For Muslims: Is Muhammad the last Prophet from God?

[InvestigateTruth]

Not a single explicit verse that speaks to Muhammed and says "there will be a prophet after you".

No, it asks Muhamamd, to relay that Message to Children of Adam (the whole humanity)

This is all like the Christians trying to justify the trinity from the Old Testament.

i do not see any similarity.

Also, your language understanding is zero. Your understanding of the Qur'an is very poor. The Qur'an says "Immaa". It's a Hard Sharth. When, If, or a hypothetical situation. And it's in the Al Maadhi tense which means it applies to people it's addressing. It's only a lesson for us.

There is a difference when "Imma" is before a verb or not.
When it is before a verb, it is emphasizing. In this case اما is before the verb ياتيانكم، which means "Surely comes".

in other cases, when it is not before a verb, you are right. It would mean "If".
You have to see how Arabs used this type of phrase.

So again, You quoted verses that say very clearly "we sent messengers before you". That's explicit. But why can't you bring one explicit verse that says "we will send messengers after you"? Go on. Find one. This is the most important factor for your theology. Find one single explicit verse.

I already brought it. You do not want to accept it, up to you.

The message of the Quran, is there will be Messengers after Muhammad, here is another example, closer to what you ask;

سُنَّةَ مَن قَدۡ أَرۡسَلۡنَا قَبۡلَكَ مِن رُّسُلِنَاۖ وَلَا تَجِدُ لِسُنَّتِنَا تَحۡوِیلًا

Quran 17:77

"It has been our way to send Messengers before you, and there is no change in our way"

Here is another translation:

"(Such is Our) Way (for) whom [verily] We sent before you of Our Messengers. And not you will find (in) Our way any alteration."

 

[InvestigateTruth]

You don't see a problem in that you are being circular in reasoning here?

what Problem?

I am quoting exactly from the Bible and the Quran.. and I quoted so many Hadithes that, Day of Resurrection is the same as Rise of the Qaim, including "the earth shall shine with the light of its lord"

To show the day of judgment can be your interpretation, you can't just assert it, you should go through the whole Quran explanation of day of judgment and show it does not contradict your interpretation.

I do not have the time to go through all the verses regarding the Judgement Day with You.

But, I make a suggestion.

pick one verse about Day of Judgment and prove it contradicts with the Baha'i explanation of the Day of Judgment.

take your time, think well, and choose one, that you are absolutely sure, it contradicts.
I will show you, it is related to the Rise of the Qaim, (aka Day of Resurrection).

Then after that, you can try to show even if it was possible why it's plausible. Then finally if it's plausible, why it is so.

First you explain, if Resurrection is physical:

1. where would a person who died in the ocean and eaten by Shark will be resurrected?

2. You believe on Day of Judgment All Messngers are resurrected and Judge between their Ummah right? So, if someone is an Atheist to which Ummah he belongs, and who is his Messenger to give him his record of deeds?

3. If someone is an Eskimo and lived in South Pole, and died in the ice, where would he be Resurrected and who would be his Messenger to give hin his record of deeds? Where would this event happen on earth?

4. Let's say, if someone is an Astronomer, and in futre dies on the Moon, or other locations in the space, when he is resurrected, he is not on earth to recieve his record from the Messengers on earth. What happnes then? He might be an Atheist, so, who is the Messenger for him?

Let's see how much your understanding of Judgment Day can practically be valid.

Your Prophet didn't do that, so, maybe you guys can pick up on the mess he started.

He taught the correct way of interpretation. We can apply and understand other verses. There is a wisdom not all verses are one by one interpreted in Bahai Scriptures.

 

[England my lionheart]

This discussion is from within the theological paradigm. It's not for questioning the prophethood of Muhammed. You are being irrelevant to the topic.

It’s in general religious debates so not a discussion,in debates questioning is part of a debate so questioning the prophethood of Muhammed is open season,if his prophethood is true it could surely stand up to any questions.

 

[firedragon]

It’s in general religious debates so not a discussion,in debates questioning is part of a debate so questioning the prophethood of Muhammed is open season,if his prophethood is true it could surely stand up to any questions.

I think you should read the OP.

Cheers.

 

[loverofhumanity]

So why should we abandon the hadiths and apparent meaning of Quran for a person claiming to be a Prophet that contradicts majority of our hadiths? For example, Angels - Quran and hadiths say they are non-humans. The context in Quran is clear they were created before humans. Why should we abandon the apparent meaning of Quran with that for a Prophet who says they don't exist and it really means saintly humans? Why should we abandon the many hadiths about Angels?

