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

[firedragon]

I remember, there is a Shia Hadith, that the prophet said, after Him, there will be 12 Imams, whose stations are greater than the Prophets of Israel. In another words, the Shia Imams have same power and knowledge of Prophets, plus some more. So, if after Muhammad imams who were greater than prophets could come, how can we say, seal of prophets, mean, no more prophets? Because some Muslims say, since prophethood is sealed, Messengership which is a greater station is also sealed. Now if we say, Prophethood is sealed in Quran, not the Imamhood, and thus Imams could come, then no where in quran messengership is sealed, so, Messengers could come. What do you think?

1. According to the Quran, we are not to make distinction between any messenger. So someone being greater than Muhammed is not that different from being greater than Jesus. So your emphasis shows that you were not aware of that fact.
2. If Imams are greater than the prophet Muhammed, still thats not relevant to the topic because its about what the verse 33:40 means by saying khatham un nabiyiin.
3. your statement about prophethood and messengership being greater is the typical Muslim argument against the other argument that messengership is lower than prophethood. I have not stated my position in this argument. But at least you have tried to distinguish this rasool and nabi matter in your own way. Yes. This is the divide.

This divide in the argument (rasool and Nabi) I have been stating throughout. So I have nothing more to say with respect to your question and whats relevant to the OP.

Thank you and cheers.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

1. According to the Quran, we are not to make distinction between any messenger. So someone being greater than Muhammed is not that different from being greater than Jesus. So your emphasis shows that you were not aware of that fact.
2. If Imams are greater than the prophet Muhammed, still thats not relevant to the topic because its about what the verse 33:40 means by saying khatham un nabiyiin.
3. your statement about prophethood and messengership being greater is the typical Muslim argument against the other argument that messengership is lower than prophethood. I have not stated my position in this argument. But at least you have tried to distinguish this rasool and nabi matter in your own way. Yes. This is the divide.

This divide in the argument (rasool and Nabi) I have been stating throughout. So I have nothing more to say with respect to your question and whats relevant to the OP.

Thank you and cheers.

I said what is in Hadith, and in Shia Islam that Hadith is well accepted. Shias believe successors of Prophet have a higher station than Prophets (Nabis), not Messengers(rasools). The verse you quote from Quran states there is no difference between Messengers, and it farther explains in another verse why some Prophets are given higher stations by giving example that Jesus was given a Revelation (Injil). Thus it makes it clear, those Prophets who are given a revelation are exalted over other prophets. These prophets who are exalted due to having a Revelation are Messengers. Bahai Scriptures confirm this as well. The lesser prophets are like the Moon, who gets its light, from a greater prophet who is like the Sun.

 

[firedragon]

Thus it makes it clear, those Prophets who are given a revelation are exalted over other prophets.

Not exalted. More responsibility or a degree higher. And in context of the Quran, it doesn't tell "YOU" to exalt anyone. It tells "YOU" to not distinguish between any messenger. God may have different degrees of standards and thats his business. Quran tells us readers not to make any distinguish between any of the messengers.

These prophets who are exalted due to having a Revelation are Messengers. Bahai Scriptures confirm this as well.

You mean they are rasools. Thats good if the distinction is made. This is the first time I am hearing this in this forum. I am not making any criticism of the Bahai faith or anyones faith because that is a different topic. Its irrelevant. Its your faith. But outside of this, if you could give me the reference in the scripture (book, verse number) it would be great to make my own study of it.

I said what is in Hadith, and in Shia Islam that Hadith is well accepted. Shias believe successors of Prophet have a higher station than Prophets (Nabis), not Messengers(rasools).

So what do the Shia's think that khatham un nabiiyin means? Thats the important question because thats truly relevant to the OP.

Thanks.

 

[Link]

It's forbidden to follow ambiguities in religion. Hadiths aren't a reliable way to know truth. Quran with reasoning is. Hadiths help facilitate proper reflection over Quran. If you don't see the Mahdi in Quran, you aren't reciting Quran properly.

 

[j1i]

Khatam an-Nabiyyin, usually translated as Seal of the Prophets, is a title used in the Quran to designate the Prophet Muhammad. Among Muslims, it is generally regarded to mean that Muhammad was the last of the prophets sent by God.

The title khatam an-nabiyyin or khatim an-nabiyyin, is applied to Muhammad in verse 33:40 of the Qur'an. The popular Yusaf Ali translation reads,

Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but (he is) the Messenger of Allah, and the Seal of the Prophets: and Allah has full knowledge of all things.
— The Qur'an – Chapter 33 Verse 40

Khatam an-Nabiyyin - Wikipedia

This is commonly understood that Muhammad is the final Prophet for all time despite eschatological beliefs in regards a future Madhi or Qa'im.

