Seal of the Prophets - Does it mean Muhammad is the final Prophet?

[firedragon]

1. we can know about Sabath from Jewish Torah, as well as many verses of Quran which confirms it:

1. You believe in the Jewish Torah? You mean the pentateuch? Which part? The whole thing or part of it? If you believe in that, and the Quran as well, then if Abraham is part of a different creed, why is the creed of Abraham or Milleth Ibrahim assigned for us to follow?
2. Yet, what is Baytul Atheeq? Because it says thats where the Shaaira will go to because you are making it an end of an era.
3. How about Shaaeer of verse 5:2? What kind of era is that talking about?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Mind my ignorance. Who names Al Qaim as Al Mahdi according to this hadith? And if you dont mind, whats this book of hadith?

و روى محمّد بن عجلان عن أبي عبد اللّه (عليه السلام) قال: إذا قام القائم (عليه السلام) دعا الناس إلى الإسلام جديدا، و هداهم إلى أمر قد دثر، فضلّ عنه الجمهور، و إنّما سمّي القائم مهديّا لأنّه يهدي إلى أمر مضلول عنه، و سمّي القائم لقيامه بالحق.

Well, according to this Hadith, the Qaim is Mahdi, because He guided to Misguided Religion (امر مضلول). This is an allusion, that, people think, what Qaim teaches is a misguided religion, not the True Religion. Like how Bahai is called Zalleye Mozelle.

 

[firedragon]

I see Truth is relative to my choices in life. I ask, that why do you consider that has not included an analysis of my faith? That is what I am currently reading in your question and why I referenced your faith, built on your own analysis.

At the same time I can say that the analysis I have undertaken to date is far from being adequate and complete. As I see for me to be able to have a better understanding of Muhammad and the Quran, that would pave the way for a much deeper understanding of the Messages that both the Bab and Baha'u'llah gave.

My main foundation for an analysis of any and all faiths is the Oneness of Allah and that Allah doeth as Allah so chooses and guides us all, as Allah so wills. I do not place it on what men have interpreted that to be.

Please feel free to share your understanding.

Regards Tony

We can never say our analysis is complete. But we must do our best.

Anyway, of course the oneness of Allah is the foundation. The word allah itself defines oneness. Buy if you say men have interpreted it wrong, again you come to the same point again.

1. What is your interpretation?
2. What's the analysis?

If you again tell me brother that your statement is "because bahaullah said so" it's not a valid answer.

Peace.

 

[Link]

"The Quran teaches the Messengers always come in forms of Ahlulbayts, these houses"
Sorry.

You believe in some parts of the book and not other parts. Pick what suits you and leave what opposes you.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

We can never say our analysis is complete. But we must do our best.

Anyway, of course the oneness of Allah is the foundation. The word allah itself defines oneness. Buy if you say men have interpreted it wrong, again you come to the same point again.

1. What is your interpretation?
2. What's the analysis?

If you again tell me brother that your statement is "because bahaullah said so" it's not a valid answer.

Peace.

Consider by that I am saying Baha'u'llah said so, is for me the same as saying Muhammad said so, it is the same as saying Allah said so.

I see it as embracing the Oneness of Allah, not veiled by Names given by Allah, but embracing the Spirit given of Allah.

Regards Tony

 

[firedragon]

Consider by that I am saying Baha'u'llah said so, is for me the same as saying Muhammad said so, it is the same as saying Allah said so.

I see it as embracing the Oneness of Allah, not veiled by Names given by Allah, but embracing the Spirit given of Allah.

Regards Tony

Don't take me wrong. I understand that you venerate them as I venerate God. But you should understand that I don't venerate Muhammed or anyone else. I understand your faith. I also give you the credit for being so patient and kind. I dont doubt any of that.

I believe that if I am to claim anything, one has all the right and validity to ask for reasons. If I respond by saying because my prophet said so its not valid to someone else.

There is no point going through this again and again brother. Peace.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Don't take me wrong. I understand that you venerate them as I venerate God. But you should understand that I don't venerate Muhammed or anyone else. I understand your faith. I also give you the credit for being so patient and kind. I dont doubt any of that.

I believe that if I am to claim anything, one has all the right and validity to ask for reasons. If I respond by saying because my prophet said so its not valid to someone else.

There is no point going through this again and again brother. Peace.

I agree no point of covering this again

Maybe you are not aware that I see all God's Messengers are all we can know of God. Thus all I can know of Allah is who they all are and what they have spoken.

As such I see any elevated concept one can imagine about Allah, is just a concept seen in all of God's Messengers.