You should not abandon hadiths altogether but some do contain truth.

The Apostle of God said: `There will come a time for my people when there will remain nothing of the Qur'an except its outward form and nothing of Islam except its name and they will call themselves by this name even though they are the people furthest from it. The mosques will be full of people but they will be empty of right guidance. The religious leaders (Fuqaha) of that day will be the most evil religious leaders under the heavens; sedition and dissension will go out from them and to them will it return.'"
- [Ibn Babuya, Thawab ul-A'mal]
- [Also, in Al-Bihar, by Al-Majlisi, Vol 13, Page 155]
- [Also, in Kanz Al-amal #766]

 

[Ebionite]

40. Muhammad is not
The father of any
Of your men, but (he is)
The Apostle of God,
And the Seal of the Prophets:
And God has full knowledge
Of all things.
Muhammad , "The Holy Qur-an", 33.40

A seal is made by pressing:

An Angel came to him and asked him to read. Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) replied, "I do not know how to read." The Prophet (ﷺ) added, "Then the Angel held me (forcibly) and pressed me so hard that I felt distressed.

Sahih al-Bukhari 4953 - Prophetic Commentary on the Qur'an (Tafseer of the Prophet (pbuh)) - كتاب التفسير - Sunnah.com - Sayings and Teachings of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم)

Hadith of the Prophet Muhammad (saws) in English and Arabic

sunnah.com

There's also a reference to an illiterate man in Isaiah in relation to a sealed book:

And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which [men] deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it [is] sealed:
And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned.
Isaiah 29:11-12

The KJV translation of not learned is from a Hebrew phrase which literally means not know book, and could be translated as illiterate.

 

[firedragon]

It’s in general religious debates so not a discussion,in debates questioning is part of a debate so questioning the prophethood of Muhammed is open season,if his prophethood is true it could surely stand up to any questions.

Yeah; But it's still irrelevant to the topic.

 

[firedragon]

There is a difference when "Imma" is before a verb or not.

What nonsense mate. Why do you do this? Don't pretend to know arabic and try to teach others when you have no education in it. Please dont.

Imma can indeed be used before a verb to introduce alternatives or to emphasize an inevitable outcome. For instance, it might mean "either" or "surely" depending on the context. However, it’s not accurate to say it always means "surely" before a verb. The correct interpretation depends on the specific sentence structure and context. This is called Assiyaak in arabic hermeneutics. Please brother. This is just embarrassing and dishonest.

When it's not directly followed by a verb, it often implies a conditional or alternative scenario, translating to "if" or "either/or". It sets up a condition or choice between multiple possibilities.

When it is before a verb, it is emphasizing. In this case اما is before the verb ياتيانكم، which means "Surely comes".

That's irrelevant. And false. This is not a standard interpretation. The emphasis or meaning of inevitability usually comes from the context or other syntactical elements, not solely from Imma being before a verb. What are you talking about? You know a decent person will never try to teach things they don't know anything about. I don't know where you are cutting and pasting arabic which any child could do. But you are making things up. Or someone is lying to you my friend.

I will not engage with such dishonesty.

Ciao.

 

[Ebionite]

How do you determine whether they are prophets in the first place,was Muhammed the last prophet?,I would say no as there is no proof that he was a prophet so as the op I agree with the op,no he wasn’t.

Proof is subjective, and some people will reject proof simply because of their ideology.

The general test for a prophet is whether or not they make a prediction about a future event which comes to pass. I would argue that endorsement by a reliable source is also evidence of a prophet.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

What nonsense mate. Why do you do this? Don't pretend to know arabic and try to teach others when you have no education in it. Please dont.

Imma can indeed be used before a verb to introduce alternatives or to emphasize an inevitable outcome. For instance, it might mean "either" or "surely" depending on the context. However, it’s not accurate to say it always means "surely" before a verb. The correct interpretation depends on the specific sentence structure and context. This is called Assiyaak in arabic hermeneutics. Please brother. This is just embarrassing and dishonest.

When it's not directly followed by a verb, it often implies a conditional or alternative scenario, translating to "if" or "either/or". It sets up a condition or choice between multiple possibilities.

That's irrelevant. And false. This is not a standard interpretation. The emphasis or meaning of inevitability usually comes from the context or other syntactical elements, not solely from Imma being before a verb. What are you talking about? You know a decent person will never try to teach things they don't know anything about. I don't know where you are cutting and pasting arabic which any child could do. But you are making things up. Or someone is lying to you my friend.