Mahdi - Wikipedia

One consequence of understanding Muhammad as being the final prophet, is that other religions such as the Baha'i Faith believe there can be prophets after Muhammad. Baha'is consider the forerunner of the Baha'i faith, the Bab and the founder of the Baha'i faith, Baha'u'llah to be Prophets who have a similar station. Many Muslims of course strongly disagree and will sometimes consider the Baha'i Faith an apostate religion. This has led to persecution of Baha'is in severalof Islamic countries including Iran.

Báb - Wikipedia

Bahá'u'lláh - Wikipedia

What I would like discussed in this thread is to hear from Muslims as to why this single verse in the Quran has come to be understood as Muhammad being the final Prophet of all time. It would also be useful for those who believe in Muhmmad but also a Prophet after Muhammad (eg Baha'is and Ahmadiyyas), why this verse doesn't mean the final Prophet for all time.

Bahá'í Faith - Wikipedia

Ahmadiyya - Wikipedia

If it doesn't mean Muhammad was the final Prophet for all time as believed by Muslims, what does it mean?

NB - Anyone who has something constructive to contribute is also welcome to post.

Hello my friend and thank you for the opportunity to participate

If you read story of The Faith Journey of Salman the Persian you will find how he came to Islam because of Christians by Seal of the Prophets evidence

There is an important Hadith explaining the shape of the seal of prophecy in the body of the Prophet

The story of how Salmaan al-Faarisi (may Allaah be pleased with him) came to Islam - Islam Question & Answer

Jesus would return to kill the Antichrist but would not come to be a prophet as he was, but to return to help spread the fairness as a Muslim who practices Islamic teachings.
Although Jesus was a prophet of God and an influential figure supported by the Holy Spirit and one of the most important prophets in history


thanks hug

 

[InvestigateTruth]

You mean they are rasools. Thats good if the distinction is made. This is the first time I am hearing this in this forum. I am not making any criticism of the Bahai faith or anyones faith because that is a different topic. Its irrelevant. Its your faith. But outside of this, if you could give me the reference in the scripture (book, verse number) it would be great to make my own study of it.

I think you can find it in Some Answered Questions.

So what do the Shia's think that khatham un nabiiyin means? Thats the important question because thats truly relevant to the OP.

Thanks.

We would have to refer to Shia Hadithes to know how Shias are supposed to understand the meaning of the Khatam un nabiiyin. There is no Hadith from the Prophet or Imams stating what that mean specifically. Anybody can make their own conclusion, but it would not count as an official Shia view, if it is not mentioned by the infallible Imams or the Prophet. Now, when the 12th Imam comes, and if He explains what Khatam un nabiiyin means, then that is the official divinely interpretation. Bahais believe the 12th Imam and the Qaim came, and its interpretations does not indicate finality of revelation.

 

[Link]

There are plenty of hadiths that explain and show Mohammad is the last Prophet. Let me quote them.

 

[Link]

You know what I'll make a thread about the Mahdi in Quran, and include all this information (of hadiths about Prophet Mohammad being the last Prophet and the plan of attack by God with his family and Quran!)

 

[Limo]

It is true the Bab, Bahá’u’lláh and Mirza Ghulam were not Arabic. I can see what you clearly believe to be the truth in regards the Khatam an-Nabiyyin and supporting Hadiths. Thanks for being clear about what you believe in. It is true the Baha’is prefer to be called Baha’is and not Muslims. I understand Ahmadiyyas see themselves as a sect of Islam. Baha’is consider themselves the followier of an independent religion, Prophet and Nabi. Thanks for your post.

My regards

 

[firedragon]

I think you can find it in Some Answered Questions.

No. I have not found nor have I heard. Please give me references.

We would have to refer to Shia Hadithes to know how Shias are supposed to understand the meaning of the Khatam un nabiiyin.

I will tell you how they understand. They understand it the same way the Sunnis understand it.

There is no Hadith from the Prophet or Imams stating what that mean specifically.

Brother. If I were you I wouldn't make statements like that. Because I find it wrong.

Anyway, I shall await references if you dont mind.

Peace.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Is the prophet or rather the idea of a "prophet" of the Torah, and the Quran the same?

Judaism recognises 49 Prophets and 7 Prophetesses the greatest being Moses. In fact Jewish tradition considers Moses to be the greatest Prophet who ever lived. Orthodox Jews called Moses ‘Our Leader Moses, Servant of God, Father of all prophets’. He brought the Torah.

