Where does the Quran say Muhammad is the last Messenger of God?

[MyM]

In fact the word Khatam does not literally mean end or last in Arabic. That is a fact.
The word Khatim, means Last, but Khatam is different from Khatim.

Specifically Persians have this incorrect generalization that, the words in Arabic always have a meaning related to the root of the main word.

For example, consider the word علم.
It means knowledge, and the verb means to know.
Now when you make words with this verb, it has a similar meaning.
For example معلم، عالِم، علامه، تعليم

All these words are made from the same root, علم. Their meaning is similar.
For example عالِم means scholar, or scientist.
Now, consider the word عالَم.
Although it appears to be from the same root, in fact it is not. Alam, means World!. It has nothing with knowledge.

The word ختم is just like that.
When it is خاتِم، it means the ender, the one who closes or ends. But when it is خاتَم is just another word. It has nothing to with ختم.

In fact in today's Arabic Khatam means a wedding ring. In Hadithes you can see, for example it is said:
.
2- عَلِيُّ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ عَنْ أَبِيهِ عَنِ ابْنِ أَبِي عُمَيْرٍ عَنْ جَمِيلِ بْنِ دَرَّاجٍ عَنْ يُونُسَ بْنِ ظَبْيَانَ وَ حَفْصِ بْنِ غِيَاثٍ عَنْ أَبِي عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ع قَالا قُلْنَا جُعِلْنَا فِدَاكَ أَ يُكْرَهُ أَنْ يَكْتُبَ الرَّجُلُ فِي خَاتَمِهِ غَيْرَ اسْمِهِ وَ اسْمِ أَبِيهِ فَقَالَ فِي خَاتَمِي مَكْتُوبٌ- اللَّهُ خالِقُ كُلِّ شَيْ‌ءٍ وَ فِي خَاتَمِ أَبِي مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عَلِيٍّ ع وَ كَانَ خَيْرَ مُحَمَّدِيٍّ رَأَيْتُهُ بِعَيْنِي الْعِزَّةُ لِلَّهِ وَ فِي خَاتَمِ عَلِيِّ بْنِ الْحُسَيْنِ ع- الْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ الْعَلِيِّ الْعَظِيمِ وَ فِي خَاتَمِ الْحَسَنِ وَ الْحُسَيْنِ ع‌ حَسْبِيَ اللَّهُ* وَ فِي خَاتَمِ أَمِيرِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ ع اللَّهُ الْمَلِكُ.

الكافي- ط الاسلامية - الشيخ الكليني - کتابخانه مدرسه فقاهت

In these examples obviously the word Khatam has nothing to do with Finality.

If we follow the logic in this Hadith, it says, for example, in Khatam of Hassan and Hussein it is written حَسْبِيَ اللَّهُ.

Likewise if we interpret the Term Seal of Prophets, or Khatam of Nabyeen, it is completely symbolic. It means that if all Prophets had a Ring, then on their Ring it is written "Muhammad", thus Muhammad is Khatam of Prophets. As this Hadith says:

الحسن بن أبي العقب [1] الصيرفي ، عن الحسين بن خالد ، عن أبي الحسن الرضا 7 ـ في حديث ـ قال : كان نقش خاتم آدم : لا إله إلا الله ، محمد رسول الله ـ

تفصيل وسائل الشيعة إلى تحصيل مسائل الشّريعة - الشيخ حرّ العاملي - کتابخانه مدرسه فقاهت


On the Ring of Adam it is written there is no God except Allah and Muhammad is Messenger of Allah

Now, I am not saying that Muhammad did not say, 'there is no Prophet after Me'. I believe He did. But the term Khatam does not mean that.

One possible interpretation is, since Muhammad is the One who gave permission to all Prophets (symbolically speaking), thus the best Prophet, or the Master of Prophets has come, thus, there is no Prophet after Him. So, designation of Khatam, just shows the station of Muhammad, and that He is the best of the Prophets.

Thus, the word Khatam literally does not mean last. In fact when this word was used in Persian, it was an Art:

Khatam - Wikipedia

This is about making beautiful shapes (نقش)، as even the original word means a shape or writing on a ring, or ornamentation.

As regards to verse 33:40, I don't believe the context has to do with Finality of revelation.
Looking at afew verses before and after, the subject is not about Finality.