I will not engage with such dishonesty.

Ciao.

1. Even if, let's assume, it should be translated as "If there comes to you Messengers", then still shows the possibility. So, if Allah meant to say Muhammad is the last Messenger, He wouldn't consider the possibility.

2. God knows His own plan about future, if He wants to send more Messengers or not. So, why should He say "if there comes to you Messengers"? You make it sounds like, Allah was not sure, or did not know whether or not He will send more Messengers, therefore He said "If there comes to you Messengers".
Either Allah will send more Messengers or Not. There is no "If" or uncertainty for what Allah plans to do.

3. Beside this, let me show another verse which have the same words in it:

2:38

قُلۡنَا ٱهۡبِطُوا۟ مِنۡهَا جَمِیعࣰاۖ فَإِمَّا یَأۡتِیَنَّكُم مِّنِّی هُدࣰى فَمَن تَبِعَ هُدَایَ فَلَا خَوۡفٌ عَلَیۡهِمۡ وَلَا هُمۡ یَحۡزَنُونَ

Here again same phrase فَإِمَّا یَأۡتِیَنَّكُم appears

Look at translation by Muhammad Asad:

"We did say, "Down with you all from this [state]," there shall, none the less, most certainly come unto you guidance from Me: and those who follow My guidance need have no fear, and neither shall they grieve" 2:38

Now, same Translator, when it comes to verse 7:35, he translates the same phrase differently:


"O CHILDREN of Adam! Whenever there come unto you apostles of your own, conveying My messages unto you, then all who are conscious of Me and live righteously - no fear need they have, and neither shall they grieve"

Why do you think is that?

Here is another translation by pickthall

"We said: Go down, all of you, from hence; but verily there cometh unto you from Me a guidance; and whoso followeth My guidance, there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve" 2:38


"O Children of Adam! When messengers of your own come unto you who narrate unto you My revelations, then whosoever refraineth from evil and amendeth - there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve" 7:35

Now look at translation by yusuf Ali:


"We said: "Get ye down all from here; and if, as is sure, there comes to you Guidance from me, whosoever follows My guidance, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve" 2:38

Here he says "as is Sure"

Now when it comes to verse 7:35, he translates it differently:

"O ye Children of Adam! whenever there come to you messengers from amongst you, rehearsing My signs unto you,- those who are righteous and mend (their lives),- on them shall be no fear nor shall they grieve" 7:35


Now let's see Sahih International:

We said, "Go down from it, all of you. And when guidance comes to you from Me, whoever follows My guidance - there will be no fear concerning them, nor will they grieve.


O children of Adam, if there come to you messengers from among you relating to you My verses, then whoever fears Allah and reforms - there will be no fear concerning them, nor will they grieve.



How is it, the same Translators, translate the same phrase differently in two different verses?

Isn't it becasue they were told by Ulama that, Islam is Final Religion, and thus their translations were effected by that?

 

[Link]

You should not abandon hadiths altogether but some do contain truth.

The Apostle of God said: `There will come a time for my people when there will remain nothing of the Qur'an except its outward form and nothing of Islam except its name and they will call themselves by this name even though they are the people furthest from it. The mosques will be full of people but they will be empty of right guidance. The religious leaders (Fuqaha) of that day will be the most evil religious leaders under the heavens; sedition and dissension will go out from them and to them will it return.'"
- [Ibn Babuya, Thawab ul-A'mal]
- [Also, in Al-Bihar, by Al-Majlisi, Vol 13, Page 155]
- [Also, in Kanz Al-amal #766]

So only pick a few hadiths and ignore majority that oppose your creed?

 

[Link]

He taught the correct way of interpretation. We can apply and understand other verses. There is a wisdom not all verses are one by one interpreted in Bahai Scriptures.

You really don't get it. He put a hypothesis of what verses can mean and didn't even prove it's a possible interpretation (you would have to show all verses don't contradict his interpretation) let alone plausible, let alone that it is.

Which leaves you guys to build on ambiguity and come up with your imagination of meaning to justify his interpretation. Yet Quran and hadiths show whoever interprets per their opinion doesn't believe in God.

 

[Link]

1. Even if, let's assume, it should be translated as "If there comes to you Messengers", then still shows the possibility. So, if Allah meant to say Muhammad is the last Messenger, He wouldn't consider the possibility.

