بِسۡمِ اللّٰہِ الرَّحۡمٰنِ الرَّحِیۡمِ
سبوحٌ قدوسٌ رب الملائكة والروح
My master the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم is the Seal of the Prophets – Khātam an-Nabiyyīn – and this is one of his virtues. The prevalent interpretation of this ascription, that it means only that he is the last prophet of God in a strictly chronological sense, cannot be correct for logically there is no virtue or excellence in simply being the last chronologically. The fact that being ‘Seal of the Prophets’ is a virtue for Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم is proven from the context of the Ayah in the Quran in which he has been characterized with this ascription:
مَا کَانَ مُحَمَّدٌ اَبَاۤ اَحَدٍ مِّنۡ رِّجَالِکُمۡ وَ لٰکِنۡ رَّسُوۡلَ اللّٰہِ وَ خَاتَمَ النَّبِیّٖنَ
Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but he is the Messenger of Allah and the Seal of the Prophets
(Surah 33:40)
The word lākin (but) is, in Arabic grammar, harf istidrāk – an amendment particle. Its purpose is to compensate for what has preceded. The Ayah begins by announcing that Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم is not the father of any adult man among the people. It is well known that all of his biological sons died in infancy. This is an apparent defect or imperfection, at least in the understanding of the pagan Arabs, and so Allah subsequently declares that despite this apparent defect, Prophet Muhammad is nevertheless His Apostle and also ‘Seal of the Prophets’. This is obviously meant to compensate for the apparent defect of not being the father of any adult man. But if ‘Seal of the Prophets’ is interpreted to mean that he is merely the last prophet in the chronological sense, it’s placement here is meaningless for there is no virtue or excellence in being at the beginning, middle or end of the chain of prophesy in the chronological sense, thus there is no compensation for the apparent defect.
That ‘Seal of the Prophets’ is necessarily an ascription that signifies some virtue or excellence is explicitly highlighted in the following Hadith of the Prophet:
فُضِّلْتُ عَلَى الأَنْبِيَاءِ بِسِتٍّ أُعْطِيتُ جَوَامِعَ الْكَلِمِ وَنُصِرْتُ بِالرُّعْبِ وَأُحِلَّتْ لِيَ الْغَنَائِمُ وَجُعِلَتْ لِيَ الأَرْضُ طَهُورًا وَمَسْجِدًا وَأُرْسِلْتُ إِلَى الْخَلْقِ كَافَّةً وَخُتِمَ بِيَ النَّبِيُّونَ
I have been given superiority over the other prophets in six respects: I have been given words which are concise but comprehensive in meaning; I have been helped by terror (in the hearts of enemies): spoils have been made lawful to me: the earth has been made for me clean and a place of worship; I have been sent to all mankind and the prophets are sealed by me. (Sahih Muslim)
Incidentally, this Hadith is a proof that the great Prophet Noah على نبينا وعليه الصلاة والسلام was not a universal Messenger of God sent to all humanity, contrary to popular belief, for that is the exclusive quality of our Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم. This is a strong indication that Noah’s Flood was not a global phenomenon.
.jpg)
In a verse attributed to the poet Umayya b. Abi al-Salt:
ReplyDeleteبه ختم الله من قبله * ومن بعده من نبىٍّ ختمْ
"by means of whom God sealed the prophets before him and after him". Yohanan Friedmann writes in Finality of Prophethood in Sunni Islam (p.184): "This verse assumes the appearance of prophets after the death of Muhammad and the verb khatama used in it cannot mean that he was the last prophet. One is tempted to consider the possibility that it means here: 'he stamped upon them his seal (of approval?)'"
Your own source refutes you.
ReplyDeleteAllah says in the hadith that someone who seals the prophets, is a thing of superiority.
"I have been given superiority over the other prophets in six respects: ...the prophets are sealed by me."
Therefore a prophet being the seal of the prophets is a status and position which has been given superiority over a prophet who is not a seal by Allah himself.
Therefore your misinterpretation of the Qur'anic verse has been refuted by the hadith you yourself quoted.