The verse itself is just about the station of Muhammad, saying He is the Seal of Prophets, He is a Messenger of God, and He has no Son among people.

However this belief that until Day of Resurrection there is no Prophet or Messenger is completely compatible with the Quran. This is why I believe the Hadithes that says No Prophet after Muhammad is compatible with the Quran.

Ali, is not a Nabi, but He has a greater station than Prophets of Bani Israel. I am not saying He has a greater station than Jesus or Mose. But those Prophets such as Soleyman who did not have new Sharia. This is compatible with the Quran, as there is no verse saying that before the Day of Resurrection, one should expect a Prophet or Nabi.

Listen to what Allah says in the Quran ...it's simple Suratal Ah Zab

مَّا كَانَ مُحَمَّدٌ أَبَآ أَحَدٍۢ مِّن رِّجَالِكُمْ وَلَـٰكِن رَّسُولَ ٱللَّهِ وَخَاتَمَ ٱلنَّبِيِّـۧنَ ۗ وَكَانَ ٱللَّهُ بِكُلِّ شَىْءٍ عَلِيمًۭا
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.


also

وَمَا كَانَ لِمُؤْمِنٍۢ وَلَا مُؤْمِنَةٍ إِذَا قَضَى ٱللَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُۥٓ أَمْرًا أَن يَكُونَ لَهُمُ ٱلْخِيَرَةُ مِنْ أَمْرِهِمْ ۗ وَمَن يَعْصِ ٱللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُۥ فَقَدْ ضَلَّ ضَلَـٰلًۭا مُّبِينًۭا
It is not for a believing man or a believing woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decided a matter, that they should [thereafter] have any choice about their affair. And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger has certainly strayed into clear error.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Listen to what Allah says in the Quran ...it's simple Suratal Ah Zab

مَّا كَانَ مُحَمَّدٌ أَبَآ أَحَدٍۢ مِّن رِّجَالِكُمْ وَلَـٰكِن رَّسُولَ ٱللَّهِ وَخَاتَمَ ٱلنَّبِيِّـۧنَ ۗ وَكَانَ ٱللَّهُ بِكُلِّ شَىْءٍ عَلِيمًۭا
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.


also

وَمَا كَانَ لِمُؤْمِنٍۢ وَلَا مُؤْمِنَةٍ إِذَا قَضَى ٱللَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُۥٓ أَمْرًا أَن يَكُونَ لَهُمُ ٱلْخِيَرَةُ مِنْ أَمْرِهِمْ ۗ وَمَن يَعْصِ ٱللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُۥ فَقَدْ ضَلَّ ضَلَـٰلًۭا مُّبِينًۭا
It is not for a believing man or a believing woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decided a matter, that they should [thereafter] have any choice about their affair. And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger has certainly strayed into clear error.

The issue we are discussing is, Translating "Khatam", as "last", is not literally correct.
Khatam meant a Ring with something written on it. It was also used to stamp a document. If you think Stamp of Prophets or Ring of Prophets means Last Prophet, fine.

Translating it as "Seal of Prophets" is OK, but it is confusing for the English leaders, because "seal" in English has multiple meaning. One of them is stamp, and that is the right meaning.
If you look at most translations it is "Seal of prophets", not last of Prophets.

 

[Link]

The issue we are discussing is, Translating "Khatam", as "last", is not literally correct.
Khatam meant a Ring with something written on it. It was also used to stamp a document. If you think Stamp of Prophets or Ring of Prophets means Last Prophet, fine.

Translating it as "Seal of Prophets" is OK, but it is confusing for the English leaders, because "seal" in English has multiple meaning. One of them is stamp, and that is the right meaning.
If you look at most translations it is "Seal of prophets", not last of Prophets.

Seal as in last, end of, stop of, is the meaningful interpretation while "ring" or "stamp" would be deceiving the people. Arabic words are always contextually defined. Mohammad (s) is not a ring or a stamp and the metaphorical meaning of that is no where stated by any hadiths. Rather, we see that he says "there is no Nabi after me". The one you quoted that Mohammad (s) is a stamp and seal of approval, obviously contradicts Quran, since it's God who chooses the Prophets (a) not Mohammad (s). This is belief of Muwafida.