2. God knows His own plan about future, if He wants to send more Messengers or not. So, why should He say "if there comes to you Messengers"? You make it sounds like, Allah was not sure, or did not know whether or not He will send more Messengers, therefore He said "If there comes to you Messengers".
Either Allah will send more Messengers or Not. There is no "If" or uncertainty for what Allah plans to do.

3. Beside this, let me show another verse which have the same words in it:

2:38

قُلۡنَا ٱهۡبِطُوا۟ مِنۡهَا جَمِیعࣰاۖ فَإِمَّا یَأۡتِیَنَّكُم مِّنِّی هُدࣰى فَمَن تَبِعَ هُدَایَ فَلَا خَوۡفٌ عَلَیۡهِمۡ وَلَا هُمۡ یَحۡزَنُونَ

Here again same phrase فَإِمَّا یَأۡتِیَنَّكُم appears

Look at translation by Muhammad Asad:

"We did say, "Down with you all from this [state]," there shall, none the less, most certainly come unto you guidance from Me: and those who follow My guidance need have no fear, and neither shall they grieve" 2:38

Now, same Translator, when it comes to verse 7:35, he translates the same phrase differently:


"O CHILDREN of Adam! Whenever there come unto you apostles of your own, conveying My messages unto you, then all who are conscious of Me and live righteously - no fear need they have, and neither shall they grieve"

Why do you think is that?

Here is another translation by pickthall

"We said: Go down, all of you, from hence; but verily there cometh unto you from Me a guidance; and whoso followeth My guidance, there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve" 2:38


"O Children of Adam! When messengers of your own come unto you who narrate unto you My revelations, then whosoever refraineth from evil and amendeth - there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve" 7:35

Now look at translation by yusuf Ali:


"We said: "Get ye down all from here; and if, as is sure, there comes to you Guidance from me, whosoever follows My guidance, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve" 2:38

Here he says "as is Sure"

Now when it comes to verse 7:35, he translates it differently:

"O ye Children of Adam! whenever there come to you messengers from amongst you, rehearsing My signs unto you,- those who are righteous and mend (their lives),- on them shall be no fear nor shall they grieve" 7:35


Now let's see Sahih International:

We said, "Go down from it, all of you. And when guidance comes to you from Me, whoever follows My guidance - there will be no fear concerning them, nor will they grieve.


O children of Adam, if there come to you messengers from among you relating to you My verses, then whoever fears Allah and reforms - there will be no fear concerning them, nor will they grieve.



How is it, the same Translators, translate the same phrase differently in two different verses?

Isn't it becasue they were told by Ulama that, Islam is Final Religion, and thus their translations were effected by that?

Salam

I already stated Quran says there will be another Messenger so I disagree with @firedragon.

The family of Mohammad (s) could've became Messengers or they may not have. I believe Mohammad (s), Ali (a) and Fatima (a) were Messengers, but the latter two weren't Nabis. Remember, Messengers are sent when clarification and the clear message needs to be conveyed. If already conveyed, then it's not necessary. Just as Haroun (a) was a Messenger with Musa (a).

For rest of Imams (a) to become messengers, the foundational clarifications would be abandoned and they need to convey the message again. That happened per my view, so Imams (a) were Messengers. The ideal situation would be they be authorities, guides, leaders, kings, but no need of conveying the clear message again.

Quran shows that the earth is never without a guide. But it also shows, that time to time, that guide has to become a Messenger. Imam Mahdi (a) is a Messenger per Quran since cities will be destroyed and God does not destroy cities unless he sends a Messenger.

However, the real discussion should be if there are more Nabis. Nubuwa would be God giving his feedback, constantly through out time if uninterrupted. But it does get interrupts. Nubuwa is not job of a Nabi rather a Nabi simply channels God's words.

A message or the messages are the job of a Messenger.

While a Messenger cannot be said to not be sent in the future, the same is not true of Nubuwa.

I believe Quran is safeguarded. There is no more updated feedback from God. The wisdom of this, is that interpretation becomes the focus. Imam Mahdi (a) will be a messenger that brings back the true interpretation of the Quran. He will bring the book of Ali (a) that contains explanation and references to when each verse was revealed.

There is no verse saying there will come more Nabis.

 

[Link]

Salam

Also Surah Dukhan shows that God always sent someone and is now and will continue to do so. Therefore there is always someone sent by God. This contradicts the Bahai Faith since they don't have someone currently a guide on earth sent by God.

I can confirm with hadiths verifying this interpretation plus explain the grammar there.

