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

[Link]

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.

This is ignoring how Quran and Sunnahا work together. Hadiths don't have to explicitly quote a verse to be a commentary on them.

For example, the following prayer of Imam Zainal Abideen: Sahife Sajjadiya - In Praise of God

Even though doesn't quote 33:40 alludes to it, by the term: فَخَتَمَ بِنَاعَلَى جَمِيع مَنْ ذَرَأَ


The way hadiths give insight to Quran, is almost never by directly quoting them, but alluding to them. A lot of times they quote, but majority don't comment on Quran that way.

 

[Link]

Similarly, the hadiths from the Prophet stating he is the last Prophet are all allusions to this verse.

 

[firedragon]

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?

Not really. If you say "all" didn't understand it the same way, well there is a possibility that a few disagreed or what ever. These are all vague statements.

Sunni's and Shia's both in their respective mainstream theological documents understood and still understand this phrase the same way. This is the official view of Islam.

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.

Brother. It seems like you dont understand what you mean by "Shia and Sunni ahadith".

Anyway, never mind that. Since you are talking about a sectarian issue you are looking for extra quranic, traditional, hadith based information. So here's a few for you to ponder.

1. This is What Yusuf Ali says in his translation. And before you ask I should tell you that He is not a Sunni, he is Shi, Bohri. Attached image. I am too lazy to type it.

2. Let me politely clear a misunderstanding you have. You speak of Shia and Sunni ahadith as if Shi's dont trust Sunni hadith because its sunni. Wrong. They trust certain narrators, like the prophets companions. They dont trust certain narrators. And they dont believe in naming these books Sahih because these people fallible humans so you cant put a blanket name like Sahih. But they trust the hadith. Do you understand? Be very clear about that. I know that throughout your conversation you seem to have this miscommunication.

Anyway. You wanted a hadith.

That one says specifically that the line of prophets is closed with Muhammed.

And brother, there are many other ahadith that speaks of end times, and that there will be a number of impostors calling themselves prophets, etc etc. All in all, the theme of these narrations is that Muhammed is the last prophet and all of it stems from this particular verse in the OP. All this tradition talk is because its you who require it. I am not stating a view. I am only giving the information you are asking.

We know what the author of the Quran meant because its just language. You need to understand the classical language in order to understand what the author meant (whoever you think wrote it). The most classical understanding of the language is that it means Muhammed is the last Nabi.

Peace.

 

[firedragon]

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.

Brother. When you say that your scripture speaks of Rasool and Nabi, yes its absolutely true. But you must be able to provide reference. I am asking this particularly because I am learning about the Bahai faith. So if you make a quotation, I need the reference. haha. I am not demanding brother, I may sound like it I dont know but I am requesting. And its only expedient if we can oblige a simple request for a reference. its your scripture after all.

Anyway, have a great day. Peace.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

This is ignoring how Quran and Sunnahا work together. Hadiths don't have to explicitly quote a verse to be a commentary on them.

For example, the following prayer of Imam Zainal Abideen: Sahife Sajjadiya - In Praise of God

Even though doesn't quote 33:40 alludes to it, by the term: فَخَتَمَ بِنَاعَلَى جَمِيع مَنْ ذَرَأَ


The way hadiths give insight to Quran, is almost never by directly quoting them, but alluding to them. A lot of times they quote, but majority don't comment on Quran that way.

I agree sometimes the hadith quote the verse of quran, and sometimes alludes to it. But even with allusions at least the verse partially or some terms in the verse are exactly quoted. So, we would need to see at least the term Khatam in nabiiyin in the Hadith, even if entire verse is not quoted, to consider it an allusion to that verse.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Similarly, the hadiths from the Prophet stating he is the last Prophet are all allusions to this verse.

How do we know the hadithes stating He is the last prophet is an allusion to this verse? The hadith which states prophet is last one, what term or arabic word does it use, which means 'last'?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Anyway. You wanted a hadith.
View attachment 33310

That one says specifically that the line of prophets is closed with Muhammed.

