• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

firedragon

Veteran Member
Unless someone is told directly by the Source there is no more prophets; I'd still find it arrogant of me to assume the Source of reality gave no one else prophetic vision...

Especially when Abrahamically the promised made to Aaron, that God will maintain prophets is still there until Judgement day according to prophecy.

Now we can see historically that Muhammad was informed of the changes to the Bible after it was canonized, where the Quran is a summary, and confirmation of what was previously prophesied.

In my opinion. :innocent:

Nabi or rasool?
 

Komori

Member
Are there any other Quranic verses that are relevant to this theme? How about Hadith or in the Sunnah?
Q. 33:40 is the only verse of its kind, but the sunna is more specific about this matter, and especially as it relates to the imamate. We find even in the Sunni collections the statement of the Prophet to ʿAlī: 'You are to me in the position that Aaron was to Moses, except that there is no prophet after me (lā nabiyya baʿdī)' (see al-Tirmiḍī, 1.46:3731). The same is recorded in Muslim (44.48) and is also found in Shīʿī sources (see Biḥār al-anwār, vol. 5, p. 69, vol. 44, p. 119, vol. 32, p. 487, vol. 37, p. 261, 267-268, 273).This tradition also appears in al-Bukhārī (64.438) where the wording is just slightly different. Instead , he says, 'laysa nabiyya baʿdī,' which means the same. Elsewhere in al-Tirmiḍī (33.62) he also says, 'I am the Seal of the Prophets; there is no prophet after me (ʾanā khātamu 'n-nabiyyīn lā nabiyya baʿdī).' Moreover, in al-Bukhārī (61.41), he also says, 'I am the last (ʾanā al-ʿaqibu),' which is interpreted as referring to his prophethood. There is one odd-ball tradition, however, narrated from ʿĀʾisha, which is not attributed to him but is merely an explanation by her of, presumably Q. 33:40 and these traditions. She says, 'Say that he is the seal of the prophets, but do not say that there is no prophet after him' (al-Suyūṭī, al-Durr al-manthūr, vol. 6, p. 618). Since it is from ʿĀʾisha. the Shīʿa naturally do not take this tradition as authentic. The Sunnis do, however, and their scholars have thought of multiple ways to reconcile this contradiction. Many of them say, for instance, that lā nabiyya baʿdī simply means that there would be no prophet after him who would abrogate the Islamic sharīʿa, which allows for the return of Jesus on the Day of Resurrection.

Notably, Ibn ʿArabī suggested that the phrase lā nabiyya baʿdī does not necessarily carry a literal connotation, citing a similar statement from the Prophet where he says, 'When this Caesar will die, then there will be no Caesar after him,' and interpreting the tradition according to this sense. He says, 'Prophethood has not been abolished altogether, but the prophethood of legislation (nubuwwa al-tashrīʿ) is abolished (...) Therefore, know that his saying, "there is no prophet after me," i.e., no legislator, is like (his saying), "When this Caesar will die, there shall be no Caesar after him (fa-lā Qayṣara baʿadahu)"' (al-Futūḥāt al-Makkiyya, vol. 2, p. 58).
What if anything is the Quranic basis for the rightly guided Imams of the Shi'a tradition?
The proof for imāma in the Qur'an is plentiful if one reads the passages closely. I will give one notable example. Both Sunni and Shīʿī traditions note that the station of ʿAlī is analogous to that of Aaron. If you recall, Aaron was the one who became leader of the Israelites after the departure of Moses before the golden calf incident. Moses literally says to Aaron, 'Take my place (ukhlufnī) among my people' (Q. 7:142). Aaron was the khalīfa (successor) of Moses, that is, his caliph. The same was ʿAlī to the Prophet.
 
Last edited:

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
Commentary on 33:40 in:

View attachment 33170


The (IK) tells us that the source for the sentence that alarmed you is:
  • (IK) ʿImād al-Dīn Abu’l-Fidāʾ Ismāʿīl ibn ʿUmar ibn Kathīr (d. 774/1373), Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-ʿaẓīm

That is excellent you take the time to study the Quran and having commentary on the verses provided by Islamic scholars will be a invaluable asset.

In regards the locality of this thread, I feel entirely comfortable with where it is and how its going. Six Muslims have responded and our oneness friend has studied the Quran too though there are other issues that account for his unusual theology.

