• 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!

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

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
By the way, the number one rule to Quran, is never say "such and such is not in the Quran", rather only say "I see such and such in Quran", or "I'm unaware and have not seen this and that in the Quran", because Quran is a comprehensive guidance, and has not a left anything out in that regard.

As for the Mahdi, it's repeated although not by his nickname or name, but by concept, more then any other subject in Quran.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
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.

You would need to provide references to support your claim the Quran references to the Mahdi. There isn’t any direct reference. In fact you will struggle to substantiate most of your professed beliefs with the Quran itself. That’s fine.

In regards end time eschatology Jesus uses the story of Noah’s ark in His last sermon known as the Olivet discourse. Many Christians interpret these verses literally to reach similar conclusions about beliefs in Christ as you have with Muhammad. We’re all entitled to our beliefs. I can better see why Muhammad being the final Prophet makes sense for you.

Salaam
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
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.

Alright. You believe in the Mahdhi and its taken from the ahadith. Do you only believe the Mahdi issue in the Hadith or everything in it?

I understand why you say this but it just creates unnecessary differences.

So what youre saying is that you pick and choose what you wish to adopt into understanding or communicating your theology based one what you deem as "necessary or unnecessary", not what the scripture is saying.

Many Muslims take this last part too literally, miss the point entirely and so you end up with Jesus and Jacob being the same.

You have missed the point entirely. Jesus is definitely sad to be different. If you read the Quran you will see clearly that it says that they have elevated some messengers over the others. Thats the business of God. The "dont make any distinction" is for us readers. It is we who are not to make distinction. And it is just said in the Quran, so thats another thing you wish to ignore from the Quran.

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.

Jesus and Moses have prominence. Quran says that some messengers are elevated more than the other. But "we" are not to make a distinction. It is not our job to keep one one a pedestal. Thus, like you accuse me that I am going against the Quran, it is you who is. Read the full Quran. If you are adopting any of it, adopt the full of it.

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.

Thats your faith. Not what the Quran says. You keep saying "Most Muslims" do this and that so many times. It does easily seem that you have aversion towards Muslims. Thats not relevant.

In a nutshell you seem to be saying that "Bahai faith is correct. Bahaullah was a prophet. So either the Quran is wrong, or Muslims are wrong. But since you wish not to negate the Quran you keep saying "Muslims are wrong". That is not a very learned negation of the verse in question, and also is the definition of "post hoc fallacy".

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.

Thats the usual genetic fallacy you keep committing. And is not relevant. This is your own post. I have seen you make this assertion so many times that its almost an expected repetition. This general comment about Muslims is not relevant to the OP.

Please open another thread about Islam, Judaism, Christianity (Please, not Muslims, Jews and Christians). That is more relevant to the comment.

Peace.
 

Limo

Active Member
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.
By the way, not only Bahaa, Bab, and Ahmaya allegated prophecy after Prophet Mohamed Peace and prayers up on him but also many people and sects.

The coming between Bahaa, Bab, and Ahmady is that all are non Arabs.

The word Khatem Alnabeen in Arabic has no meaning in Arabic language other than LAST, COMOLETED, FINAL

There are many hadeethes that Prophet Said clearly "no prophecies after me"

So no base for Bahaa, Bab, and Ahmady in Islam.

We don't consoder all these sects Moslems, i think they're also don't like to be called Moslems.
Regards
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
Alright. You believe in the Mahdhi and its taken from the ahadith. Do you only believe the Mahdi issue in the Hadith or everything in it?

No. I also believe in the rightly guided Imams, the first being Ali. Shi’a traditions have greater emphasis on the Mahdi whereas some Sunni deny any basis for the Mahdi at all.

So what youre saying is that you pick and choose what you wish to adopt into understanding or communicating your theology based one what you deem as "necessary or unnecessary", not what the scripture is saying.

You twist my words to assign meaning that was never intended.

You have missed the point entirely. Jesus is definitely sad to be different. If you read the Quran you will see clearly that it says that they have elevated some messengers over the others. Thats the business of God. The "dont make any distinction" is for us readers. It is we who are not to make distinction. And it is just said in the Quran, so thats another thing you wish to ignore from the Quran.