The sum of all this is that a Baha'i worships naught but Allah, the Spirit of the Messenger, not the flesh, not the Name but the Light of Allah that shines in this world.

Regards Tony

 

[firedragon]

I agree no point of covering this again

Maybe you are not aware that I see all God's Messengers are all we can know of God. Thus all I can know of Allah is who they all are and what they have spoken.

As such I see any elevated concept one can imagine about Allah, is just a concept seen in all of God's Messengers.

The sum of all this is that a Baha'i worships naught but Allah, the Spirit of the Messenger, not the flesh, not the Name but the Light of Allah that shines in this world.

Regards Tony

I understand your faith.

But without analysing what others tell you, whoever they claim to be, you are falling into blind faith category. I will try not to speak in general terms.

Let me ask you a question. You believe in the divinity of Bahaullah. Based on that, lets say that its a given that you believe his word as Gods word. So there is no dispute in your mind. Since this thread is not about the question of the validity of your believe in him and his writings as Gods word, I will ask you something based on the topic of the thread.

The verse that speaks about this seal of prophet says very clearly that

1. Muhammed is a rasool
2. And he is the last Nabi (seal of Nabi-hood).

Can you tell me if there is any scripture or literature written by Bahaullah where he directly addresses this issue which would validate your claim at least from your faith perspective and will be a learning for all as well?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I understand your faith.

But without analysing what others tell you, whoever they claim to be, you are falling into blind faith category. I will try not to speak in general terms.

Let me ask you a question. You believe in the divinity of Bahaullah. Based on that, lets say that its a given that you believe his word as Gods word. So there is no dispute in your mind. Since this thread is not about the question of the validity of your believe in him and his writings as Gods word, I will ask you something based on the topic of the thread.

The verse that speaks about this seal of prophet says very clearly that

1. Muhammed is a rasool
2. And he is the last Nabi (seal of Nabi-hood).

Can you tell me if there is any scripture or literature written by Bahaullah where he directly addresses this issue which would validate your claim at least from your faith perspective and will be a learning for all as well?

Baha'u'llah in this passage talks about the Seal being a mystery, much like a veil, but explains what it implies;

"... Even as the Lord of being hath in His unerring Book [the Qur’an], after speaking of the “Seal” in His exalted utterance: “Muhammad is the Apostle of God and the Seal of the Prophets,” hath revealed unto all people the promise of “attainment unto the divine Presence.”...
Nothing more exalted or more explicit than “attainment unto the divine Presence” hath been revealed in the Qur’an. …
And yet, through the mystery of the former verse, they have turned away from the grace promised by the latter, despite the fact that “attainment unto the divine Presence” in the “Day of Resurrection” is explicitly stated in the Book... " Baha’u’llah, The Book of Certitude, Paragraphs 181–182.

Now let's look at what Baha'u'llah quoted from Quran 33:40-44. Verse 40 being the former and verse 44 being the later in the above quote.

40Muhammad is not the father of [any] one of your men, but [he is] the Messenger of Allah and last of the prophets. And ever is Allah, of all things, Knowing.41O you who have believed, remember Allah with much remembrance42And exalt Him morning and afternoon.43It is He who confers blessing upon you, and His angels [ask Him to do so] that He may bring you out from darknesses into the light. And ever is He, to the believers, Merciful.44Their greeting the Day they meet Him will be, "Peace." And He has prepared for them a noble reward.

This is n explanation from – Symbol and Secret, pp. 194–195.

"This one single verse, Qur’an 33:40, is at the heart of Muslim theology. Carved in exegetical stone, the sense of ultimacy behind the “Seal of the Prophets” cannot be overruled. At most, it can only be reinterpreted. Baha’u’llah does just that.

His exegesis is dramatic: he points his finger just four verses further to Qur’an 33:44, a relatively overlooked verse. Suddenly, the reader is transported from the Last Prophet to the Last Day, from the end of prophecy to the end of time. Within a few lines of revealed Arabic, the vision of Muhammad dissolves into the vision of God. …

The interpretation of “Seal of the Prophets” has traditionally meant the “last of the prophets.” The “presence of God,” in Baha’u’llah’s exegesis, signifies, in effect, the “prophet of the Last Day.”

God cannot be seen. The “Presence of God” must be “seen” in the absence of a visible God. The “Presence” is visible; God is not. The “Presence of God” is not God in person but rather the “Person of God.” The Bab is such a “Presence.” Correspondingly, Qur’an 33:40 is Muhammad; Qur’an 33:44 is the Bab. Exegetically, Qur’an 33:44 is therefore the most crucial of all the verses in Baha’u’llah’s argument...."