I've stated before, some people believed Ali (a) was a Nabi and Imams (a) were Anbiya. How can we prove them wrong through Quran?

Remember hadiths have to be verified by Quran, so how do you know the successors of Mohammad (s) were not Anbiya by Quran?

To me verse 33:40 is the way to know this.

Aside from that, it has verification that Mohammad (s) is a Messenger to all of humanity all together. This would not make sense if he is replaced. And the Quran is meant to warn all of humanity per some verses.

Therefore the Seal as in end of, finality of, is the meaning.

Do you know that Mawla can mean friend in certain contexts? So how do you now Ali (a) is Master and leader of believers by Ghadir declaration? It's through being sincere to the context and flow of language and situation.

By your standards, words of Nabi (a) pertaining to Ali (a) would be mutashibih on Ghadir as well.

The first thing you have to know, there is a way to know clear meaning and signs of Quran all the time. If it's unclear, there is way to make it clear.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Seal as in last, end of, stop of, is the meaningful interpretation while "ring" or "stamp" would be deceiving the people. Arabic words are always contextually defined. Mohammad (s) is not a ring or a stamp and the metaphorical meaning of that is no where stated by any hadiths. Rather, we see that he says "there is no Nabi after me". The one you quoted that Mohammad (s) is a stamp and seal of approval, obviously contradicts Quran, since it's God who chooses the Prophets (a) not Mohammad (s). This is belief of Muwafida.

I've stated before, some people believed Ali (a) was a Nabi and Imams (a) were Anbiya. How can we prove them wrong through Quran?

Remember hadiths have to be verified by Quran, so how do you know the successors of Mohammad (s) were not Anbiya by Quran?

To me verse 33:40 is the way to know this.

Aside from that, it has verification that Mohammad (s) is a Messenger to all of humanity all together. This would not make sense if he is replaced. And the Quran is meant to warn all of humanity per some verses.

Therefore the Seal as in end of, finality of, is the meaning.

Do you know that Mawla can mean friend in certain contexts? So how do you now Ali (a) is Master and leader of believers by Ghadir declaration? It's through being sincere to the context and flow of language and situation.

By your standards, words of Nabi (a) pertaining to Ali (a) would be mutashibih on Ghadir as well.

The first thing you have to know, there is a way to know clear meaning and signs of Quran all the time. If it's unclear, there is way to make it clear.

I understand.
Jews and Christians didn't also like the idea that after their religion Allah reveals another Book. God does whatever He wants.

 

[Link]

I understand.
Jews and Christians didn't also like the idea that after their religion Allah reveals another Book. God does whatever He wants.

Allah (swt) wants people to give religions there chances. That I agree with you. The books of Christians and Jews are heavily corrupted for one, and still even if they are not, God revealed the Quran towering above all writing. It towers above Bahai scripture too. Bahai scripture doesn't compare.

So at the end, we want people to be fair to scriptures. I agree. But you don't accept Maiterya either. Maybe it's because you too don't want to accept the current guidance just like you accuse others?

 

[MyM]

The issue we are discussing is, Translating "Khatam", as "last", is not literally correct.
Khatam meant a Ring with something written on it. It was also used to stamp a document. If you think Stamp of Prophets or Ring of Prophets means Last Prophet, fine.

Translating it as "Seal of Prophets" is OK, but it is confusing for the English leaders, because "seal" in English has multiple meaning. One of them is stamp, and that is the right meaning.
If you look at most translations it is "Seal of prophets", not last of Prophets.

Khatam here doesn't mean ring...It means SEAL..and seal always comes after finishing your letter or make it clear and there is nothing to be written after that... It's the power of Arabic using a word with two meanings. One meaning is "last" and one meaning "nothing to be written after it". There is NO PROOF that khatam means a ring that has something written on it. Bring your evidence.

 

[Link]

Khatam here doesn't mean ring...It means SEAL..and seal always comes after finishing your letter or make it clear and there is nothing to be written after that... It's the power of Arabic using a word with two meanings. One meaning is "last" and one meaning "nothing to be written after it". There is NO PROOF that khatam means a ring that has something written on it. Bring your evidence.

Khatam can mean ring, but it's an absurd metaphor that lacks sense in this place, and the primary meaning in this context has to be "final end" of the Prophets (s).