IMHO, The Quran is all about having the spiritual discernment to recognise God’s Prophets, understand His Words and follow His Commands and heed His Exhortations. There is no ignoring anything in the Quran.

Jesus and Moses have prominence. Quran says that some messengers are elevated more than the other. But "we" are not to make a distinction. It is not our job to keep one one a pedestal. Thus, like you accuse me that I am going against the Quran, it is you who is. Read the full Quran. If you are adopting any of it, adopt the full of it.

Thanks for admitting Jesus and Moses have prominence.

Thats your faith. Not what the Quran says. You keep saying "Most Muslims" do this and that so many times. It does easily seem that you have aversion towards Muslims. Thats not relevant.

In a nutshell you seem to be saying that "Bahai faith is correct. Bahaullah was a prophet. So either the Quran is wrong, or Muslims are wrong. But since you wish not to negate the Quran you keep saying "Muslims are wrong". That is not a very learned negation of the verse in question, and also is the definition of "post hoc fallacy".

I have no aversion to Muslims. I am openly a Baha’i as you are a Muslim. Baha’is are commanded to associate with peoples of all faiths in a spirit of love and fellowship. You can criticise me all you like. It will not deter me from loving Muslims and change the way I feel about you.

Thats the usual genetic fallacy you keep committing. And is not relevant. This is your own post. I have seen you make this assertion so many times that its almost an expected repetition. This general comment about Muslims is not relevant to the OP.

Please open another thread about Islam, Judaism, Christianity (Please, not Muslims, Jews and Christians). That is more relevant to the comment.

Peace.
.

Do remember Baha’is see the Torah and Gospels as more or less authentic. We believe the Quran to be the authenticated repository of the Word of God. We regard our scripture in a similar manner. We also see the harmony of science and religion and will defer to science over religion in some matters. History can also be a stern judge as to the wisdom and error of some beliefs and interpretation. In brief Baha’is will understand the Quran and Muhammad Himself differently from many Muslims.

This thread isn’t about Muslim vs Baha’i. Besides I am just one Baha’i and readily admit my lack of knowledge. This thread is an invitation to reflect and better understand the meanings of the Khatam an-Nabiyyin. Thank you for assisting me to better understand this verse and your contributions to this thread.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
By the way, not only Bahaa, Bab, and Ahmaya allegated prophecy after Prophet Mohamed Peace and prayers up on him but also many people and sects.

The coming between Bahaa, Bab, and Ahmady is that all are non Arabs.

The word Khatem Alnabeen in Arabic has no meaning in Arabic language other than LAST, COMOLETED, FINAL

There are many hadeethes that Prophet Said clearly "no prophecies after me"

So no base for Bahaa, Bab, and Ahmady in Islam.

We don't consoder all these sects Moslems, i think they're also don't like to be called Moslems.
Regards
It is true the Bab, Bahá’u’lláh and Mirza Ghulam were not Arabic. I can see what you clearly believe to be the truth in regards the Khatam an-Nabiyyin and supporting Hadiths. Thanks for being clear about what you believe in. It is true the Baha’is prefer to be called Baha’is and not Muslims. I understand Ahmadiyyas see themselves as a sect of Islam. Baha’is consider themselves the followier of an independent religion, Prophet and Nabi. Thanks for your post.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
No. I also believe in the rightly guided Imams, the first being Ali. Shi’a traditions have greater emphasis on the Mahdi whereas some Sunni deny any basis for the Mahdi at all.

You are wrong. Sunnis believe in the Mahdi too so they dont deny the Mahdi. Also, Imams, Ali, traditions are all after the Quran. Your OP was about a verse in the Quran.

IMHO, The Quran is all about having the spiritual discernment to recognise God’s Prophets, understand His Words and follow His Commands and heed His Exhortations. There is no ignoring anything in the Quran.

You have not understood the Quran. It is not "all about having the spiritual discernment to recognise God’s Prophets, understand His Words and follow His Commands and heed His Exhortations.". Again, its not "all about" it.

