• 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!

Koran v. Bible

1robin

Christian/Baptist
This is absolute bunk ? "The unanimous testimony of Church ?? are you claim this to be a reliable source.
So are you now adding church historians and theologians to Paul, John, and commentators which you dismiss? What is left when you get through, 2 Buddhist scholars, a Rabbi and 17 bible verses that are subjected to your interpretation alone.

Do you even read your own links .. Even the Slickster does not try and make this claim.

From your link .. given in "your post" above.
I have no idea what you are saying. They are two different claims one claim is: The Gospels were written by the authors given by their titles. Some of the Gospels were written by the actual eyewitnesses and some wrote the accounts given to them by eyewitnesses. Are you saying that somewhere I claimed that Mark was an eyewitness? If I did it was a mistake and I could not find it in what you quoted.
 

BruceDLimber

Well-Known Member
Not only am I unaware, I do not have the slightest idea what you are saying.

I'll give just one or two examples.

The Christian Church actively opposed science, burning Bruno and placing Galileo under house arrest fot the "crime" of stating that the earth wasn't the center of the universe.

And a large number of Christians still promoted and practiced slavery until the mid-1860s.

Not only did Christianity battle Muslims in the crusades, but warred on other Christians (the Eastern Orthodox, and later on , Protestants) also.

So Christianity's history is far less "pristine" than you care to claim.

Since the son (Christ) said that anyone that adds writings that they claim came from God after the bible was completed is accursed why do you think Baha i is compatible with Christianity when Christ rejected all future religions and prophets after the new testament was completed?

What you overlook is that the Jewish scriptures had EXACTLY THE SAME PROHIBITION, which if taken literally makes the entire New Testament accursed! See Deuteronomy 12:32.

So clearly, this prohibition doesn't prevent GOD from revealing new scripture even if men aren't to tamper with it.

Nor did Christ reject all future religions and prophets: He Himself promised to send another or to return, depending on the passage.

And please note that the Baha'i Faith is not "New Age": it's been around for well over a century and a half, and originated in what was at the time a most backeard part of the world!

Peace, :)

Bruce
 

BruceDLimber

Well-Known Member
And what is [sic] the new teachings of bahaullah which was needed and were not informed to the previous messengers...?

Among others:

  • the prohibition on waging war
  • a prohibition on partisanship, along with the provision of an explicitly unific, non-political administrative system
  • prohibition of slavery
  • condemnation of backbiting and gossip
Peace, :)

Bruce
 

BruceDLimber

Well-Known Member
Thank you for your post,but you are completely wrong by saying that Baha'i Faith is the fastest-growing religion.

EXCEPT, of course, that you ignored part of my statement:

"among those already established in over 100 countries."

Makes all the difference!

Bruce
 

BruceDLimber

Well-Known Member
Bruce said:
You also ignore the fact that Baha'u'llah prophesied both world wars, in particular with respect to Germany.

Can you provide these prophecies?

90 "O banks of the Rhine! We have seen you covered with gore, inasmuch as the swords of retribution were drawn against you; and you shall have another turn. And We hear the lamentations of Berlin, though she be today in conspicuous glory."
--The Book of Laws, p. 53

I am an amateur historian and I know WWII very well. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were caused because Jewish scientists developed the atomic bomb.

Your racism is noted with disgust. It's a pity you aren't enough of a historian to dispense with the ethnic jab.

Why do both Christianity and Islam reject [the Baha'i Faith]?

Because religions have a tragic history of considering themselves the "culmination" and denying any possibility of any further religion to come.

Bruce
 
Last edited:

Oryonder

Active Member
I chose them because they have the greatest credentials to comment on the gospels than any other person besides the apostles themselves. Every modern form of jurisprudence assigns a higher value to a competent source the earlier that source is. Its the basic historical method.

You apparently didn't get your spelling from a non quack school yourself. Besides none of the quotations above are from him.



I was not aware we were discussing the Westminster theological school.



Could you at least post which of my statements you are referring to. The ones you did were not by this guy. They were by early church historians or fathers.



You complain about the absence of references. Then make a counter claim and provide no references. Amazing. It is very easy to determine he was a witness by comparing his gospel accounts with the other witness accounts. This has been extensively done and John still stands.

