884, before his wildest claims

Some rare books from the 1901-1902 era, which refute MGA’s claim to prophethood

Maulvi Sanuallah acknowledges that MGA claimed prophethood in Nov 1901

Mirza Sultan Ahmad, Son Of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, On Finality Of Prophethood

“Eik Ghalti Ka Izala” aka “Correction of an Error” was re-published on March-1-1914

Hani Tahir explains Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s Prophethood, pre-1901 vs post-1901

A few months after becoming Khalifa, Mirza Mahmud Ahmad waffled on his father’s prophethood

Do Ahmadis believe in the same Kalima as Muslims?

MGA explains how he misunderstood his prophethood in 1880 and was confused for 20+ years

Noorudin didn’t care if Mirza Ghulam Ahmad claimed even law-bearing prophethood

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Tags

#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog #messiahhascome #trueislam #nonlawbearingprophethood #aisha