Sayyidatuna Aishah (RA): Say He is Seal of Prophets But Don't Say 'No Prophet After Him'

 باسمك اللهم

اللهم صلى على سيدنا محمد

The Mother of Believers, sayyidatuna A’ishah سلام الله عليها reportedly said:

قُولُوا خَاتَمُ النَّبِيِّينَ وَلَا تَقُولُوا لَا نَبِيَّ بَعْدَهُ

Say ‘Seal of the Prophets’ but do not say ‘there is no prophet after him’

(Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah; v.14, p.521, published by Dar Kunuz Ishbiliya)

In his checking, Sa’d bin Nasir bin Abdul-Aziz Abu Habib ash-Shathri declared this narration sahih.

But it is argued that if the narration is authentic, the intention of sayyidatuna A’ishah is merely to affirm the second coming of Jesus. Those who make this argument point to the subsequent narration of another companion, al-Mughirah bin Shu’bah رضى الله عنه:

قَالَ رَجُلٌ عِنْدَ الْمُغِيرَةِ بْنِ شُعْبَةَ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَى مُحَمَّدٍ خَاتَمِ الْأَنْبِيَاءِ لَا نَبِيَّ بَعْدَهُ قَالَ الْمُغِيرَةُ حَسْبُكَ إِذَا قُلْتَ خَاتَمُ الْأَنْبِيَاءِ فَإِنَّا كُنَّا نُحَدَّثُ أَنَّ عِيسَى خَارِجٌ فَإِنْ هُوَ خَرَجَ فَقَدْ كَانَ قَبْلَهُ وَبَعْدَهُ

A man said in the presence of al-Mughirah bin Shu’bah: “Blessing of Allah upon Muhammad, Seal of the Prophets, there is no prophet after him”. Mughirah said: “It is sufficient for you to say ‘Seal of the Prophets’ for we were informed that Jesus shall come, so he is both before him and after him.” (ibid):

Firstly, the narration attributed to al-Mughirah رضى الله عنه is considered weak due to the weakness of the narrator Mujalid.

Secondly, the fanatics of the so-called Khatm un-Nubuwwah movement claim that the second coming of Jesus, a Prophet of God, does not violate the finality of Muhammad’s Prophesy because Jesus was made a Prophet prior to Muhammad عليهما السلام

Yet according to this narration, al-Mughirah bin Shu’bah rejected such a feeble attempt at reconciling the two apparently contradictory doctrines of the second coming of the Messiah and the finality of Prophesy, when he said that Jesus is a prophet both prior to and subsequent to the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم

From the perspective of the fanatics of the Khatm un-Nubuwwah movement, there is nothing wrong with the man’s statement “blessing of Allah upon Muhammad, Seal of the Prophets, there is no prophet after him”, indeed, this is their very slogan. Then how do they explain Mughirah’s رضى الله عنه correcting of the man and explaining to him that it is sufficient to simply say that Muhammad is Seal of the Prophets without adding ‘there is no prophet after him’?

The Great Apostasy

 باسمك اللهم

اللهم صلى على سيدنا محمد

There are a number of dissident Christian denominations which believe that there was a great apostasy in the early Church. This idea is markedly held to by the LDS or Mormon movement founded by the false prophet Joseph Smith. The JW movement likewise believe that a Great Apostasy took place shortly after the Apostolic Age, when pagan beliefs overtook Christendom, such as the Trinity doctrine.

The Christian New Testament certainly predicts the Great Apostasy. The Second Epistle to the Thessalonians is traditionally attributed to Paul of Tarsus, although modern scholars, like Bart Ehrman, question that authorship. Nevertheless, it contains this passage which says that there shall be an apostasy before the second coming of Jesus Christ: “Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first” (2 Thessalonians 2:3)

The King James Version translated the Greek word apostasia to mean “a falling away”, although clearly what is meant is an apostasy.