Opinion is not fact unless proven. I was interested in the statements quoted by him not him in particular. Regardless of what kind of scholar he is the statements he quoted are found in many places and I posted many of them.

Please post where at a site I am to find whatever it is you are claiming. I do not have the time to read everything contained in dozens of links people provide. If your claim rests on the statements you posted I find them relevant but very unconvincing. There are selective and insufficient minor points but if I can I will research them further.

Why are you so obsessed with this guy I never heard of before. What degrees do you have that would persuade me to value your opinions.


This seems disconnected from any context. It also seems to suggest my claims are true. I don't get it.

I have read that same conclusion in dozens of sites. In fact my NIV bible (worked on by 100+ scholars) asserts John is the author.

I get it you don't like him. So we can add him to John, Paul, accepted commentators, etc that say things you don't like so you dismiss them. Is there anyone that disagrees with your unorthodox theology that you don't hand wave away.

I will delete any following repeated personal comments about this guy that don't contain some actual applicability.


And you think it is more acceptable to make claims counter to man with a masters degree who didn't provide some references by not referencing many of your points. You make a bunch of sweeping assertions and back up only 20%-30% and then complain when someone else does it. At the very least his were on the subject and not some personal meaningless diatribe.

Here is your link to John .. all other links backing up every on of my claims is in the last post. Gospel of John

All I have said in the previous point has now been supported.

All the links to what Slick says are from the links that "You" provided.

You claim the hundreds of scholars that worked on the NIV claim that John was an eyewitness ? Please post exactly what these scholars say about John being an eyewitnes and where in the NIV it says this. It certainly does not say this in the online version.

The Slick and your other Bible link contradict each other as one says that each of the Gospels (Matt, Mark, Luke, and John) were eyewitnesses and the other (Slick) gives evidence showing that at least Mark and Luke were not.

Slicks comments "none of the Gospels mention the destruction of the temple", is without reference. Many scholars "real ones" disput Slick's claim.

"The earliest date for the gospel hinges upon the question of whether or not it presupposes the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E. Most agree that it does, although there have been persistent attempts to argue otherwise

Kysar claims that "Most" agree that Temple destruction is in there. (see link above)

Your claim above that I have made unsupported claims is false. Give one unsupported claim that you would like support for.

Your links, on the other hand, are full of unsupported and erroneous claims as described in my previous post.
 

BruceDLimber

Well-Known Member
Bruce you are dishonest the [sic] Global statistics Of the world Christian Encyclopaedia clearly says that Islam is superior in all aspects to that of the Bahai conversions or grow rate....

You, too, are ignoring the important qualification I stated; hence you are wrong about my being "dishonest."

Please read above for the repetition of the important qualification.

Bruce
 

BruceDLimber

Well-Known Member
Its [sic] not that i disrespect the Bahai religion or its followers but i see the Bahai people sometimes use hadiths or Quranic verses. . . .

You're largely mistaken: we use ONLY those hadiths directly quoted in our scriptures and ignore the rest. After all, even Muslims can't agree on which ones are accurate!

[Y\et Islamic teaching is very clear on the notion that Mohammed(saws) is the last messenger and prophet.

Sigh. So sorry, but this is completely wrong! I'll post the explanation of why yet again.

Bruce
- - - - -
Muslims often interpret the Qur'an as stating that Muhammad, being the Seal of the Prophets, is the final prophet and that there will be no more Divine Messengers sent by God (or Allah).

In fact, IOV this whole “last prophet” thing is based upon a misunderstanding!

There are in fact several different explanations of the verse in the Qur’an saying Muhammad is the Seal of the Prophets (a statement we Baha’is accept, please note!):

• First off, there is a sense in which EVERY Divine Messenger is the First and the Last, the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, and the Seal!

• Next, there are multiple Arabic words that all translate into English as "prophet."

One of these is "nabi," which refers to a minor prophet such as Jeremiah or Amos.

Another is Ras'ul, which means a major, religion-founding Divine Messenger like Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, or Baha'u'llah (our Founder). (And yes, Muhammad was a major--not a minor--Prophet.)


But the word actually used in the Qur'an is "nabi," meaning Muhammad was the Seal of the minor prophets! This says nothing whatever about the great Divine Messengers.