I have no aversion to Muslims. I am openly a Baha’i as you are a Muslim.

Then dont keep saying that Muslims are like this and muslims are like that. When you discuss something here, I respond to your comment, and you respond to mine. So consider me an individual and I will consider you as an individual. If I generalise you to "All Bahai's" or "All humans" or "all westerners" or "all men" or what ever it is it is the genetic fallacy. I will assess what you say based on the merits of "What you say", not based on who you are. Genetic fallacy.

Do remember Baha’is see the Torah and Gospels as more or less authentic. We believe the Quran to be the authenticated repository of the Word of God. We regard our scripture in a similar manner. We also see the harmony of science and religion and will defer to science over religion in some matters. History can also be a stern judge as to the wisdom and error of some beliefs and interpretation. In brief Baha’is will understand the Quran and Muhammad Himself differently from many Muslims.

This thread isn’t about Muslim vs Baha’i. Besides I am just one Baha’i and readily admit my lack of knowledge. This thread is an invitation to reflect and better understand the meanings of the Khatam an-Nabiyyin. Thank you for assisting me to better understand this verse and your contributions to this thread.

Exactly. The post is not about "Muslims vs Bahai's". Its not even about "Muslims". Its about a verse you quoted already.

I agree that you will understand the Quran differently. But the reasoning should based on the merits of the text. Not based on something that happened 1000 years after the Quran. The language of the time the book was written.

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

The term seal, as regards prophecy, has been used in Jewish, Christian and Manichaean traditions as meaning 'confirming' the validity of that which had been brought by earlier prophets (and the Arabic term used is imported from Aramaic, and exists as a hapax in the Quran).

There is some evidence of some early Muslims interpreting it in this manner, although the consensus on 'last' emerged pretty rapidly.

As with many such issues from this period, there is enough ambiguity to make a reasonable case for either (or both), although the context to the phrase does seem to lean towards 'last'.

You might be interested in these:

“The Seal of the Prophets and the Finality of Prophecy,”

Guy G. Stroumsa, “Seal of the Prophets: The Nature of a Manichaean Metaphor,” Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 7 (1986), 61-74
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
The term seal, as regards prophecy, has been used in Jewish, Christian and Manichaean traditions as meaning 'confirming' the validity of that which had been brought by earlier prophets (and the Arabic term used is imported from Aramaic, and exists as a hapax in the Quran).

There is some evidence of some early Muslims interpreting it in this manner, although the consensus on 'last' emerged pretty rapidly.

As with many such issues from this period, there is enough ambiguity to make a reasonable case for either (or both), although the context to the phrase does seem to lean towards 'last'.

You might be interested in these:

“The Seal of the Prophets and the Finality of Prophecy,”

Guy G. Stroumsa, “Seal of the Prophets: The Nature of a Manichaean Metaphor,” Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 7 (1986), 61-74

1. Did you notice that Guy Stroumsa is quoting Arthur Jeffery (Page 121), who is quoting Noldeke, who said "Probably"?
2. Also did you notice that both papers makes clear distinction between Rasoolullah and Nabiullah?
3. Through all of this (the whole idea that this verse in concern 33:40 was all about Muhammed and his marriages etc, through all of this, the phrase Khatham an nabiyyin means no more Nabi's. You could argue that the Quran is wrong, but the post is about what this phrase means.

Cheers.
 

Samantha Rinne

Resident Genderfluid Writer/Artist
God?

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

Is this same faith? No. It's religious debates. This means anyone can join.

I am a syncretist. Something Muslims would probably consider haram because they don't believe in questioning ideas or mixing with other people.

By your own words, you have admitted that Allah is not God, something Muslims are always careful to tell "nonbelievers" is not so. "Oh we worship the same God as you," they all say. Thank you for reminding me otherwise.
God is named God, because he is God. Any God who needs another name, is in question after all:

"The tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao, the name that can be named is not the eternal Name. "

Once you start putting a name to God, calling God something fixed like Emily or Joseph or Ashley or Bob (or Allah), you turn your deity into lowercase god. An idol. Just as you do when you you start kneeling several times a day to a stone made by human hands. Muhammad didn't abolish idol worship. He streamlined it! That makes him a false prophet, and our discussion could technically be over.

