With-Love-to-Muhammad

180 With Love to Muhammad sa the Khātam-un-Nabiyyīn
this fiction and presents it as if it is a well established principle
of truth. In attempts to legitimize his fraud, Khan cites two
examples: (1) Suhayb ar-Roomi who Khan states was an Arab
sold into the Byzantine lands, but was called The Roman even
upon his return to Arab lands; and (2) Ahmad ibn Ibrahim who
Khan states was called al-Dimashqi (the Syrian) but later called al-
Dumyati (a city in Egypt) when he relocated to Egypt. From this
faulty logic, Khan claims the Promised Messiah should be called
the Indian or al-Hindi because he lived in India.
Farhan Khan needs to realize that just because someone
was called The Roman because he resided in the Byzantine
Empire or someone was called Al-Dumyati because he spent
some time in Egypt, does not change the concept of ancestry.
Since when did one’s residence alter one’s ethnicity?! Did
Farhan Khan stop to think what the Byzantines called Suhayb?
A Roman or an Arab? They certainly did not consider him a
Roman, and his residence in the Byzantine Empire as a slave did
not make them think he was any less an Arab.
If Farhan Khan’s fabricated principle were held true,
Hazrat Salman Farsi ra should have been called Salman Arabī ra
because he lived in Medina. Nevertheless, Khan’s argument is
irrelevant because the words in the hadīth are رجلaنaارس – a
Man from Persia or of Persian descent. The word ‏”‏ن“‏ [min:
from] is an indication that he shall have Persian ancestry, but
will not necessarily be living in Persia.
Questions for Farhan Khan:
1. Why does he have a problem with the premise of the
Ahmadiyya Muslim argument for the continuation of
subordinate prophethood when Hazrat Ibn ‘Arabī rh has