For Muslims: Is Muhammad the last Prophet from God?

[Link]

I am not referring to the type of practical revelation such as what the mother of Musa received.

You are making it too complicated in my view. Nubuwa is about receiving divine news from God to people, being the channel of God and God gives feedback to humanity about their state. The Quran is different in that it's revealed in a way to apply for all times, but before that, founding Messengers would be succeeded by Nabis who getting updates from God and being channels of news from God which is his feedback to the current state of t he people they are sent to.

This is why you never see in the Quran, it say "and upon the Nabi is only"... because the Nubuwa role is more of God's recitation and he decides what to reveal and when. However, the Resali role is something Quran emphasizes on "nothing upon us is there but the clear conveyance" "nothing is upon the Messenger but the clear conveyance".

Also, 5:67 does not make sense to say "if you don't x, then you have not done x", which is a meaningless phrase. Rather, as the hadiths about it point out it was regarding Ali (a), and so the Sunnah contains part of the Resalah as well, and Quran contains Resali aspect as well, but not all of Quran is "clear conveyance" and not all of Sunnah is clear conveyance either. There is subtle hidden teachings therein in the Quran and Sunnah as well.

A Nabi that is not a Rasool, is when scripture is channeled but is not a resali type nor does he have to deliver the clear messages, because they are known to the people and people accept it already. This is very rare situation when people don't dispute and differ after clear proofs but actually follow the successors to the founder. In this case, the person can be a Nabi without being a Rasool. This is in fact, a very ideal state. Being a Rasool as a successor to Musa (a) for example, would mean, people were differing upon clear messages of Musa (a) and disputing the clear proofs he conveyed. An example of this perhaps is Dul-Kifl (a) who revealed about Gog and Magog to a people who already accepted the foundational messages and wanted to elaborate a very hidden concept of a sorcerers and shadow society that worked to undermine Bani-Israel but were in fact an ancient society.

A Rasool that is not a Nabi, is when clear message is delivered and revival, but not scripture revealed. As scripture feedback is almost always helpful, this is a rare occasion to happen before Mohammad (s). More so, God always proves who he wants to be followed in his books, and so it would be very rare in the past. But Talut (a) perhaps is an example of this but there is some hadiths that can be seen Nubuwa went to him as well, so I'm not sure if he is a sure example of this.

Most Rasools before Mohammad (s) were obviously Nabis, as God's words are mysteriously a way to connect people to that person and prove him and updates in time always takes place in help from God.

Most Nabis were obviously Rasools before Mohammad (s) and no Nabis after him, because people tended to dispute and turn away from truth and oppose the clear messages after the founder.

Also you never find once (I would like to be proven wrong if you can) that the Quran says "obey Allah and the Nabi", everywhere it mentions obedience it mentions to "God and the Messenger" or "God" and "Messenger" and Ulul-Amr of course in 4:59. There is a reason for that. In 33:33 even after the wives are emphasized to be women of the Nabi, and that is the emphasis, they are told to obey God and the Messenger.

Why is that? It's because they have to obey what Mohammad (s) says in terms of the clear obligations in Sunnah as well. Not just Quran.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I testify that Muhammad is the last messenger.

why should anyone believe your Testament as true?

As for your interpretations of the Quran, they have to be automatically rejected.

Which interpretations of the Quran?

As for your evidence, I honestly didn't notice you having any.

Do you muslims ever consider, maybe, just maybe you are wrong about Finality of Prophethood?
What makes you so sure that, you are not like Jews and Christians who misinterpreted their Book, thinking their religion is the final?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

You are making it too complicated in my view. Nubuwa is about receiving divine news from God to people, being the channel of God and God gives feedback to humanity about their state. The Quran is different in that it's revealed in a way to apply for all times, but before that, founding Messengers would be succeeded by Nabis who getting updates from God and being channels of news from God which is his feedback to the current state of t he people they are sent to.

This is why you never see in the Quran, it say "and upon the Nabi is only"... because the Nubuwa role is more of God's recitation and he decides what to reveal and when. However, the Resali role is something Quran emphasizes on "nothing upon us is there but the clear conveyance" "nothing is upon the Messenger but the clear conveyance".

Also, 5:67 does not make sense to say "if you don't x, then you have not done x", which is a meaningless phrase. Rather, as the hadiths about it point out it was regarding Ali (a), and so the Sunnah contains part of the Resalah as well, and Quran contains Resali aspect as well, but not all of Quran is "clear conveyance" and not all of Sunnah is clear conveyance either. There is subtle hidden teachings therein in the Quran and Sunnah as well.

