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

paarsurrey said:

Irrespective of the meaning of the title Seal of Prophets given to Muhammad by G-d, Bahaullah never claimed in his core book "Kitab-i-Iqan" or "The Book of Certitude":

• that Bahaullah was appointed a Messenger/Prophet by G-d in clear and unequivocal terms.
• Bahaullah did not claim that he had received any Word of Revelation from G-d in clear and unequivocal terms.

If yes, then please quote from "Kitab-i-Iqan" or "The Book of Certitude" in this connection.

Click to expand...

It hs been explained to you many times paarsurry that the Kitab-i-Iqan was written as an answer to a question from the Bab's Uncle about the station of the Bab.

Baha'u'llah had not yet proclaimed His Station.

The core book of Baha'u'llah is the Kitbi-aqdas (Book of Laws) the Most Holy Book.

The Kitáb-i-Aqdas

Peace be with you.

Regards Tony

adrian009 said:

The Baha’i Faith emerged from Shi’a Islamic Persia in 1844,

Click to expand...

Well, if you want to get technical there really is no such thing nor justification as Shia Islam or Shia Muslims. Muhammed was the final prophet and during his farewell speech he said that the religion has been completed threfore, anything that came after his death has no justified basis or origin. So, if your premise is built on Shias and the connection to the Bahai faith then, you have made a huge error.

paarsurrey said:

I knew that, that is why I addressed the post to one.
Please read the book*, I provided the link of. It is originally written in Urdu language. The translation in English (the official one) consists of 21 pages only. Please read it intensively/intently. Then we will discuss it.

*Page 6 of 21 by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad
A Misconception Removed | Islam Ahmadiyya

Right, please?

Regards
___________
#213 Irrespective of the meaning of the title Seal of Prophets given to Muhammad by G-d, Bahaullah never claimed in his core book "Kitab-i-Iqan" or "The Book of Certitude":
~that Bahaullah was appointed a Messenger/Prophet by G-d in clear and unequivocal terms.
~Bahaullah did not claim that he had received any Word of Revelation from G-d in clear and unequivocal terms.
If yes, then please quote from "Kitab-i-Iqan" or "The Book of Certitude" in this connection.
If the followers of Bahaism Religion think that Bahaullah was a prophet/messenger appointed by G-d as per Quran, then it is their own incorrect thinking, it has got nothing to do with Bahaullah being a Prophet/Messenger as per Quran. Right, please?

Click to expand...

I can read Urdu but cannot understand the language. But I have read the English translation.

So what's your point?

Link said:

Muhammad ibn Yahya al-Ash’ari has narrated from Ahmad ibn Muhammad from al-Barqi from al-Nadr ibn Suwayd from Yahya ibn ‘Imran al-Halabi from Ayyub ibn al-Hurr who has said that he heard abu ‘Abdallah (a.s.) say the following. "Allah, Majestic is Whose mention, ended with your prophet the (coming of) the prophets. Thus, there will never come any prophet after him. With your book He ended sending of (heavenly) books. Thus, there will never come other heavenly books. In it (your book) He has placed clarifications for all things, such as your creation and the creation of the heavens and the earth. Therein is the news of the beings before you, the laws that help settle your disputes and the news of the beings that come into being after you, the news of the issues of Paradise and Fire and that to which you proceed."

Click to expand...

It would be good to see the Arabic of this Hadith.

Earthtank said:

Well, if you want to get technical there really is no such thing nor justification as Shia Islam or Shia Muslims. Muhammed was the final prophet and during his farewell speech he said that the religion has been completed threfore, anything that came after his death has no justified basis or origin. So, if your premise is built on Shias and the connection to the Bahai faith then, you have made a huge error.

Click to expand...

Would it be technical to say Jesus the Christ beat Muhammed in saying that?

John 19:28-30 "28 After this, Jesus, knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the Scripture might be fulfilled, said, “I thirst!” 29 Now a vessel full of sour wine was sitting there; and they filled a sponge with sour wine, put it on hyssop, and put it to His mouth. 30 So when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, “It is finished!” And bowing His head, He gave up His spirit."

Does that prove Muhammad couldn't then give a Message from God, or would one offer otherwise?

Regards Tony

Earthtank said:

Well, if you want to get technical there really is no such thing nor justification as Shia Islam or Shia Muslims. Muhammed was the final prophet and during his farewell speech he said that the religion has been completed threfore, anything that came after his death has no justified basis or origin. So, if your premise is built on Shias and the connection to the Bahai faith then, you have made a huge error.

Click to expand...

