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

firedragon said:

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.

Click to expand...

You simply cut and paste the quote and include a link below. You seem capable of providing quotes from the Quran with references. I don't understand why you can not do the same with the Baha'i Writings. Regardless its not directly relevant to the OP so leave it.

firedragon said:

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.

Click to expand...

An analysis of Rasool and Nabi is directly relevant to the Khatam an-Nabiyyan. I can't see the relevance to the OP of providing a similar analysis to the Kitab-i-Aqdas or any other Baha'i writings.

firedragon said:

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.

Click to expand...

I understand Khatam can mean both seal and last. My analysis of the Khatam an-Nabiyyan takes this into account.

firedragon said:

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.

Click to expand...

No its not rhetoric. It would be absolutely fine for a Muslim to say they have come to better understand why Baha'is believe what they do. There should be no offence given or taken in making such a statement.

firedragon said:

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.

Click to expand...

I see no problem with making generalisations about what no / a few / some / many / or all adherents of a religion believe. As long as the statements are accurate, its fine. It has nothing to do with any personal aversion and its entirely relevant to this thread. I don't understand why you are so sensitive and prickly about this issue.

firedragon said:

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.

Click to expand...

To be clear, the purpose of this thread and my being on this forum isn't to convince anyone of anything. It is to better understand other people's points of view, their beliefs and religions. I'm not trying to convince you to believe as I do as you shouldn't be convincing me to believe as you do.

So if Khatam means both last and seal, what are some of the other meanings of Rasool and Nabi other than Messenger and Prophets? I see you elaborated on Rasool below.

firedragon said:

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.

Click to expand...

This is another major topic which would warrant a separate thread. Its an important topic but best discussed elsewhere. I'll leave the discussion about the Hebrew Prophets too for the same reasons. Thanks for your responses all the same.

adrian009 said:

You simply cut and paste the quote and include a link below. You seem capable of providing quotes from the Quran with references. I don't understand why you can not do the same with the Baha'i Writings. Regardless its not directly relevant to the OP so leave it.

Click to expand...

Okay. Here you go. The reference. The thing is, you dont understand that there is a difference between the arabic version and the English version in reference numbers. And what ever presupposition about these efforts you have in your mind is making you forget that I have already told you this. I cant understand why. Anyway, leave that aside this is the book.

Nevertheless, this is the direct reference. Direct, not 3rd party or 10th party.

The word Rasool. I have circled the word.


To show you this is the Kitab I ikdhas


reference. Kithab I akdhas, 5th page, verse 8.

The word Nabi.

Peace.

firedragon said:

Irrelevant. the topic is about the Quran.

Click to expand...

No it isn't, it is about what Muhammad means in the Quran by 'seal of the prophets', and if there are prophets globally that are encompassed in his statements, it is about all of their doctrine put together - not just some Arabic understanding, and miss the rest.

firedragon said:

Genetic fallacy

Click to expand...

'The genetic fallacy (also known as the fallacy of origins or fallacy of virtue)[1] is a fallacy of irrelevance that is based solely on someone's or something's history, origin, or source rather than its current meaning or context. This overlooks any difference to be found in the present situation, typically transferring the positive or negative esteem from the earlier context. In other words, a claim is ignored in favor of attacking its source.'

Stating Muslims believe something within their religious belief's texts isn't a Genetic Fallacy; it is a religious debate.

In my opinion.

wizanda said:

No it isn't, it is about what Muhammad means in the Quran by 'seal of the prophets', and if there are prophets globally that are encompassed in his statements, it is about all of their doctrine put together - not just some Arabic understanding, and miss the rest.

'The genetic fallacy (also known as the fallacy of origins or fallacy of virtue)[1] is a fallacy of irrelevance that is based solely on someone's or something's history, origin, or source rather than its current meaning or context. This overlooks any difference to be found in the present situation, typically transferring the positive or negative esteem from the earlier context. In other words, a claim is ignored in favor of attacking its source.'