A Nabi that is not a Rasool, is when scripture is channeled but is not a resali type nor does he have to deliver the clear messages, because they are known to the people and people accept it already. This is very rare situation when people don't dispute and differ after clear proofs but actually follow the successors to the founder. In this case, the person can be a Nabi without being a Rasool. This is in fact, a very ideal state. Being a Rasool as a successor to Musa (a) for example, would mean, people were differing upon clear messages of Musa (a) and disputing the clear proofs he conveyed. An example of this perhaps is Dul-Kifl (a) who revealed about Gog and Magog to a people who already accepted the foundational messages and wanted to elaborate a very hidden concept of a sorcerers and shadow society that worked to undermine Bani-Israel but were in fact an ancient society.

A Rasool that is not a Nabi, is when clear message is delivered and revival, but not scripture revealed. As scripture feedback is almost always helpful, this is a rare occasion to happen before Mohammad (s). More so, God always proves who he wants to be followed in his books, and so it would be very rare in the past. But Talut (a) perhaps is an example of this but there is some hadiths that can be seen Nubuwa went to him as well, so I'm not sure if he is a sure example of this.

Most Rasools before Mohammad (s) were obviously Nabis, as God's words are mysteriously a way to connect people to that person and prove him and updates in time always takes place in help from God.

Most Nabis were obviously Rasools before Mohammad (s) and no Nabis after him, because people tended to dispute and turn away from truth and oppose the clear messages after the founder.

Also you never find once (I would like to be proven wrong if you can) that the Quran says "obey Allah and the Nabi", everywhere it mentions obedience it mentions to "God and the Messenger" or "God" and "Messenger" and Ulul-Amr of course in 4:59. There is a reason for that. In 33:33 even after the wives are emphasized to be women of the Nabi, and that is the emphasis, they are told to obey God and the Messenger.

Why is that? It's because they have to obey what Mohammad (s) says in terms of the Sunnah as well. Not just Quran.

You are again making things up.

Why don't you quote Hadithes that tells us, who a Messenger is, who a Prophet is?

 

[Link]

You are again making things up.

Why don't you quote Hadithes that tells us, who a Messenger is, who a Prophet is?

The hadiths differ on that. Some say Imams (a) can see Angels, some say they don't. The ones explaining difference between Messenger, Prophet and muhadith/Imam to me never made sense and contradict very authentic hadiths that Imams (a) do see Angels.

 

[Pawpatrol]

You are making it too complicated in my view. Nubuwa is about receiving divine news from God to people, being the channel of God and God gives feedback to humanity about their state. The Quran is different in that it's revealed in a way to apply for all times, but before that, founding Messengers would be succeeded by Nabis who getting updates from God and being channels of news from God which is his feedback to the current state of t he people they are sent to.

This is why you never see in the Quran, it say "and upon the Nabi is only"... because the Nubuwa role is more of God's recitation and he decides what to reveal and when. However, the Resali role is something Quran emphasizes on "nothing upon us is there but the clear conveyance" "nothing is upon the Messenger but the clear conveyance".

Also, 5:67 does not make sense to say "if you don't x, then you have not done x", which is a meaningless phrase. Rather, as the hadiths about it point out it was regarding Ali (a), and so the Sunnah contains part of the Resalah as well, and Quran contains Resali aspect as well, but not all of Quran is "clear conveyance" and not all of Sunnah is clear conveyance either. There is subtle hidden teachings therein in the Quran and Sunnah as well.

A Nabi that is not a Rasool, is when scripture is channeled but is not a resali type nor does he have to deliver the clear messages, because they are known to the people and people accept it already. This is very rare situation when people don't dispute and differ after clear proofs but actually follow the successors to the founder. In this case, the person can be a Nabi without being a Rasool. This is in fact, a very ideal state. Being a Rasool as a successor to Musa (a) for example, would mean, people were differing upon clear messages of Musa (a) and disputing the clear proofs he conveyed. An example of this perhaps is Dul-Kifl (a) who revealed about Gog and Magog to a people who already accepted the foundational messages and wanted to elaborate a very hidden concept of a sorcerers and shadow society that worked to undermine Bani-Israel but were in fact an ancient society.

A Rasool that is not a Nabi, is when clear message is delivered and revival, but not scripture revealed. As scripture feedback is almost always helpful, this is a rare occasion to happen before Mohammad (s). More so, God always proves who he wants to be followed in his books, and so it would be very rare in the past. But Talut (a) perhaps is an example of this but there is some hadiths that can be seen Nubuwa went to him as well, so I'm not sure if he is a sure example of this.

