[Salahadeen]

Originally Posted by AliFazel

Do Ahmadis consider prophet (SAW) as the last of the messengers?

Yes they do, my dear colleague.

Straight from the official website of Ahmadiyya:

Finality of Prophethood

As there are very serious misconceptions about the claims of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, we now turn to this topic. Because of his claim that the Messiah prophesied in Hadith was himself, and not Jesus, he was accused by his opponents from among the Muslim Ulama of claiming to be a prophet and denying the belief that the Holy Prophet Muhammad was the last and final prophet of God. In reply, he issued repeated denials of having made this claim and affirmed that he believed the Holy Prophet Muhammad to be the Last Prophet. In fact, one argument he advanced in support of his own claim, and against the common view that Jesus would return to this world, was that Jesus being a prophet cannot come after the Prophet Muhammad. Referring to the Holy Prophet's description in the Quran as the 'Seal (khatam) of the Prophets', he wrote:

"The Holy Quran does not permit the coming of any messenger after the 'Seal of the Prophets', whether he would be a new messenger or a former one." (Izala Auham, p. 761.)
"By saying 'There is no prophet after me', the Holy Prophet Muhammad closed the door absolutely to any new prophet or the return of any old prophet." (Ayyam as-Sulh, published 1898, p. 152.)
"The real fact, to which I testify with the highest testimony, is that our Holy Prophet is the 'Seal of the Prophets', and after him no prophet will come, neither any old one nor any new one." (Anjam Atham, published 1897, p. 27, footnote.)

Thus, neither a previous prophet and messenger such as Jesus, nor a new prophet and messenger, could arise after the Holy Prophet Muhammad. (For further quotations, go here.)
Denying the allegation against himself of claiming to be a prophet, he wrote:

"Those people have fabricated a lie against me who say that I claim to be a prophet." (Hamamat al-Bushra, published 1894, p. 8.)
"I have not claimed prophethood, nor have I said to them that I am a prophet . . . I did not say anything to the people except what I wrote in my books, namely, that I am a muhaddath and God speaks to me as He speaks to those who are muhaddath. . . . It does not befit me that I should claim prophethood and leave Islam and join the disbelievers. . . . How could I claim prophethood when I am a Muslim." (ibid., p. 79.)
"I also curse the person who claims prophethood, and I believe that 'There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is His Messenger', and I have faith in the finality of prophethood of the Holy Prophet Muhammad. . . . there is no claim of prophethood on my part either, only a claim of sainthood (wilaya) and reformership (mujaddidiyya)." (Announcement issued in January 1897. Majmu'a Ishtiharat, vol. 2, pp. 297 - 298.)

(For further quotations, go here.)


The position held by Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was that of a saint (wali), an inspired one (muhaddath), and the reformer of his time (mujaddid), all of which are recognised spiritual ranks among Muslims. In his capacity as mujaddid, he received from Allah the title 'Messiah', reflecting the kind of work he was appointed to do.


Metaphorical application of word 'prophet'

In the writings of the spiritual savants of Islam, terms such as prophet (nabi) and messenger (rasul) are sometimes used to refer to Muslim saints in a metaphorical sense when it is necessary to show the likeness of a saint's work to that of a prophet. When Hazrat Mirza claimed to be the Promised Messiah, his opponents raised the objection that the Messiah to come must be a prophet because he is so described in the Hadith prophecies; so how, they asked, could he be the Messiah as a non-prophet? The reply given by Hazrat Mirza, over a number of years repeatedly, was that the term 'prophet' in Hadith should be taken metaphorically, not in a real sense, and that a Muslim saint may be metaphorically called prophet and messenger. He cited instances of such clear metaphorical usage, even in the Quran and Hadith. He explained:

"The epithet 'prophet of God' for the Promised Messiah to come, which is to be found in Sahih Muslim etc. from the blessed tongue of the Holy Prophet Muhammad, is meant in the same metaphorical sense as that in which it occurs in Sufi literature as an accepted and common term for the recipient of Divine communication. Otherwise, how can there be a prophet after the Seal of the Prophets." (Anjam Atham, footnote, p. 28.)
"God speaks to, and communicates with, His saints (auliya) in this Ummah, and they are given the colouring of prophets. However, they are not prophets in reality." (Mawahib ar-Rahman, pp. 66 - 67.)

Thus the terms 'prophet' or 'messenger' as referring to Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, whether when applying the Hadith prophecies to him or occurring in his own spiritual experiences, are used metaphorically. He himself has stated again and again that these terms:

• "do not bear their real sense" (Siraj Munir, published 1897, pp. 2 - 3.)
• "are not meant by way of reality" (Anjam Atham, pp. 27 - 28, footnote.)
• "are used by way of metaphor" (Arba'een, No. 2, published 1900, p. 18, footnote.)
• "are meant in a metaphorical and figurative sense" (Arba'een, No. 3, p. 25, footnote.)

And he wrote in one of his last books:

"I have been called a prophet by God by way of metaphor, not by way of reality".
(Haqiqat al-Wahy, Supplement, p. 64.)

Those of his statements which are frequently quoted by the anti-Ahmadiyya propagandists, as well as by the Qadianis, to try to prove that he claimed to be a prophet, must be read in the light of his own explanations; and by doing so it will be discovered that his claim is not of being a prophet, as is commonly alleged. (For further details, go here.)

source: http://www.ahmadiyya.org/intro/survey.htm

What is interesting to note is that the Ahmadis say that Mirza Ghulam is lower in rank than the Prophets, whereas the Shi`as claim that their Imams are higher in rank than the Prophets. Then whose aqeedah is more offensive to the Khatam-e-nabuwat?

Office of Imamet is different -- They are not messengers. <period.>

Office of Imamate is superior to Office of Nabuwat. <period>

None of the Imam supersede the office of Prophet (SAW). You can go and ask any Shia Ulemah and this is the only answer you will get.

The Shi`a Imams are superior to all of the Prophets, aside from "Imam" Muhammad (s).

You said, “If I were a Shi`a, then I too would love Iran, no doubt”. BUT the question is Since you are not Shia why do you hate IRAN? Note - we do not hate any Sunni country. We hate the western pawn ruling these countries just as you do.

I disapprove of Iran because of the millions of dollars its spends on spreading Shi'ism amongst Sunnis.