With Love to Muhammad (sa) - The Khatam-un-Nabiyyin — Page 180
180 With Love to Muhammad sa the Kh ā tam-un-Nabiyy ī n 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 Arab ī ra because he lived in Medina. Nevertheless, Khan’s argument is irrelevant because the words in the had ī th are Bارس a Gن a رجل – a Man from Persia or of Persian descent. The word “ Gن ” [ 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 ‘Arab ī rh has