 

[Link]

You are talking about this:

وعنه عليه السلام في هذه الآية قال يعني الأمة التي وجبت لها دعوة إبراهيم فهم الأمة التي بعث الله فيها ومنها وإليها وهم الأمة الوسطى وهم خير أمة أخرجت للناس.

And on his authority, peace be upon him, in this verse, he said, meaning the umma to which Abraham’s call was required. They are the umma to which God raised, and from it and towards it. They are the middle/intermediate umma and they are the best umma brought forth for mankind.


Being "Best Ummah" is one thing, and being "Middle" is another thing. Muslims are both. I wouldn't conclude from this Hadith, that being middle means being the best.
Like I asked before what is specially good about worldwide Muslims community that they are the best, in comparison to Christians or Jews, or Hindus or any other people?

I understand it within the context of History. For the first several centuries, Muslims practically were the best. Many scientists came out of Islam. They were more advanced than Europe. But that folden Age of Islam, practically is diminished. Unless, you can point out why in our current time they are the best.

Also, this part of Hadith gets my attention:

بعث الله فيها ومنها وإليها

"God Rises among the Ummah, From the Ummah, and Toward it"

What does it mean?
To me, it means, among this Ummah, God rises ( بعث), a Messenger, who is from this Ummah, and would testify against it (إليها) , for this reason, it is a middle Ummah.

You have reading comprehension issues.

I'm saying the "umma" means "path" here and refers to the family of Mohammad (s). The previous hadiths were clear "the best umma" refers to the family of Mohammad (s) and the word meaning means leaders as well here, meaning it doesn't mean nation here but path/leader type meaning. The last one then says the best umma is the intermediate umma and the umma Ibrahim (a) prayed about.

 

[CG Didymus]

How in the world is that talking about "future prophet"? Mate. Why are you creating it? What are you gonna gain?

How did you derive it from that verse in the Qur'an?

Someone or you made that up mate. I cannot interact with people like that. It's just absurd.

I see that verse would support your stance more that what the Baha'i are offering,

You make up things. I don't see why anyone would trust what you say.

What nonsense mate. Why do you do this? Don't pretend to know arabic and try to teach others when you have no education in it. Please dont.

So only pick a few hadiths and ignore majority that oppose your creed?

Before I knew what the people in the other religions really believed and knew anything about their Scriptures, I assumed Baha'is were telling me the truth. Then I learned a little about the Bible and the NT and started questioning Baha'i interpretations.

I wonder... is there any religion where the Baha'i interpretations fit in without causing a lot of problems? I can see why there would be a problem with the Bible and the NT. Since they can claim that the Scriptures weren't necessarily written by the prophet. And we don't know if those were the exact words of the prophet or if those were the actual things they did.

But that is not the case with the Quran. Baha'is put the Quran over the Bible as being authoritative. Yet... there's still those same kinds of interpretation problems. Baha'is find creative ways to interpret verses that somehow, surprise, surprise, fit their beliefs. And then say that is how God does things, because he wants to test the hearts of the people. They need to have an open mind and see with their spiritual eyes. Maybe. But maybe it is closing your mind to anything but what they believe and putting on blinders and seeing things only how their prophet wants you to see things.

I don't know. Although they talk of peace and unity and the oneness of humanity and religion, the way they interpret things makes it difficult for me to trust them. Thank you for challenging them and forcing them to support their interpretations.

 

[Link]

Before I knew what the people in the other religions really believed and knew anything about their Scriptures, I assumed Baha'is were telling me the truth. Then I learned a little about the Bible and the NT and started questioning Baha'i interpretations.

I wonder... is there any religion where the Baha'i interpretations fit in without causing a lot of problems? I can see why there would be a problem with the Bible and the NT. Since they can claim that the Scriptures weren't necessarily written by the prophet. And we don't know if those were the exact words of the prophet or if those were the actual things they did.

But that is not the case with the Quran. Baha'is put the Quran over the Bible as being authoritative. Yet... there's still those same kinds of interpretation problems. Baha'is find creative ways to interpret verses that somehow, surprise, surprise, fit their beliefs. And then say that is how God does things, because he wants to test the hearts of the people. They need to have an open mind and see with their spiritual eyes. Maybe. But maybe it is closing your mind to anything but what they believe and putting on blinders and seeing things only how their prophet wants you to see things.

I don't know. Although they talk of peace and unity and the oneness of humanity and religion, the way they interpret things makes it difficult for me to trust them. Thank you for challenging them and forcing them to support their interpretations.

Salam

The day of judgment to me is clear in the Quran. But @InvestigateTruth lies about language and then thinks he refuted me when I shown him a verse that says there won't be any denial of it happening when it happens. There are more proofs, but that should suffice.