.

yes, the Hadith states that the prophets are sealed with me. But the issue is, in arabic, although the two words appear to be made from same root, they could have different meanings. Of course, one, is to say, khotema means, 'closed'. But khatam is a different word, and we know, in many hadithes it means seal, or even a ring, or ornament of ring.

 

[firedragon]

How do we know the hadithes stating He is the last prophet is an allusion to this verse? The hadith which states prophet is last one, what term or arabic word does it use, which means 'last'?

Khatham.

 

[firedragon]

yes, the Hadith states that the prophets are sealed with me. But the issue is, in arabic, although the two words appear to be made from same root, they could have different meanings. Of course, one, is to say, khotema means, 'closed'. But khatam is a different word, and we know, in many hadithes it means seal, or even a ring, or ornament of ring.

Hmm.

Can you tell me what Khaathamun mean? With an Alif. خاتم???

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Not really. If you say "all" didn't understand it the same way, well there is a possibility that a few disagreed or what ever. These are all vague statements.

Sunni's and Shia's both in their respective mainstream theological documents understood and still understand this phrase the same way. This is the official view of Islam.



Brother. It seems like you dont understand what you mean by "Shia and Sunni ahadith".

Anyway, never mind that. Since you are talking about a sectarian issue you are looking for extra quranic, traditional, hadith based information. So here's a few for you to ponder.

1. This is What Yusuf Ali says in his translation. And before you ask I should tell you that He is not a Sunni, he is Shi, Bohri. Attached image. I am too lazy to type it.

View attachment 33308

2. Let me politely clear a misunderstanding you have. You speak of Shia and Sunni ahadith as if Shi's dont trust Sunni hadith because its sunni. Wrong. They trust certain narrators, like the prophets companions. They dont trust certain narrators. And they dont believe in naming these books Sahih because these people fallible humans so you cant put a blanket name like Sahih. But they trust the hadith. Do you understand? Be very clear about that. I know that throughout your conversation you seem to have this miscommunication.

Anyway. You wanted a hadith.
View attachment 33310

That one says specifically that the line of prophets is closed with Muhammed.

And brother, there are many other ahadith that speaks of end times, and that there will be a number of impostors calling themselves prophets, etc etc. All in all, the theme of these narrations is that Muhammed is the last prophet and all of it stems from this particular verse in the OP. All this tradition talk is because its you who require it. I am not stating a view. I am only giving the information you are asking.

We know what the author of the Quran meant because its just language. You need to understand the classical language in order to understand what the author meant (whoever you think wrote it). The most classical understanding of the language is that it means Muhammed is the last Nabi.

Peace.

I see another way of looking at this which has not yet been considered.

Baha'u'llah has given us a new thoughts as to how we are to look at Allah. I see It is a balance between what Christianity and Islam have made of Gods Messengers.

We can now see that a Messenger is a Manifestation of God. The Spirit they are born with is all we can ever know of God.

As such they are to us, all we can know of Allah and this is now the 'Day of God'. We now know that we have no other way of knowing Allah. All praise of Allah reverts to God's Messengers. Baha'u'llah has explained this in detail.

Thus Muhammad was the Seal of all the Messengers and those Messages, telling of this day when this knowledge becomes the foundation of a peaceful humanity. This is a new Day, a new era where we know that when a Messenger walks amongst us, it is Allah's chosen vehicle to impart Allah's Will.

Imagine. All Messengers of all Faiths are all we can know of God, we do not need to use them to divide us, we need to unite and learn from each other so they can guide us to find what is from Allah and what it is, that is from our own selves.

Regards Tony

 

[firedragon]

yes, the Hadith states that the prophets are sealed with me. But the issue is, in arabic, although the two words appear to be made from same root, they could have different meanings. Of course, one, is to say, khotema means, 'closed'. But khatam is a different word, and we know, in many hadithes it means seal, or even a ring, or ornament of ring.

Can u tell me what "Khathami rabbiha" means? I will attach the image but please mind me, its written on laptop track pad so excuse the handwriting.

A well known phrase.

What does this mean?

 

[Link]

How do we know the hadithes stating He is the last prophet is an allusion to this verse? The hadith which states prophet is last one, what term or arabic word does it use, which means 'last'?