Regards Tony

 

[firedragon]

"... Even as the Lord of being hath in His unerring Book [the Qur’an], after speaking of the “Seal” in His exalted utterance: “Muhammad is the Apostle of God and the Seal of the Prophets,” hath revealed unto all people the promise of “attainment unto the divine Presence.”...
Nothing more exalted or more explicit than “attainment unto the divine Presence” hath been revealed in the Qur’an. …
And yet, through the mystery of the former verse, they have turned away from the grace promised by the latter, despite the fact that “attainment unto the divine Presence” in the “Day of Resurrection” is explicitly stated in the Book... " Baha’u’llah, The Book of Certitude, Paragraphs 181–182.

Hmm. That Tafsir is very similar to some older ones by the Shii movement. Somewhat I would say.

"This one single verse, Qur’an 33:40, is at the heart of Muslim theology. Carved in exegetical stone, the sense of ultimacy behind the “Seal of the Prophets” cannot be overruled. At most, it can only be reinterpreted. Baha’u’llah does just that.

By saying this, Christopher Buck is trying to dismantle the Muslims and their theology. Not the meaning of what the Quran says. You know why? In the Quran, 33:44 is the only verse about the Seal of prophets matter. If that was as you and Buck seem to think is the cornerstone of the theology of the Quran, that is absolutely wrong. If that is the case, it would have been mentioned many times. So the foundation of Bucks Exegesis is this particular fact like other theologies that focus around a person who claims to be the second coming of Jesus. Every single one of them has focused on this.

But thats not the focus of the Quran. This is your focus, your cornerstone, not the cornerstone of the theology of the Quran. I can easily see that this is coming from the Islamic doctrines in the region they came from.

Anyway, the writer has misunderstood a very very basic thing in the Quran. When the Quran says "we do not discriminate between any of the messengers" thats a statement made by people. Quran says "Wa Kaaloo" which means "they said" which is speaking from the perspective of the people who said this. So it is the people, "us" who will not discriminate messengers, not God. Because Quran also says that God had preferred or Faddhala some messengers over others. Thats God's business. Of course, some messengers will speak to God, some will bring scripture, some will bring just a message. Thats Gods business. The verses about distinguishing between messengers is not Gods business, its for us.

So the book you refer to has completely misunderstood this by saying that makes the first, Adam, and Muhammed, and who is in between are all not only the same, but one. Thats wrong exegesis. This thesis can never make the Quran speak of a oneness of manifestation.

Also, seal of prophet is "Nabi", the distinguishing verses mention "Rasool". Wrong association.

You know how I know this brother, because I read the whole book you refer to Symbol and Secret.

If you read the book of certitude by Bahaullah, does he really address the Issue of the "Seal of prophet", rasool and Nabi? Read carefully. What he says is that Muslims have made a cornerstone of this particular verse about the the "Seal", made a big deal of it, and ignored what the immediate surrounding verses say about the man-God relationship. DO you understand? He is saying that they have made a "red herring" out of a single verse.

Personally I love the title of the book Kithab I Íqán. Book of certification. Its written very well, although not in the form of a divine revelation but rather a Tafsir. There are flaws that I see in the book which shows that its good work, but its human work by Mr. Bahaullah who had the inherited understanding of the printed Quran he was holding at the time he wrote this book. He is definitely not receiving this from a divine source. I dont know if this is a platform to discuss that.

But what caught my curiosity is where Bahaullah says that, there are reports that Muhammed claimed to be the Christ. The words are "In name, Mohammed said "I am Jesus". But there is no reference to the Quran or any other source for this.

 

[wizanda]

Baha’u’llah’s exegesis

Baha'u'llah didn't do exegesis; that is why we can prove it isn't in alignment with the Bible, Quran, and Zoroastrian, Hindu texts, etc.

It just sounds nice to those who don't study; yet anyone who has really read the original source texts, will know they can not accept Baha'i as it is all eisegesis.

In my opinion.

 

[firedragon]

Baha'u'llah didn't do exegesis; that is why we can prove it isn't in alignment with the Bible, Quran, and Zoroastrian, Hindu texts, etc.

It just sounds nice to those who don't study; yet anyone who has really read the original source texts, will know they can not accept Baha'i as it is all eisegesis.

In my opinion.

Im curious. Why dont you ask God?

 

[wizanda]

The “presence of God,” in Baha’u’llah’s exegesis, signifies, in effect, the “prophet of the Last Day.”