But debates are not things to be won, because winning doesn't reallt help anyone actually reach an understanding. So here it is. What makes a prophet different from say... a camel salesman looking to pretend to be one, by claiming an angel spoke to him? There are several things: (1) Outside authority, (2) motive, (3) mission.

(1) You cannot be a self-proclaimed prophet. To be a prophet implies that God chose you. And you will see this repeatedly in the Jewish and Christian Old Testament but also in leaders of Hindu and Buddhist traditions where avatars or orher messengers spoke to them. If the Quran is written by Muhammad himself (which is, in essence so, though actually you can tell he orated it because of repetition frequent within the text
https://www.quora.com/Is-Quran-written-by-prophet-Muhammed-alone )
then he is a self-proclaimed prophet. Why is it important that a prophet not be self-proclaimed? Because it not only draws into question their motives, but leads to a sense of "because I said so." You'll see repeatedly that prophets in Judaism are never self-proclaimed, in fact Jonah proves this extemely well, when he is called by God and he runs away to another country. He is called to tell Ninevah, a section of I believe in Iraq, that their way is in error. Okay picture this, a Jew told to tell Iraqis, "God wants you to repent." Yeaaah, most people will run the other way. But it turns out Jonah isn't afraid that they will try to kill him, no he is afraid they will in fact put on sackcloth and repent. He hopes God would kill off these people that he probably dislikes but knows they would repent if someone like him told them. What does this teach us but that a prophet doesn't call himself but rather receives a call, and like or not, he feels driven to do so ( Jonah in fact tried to flee to another country and got tossed overboard after they decided he was cursing the ship).

(2) A prophet also cannot be motivated by greed (and again, prophet in this case is not one who is a seer, but one who has been instructed to deliver a message). If a prophet is after fame, power, or wealth their motives are wrong and their words cannot be trusted.
HISTORY OF MUHAMMAD
Muhammad was a child of a merchant family adopted into a caravan. He starts retreating into a mountain and sees a... stop right there! Already we have his motive. He is sick of the caravan life and wandering in poverty, he doesn't want to be some unknown trader, so he starts coming up with a story about how some angel talked to him. We already have a motive of fame, and through his life history we also see wealth and power. He dies fairly well off. Contrast this to the fate of most Jewish prophets. Most of them were outcasts, penniless, and some died in the most painful way imaginable. I could talk about Jesus, but I know the story that Muslims hear about Jesus, so that's pointless. Let's talk about Jonah again. What did he get for his trouble? Fame? Wealth? Nope, he got to sit outside the city while all of the others had become righteous and were in atonement, and watch a tree wither while he suffered in the sun. The text ends with him getting lectured. Many of the other prophets got killed for their efforts. Elijah had to run to a mountain somewhere because the kings and leaders found his message offensive. Not one of these people did it for the money or for fame, but rather suffered for their message.

(3) And yet, what defined a prophet was a sense that when times got hard, they knew exactly what they were told to do. Here again, Muhammad fails. Having been rejected by the people he tries to convert, he decides to make wae on them. This here invalidates him finally, and completely as a prophet. When a prophet abandons their mission to spread a message and instead visits violence on the people called to hear it, he has failed in his mission. Any real prophet would have told him exactly what to do. To be unswayed by their rejection, and stay to proclaim his words anyway, accepting whatever they did to him. But instead, he makes war on his charges.
Not one of the prophets of Judaism does this. They carry out their mission regardless of person risk. They try to reform injustices, to make converts even when those around them hate them or distrust them, and they stay on task, not ababdoning their way to violence.

Jesus actually never once called himself Son of God. He called himself the son of man, a name from Ezeki mostly. It was his disciples (Peter in particular) and his enemies (one of the Roman centurions who witnessed a storm during his death) who said he was the Son of God.