{ ما كان محمد أبا أحد من رجالكم } فليس أبا زيد: أي والده فلا يحرم عليه التزوج بزوجته زينب { ولكن } كان { رسول الله وخاتِم النبيين } فلا يكون له ابن رجل بعده يكون نبيا، وفي قراءة بفتح التاء كآلة الختم: أي به ختموا { وكان الله بكل شيءٍ عليما} منه بأن لا نبيّ بعده وإذا نزل السيد عيسى يحكم بشريعته.
ReplyDeleteThe tafseer of Jalalayn refutes your corruption, as in those days it was believed that if someone was a father of a man, the fathers inheritance and wealth and status would transfer to his son, and this could give rise to a misunderstanding that the son of a prophet can inherit his prophethood. Mentioning the fact that the Prophet (PBUH) is not the father of any man is to further reinforce the idea that after him no one can claim to be a prophet, since if his own sons had died and are unable to inherit prophethood, then no one can.
Even putting that aside, your pathetically false interpretation is built on the premise that being the seal of the prophets is NOT source of virtue. However, Allah clearly says the someone who seals the prophets is superior to someone who doesn't and this superiority is given by Allah Himself, so whether you think it is a virtue or not does not matter. So the verse actually mentions two virtues of the Prophet (pbuh):
1. Being the Messenger of Allah
2. Being the seal of the prophets.
Even if it is not a virtue, the Qur'an clearly says the he is the seal, the last of the prophets. It is impossible to interpret it any other way, regardless of what the preceding verses say.
I’m afraid your arguments are extremely weak and illogical. The misunderstanding that the son of a prophet inherits the prophetic mantle from his father could only arise if the sons of every previous prophet were necessarily prophets too. But since that is obviously not the case, why would you assume such a misunderstanding would ever arise?
DeleteYou have quoted Tafsir al-Jalalayn but have neglected his the statement
لا نبيّ بعده وإذا نزل السيد عيسى يحكم بشريعته.
“there is no prophet after him, but when Jesus descends he will judge according to his [Prophet Muhammad’s] Shari’a”
In other words, Tafsir al-Jalalayn acknowledges the legitimacy of the prophesy of Jesus and his coming after Prophet Muhammad because he shall judge and act in accordance with the Mohammedan Shari’a. Therefore, prophesy is possible after Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم but it is necessarily ghair tashri’i (non-legislative) as in the case of the promised Messiah.
Finally, you have simply repeated your illogical argument that being Seal of the Prophets is a virtue and a source of superiority because Allah has declared it such, conveniently forgetting that the debate is not whether being Seal of the Prophets is a virtue or not, but which particular interpretation of the meaning of Seal of the Prophets is logically a source of virtue and excellence. To claim that your interpretation of khatam an-nabiyyin is the correct one remains unsubstantiated. My interpretation, however, has a proof in that logically it is a virtue, and therefore is consistent with both the Ayah (33:40) and the Hadith I cited from Sahih Muslim which explicitly proclaims that being ‘Seal of the Prophets’ is a source of superiority, unless you can logically and rationally prove that merely being the last chronologically in the line of Prophets is a virtue.
Maulana Qasim of Nanauta, the founder of Deoband, stated that there is no virtue in being the last prophet chronologically. See my previous blog post for the full reference and quotation:
Deletehttp://www.salvationfromhell.com/2015/10/deobandi-qasim-nanautvi-no-excellence.html
First of all, your obsessive delusion with proving that there is a prophet after Muhammad (pbuh) is saddening and I wonder at your mental health. It seems that you have only left the Ahmadi religion since you believe yourself to be contacted by Allah Himself, and I pray that you wake up from this fantasy.
DeleteSecondly, it is painful to see you ignore the main point and divert and attack points which I have not even made. The argument being made was about the meaning of the "Seal of the prophets". Your entire thesis was that this verse tries to prove the superiority of who the Prophet(pbuh) is. The context of the revelation of this verse, as was made abundantly clear the tafsir I posted, was that in those times the adopted child of a man was considered his son. So this verse was to clear up not a defect of the Prophet(pbuh) but a defect in the understanding of the pagan Arabs.
