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

[Dawnofhope]

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

Thats irrelevant brother. Also a completely different subject altogether.

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

Through Moses, Christ and Muhammad there is redemption for the people who are sincere and follow their Teachings. That is clear as the noon day sun. To imagine it would be different with the Mahdi or Return of Christ makes no sense to me. You go your way and I’ll go mine.

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

The Prophet is more worthy of the believers than other men.(Quran 33:6). We see also many of those whom Muhammad had exhorted to turn towards Allah, were faithless when truly tested. When the battle came they fled. Before becoming Muslims they had been pagans and we know what the Quran says about the polytheists and unbelievers. So when Muhammad refers to Prophets He refers to Himself but also the Prophets that have gone before with special emphasis on Moses and Jesus. However there are many other Prophets too beginning with Adam, including Joseph and David and ending with Himself.

So if a seal is where it ends Muhammad is where the Prophetic cycle both begins and ends for that period of time. There is no mention of eternity. The Prophetic era has been sealed by Muhammad until the Madhi and Christ returns to unseal it and redeem the people.

That is how understand it. Your beliefs are yours as mine are mine.

 

[Dawnofhope]

The bible tells us that the Prophets of God spoke by the power of the Holy Spirit. As the Holy Spirit is not a liar and does not tell lies then surely you know that the words of Mahomet were not the words of God? I understand why people would ask about whose prophet he is but the words of this man do not maintain the teachings of the truth prophets and he certainly does for fulfill the criteria as a descendant of Issac the son whom God made the promise too. I believe anything concerning the Mahomet is not acceptable because it falls outside the promised Son and Gods own choices.

The lineage of Muhammad is through Ishmael and through him God Promised a great nation (Genesis17:20).

It is not enough in the eyes of God to follow some Prophets and reject others. That was the error of the Jews. Muhammad (Peace be upon Him) was a Great Man of God, just as Jesus was. Both were guided a right through the Spirit of God.

 

[firedragon]

Through Moses, Christ and Muhammad there is redemption for the people who are sincere and follow their Teachings. That is clear as the noon day sun. To imagine it would be different with the Mahdi or Return of Christ makes no sense to me. You go your way and I’ll go mine.

Ah. You didn't mean redeemer as referring to the Mahdi, you meant in general. Well, thats fair. And your wish to call anyone your way. The mahdi is known as "The Redeemer" so I dont associate Muhammed, Jesus, Moses or anyone else with him. Anyway I dont hold a candle to a mahdi, I am only quoting your own sources and information. You got the name Mahdi from ahadith. So I am referring to that particular character you are referring to. So as you said, you can go your way, and I will go mine. As the Quran does say "to you is your dheen and to me is mine".

The Prophet is more worthy of the believers than other men.(Quran 33:6). We see also many of those whom Muhammad had exhorted to turn towards Allah, were faithless when truly tested. When the battle came they fled. Before becoming Muslims they had been pagans and we know what the Quran says about the polytheists and unbelievers. So when Muhammad refers to Prophets He refers to Himself but also the Prophets that have gone before with special emphasis on Moses and Jesus. However there are many other Prophets too beginning with Adam, including Joseph and David and ending with Himself.

1. When you say prophets do you mean Nabi or Rasool? When you say prophets it seems generally all of them which is not the case.
2. And when you say "Muhammed refers to prophets" which document are you quoting? See, I believe Quran is not Muhammed words.
3. And I cant see much special emphasis on Moses and Jesus. Just that Moses is widely mentioned, and so is Jesus, but we are told not to distinguish between any rasool. So because the Quran says that, they are all the same to me. Unless you were referring to the number of times these people are mentioned. Yes, then Moses is given a lot of prominence in the Quran. So is Abraham.
4. In fact, we are following the Milleth Ibrahim. The religion of Ibrahim (according to the Quran). So as per the Quran Islam did not begin with Muhammed (unless the theology as explained in the Quran is rejected).

Thus according to the Quran, its very difficult to say "before Islam" unless you are referring to a historical Islam with the name "Islam" and not a Quranic Islam.

Peace.

 

[firedragon]

That is how understand it. Your beliefs are yours as mine are mine.

So far, I have not quoted my beliefs. Maybe only once. I am only discussing theologies as mentioned in the respective scripture. Going to the root of the language and the whole text in order to understand its particular theology. Faith/belief is something completely different.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

Muhammad's own work declares Muhammad the final prophet.

I'm gonna test this out, and you see if you believe me.