• Muhammad is also the Seal in the sense that He was the last Messenger during the Prophetic Age, which began with Adam and ended with Him. The Bab then closed out that Age and opened the Age of Fulfillment, of which Baha'u'llah is the first major Messenger.

• Finally, there is a sense in which the word commonly translated as "seal" also means "ornament," so that this verse of the Qur'an may simply be saying that Muhammad is the Ornament of the prophets! (Nothing whatever about any sort of finish.)
 

Oryonder

Active Member
So are you now adding church historians and theologians to Paul, John, and commentators which you dismiss? What is left when you get through, 2 Buddhist scholars, a Rabbi and 17 bible verses that are subjected to your interpretation alone.

What are you talking about .. there is no "unanimous testimony of the church and theologians" that the four gospels were written by Matt, Mark, Luke, and John.

The four gospels are unanimously attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John - there are no other candidates. .

This is absurd and even your own links refute this claim. (see your link to Slick)

I have no idea what you are saying. They are two different claims one claim is: The Gospels were written by the authors given by their titles. Some of the Gospels were written by the actual eyewitnesses and some wrote the accounts given to them by eyewitnesses. Are you saying that somewhere I claimed that Mark was an eyewitness? If I did it was a mistake and I could not find it in what you quoted

You should read your own links and posts. Slick claims directly, (and in this he provides references and evidence) that Mark and Luke were written by others. this contradicts your Blue letter Bible link which you claim is the "most respected online biblical resourse".

.
Here is the view of the most respected online biblical resource there is:

The four gospels are unanimously attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John - there are no other candidates. .
Blue Letter Bible - Help, Tutorials, and FAQs

Obviously this link is not respectable at all given this and other absurd claims.
 

InvestigateTruth

Well-Known Member
It was not me who started that subject but i found dishonest links posted by several persons that's why i replied on it.
Ok let me ask something differently why don't the Bahai people take the Hadiths and Tasfeer in when they are going to interpret a verse? Almost all the verses have a context so why not follow the context that the companions and the prophet Mohammed(saws) has passed down?

Verse 31 starts with:

O Children of Adam! wear your beautiful apparel at every time and place of prayer: eat and drink: But waste not by excess, for Allah loveth not the wasters.

Verse 32:
Say: Who hath forbidden the beautiful (gifts) of Allah, which He hath produced for His servants, and the things, clean and pure, (which He hath provided) for sustenance? Say: They are, in the life of this world, for those who believe, (and) purely for them on the Day of Judgment. Thus do We explain the signs in detail for those who understand.

I cant find anything of what you said in the text..

This is the verse 33:

Say: the things that my Lord hath indeed forbidden are: shameful deeds, whether open or secret; sins and trespasses against truth or reason; assigning of partners to Allah, for which He hath given no authority; and saying things about Allah of which ye have no knowledge.

Again nothing in the verse or chapter that indicates anything of what you said.
Verse 38-39:
We did send apostles before thee, and appointed for them wives and children: and it was never the part of an apostle to bring a sign except as Allah permitted (or commanded). For each period is a Book revealed. Allah doth blot out or confirm what He pleaseth: with Him is the Mother of the Book.

The word Abrogation is not even mentioned or does it speak about the future, verse 39 clearly says Revealed therefore speaking in the past.

Verse 45 says: Then We sent Moses and his brother Aaron, with Our Signs and authority manifest,

What kind of Quran or translation are you using?

135:
They say: "Become Jews or Christians if ye would be guided (To salvation)." Say thou: "Nay! (I would rather) the Religion of Abraham the True, and he joined not gods with Allah."

136:
Say ye: "We believe in Allah, and the revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and that given to Moses and Jesus, and that given to (all) prophets from their Lord: We make no difference between one and another of them: And we bow to Allah (in Islam)."

137:
So if they believe as ye believe, they are indeed on the right path; but if they turn back, it is they who are in schism; but Allah will suffice thee as against them, and He is the All-Hearing, the All-Knowing.

I think that was addressed to yourself?

First of all Bab/Bahullah is already dead so what has the Mahdi to do with him and he will not have a new law according to hadiths, Secondly he would rule a Caliphate and will lead the believers (Christians/Muslims) against the non-believers, Thirdly the Madhi is not a prophet or messenger but a pious and righteous leader.

