How authentic is the Hadith: "Had my son Ibrahim lived, he would have been a Siddiq, a Prophet," and can it be used as proof that prophethood was not sealed with Muhammad (peace be upon him)?

The hadith indicating that Ibrahim, the son of the Prophet (peace be upon him), would have been a prophet if he had lived, is very weak and not authentically established from the Prophet (peace be upon him). It has two defects in its chain of narration (sanad): the first is Ibrahim ibn Uthman al-Kufi, and the second is discontinuity (inqita'). It also has a very weak corroborating narration. As for its meaning, it has been reported as a mawquf narration (stopped at a Companion) from some Companions like Anas ibn Malik and Ibn Abi Awfa. Scholars have differed regarding these narrations; some have rejected them, while others accepted them with conditions.

Nevertheless, the context of the hadith – even assuming its authenticity – indicates the cessation of prophethood with the death of the Prophet (peace be upon him), and that the status of prophethood is no longer available to anyone after him. Furthermore, the word "if" (لو) in Arabic does not indicate the possibility of the conditional event occurring; rather, it is a particle of impossibility due to impossibility.

Finally, citing the narrations of the Companions obliges the Qadianis, as these narrations include the negation of prophethood after the Prophet (peace be upon him). The Qadiani sect is unanimously considered to be outside the fold of Islam because of its belief in a prophet after the Prophet (peace be upon him), which contradicts the consensus of Muslims.