-== Za'eef Hadith - The Building of the Prophets ==-
You have failed to make a logical point to for you to defend or me to argue against in your discussion on this Hadith. Out of the scattered little attempts to teach me the science of Hadith, you have made the following points:
ooO ** Narrators of the Hadith ** Ooo
The page that you have pasted to list all the occurences of the Hadith, contains the English translation of only one of the occurences. This is the last of the passages listed on the page. It interestingly is the only passage out of all that your page lists, which contains the phrase 'Seal of Prophets'. Although the very use of the phrase does not impart the 'finality' of prophethood, this hadith however is Za'eef and that is the point I am making.
I hereby post the only hadith that uses the phrase, underlining the phrase as well as the Za'eef ones in the list of narrators.
[thumb=C]Hadith1.JPG[/thumb]
ooO ** The Science of Hadith ** Ooo
The science of hadith that I happen to have a slight knowledge of, measures as a rule of law, the authenticity of a Hadith by who narrated it, rather than by the book it has been listed in. It is very childish of you to state that since the Hadith has been listed in one or more renouned books, that proves its authenticity. Bokhari or Muslim did not claim perfection of their compilations, and you shouldn't either.
ooO ** On Quoting Mirza Saheb ** Ooo
Most schools of thought hold the compilation of Bokhari in high regard. However, none of them use this respect for the compilation, to justify such a claim as there can be no Za'eef hadith in Bokhari. That is what you are claiming. The rest of the world does not judge a whole compilation by the authenticity of a single narration.
ooO ** If you Persist ** Ooo
If you persist in believing that the Hadith under discussion is not Za'eef, and the Prophet has used the phrase 'Seal Of Prophets' for himself, then do not forget the advice of my mother and yours:
Says Ai'sha, may God be pleased with her: ''Say: He is the Seal of Prophets; and do not say: There is no prophet after Him.'' (Durr-e-Mansoor Volume 5 Page 204)
-== A Lesson in Arabic Tenses - The Sayakoon Mystry ==-
There are two tenses in Arabic language, the Perfect tense and the Imperfect tense. The action that has been completed, either in the past or just at the time of speaking, comes in the Perfect tense. The action that is still continuing, for some time in the future or for an indefinite time, comes in the Imperfect tense. There is no such thing as a future tense in Arabic.
However, in order to mention an event that will only take place in the future, we add 'sa' to the imperfect form of the verb. This however is used for the near future normally. For example, on the page you posted, the second passage of the list, the one you refer to as an 'interesting hadith' uses the phrase sayakoonu ba'di as the very near future right after prophet Mohammad. The words match that of the actual Hadith under discussion, Sayakoon is used to the Caliphs, who will replace the prophet in the near future i.e. right after his death, and not the distant future.
The exceptional cases in which 'sa' is used for a future event that is expected to happen in very distant future, include the prophecies that claim with utmost surity, a series of event that have not happened in the past and are not happening in the present, and will only take place at a certain prophecised point in time. This however is not the case in the verse of the Koran you mentioned. The verse did not accompany your point of view on the use of the phrase, so I reckon you can either say some people will become sick only in the distant future and not the near one, or that some people will continue to remain sick for all the future. Both of these claims are absurd.
Coming back to the original argument, my point here is, that the 'interesting Hadith' you posted in Arabic, uses the phrase sayakoon for the Caliphs, and it very evidently talks of the near future, that comes right after prophet Mohammad. If you say that the caliphate has been foretold for the distant future as well, then this will mean the prophecy in the Hadith is false, because we know through history that the Caliphate was only limited to the near future right after prophet Mohammad. Hence the Caliphate with the word 'Sayakoon' has only been promised in the near future after prophet Mohammad and before Amaarat and Kingdoms. The original Hadith under discussion also uses the phrase sayakoon for the Caliphate, which, as we observed, was in existence in only the near future after prophet Mohammad. Hence, it automatically means that the denial of a prophet should also be limited to the very time period that the Hadith is talking about, i.e. the period of near future, right after prophet Mohammad. Once the period of Caliphate is over, so is the period that 'Sayakoon' singnifies and therefore so is the period a prophet was not to descend.
-== The Weakest Hadith - Mirza Saheb - Your Rescuer? ==-
The Hadith that you listed as #9, is the weakest Hadith on the topic of the finality of prophethood. It is interesting that when you could come up with no point whatsoever in defence of this forged hadith, you decided to use Mirza Saheb as your rescuer and decided to use his saying in the defense of your point.
It is a normal practice to quote renouned scholars of religion to support your point of view in a religious argument, and it is also a normality to quote the renouned scholars of hadith to support your point of view in an argument about Hadith, therefore you have the right to quote Mirza Saheb in order to justify the authenticity of the above Hadith. However, in doing that you will have to believe in Mirza Saheb as a renouned scholar of Islam and Hadith. If you claim otherwise, and say he is a liar, you will have no choice but to disagree with his views.
It is interesting that you started your argument in order to prove Mirza Saheb wrong, but have ended up with him being your only rescuer and the only person you could quote in order to prove your point of view. You have practically 'lost' this debate, as you end up with no rescuer but the very person you intended to prove wrong.
My argument with you is on the authenticity of the ahadith and on whether they close the door of prophethood as completely as you like to believe, and not on whether Mirza Saheb is true. How do you even know I follow him? If I do follow him, I will not base my religious beliefs on a point of view that he later chose to deny. Authenticity of this hadith can only be established if you find a clean line of narrators, none of which is Za'eef.