This appears similar to the Quran where Moses would be considered both a Nabi and Rasool in that He was a bearer of a Divine Revelation. The Quran would also recognise Abraham and Noah as Nabi/Rasool but Judaism does not.

Many though not all Nabi are recognised by both the Hebrew Bible and the Quran. The Quran does acknowledge there are other Prophets not recorded in the Holy Books.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Brother. You ask me this since you believe that you know what I believe. I never stated my belief. I was only giving you the information. I never said that a nabi is definitely this, and a rasool is definitely that. I gave you both sides of the argument which you seem to have not understood. Go back and read it. I didnt say "this is my argument". And you have reverted my question about your scripture into my scripture as if I have stated my faith in the matter of Rasool and Nabi. I didnt. I only gave the two different options. The two different arguments. But you have very clearly stated about your faith and your idea about what this "prophet" means and what you believe. So I believe it is only valid that you give a proper response to the Question "what does the Kithab I akdhas say about rasool and nabi because it has both in it".

“Rasool” is an Islamic word for “messenger” while “Nabi” is the Islamic as well as the Hebrew word for “prophet.” A Rasool is always a Nabi while a Nabi may or may not become a Rasool. While a Rasool receives a new Divine Revelation with laws from Allah, a Nabi does not and only follows the Divine laws of the Rasool before him.

I do not deny the terms Nabi and Rasool are found in the Arabic text of the Kitab-i-Aqdas. However, as I have said before, I do not know Arabic.

I asked you about the Kithab I Akdhas which is your holy book. If you don't believe in it that question is irrelevant. Also since you keep bringing your faith into this discussion, this is a very valid question. You dont seem to know if they are (rasool and nabi) are both the same or not in your own book. If you dont know why, you can state it candidly that "you dont know why". Thats perfectly being honest.

As I don’t know Arabic I cannot answer your question about how Nabi and Rasool are used.

 

[firedragon]

“Rasool” is an Islamic word for “messenger” while “Nabi” is the Islamic as well as the Hebrew word for “prophet.” A Rasool is always a Nabi while a Nabi may or may not become a Rasool. While a Rasool receives a new Divine Revelation with laws from Allah, a Nabi does not and only follows the Divine laws of the Rasool before him.

I do not deny the terms Nabi and Rasool are found in the Arabic text of the Kitab-i-Aqdas. However, as I have said before, I do not know Arabic.



As I don’t know Arabic I cannot answer your question about how Nabi and Rasool are used.

I would urge you to find out. Unless of course your theology is not based on the book you believe is your Holy Book. You should know what your holy book says about what a Rasool and Nabi is.

Anyway, if these words Rasool and Nabi are used in your holy book, it is not an Islamic word. Unless you believe that the Kithab I akdhas is also an Islamic scripture. I would contend that its an Arabic word and an arabic book will use arabic words. So just because a word is an arabic word it doesn't immediately mean its Islamic. I know you dont know arabic and thats perfectly fine. All Muslims dont know classical arabic, all christians dont know Koine Greek. But we should find out what our book is saying. So you could do the research or consult someone who does know. Someone from your own faith. I cant understand why its not that important to you but I just feel its important to anyone.

My thinking is, if you dont know what your own book says about a certain thing, how could you know or even begin to analyse what other scripture says?

Anyway, its your prerogative.

Cheers.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I would urge you to find out. Unless of course your theology is not based on the book you believe is your Holy Book. You should know what your holy book says about what a Rasool and Nabi is.

Anyway, if these words Rasool and Nabi are used in your holy book, it is not an Islamic word. Unless you believe that the Kithab I akdhas is also an Islamic scripture. I would contend that its an Arabic word and an arabic book will use arabic words. So just because a word is an arabic word it doesn't immediately mean its Islamic. I know you dont know arabic and thats perfectly fine. All Muslims dont know classical arabic, all christians dont know Koine Greek. But we should find out what our book is saying. So you could do the research or consult someone who does know. Someone from your own faith. I cant understand why its not that important to you but I just feel its important to anyone.

My thinking is, if you dont know what your own book says about a certain thing, how could you know or even begin to analyse what other scripture says?

Anyway, its your prerogative.

Cheers.

Nabi and Rasool are Arabic words to describe Islamic concepts in regards Prophets and Messengers. Bahá’u’lláh in the Kitab-i-Aqdas is providing a book of laws or Sharia. In regards Prophets and Messengers the Kitab-i-Iqan is more useful in regards understanding a Baha’i theology.

If you want to discuss the Baha’i Faith provide me with English translations of the verses you wish to discuss. Why not use the Aqdas verses you believe refer to Nabi and Rasool?