Islam likewise teaches that there was an apostasy among the professing followers of Jesus shortly after his death:

وَ کُنۡتُ عَلَیۡہِمۡ شَہِیۡدًا مَّا دُمۡتُ فِیۡہِمۡ ۚ فَلَمَّا تَوَفَّیۡتَنِیۡ کُنۡتَ اَنۡتَ الرَّقِیۡبَ عَلَیۡہِمۡ

And I was a witness over them as long as I remained among them, but since Thou didst cause me to die, Thou hast been the Watcher over them

(Surah 5:117)

The Ayah suggests that in Jesus’s own lifetime his disciples and followers hadn’t corrupted his Gospel – they did not worship him and his mother Mary, nor did they believe he was God incarnate. History bears witness to the fact that these heresies surfaced after the time of Jesus, when the foretold false teachers and prophets had risen among them, or entered into their flocks, and began teaching false doctrines. We believe that Paul of Tarsus was one such “wolf in sheep’s clothing” about whom Jesus had strongly warned against. Paul never met Jesus, but began persecuting his followers, the early Nazarenes, after Jesus’s death and spiritual ascension. He then claimed to have seen a vision of Jesus and have converted to the Faith, but introduced novel teachings that were in obvious contravention of the Gospel.

Christian Doctrine of Divine Sonship and Lahore Ahmadi Denial of Virgin Birth (Surah 6:101)

باسمك اللهم

اللهم صلى على سيدنا محمد

One of the objections against the Quran put forward by Christian apologists is that it has misrepresented the doctrine of the Trinity as taught by Christianity.

I have already answered, in a previous article, the objection that the Quran accuses Christians of believing that Mary is the third person of the Trinity.

Christians quote an Ayah of the Quran which according to them implies that they believe God has a wife:

بَدِیۡعُ السَّمٰوٰتِ وَ الۡاَرۡضِ ؕ اَنّٰی یَکُوۡنُ لَہٗ وَلَدٌ وَّ لَمۡ تَکُنۡ لَّہٗ صَاحِبَۃٌ ؕ وَ خَلَقَ کُلَّ شَیۡءٍ ۚ وَ ہُوَ بِکُلِّ شَیۡءٍ عَلِیۡمٌ

The Originator of the heavens and the earth! How can He have a son when He has no consort, and when He has created everything and has knowledge of all things?

(Surah 6:101)

In light of this Ayah, it is also argued by some Christians that the Quran implies that the Christian doctrine of divine sonship of Jesus is biological or else such that it logically requires there to be a mother along with a father.

The simple answer to these objections is that the context of 6:101 clearly indicates that it is not a polemic against Christianity but against the Pagan Arabs. The preceding Ayah states:

وَ جَعَلُوۡا لِلّٰہِ شُرَکَآءَ الۡجِنَّ وَ خَلَقَہُمۡ وَ خَرَقُوۡا لَہٗ بَنِیۡنَ وَ بَنٰتٍۭ بِغَیۡرِ عِلۡمٍ ؕ سُبۡحٰنَہٗ وَ تَعٰلٰی عَمَّا یَصِفُوۡنَ

And they hold the jinn to be partners with Allah, although He created them; and they falsely ascribe to Him sons and daughters without any knowledge. Holy is He and exalted far above what they attribute to Him

(Surah 6:100)

The belief that the jinn are partners with Allah, and that He has sons and daughters, is specifically a Pagan Arab belief, so obviously the polemical refutation of this belief as it occurs in the proceeding Ayah is specifically a response to the Pagan Arabs and not necessarily the Christians. That the Pagans do ascribe a consort for Allah, and that their conception of God having sons and daughters is quite different from the standard Christian concept of the divine sonship of Jesus, must be acknowledged and therefore logically validates the answer given in 6:101 where children – sons and daughters – are negated for Allah because a female consort is negated for Allah.

Some misguided so-called Muslims who deny the virgin birth of Jesus, and assert that Joseph the Carpenter or someone else was Jesus’s biological father, also quote this Ayah to back up their argument. This is especially true of the Lahore Ahmadiyya sect, whose writers wrote books such as Birth of Jesus by Dr. Basharat Ahmad. In it he argues: “The absolute fixity of this particular law may be judged from the fact that the Qur’an advances it as a refutation against the Christian doctrine of the Divine sonship of Jesus: ‘How can there be a son to God while He has no mate?’ (6: 102). This again emphasises the law of procreation through pairs, so much so that even in the case of God it is not possible for a son to be born to Him unless He takes someone for His mate.” (p.2)

But as I have already demonstrated, 6:101 [which Dr. Basharat Ahmad references as 6:102 with the Basmalah numbered as an Ayah whereas I use the standard numbering system for the sake of convenience] is not, contrary to Dr. Basharat Ahmad’s premise, a refutation of the Christian doctrine of the divine sonship of Jesus. The fact is that the Pagan Arabs did ascribe a consort for Allah, and so 6:101 is a negation of that specific heresy and not a proof that there can be no exception to the general phenomenon that the birth of a human child requires the agency of both father and mother.