Jesus in his own lifetime is asked by whose authority. So instead he asks about John the Baptist, whether he acted by God's authority or by man's (that is, his own). John the Baptist, if he was a prophet would have acted by God's authority, for reasons I have told in the paragraphs above. Yet the Pharisees were reluctant to admit he was a prophet because John personally damaged their reputation because he was not like them, and it also raised the quedtion of why as priests they rejected him. On the other hand, they feared the crowd if they said that he was not a prophet. So they were trapped. Because they couldn't answer there, Jesus didn't have to answer, because like John he had also been rejected by the priests of his time.
 
Last edited:
1. Did you notice that Guy Stroumsa is quoting Arthur Jeffery (Page 121), who is quoting Noldeke, who said "Probably"?

He is agreeing with Noldeke, not specifically quoting him.

Jeffrey, Foreign vocabulary, p121:

(Khātam).

xxxiii, 40.
A seal.
The passage is late Madinan and the word is used in the techni-
cal phrase .

On the surface it would seem to be a genuine derivative from
to seal, but as Fraenkel, Vocab, 17, points out, a form is
not regular in Arabic, and the verb itself, as a matter of fact, is
denominative.1 The verb occurs in the Qurān in vi, 46; xlv, 23, and

the derivative , which Jawharī says is the same as , is used
in lxxxiii, 26. All these forms are in all probability derived from the Aram. as Nöldeke had already noted.2

Hirschfeld, Beiträge, 71, claimed that the word was of Jewish origin, quoting the Heb. 9U)1 seal; Syr. . In his New Researches, 23, he quotes Haggai ii, 23, a verse referring to Zerubbabel, which shows that the idea of a man being a seal was not foreign to Jewish circles, beside which Horovitz, KU, 53, appositely cites 1 Cor. ix, 2, “ye are the seal of my Apostleship”—σφραγίς μου τῆς ἀποστολῆς, where the Pe****ta reads . The Targumic 'A3U1 and Christian Palestinian ,3 meaning obsignatio, finis, conclusio, clausula, give us even closer approximation to the sense of the word as used in the Qurān.

In the general sense of seal it must have been an early borrowing, for already in Imruul-Qais, xxxii, 4 (Ahlwardt, Divans, p. 136), we find the plu. used, and in the S. Arabian inscriptions we have (Rossini, Glossarium, 158).

2. Also did you notice that both papers makes clear distinction between Rasoolullah and Nabiullah?

Yes.

You could argue that the Quran is wrong, but the post is about what this phrase means.

Who is arguing that the the Quran is 'wrong'?

I was just noting the phrase is, to some extent, ambiguous hence the differing ways it has been interpreted.

Do you disagree that it is to some extent ambiguous hence the fact that people have interpreted it in different ways?
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
The term seal, as regards prophecy, has been used in Jewish, Christian and Manichaean traditions as meaning 'confirming' the validity of that which had been brought by earlier prophets (and the Arabic term used is imported from Aramaic, and exists as a hapax in the Quran).

There is some evidence of some early Muslims interpreting it in this manner, although the consensus on 'last' emerged pretty rapidly.

As with many such issues from this period, there is enough ambiguity to make a reasonable case for either (or both), although the context to the phrase does seem to lean towards 'last'.

You might be interested in these:

“The Seal of the Prophets and the Finality of Prophecy,”

Guy G. Stroumsa, “Seal of the Prophets: The Nature of a Manichaean Metaphor,” Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 7 (1986), 61-74
Thanks for those references. They are valuable in seeing that the phrase ‘seal of the Prophets’ was used in Manichaean traditions and had more metaphorical meanings that extend beyond the interpretation ‘last prophet ever’. Its probably one of the most useful historical resources to assist move beyond a rigid dogmatic interpretation. The other paper gives a great deal of context to Surah 33 as a whole.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
He is agreeing with Noldeke, not specifically quoting him.

Jeffrey, Foreign vocabulary, p121:

(Khātam).

xxxiii, 40.
A seal.
The passage is late Madinan and the word is used in the techni-
cal phrase .