Some questions:

1. What kind of Quran are you using, our which site since i cannot find any of the verses you have quoted?
2. How can the Bab or Abdullah be a messenger/prophet when the Quran and Hadiths are clear that no-one should come after Mohammed(saws)?
3. Why don't we use the interpretations of the companions of the prophet Mohammed(saws) and hes own interpretations and explanations?

I didn't even use a tasfeer to refute your interpretations because i simply cannot find the verses you quoted..


"Ok let me ask something differently why don't the Bahai people take the Hadiths and Tasfeer in when they are going to interpret a verse? Almost all the verses have a context so why not follow the context that the companions and the prophet Mohammed(saws) has passed down?"

My Response: The Baha'is do use Hadithes, but only the ones that are confirmed in our scriptures.

"I can’t find anything of what you said in the text. What kind of Quran or translation are you using?."

My response: They are from translation of Quran by Rodwell, which has a slightly different numbering than most online Qurans. But you can find them if you look no more than usually 4-5 verses before or after, in other Quran's translations.


" How can the Bab or Abdullah be a messenger/prophet when the Quran and Hadiths are clear that no-one should come after Mohammed(saws)?"

My Response: Abdullah?? You mean Baha'u'llah? The Quran and Hadithes are clear that another revelation was supposed to come from God. The belief that there won't come another Messenger after Muhammad, is based on misunderstandings of Islam leaders. It's like other religions, that their leaders tell them that Muhammad is not a true prophet. Because Jesus is First and Last, and is the Only way to Truth. and Muhammad by revealing Quran, has added scriptures to Bible, which means he is a false prophet.
Likewise, many religious leaders have said Jesus is not a true Messiah, because He broke the Law of Sabbath, and did not fulfill the Prophecies of Bible, etc...




"Why don't we use the interpretations of the companions of the prophet Mohammed(saws) and hes own interpretations and explanations?"

My Response: Because Quran is clear that no one knows it's interpretation except God who based on Quran the interpretation of it was supposed to come on the Day of Resurrection. So, we follow the interpretation that is revealed by God.
Moreover, we do use many Hadithes which are confirmed in our scriptures as true Hadithes. Even Moslem Scholars cannot agree on Hadithes.


"I think that was addressed to yourself?"

Why do you think so? I have already said I believe Muhammad is the Seal of the Prophets, until the Day of Resurrection, but not after. Moreover, Quran is clear that on the Day of Resurrection, humanity was supposed to meet with God. Something that I didn't see you agree with!
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
I'll give just one or two examples.

The Christian Church actively opposed science, burning Bruno and placing Galileo under house arrest fot the "crime" of stating that the earth wasn't the center of the universe.

And a large number of Christians still promoted and practiced slavery until the mid-1860s.

Not only did Christianity battle Muslims in the crusades, but warred on other Christians (the Eastern Orthodox, and later on , Protestants) also.

So Christianity's history is far less "pristine" than you care to claim.
I never claimed or ever thought Christianity's history was free from many questionable events. That however has no bearing on the faith its self. If you evaluate a college professor do you think it is more accurate to evaluate the students that show up everyday and study hard and actually listen to the teacher. Or would you instead evaluate the students that didn't go to class never studied or bothered to listen to the teacher. For every terrible act Christians have done there a hundred good ones. I agree with you that idiots have doen terrible things in the name of Christianity as well as most other religions, however I don't see why that is important here. We have billions of people who claim they are Christians. Out of billions is it any suprise that a few are lying and are just doing whatever they feel like. Your point is true but meaningless. Their actions are not consistent with the religion and so are not a reflection on it.



What you overlook is that the Jewish scriptures had EXACTLY THE SAME PROHIBITION, which if taken literally makes the entire New Testament accursed! See Deuteronomy 12:32.
So clearly, this prohibition doesn't prevent GOD from revealing new scripture even if men aren't to tamper with it.
You are mistaken:
Young's Literal Translation
The whole thing which I am commanding you -- it ye observe to do; thou dost not add unto it, nor diminish from it.
Revelation 22:18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
What thing soever I command you, observe to do it,.... In the manner it is commanded and directed to; the laws of God, both as to matter and manner, were to be obeyed just as they were delivered: thou shall not add thereto, nor diminish from it; neither add any customs and rites of the Heathens to them, nor neglect anything enjoined on them, see Proverbs 30:6.
Revelation 22:18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.