At most it could be argued based on 6:101 that children cannot be birthed through the agency of a father without a mother, and that is the polemic being employed against the Pagan Arabs who believed Allah had biological sons and daughters. If those Pagans said that Allah took a consort in order to have children, then it is denied that He has a consort, or if it is interpreted to mean that the Pagans ascribe such kind of children to Allah without Him having a consort, then it is rhetorically asked how He can have such kind of children without a consort.

You Will Fight the Dajjal at the River Jordan

 باسمك اللهم

اللهم صلى على سيدنا محمد

The recent flare up in the Holy Land has rekindled an interest in Islamic apocalypticism and eschatology. The Ulama and other preachers are acquainting the Muslims with certain traditions of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم which speak of the centrality of Jerusalem in the End Times, for instance:

لَا تَزَالُ طَائِفَةٌ مِنْ أُمَّتِي يُقَاتِلُونَ عَلَى ‌أَبْوَابِ ‌دِمَشْقَ ‌وَمَا ‌حَوْلَهُ وَعَلَى أَبْوَابِ بَيْتِ الْمَقْدِسِ وَمَا حَوْلَهُ لَا يَضُرُّهُمْ خِذْلَانُ مَنْ خَذَلَهُمْ ظَاهِرِينَ إِلَى أَنْ تَقُومَ السَّاعَةُ

A faction of my Ummah will not cease to fight at the gates of Damascus and its vicinity, and at the gates of Bait al-Maqdis [Jerusalem] and its vicinity. The criticism of the critics shall not harm them. They shall prevail until the establishment of the Hour

(Mu’jam al-Awsat)

لَا تَزَالُ طَائِفَةٌ مِنْ أُمَّتِي عَلَى الدِّينِ ظَاهِرِينَ لَعَدُوِّهِمْ قَاهِرِينَ لَا يَضُرُّهُمْ مَنْ خَالَفَهُمْ إِلَّا مَا أَصَابَهُمْ مِنْ لَأْوَاءَ حَتَّى يَأْتِيَهُمْ أَمْرُ اللهِ وَهُمْ كَذَلِكَ قَالُوا يَا رَسُولَ اللهِ وَأَيْنَ هُمْ؟ قَالَ ‌بِبَيْتِ ‌الْمَقْدِسِ ‌وَأَكْنَافِ ‌بَيْتِ ‌الْمَقْدِسِ

“A faction of my Ummah will not cease to be upon the Religion manifest. Those who oppose them shall not harm them until the order of Allah comes and they are like that.” They said: “O Apostle of Allah, where are they?” He said: “At Bait al-Maqdis [Jerusalem] and around Bait al-Maqdis” (Musnad Ahmad)

I previously quoted narrations from the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم in which he prophesied that the Believers shall fight the Dajjal at the River Jordan, and that the Believers will be at the East Bank and they – the Dajjal and his forces – at the West Bank.

However, there is a version of the Hadith with different wording to the effect that the Believers will in fact be at the West Bank of the Jordan, and the Dajjal along with his forces on the East Bank:

لَا تَزَالُونَ تُقَاتِلُونَ حَتَّى يُقَاتِلَ بَقِيَّتُكُمُ الدَّجَّالُ بِالْأُرْدُنَّ أَنْتُمْ مِنْ غَرْبِيِّهِ ‌وَهُمْ ‌مِنْ ‌شَرْقِيِّهِ

You will not cease to fight until your remainder fights the Dajjal at the Jordan. You will be at its west and they will be at its east

(Musnad ash-Shamain; p.369, #638):

It is quite possible, perhaps even likely, that a narrator made a mistake by switching the position of the Believers to the west instead of the east, and the Dajjal to the east instead of the west of the River Jordan.

Presently, the State of Israel has been established in the Holy Land west of the River Jordan, whereas east of the River Jordan is the Hashemite Kingdom under Muslim control. In an apocalyptic war with the Zionists, it is not difficult to imagine how the Muslims on the East Bank will be fighting the False Messiah and his Jewish forces that are currently entrenched in the land west of the Jordan. The other Ahadith which speak of the Believers slaying the Jewish forces of the Dajjal after the latter’s destruction, when the trees and rocks shall extraordinarily speak and inform the Believers as to the position of the Jews concealing themselves behind them reinforce this general understanding.

However, this version of the Hadith is significant in that it suggests that when the Dajjal appears, and as other Ahadith make clear, he shall emerge from the east, from the land of Khorasan, making his way west to the Holy Land from there, the Believers will have already established themselves in the Holy Land, and control that which lies to the west of the River Jordan. Perhaps at that time the State of Israel will have been defeated and dismantled.