Most Rasools before Mohammad (s) were obviously Nabis, as God's words are mysteriously a way to connect people to that person and prove him and updates in time always takes place in help from God.

Most Nabis were obviously Rasools before Mohammad (s) and no Nabis after him, because people tended to dispute and turn away from truth and oppose the clear messages after the founder.

Also you never find once (I would like to be proven wrong if you can) that the Quran says "obey Allah and the Nabi", everywhere it mentions obedience it mentions to "God and the Messenger" or "God" and "Messenger" and Ulul-Amr of course in 4:59. There is a reason for that. In 33:33 even after the wives are emphasized to be women of the Nabi, and that is the emphasis, they are told to obey God and the Messenger.

Why is that? It's because they have to obey what Mohammad (s) says in terms of the clear obligations in Sunnah as well. Not just Quran.

I make it complicated?

Why don't you just give your "simple" logical explanation as to how a person can receive revelation and not be a prophet. I haven't seen you explain that yet.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Do you muslims ever consider, maybe, just maybe you are wrong about Finality of Prophethood?

If a person claims he's a prophet and abrogates "the law", how do you know that
you are not being misled?

Muslims are fortunate in this regard .. it's been made clear to them what is lawful
and what is not.

 

[Pawpatrol]

Do you muslims ever consider, maybe, just maybe you are wrong about Finality of Prophethood?

Not me, no. I don't usually go out of my way to oppose the obvious.

 

[Link]

I make it complicated?

Why don't you just give your "simple" logical explanation as to how a person can receive revelation and not be a prophet. I haven't seen you explain that yet.

The Nubuwa is simply defined with respect to channeling scripture from God. So a person can receive revelation from God but not be channeling scripture in form of a book from God that is a divine proof from God. I explained it already. But if you have any questions, then ask away.

 

[Link]

Not me, no. I don't usually go out of my way to oppose the obvious.

Just as heads up, Bahais:

(1) Believe the day of judgment is not what we think it is, but the starting of their founding Messenger dispensation all the way to the next Messenger.
(2) Angels are are good humans (they don't believe in Angels like us)
(3) Jinn has some places it means believers with their faith of light/fire, and other places disbelievers with their fiery opposition.
(4) Son of Hassan Al-Askari (a) in hadiths is metaphoric (even though context of the hadiths it's clearly literal)

The explanation of Baha'allah of seal of Prophets is right here:

Likewise, from this statement it is made evident that the term "last" is applicable to the "first," and the term "first" applicable to the "last;" inasmuch as both the "first" and the "last" have risen to proclaim one and the same Faith.
Notwithstanding the obviousness of this theme, in the eyes of those that have quaffed the wine of
knowledge and certitude, yet how many are those who, through failure to understand its meaning, have allowed the term "Seal of the Prophets" to obscure their understanding, and deprive them of the grace of all His manifold bounties! Hath not Muhhammad, Himself, declared: "I am all the Prophets?" Hath He not said as We have already mentioned: "I am Adam, Noah, Moses, and Jesus?" Why should Muhammad, that immortal Beauty, Who hath said: "I am the first Adam" be incapable of saying also: "I am the last Adam"? For even as He regarded Himself to be the "First of the Prophets" — that is Adam — in like manner, the "Seal of the Prophets" is also applicable unto that Divine Beauty. It is admittedly obvious that being the "First of the Prophets," He likewise is their "Seal."
The mystery of this theme hath, in this Dispensation, been a sore test unto all mankind. Behold, how many are those who, clinging unto these words, have disbelieved Him Who is their true Revealer. What, We ask, could this people presume the terms "first" and "last" — when referring to God — glorified be His Name! — to mean? If they maintain that these terms bear reference to
this material universe, how could it be possible, when the visible order of things is still manifestly existing? Nay, in this instance, by "first" is meant no other than the "last" and by "last" no other than the "first."