The wording also makes it clear. If it was to reproduce an insult the pagans used against the Prophet(pbuh) it would have been someting like: "Muhammad does not have any children,", but the verse emphasis how the Prophet(pbuh) is NOT the FATHER of any of the men. Reading the other verses of Surah Ahzab makes this patently clear, and putting them in context clears up any misunderstanding. Therefore, your entire thesis of "defect" and "virtue" is completely annihilated. But liar as you are, you decided to backtrack and divert to another point.
The second point I made was another argument against you. The "Seal of the prophets" means, as is apparent, the "Seal of the prophets." The onus is on you to prove that it does not mean that. And since I have demolished your original argument, you cannot do that and you will never be able to do that. It is amazing that in your arrogance and delusion you think that your corrupt and far fetched interpretation is equal to mine.
Deleteمَّا جَعَلَ اللَّهُ لِرَجُلٍ مِّن قَلْبَيْنِ فِي جَوْفِهِ ۚ وَمَا جَعَلَ أَزْوَاجَكُمُ اللَّائِي تُظَاهِرُونَ مِنْهُنَّ أُمَّهَاتِكُمْ ۚ وَمَا جَعَلَ أَدْعِيَاءَكُمْ أَبْنَاءَكُمْ ۚ ذَٰلِكُمْ قَوْلُكُم بِأَفْوَاهِكُمْ ۖ وَاللَّهُ يَقُولُ الْحَقَّ وَهُوَ يَهْدِي السَّبِيلَ
"Allah hath not assigned unto any man two hearts within his body, nor hath He made your wives whom ye declare (to be your mothers) your mothers, nor hath He made those whom ye claim (to be your sons) your sons. This is but a saying of your mouths. But Allah saith the truth and He showeth the way."
ادْعُوهُمْ لِآبَائِهِمْ هُوَ أَقْسَطُ عِندَ اللَّهِ ۚ فَإِن لَّمْ تَعْلَمُوا آبَاءَهُمْ فَإِخْوَانُكُمْ فِي الدِّينِ وَمَوَالِيكُمْ ۚ وَلَيْسَ عَلَيْكُمْ جُنَاحٌ فِيمَا أَخْطَأْتُم بِهِ وَلَٰكِن مَّا تَعَمَّدَتْ قُلُوبُكُمْ ۚ وَكَانَ اللَّهُ غَفُورًا رَّحِيمًا
"Proclaim their real parentage. That will be more equitable in the sight of Allah. And if ye know not their fathers, then (they are) your brethren in the faith, and your clients. And there is no sin for you in the mistakes that ye make unintentionally, but what your hearts purpose (that will be a sin for you). Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful."
وَإِذْ تَقُولُ لِلَّذِي أَنْعَمَ اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَأَنْعَمْتَ عَلَيْهِ أَمْسِكْ عَلَيْكَ زَوْجَكَ وَاتَّقِ اللَّهَ وَتُخْفِي فِي نَفْسِكَ مَا اللَّهُ مُبْدِيهِ وَتَخْشَى النَّاسَ وَاللَّهُ أَحَقُّ أَن تَخْشَاهُ ۖ فَلَمَّا قَضَىٰ زَيْدٌ مِّنْهَا وَطَرًا زَوَّجْنَاكَهَا لِكَيْ لَا يَكُونَ عَلَى الْمُؤْمِنِينَ حَرَجٌ فِي أَزْوَاجِ أَدْعِيَائِهِمْ إِذَا قَضَوْا مِنْهُنَّ وَطَرًا ۚ وَكَانَ أَمْرُ اللَّهِ مَفْعُولًا
"And when thou saidst unto him on whom Allah hath conferred favour and thou hast conferred favour: Keep thy wife to thyself, and fear Allah. And thou didst hide in thy mind that which Allah was to bring to light, and thou didst fear mankind whereas Allah hath a better right that thou shouldst fear Him. So when Zeyd had performed that necessary formality (of divorce) from her, We gave her unto thee in marriage, so that (henceforth) there may be no sin for believers in respect of wives of their adopted sons, when the latter have performed the necessary formality (of release) from them. The commandment of Allah must be fulfilled."