In regards the seal of the Prophets, I am yet to see an English translation of 33:40 that definitively states Muhammad is the final Prophet of all time. Why am I not surprised?

Most English speakers rely on good quality translations to study faiths whether it be Judaism, Christianity, Islam or the Baha’i Faith. I’m satisfied with the English translations I have in my possession for all four faiths. Its not hard to read and study any of these books.

For example the first verse of the Aqdas reads:
The first duty prescribed by God for His servants is the recognition of Him Who is the Dayspring of His Revelation and the Fountain of His laws, Who representeth the Godhead in both the Kingdom of His Cause and the world of creation. Whoso achieveth this duty hath attained unto all good; and whoso is deprived thereof hath gone astray, though he be the author of every righteous deed. It behooveth everyone who reacheth this most sublime station, this summit of transcendent glory, to observe every ordinance of Him Who is the Desire of the world. These twin duties are inseparable. Neither is acceptable without the other. Thus hath it been decreed by Him Who is the Source of Divine inspiration.

The Kitáb-i-Aqdas | Bahá’í Reference Library

If you don’t want to continue the discussion for now that’s fine.

Salaam alaikum

 

[wizanda]

when someone explains from the languages point of view I should try to think from the languages point of view.

The Bible says the Jews will be blinded to understanding their book Isaiah 29:9-14, Deuteronomy 28:28-29, Zechariah 12:4, as instead of listen properly to contexts; they assume because they know Hebrew Grammar, and know their own version of Jewish History, that they are the only ones who can understand it.

The Quran forewarns the same about the Arabs (9:97), and many claiming they follow the Quran (29:2-3), when they follow their traditions of language, and history, whilst not understanding the real contexts globally.

Terms mean what they mean back then to Quran,

Language meanings change over time, and applied usages can even be made upside down... "That is wicked" can mean 'something is good' now.

In my opinion.

 

[wizanda]

You have not understood the Quran. It is not "all about having the spiritual discernment to recognise God’s Prophets, understand His Words and follow His Commands and heed His Exhortations.". Again, its not "all about" it.

2:285 The Messenger has believed in what was revealed to him from his Lord, and [so have] the believers. All of them have believed in Allah and His angels and His books and His messengers, [saying], "We make no distinction between any of His messengers." And they say, "We hear and we obey. [We seek] Your forgiveness, our Lord, and to You is the [final] destination."

3:84 Say: We believe in Allah and what has been revealed to us, and what was revealed to Ibrahim and Ismail and Ishaq and Yaqoub and the tribes, and what was given to Musa and Isa and to the prophets from their Lord; we do not make any distinction between any of them, and to Him do we submit.

2:136 Say, [O believers], "We have believed in Allah and what has been revealed to us and what has been revealed to Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the Descendants and what was given to Moses and Jesus and what was given to the prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and we are Muslims [in submission] to Him."

In our opinion.

 

[wizanda]

Jesus and Moses have prominence. Quran says that some messengers are elevated more than the other. But "we" are not to make a distinction. It is not our job to keep one one a pedestal.

3:55 And when Allah said: O Isa, I am going to terminate the period of your stay (on earth) and cause you to ascend unto Me and purify you of those who disbelieve and make those who follow you above those who disbelieve to the day of resurrection; then to Me shall be your return, so I will decide between you concerning that in which you differed.

We're not to make distinction among the messages as one, and then by definition the Messiah means a king above the rest.

Then we are all being judged (Judgement Day) on following his teachings (Matthew 7:24-27).

Which means a Muslim by definition of all the Abrahamic contexts, should elevate the spiritual King of Kings (The Messiah); if they don't, it is sort of missing the point of Abrahamic prophecy...

'Everyone is waiting for the Messiah as the Spiritual Leader sent by God.'

In my opinion.

 

[firedragon]

Judaism recognises 49 Prophets and 7 Prophetesses the greatest being Moses. In fact Jewish tradition considers Moses to be the greatest Prophet who ever lived. Orthodox Jews called Moses ‘Our Leader Moses, Servant of God, Father of all prophets’. He brought the Torah.

This appears similar to the Quran where Moses would be considered both a Nabi and Rasool in that He was a bearer of a Divine Revelation. The Quran would also recognise Abraham and Noah as Nabi/Rasool but Judaism does not.

Many though not all Nabi are recognised by both the Hebrew Bible and the Quran. The Quran does acknowledge there are other Prophets not recorded in the Holy Books.