"he (Quran/Islam/Muhammad) said that the religion has been completed"

It is true as per Quran/Islam/Muhammad:

[5:4]حُرِّمَتۡ عَلَیۡکُمُ الۡمَیۡتَۃُ وَ الدَّمُ وَ لَحۡمُ الۡخِنۡزِیۡرِ وَ مَاۤ اُہِلَّ لِغَیۡرِ اللّٰہِ بِہٖ وَ الۡمُنۡخَنِقَۃُ وَ الۡمَوۡقُوۡذَۃُ وَ الۡمُتَرَدِّیَۃُ وَ النَّطِیۡحَۃُ وَ مَاۤ اَکَلَ السَّبُعُ اِلَّا مَا ذَکَّیۡتُمۡ ۟ وَ مَا ذُبِحَ عَلَی النُّصُبِ وَ اَنۡ تَسۡتَقۡسِمُوۡا بِالۡاَزۡلَامِ ؕ ذٰلِکُمۡ فِسۡقٌ ؕ اَلۡیَوۡمَ یَئِسَ الَّذِیۡنَ کَفَرُوۡا مِنۡ دِیۡنِکُمۡ فَلَا تَخۡشَوۡہُمۡ وَ اخۡشَوۡنِ ؕ اَلۡیَوۡمَ اَکۡمَلۡتُ لَکُمۡ دِیۡنَکُمۡ وَ اَتۡمَمۡتُ عَلَیۡکُمۡ نِعۡمَتِیۡ وَ رَضِیۡتُ لَکُمُ الۡاِسۡلَامَ دِیۡنًا ؕ فَمَنِ اضۡطُرَّ فِیۡ مَخۡمَصَۃٍ غَیۡرَ مُتَجَانِفٍ لِّاِثۡمٍ ۙ فَاِنَّ اللّٰہَ غَفُوۡرٌ رَّحِیۡمٌ ﴿۴﴾
Forbidden to you is the flesh of an animal which dies of itself, and blood and the flesh of swine; and that on which is invoked the name of one other than Allah; and that which has been strangled; and that beaten to death; and that killed by a fall; and that which has been gored to death; and that of which a wild animal has eaten, except that which you have properly slaughtered; and that which has been slaughtered at an altar. And forbidden is also that you seek to know your lot by the divining arrows. That is an act of disobedience. This day have those who disbelieve despaired of harming your religion. So fear them not, but fear Me. This day have I perfected your religion for you and completed My favour upon you and have chosen for you Islam as religion. But whoso is forced by hunger, without being wilfully inclined to sin, then, surely, Allah is Most Forgiving, Merciful.
The Holy Quran - Chapter: 5: Al-Ma'idah
I agree with one here.

Regards
___________
#213 Irrespective of the meaning of the title Seal of Prophets given to Muhammad by G-d, Bahaullah never claimed in his core book "Kitab-i-Iqan" or "The Book of Certitude":
~that Bahaullah was appointed a Messenger/Prophet by G-d in clear and unequivocal terms.
~Bahaullah did not claim that he had received any Word of Revelation from G-d in clear and unequivocal terms.
If yes, then please quote from "Kitab-i-Iqan" or "The Book of Certitude" in this connection.
If the followers of Bahaism Religion think that Bahaullah was a prophet/messenger appointed by G-d as per Quran, then it is their own incorrect thinking, it has got nothing to do with Bahaullah being a Prophet/Messenger as per Quran. Right, please?

Link said:

The word used there for ended is the same of the root word "khatamal", for it's exactly "khatama."

To say there was no hadith that interprets the word as "no more Prophets" is thus proven false.

This in Alkafi, and I haven't searched other hadiths about the word yet. But I'm betting we have quite a few that say it means "there is no Prophet after me", and interpret khatama in that sense.

Click to expand...

That is not always how Arabic works.

Khatm= to end.
Khaatem= the one who ends. Khatem ul nabiiyin = the one who ends prophets.
Khaatam= this was ornament on rings, which was also used to stamp a document.
The title of Muhammad in the Quran is Khaatam ul nabiiyin, not Khaatem ul nabiiyin.
If you know farsi, when the word Khaatam entered in Persia, it was used in such words: Khaatamkaari.

Link said:

Yes and no, allusions to him include allusions to his name, so his name is explained and emphasized more then any other name except for the title "Allah".

Click to expand...

What do you mean allusion to His name. It would be good if you quote the verse of Quran which alludes to Ali name.

Tony Bristow-Stagg said:

Would it be technical to say Jesus the Christ beat Muhammed in saying that?

John 19:28-30 "28 After this, Jesus, knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the Scripture might be fulfilled, said, “I thirst!” 29 Now a vessel full of sour wine was sitting there; and they filled a sponge with sour wine, put it on hyssop, and put it to His mouth. 30 So when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, “It is finished!” And bowing His head, He gave up His spirit."

Does that prove Muhammad couldn't then give Message from God, or would one offer otherwise?

Regards Tony

Click to expand...