Sorry, to clarify the last statement a bit more: "The prophet of Last Day" only fits Baha'i's idea that the prophets come claiming themself as the incarnation of God for that age, and not exegetically studies the detail in the previous revelation.

The Quran makes clear in the sentence discussed (33:40) that Muhammad is a messenger, and then a Seal of what was in the prophets; as the rest of the Quran states it is a confirmation, and criterion of what came before it.

If he says other messengers can come from among you (7:35-36) he is clearly stating more can come, and those who claimed no more prophets would come after are arrogant (40:34-35).

Thus by the Quran's own declarations, it doesn't fit what most of you are putting onto it.

Muhammad wasn't sent, he was guided (Mahdi), and thus doesn't fit the Baha'i idea of 'divine manifestations'.

Muhammad stated himself as the Mahdi correcting the messages, and then Christ would come back before Judgement Day.

Muhammad did not say in the Quran, "and after me, there will be no more prophets"; instead he told us to watch for messengers citing the message we find in the Quran.

In my opinion.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

One thing is very clear.

Faith is God's to give, be it right or wrong.

Regards Tony

 

[wizanda]

Im curious. Why dont you ask God?

The Source of reality at 15 told me to "Read all the religions, and when you've read the religions; you will know where the 'magic' of the world comes from"...

Having studied the religions, I'm well aware that everything comes from the Source of our reality (Allah = Most High = El Elyon), and all things are here for a reason, it is just lack of study that leads us to ignorance of it.

When it comes to exegeting religious texts, I've been told repeatedly on certain aspects like Isaiah 53:1, "Go Look It Up!", to the point of them shouting at me to hear, and then finally learned to look up every word prophetically, which means studying paraphrasing by prophets to identify timelines, and contexts.

Thus what is the question to ask God on this topic, that we can't study by contexts within the original source material?

Our problem isn't the source material question; it is both of you adding additional literature to the case (Hadiths, Baha'i writings), that isn't validated by the source material.

In my opinion.

 

[wizanda]

Faith is God's to give, be it right or wrong.

Faith means to trust; anything we practise we gain trust within.

The Source of reality can only mathematically match the trust we apply into a venture.

The more we seek trusting that we will find, the more we show our faith to seek it out, and in that element of doubt, the door opens for us to go through; whilst we wait behind the door, not daring to venture in properly, the lack of faith is shown.

Practise makes perfect.

2:4 And who believe in that which has been revealed to you and that which was revealed before you and they are sure of the hereafter.

It is trust to study all the texts, and prove that by practise we find the correct path; it is doubt to only read one religious aspect, and not assess the rest.

We have to choose to walk the path of faith, for the Source to help us understand the messages as One.

In my opinion.

 

[firedragon]

The Source of reality at 15 told me to "Read all the religions, and when you've read the religions; you will know where the 'magic' of the world comes from"...

Having studied the religions, I'm well aware that everything comes from the Source of our reality (Allah = Most High = El Elyon), and all things are here for a reason, it is just lack of study that leads us to ignorance of it.

When it comes to exegeting religious texts, I've been told repeatedly on certain aspects like Isaiah 53:1, "Go Look It Up!", to the point of them shouting at me to hear, and then finally learned to look up every word prophetically, which means studying paraphrasing by prophets to identify timelines, and contexts.

Thus what is the question to ask God on this topic, that we can't study by contexts within the original source material?

Our problem isn't the source material question; it is both of you adding additional literature to the case (Hadiths, Baha'i writings), that isn't validated by the source material.

In my opinion.

No. You misquoted me my friend. It is you who adds all kinds of sources including ahadith. I never added ahadith to anything. So dont generalise. Generalisation is not appreciated. Since you claimed to have been spoken to by God I thought of asking you why not ask God. But if you are studying the text thats great. The problem I have is you don't seem to have much knowledge in the text and you avoid answering when convenient. Plus, you give very very vague responses to specific questions which is a sign of people who did not study that particular subject and are avoiding being candid and saying "I dont know what you just said so please can you explain". I would expect any man of God to have that little piece of humility.

So you say that you have studied every word prophetically. Thats great. You keep saying El Elyon. What does El mean?

I also asked you if you believe in Mathrook hadith since you do pick and choose some stories summarised through hadith. So you dont have a methodology in classifying ahadith but just speak of what some people have interpreted from ahadith. Why dont you answer directly?

1. What does El inn El Elyon mean and why do you use this for God? Is that a name? Remember, I asked for the meaning, not some other explanation.
2. Do you believe in Mathrook ahadith? If you do why? If not why?
3. What is your personal method of classifying which hadith to pick for your belief?