Brother. First of all, I was not talking about how many prophets "Judaism" recognises. My question was on the meaning of the word prophet in the Bible and Quran. I asked that because you keep going back to the Bible and prophets of the Bible and then come back to the Quran. I did not ask what the Jews said or called. You should try your best to do the distinction.

You were talking about 56. Thats absolutely wrong. Because the word prophet is referred to many many people in the Bible and you cant even count. Groups of people are called prophets. I think this number is people you recognise. Not everyone who is called a prophet.

The point is, each of the scriptures have a very different idea of this so called "prophet". In the Bible, Aaron is called a prophet to Moses. Moses is called Elohim, and Aaron is called a Nabi. So he is the prophet who carries Moses's message but in the Quran, a person who is called a prophet is exclusively a person who carries a message of God. Its just a word. The problem with us is that we think of a prophet in our English understanding. Of course its natural but its not analytical. Its shallow. Who were the band of prophets in Samuel? How many prophets were there? Were they all called prophets because they were all messengers of God? This is what Rashi's comments say about these prophets?

A band of prophets. Targum Yonoson renders, 'a band of scribes.' 'חֶבֶל' is a band, similar to, 'the חֶבְלֵי of the wicked surrounded me'4II Shmuel 22:6. [rendered by Targum as], 'the bands of the wicked surrounded me.'

How many prophets did obadhya go and keep in the cave? How many hundreds of prophets do you find in the Bible?

Its not the same. Analyse it brother.

Cheers.

 

[firedragon]

Nabi and Rasool are Arabic words to describe Islamic concepts in regards Prophets and Messengers. Bahá’u’lláh in the Kitab-i-Aqdas is providing a book of laws or Sharia. In regards Prophets and Messengers the Kitab-i-Iqan is more useful in regards understanding a Baha’i theology.

Well. If these words are used in your scripture, it is Bahai as well. The thing is, the concepts maybe different.

Also, when you say "In regards Prophets and Messengers the Kitab-i-Iqan is more useful in regards understanding a Baha’i theology", how would you know if you have not analysed it?

If you want to discuss the Baha’i Faith provide me with English translations of the verses you wish to discuss. Why not use the Aqdas verses you believe refer to Nabi and Rasool?

No. I dont wish to discuss the Bahai faith here. It is you want to discuss it. It is you who want to make all Nabi's and rasools and messengers and prophets the same. I am only asking you to analyse your own scripture for these words which you are extremely adamant not to. It surprises me. But its still your faith, your own scripture, and your prerogative.

In regards the seal of the Prophets, I am yet to see an English translation of 33:40 that definitively states Muhammad is the final Prophet of all time. Why am I not surprised?

All English translations I have ever read in my life, including the most modern, most progressive and the most traditional and conservative, all say that Muhammed is the Nabi of all time. All. Its just that they have translated directly, and used the word seal as it should be. Its just that you dont wish to accept. Again, its your faith and your prerogative.

Most English speakers rely on good quality translations to study faiths whether it be Judaism, Christianity, Islam or the Baha’i Faith. I’m satisfied with the English translations I have in my possession for all four faiths. Its not hard to read and study any of these books.

Well. In that case, dont quote arabic words of the Quran or any other book ever. If you are satisfied with the English translation, what you mean is that others also should never analyse what the language actually says? Thats a strange position. You are simply being dismissive and you dont even wish to analyse your own scripture. Tell all the Bible scholars, Quran scholars and all other scholars that you are satisfied with English. Surprising statement to make mate.

If you don’t want to continue the discussion for now that’s fine.

Upto you. All good.

Cheers.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

No. I have not found nor have I heard. Please give me references.

Maybe later I will try finding it for you. Currently too busy, sorry, but I don't find it much relevant to the thread at this time.

I will tell you how they understand. They understand it the same way the Sunnis understand it.

If you refer to history, in the earlier centuries of Islam, the Muslims did not all understood the term " seal of prophets" the same way. Some understood it to mean final revelation and some understood differently. So, not all agreed it to mean finality of revelation. So, we cannot generalize and say all Muslims always understood it to mean finality. We need to know what the Author of Quran means by that term. Only then we can say what official view of Islam is. The early christians did not agree on the station of Jesus, until in the 3rd or 4th century the majority agreed Jesus is God. Now, islam believes the Christian's went the wrong way on the station of jesus, so, how do we know, the Muslims did not go the wrong way with regards to belief in finality?

Brother. If I were you I wouldn't make statements like that. Because I find it wrong.

Anyway, I shall await references if you dont mind.

Peace.

I tell you with certainty there is no Hadith in shia or Sunnis collections stating that, 'khatam in nabiyiin' means the last of the prophets. If you know a hadith, please quote it.