Stating Muslims believe something within their religious belief's texts isn't a Genetic Fallacy; it is a religious debate.

In my opinion.

Click to expand...

You defined the fallacy very well.

But you haven't understood the relevance in retrospect. So thank you for the effort. Cheers.

firedragon said:

But you haven't understood the relevance in retrospect.

Click to expand...

Show me what you're meaning, like I'm willing to question any opposite logical fallacy, as had the same in a debate for years where someone hasn't realized they're missing an angle...

So please explain, why to both of us, you've claimed we're wrong to say that, "Muslims believe X,Y, or Z, based on their religious doctrines we are aware of"?

In my opinion.

wizanda said:

Show me what you're meaning, like I'm willing to question any opposite logical fallacy, as had the same in a debate for years where someone hasn't realized they're missing an angle...

So please explain, why to both of us, you've claimed we're wrong to say that, "Muslims believe X,Y, or Z, based on their religious doctrines we are aware of"?

In my opinion.

Click to expand...

).

firedragon said:

Okay. Here you go. The reference. The thing is, you dont understand that there is a difference between the arabic version and the English version in reference numbers. And what ever presupposition about these efforts you have in your mind is making you forget that I have already told you this. I cant understand why. Anyway, leave that aside this is the book.

Nevertheless, this is the direct reference. Direct, not 3rd party or 10th party.

The word Rasool. I have circled the word.
View attachment 33334

To show you this is the Kitab I ikdhas
View attachment 33335

reference. Kithab I akdhas, 5th page, verse 8.

The word Nabi.
View attachment 33337
Peace.

Click to expand...

You need to include the English translation you believe corresponds to this verse. Thanks.

adrian009 said:

You need to include the English translation you believe corresponds to this verse. Thanks.

Click to expand...

I think I am saying this the third time.

The arabic version, and the English version does not correspond.

Do you understand that sentence mate? Im sorry but I cant say that again.

Peace.

firedragon said:

I think I am saying this the third time.

The arabic version, and the English version does not correspond.

Do you understand that sentence mate? Im sorry but I cant say that again.

Peace.

Click to expand...

So there is a verse in the Arabic version that includes the word Nabi the translation team omitted to include in the English version. Got it.

adrian009 said:

So there is a verse in the Arabic version that includes the word Nabi the translation team omitted to include in the English version. Got it.

Click to expand...

No. You got it absolutely wrong.

Sorry I cannot continue or explain anymore.
Peace.

It kitabal itqan, Baha'allah interpreted it to mean last. But what he said is that all Prophets are in fact the first and last of each other, so that Mohammad is not the only last Prophet, every Prophet is the last Prophet. It was basically the idea, that all Prophets are all Prophets gone to overdrive to interpretation.

Link said:

It kitabal itqan, Baha'allah interpreted it to mean last. But what he said is that all Prophets are in fact the first and last of each other, so that Mohammad is not the only last Prophet, every Prophet is the last Prophet. It was basically the idea, that all Prophets are all Prophets gone to overdrive to interpretation.

Click to expand...

And for this reason, I don't understand why Bahais come up with explanations of what khatam can mean, when their founder Ba'ha'allah didn't say it didn't mean last, but that all Prophets are the last Prophet as all of them are the first and all of them are each other.

It's almost as if they are ashamed of their explanation of their Prophet and come up with other explanations instead to make a better case than what Ba'ha'allah said.