 

[Triumph]

The problem is that no one has given importance to my question - which was "What evidence do Quran and Kitab-e-Aqdas have that we should believe any of them?" Or for that matter even Torah or Bible?

The Bible describes in detail the last war on this planet. A seraphim is a fighter jet like a F-35 that flies with twain, Distributed Aperture System, placed in 2's in the exact positions described in the Bible. It is a burner, as the missiles launched start fires and it is a reaper destroying human lives. As a messenger, called angel, it has the message follow the laws of my nation or die.
The seraphim is a combination of a human and a machine so it can not reproduce itself so does not marry nor does the pilot switch sides in battle joining with the enemy as in marriage to support them. They come in clouds, the vapor cone on the wings when breaking the sound barrier in the glory of war sounding like thunder in a battle attack.
The seraphim as Isaiah describes them have faces, feet, hands, and voices (Isaiah 6:2-7). The pilot communicates with DAS.
Holy is called out 3 times, To be “holy” means to be set apart and seen as sacred. So this represents 3 set apart religions each professing to be God's chosen people, Jews, Muslims and Christians. Isaiah goes on to describe the effect of the seraphim’s proclamation, telling us that at the sound of the angel’s voices asserting God’s magnificence, “the doorposts and thresholds shook, and the temple was filled with smoke” Cities begin to be destroyed by airforces.

 

[MyM]

The Bible describes in detail the last war on this planet. A seraphim is a fighter jet like a F-35 that flies with twain, Distributed Aperture System, placed in 2's in the exact positions described in the Bible. It is a burner, as the missiles launched start fires and it is a reaper destroying human lives. As a messenger, called angel, it has the message follow the laws of my nation or die.
The seraphim is a combination of a human and a machine so it can not reproduce itself so does not marry nor does the pilot switch sides in battle joining with the enemy as in marriage to support them. They come in clouds, the vapor cone on the wings when breaking the sound barrier in the glory of war sounding like thunder in a battle attack.
The seraphim as Isaiah describes them have faces, feet, hands, and voices (Isaiah 6:2-7). The pilot communicates with DAS.
Holy is called out 3 times, To be “holy” means to be set apart and seen as sacred. So this represents 3 set apart religions each professing to be God's chosen people, Jews, Muslims and Christians. Isaiah goes on to describe the effect of the seraphim’s proclamation, telling us that at the sound of the angel’s voices asserting God’s magnificence, “the doorposts and thresholds shook, and the temple was filled with smoke” Cities begin to be destroyed by airforces.

The proof is the book and the message itself. If you can look in books and find a fault with them(not talking belief -then again trinity extremely debatable), surely the message is incomplete and faulty. With the Quran, Allah gives you a challenge to come up with a book like it, but he warns you that you will not be able to and you will fail and there will be consequences. He says He is the protector and no one since has come up with a book like unto it. Evidences are there, you just need to look and make your own mind up

 

[Triumph]

The proof is the book and the message itself. If you can look in books and find a fault with them(not talking belief -then again trinity extremely debatable), surely the message is incomplete and faulty. With the Quran, Allah gives you a challenge to come up with a book like it, but he warns you that you will not be able to and you will fail and there will be consequences. He says He is the protector and no one since has come up with a book like unto it. Evidences are there, you just need to look and make your own mind up

If people believe a real serpent spoke with a real woman named Eve, then they have eaten the forbidden by God "fruit" which is believing a lie is the truth.

 

[MyM]

If people believe a real serpent spoke with a real woman named Eve, then they have eaten the forbidden by God "fruit" which is believing a lie is the truth.

Well, first of all, when in Heaven or outside Heaven, anything is possible. Allah creates how he wills. We do not judge that.
Secondly, in Islam, we do not go into extreme details for that isn't what is so important-if it was Allah's will to inform He would have. If Allah says what happened, we accept it.

Basically, Adam and Eve(Hawaa) disobeyed Allah, repented, and Allah forgave them. In Islam, it wasn't just Eve that ate...it's BOTH that were tempted and BOTH were punished and BOTH that were forgiven.