As for the descent of Isa, it is incredible how deluded you are to interpret it that way. Jalalayn never used the word ghair-tashreehi nabi, he explicitly denied ANY prophet coming: لا نبيّ بعده. It is amazing you actually think he had in mind the ridiculous "ghair-tashreehi nabi" Mirza kazzab invented in his mind while writing this. Isa was already a prophet before, so his coming does not break the seal of Prophethood, nor does it add another chain to the chain of prophets. Jalalayn wrote this to refute that particular delusion of yours that there can be another prophet before Isa. There is no contradiction in Isa AS return as he was from before Muhammad SAW.
DeleteAs for your obsession with scholars from the Indian subcontinent, I do not care about any of them.
اتَّخَذُوا أَحْبَارَهُمْ وَرُهْبَانَهُمْ أَرْبَابًا مِّن دُونِ اللَّهِ وَالْمَسِيحَ ابْنَ مَرْيَمَ وَمَا أُمِرُوا إِلَّا لِيَعْبُدُوا إِلَٰهًا وَاحِدًا ۖ لَّا إِلَٰهَ إِلَّا هُوَ ۚ سُبْحَانَهُ عَمَّا يُشْرِكُونَ
They have taken as lords beside Allah their rabbis and their monks and the Messiah son of Mary, when they were bidden to worship only One Allah. There is no Allah save Him. Be He Glorified from all that they ascribe as partner (unto Him)!
As a bonus, here are some words from your beloved Mirza himself: "Do you not know that Rabbe-Raheem has kept the name of our Nabi without exception "seal of the Ambiya" and the meaning of this our Nabi has explained clearly for the seekers to mean that "There is no Nabi after me". If we were to declare it permissible for any other Nabi to come after our Nabi then we will open the doors of revelation of Nabuwwat after it was closed, which is contradictory as is apparent to all the Muslims. How can any other Nabi come after our Nabi when revelation has ceased after his demise and the chain of Nabuwwat ended with Rasulullah SAW."
Hamamatul Bushra' page 20 - 'Rohani Khazain' vol. 7 page 200
The meaning of khatm according to Mirza himself: (btw, the meaning of a clear word cannot change regardless of the context behing it.)
ReplyDeleteYou should study the literature of Mirza "Hadhrat Sahib" and you will find that he had used the word Khaatam on numerous occasions with the meaning of last. Hereunder I will quote a few examples,
"In the books of Allah, the promised Messiah has been called by many names of which one is "Khaatamul Khulafaa", in other words such a Khalifah who will be the last to come. - "Chashmah Ma'arifat'-'Ruhani Khazain' vol. 23 page 333
"I have brought complete Imaan from my heart upon His Rasul and know that all Nabuwwats end (khatam) with him and that his Shari'ah is the "Khaatimus Sharaa'ia" (the last of all Shari'ahs)." - 'Chashmah Ma'arifat - 'Ruhani Khazain vol. 23 page 340
"We have complete conviction that the Noble Qur'an is 'Khaatamu Kutubus Samawi' (the last of the Divinely revealed Books)." - "Isaiah Auhaam'- 'Ruhani Khazain' vol. 17 page 170
"He is the "Khaatamul Auliya" (last of the Auliya) of this Ummah just as Hadhrat Isa AS was the "Khaatamul Ambiya" of the successors of Hadhrat Musa AS." - Tuhfah Golarwiyah'- 'Ruhani Khazain' vol. 17 page 127
"In addition there is also this hidden secret that the "Khaatamul Ambiya" of the Bani Isra'il is Hadhrat Isa AS and the "Khaatamul Ambiya" of Islam is Ahmad or Muhammad 25." Dhamimah Barahin-e Ahmadiyya' vol. 5- 'Ruhani Khazain' vol. 21 page 412
"A girl was born the same time as me, her name was Jannat; first she came out of the womb and then I came out. Thereafter no son or daughter was born to my parents, which makes me their "Khaatamul Aulaad" (the last of the children)." - Taryaqul Qulub'- 'Ruhani Khazain' vol. 15 page 479
When perfection ended (khatam) with your blessed person. Then Nabuwwat and all its categories also ended (khatam) with you - 'Barahin-e Ahmadiyya' 'Ruhani Khazain' vol. 1 page 19
The best and most elevated of the Rusul, the best of man. The conclusion (Ikhtitaam) of all Nabuwwat - Siraajum Muneer'-'Ruhani Khazain' vol. 12 page 95
All of these references make it clear that according to Mirza Ghulam "Khaatamul Ambiya", "Khaatamul Auliya", and "Khaatamul Aulaad" means the last of the Ambiya, last of the Auliya and last of the children respectively.