His explanation of son of Hassan Alsakri is that all Prophets are son of Hassan Al-askari (same kind of logic):

All that thou hast heard regarding Muḥammad the son of Ḥasan—may the souls of all that are immersed in the oceans of the spirit be offered up for His sake—is true beyond the shadow of a doubt, and we all verily bear allegiance unto Him. But the imáms of the Faith have fixed His abode in the city of Jábulqá, which they have depicted in strange and marvellous signs. To interpret this city according to the literal meaning of the tradition would indeed prove impossible, nor can such a city ever be found. Wert thou to search the uttermost corners of the earth, nay probe its length and breadth for as long as God’s eternity hath lasted and His sovereignty will endure, thou wouldst never find a city such as they have described, for the entirety of the earth could neither contain nor encompass it. If thou wouldst lead Me unto this city, I could assuredly lead thee unto this holy Being, Whom the people have conceived according to what they possess and not to that which pertaineth unto Him! Since this is not in thy power, thou hast no recourse but to interpret symbolically the accounts and traditions that have been reported from these luminous souls. And, as such an interpretation is needed for the traditions pertaining to the aforementioned city, so too is it required for this holy Being. When thou hast understood this interpretation, thou shalt no longer stand in need of “transformation” or aught else.
Know then that, inasmuch as all the Prophets are but one and the same soul, spirit, name, and attribute, thou must likewise see them all as bearing the name Muḥammad and as being the son of Ḥasan, as having appeared from the Jábulqá of God’s power and from the Jábulṣá of His mercy. For by Jábulqá is meant none other than the treasure-houses of eternity in the all-highest heaven and the cities of the unseen in the supernal realm. We bear witness that Muḥammad, the son of Ḥasan, was indeed in Jábulqá and appeared therefrom. Likewise, He Whom God shall make manifest abideth in that city until such time as God will have established Him upon the seat of His sovereignty. We, verily, acknowledge this truth and bear allegiance unto each and every one of them. We have chosen here to be brief in our elucidation of the meanings of Jábulqá, but if thou be of them that truly believe, thou shalt indeed comprehend all the true meanings of the mysteries enshrined within these Tablets.
But as to Him Who appeared in the year sixty, He standeth in need of neither transformation nor interpretation, for His name was Muḥammad, and He was a descendent of the Imáms of the Faith. Thus it can be truly said of Him that He was the son of Ḥasan, as is undoubtedly clear and evident unto thine eminence. Nay, He it is Who fashioned that name and created it for Himself, were ye to observe with the eye of God.

 

[Pawpatrol]

The Nubuwa is simply defined with respect to channeling scripture from God. So a person can receive revelation from God but not be channeling scripture in form of a book from God that is a divine proof from God. I explained it already. But if you have any questions, then ask away.

What I'm asking is how can a messenger receive revelation (and share it) and not be a prophet. I'm not asking what a prophet is.

 

[Link]

What I'm asking is how can a messenger receive revelation (and share it) and not be a prophet. I'm not asking what a prophet is.

A Messenger who is not a Nabi who be conveying messages paraphrased in his words but can still be receiving revelation from God. He would not be channeling scripture from God, but conveying the truth in his own words. From one perspective, the words of the Messenger as if God's words, since they are light from God. But still God talks above them and can write in ways that they cannot, and reveal scripture they cannot write that would prove them as a sign and be higher sign then their own words.

Nubuwa to me is simply about reception of the book of God and channeling it to the people. Resala is not simply that, but contains Sunnah aspects and Book aspects. The book contains clear messages but is not the whole message nor is everything in the book "a clear message", there is subtle hidden secrets too. Sunnah has to be safeguarded too. Sunnah also has hidden secret type knowledge, that has to be worked for to see.

Resala is about the clear messages and foundations of the religion in clear terms.

 

[Pawpatrol]

A Messenger who is not a Nabi who be conveying messages paraphrased in his words but can still be receiving revelation from God. He would not be channeling scripture from God, but conveying the truth in his own words. From one perspective, the words of the Messenger as if God's words, since they are light from God. But still God talks above them and can write in ways that they cannot, and reveal scripture they cannot write that would prove them as a sign and be higher sign then their own words.

Nubuwa to me is simply about reception and channeling it to the people. Resala is not simply that, but contains Sunnah aspects and Quran aspects.

So you think if he delivers the message paraphrasing that makes him not a prophet? He's a prophet because he receives regardless of how he delivers. And does this mysterious messenger have a new law with him?

 

[Link]

For example, Jesus (a) comes back and says things to mankind regarding the religion. This contains clear messages. But he won't be bringing a scripture from God, Same with the Mahdi (a) who Isa (a) will be under command of.

 

[Link]

So you think if he delivers the message paraphrasing that makes him not a prophet? He's a prophet because he receives regardless of how he delivers. And does this mysterious messenger have a new law with him?

The Mahdi is an example. Some of the light of God in Quran and hadiths are not explicit regarding new matters of technology. He will give a new law with that. He won't change Salah for example. He won't make halal haram or haram halal but he will show aspects of justice that mankind didn't reach recognition of during Mohammad (s) time and after.