Because of the nature of guidance. Hadiths are unreliable way to know things, so they are always to be seen as complimenting to Quran. And Quran itself is unreliable without Sunnah verifying the true meaning. Together, when taken together, Quran and Ahlulbayt, they become a guidance.

You said Mahdi is in hadiths but not in Quran. According to both Quran and ahadiths of Ahlulbayt, everything in the sunnah can be verified in the Quran.

 

[Link]

I agree sometimes the hadith quote the verse of quran, and sometimes alludes to it. But even with allusions at least the verse partially or some terms in the verse are exactly quoted. So, we would need to see at least the term Khatam in nabiiyin in the Hadith, even if entire verse is not quoted, to consider it an allusion to that verse.

The Du'a I quoted uses that term, and so does the hadith in Muslim and Bukhari about the building of Nubuwa being put to an end.

 

[Dawnofhope]

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?

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.

You seen preoccupied with the use of Rasool and Nabi in Baha'i scripture, yet whenever I ask you to reference a verse in English, you don't.

You are completely wrong to suggest I haven't analysed the two most important works of Baha'u'llah. Regardless, this thread is about the khatim an-nabiyyin, applied to Muhammad in verse 33:40 of the Quran. That is what I wish to discuss.

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.

Here are a few English translations:

Sahih International: Muhammad 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.

Pickthall: Muhammad is not the father of any man among you, but he is the messenger of Allah and the Seal of the Prophets; and Allah is ever Aware of all things.

Yusuf Ali: 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.

Shakir: Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but he is the Messenger of Allah and the Last of the prophets; and Allah is cognizant of all things.

Muhammad Sarwar: Muhammad is not the father of any of your males. He is the Messenger of God and the last Prophet. God has the knowledge of all things.

Mohsin Khan: Muhammad (SAW) is not the father of any man among you, but he is the Messenger of Allah and the last (end) of the Prophets. And Allah is Ever AllAware of everything.

Arberry: Muhammad is not the father of any one of your men, but the Messenger of God, and the Seal of the Prophets; God has knowledge of everything.

The Quranic Arabic Corpus - Translation

Of course there is not a single English translation that says Muhammad is the final Prophet for all time. In plain English 'Seal of the Prophets' does not mean Muhammad is the final Prophet for all time. Nor does John 1:1 mean Jesus is God incarnate, nor John 14:6 mean that if you don't believe in Jesus only then you can't go to God. However, that is the nature of religious texts. These verses acquire a meaning that becomes an official Christian/Muslim position. Those who identify with Islam and Christianity become obligated to follow that position no matter how preposterous it appears to outsiders. Those outsiders are in turn labelled 'unbelievers' or worse because they have a different perspective from independent analysis. So while we can agree on the facts of what is written in the Holy Quran and that it is Holy and from God, you have your belief and I have mine.

This thread has enabled me to better understand why so many Muslims believe Muhammad is the final Prophet for all time. Its also assisted me to arrive at an alternative perspective that makes sense.

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.

You have completely misunderstood me again. I am eternally grateful for your highlighting the use of Rasool and Nabi in regards the Quran and specifically verse 33:40.

The reference to these Arabic words is highly relevant and their juxtaposition crucial not just to each other but to the phrase "I am not the father of mankind". One analysis could be in regards to Muhammad being sonless and how his marriage to Zaynab is perceived. I believe the phrase is an allusion to the Prophet Adam who was the Father of all mankind. So when Muhammad speaks of being the seal of the Prophets, He speaks of being the last of the lineage of Prophets (Nabi) from Adam to Himself. That makes sense historically because there have been no more Prophets of that lineage. However He does not claim to be the seal of the Messengers or Rasools.

Further, I'm now reasonably certain the best English translation for a Rasool in the Baha'i Writings isn't Messenger of God but Manifestation of God. Baha'is recognise both the Bab and Baha'u'llah as being the only two Manifestations of God (or Rasool) after Muhammad. Many Muslims would consider the Baha'i Faith an apostate religion due to our belief in the Bab and Baha'u'llah, whereas many Baha'is would consider the official Muslim position of verse 33:40 misguided.

Hope that makes better sense.

