Discussion of the misguidance of the Qadiyyani sect.

The Shaykh : These Qadiyyanis, for example, their claimed prophet said, and they followed him blindly: that he is a sent prophet, and that many prophets will come after him. They state this explicitly. Did they disbelieve in what He, Blessed and Exalted is He, said: ? This is an explicit text in the Qur'an, and they also believe in the Qur'an and the Sunnah. Did they disbelieve and say: this verse is an error and its presence in the Qur'an is wrong? No. There is no sect, however deeply rooted in misguidance, that denies a preserved text in the Noble Qur'an. But they deny, not the text itself, but they deny its implication regarding what it indicated and the meaning that the Khalaf received from the Salaf. They contradict this reception, which is the path of the believers, and they come up with a meaning that does not occur to the mind of any Muslim. This is what the Qadiyyanis and all misguided sects did in what they contradicted regarding the community of Muslims and the path of the believers; they did not deny a text in the Qur'an, but rather they denied the true meaning contained in the Quranic text. So these Qadiyyanis did not deny this verse: , but I add and say: they denied the verse, and how is that?
We must know that belief in the Qur'an does not mean that the intended belief is the basic condition for every believer to believe only in the words of the Qur'an; because the words are the molds of the meanings. If a person believes in a word from the words of the Qur'an but comes with a meaning for this word that the path of the believers does not indicate; in this case, he believed in the Quranic word and disbelieved in its meaning. This is what the Qadiyyanis did. Listen to how they interpreted this verse: . They said: We believe in what Allah said, which is that the Messenger (peace be upon him) is the Seal of the Prophets. But what is the meaning of the Seal of the Prophets? All Muslims followed the meaning that is shared in general knowledge between the specialists and the common people, the illiterate and the reader; which is the last of the prophets. As for the Qadiyyanis, they came with an interpretation that is both laughable and tearful at the same time; they said: meaning: the adornment of the prophets. And they tried to mislead people with some linguistic expressions. They said: The meaning of this verse is: meaning: the adornment of the prophets, by way of metaphor. Just as the ring is the adornment of the finger, so the Messenger is the adornment of the prophets and messengers. So by this figurative interpretation, they nullified the implication of the verse that the Messenger (peace be upon him) is the last of the prophets and messengers and that there is no prophet after him. So what did they benefit from their belief in this Quranic text after they twisted and turned and interpreted it with an interpretation that did not occur to the mind of anyone, not the Salaf, nor even the Khalaf? So these people believed in the word and disbelieved in the meaning. Do you think the intended meaning of the words of the Qur'an is the words themselves, or is the intended meaning to believe in them as a means to believe in the meanings contained in the Quranic verses?
They did the same with the Sunnah; they, too, share with us in belief in the Sunnah, contrary to the Quranists. But, again, what is the benefit of believing in the Sunnah if they play with it and come with meanings that the Arabic language does not indicate, nor what the path of the believers followed in interpreting this Sunnah? They know the saying of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) to 'Ali ibn Abi Talib, as it came in "the two Sahihs," that he (peace and blessings be upon him) ... then he said to him (peace and blessings be upon him), consoling him: . This is an explicit text, too, that aligns with the verse ... They got rid of it in the same way they got rid of ... It is clear to every Arab Muslim. So they nullified the narrated hadith. What did they interpret it as? They said: meaning: there is no prophet with me, but after my death, there are prophets. This is how they play with the texts. meaning: in my life, with me, but after my death, there are prophets and messengers. This is how the Qadiyyanis interpreted this hadith. Did they benefit anything from believing in such a hadith and many hadiths, all of which revolve around affirming that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) has no prophet after him? But this entire affirmation, for them, they made it like scattered dust when they interpreted the hadith other than the interpretation that Muslims followed. Here is the point. We are now in the argument for proving that among the sources for understanding the Shari'ah, after the Qur'an and after the Sunnah, is the path of the believers.
So the believers never understood from the previous verse: that it is only the adornment of the prophets, but rather they understood the verse on its apparent meaning. This is how the Muslims proceeded. Likewise, the Muslims proceeded in understanding the previous hadith, but there is no prophet after me; meaning: whether with him in his life or after his death, there is no prophet after him (peace and blessings be upon him). So they nullified this implication with concepts they brought from themselves. This matter is the matter of all previous sects, which confirms to us that the deviation of the previous sects was not because of their denial of the Quranic texts or the Prophetic hadiths, but rather because of their denial of the meanings that Muslims followed in their understanding of these texts.