Thanks again for your contribution.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
God could of chosen words that are clearer, true. Meaning, it's true "seal of Prophets" can mean the "end of their journey" and "All Prophets are the first and last points of each other" like Baha'allah said, and it's also true that it can mean "seal of Prophets" as in "stamp of verification of all Prophets" and would mean Mohammad verifies all Prophets.

So if it means the end of, why did he choose these words? As Baha'ais believe in Wilayah of 12 Imams after Mohammad, the question is raised, why didn't he state it their Wilayah in a way that language doesn't allow for disagreement. The truth, is context is key.

But the verse itself actually in context of other verses requires:

(1) Verification from Prophet and his family to what it really mean.
(2) See the context of other verses in Quran that supplement it and imply it, like Mohammad being sent all the worlds (humans and jinn, and all their nations).

Itself it's not clear enough as in the words itself could've been clearer it could have been said "There is no Prophet after Mohammad" but that's what is stated. It has possible meaning that it's the end of Prophethood, so we have to ask the family of the reminder when we don't know, and they verify this meaning.

Plus there is many verses in Quran that verify this plan of sealing Prophethood with Mohammad.
Thanks. My purpose in starting this thread is to better understanding Islamic theology, not to justify the Baha’i perspective. To be clear though, Baha’is see Bab and the Madhi and Bahá’u’lláh as the Return of Christ. That raises many more questions as to Islamic eschatology and what if any claims conform to Islamic expectations. Feel free to comment and elaborate further. I’m here to learn. I grew up Christian and became a Baha’i as an adult many years ago. I’m intimately familiar with Christianity that I grew up with but living in the West have had limited exposure to Islam.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
The proof for imāma in the Qur'an is plentiful if one reads the passages closely. I will give one notable example. Both Sunni and Shīʿī traditions note that the station of ʿAlī is analogous to that of Aaron. If you recall, Aaron was the one who became leader of the Israelites after the departure of Moses before the golden calf incident. Moses literally says to Aaron, 'Take my place (ukhlufnī) among my people' (Q. 7:142). Aaron was the khalīfa (successor) of Moses, that is, his caliph. The same was ʿAlī to the Prophet.

With all due respect to your faith, what you have done is take a hadith and mash it up with a Quran verse and made an extended Quran.

Anyway, even if one is to justify that Ali was to be the next Khalif, yet there is no mention in the Quran that he has any divine qualities and that his successors will have divine qualities etc. Again, this is your faith so its your right to have it.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
Well, conceptually, they are very very different people. Jesus the Christ was a Nabi and Rasool. Jesus was given a scripture. He is a completely different picture altogether. But thats according to the philosophy.
Yet both Jesus and Muhammad have produced a Revelation that has profoundly transformed the character of mankind. Their influence has endured 2,000 and 1,400 years respectively. The Gospels and Quran remain a Testimony to their Greatness. I don’t see them as so different.
 

Komori

Member
With all due respect to your faith, what you have done is take a hadith and mash it up with a Quran verse and made an extended Quran.
I have simply employed the words of the Prophet as commentary upon the Qur'an. Are you a Qur'an-only Muslim or something?
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
Typical Muslim argument
Nabi = Any messenger of God (No more means no more anything)
Rasool = Bringer of a book (Moses, Jesus, David, Muhammed)

Typical opposing argument
Rasool = Any messenger of God (Thus can be another in the future)
Nabi = Bringer of a book (Moses, Jesus, David, Muhammed. No more Nabi means there could be rasools)

Hope thats comprehensible. I am not making any judgment calls in this particular post, just answering the query.

Perhaps the most difficult aspect for one who hasn’t grown up with Islam is how one gets from Quran 33:40 to this conclusion. You’ve explained it the best you can, and most importantly its an explanation that makes sense for you. I appreciate it.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Yet both Jesus and Muhammad have produced a Revelation that has profoundly transformed the character of mankind. Their influence has endured 2,000 and 1,400 years respectively. The Gospels and Quran remain a Testimony to their Greatness. I don’t see them as so different.

Thats irrelevant brother. Also a completely different subject altogether.

Your question was about "the redeemer" and "the christ". The redeemer is the Mahdi, not Muhammed.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Perhaps the most difficult aspect for one who hasn’t grown up with Islam is how one gets from Quran 33:40 to this conclusion. You’ve explained it the best you can, and most importantly its an explanation that makes sense for you. I appreciate it.