 

[firedragon]

You seen preoccupied with the use of Rasool and Nabi in Baha'i scripture, yet whenever I ask you to reference a verse in English, you don't.

Because I dont know the reference in English, the two volumes are different, and that should be as Ann adherent of a faith you proclaim, your mission to understand. What a strange statement to make.

You are completely wrong to suggest I haven't analysed the two most important works of Baha'u'llah. Regardless, this thread is about the khatim an-nabiyyin, applied to Muhammad in verse 33:40 of the Quran. That is what I wish to discuss.

I didnt say you have not analysed, again let me say this clearly. "You should analyse and understand what your own scripture means by using both rasool and nabi in it". I was speaking specifically with regards to your topic.

Of course there is not a single English translation that says Muhammad is the final Prophet for all time

Of course not. Because it says Khatham, so the translation is direct, not exegesis. But it means last. Only if you try to understand the language.

This thread has enabled me to better understand why so many Muslims believe Muhammad is the final Prophet for all time. Its also assisted me to arrive at an alternative perspective that makes sense.

Another person can turn around and say "this thread has enabled me to better understand why so many Bahai's believe Muhammed is NOT the final prophet of all time". Rhetoric. And again a general statement about Muslims which you keep repeating generalising to all Muslims which is the genetic fallacy and shows your personal aversion to Muslims in general. Don't keep doing that brother. That type of thing I thought was below your standard. Actually that kind of statement is below most Bahai's I encountered in this forum. And its irrelevant.

No matter how many examples are given to you you will not accept it because you are still not thinking from the arabic words rasool and nabi point of view. You are still thinking from the English word prophet's point of view.

Further, I'm now reasonably certain the best English translation for a Rasool in the Baha'i Writings isn't Messenger of God but Manifestation of God.

Thats not a translation, thats an eisegesis. Thats a belief. Its not Quranic nor is that Classical Arabic.

rasool means a messenger. One with a message. An utterer. More like an easy utterer. When someone says Muraasalun it means he sent a message. rasoolullah means he is a messenger of God. Even Gabriel is a rasool when he is sent to give a message to Mary. And you have not understood the basic and most prominent teaching in the Quran. La ilaaha illa huwa. There is no deity but him. ilah means making something divine. Quran says "nothing is divine".

Even Jesus is not divine. If Jesus was rasoolullah, and you say he is the manifestation of God, then he is a divine being. But Quran says nothing is divine. ***

5:17 Rejecters indeed are those who have said: “God is the Messiah, son of Mary.” Say: “Who has any power against God if He had wanted to destroy the Messiah, son of Mary, and his mother, and all who are on the earth!” And to God is the sovereignty of the heavens and the earth and all that is in-between; He creates what He pleases. God is capable of all things.

Do you see? the Quran says that some people said the messiah is God.

Rasool does not mean a manifestation of God like you inject into it. Its absolutely wrong translation. Its your belief. A belief cannot be transformed into a translation. I don't even know what to call that. A rasool is described as a servant. No manifestation of God or anything like that.

Cheers.

 

[Dawnofhope]

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.

We come to learn about Prophets through the accounts of their lives and what they taught, simple as that.

Here's the 56.

Prophets in Judaism - Wikipedia

I agree we can categorise Prophets differently. Any meaningful discussion begins and ends with Moses and the Torah. For example, who station is the most exalted, Moses, Aaron or Obadiah? Which books are more important, the Torah, Malachi or Daniel? Another way of looking at it is who are the Nabi and Rasool? Who produced a Divine Revelation whose Teachings the other prophets followed?

The way to approach this huge topic (which is off topic anyhow) is to start with points of agreement, not difference. Perhaps another thread titled "Is the Torah corrupted and obsolete?"

 

[firedragon]

We come to learn about Prophets through the accounts of their lives and what they taught, simple as that.

Here's the 56.

Prophets in Judaism - Wikipedia

To that, I should cut and paste the same response I gave which you seem to have not read or not understood.

there is more than 56. 100s. You have not answered any of the comments I have made.