"My name is Sam. I had a vision from (let's use space alien, rather than angel since it more aligned with my mentality) and this critter told me the truth. You don't have to pay attention to any of those other prophets. I'm the last so everyone after me is fake, and those before mw didn't know anything. " Now, would you believe me?

Meanwhile, Jesus, Buddha, Lao Tzu, and real leaders eith had a third party write about them or wrote mainly on theology/philosophy and avoided talking about themselves.

 

[firedragon]

Muhammad's own work declares Muhammad the final prophet.

I'm gonna test this out, and you see if you believe me.

"My name is Sam. I had a vision from (let's use space alien, rather than angel since it more aligned with my mentality) and this critter told me the truth. You don't have to pay attention to any of those other prophets. I'm the last so everyone after me is fake, and those before mw didn't know anything. " Now, would you believe me?

Meanwhile, Jesus, Buddha, Lao Tzu, and real leaders eith had a third party write about them or wrote mainly on theology/philosophy and avoided talking about themselves.

The primary teachings of the Buddha that is considered the most sacred and important text is the Tripitaka. In 1960s (I think 1968) people celebrated his 2500th birthday. The Tipitaka was written somewhere around 2000 years ago in Sri Lanka. So thats more than 500 years after the Buddha. Legend says that the whole of the Tipitaka was transmitted via oral tradition.

By the way, this is also not according to direct evidence but another history book called the "lineage or legacy of the land (country)" or more famously known as the "Dheepa Wamsa" which is also as legend goes written in the 4th century by Buddhist Priests of Sri Lanka.

 

[Prestor John]

Khatam an-Nabiyyin, usually translated as Seal of the Prophets, is a title used in the Quran to designate the Prophet Muhammad. Among Muslims, it is generally regarded to mean that Muhammad was the last of the prophets sent by God.

The title khatam an-nabiyyin or khatim an-nabiyyin, is applied to Muhammad in verse 33:40 of the Qur'an. The popular Yusaf Ali translation reads,

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

Khatam an-Nabiyyin - Wikipedia

This is commonly understood that Muhammad is the final Prophet for all time despite eschatological beliefs in regards a future Madhi or Qa'im.

Mahdi - Wikipedia

One consequence of understanding Muhammad as being the final prophet, is that other religions such as the Baha'i Faith believe there can be prophets after Muhammad. 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. Many Muslims of course strongly disagree and will sometimes consider the Baha'i Faith an apostate religion. This has led to persecution of Baha'is in severalof Islamic countries including Iran.

Báb - Wikipedia

Bahá'u'lláh - Wikipedia

What I would like discussed in this thread is to hear from Muslims as to why this single verse in the Quran has come to be understood as Muhammad being the final Prophet of all time. It would also be useful for those who believe in Muhmmad but also a Prophet after Muhammad (eg Baha'is and Ahmadiyyas), why this verse doesn't mean the final Prophet for all time.

Bahá'í Faith - Wikipedia

Ahmadiyya - Wikipedia

If it doesn't mean Muhammad was the final Prophet for all time as believed by Muslims, what does it mean?

NB - Anyone who has something constructive to contribute is also welcome to post.

I find the whole there being a "final" anything rather strange.

I mean, aren't we still here? Does God not continue to do His work?

Why would God call prophets from Adam and then just stop?

 

[Samantha Rinne]

The primary teachings of the Buddha that is considered the most sacred and important text is the Tripitaka. In 1960s (I think 1968) people celebrated his 2500th birthday. The Tipitaka was written somewhere around 2000 years ago in Sri Lanka. So thats more than 500 years after the Buddha. Legend says that the whole of the Tipitaka was transmitted via oral tradition.

By the way, this is also not according to direct evidence but another history book called the "lineage or legacy of the land (country)" or more famously known as the "Dheepa Wamsa" which is also as legend goes written in the 4th century by Buddhist Priests of Sri Lanka.

The point I was getting at was that a person CANNOT declare THEMSELVES the final prophet. The only way this statement can be true is if someone besides Muhammad wrote the Quran (which would invalidate what it claims as a source of legitimacy). So Muhammad cannot be the final prophet.

Why is it important that a prophet not declare themselves such? Well, it's complicated but I'll try to explain. The basic version is that prophecy comes from God. A prophet is one who is (1) given the power to predict events or (2) given the power to lead. In either case, we have powers other than/outside of the self. So, the term self-righteous is from the idea that one has declared themselves perfect, deserving, or chosen. Do you see the problem? To do this means it is no longer God's prophecy being foretold, and instead that person's own desires. Far from a final prophet, if gou declare yourself a prophet, you probably cannot be one. Legitimacy is based on other people accepting your claim.