I will answer this as objective and neutral as possible and simply go based off what i have learned over the years

I guess it all depends on what you believe. Looking at both Jesus and Muhammad and their respective religions, according to Islam Jesus is a Prophet who Prophesized about the coming of Muhammad. Also, there's seems to be very strong evidence of the Bible (and other Christian texts) and how its been corrupted over the years while there seems to be far less evidence for the same being said about the Quran. Also, there are a lot of verses in the Christian texts that seem to Prophesize about Muhammad. So taking all this into account i would say it seems more likely that Muhammed is the "truth" and not Jesus. I am by no means a scholar or expert on religion i am simply giving my opinion based off the facts that were presented to me.

Earthtank said:

Well, if you want to get technical there really is no such thing nor justification as Shia Islam or Shia Muslims. Muhammed was the final prophet and during his farewell speech he said that the religion has been completed threfore, anything that came after his death has no justified basis or origin. So, if your premise is built on Shias and the connection to the Bahai faith then, you have made a huge error.

Click to expand...

For some on this forum everything to do with religion is a huge error.

There’s much more to Shi’a beliefs than the farewell speech but that’s not relevant. Islamic belief in the Mahdi accompanied by the Return of Christ is shared by both Sunni and Shi’a.

adrian009 said:

For some on this forum everything to do with religion is a huge error.

There’s much more to Shi’a beliefs than the farewell speech but that’s not relevant. Islamic belief in the Mahdi accompanied by the Return of Christ is shared by both Sunni and Shi’a.

Click to expand...

Yes, but the Mahdi and return of Christ are not disputed by neither Shi'a nor Sunni. My point was the basis of your OP seems to be flawed, in my opinion. That's all.

Earthtank said:

Well, if you want to get technical there really is no such thing nor justification as Shia Islam or Shia Muslims. Muhammed was the final prophet and during his farewell speech he said that the religion has been completed threfore, anything that came after his death has no justified basis or origin. So, if your premise is built on Shias and the connection to the Bahai faith then, you have made a huge error.

Click to expand...

Tony Bristow-Stagg said:

Would it be technical to say Jesus the Christ beat Muhammed in saying that?

John 19:28-30 "28 After this, Jesus, knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the Scripture might be fulfilled, said, “I thirst!” 29 Now a vessel full of sour wine was sitting there; and they filled a sponge with sour wine, put it on hyssop, and put it to His mouth. 30 So when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, “It is finished!” And bowing His head, He gave up His spirit."

Does that prove Muhammad couldn't then give a Message from God, or would one offer otherwise?

Regards Tony

Click to expand...

I would add this explanation;

6. It Is Finished (John 19:30) - Seven Last Words of Christ from the Cross

Look again at the passage. It is remarkable in how it repeats one singular idea -- completion, fulfillment, finishing.

"Later, knowing that all was now completed (teleō), and so that the Scripture would be fulfilled (teleioō), Jesus said, "I am thirsty" ... When he had received the drink, Jesus said, "It is finished (teleō)." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit." (John 19:28, 30)

These three words derive from the same Greek root, telos, which means "end" -- primarily a termination point, then by extension, the end to which all things relate, the aim, the purpose.53

"Completed / finished / accomplished" in verses 28 and 30 is the related verb teleō, "to complete an activity or process, bring to an end, finish, complete something." With regard to time, it means, "come to an end, be over."54 Moreover the tense of this verb is important to us -- perfect tense (tetelestai). In Greek the perfect tense signifies a past action, the effect of which continues into the present. It has been completed and is still complete. The effect of the tense in this verb is a sense of finality.

Thus it finished with Jesus?

Regards Tony

paarsurrey said:

"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." Unquote

Irrespective of the meaning of the title Seal of Prophets given to Muhammad by G-d, Bahaullah never claimed in his core book "Kitab-i-Iqan" or "The Book of Certitude":

• that Bahaullah was appointed a Messenger/Prophet by G-d in clear and unequivocal terms.
• Bahaullah did not claim that he had received any Word of Revelation from G-d in clear and unequivocal terms.

If yes, then please quote from "Kitab-i-Iqan" or "The Book of Certitude" in this connection.

If the followers of Bahaism Religion think that Bahaullah was a prophet/messenger appointed by G-d as per Quran, then it is their own incorrect thinking, it has got nothing to do with Bahaullah being a Prophet/Messenger as per Quran. Right, please?

Regards

Click to expand...

Your request makes as much sense as insisting on answers from one Quranic Sura only and ignoring the other 113.

Earthtank said:

I will answer this as objective and neutral as possible and simply go based off what i have learned over the years

I guess it all depends on what you believe. Looking at both Jesus and Muhammad and their respective religions, according to Islam Jesus is a Prophet who Prophesized about the coming of Muhammad. Also, there's seems to be very strong evidence of the Bible (and other Christian texts) and how its been corrupted over the years while there seems to be far less evidence for the same being said about the Quran. Also, there are a lot of verses in the Christian texts that seem to Prophesize about Muhammad. So taking all this into account i would say it seems more likely that Muhammed is the "truth" and not Jesus. I am by no means a scholar or expert on religion i am simply giving my opinion based off the facts that were presented to me.