God is saying here to add nothing onto what he commands. Since Jesus (god) commanded the apostles to write what they did then this is not a violation. It does not even mention a book. Since there were 19 books in the old testament after this one then it surely doesn't mean what you think it means.

However: New Living Translation (©2007)
And I solemnly declare to everyone who hears the words of prophecy written in this book: If anyone adds anything to what is written here, God will add to that person the plagues described in this book.
Revelation 22:18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.

This scripture does mention a book. This is obviously the last book as it covers the end of everything and so is the logical place to put this warning. Also since this book is that last in the bible which goes from the beginning to the end then there is no need for a different one to come along in the 1800's. The bible already covered that time period and gave all that is necessary.

You are mistaken on this issue.





Nor did Christ reject all future religions and prophets: He Himself promised to send another or to return, depending on the passage.
Jesus actually gave the characteristics of this final prophet. Many false religions that came afterword all suggested their prophet is this prophet: They are completely wrong. Jesus said this:

When Jesus said in several places in John (chapters 14, 15, and 16) that a “Counselor” (or “Comforter”) would come after him to carry on and complete his mission, to whom was he referring? For those of us who were raised in orthodox Christianity – or who were “saved” from an ungodly life and attended orthodox Christian churches thereafter – the answer seems pretty obvious: he was referring to “the Holy Spirit” who “came” on the Day of Pentecost following Jesus’ resurrection and ascension, and who “abides forever” with the Church of God and His Son Jesus Christ. After all, didn’t Jesus specifically say in John 14:26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name…? And in John 14:17, as well as in 16:14 (quoted above), the Counselor is referred to as the Spirit of truth.
Did Jesus Say Another Prophet Would Follow Him? « Mystic444's Blog This is so obvious and clear that any other religion claiming to have this prophet is obviously a false religion. Without any doubt Jesus meant the holy spirit. My life is a testamony to this claim. I have had several experiences with the spirit (the last prophet) and it was no man.

The bible also says this:

"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves" (Matthew 7:15). Echoed by Paul the Apostle: "For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock" (Acts 20:29)
Does Jesus speak of another prophet to come after him?

These scriptures suggest that many false prophets and religions will be comeing after Jesus and the apostles are gone.




And please note that the Baha'i Faith is not "New Age": it's been around for well over a century and a half, and originated in what was at the time a most backeard part of the world!
Once again neither one of these factors are an argument for it's being from God. It goes back less than 1/20th as far as Christianity/Judaism. So it is relatively very new like dozens of others.
 
Last edited:

InvestigateTruth

Well-Known Member
But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name…? And in John 14:17, as well as in 16:14 (quoted above), the Counselor is referred to as the Spirit of truth.
Did Jesus Say Another Prophet Would Follow Him? « Mystic444's Blog This is so obvious and clear that any other religion claiming to have this prophet is obviously a false religion. Without any doubt Jesus meant the holy spirit. My life is a testamony to this claim. I have had several experiences with the spirit (the last prophet) and it was no man.
I think your interpretation is not considering certain points, so, It is not in accordance with Words in the Bible:

"In the Gospel of John, in speaking of the Promised One Who was to come after Christ, it is said : "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth: for He shall not speak of Himself; but whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak."
Now consider carefully that from these words, "for He shall not speak of Himself; but whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak," it is clear that the Spirit of truth is embodied in a Man Who has individuality, Who has ears to hear and a tongue to speak."

- Abdulbaha, Some Answered Questions


The bible also says this:

"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves" (Matthew 7:15). Echoed by Paul the Apostle: "For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock" (Acts 20:29)

Again, this verse simply means, there would come false prophets, so, people pay attention to their fruits, but it doesn't mean true prophets do not come.

There are even more explicit verses which talks about future Prophets in Bible:




"And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and three-score days, clothed in sackcloth." Rev. 11:3

"And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts to one another, because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth." Rev. 11:10
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
Because religions have a tragic history of considering themselves the "culmination" and denying any possibility of any further religion to come.