Incidentally, in these narrations, the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم referred to the Dajjal with the plural pronoun “they”. Perhaps it is because the followers of the individual Dajjal are represented by him, or because the Dajjal is not simply an individual, but in a sense it is the actual system and forces of the End Times that shall be aligned against Islam.

Dajjal Emerges from this Ummah

 باسمك اللهم

اللهم صلى على سيدنا محمد

Many Muslims don’t realize that the coming Masih al-Dajjal, or the Antichrist, shall appear from among the Ummah of Prophet Muhammad.

They imagine he is an external agent, an Israeli Jew, who shall openly reject Allah and His Last Apostle صلى الله عليه وسلم

This is the same argument that was put forward by Ibn Sayyad when some of the Sahabah suspected he was the major Dajjal:

يَا أَصْحَابَ مُحَمَّدٍ أَلَمْ يَقُلْ نَبِيُّ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ ‌إِنَّهُ ‌يَهُودِيٌّ وَقَدْ أَسْلَمْتُ

O companions of Muhammad, did not the Prophet of God, peace be upon him, say “he [the Antichrist] is a Jew” but I have accepted Islam?

(Sahih Muslim)

Yet some of the Sahabah, like sayyidina Umar رضى الله عنه and Jabir bin Abdullah رضى الله عنه swore on oath that Ibn Sayyad was the Dajjal. Abu Sa’id al-Khudri also suspected or was not fully persuaded by Ibn Sayyad’s argument. This indicates the fact that although Ibn Sayyad outwardly embraced Islam, the Sahabah did not feel it was sufficient to totally discount him as being the Antichrist.

That the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم informed us that the Antichrist is a Jew does not contradict the fact that the Antichrist shall emerge from his Ummah. It may be that the Antichrist is of Jewish descent while apparently being from the Ummah. In this way his affair resembles that of one of the minor antichrists who appeared before him, namely, Abd Allah bin Saba. It is reported that Amir al-Mu’minin Ali bin Abi Talib رضى الله عنه addressed Ibn Saba, saying to him:

وَيْلَكَ مَا أَفْضَى إِلَيَّ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ شَيْئًا كَتَمَهُ أَحَدًا مِنَ النَّاسِ وَلَقَدْ سَمِعْتُهُ يَقُولُ إِنَّ بَيْنَ يَدَيِ السَّاعَةِ ‌ثَلَاثِينَ ‌كَذَّابًا ‌وَإِنَّكَ ‌لِأَحَدُهُمْ

I heard the Apostle of Allah, sall Allahu alaihi wasallam, say, “before the Hour shall come thirty liars” and you are one of them

(Musnad Abi Ya’la; v.1, pp.349-350):

This prophecy from the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم about thirty liars and antichrists, which has multiple attestation, is significant because the Prophet explained that each of these thirty or so pretenders shall arise from within his Ummah:

سَيَكُونُ فِي أُمَّتِي كَذَّابُونَ ثَلاَثُونَ كُلُّهُمْ يَزْعُمُ أَنَّهُ نَبِيٌّ

There shall be, in my Ummah, thirty liars, each of them claiming to be a Prophet

(Sunan Abi Dawud)

In another version of this Hadith, the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم revealed that the Masih al-Dajjal, the major Antichrist which is known as al-’Awar or the One-Eyed Dajjal, is the last of these thirty pretenders:

وَاللَّهِ لَا تَقُومُ السَّاعَةُ حَتَّى يَخْرُجَ ثَلَاثُونَ كَذَّابًا ‌آخِرُهُمُ ‌الْأَعْوَرُ الدَّجَّالُ مَمْسُوحُ الْعَيْنِ الْيُسْرَى كَأَنَّهَا عَيْنُ أَبِي تَحْيَى أَوْ يَحْيَى لِشَيْخٍ مِنَ الْأَنْصَارِ وَإِنَّهُ مَتَى يَخْرُجُ فَإِنَّهُ يَزْعُمُ أَنَّهُ اللَّهُ فَمَنْ آمَنَ بِهِ وَصَدَّقَهُ وَاتَّبَعَهُ فَلَيْسَ يَنْفَعُهُ صَالِحٌ مِنْ عَمَلٍ لَهُ سَلَفَ وَمَنْ كَفَرَ بِهِ وَكَذَّبَهُ فَلَيْسَ يُعَاقَبُ بِشَيْءٍ مِنْ عَمَلِهِ سَلَفَ وَإِنَّهُ سَيَظْهَرُ عَلَى الْأَرْضِ كُلِّهَا إِلَّا الْحَرَمَ وَبَيْتَ الْمَقْدِسِ

