For Muslims: Is Muhammad the last Prophet from God?

[Link]

Let me try to say this a different way:

I think theocracy is a horrible idea, and therefore I think that any religion that advocates for theocracy is also bad.

It's important to remember that not all religions advocate for theocracy.

Why would God's guidance be silent about legislation of government, politics, power dynamics, and ethics to do with that, and human rights. It's more necessary he guides in that stuff than other things.

If God talks about everything else than that, and his guides ignore it as well, I would see that as a reason to believe to reject the claim of that religion as a guidance to mankind.

 

[Ebionite]

If this was the case, Quran would say that Mohammad (s) is the seal of Mutaqeen.

That's speculative.

Recall, that metaphors only take place when literal is not plausible.

Context resolves ambiguity. For the seal of the prophets the context is presumably the prophets who are endorsed by the Quran. Isaiah is relevant here because his sealed book relates to Muhammad's revelation in the cave of Hira.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I think the first is in context of Risqallah and everlasting life, so it's more on the line the that Jesus (a) has reached the journey to God and drinks from that and there is nothing more to gain. The Quran talks about the seal/finality of believers in this regard in the next world, and says this is what the competitors should compete upon.

I think the other verse is in context of that as well, and says they've drank from this and reached the fountain of life and eternity with God.

But the meaning of seal is finishing end. Also, recall the lines that to drink of this by the hands of the leader of time, so much so than there is no thirst after this for anything else. Meaning you don't want anything else after this and it's the final completing of the favor of God on a servant.

It's talking about a spiritual experience from God that makes everything in this world nothing. It's saying they've reach the final destination where Risqallah comes intensely. The first God gave directly to Jesus (a) and the latter, was through Jesus (a) to disciples.

The meaning of seal, is not end. I am an engineer, and I have a seal. When I finish a document, I stamp it, to mean, that, a Registered engineer approved it. Yet, that is not the last document. Another day, I will stamp another document. Next year another document. Also, sometimes, we need to revise a document we previously sealed. Then we seal it again, which is to indicate it is approved by the designated engineer.
When it comes to Religion, God possess Bada. He can open the seal of, what He previously sealed (even if sealed meant closed).

As John saw, no one but the Lord Jesus—“the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David” (Revelation 5:5)—had the power to loose these seven seals.

 

[Link]

Isaiah is relevant here because his sealed book relates to Muhammad's revelation in the cave of Hira.

There only twelve successors to Musa (a) per Quran and hadiths. They are all named except for Samuel and Dul-Kifl. Dul-kifl means two portions which can be a hint that two books are revealed by him but attributed to two different people and he really is the revealer of both those books. This might be a hint as well, that a lot of the revelations got misattributed to different people.

The twelve successors to Musa (a) in the Quran which the covenant of Bani-Israel pertained to:

1. Haroun. 2. Samuel. 3. Talut. 4. Dawood. 5. Sulaiman. 6. Elyas. 7. Alyasa 8. Dul-Kifl. 9. Imran. 10. Zakariya. 11. Yahya. 12. Isa.

The Bani-Israel have a lot more people they believe are Prophets, Guides or Messengers then the Quran confirms. Also, they are all offspring and descendants of Haroun (a) per hadiths.

How can be relevant when Quran doesn't confirm him?

 

[Link]

The meaning of seal, is not end. I am an engineer, and I have a seal. When I finish a document, I stamp it, to mean, that, a Registered engineer approved it. Yet, that is not the last document. Another day, I will stamp another document. Next year another document. Also, sometimes, we need to revise a document we previously sealed. Then we seal it again, which is to indicate it is approved by the designated engineer.

Again, metaphoric prose is only plausible when literal is not plausible. In this case, there is nothing irrational or implausible about the literal.

 

[Ebionite]

How can be relevant when Quran doesn't confirm him?

There's a minority opinion that Dhul-Kifl is Isaiah.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Again, metaphoric prose is only plausible when literal is not plausible. In this case, there is nothing irrational or implausible about the literal.

If Khaatam literally means "Final", why the Arab scholars argued that, its metaphorical meaning is Finality?