Here is the exact words:

From these statements therefore it hath been made evident and manifest that should a Soul in the “End that knoweth no end” be made manifest, and arise to proclaim and uphold a Cause which in “the Beginning that hath no beginning” another Soul had proclaimed and upheld, it can be truly declared of Him Who is the Last and of Him Who was the First that they are one and the same, inasmuch as both are the Exponents of one and the same Cause. For this reason, hath the Point of the Bayán—may the life of all else but Him be His sacrifice!—likened the Manifestations of God unto the sun which, though it rise from the “Beginning that hath no beginning” until the “End that knoweth no end,” is none the less the same sun. Now, wert thou to say, that this sun is the former sun, thou speakest the truth; and if thou sayest that this sun is the “return” of that sun, thou also speakest the truth. Likewise, from this statement it is made evident that the term “last” is applicable to the “first,” and the term “first” applicable to the “last;” inasmuch as both the “first” and the “last” have risen to proclaim one and the same Faith.
172
Notwithstanding the obviousness of this theme, in the eyes of those that have quaffed the wine of 162 knowledge and certitude, yet how many are those who, through failure to understand its meaning, have allowed the term “Seal of the Prophets” to obscure their understanding, and deprive them of the grace of all His manifold bounties! Hath not Muḥammad, Himself, declared: “I am all the Prophets?” Hath He not said as We have already mentioned: “I am Adam, Noah, Moses, and Jesus?” Why should Muḥammad, that immortal Beauty, Who hath said: “I am the first Adam” be incapable of saying also: “I am the last Adam”? For even as He regarded Himself to be the “First of the Prophets”—that is Adam—in like manner, the “Seal of the Prophets” is also applicable unto that Divine Beauty. It is admittedly obvious that being the “First of the Prophets,” He likewise is their “Seal.”
173
The mystery of this theme hath, in this Dispensation, been a sore test unto all mankind. Behold, how many are those who, clinging unto these words, have disbelieved Him Who is their true Revealer. What, We ask, could this people presume the terms “first” and “last”—when referring to God—glorified be His Name!—to mean? If they maintain that these terms bear reference to 163 this material universe, how could it be possible, when the visible order of things is still manifestly existing? Nay, in this instance, by “first” is meant no other than the “last” and by “last” no other than the “first.”

Here is the source: Bahá'í Reference Library - The Kitáb-i-Íqán, Pages 161-200

When you are too ashamed to present what your Prophet argued with, it feels like you guys aren't convinced yourself!

Link said:

When you are too ashamed to present what your Prophet argued with, it feels like you guys aren't convinced yourself!

Click to expand...

To be clear, Baha’is are entirely comfortable with their own scripture. The OP is about the meaning of the Khatam an-Nabiyyin in the Quran, not the Baha’i Writings. As explained to another, the first part of Quran 33:40 "I am not the Father of mankind" is most likely an allusion to Adam. In that regard Muhammad refers to Prophets beginning with Adam and coming to an end with Himself. 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 ended with the advent of the Madhi (the Bab) during 1844.

What Baha'u'llah alludes to with the phrase 'seal of the Prophets' in the Iqan is how the phrase is applicable to other Messengers/Rasool. This concept is clearly supported by the 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.

That expression has no problems, but needs context or has to be shown somehow to mean that. Otherwise, you leave no room for God to actual seal Prophethood by words in Quran. Nothing he can say can clarify it, if you can play language games like that.

Link said:

That expression has no problems, but needs context or has to be shown somehow to mean that. Otherwise, you leave no room for God to actual seal Prophethood by words in Quran. Nothing he can say can clarify it, if you can play language games like that.

Click to expand...

I'm simply considering possible meanings of the text as it stands.

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

As said to another, the English translation does not literally mean Muhammad is the final Prophet for all time. Is the translation wrong? Probably not as most translations say essentially the same thing. If you want to believe these words read Muhammad is the final Prophet of all time and there will be no more Prophets after Him, that's your belief. However that is not what the text says.

One approach is to find Hadith that supports the traditional view. Of course the Hadith are sometimes contradictory and unrelaible.

Yeah, well, Sunnis did the same with "Whoever I am their Mawla, then Ali is his Mawla". The first step towards clarity is to know - God clarifies everything in his book and it's a clear book. If anything is unclear, it's due to either injustice or sorcery, or a mix of these.