With-Love-to-Muhammad

180 With Love to Muhammad sa the Khātam-un-Nabiyyīnthis fiction and presents it as if it is a well established principleof truth. In attempts to legitimize his fraud, Khan cites twoexamples: (1) Suhayb ar-Roomi who Khan states was an Arabsold into the Byzantine lands, but was called The Roman evenupon his return to Arab lands; and (2) Ahmad ibn Ibrahim whoKhan states was called al-Dimashqi (the Syrian) but later called al-Dumyati (a city in Egypt) when he relocated to Egypt. From thisfaulty logic, Khan claims the Promised Messiah should be calledthe Indian or al-Hindi because he lived in India.Farhan Khan needs to realize that just because someonewas called The Roman because he resided in the ByzantineEmpire or someone was called Al-Dumyati because he spentsome time in Egypt, does not change the concept of ancestry.Since when did one’s residence alter one’s ethnicity?! DidFarhan Khan stop to think what the Byzantines called Suhayb?A Roman or an Arab? They certainly did not consider him aRoman, and his residence in the Byzantine Empire as a slave didnot 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 rabecause he lived in Medina. Nevertheless, Khan’s argument isirrelevant because the words in the hadīth are رجلaنaارس – aMan from Persia or of Persian descent. The word ‏”‏ن“‏ [min:from] is an indication that he shall have Persian ancestry, butwill not necessarily be living in Persia.Questions for Farhan Khan:1. Why does he have a problem with the premise of theAhmadiyya Muslim argument for the continuation ofsubordinate prophethood when Hazrat Ibn ‘Arabī rh has