So now with F0uad's posts you have had two fairly competent people, one from each religion that deny that there are any additional prophets than those that came within our specific history and we have provided a selection of the large amount of testimony from our holy books to support this. I think it is obvious that Baha i is not compatable with our respective religions. It may still be true regardless of this fact but I have not seen any reason as of yet to conclude it is. I want to remind you again I require an explanation of your strange racism assertion.

Shalom,
 
Last edited:

1robin

Christian/Baptist
I think your interpretation is not considering certain points, so, It is not in accordance with Words in the Bible:

"In the Gospel of John, in speaking of the Promised One Who was to come after Christ, it is said : "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth: for He shall not speak of Himself; but whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak."
Now consider carefully that from these words, "for He shall not speak of Himself; but whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak," it is clear that the Spirit of truth is embodied in a Man Who has individuality, Who has ears to hear and a tongue to speak."
Absolutely not correct. I notice in your quotation the word man nor human even appears except where you inserted them however spirit appears several times along with characteristics that are specifically associated with the Holy spirit in the bible. Then somehow you think this proves your point. Quite astonishing. Especially since I quoted two scholars who said the exact opposite of what you do.



Again, this verse simply means, there would come false prophets, so, people pay attention to their fruits, but it doesn't mean true prophets do not come
Well even by your standards it sure as heck doesn't say that true ones will. Especially when Jesus only mentions one more true prophet and the book its self was complete. One of the tests for any prophet is signs and wonders as well as his teachings lining up with the biblical narrative. There have been none since the bible was completed that have.






"And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and three-score days, clothed in sackcloth." Rev. 11:3
"And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts to one another, because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth." Rev. 11:10
However these two prophets are not new they are either Moses and Elija or Enoch and Elija. Most claim it is Moses and Elija. No scholar I have ever read suggests they were two new prophets. If I was you I would abandon this line of reasoning. It won't end well for you. It appears that you want to find justification for your religion so bad by attaching it to Christianity and Islam that you are seeing what you want to see in things that actually mean the opposite.
 
Last edited:

F0uad

Well-Known Member
You're largely mistaken: we use ONLY those hadiths directly quoted in our scriptures and ignore the rest. After all, even Muslims can't agree on which ones are accurate!
Yes they do.

So you pick some Hadiths to make up your own religion? :confused:

Sigh. So sorry, but this is completely wrong! I'll post the explanation of why yet again.

Bruce
- - - - -
Muslims often interpret the Qur'an as stating that Muhammad, being the Seal of the Prophets, is the final prophet and that there will be no more Divine Messengers sent by God (or Allah).

In fact, IOV this whole “last prophet” thing is based upon a misunderstanding!

There are in fact several different explanations of the verse in the Qur’an saying Muhammad is the Seal of the Prophets (a statement we Baha’is accept, please note!):

• First off, there is a sense in which EVERY Divine Messenger is the First and the Last, the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, and the Seal!

• Next, there are multiple Arabic words that all translate into English as "prophet."

One of these is "nabi," which refers to a minor prophet such as Jeremiah or Amos.

Another is Ras'ul, which means a major, religion-founding Divine Messenger like Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, or Baha'u'llah (our Founder). (And yes, Muhammad was a major--not a minor--Prophet.)


But the word actually used in the Qur'an is "nabi," meaning Muhammad was the Seal of the minor prophets! This says nothing whatever about the great Divine Messengers.


• Muhammad is also the Seal in the sense that He was the last Messenger during the Prophetic Age, which began with Adam and ended with Him. The Bab then closed out that Age and opened the Age of Fulfillment, of which Baha'u'llah is the first major Messenger.

• Finally, there is a sense in which the word commonly translated as "seal" also means "ornament," so that this verse of the Qur'an may simply be saying that Muhammad is the Ornament of the prophets! (Nothing whatever about any sort of finish.)
There is no need to even quote this from a article even a 3year old knows this and knows the difference between a Nabi and an Rassullah.