On the surface it would seem to be a genuine derivative from
to seal, but as Fraenkel, Vocab, 17, points out, a form is
not regular in Arabic, and the verb itself, as a matter of fact, is
denominative.1 The verb occurs in the Qurān in vi, 46; xlv, 23, and

the derivative , which Jawharī says is the same as , is used
in lxxxiii, 26. All these forms are in all probability derived from the Aram. as Nöldeke had already noted.2

Hirschfeld, Beiträge, 71, claimed that the word was of Jewish origin, quoting the Heb. 9U)1 seal; Syr. . In his New Researches, 23, he quotes Haggai ii, 23, a verse referring to Zerubbabel, which shows that the idea of a man being a seal was not foreign to Jewish circles, beside which Horovitz, KU, 53, appositely cites 1 Cor. ix, 2, “ye are the seal of my Apostleship”—σφραγίς μου τῆς ἀποστολῆς, where the Pe****ta reads . The Targumic 'A3U1 and Christian Palestinian ,3 meaning obsignatio, finis, conclusio, clausula, give us even closer approximation to the sense of the word as used in the Qurān.

In the general sense of seal it must have been an early borrowing, for already in Imruul-Qais, xxxii, 4 (Ahlwardt, Divans, p. 136), we find the plu. used, and in the S. Arabian inscriptions we have (Rossini, Glossarium, 158).



Yes.



Who is arguing that the the Quran is 'wrong'?

I was just noting the phrase is, to some extent, ambiguous hence the differing ways it has been interpreted.

Do you disagree that it is to some extent ambiguous hence the fact that people have interpreted it in different ways?

When I said you, I didnt mean you. It's a general address.

And point of the initial, irrelevant reference of yours to a syriac matter, Arthur jefferey quotes noldeke who was a predecessor of his. You wish to say he agrees, fine. Still he says "probably". Assumption. And that was irrelevant.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Thanks for those references. They are valuable in seeing that the phrase ‘seal of the Prophets’ was used in Manichaean traditions and had more metaphorical meanings that extend beyond the interpretation ‘last prophet ever’. Its probably one of the most useful historical resources to assist move beyond a rigid dogmatic interpretation. The other paper gives a great deal of context to Surah 33 as a whole.

You seem to not accept the difference in rasool and nabi. I'm just curious.

1. Why are both distinctly mentioned in the verses 33:40 you cited in the o.p?

2. Why are both mentioned in the kithab I akdhas as well?

Have you ever pondered?
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
You seem to not accept the difference in rasool and nabi. I'm just curious.

1. Why are both distinctly mentioned in the verses 33:40 you cited in the o.p?

2. Why are both mentioned in the kithab I akdhas as well?

Have you ever pondered?

I agree that both Messenger and Prophet are used in the verse. I hear from you the words don’t really express the Arabic derivatives Rasool and Nabi too well. I accept that though as yet remain unconvinced as to what extent the distinction is important. Muhammad (Praised be upon Him) is clearly both Prophet and Messenger. So too are Jesus and Moses.

An important theme in the sacred books (Torah, Gospels and Quran) is understanding the nature and purpose of the Religious Founders. Muhammad does this by saying what He is (Messenger of God and Seal of the Prophets) and what He isn’t (the father of mankind). Prophet and Messenger have different emphasis though their meanings overlap.

Can you give me an example from the Quran of a Prophet that isn’t a Messenger and a Messenger that isn’t a Prophet?
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
You are wrong. Sunnis believe in the Mahdi too so they dont deny the Mahdi. Also, Imams, Ali, traditions are all after the Quran. Your OP was about a verse in the Quran.

I said some Sunnis don’t.

You have not understood the Quran. It is not "all about having the spiritual discernment to recognise God’s Prophets, understand His Words and follow His Commands and heed His Exhortations.". Again, its not "all about" it.

Perhaps not, but its a Central theme.

Then dont keep saying that Muslims are like this and muslims are like that. When you discuss something here, I respond to your comment, and you respond to mine. So consider me an individual and I will consider you as an individual. If I generalise you to "All Bahai's" or "All humans" or "all westerners" or "all men" or what ever it is it is the genetic fallacy. I will assess what you say based on the merits of "What you say", not based on who you are. Genetic fallacy.