I am pretty sure that you will not respond directly and dont blame me for that position which stems from all your responses so far.

Salaam.

 

[wizanda]

you avoid answering when convenient.

I'm always willing to answer if I've seen the question; if I've missed something, please ask, and I'll always make sure to go an extra mile.

What does El mean?

To me El from ancient Hebrew means the Source - 'A' implies positive strength, 'L' implies a path, thus a Strong Path/Source of reality (God).

I also asked you if you believe in Mathrook hadith since you do pick and choose some stories summarised through hadith.

I don't accept any legitimacy of Hadiths, I understand that is where people's ideas come from, so I've looked into ideas; yet I generally always will go back to original ideas found in the more ancient texts.

So you dont have a methodology in classifying ahadith

Of course there is a methodology, and already stated it; if a Hadith aligns with all of the prophetic standards prior to it, and in all data that fits in the Jigsaw Puzzle God has provided across all the books, I'll still question that Hadith as to what additional factors is someone trying to impose, and in what way does it edit the original standards.

If a Hadith did fit, and didn't actually change any of the previous revelations into something bad, then I might adopt it as being useful, yet generally that doesn't happen.

What does El inn El Elyon mean and why do you use this for God? Is that a name?

El Elyon is the God Most High, it is the Source of reality...

In Isaiah 46:9 it reminds us that 'El is not like the Elohim', citing Deuteronomy 32:7-9 where 'El Elyon the Source separated the nations among the Elohim (Divine Beings), and gave the nation of Israel to Yahavah'.

So we have the Divine Council (Elohim) who have names, and interacted with mankind; then we have the Source (El) who is beyond all names, images, and form, as it is the Source of all reality.

Anything that has a name or form, is not the Source, as it creates all of that; which is why in ancient times, it just had the placeholder 'God Most High'.

In my understanding in Arabic 'Ala Ilah' can be God Most High; when we look how many times Allah is placed in the same qualification as the God Most High, 'Ala Ilah' is shortening of the Arabic to make Allah, removing the vowels.

It clearly states never has Allah directly spoke to mankind (42:51); so when Moses spoke with something, that is Yahavah Elohim the head of the Divine Council.

What is your personal method of classifying which hadith to pick for your belief?

I honestly don't go looking into most likely falsified texts; I've studied some of the ideas, when looking into why people claiming to be Muslims do not follow the Message of Allah.

Do you believe in Mathrook ahadith?

Not aware of what it is specifically without studying it; so will need to provide a link to research it.

In my opinion.

 

[firedragon]

I'm always willing to answer if I've seen the question; if I've missed something, please ask, and I'll always make sure to go an extra mile.

To me El from ancient Hebrew means the Source - 'A' implies positive strength, 'L' implies a path, thus a Strong Path/Source of reality (God).

I don't accept any legitimacy of Hadiths, I understand that is where people's ideas come from, so I've looked into ideas; yet I generally always will go back to original ideas found in the more ancient texts.

Of course there is a methodology, and already stated it; if a Hadith aligns with all of the prophetic standards prior to it, and in all data that fits in the Jigsaw Puzzle God has provided across all the books, I'll still question that Hadith as to what additional factors is someone trying to impose, and in what way does it edit the original standards.

If a Hadith did fit, and didn't actually change any of the previous revelations into something bad, then I might adopt it as being useful, yet generally that doesn't happen.

El Elyon is the God Most High, it is the Source of reality...

In Isaiah 46:9 it reminds us that 'El is not like the Elohim', citing Deuteronomy 32:7-9 where 'El Elyon the Source separated the nations among the Elohim (Divine Beings), and gave the nation of Israel to Yahavah'.

So we have the Divine Council (Elohim) who have names, and interacted with mankind, and we have the Source El who is beyond all names, images, and form, as it is the Source of all reality.

Anything that has a name or form, is not the Source, as it creates all of that, which is why in ancient times, it just had the placeholder 'God Most High'.

In my understanding in Arabic 'Ala Ilah' can be God Most High, when we look how many times Allah is placed in the same qualification as the God Most High, 'Ala Ilah' is shortening of the Arabic to make Allah, removing the vowels.

It clearly states never has Allah directly spoke to mankind (42:51), so when Moses spoke with something, that is Yahavah Elohim the head of the Divine Council.

I honestly don't go looking into most likely falsified texts, I've studied some of the ideas, when looking into why people claiming to be Muslims do not follow the Message of Allah.

Not aware of what it is specifically without studying it, so will need to provide a link to research it.

In my opinion.

As expected.

Thanks.

 

[wizanda]

As expected.

What did you expect?

In my opinion.