I quote Wikipedia:

الخاتم من مادة "ختم" يطلق على ما يختم به آخر الرسائل أو الوثائق والكتب المهمة. ومن هنا وضعت كلمة "الخاتم" على ما يلبس في الاصابع، لأنَّ فص الخواتم كان ينقش عليه اسم أو رسم ويستعمل لختم الرسائل في الزمن السابق، وكان كل ختم لشخص معين. فكان يعتبر ختم الكتاب أو الوثيقة دليلا على اختتامهما وانتهائهما. فمعنى الخاتم هو الوسيلة التي تختم بها الرسائل والوثائق وليس ذلك الذي يُلبس في اليد وإن أطلق عليه ذلك فلأجل أنّ كونه يستعمل في ختم الرسائل والكتب

الخاتمية - ويكيبيديا

ar.wikipedia.org

Translation:

The word "خاتم" (khatam) comes from the root "ختم" (khatama), which means to seal or to close. Historically, a "خاتم" was used to seal letters, documents, and important books. The stone on the rings was often engraved with a name or a symbol, which served as a unique seal for an individual. When someone sealed a document with their ring, it was considered a mark of authenticity and finality, indicating that the document was complete and officially endorsed.




Therefore, the term "خاتم" refers to the tool used to seal messages and documents. Over time, the object worn on the finger became known as a "خاتم" because it was frequently used for sealing purposes. Although today the word generally refers to a ring, its original meaning pertains to its function in sealing and authenticating documents.

 

[Link]

There's a minority opinion that Dhul-Kifl is Isaiah.

Okay, but if it was that contextually important, why doesn't Quran name him?

Gog and Magog is a confirmed terminology. Dul-Kifl appears twice in Quran. The two hints to me indicate it's Ezekiel and the book of Daniel is really his. Also, the grave of Ezekiel is known as Dul-Kifl.

I would say the revelations that emphasized on Gog and Magog concept are important. This how I deduce who Dul-Kifl is.

 

[icehorse]

Why would God's guidance be silent about legislation of government, politics, power dynamics, and ethics to do with that, and human rights. It's more necessary he guides in that stuff than other things.

If God talks about everything else than that, and his guides ignore it as well, I would see that as a reason to believe to reject the claim of that religion as a guidance to mankind.

First off, I appreciate that we can discuss this with each other

So, I think where we probably won't be able to agree, is that I think ALL religions are man made. Again, nothing against Islam specifically, I think ALL religions are man made. In other words, I don't believe in any of the thousands of gods that various religions have described over the centuries.

So IMO, theocracy is a product of flawed, narrow, old time thinking, because it came from religions.

But I understand that you believe in Allah, so the only way we can discuss this is if you can find ways to talk about theocracy without bringing a belief in god into the conversation, and that might not be possible.

 

[Link]

If Khaatam literally means "Final"

It's one of the meanings, and the stamp/seal was also a way to put a finalization to documents, true. It was "finalizer" of documents. Ring is also one of the meanings.

However, I'm saying the meaning doesn't take metaphoric prose unless literal is implausible. It's my observation that is how language works. It's how we read other books and documents.

We don't begin to mutilate speech of people and books into metaphors when there is no reason to.

For some reason, people do that with God's words, but for no good reason.

 

[Ebionite]

Again, metaphoric prose is only plausible when literal is not plausible. In this case, there is nothing irrational or implausible about the literal.

The literal is only plausible when it is consistent with the context. The end of prophethood is not consistent with the book of Isaiah:

As for me, this [is] my covenant with them, saith YHWH; My spirit that [is] upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith YHWH, from henceforth and for ever.
Isaiah 59:21

 

[Link]

The literal is only plausible when it is consistent with the context. The end of prophethood is not consistent with the book of Isaiah:

As for me, this [is] my covenant with them, saith YHWH; My spirit that [is] upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith YHWH, from henceforth and for ever.
Isaiah 59:21

I don't see how it contradicts that verse.

But you have to show something in Quran that contradicts it. Really, you can't be doing this quoting from the Bible when Bible has more then Twelve Successors to Musa (a), there is no way to confirm it all.

 

[muhammad_isa]

God had placed His seal on Jesus..

..and how did He do that?
..by some kind of magic, or what?

 

[Ebionite]

Okay, but if it was that contextually important, why doesn't Quran name him?

Probably because the information was for the time of the end, where knowledge increases.

 

[Link]

Probably because the information was for the time of the end, where knowledge increases.