By Allah, the Hour will not be established until there come thirty liars, the last of whom is the One-Eyed Dajjal, whose left eye is concealed like the eye of Abu Yahya – or Abu Tahya – an elder of the Ansar. He will claim to be Allah. Whoever believes in him, confirms him and follows him, nothing of his previous good deeds shall profit him, and whoever disbelieves in him and belies him, nothing from his previous deeds shall hold him to account. He shall prevail upon the entirety of the Earth except the Haram and Bait al-Maqdis [Jerusalem]

(Sahih Ibn Khuzaymah #1397):

As I have explained in previous articles, the fact that the Dajjal emerges from Khorasan, which today is an exclusively Muslim region, and that he is followed by Turkic peoples who today are almost exclusively Muslim, and that he is such a great trial for the Muslims in particular, are all indications that he emerges from this very Ummah.

Firasah of Third Caliph Uthman b. Affan رضى الله عنه

 بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

وصلى الله تعالى على خاتم النبيين

وَكَذَلِكَ عُثْمَانُ بْنُ عَفَّانَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ صَادِقُ الْفِرَاسَةِ وَقَالَ أَنَسُ بْنُ مَالِكٍ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ دَخَلْتُ عَلَى عُثْمَانَ بْنِ عَفَّانَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ وَكُنْتُ رَأَيْتُ امْرَأَةً فِي الطَّرِيقِ تَأَمَّلْتُ مَحَاسِنَهَا فَقَالَ عُثْمَانُ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ يَدْخُلُ عَلَيَّ أَحَدُكُمْ وَأَثَرُ الزِّنَا ظَاهِرٌ فِي عَيْنَيْهِ فَقُلْتُ أَوَحْيٌ بَعْدَ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فَقَالَ ‌وَلَكِنْ ‌تَبْصِرَةٌ ‌وَبُرْهَانٌ وَفِرَاسَةٌ صَادِقَةٌ

Likewise, Uthman bin Affan [radi Allahu anhu] was truthful in Firasah. Anas bin Malik [radi Allahu anhu] says that he entered in the presence of Uthman bin Affan [radi Allahu anhu] and that he had seen a lady on the road, admiring her beauty. So Uthman [radi Allahu anhu] said: “One of you has entered upon me and there is a trace of Zina apparent in his eyes.” So I said: “Is there Wahi after the Apostle of Allah [sall Allahu alaihi wasallam]?” He said: “Rather, it is vision, proof, and true Firasah.”

(Madarij us-Salikin; v.2, p.455):

There is No Prophet After Me. Meaning of بعد

Our interpretation of La Nabi Ba'di to mean no prophet that is in opposition to the Shari'ah of the Prophet and is not his follower in totality is not extraneous, it can be derived strictly from the plain wording itself.

Ba'd is usually translated in English "after" but that does not encompass its full meaning, nor is it necessary that ba'd always means after in the sequential sense.

It is perfectly legitimate in Arabic language to interpret the word Ba'd to mean that which is in contrast to, in opposition to - as opposed to that which accords with and is in conformity with.

A perfect example of this from the Holy Quran:

فَبِاَیِّ حَدِیۡثٍۭ بَعۡدَہٗ یُؤۡمِنُوۡنَ

In what discourse then, after this, will they believe?

Incidentally, the Quran-only heretics consider this Ayah their most devastating weapon in their arsenal in repudiating the following of the Ahadith. The Quran refers to itself as Hadith, and is apparently asking a rhetorical question that in which Hadith after this [Quran] will you believe, meaning don't believe in any Hadith other than the Quran. On the surface it seems like a pretty solid argument for the Quranists/Hadith-rejecters.

But the correct interpretation of this Ayah, based on an alternative but bona fide meaning of the word ba'd is essentially not to believe in any opposing or contrary narrative to the Quran, not that every narration subsequent to the Quran in chronology and sequence is false even if that narration is in accord with the Quran and falling under its overall authority.

Likewise, the statement "There is no Prophet after me" really and truly means don't believe in any Prophesy-claimant after me who doesn't conform to me, who isn't subordinate to me, and who doesn't recognize me as supreme - I am the Seal of the Prophets.