A messenger is automatically a prophet look at the definitions of the words. So when the Authentic Hadiths say he is the last Rasullah and that the Quran is the last revelation even the Quran indicates this but let me quote some to clarify my position:

"Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but (he is) the Apostle of God, and the Seal of the Prophets: and God has full knowledge of all things. (The Noble Quran, 33:40)"

"In My Ummah (Islamic Nation), there shall be born Thirty Grand Liars (Dajjals), each of whom will claim to be a prophet, But I am the Last Prophet; there is No Prophet after Me. (Abu Dawood Vol 2 p. 228; Tirmidhi Vol 2 p.45)"

"Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, 'The Israelis used to be ruled and guided by prophets: Whenever a prophet died, another would take over his place. There will be no prophet after me, but there will be Caliphs who will increase in number.' The people asked, 'O Allah's Apostle! What do you order us (to do)?' He said, 'Obey the one who will be given the pledge of allegiance first. Fulfil their (i.e. the Caliphs) rights, for Allah will ask them about (any shortcoming) in ruling those Allah has put under their guardianship.' (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Virtues and Merits of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and his Companions, Volume 4, Book 56, Number 661)"

"Narrated Sad: Allah's Apostle set out for Tabuk. appointing 'Ali as his deputy (in Medina). 'Ali said, 'Do you want to leave me with the children and women?' The Prophet said, 'Will you not be pleased that you will be to me like Aaron to Moses? But there will be no prophet after me.' (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Book 59, Military Expeditions led by the Prophet (peace be upon him) (Al-Maghaazi), Volume 5, Number 700)"

"Sa'd b. Abi Waqqas reported that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) left 'Ali b. Abi Talib behind him (as he proceeded) to the expedition of Tabuk, whereupon he ('Ali) said: Allah's Messenger, are you leaving me behind amongst women 4nd children? Thereupon he (the Holy Prophet) said: Aren't you satisfied with being unto me what Aaron was unto Moses but with this exception that there would be no prophet after me. (Translation of Sahih Muslim, Book 31, The Book Pertaining to the Merits of the Companions (Allah Be Pleased With Them) of the Holy Prophet (May Peace Be Upon Him) (Kitab Al-Fada'il Al-Sahabah), Number 5914)"

"Narrated AbuHurayrah: The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: There is no prophet between me and him, that is, Jesus (peace_be_upon_him). He will descent (to the earth). When you see him, recognise him: a man of medium height, reddish fair, wearing two light yellow garments, looking as if drops were falling down from his head though it will not be wet. He will fight the people for the cause of Islam. He will break the cross, kill swine, and abolish jizyah. Allah will perish all religions except Islam. He will destroy the Antichrist (Dajjal) and will live on the earth for forty years and then he will die. The Muslims will pray over him. (Translation of Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 37, Battles (Kitab Al-Malahim), Number 4310)"


The People of Israel used to be ruled and guided by Prophets from Allah Almighty, and Muhammad peace be upon him is the last Prophet and Messenger. No Messenger of Allah will come after him. Only Caliphs (Disciples) will come after him as shown above, and the Muslims must follow them.
These are all Authentic Hadiths.

Let me quote the Authentic Tasfeer(Context) about verse 33:40 narrated by the companions of Mohammed(saws):

(but he is the Messenger of Allah and the last of the Prophets. And Allah is Ever All-Aware of everything.) This is like the Ayah:
(Allah knows best with whom to place His Message) (6:124). This Ayah clearly states that there will be no Prophet after him. If there will be no Prophet after him then there will surely be no Messenger after him either, because the status of a Messenger is higher than that of a Prophet, for every Messenger is a Prophet but the reverse is not the case. This was reported in many Mutawatir Hadiths narrated from the Messenger of Allah via a group of his Companions, may Allah be pleased with them. Imam Ahmad recorded a narration from Ubayy bin Ka`b, from his father that the Prophet said:

(My parable among the Prophets is that of a man who built a house and did a good and complete job, apart from the space of one brick which he did not put in its place. The people started to walk around the building, admiring it and saying, "If only that brick were put in its place. '' Among the Prophets, I am like that brick.) It was also recorded by At-Tirmidhi, who said "Hasan Sahih.''


Your claim directly contradicts the companions and Mohammed's(saws) own words.. seems a bit strange..
 
Last edited:

F0uad

Well-Known Member
My Response: The Baha'is do use Hadithes, but only the ones that are confirmed in our scriptures.
Lol so with other words your religion exist of cherypicking?