That's a sure way to misguide Muslims. You guys can believe that about God, I won't.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I understand "God fearing" to mean, one who does not sin. He does not lie, does not backbite, does not commit fornication, does not treat any being unfairly. On the other hand, he is kind to all beings, he is truthful, generous to the needy, defends the rights of wronged ones. He puts his trust in God at all the time, and is free from Hate, and fanaticism. Once a person's soul and mind is in such a clean state, naturally he discovers truth or reality of all things. Because God has created the mind and soul to become enabled to discover truth, and gain knowledge, when it becomes "clean". It is very organic and natural.

One doesn't need a god belief to want and to succeed at being a good person. Atheistic humanists are typically good people. Nor does he need to worship your god. While there are many fine, upstanding theistic humanists, I find Dharmics and pagans to be decent people as well.

On the other hand, if your religion teaches you bigotries or makes you think that it is OK to impose itself on the unwilling through the use or threat of force (the law), then you are neither decent nor a good neighbor.

the way language works is to assume the literal meaning of a word before going to metaphor

Agree, which is why I reject the claim that biblical mythology is metaphor. When the book says that a day has a sunrise and a sunset, and that God rested on the seventh day and so must you once every week, that means a 24-hour day, not a metaphorical day as with "back in the day."

And I see no reason to assume that "God fearing" was not originally literal and later morphed into something else. Perhaps it wasn't, but I have no knowledge presently either way, and do the default is to take the words at face value.

The god of Abraham associated with so many words like fear, terrible, jealous that we're told today don't mean what they say. I suspect that the character of the god has evolved over time. We see that between the Old and New Testaments - God goes from a vicious warlord ordering genocides and the taking of slaves to a kinder, gentler model for whom words like fear, terrible, and jealous are seldom used, and with that, the old language is redefined such that God fearing now means God loving.

What do you think?

spreading falsehood and hatred toward religion.

I'd say that the religions themselves are responsible for the antipathy they receive. I have a negative view of the dominant religion in America, and it comes from watching the behavior of its adherents. Look at them - banning books, besetting LGBTQ+, limiting abortion access, trying to eliminate contraceptives and no-fault divorce, demonizing atheists, and trying to put religious scripture in schoolrooms.

Do you think that somebody put those ideas into my head by "spreading falsehood and hatred toward religion"? If you do, you're wrong. I have no ill will for the Wiccans and Buddhists (for example) because I am unaware of any reason to feel otherwise. It's the religions themselves and seeing what they turn people into that puts such ideas into my head through observation and induction, not indoctrination.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I interpret the "from it" to mean that while you see it to mean "some of it".

But then the verse continues saying

وَأُخَرُ مُتَشَـٰبِهَـٰتࣱۚ فَأَمَّا ٱلَّذِینَ فِی

"others are allegorical"



None of the Transactions, interpreted it the way you are.

Ayah al-Imran (The Family of Imran, The House of Imran) 3:7

www.islamawakened.com

How do you know your interpretation is correct, and everyone else, got it wrong?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

..and how did He do that?
..by some kind of magic, or what?

No, when God says "Be", then "it is"
Very easily

 

[Link]

First off, I appreciate that we can discuss this with each other

So, I think where we probably won't be able to agree, is that I think ALL religions are man made. Again, nothing against Islam specifically, I think ALL religions are man made. In other words, I don't believe in any of the thousands of gods that various religions have described over the centuries.

So IMO, theocracy is a product of flawed, narrow, old time thinking, because it came from religions.

But I understand that you believe in Allah, so the only way we can discuss this is if you can find ways to talk about theocracy without bringing a belief in god into the conversation, and that might not be possible.

Well, I agree, it would be difficult. One thing to note, is that Islam is highly falsifiable. That is since it pertains to all matters of guidance, if one of those can be proven wrong, the religion can be proven wrong.

The problem is that hadiths are not 100% knowledge. And Quran can be mistranslated/misinterpreted.

So Islam as is, is not a perfect religion. It's laws for government and it's power dynamic ethics and model is in a big way lost to a great degree.

I believe till Imam Mahdi (a) comes, there will be gaps and even evils attributed to Islam in this regard.

Islam won't be fully correct till Imam Mahdi (a) comes back.

So I see why people fear Islam as a theocracy or any religion. It's because corruption happens and people rely on a few to think for them and forego often common sense for what they are told by fallible authorities.

 

[Ebionite]

..and how did He do that?

Possibly by a proof of authenticity. The Tanak describes Balaam's vision of the star and sceptre, which relates to the star and king of Michael Molnar's solution for the star of Bethlehem. Bethlehem means house of bread which relates to the claim of the bread of life.