Now because Muhammad cannot be a final prophet, other prophet leaders can exist, like the founders of Bahai and Sikhism.

 

[firedragon]

The point I was getting at was that a person CANNOT declare THEMSELVES the final prophet. The only way this statement can be true is if someone besides Muhammad wrote the Quran (which would invalidate what it claims as a source of legitimacy). So Muhammad cannot be the final prophet.

Why is it important that a prophet not declare themselves such? Well, it's complicated but I'll try to explain. The basic version is that prophecy comes from God. A prophet is one who is (1) given the power to predict events or (2) given the power to lead. In either case, we have powers other than/outside of the self. So, the term self-righteous is from the idea that one has declared themselves perfect, deserving, or chosen. Do you see the problem? To do this means it is no longer God's prophecy being foretold, and instead that person's own desires. Far from a final prophet, if gou declare yourself a prophet, you probably cannot be one. Legitimacy is based on other people accepting your claim.

Now because Muhammad cannot be a final prophet, other prophet leaders can exist, like the founders of Bahai and Sikhism.

This is a problem with language. The word Nabi cannot be translated as prophet in the way you have understood it.

Generally people have translated the word "Nabi" as "Prophet". But this word does not mean prophet as in someone who makes prophecies. Its a huge problem with language. Even if one believes the Quran as a divine book or not, when addressing this particular book, it should be done with empathy towards that language and the context of this particular book.

Anyway, quoting the Quran and its idea of what what a Nabiullah means, he is an informer working for God. The essence of the word is that. Not someone who makes prophecies. So what ever God says he will inform of. Thus, if you take the Quran it is not meant to be a book spoken by Muhammed but God through him who is just an informant. What you are doing is killing the messenger not the sender (that meant as an analogy, not that you are actually killing someone).

Thus, if this passage is to be negated, the Quran has to be negated as Gods message. Its alright. Most people in the world would not believe in a book to be a Gods message. Perfectly fine. But dont quote it as you believe it and only not follow a particular passage.

Also, throughout this post I can easily see that there is a huge lack of empathy towards a language and a book. What has been mostly is not exegesis but eisegesis.

People dont even try to understand the difference between two words.

 

[Link]

Nabi can mean informant or it can be what who is informed by God. In the latter, it means one who receives a revelation (a divine book).

 

[Link]

A Messenger is one with conveys messages on behalf of God, or conveys the message.

One thing to note is Moses and Aaron were Messengers before they received the divine book.

I believe all the Imams except Imam Mahdi have were Messengers but not Nabis, and Imam Mahdi will be a Messenger but not a Nabi when he comes out of occultation.

 

[firedragon]

A Messenger is one with conveys messages on behalf of God, or conveys the message.

One thing to note is Moses and Aaron were Messengers before they received the divine book.

I believe all the Imams except Imam Mahdi have were Messengers but not Nabis, and Imam Mahdi will be a Messenger but not a Nabi when he comes out of occultation.

Well. Sound argument.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

This is a problem with language. The word Nabi cannot be translated as prophet in the way you have understood it.

Generally people have translated the word "Nabi" as "Prophet". But this word does not mean prophet as in someone who makes prophecies. Its a huge problem with language. Even if one believes the Quran as a divine book or not, when addressing this particular book, it should be done with empathy towards that language and the context of this particular book.

Anyway, quoting the Quran and its idea of what what a Nabiullah means, he is an informer working for God. The essence of the word is that. Not someone who makes prophecies. So what ever God says he will inform of. Thus, if you take the Quran it is not meant to be a book spoken by Muhammed but God through him who is just an informant. What you are doing is killing the messenger not the sender (that meant as an analogy, not that you are actually killing someone).

Thus, if this passage is to be negated, the Quran has to be negated as Gods message. Its alright. Most people in the world would not believe in a book to be a Gods message. Perfectly fine. But dont quote it as you believe it and only not follow a particular passage.

Also, throughout this post I can easily see that there is a huge lack of empathy towards a language and a book. What has been mostly is not exegesis but eisegesis.

People dont even try to understand the difference between two words.

Okay, let's suppose thar this huge lack of empathy isn't due to the fact that the Muslims behave like the sheep owner Nathan told David of in 2 Samuel 12, having several Middle Eastern countries but refusing to let Israel have its own state (Palestinian maps have NO state of Israel on them, they want the whole thing with no compromises)

"There were two men in a certain city, one rich and the other poor. The rich man had a great number of sheep and cattle, but the poor man only had on little lamb that he had bought. He raised it and it grew up with him and his children. And it was like a daughter to him. Now a traveler came to the city and rather than give of his own possessions, he took the poor man's sheep and gave it as offering. " David says this man should die, until it is pointed out he is that man for taking Bathsheba.