I agree we can categorise Prophets differently. Any meaningful discussion begins and ends with Moses and the Torah. For example, who station is the most exalted, Moses, Aaron or Obadiah? Which books are more important, the Torah, Malachi or Daniel? Another way of looking at it is who are the Nabi and Rasool? Who produced a Divine Revelation whose Teachings the other prophets followed?

Thats fine. Just leave it. This is irrelevant to the topic, but it was you who brought it because you brought the prophets in the Bible up. But you have not understood the difference. Maybe you should read my response again and tell me who were those prophets I mentioned in them and how many they were. I am not talking about categorisations, I am just talking about simple prophets mentioned in the Bible. Its a different thing inn the Bible. But of course you have not responded to my full post because maybe you dont wish to understand it.

The way to approach this huge topic (which is off topic anyhow) is to start with points of agreement, not difference. Perhaps another thread titled "Is the Torah corrupted and obsolete?"

Thats a completely different topic, irrelevant to the OP, irrelevant to my comment. But if you wish, please do open any thread called anything. Its all good.

Bottomline - There were hundreds of prophets in the OT, and the representation of the word prophet in that is not the same as the Quran. So you cant mashup all the books together and speak generally. Its too vague, and incorrect. I have already explained that.

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.

 

[wizanda]

And again a general statement about Muslims which you keep repeating generalising to all Muslims which is the genetic fallacy and shows your personal aversion to Muslims in general.

This isn't a Genetic argument, Muslims are not a race, they are a modern religious belief system... Referring to a group of people having set beliefs based on the data is a logical argument.

Someone saying 'Muslims' believe X, Y, Z based on the Quran & Hadiths is not a Genetic fallacy... This is similar to 'Jews' who say we're anti-Semitic for questioning their understanding of the Bible.

So you cant mashup all the books together and speak generally.

4:150-151 Indeed, those who disbelieve in Allah and His messengers and wish to discriminate between Allah and His messengers and say, "We believe in some and disbelieve in others," and wish to adopt a way in between - Those are the disbelievers, truly. And We have prepared for the disbelievers a humiliating punishment.

you are still not thinking from the arabic words rasool and nabi point of view.

The contexts is established from a line from Abraham, applying a later scholarly understanding to a religious texts, overwriting original meanings is part of what the Quran warns not to do (9:31, 2:170, 5:104).

The meaning of a messenger applies over all religious prophetic line contexts, not just one book, and to assume it is some groups exclusive right to declare meanings because of their knowledge of the language, and their historical contexts, is exactly why God sends prophets from other nations, and languages; as people get so racist, bigoted, and transfixed on their own knowledge, rather than the original meaning of the message from God.

In my opinion.

 

[firedragon]

This isn't a Genetic argument, Muslims are not a race, they are a modern religious belief system... Referring to a group of people having set beliefs based on the data is a logical argument.

Someone saying 'Muslims' believe X, Y, Z based on the Quran & Hadiths is not a Genetic fallacy... This is similar to 'Jews' who say we're anti-Semitic for questioning their understanding of the Bible.

4:150-151 Indeed, those who disbelieve in Allah and His messengers and wish to discriminate between Allah and His messengers and say, "We believe in some and disbelieve in others," and wish to adopt a way in between - Those are the disbelievers, truly. And We have prepared for the disbelievers a humiliating punishment.

The contexts is established from a line from Abraham, applying a later scholarly understanding to a religious texts, overwriting original meanings is part of what the Quran warns not to do (9:31, 2:170, 5:104).

The meaning of a messenger applies over all religious prophetic line contexts, not just one book, and to assume it is some groups exclusive right to declare meanings because of their knowledge of the language, and their historical contexts, is exactly why God sends prophets from other nations, and languages; as people get so racist, bigoted, and transfixed on their own knowledge, rather than the original meaning of the message from God.

In my opinion.

Irrelevant. the topic is about the Quran.

 

[firedragon]

This isn't a Genetic argument

When you are discussing with an individual, discuss based on the merits of his words and his arguments. Because the individual is a Muslim one person making an assumption that what he says is coming because he is a Muslim is genetic fallacy.

If I do that to you or anyone and tell him about what Bahai's problem is is not relevant because he or you are individuals.

So please understand what someone says. Genetic fallacy is not only about his genes and his race.

Cheers.