Click to expand...

Thus if I carry on with that thought, I see that the Bab and Baha'u'llah are even more clearly foretold in the Bible.

Thus the quandary becomes how we now choose to look at the statements of finality.

I can finish each year of schooling. All the while knowing that I can not know what I can learn in the future, but to know there is more to learn.

Regards Tony

Tony Bristow-Stagg said:

Thus if I carry on with that thought, I see that the Bab and Baha'u'llah are even more clearly foretold in the Bible.

Thus the quandary becomes how we now choose to look at the statements of finality.

I can finish each year of schooling. All the while knowing that I can not know what I can learn in the future, but to know there is more to learn.

Regards Tony

Click to expand...

This is the reason I enjoy watching religious debates. They tend to set aside what has already been agreed upon and look at the differences. There always tends to a "winner" in such debates, the "winner" is the one that makes the most sense while NOT deviating from the logic and rationale in which they began with. I have little to no exposure or knowledge of Bab and Baha'u'llah however, I would suggest putting their words to the test and seeing how truthful they are then, reach your own conclusion. I thank you for exposing me to Bab and Baha'u'llah, i now have some research to do.

Earthtank said:

Yes, but the Mahdi and return of Christ are not disputed by neither Shi'a nor Sunni. My point was the basis of your OP seems to be flawed, in my opinion. That's all.

Click to expand...

The OP is an open ended question about the meaning of the Khatam an-Nabiyyin in the Quran, not a claim that the Baha’i Faith fulfilled Islam. In that sense it provides an opportunity for us all to learn more about Islam.

The question of the Baha’i Faith fulfilling Islamic Messianic claims is mentioned for context, nothing more. Muslims reject it, Baha’is accept it. Atheists disbelieve all religious claims. Agnostics either don’t know or claim we can’t possibly know. Its not the point of the thread though.

adrian009 said:

The OP is an open ended question about the meaning of the Khatam an-Nabiyyin in the Quran, not a claim that the Baha’i Faith fulfilled Islam. In that sense it provides an opportunity for us all to learn more about Islam.

The question of the Baha’i Faith fulfilling Islamic Messianic claims is mentioned for context, nothing more. Muslims reject it, Baha’is accept it. Atheists disbelieve all religious claims. Agnostics either don’t know or claim we can’t possibly know. Its not the point of the thread though.

Click to expand...

Understood. As someone who speaks, reads and writes Arabic, has read the Quran, Khatam an-Nabiyyin does indeed mean the seal AKA the Final messenger of Islam. No, I am not a Muslim however, i did live in Dubai, Bahrain and Saudi for a total of 9 years for work and (obviously) knew and spoken to many Muslims.

Respectfully, why would you think it could mean otherwise?

Earthtank said:

Understood. As someone who speaks, reads and writes Arabic, has read the Quran, Khatam an-Nabiyyin does indeed mean the seal AKA the Final messenger of Islam. No, I am not a Muslim however, i did live in Dubai, Bahrain and Saudi for a total of 9 years for work and (obviously) knew and spoken to many Muslims.

Respectfully, why would you think it could mean otherwise?

Click to expand...

That's great you speak Arabic. I don't and so rely on the English translations of which I include several:

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. So it comes down to the Arabic and meanings of words that are not captured well with translation into another language.

As you speak Arabic then you may appreciate the use of the words Rasool and Nabi in regards the Quran generally and specifically verse 33:40. The reference to these two Arabic words appears highly relevant and their juxtaposition crucial not just to each other but to the phrase "I am not the father of mankind". One analysis considering Sura 33 as a whole could be in regards to Muhammad being sonless and how his marriage to Zaynab is perceived. However, 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.

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.

InvestigateTruth said:

It would be good to see the Arabic of this Hadith.

Click to expand...

I have the Arabic book version, I read it, it uses the same word. Then says "so there is no Prophet after him". So when it uses the same word (khatama), then it's an allusion to the verse!

Earthtank said:

This is the reason I enjoy watching religious debates. They tend to set aside what has already been agreed upon and look at the differences. There always tends to a "winner" in such debates, the "winner" is the one that makes the most sense while NOT deviating from the logic and rationale in which they began with. I have little to no exposure or knowledge of Bab and Baha'u'llah however, I would suggest putting their words to the test and seeing how truthful they are then, reach your own conclusion. I thank you for exposing me to Bab and Baha'u'llah, i now have some research to do.

Click to expand...

That is the right thing to do. We must undertake a just search based in reason and make our own decisions.

Regards Tony