My response: They are from translation of Quran by Rodwell, which has a slightly different numbering than most online Qurans. But you can find them if you look no more than usually 4-5 verses before or after, in other Quran's translations.
It not only has different numberings but also different words and interpretations so please use a right one.

My Response: Abdullah?? You mean Baha'u'llah? The Quran and Hadithes are clear that another revelation was supposed to come from God. The belief that there won't come another Messenger after Muhammad, is based on misunderstandings of Islam leaders. It's like other religions, that their leaders tell them that Muhammad is not a true prophet. Because Jesus is First and Last, and is the Only way to Truth. and Muhammad by revealing Quran, has added scriptures to Bible, which means he is a false prophet.
Likewise, many religious leaders have said Jesus is not a true Messiah, because He broke the Law of Sabbath, and did not fulfill the Prophecies of Bible, etc...

No they aren't they are the oppsite they actually say and teach us that no-one will come after him that Allah(swt) completed the religion and hes revelation. What a is Muslim leader according to you.. i would say the Companions and Mohammed(saws) himself? :confused:

My Response: Because Quran is clear that no one knows it's interpretation except God who based on Quran the interpretation of it was supposed to come on the Day of Resurrection. So, we follow the interpretation that is revealed by God.
Moreover, we do use many Hadithes which are confirmed in our scriptures as true Hadithes. Even Moslem Scholars cannot agree on Hadithes.
Yes they do. You have read a whole different Quran then i have or the majority has i think. Companions asked Mohammed(saws) about everything almost each verse wherein Mohammed(saws) explained this and this is what we call Tasfeer/Hadiths.

Why do you think so? I have already said I believe Muhammad is the Seal of the Prophets, until the Day of Resurrection, but not after. Moreover, Quran is clear that on the Day of Resurrection, humanity was supposed to meet with God. Something that I didn't see you agree with!
A prophet is not always a messenger but a Messenger is always a prophet according to Authentic Hadiths so your argument fails. Its not ''Was'' but is yes we are supposed to ''meet'' with God but this doesn't mean we will face him in any form however this is irrelevant.
 

arthra

Baha'i
The Book of Revelation mentioned above didn't come about at the end of the New Testament... It was it's own book and it had a warning attached not to add anything to it.

It was actually added quite late to the canon of the New Testament and not without controversy..per the wiki:

According to Denzinger, Revelation was accepted into the canon at the Council of Carthage of 397 AD,[26] according to McDonald & Sanders it was added at the later 419 council.[27] Revelation's place in the canon was not guaranteed, however, with doubts raised as far back as the 2nd century about its character, symbolism, and apostolic authorship.[28]
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
The Book of Revelation mentioned above didn't come about at the end of the New Testament... It was it's own book and it had a warning attached not to add anything to it.

It was actually added quite late to the canon of the New Testament and not without controversy..per the wiki:

According to Denzinger, Revelation was accepted into the canon at the Council of Carthage of 397 AD,[26] according to McDonald & Sanders it was added at the later 419 council.[27] Revelation's place in the canon was not guaranteed, however, with doubts raised as far back as the 2nd century about its character, symbolism, and apostolic authorship.[28]
So the book at the end of the bible, and the book which covers the last events in human history, and was added to the canon the latest is not the last book of the bible. Wow. Since there are 66 books in the bible then the chance that the last book would contain the instruction to not add anything to it even though it doesn't mean don't add anything to the whole bible is one chance in 66. Not very good odds for your position. The last book of the bible containing the instruction is exactly where it should be if it means to not add to the bible as a whole. You sure are willing to stretch facts to validate a theory. Regardless nothing in the bible allows for addition revelation for a later work. It strictly forbids in many ways in addition to those instructions. One being that Jesus said he would send one last witness (the holy spirit) and never mentioned any additional ones. Even though it isn't the case the lack of the bible preventing new prophets is no argument that it allows it. In fact it says the opposite. The bible also says that the Holy Spirit will lead us into all truth. That is why no further prophets are needed or allowed for.

The reason it took a long time for revelations to make it into the canon is because it contains such fantastic claims and was written in code to escape Roman oppression. Since it was so fantastic and supernatural in character it was subjected to even more scrutiny than the other books were.
 

arthra

Baha'i
"I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book."

- Revelation 22:18
 
Top