I tend to say some Muslims believe so and so. It seems useful to identify widely held Muslim beliefs. That doesn’t mean to say all Muslims believe x, y and z. I appreciate it doesn’t reflect what you believe either. Although I’m clearly critical of some aspects of Islam I’m extremely positive about Muhammad, the Quran and how Islam has positively shaped civilisation through the Islamic Golden Age. I don’t take this approach to bash Muslims and I’ve no interest in fueling religious bigotry and racism.

Exactly. The post is not about "Muslims vs Bahai's". Its not even about "Muslims". Its about a verse you quoted already.

I agree that you will understand the Quran differently. But the reasoning should based on the merits of the text. Not based on something that happened 1000 years after the Quran. The language of the time the book was written.

Peace.

Understanding the Quran and Muhammad is a work in progress. The purpose of this thread is to enable us all to learn, myself included. Humility is an essential attribute of God.
 

InvestigateTruth

Well-Known Member
You seem to not accept the difference in rasool and nabi. I'm just curious.

1. Why are both distinctly mentioned in the verses 33:40 you cited in the o.p?

2. Why are both mentioned in the kithab I akdhas as well?

Have you ever pondered?
I remember, there is a Shia Hadith, that the prophet said, after Him, there will be 12 Imams, whose stations are greater than the Prophets of Israel. In another words, the Shia Imams have same power and knowledge of Prophets, plus some more. So, if after Muhammad imams who were greater than prophets could come, how can we say, seal of prophets, mean, no more prophets? Because some Muslims say, since prophethood is sealed, Messengership which is a greater station is also sealed. Now if we say, Prophethood is sealed in Quran, not the Imamhood, and thus Imams could come, then no where in quran messengership is sealed, so, Messengers could come. What do you think?
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
I agree that both Messenger and Prophet are used in the verse. I hear from you the words don’t really express the Arabic derivatives Rasool and Nabi too well. I accept that though as yet remain unconvinced as to what extent the distinction is important. Muhammad (Praised be upon Him) is clearly both Prophet and Messenger. So too are Jesus and Moses.

An important theme in the sacred books (Torah, Gospels and Quran) is understanding the nature and purpose of the Religious Founders. Muhammad does this by saying what He is (Messenger of God and Seal of the Prophets) and what He isn’t (the father of mankind). Prophet and Messenger have different emphasis though their meanings overlap.

Can you give me an example from the Quran of a Prophet that isn’t a Messenger and a Messenger that isn’t a Prophet?

Brother. You ask me this since you believe that you know what I believe. I never stated my belief. I was only giving you the information. I never said that a nabi is definitely this, and a rasool is definitely that. I gave you both sides of the argument which you seem to have not understood. Go back and read it. I didnt say "this is my argument". And you have reverted my question about your scripture into my scripture as if I have stated my faith in the matter of Rasool and Nabi. I didnt. I only gave the two different options. The two different arguments. But you have very clearly stated about your faith and your idea about what this "prophet" means and what you believe. So I believe it is only valid that you give a proper response to the Question "what does the Kithab I akdhas say about rasool and nabi because it has both in it".

I asked you about the Kithab I Akdhas which is your holy book. If you don't believe in it that question is irrelevant. Also since you keep bringing your faith into this discussion, this is a very valid question. You dont seem to know if they are (rasool and nabi) are both the same or not in your own book. If you dont know why, you can state it candidly that "you dont know why". Thats perfectly being honest.
 
And point of the initial, irrelevant reference of yours to a syriac matter, Arthur jefferey quotes noldeke who was a predecessor of his. You wish to say he agrees, fine. Still he says "probably". Assumption. And that was irrelevant.

I've already provided the text which shows he is not quoting Noldeke, and he actually says "in all probability" which does not = "Assumption". But seeing as these are there in black and white others can decide which of us is right on this.

Also, I don't see contextual information as irrelevant, but seeing as it is there others can decide for themselves what they consider relevant and what they do not. Just as you can.
 
Top