Allah swt says in the Quran

“Then Shaytaan (Satan) whispered to him, saying : ‘O Adam! Shall I lead you to the Tree of Eternity and to a kingdom that will never waste away?’”
Ta-Ha 20:120

“Then Shaytaan (Satan) whispered suggestions to them both in order to uncover that which was hidden from them of their private parts (before); he said: ‘Your Lord did not forbid you this tree save you should become angels or become of the immortals.’
And he (Shaytaan (Satan)) swore by Allah to them both (saying): ‘Verily, I am one of the sincere well-wishers for you both’”
al-A‘raaf 7:20-21


“Surely, Shaytaan (Satan) is to man a plain enemy” al-Isra’ 17:53

 

[KWED]

That’s the question. Muslims should know this with their eyes closed.

The problem with that claim is that it means that Allah can't change his mind, which raises some difficult issues.
If god cannot change his mind, he is necessarily constrained by something, so he cannot be god.
If he can change his mind, then he can send another messenger whenever he wants (he might have already done it), so any claim that Muhammad must be the last messenger is false.

 

[KWED]

There are many things in it that in no way could have been known over 1400 years ago and it isn't even a science book.

There is nothing in the Quran that is beyond the capability of 7th century thought and knowledge.
However, if you believe there is please present your best example and we can examine it. (I predict that you will ignore my challenge as deep down you know your claim is false).

 

[YOM]

Where does it say He is the last of the Messengers? That’s what the priests and scholars say but 33:40 nowhere says that Muhammad is the last Messenger. Read it very carefully.

Every messenger is necesseraly à prophet
But prophet is not necessarly messenger
So last Prophet is more general. That means also there are no other messenger

 

[Link]

Every messenger is necesseraly à prophet
But prophet is not necessarly messenger
So last Prophet is more general. That means also there are no other messenger

Can you prove this?

The way I understand:

Nabi is about receiving tidings or news from God. It's about scripture from God and channeling it the people.
Rasool is about conveying message of God but it's paraphrased in his own words.

Musa (a) and Haroun (a) were both Messengers before receiving the Torah.

Usually every Nabi is a Rasool, because they need to explain the messages of God to the people.
Usually every Rasool is a Nabi, because scripture from God reinforces their designation and guides the community in it's own way.

However, the exception of when a Nabi is not a Rasool is when the message is founded so strongly in the community and communities around them and they are particularly send to reveal a particularly news from God that is not about the foundation. The one example I believe in the Quran that is probably the case is Dul-Kifl who is hinted to have revealed Gog and Magog realities. This was news from God to believers after they lost their strength due to the plans of Gog and Magog in misguiding them. It was not about the central foundations of the religion. But I can be wrong.

The exception of a Rasool who is not a Nabi, is when there is less need or it's better scripture is not revealed that a community is expected to safeguarded. An example of this can be the Messengers in Surah Yaseen since there was only one believer to believe in them, he can't be expected to be the one guy that safeguards the scripture from them so maybe God would not reveal scripture to him.

 

[YOM]

Can you prove this?

The way I understand:

Nabi is about receiving tidings or news from God. It's about scripture from God and channeling it the people.
Rasool is about conveying message of God but it's paraphrased in his own words.

Musa (a) and Haroun (a) were both Messengers before receiving the Torah.

Usually every Nabi is a Rasool, because they need to explain the messages of God to the people.
Usually every Rasool is a Nabi, because scripture from God reinforces their designation and guides the community in it's own way.

However, the exception of when a Nabi is not a Rasool is when the message is founded so strongly in the community and communities around them and they are particularly send to reveal a particularly news from God that is not about the foundation. The one example I believe in the Quran that is probably the case is Dul-Kifl who is hinted to have revealed Gog and Magog realities. This was news from God to believers after they lost their strength due to the plans of Gog and Magog in misguiding them. It was not about the central foundations of the religion. But I can be wrong.

The exception of a Rasool who is not a Nabi, is when there is less need or it's better scripture is not revealed that a community is expected to safeguarded. An example of this can be the Messengers in Surah Yaseen since there was only one believer to believe in them, he can't be expected to be the one guy that safeguards the scripture from them so maybe God would not reveal scripture to him.

One proof is this verres
We did not send before you any messenger or prophet except when he wished

Can you prove this?

The way I understand:

Nabi is about receiving tidings or news from God. It's about scripture from God and channeling it the people.
Rasool is about conveying message of God but it's paraphrased in his own words.

Musa (a) and Haroun (a) were both Messengers before receiving the Torah.

