In direct clash to the the Ijma (scholarly consensus) of the Muslim Ummah the Ahmadis take the word ‘Khatam‘ in Qur’an 33:40 to mean other than ‘the Last’. And in their series of endeavors to create confusions about the essential Islamic belief of Finality of Prophethood they quote a certain narration which attributes the following words to the Holy Prophet (SAAW);
أنا خاتم الأنبياء وأنت يا علي خاتم الأولياء
“I am Khatam ul Anbiya and you O Ali are Khatam ul Auliya.”
Their argument hinges on the idea that just as Ali (RA) was not the last of the Auliya (Saints) Holy Prophet (SAAW) is not the last of the prophets. They say this ‘Hadith’ is an evidence that Khatam ul Anbiya does not mean Last of the Prophets.
Authenticity of this narration:
The narration basically comes from Tarikh Al-Baghdad (4/473) of Khateeb Baghdadi.
Its chain among other narrators includes,
1) Abul Qasim Ubaidullah bin Lu’lu Al-Saaji
2) Umar bin Wasil
And just after quoting the narration Khateeb Baghdadi himself 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 perhaps related 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 narrator a fabricated narration from Umar in Wasil, Al-Khateeb quoted it under his (Ubaidullah’s) entry.”
Ibn Jawzi also quoted it in his Al-Mawdhu’aat 1/398 (A collection giving fabricated narrations)
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 Da’ifa 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.
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!