Suppose even that I don't know how little Islam respects other religions (it's a two-way street, and despite other people welcoming you with open arms, it just gets abused because of a superiority mindset, having them take that free welfare and demand Sharia anyway).

Suppose I even bothered to look up the difference between Nabi and Rasul.

What is the difference between "nabi" and "rasul"?

And suppose after reading all that, I really don't care because it's a distinction without a difference. You see, whether he is a prophet or messenger does not matter in the least because when I declate myself messenger or prophet, the question one asks me is "By what authority do you do these things?"

Matthew 21:23 - "By What Authority Do You Do These Things?"

As in, who gave you permission? Who gave you your message? Muhammad didn't have permission, he gave his message for 15 years, bothering the people of this town, until they actually booted him out. Jesus has a ready answer to this question, "My doctrine is not mine but his who sent me."

When you yourself are writer for your own religion, you lose all credibility.

 

[firedragon]

Okay, let's suppose thar this huge lack of empathy isn't due to the fact that the Muslims behave like the sheep owner Nathan told David of in 2 Samuel 12, having several Middle Eastern countries but refusing to let Israel have its own state (Palestinian maps have NO state of Israel on them, they want the whole thing with no compromises)

No. This empathy I was speaking about was towards a language. So how ever much of a pig-head or arrogant dog I am as a Muslim you perceive, it doesn't matter. If I am to analyse and understand the Bible I must have empathy towards the language of the Bible. Even if I dont know the languages, when someone explains from the languages point of view I should try to think from the languages point of view.

And suppose after reading all that, I really don't care because it's a distinction without a difference. You see, whether he is a prophet or messenger does not matter in the least because when I declate myself messenger or prophet, the question one asks me is "By what authority do you do these things?"

Great. Good for you. Cheers.

 

[Wasp]

Matthew 21:23 - "By What Authority Do You Do These Things?"

As in, who gave you permission? Who gave you your message?

God?

Aren't you a Christian? Isn't it that according to you Jesus said he is the son of God? By what authority?

 

[Dawnofhope]

Ah. You didn't mean redeemer as referring to the Mahdi, you meant in general. Well, thats fair. And your wish to call anyone your way. The mahdi is known as "The Redeemer" so I dont associate Muhammed, Jesus, Moses or anyone else with him. Anyway I dont hold a candle to a mahdi, I am only quoting your own sources and information. You got the name Mahdi from ahadith. So I am referring to that particular character you are referring to. So as you said, you can go your way, and I will go mine. As the Quran does say "to you is your dheen and to me is mine".

The Madhi is not mentioned in the Quran and is from the Hadiths, I agree. My path is to follow the Bab and Bahá’u’lláh whom I consider the Mahdi and Return of Christ respectively. If I did not have this belief I might consider myself a Muslim. If you shared this belief you might consider yourself a Baha’i. So I go my way and yours.

1. When you say prophets do you mean Nabi or Rasool? When you say prophets it seems generally all of them which is not the case.

Adam is the first Prophet and Muhammad the last according to the Quran 33:40 (at the time the words were spoken). Although I appreciate the distinction of the specific words Nabi and Rasool, spoken of by Muhammad, it simply reinforces problems with categories of religions and their Founders that aren’t particularly useful or relevant today. For example Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Jesus and Muhammad are all Nabi. That is clear from the Quran and I’m sure Baha’is who have grown up with Islam would agree. Its useful to recognise Prophetic lineage. Unfortunately there is no longer in existence s distinct book that belongs to Adam, Noah and Abraham. Further, while David may have a book attributable to his Prophethood, He has not founded a religion or community distinct from Judaism and other Faiths who would revere Him such as Christianity and Islam. There is much that could be said and I doubt we’ll find agreement which I accept,

2. And when you say "Muhammed refers to prophets" which document are you quoting? See, I believe Quran is not Muhammed words.

I understand why you say this but it just creates unnecessary differences. The Quran is clearly a record of Muhammad’s Words. He was a Messenger of God so spoke the Words of God. Baha’is use the terminology Manifestation of God that progresses our understanding of who Muhammad was and His relationship with God.

There are many verses in the Quran that refer to Prophets.

For example Quran 2:136

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 . . .

Many Muslims take this last part too literally, miss the point entirely and so you end up with Jesus and Jacob being the same. They are clearly not.