If it doesn't make sense to you brother, what's your explanation?
 

wizanda

One Accepts All Religious Texts
Premium Member
Nabi or rasool?
It would not make any difference, unless we can show 100% the Source of our reality did not send someone for some reason, we have no right to declare we know more than the Source.

A Muslim by definition is a servant, not someone who assumes they're above their Lord.

In my opinion.
:innocent:
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
It would not make any difference, unless we can show 100% the Source of our reality did not send someone for some reason, we have no right to declare we know more than the Source.
:innocent:

It makes a world of difference. Nabi and Rasool being different is the core of arguments of both ends. Please explore it a bit further.

Peace.
 

wizanda

One Accepts All Religious Texts
Premium Member
Salam Aleykum,
The redeemer is the Mahdi, not Muhammed.
Muhammad was the Imam Mahdi as they have to point to the Dajjal, which by definition is the false texts in the Bible that are Anti-Christ's teachings.

There is no evil character turning up as mankind has since made up, the Anti-Christ is clearly defined in all texts (Zechariah 11:15-17, Sefer of Zerubabbel, Hadiths, etc) as a false representation of the Messiah, who only looks at a partial perspective of the texts.

Yeshua/Yehoshua in the Synoptic Gospels, James, Jude, Revelation, Tanakh Vs the false 'jesus' in John, Paul, and Simon the stone (petros) + Leviticus, Ecclesiastes, Laminations.

Like we can go into precise details of where, and why things are made up on religious forums, ending the Dajjal between us; yet it takes us all not dismissing information, and not choosing to only look at a partial perspective of the texts.
It makes a world of difference.
Allah sends two people, one claims prophecy, and one claims they have a message; we tell both to go away as we know better than Allah, in what ways does Allah punish us differently according to your understanding of the Quran?

In my opinion. :innocent:
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Salam Aleykum,

Muhammad was the Imam Mahdi as they have to point to the Dajjal, which by definition is the false texts in the Bible that are Anti-Christ's teachings.

There is no evil character turning up as mankind has since made up, the Anti-Christ is clearly defined in all texts (Zechariah 11:15-17, Sefer of Zerubabbel, Hadiths, etc) as a false representation of the Messiah, who only looks at a partial perspective of the texts.

Yeshua/Yehoshua in the Synoptic Gospels, James, Jude, Revelation, Tanakh Vs the false 'jesus' in John, Paul, and Simon the stone (petros) + Leviticus, Ecclesiastes, Laminations.

Like we can go into precise details of where, and why things are made up on religious forums, ending the Dajjal between us; yet it takes us all not dismissing information, and not choosing to only look at a partial perspective of the texts.

Allah sends two people, one claims prophecy, and one claims they have a message; we tell both to go away as we know better than Allah, in what ways does Allah punish us differently according to your understanding of the Quran?

In my opinion. :innocent:

This is not relevant brother to the topic so I respectfully withdraw. Cheers.
 

Wasp

Active Member
There is one odd-ball tradition, however, narrated from ʿĀʾisha, which is not attributed to him but is merely an explanation by her of, presumably Q. 33:40 and these traditions. She says, 'Say that he is the seal of the prophets, but do not say that there is no prophet after him' (al-Suyūṭī, al-Durr al-manthūr, vol. 6, p. 618). Since it is from ʿĀʾisha. the Shīʿa naturally do not take this tradition as authentic. The Sunnis do, however, and their scholars have thought of multiple ways to reconcile this contradiction.
That isn't an authentic hadith.
 

wizanda

One Accepts All Religious Texts
Premium Member
so I respectfully withdraw.
Walking away from being real in conversations, after being the one who is arguing a point, isn't being respectful...

There were questions to you, and you've done this a few times now of just saying I'm going to ignore our conversation. :confused:
This is not relevant brother to the topic
Actually it is crucial to the topic, as it is about if the Quran said Muhammad is the 'seal' or 'last' prophet...

If there is an Imam Mahdi still to come, by definition these have to be a prophet, as they need to understand prophetic texts, know Yeshua is coming after, etc.

If Muhammad is the Imam Mahdi it is possible to then say there are no more prophets, and only the Messiah comes next.

Thus understanding the Anti-Christ's teachings in the texts, what this means, and where it is specified, is crucial to understanding all contexts.

In my opinion. :innocent:
 
Top