Usually every Nabi is a Rasool, because they need to explain the messages of God to the people.
Usually every Rasool is a Nabi, because scripture from God reinforces their designation and guides the community in it's own way.

However, the exception of when a Nabi is not a Rasool is when the message is founded so strongly in the community and communities around them and they are particularly send to reveal a particularly news from God that is not about the foundation. The one example I believe in the Quran that is probably the case is Dul-Kifl who is hinted to have revealed Gog and Magog realities. This was news from God to believers after they lost their strength due to the plans of Gog and Magog in misguiding them. It was not about the central foundations of the religion. But I can be wrong.

The exception of a Rasool who is not a Nabi, is when there is less need or it's better scripture is not revealed that a community is expected to safeguarded. An example of this can be the Messengers in Surah Yaseen since there was only one believer to believe in them, he can't be expected to be the one guy that safeguards the scripture from them so maybe God would not reveal scripture to him.

One proof is the verses of sourate al haj:
We did not send before you any messenger or prophet except when....
When Read in original langage arabic, its clear that we understand that messenger is more specific
I checked arabe définitions from différents schools. They tell that prophet is general and messenger is specif every messenger is prophet.
There are also versés of quran wich clearly state that islam is the final religion for all mankind

 

[Link]

One proof is this verres
We did not send before you any messenger or prophet except when he wished

One proof is the verses of sourate al haj:
We did not send before you any messenger or prophet except when....
When Read in original langage arabic, its clear that we understand that messenger is more specific
I checked arabe définitions from différents schools. They tell that prophet is general and messenger is specif every messenger is prophet.
There are also versés of quran wich clearly state that islam is the final religion for all mankind

Salam

I think the hadiths of Ahlulbayt (a) show differently. I will share some later with you. I got to go for now.

 

[Link]

Peace

There is this hadith:

Muhammad ibn Yahya has narrated from Ahmad ibn Muhammad from al-Husayn ibn Sa‘id from al-Nadr ibn Suwayd from Yahya al-Halabi from Muhammad al-Ahwal from Humran ibn A‘yan who has said that when he asked Imam abu ‘Abdallah (a) about the meaning of the words of Allah that say, “We have given to the family of Abraham the Book” (4:54) The Imam (a) said, “It means Prophet-hood (Nubuwa).” I then asked about the meaning of ‘the wisdom’. The Imams said, “It means understanding and judgment.” I then asked about the meaning of ‘great authority.’ The Imam (a) said, “It means obedience.”

So we see book = Nubuwa.

Will share more later.

Source: Al-Kafi - Volume 1: The Imams (a.s.) possess Divine authority, they are Envied and Allah, the Most Holy, the Most High, has spoken of them | Thaqalayn

 

[Ebionite]

That’s the question. Muslims should know this with their eyes closed.

It doesn't. It says that he's the seal of the prophets. A seal is a proof or a verification, eg the verification of the message of the spirit of truth:
But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, [even] the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
John 15:26

https://hosea6.tech/pages/twin.html#s15

 

[Trailblazer]

It doesn't. It says that he's the seal of the prophets. A seal is a proof or a verification, eg the verification of the message of the spirit of truth:
But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, [even] the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
John 15:26

https://hosea6.tech/pages/twin.html#s15

In brief, it says Muhammad was the seal of the prophets because he was the last prophet in the Age of Prophecy that started with Adam.
So in effect, Muhammad sealed off the Age of Prophecy and drew it to a close.

Several years ago, @Dawnofhope explained what 'seal of the prophets' means to a Baha'i in the following post:

Why I didn't believe in Bahaism when I researched it.

So Muhammad being the seal of the Prophets clearly alludes to a lineage of Prophets from Adam to Muhammad. Baha’is call this the Adamic cycle which we believe ended with the advent of the Madhi (the Bab) during 1844. Baha'u'llah in His work the Kitab-i-Iqan alludes to with the phrase 'seal of the Prophets' and how the phrase is applicable to other Messengers/Rasool. This concept is clearly supported by Christian scripture. For example in the Book of Revelation 22:13 we have reference to Christ being the ‘Alpha and the Omega’, or the first and last letters of the Greek Alphabet. In that sense Christ is also the beginning and end and the seal of the Prophets as with Muhammad.