3. And I cant see much special emphasis on Moses and Jesus. Just that Moses is widely mentioned, and so is Jesus, but we are told not to distinguish between any rasool. So because the Quran says that, they are all the same to me. Unless you were referring to the number of times these people are mentioned. Yes, then Moses is given a lot of prominence in the Quran. So is Abraham.

Then you remain wedded to the cultural circumstances in which the Quran was Revealed. Your belief contradicts the clear text of the Quran itself.

For example 5:46 And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the Law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah.

4. In fact, we are following the Milleth Ibrahim. The religion of Ibrahim (according to the Quran). So as per the Quran Islam did not begin with Muhammed (unless the theology as explained in the Quran is rejected).

The Quran is all about the continuity of God’s Revelation through Prophets from Adam to Muhammad. I see Bahá’ís believe in that continuity of Divine Revelation. OTOH most Muslims appear to give lip service to it yet reject the Gospel given through Christ. Its all about Muhammad the final Prophet for all time based on interpretation of the Quran 33:40.

Thus according to the Quran, its very difficult to say "before Islam" unless you are referring to a historical Islam with the name "Islam" and not a Quranic Islam.

Then use the words Divine Revelation which Islam clearly is. Unfortunately too many Muslims fail to recognise the same Divine Revelation and submission to God through Christianity and Judaism as with Islam.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I find the whole there being a "final" anything rather strange.

I mean, aren't we still here? Does God not continue to do His work?

Why would God call prophets from Adam and then just stop?

Of course you do, as I do too. That is because we both believe in Prophets after Muhammad (Joseph Smith and Bahá’u’lláh). Both make provisions for the continuity of Divine Revelation. Notwithstanding the contradictory claims of our respective faiths, why would God simply stop at Muhammad? There is no answer to this question that would satisfy those who are not Muslims. The best answer is He hasn’t.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Muhammad's own work declares Muhammad the final prophet.

I'm gonna test this out, and you see if you believe me.

"My name is Sam. I had a vision from (let's use space alien, rather than angel since it more aligned with my mentality) and this critter told me the truth. You don't have to pay attention to any of those other prophets. I'm the last so everyone after me is fake, and those before mw didn't know anything. " Now, would you believe me?

Meanwhile, Jesus, Buddha, Lao Tzu, and real leaders eith had a third party write about them or wrote mainly on theology/philosophy and avoided talking about themselves.

The problem with that argument is you are comparing yourself to Muhammad. Muhammad has a following of a quarter of the world’s population and Revealed the Quran. We are obliged to at least consider the claim Muslims make, whereas you claim is clearly belongs to you.

 

[Link]

Of course you do, as I do too. That is because we both believe in Prophets after Muhammad (Joseph Smith and Bahá’u’lláh). Both make provisions for the continuity of Divine Revelation. Notwithstanding the contradictory claims of our respective faiths, why would God simply stop at Muhammad? There is no answer to this question that would satisfy those who are not Muslims. The best answer is He hasn’t.

The reason is actually very simple in Quran. The message is suppose to reach all humans eventually, but when it does, it will have ultimatum like it always did, because of the way oppressors act towards God, his appointed ones, and their followers. The ultimatum is if they choose to be oppressive towards believers and reject the final one to be sent to the whole world which Moses spoke about as he is the one who will remove the knot on Moses' tongue as well as Prophets knots on their tongues and spread the wisdom.... if they choose to reject their guidance and be oppressive, they will perish like Noah's people perished, like Pharaoh's followers perished, like so many destroyed nations.

What has never occurred in the past, is this test take on a universal scale to humans and Jinn, and be the final one, that if they fail, they will be utterly destroyed.

The Mahdi is definitely in Quran it's just people read the Quran heedlessly and there are locks and knots blown upon it by from the dark forces and a great sorcery that veils people from the clear recitation.

And the reason he sealed revelations is so that there is no controversy regarding the Quran while if he didn't, the Surahs to be revealed to supplement the Quran with Imams, would've been denied, and Islam would lose it's strength, and people would say "you can't even agree on what consists of Quran let alone tell others to bring and match it with something like it".

This is why you have to understand God's plan to safeguard the revelation, while keeping it clear and hidden, clear to those who fear God and love him, while unclear to his enemies as they rely on ambiguity from it, it will not cease but to cause them to perish in self-deception.

 

[Link]

And part of the plan is how words in Quran can't be given context by those who control what language means. Terms mean what they mean back then to Quran, and so there is this plan of freezing the reminder in context of a language that is primordial form.

You can see in University how terms are debated now endlessly, and definitions are losing their meaning.