After 1915, the 2nd Khalifa of Ahmadiyya (Qadyani) 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. This entire entry is taken from Farhan Khan’s book on Ahmadiyya.
The hadith of Aisha
Mahmud Ahmad presented this hadith in his book, “Invitatation to Ahmadiyya”.
It is as follows: 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 Hazrat A‟isha هٙ in Al-Dūr Al-Manthūr, which explains the narration of Aisha . It is as follows:
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 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 [„Eisā] would be before him and after him.” „Esā bin Marīam اّ is before Muhammad 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 r.a . Lā nabī ba‟dahu and khātam al-nabīyīn are both correct statements in their own right, but A‟ishaهٙ and al-Mughīrah هٙ both preferred one over the other to express the finality of prophethood.
‘Esā bin Marīam was a prophet from before. When he returns, he is not re-made a prophet. Muhammad pbuh was the last to be made a prophet. After him, there are no others. But, „Esā bin Marīam’s r.a status as being a prophet from before allows him to return without contradicting the finality of prophethood.
The Ahmadis intentionally fail to report the second statement to construct their desired theological position. In reality, hazrat A‟isha r.a and the other companions accepted that Hazrat Muhammad PBUH 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 R.a over the incorrect extractions of Mirzā Bashir-ud-din Mahmud Ahmad.
Next, consider that A‟isha r.a 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 then A‟isha r.A , 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’ishar.a هٙ would place two unrelated statements together in such a disjointed manner. Actually, this shows that these are related statements. A‟isha R.a preferred the verse of the Qur‟ān over the contextual statement of her husband pbuh , which might create confusion if not understood properly. But ultimately, they have the same meaning: there are no prophets after Muhammad pbuh .
The Lahori-Ahmadis refuted this argument in 1915
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.
Mahmud Ahmad and his team of Mullahs deliberately lied, for them it was easy to lie, since Mirza Ghulam Ahmad had also lied and they supported him without any fears.