So if a verse definitely contradicts their interpretation, they will just make it mean something else even though it's impossible. So I learned it's not really possible to prove things to them through a verse.

Then there comes the over all verses about day of judgment all interpreting each other. That does not matter to a Bahai, context does not matter, interwoven nature of Quran does not matter, they will pick and isolate, and then interpret each verse not with the context of other verses or flow of the Quran.

Then there comes verses that Mohammad (s) is a universal Messenger is for all humanity (and other verses showing Jinn as well). This means Mohamnmad (s) cannot be abrogated and his message remains.

He remains a Messenger today. But then he resorts to red herrings about Christians saying the good news will be spread to all of the earth. Even though this does not contradict my position since I believe good news is found in the Quran and Quran safeguards the revelation before it as well, and that Imam Mahdi (a) will also bring the Gospels as originally revealed per hadiths, but say it did contradict, it does not refute what Quran said in this regard.

His mind and Bahais in general is built on so much false thinking. Yes Prophets came and a Prophet should not be rejected if there is a Prophet to come in the future.

However, Quran shows the world does come to an end, so even if we suppose Mohammad (s) is not the final Nabi, there will definitely come a time when there is a final one.

So there logic doesn't add up but they keep resorting to preaching when cornered. That the much of the world doesn't accept Mohammad (s).

I believe most Jews converted to Islam, but most of Bani-Israel became freemasons or something of that sort. I believe the Quran contains this truth, of course the term freemason is not used, but the Quran and hadiths show a conspiracy theory.

Of course, Bahais don't believe Satan is a real entity, or that there is real magic from dark forces. Now per my experience of Quran, if you can't split between dark magic and light and power from God (white magic), you can never recite Quran or interpret it correctly.

To me it's not a mystery that people who don't believe in Satan at all existing fall prey to following ambiguity and removing words of God from their proper place. It's inevitable that they won't be awakened unless they see Satan and his forces.

Of course, I understand you are an atheist and don't believe that. But atheism to me is also only possible when a person doesn't see spiritual world within and the kingdom we are all part of and that everything is in everything perspective.

The spiritual kingdom and authority of God therein is how Quran describes Ibrahim (a) gained certainty. It starts off as a dim star, but we must believe the light is God.

Believing in God means nothing if we don't see him. It's a belief in an idea with no substance if we don't see God. Seeing God and his signs are one thing in the spiritual world. How they connect to him.

I don't believe people disconnected from the guide of our time can see God. The philosophy of guide and guidance of God uninterrupted in that regard is clear in the Quran and as well the hadiths.

There is no hadith from Prophet (s) or Imams (a) that interprets "guide" in 13:7 as a book. But @InvestigateTruth is not interested to know what God means. It's clear by language flow and by similar words, that the "warner" (Mohammad) is as well "a guide" for the people of his time and it's in context of bringing miracles as signs, which he can do. The implication of course is that there are guides and one today in our time.

The Quran shows anyone who turns often will be guided by God to such a proof and signs in terms of miracles should be hoped for.

All the hadiths about 13:7 whether Sunni, Twelver, Ismaili, or Zaidi, all show it mean there are guides after Mohammad (s). Most of these hadiths show Ali (a) to be such a guide and the guide after Mohammad (s).

I can say such hadiths reach tawatur in Shiiite sources. So many chains it can't be doubted. Yet, @InvestigateTruth will dismiss all this and go with his interpretation since it cancels his creed. He can do whatever he wishes - but he shouldn't be quoting hadiths to support his view, especially if such hadiths are isolated and not the level of tawatur. That's deceptive as if the hadiths support Bahai Faith when they do the opposite.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

"....Baha'is find creative ways to interpret verses..."

That is called the Message of Baha’u’llah and the Kitab-i-iqan is the greatest of all keys for understanding past scriptures.

Regards Tony

 

[Link]

That is called the Message of Baha’u’llah and the Kitab-i-iqan is the greatest of all keys for understanding past scriptures.

Regards Tony

This is the thing. Muslims do not need of interpretation of hadiths or scholars to know what the day of judgment is. But you guys would not arrive at the conclusion that it means another Prophet that abrogates the previous Prophet(s) meaning without Baha'allah. That shows Quran doesn't give the impression of Baha'allah interpretation. You need to hear it from him and then impose it on Quran.

 

[England my lionheart]

I think you should read the OP.

Cheers.

I did,it doesn’t say Muslims only,cheers.