He won't bring scripture but will instead bring Quran to new heights. But he will bring the religion as if new because it was lost, and also people don't know how to properly apply in our times but he does.

 

[Link]

So you think if he delivers the message paraphrasing that makes him not a prophet?

Exactly. Nubuwa is about something like the Quran.

 

[Link]

He's a prophet because he receives regardless of how he deliver

What does he receive? To me it's about receiving something like the Quran. Scripture. Not God talking to them and teaching them. For example, I don't consider hadith qudsi part of Nubuwa. Only Quran is Nubuwa (as far as Mohammad (s) mission). However, hadith qudsi can be part of Resala.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

If a person claims he's a prophet and abrogates "the law", how do you know that
you are not being misled?

By investigating Him.

In the same way, that, one must have investigated to come to conclusion that Jesus or Muhammad are true Prophets.

Muslims are fortunate in this regard .. it's been made clear to them what is lawful
and what is not.

Muslims don't read or understand the Quran well.

The Law is for a period of time only, not forever:

"We did send messengers before thee, and appointed for them wives and children: and it was never the part of a messenger to bring a sign except as Allah permitted (or commanded). For each period is a Book (revealed) Allah doth blot out or confirm what He pleaseth: with Him is the Mother of the Book" 13:38-39

The issue is, the Book has an expiration date. When that date comes, there is no benefit in the Ordinances of the Book:

ذَ ٰلِكَۖ وَمَن یُعَظِّمۡ شَعَـٰۤىِٕرَ ٱللَّهِ فَإِنَّهَا مِن تَقۡوَى ٱلۡقُلُوبِ
لَكُمۡ فِیهَا مَنَـٰفِعُ إِلَىٰۤ أَجَلࣲ مُّسَمࣰّى ثُمَّ مَحِلُّهَاۤ إِلَى ٱلۡبَیۡتِ ٱلۡعَتِیقِ

" Indeed, those who reverence the Rites decreed by GOD demonstrate the righteousness of their hearts. In them are benefits to an Appointed Time, then their place is to the ancient House” 22:33

Once the appointed time comes, there are no benefits, then those Rites are referred to the ancient house. And you know what Ancient House is?
It is the place, where the Revelations had come from, in the first place. Meaning from the Heaven. The verse says, after the Appointed Time, it goes back to heaven, where it had come from. Don't you see, how this is exactly what verses 70:4 and 32:5 said? Therefore how long was appointed for the Quran?
Answer: 1000 years.

 

[Link]

By investigating Him.

In the same way, that, one must have investigated to come to conclusion that Jesus or Muhammad are true Prophets.

So these two you talking to were non-Muslims and I think both Christians. Why do they accept Mohammad (s) but reject your Prophet. They weren't born in the religion.

I think for one there is a huge difference between Quran and Bahai Scripture. There is no comparison for example to how soothing and majestic Quran sounds just from a musical tone side let alone other features.

The Bahai interpretation I believe is also too out there and not grounded. This is while Quran grounds Christians and Jews by reasoning. It helps them see the creed of Ibrahim (a) and the constant religion.

Not all succeed in seeing that as far Welayat and Imamate goes, but over all, it's down to earth the Quran and high and connecting you to unseen treasures.

This while the over obtuse flowery over assertive whiney nature of Bahallah is not appealing to most humans. And is over flowery words are just that. They're extreme in flowery parables that they aren't beautiful.

He also takes too many long words to say simple things that can be said simply and more eloquently.

The Quran has parables, but it doesn't overwhelm people with flowery speech. And it has examples of the past, but relates the past in a mighty way. The Quran has a mighty majestic tone.

You can say I'm born Shia Muslim, left Islam, came back, and wanted to follow religion of parents. But why do most converts to Islam not convert to Bahai faith. Even the ones concluding Shia Islam don't come to it.

You guys are bunch of old people and the younger generation has no interest.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Not me, no. I don't usually go out of my way to oppose the obvious.

How is that any different from Jews and Christians?

Sahih Muslim 2669 a

Abu Sa'id al-Khudri reported Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) as saying:

"You would tread the same path as was trodden by those before you inch by inch and step by step so much so that if they had entered into the hole of the lizard, you would follow them in this also. We said: Allah's Messenger, do you mean Jews and Christians (by your words)" those before you"? He said: Who else (than those two religious groups)?"

 

[InvestigateTruth]

So these two you talking to where non-Muslims and I think both Christians. Why do they accept Mohammad (s) but reject your Prophet. They weren't born in the religion.

For the same reason, Jews do not accept Jesus and Muhammad.
For the same reason, Christians do not accept Muhammad.