You have also, in your obsessive compulsive bling following of Mirza's fatal mistakes, failed to see my point of what I meant by "superiority". The word of Allah is a proof in and of itself. It does not need any corroborating evidence to be true. So if Allah says being the seal of the prophets is a position which has more superiority than NOT being the seal of the prophets, that statement is automatically true, regardless of what human beings like you think.
ReplyDeleteBy the way what happened to your blog "Qadiyanism Analysed", on the URL it says "blog has been removed".
DeleteMy e-mail is cherub786@hotmail.com
Perhaps it would be better to have a more detailed and fruitful discussion via e-mail so that we can get to the heart of the matters in which we differ. My blog is public and contains over 800 entries, so you can be quite familiar with my beliefs and understanding of Islam. But I know virtually nothing about you, which sect and school of thought you belong to and what is your approach to Islam, so I am at a disadvantage in any such religious discussion with yourself. It would be helpful if you can introduce yourself and what your approach to religion is.
I left two comments on your blog before it was removed, perhaps we can discuss the issue of British colonial rule in India and some of your objections to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's statements too.
As for this discussion on the meaning of 'Seal of the Prophets' we can also discuss that in depth, in sha Allah.
Regarding your claim that 'Seal of the Prophets' with the interpretation that it merely means last Prophet, is a virtue in itself because "Allah says so" is an example of a logical fallacy, circular reasoning to be specific. You haven't proven that 'Seal of the Prophets' exclusively means 'last prophet'. On the contrary, the word خاتم with a fat-ha on the taa (taa maftooh) literally means seal. It does not mean 'last'. Furthermore, you are apparently unaware of the difference in the meaning of khaatam and khaatim (taa maksoor). Suffice to say there is a difference in meaning between the two words. Khaatam means seal and it can also mean ring. It is the word used to describe the mark that was between the Prophet's shoulders. It is the word used to name the silver ring which the Prophet had crafted and placed on his finger to seal the epistles he sent to the various rulers and chieftains of the Near East. The purpose of the seal was to authenticate epistles, otherwise the rulers of the time did not accept to read any letter without it that was sent to them.
DeleteLogically, if your baseless claim is right that simply being the last of the Prophets is a virtue, then we must extend that idea to being the last of any category. Therefore, I assume you believe that the last Caliph of this Ummah is superior to the first Caliphs Abu Bakr and Umar رضى الله عنهما, and furthermore, the very last human to be born before Judgment Day is the most superior of all humanity! That is the absurd result of your stupid argument.
You have further exposed your ignorance when you say "Jalalayn never used the word ghair-tashreehi nabi, he explicitly denied ANY prophet coming". Firstly, Jalalayn is not a person, it is the name of the Tafsir written by two individuals by the name of Jalal ud-Din, including the famous Imam Jalal ud-Din al-Suyuti. The 'ayn' in Jalalayn is a suffix to indicate duality. For someone who is this ignorant of Arabic language I wonder if there is any benefit in discussing these academic matters with you further.
ReplyDeleteAnd no, it is not stated in the statement you quoted from Tafsir al-Jalalayn that the coming of Jesus does not contravene the Sealing of Prophesy because Jesus was a prophet prior to Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم. Rather, it says that the coming of Jesus, a Prophet of God, does not contravene the Sealing of Prophesy because Jesus will judge according to the Shari'ah of Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم. Therefore, it is quite evident from Tafsir al-Jalalayn that the coming of a Prophet after Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم does not necessarily contravene the Sealing of Prophesy provided that Prophet is subordinate to and judges by the Shari'ah.
Finally, your claim that the coming of Jesus doesn't affect the Sealing of Prophesy because he is an ancient prophet who came prior to Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم is simply playing with semantics. It reduces the significance of Finality of Prophesy, because whether a prophet who comes now is an old prophet or a new prophet, the essential result is the same, a prophet has appeared AFTER Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم.