Talk:Seal of the Prophets/Archive 1

Archive 1

untitled comments

"In religion, the Last Prophet is the final interpreter or spokesperson of a deity. A prophet's statements on behalf of a deity are sometimes called revelation." - It resembles as if we are teaching children. People already know these things and thus are unnecessary to put in here.

"Muslims believe that ..." is much better than "According to the Islamic tradition ..." if you consider NPOV.

"the term was used in Manichaeism" is a gross statement and is not reflecting NPOV. Thus it should be replaced by something like "Mani claims that ..." or "followers of Mani claim that ..."

Hiwamy 12:35, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see what you mean by "the term was used in Manichaeism" being POV. Likewise with "According to the Islamic tradition...". It's pretty factual. Such a tradition is generally accepted in Islam, so why is it NPOV? I'm not arguing, by the way - I just don't see what you are seeing, but you've got me curious. -- Christian Edward Gruber 03:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I wish to refute the lie that Mani claimed to be "seal of Prophets". This is completely false:

http://books.google.com/books?id=ThDJMif8T5sC&pg=PA237&lpg=PA237&dq=seal+of+the+prophets+mani&source=web&ots=M1E84ReYFV&sig=4o9_dksWN7d9zRYayytfWhIk2tk&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=9&ct=result#PPA237,M1

^^^checkout footnote # 3. Its shows that the clearl islamic term "seal of prophets" is not used in any Manichean literature itself. If anything followers of Mani may have ascribed this to him using islamic influence since the term "seal of prophets" originates with Mohammed. But before him there is no record of the term —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.191.48 (talk) 18:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Mysticism-Generally

A statment that Muslims can agree on and other faiths can agree that Muslims believe:

"The Seal of the Prophethood is invested in Mohammad (PBUH)"

This statement is a great point of pride and/or vanity among the millions of Muslims world wide. Of course it causes an equally distasteful reaction in non Muslims. What is the "truth" of this statement as we can discern it from study, investigation and applied common sense?

Note that this is the textual understanding of a novice in Islam and in Arabic. My sincere apologies for any errors in interpretation. All errors are mine and God knows best.

In Arabic the word "Seal" is "Khatim". It does not mean last, more properly it means "the greatest" or "the best". For notes on this term in Arabic, you can look at this page.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/1340/khatim4.htm

One might even say that the term has connotations of "completion" (which is why the term is sometimes translated as "last"). Now, objections may still arise over the term "best" rather than "last" but let us continue to investigate and we might be surprised to discover a few things...

1. It is accurate to translate it as "last" 2. It is accurate to translate as "best" 3. It is accurate to translate it as "complete" 4. NONE of these translations actually MEAN "superior".

According to general Sufic teaching, Stations are determined by God. These Stations are Known. Those nearest to God are the Messengers (Rasul) and Prophets (Nabi). Next is the Station of Sainthood (Wali). There may be more in descending order, but this suffices for our purposes.

All of these Stations become manifested in material form and in temporal existence. More simply said, these stations to come into human form and are subject to what we call "time". We must keep in mind however, that our material/worldly existence is vastly different than other realms. So, although Jesus the Christ (PBUH) was born in 5 BC of our calendar, he existed in the beginning at the creation of souls. The same can be said of Moses and Mohammad (PBUT). All three occupy the Station of Messenger or Rasul (and there are others mentioned and/or alluded to in the Qoran).

The Greatest Master, Ibn Arabi (AS) himself claims the status of "Seal of Sainthood". Similarly then, there are a number of Saints who occupy or share a Station with Ibn Arabi (AS). Like Messengers and Prophets, there is not a fixed list of names we are given to refer to, but many are said to be "hidden" from the people.

The very instant that the discussion moves from the human form of the Messenger, Prophet or Saint to the STATION of the soul, we must consider that our material, earthy notions will be at least inadequate to express that Truth.

Imagine when the Divine Plan or Design of Creation was initiated. Each Station, once completed, was then "Sealed", just as one seals an envelope when a letter is completed or seals a box when the contents are "complete". Just as one uses paper to seal a box or glue to seal an envelope, in the material realm a seal is represented by a single human being manifested in time. For the Station of Sainthood, ibn Arabi (AS) stands in that position while for the Station of Messenger, Mohammad (PBUH) stands in that position.

Now, to clearly illustrate the problem of language limitation, I will try to offer an example that may demonstrate.

Imagine that it is your best friend's birthday in two weeks and she lives in another state. You plan the purchase of the gift and mentally begin writing a short note in a card not yet purchased. Over the course of the week you find the gift, purchase the wrapping and card and arrange everything in front of you for preparing to send.

You put the gift in the box, write on the card and seal the envelope, place the envelope in the box and then wrap or seal the box for posting.

Now, when you were planning and even shopping for these items and this project, you did not know precisely what sort of envelope would come with the card and you did not know precisely what color/texture/form the wrapping paper would take.

The IDEA/concept/notion/plan of the wrapping paper in the "imaginal realm" and the envelope in the "imaginal realm" represent "seals" generally, in an un-manifested form. Neither have color, texture or dimension.

It is only when the idea/plan comes into actual material manifestation that it MUST take the particulars of form.

In other words, someone must be named as the seal, just as you must eventually decide on only ONE seal for each package type (I.e. envelope or box).

So, in the context of this discussion, is the gift (of the Message) important or the wrapping that seals it? Is the card (Sainthood) important or the envelope that seals it?

With this we can see that even the most "important" theological disputes and issues are almost always focused improperly. Thus, whatever conclusion they arrive at will be irrelevant at best and absolutely wrong at worst. Consider.....

Remember I said that we would discover a few things?

1. Of course "last" is a proper translation since it is the "last" act on your part to complete the given project (card or box)

2. Of course "best" is a proper translation since you ended up choosing that particular paper/envelope as opposed to some other one. Whatever you chose was the "best" and most appropriate to your project needs.

3. Of course "complete" is a proper translation since, when a project is "complete" it is also sealed.

4. Perhaps there were "superior" wrapping papers and envelopes. You could have commissioned them gold embossed, trimmed in diamonds. Is there any indication that you did such a thing? Is there in indication that you would do such a thing?(i.e. is that rational?) By the same line of reasoning, is there any indication that God did such a thing with his "seals"? That he would?

--Oriontriquetra 18:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

God/Allah Nonsense

Netscott, this is your first ever edit to this article. Are you now intending to go through the Jewish articles adding "(YHVH)" after every reference to God, or are you just wikistalking Aminz? "God" is a translation of "Allah"; your edits suggest that there is a necessary distinction to be made, which is highly POV to say the least. — JEREMY 07:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Sound Logic! --Aminz 07:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Jeremy, are you a native speaker of English? Netscott 08:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Jeremy, can you please post your argument in this talk page as well.[1] -Aminz 07:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello Aminz Jeremy and Netscott,

Can anyone explain to me the nature of the problem in more detail? I couldn't really understand the objections from these comments.

sorry, oriontriquetra

It was a long story. Have a look at [2]. --Aminz 21:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

______________________________________________________________________________________________ I guess this answers your query.

The definition of Allah (SWT) from the Qur’an, from Surah Ikhlas, Ch. No. 112, which says...(Arabic)... ‘Say he is Allah, one and only’ ...(Arabic)... ‘Allah, the absolute, the eternal’ ...(Arabic)... ‘He begets not nor is he begotten’ ...(Arabic)... ‘And there is nothing unto him like in this world’. But the Qur’an also says in Surah Isra, Ch. No. 17, Verse No. 110, it says...(Arabic)... ‘Say you call upon him by Allah or by Rahmaan. By whichever name you call upon him, to him belongs the most beautiful names’. The same message that to Allah belongs the most beautiful names, is mentioned in the Surah Araf, Ch. No. 7, Verse No. 180, in Surah Hashr, Ch. No. 59, Verse No. 24, as well as in Surah Ta Ha, Ch. No. 20, Verse No. 8, it says... ‘To Allah belongs the most beautiful names’. But the name should not conjure up a mental picture. It should be a beautiful name. Why do Muslims prefer calling God Almighty as ‘Allah’ then the English word God, because the Arabic word ‘Allah’ is a pure word. The English word God, it can be played around with. If you add an ‘s’ to God, it becomes ‘Gods’, ‘plural of God’. You can not add an ‘s’ to Allah. There is nothing like plural Allah. Allah is one...(Arabic)... ‘Say he is Allah one and only’. If you add a ‘dess’ to God, it becomes ‘Goddess’, ‘a female god’. There is nothing like female Allah or male Allah. Allah has got no gender. If you have a god with a capital ‘G’, it becomes true God. If you have a god with a small ‘g’ it becomes fake god. In Islam we have only one true Allah. We do not have any false Allah, only true Allah. If you add father to god, it becomes ‘godfather’. He is my godfather. He is my guardian. You can not add an abba to Allah or a father to Allah. There is nothing like ‘Allahabba’ or ‘Allahfather’ in Islam. If you add a mother to god, it becomes Godmother. You can not add a mother to Allah or an ‘ammi’ to Allah. There is nothing like ‘Allahammi’ in Islam. If you put a tin before God, it becomes ‘Tingod’, ‘fake God’. In Islam there is nothing like ‘Tin Allah’. Allah is pure. It is unique, you can call him by any name, but it should be a beautiful name.```` RFR

The term "Ahmadiyya" vs the term "Ahmadiyya Muslims"

The sentence "....this phrase has been a common source of contention between Ahmadiyyas and Muslims" implies that Ahmadi's are not Muslims - a POV issue. Hence the reversion. This issue is discussed in more detail in the Ahmadi article.

Nazli 03:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Nazli, is it correct to say "Since the split in the Ahmadiyya community" as opposed to "Historically"? I believe the contention as it applies to the meaning of "seal of the prophets" was even made during the time of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, prior to the split. -- Sohail Mirza 06:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

You are correct. However in that case the term to use in the sentence is Ahmadiyya Muslims, rather than the specifying only the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. Nazli 06:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry that was not very clear. This contention between the two Ahmadiyya point of views started (openly atleast) before the split but after the death of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. Since there was only one party at that time you could say that the contention was between the Ahmadiyya sect and other Muslims as well. However after the split, the Lahore branch adopted the traditional interpretation of the verse and hence any contention after that would primarily be between the Ahmadiyya Muslims Community and other Mulims. Nazli 06:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

External Links

I notice that all but one of the external links are to Ahmadiyyih sites. This over-representation could be a POV issue. --WikiMarshall 09:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

About the Second Age - Reconciling the scriptures of Islam and Christ

Excuse me for inserting at this point, but the responses are very long, and I will be brief. Please, very briefly respond, indenting to make clear to whom you reply? In Revelation 10 an authority to "prophesy" to every tongue, nation and peoples is assigned to John its author. Please accept my authority on this as author of UUNIS.org, that this refers to our current day -- the "Latter Days" of the prophecy. Accepting that this means a "prophet" -- which I take to be a teacher or a messenger per Arabic use of the term -- of the coming age. That is the story of the Latter Days prophecies that they concern the events unfolding to a Second Age of Christianity, where God dwells on Earth, and many improvements come. Where followers of Islam and Jews are called together with Christians to become one in understanding. The events to look for are that John will not come resurrected but this spirit will manifest in an avatar. That is my conclusion. Bodily (?) resurrections come in 1,000 more years. I will ignore the other questions regarding Jesus or if the Christ is to return in spirit. Please see web site for that. Now, Point 1: it seems clear to me that the Qu'ran scripture of "the Seal of the Prophets," specifically does not say "Seal of the Messengers." With respect messengers is factually, specifically excluded. Point 2: Given the different meanings of context -- I say Revelation 10 means a messenger will come, not a prophet. Follow? Some being used for authority lack this distinction in Arabic uses. Point 3: In my opinion now -- I have thought for some time on this -- perhaps Mohammad could be the seal of the prophets per-se. That is, of the authority of writers of prophecy from God, as these in the Bible have written? Conclusion that I offer to you: This would lead to agreement between the texts, all other things being equal. Please your thoughts. It is the actual text -- do not be confused by those who overlay mythical idealism of Jesus onto every fact. They are uneducated in the Second Age. Please visit me regarding this. The school will be published in October 2009. Xgenei (talk) ________________________________________________________________________________________________

Brother has asked a very good question and these questions are mainly posed by the missionaries. Christian missionaries. I do not know whether he is one and he gave some two-three examples that Islam speaks about Jesus Christ (May peace be upon him) and he says that Qur’an says that... Jesus Christ (May peace be upon him) was raised up alive. Prophet Muhammad (May peace be upon him) was not. Jesus Christ (May peace be upon him) was born of a virgin birth. Muhammad (Sallallahu alaihi wasallam) had a mother and a father. Who is greater? The mind gives the answer. Who is greater? Jesus. And then he says and there are many such questions and he also says... it says... that Jesus Christ (May peace be upon him) is mentioned 25 times. Muhammad (Sallallahu alaihi wasallam) only 5 times by name, who is greater? And they pose question, they pose questions as a Muslim and our mind thinks. Ah! Who is greater, Jesus Christ (May peace be upon him) so he wants me to throw some light on Jesus Christ (May peace be upon him). Brother, Islam is the only non-Christian faith which makes an article of faith to believe in Jesus (May peace be upon him). We believe that he was born miraculously without any male intervention which many modern day Christian do not believe. We believe that he gave life to the dead with Gods permission. We believe that he healed those blind with Gods permission. But there are parting of ways. We do not believe that he is God Almighty. We do not believe that he is begotten son of God. We believe he is the messenger of God. Coming to your question if the Qur’an mentions that Jesus Christ (May peace be upon him) was raised up alive, Muhammad (Sallallahu alaihi wasallam) died. Who is greater? That does not indicate that if there is someone after God. It has to be who? If someone has to slaughter someone. If someone has to sacrifice, they have to sacrifice the best person and according to them the best person is Jesus Christ (May peace be upon him). According to the Qur’an he was not crucified. ...(Arabic)... ‘They killed him not neither did they crucify him’. We agree, but according to your Bible, according to... according to the false reading. Bible also says he was not crucified... that the Jews crucified. Most of the people did not accept him to be a messenger of God Almighty. They went to extremes. The Qur’an says... (Arabic)... Qur’an says in Surah Nisa, Ch. No. 4, Verse No. 171, it says that...(Arabic)... ‘O people of the book’ ...(Arabic)... ‘Do not go to extremes in your religion’. What extreme... two extremes, Jews said he was an imposter and the Christians said that he was God Almighty. Extremes, speak not of God ought but the truth, speak the truth. There is only one God. He was raised up because there was misconception. In his Second Coming he will not teach us anything new. Qur’an says in Surah Maidah, Ch. No. 5, Verse No. 3... ‘On this day I have perfected your religion for you and have chosen for you Islam as the way of life’. We Muslims, we believe he will come, but he will not teach us anything new. He will not teach us anything new. He will come to clarify the misconception and he and he will tell to Allah (SWT), Ya Allah bari taala, you be my witness that I never told them to worship me. I never told them to call me the begotten son. He will come for the Christians not for the Muslims. We believe he will come. You say that he was born of a virgin birth. If suppose, if suppose a person does not have a father and you claim because he does not have a father he is God Almighty, Qur’an gives the answer in Surah Imran, Al-Imran, Ch. No. 3, Verse No. 59, similitude of Jesus in front of Allah is the same as Adam. They were created from dust and said ‘be’ and it was Adam (May peace be upon him) did he have a father. Adam (May peace be upon him) had no father. He had no mother. If you say a person who does not have a father is God Almighty, Adam (May peace be upon him) is a bigger God, your Bible, it is not the Qur’an, it is the Bible. Bible speaks about another super human - King Malchisedec. King Malchisedec, he had no accent, no decent, no beginning, no end. He is bigger than even Adam (May peace upon him) is mentioned by name 25, Muhammad (Sallallahu alaihi wasallam) only 5 times. Why? Because there were allegations against Jesus Christ (May peace upon him). There was no allegations against Muhammad (May peace upon him) and when the Qur’an was revealed, prophet Muhammad (May peace upon him) was present. So if I have to address a person, I just have to say... He, He, O Nabi, O Prophet. I need not take his name always. But if I am referring to my friend who is not here, I have to take his name, that Mr. XYZ. So since Jesus (May peace upon him) was not there when the Qur’an was revealed, his name had to be taken. In that, in that way Qur’an mentions the name of Musa (Alai salaam) 132 times. Does it mean he is greater than prophet Muhammad and Isa (Alai Salaam) both? No, because they were not present, when any example is given of them, their name has to be taken. For a person who is present, the name need not be taken. I hope that answers the question. RFR

More on the Seal of the Prophets

In choosing an expert I offer my services as having written a book which; Allah willing! will soon be published when I finish the final edit. The problems we face can best be seen in the argument of our friend "RFR" above when to counter claims he finds inaccurate he has to descend to making statements like "Adam had no father". Why then did Allah tell the angels to worship him and thus find out who the unbelievers were; namely Iblis and his angels who followed him? This is well documented in the Qur'an; in fact it is Islam's refusal to worship Jesus as the Son of God which is identical with Iblis's refusal to worship Adam; the problem being that few understand the nature of the Test in the Trial of God at the End; which is precisely where we stand now. It is Muhammed who said that God had given him the book by which He would test all those who called themselves believers; the fact that at the End Muhammed arrives and quotes Jesus by saying "Jesus said: "Worship God": do not worship he who comes in the Name of Christ Jesus! And be not faithless but believing!"; and then Jesus arrives and quotes Muhammed by saying "Muhammed said that God told the angels "Worship Adam"; therefore worship he who comes in the Name of Christ Jesus as my heir and be not faithless but believing as equal unto the angels; O children of the Resurrection!" Thus will the final test be; few will survive it; for the Last Judgment has more to do with Islam than at first might be seen: namely that the "Messiah of Islam" and the "Mahdi of Christianity" are one and the same: as can be seen at Fatimah in Portugal in 1917 when the Sun of Fatimah who is the Son of Maryam al-Kubra came down as the Prescence of the Lamb. That 30,000 or so people saw the sun fall our of the sky and come down to the earth in the prescence of the Lady of Light or Fatimah al-Zahra with the 3 children is therefore where the Door of Faith opens: for Muslim, Jew or Christian alike. The "Son of Mary" is therefore the Mahdi: the Greater Mary: Fatimah. That God avenges her miscarriage as the Miscarriage of Justice proves that Fatimah's status was as the Islamic equivilent to the Virgin Mary; and God avenges this by revealing the Messiah to Islam at the End; so that they will be put to the Test as the Jews were before them: something they never considered; except a few enlightened sufis who are the Elect chosen by Allah; the Lamb of Maryam al-Kubra or Fatimah makes the Rod of Iron the Mahdi/Christ or Messiah of Islam; this Iron Rod being the Islamic Christ itself conceptually. That Fatimah was a center for pilgrimmage for devout Muslims is one of the resons that Allah picked the 3 children whose mystic "height" is that of the triple-tiered "Door of the Ark" which Noah built: the Ark of Salvation which only the "new believers" will enter; open to all; and a test to all. It is a fact that the 3 sons of Noah are represented by those who see Ham as being the father of the Hamitic race or Egypt; Japeth the elder as being the father of the Ayuranic race or Assyria; and Shem being the father of the Semitic race or Israel; thus Isaiah said when he quoted Allah these words: "Egypt my people; Assyria the work of my hands; and Israel my inheritence"; pointing to the 3 sons of Noah directly in their descendents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unicorn144 (talk • contribs) 12:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Islam not Jainism

the article is about Islam not Jainism like it was mentioned on top of this talk page, so i hopefully corrected it the right way by replcing "WikiProject Jainism" by "WikiProject Islam", if there should be another thing to do, please instruct me. Khaled.khalil 00:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

seal o profits

This article should be renamed "Muhumid (spelling may be wrong) the profit", as there is no real evidence to prove that he was the seal of prophets apart from what he said about himself that is supposedly written in the koran. Cheers_Ad@m.J.W.C. (talk) 01:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

modern academic views

According to the German scholar Christoph Luxenberg, the author of the book The Syro-Aramaic Reading Of The Koran, the expression Khatim-an-Nabiyyin is a mis-pronounced Aramaic expression meaning not "seal of the prophets" but "witness to the prophets (who came before him)".

Since Luxenberg's thesis is gaining popularity in the academic world, it should be mentioned in here. 82.83.141.39 (talk) 07:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Bahá'í view

I happened to be reading the Kitáb-i-Íqán today and came upon the actual explanation by Bahá'u'lláh of the Bahá'í perspective on "seal of the prophets"

Notwithstanding the obviousness of this theme, in the eyes of those that have quaffed the wine of knowledge and certitude, yet how many are those who, through failure to understand its meaning, have allowed the term "Seal of the Prophets" to obscure their understanding, and deprive them of the grace of all His manifold bounties! Hath not Muhammad, Himself, declared: "I am all the Prophets?" Hath He not said as We have already mentioned: "I am Adam, Noah, Moses, and Jesus?" Why should Muhammad, that immortal Beauty, Who hath said: "I am the first Adam" be incapable of saying also: "I am the last Adam"? For even as He regarded Himself to be the "First of the Prophets" -- that is Adam -- in like manner, the "Seal of the Prophets" is also applicable unto that Divine Beauty. It is admittedly obvious that being the "First of the Prophets," He likewise is their "Seal." (Bahá'u'lláh, The Kitáb-i-Íqán, p. 161-162)

The current version doesn't seem to illustrate the actuality of the belief very well, it's quite vague and uncited. I was wondering whether it would be practical or encyclopedic to include the bulk of the quote or a slightly abridged version. Thoughts? Peter Deer (talk) 06:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. More can be found on this subject, for example on [3], [4] and [5] Wiki-uk (talk) 14:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Jesus is the Seal

I know "seal" may not mean last, but most Muslims think so. If so, isn't Jesus the Seal because (most think) he will return to live, preach, and die? Or, if Seal means Greatest, then isn't Jesus greater than Muhammad:

• Jesus performed many miracles - Muhammad only did one, the Qur'an
• Jesus raised the dead
• Jesus is the Messiah, the only one who can save the Jews
• Jesus will preach to every nation (Jews and Christians now live in every nation) - Muhammad preached to a dozen(?) nations
• Jesus has lived in heaven for 2000 years - Muhammad went for 1 night

I'm not looking for a debate! It seems like the Muslim belief in Jesus should have a portion of this article. --Ephilei 18:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

My friend,

Jesus and Mohammad was both brothers, and prophets and messengers of Allah.

If we are discussing in scriptural reasoning concept.

We have:

• In the last chapter of last book of Bible God informed that the prophecy should not be sealed by John:

And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.(Rev 22:10)

• In Quran this is informed that Mohammad is the seal of prophets.(Qur'an 33:40)
• We don't know is there a possible position for the seal of messengers or not?
• We should not distinct between messengers of God.(Qur'an 2:285)
• The position of some messenger is higher than the others in God point of view(Qur'an 2:253)
• We should not fight with each other but to focus our efforts to attract better position in Gods point of view(Qur'an 5:48)
• We should not discuss about what we don't know with each other:

" Behold! you are they who disputed about that of which you had knowledge; why then do you dispute about that of which you have no knowledge?" And Allah, knows while you do not know(Qur'an 3:66)

So in my point of view your concept maybe true or false and I don't want to deny or prove it! But we have no direct scriptures in Quran or Bible to prove it.

But it may cause us to fight with each other which is for sure neither the target of Jesus nor Mohammad!

--تسلیم (talk) 06:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Mistranslation

actually خاتم الأنبياء means the complementing (~last of series) of prophets, where خاتم is driven from the verb خَتَمَ means finish. yes, خاتم also refers to seal, just because the sealing is the last step after a letter is enveloped; but the seal of prophets is just senseless, seems to be auto-translated causing the mistake. however, i can't rename/move the article, if someone can help, then please don't forget to link this page to the new one (the complementing of prophets (?)) as redirection because it might confuse many people by translation mistake. Khaled.khalil 22:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

HOw do you distinguish a true prophet of God?? The answer is...for what he says will come to pass...Therefor, if Jesus Christ is noted in the Q'ran as a prophet of God...born of a virgin Mary ( because He is Holy- without sin), performing miracles , and raised from the dead...All that He said would be truth.. considering he is by the Q'ran's standard, and belief of Islam to be a prophet of God. Well, my friend, if you have read scripture..Christ himself says, The only way to the Father is through the Son.. I am the way,the truth and the light..no one comes to the Father but by me....He was baptised and God spoke ,,this is my Son, who I am well pleased... He said, God shall not live by bread alone but by every Word that proceeds out of the mouth of God...He claims,(Not to be a prophet)but to be the Son of God. This is why he was crucified..He claimed to be the Son of God and we Crucified Him. He then rose from the dead.. and walked the earth to reveal this truth..By Grace we are saved, it is not of ourselves, should anyone boost... Grace, given something I donot deserve. God so loved the world that He sent, HIs only begotten Son that whomsoever beliefth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. He offers salvation to anyone that accepts that fact. Thank you Jesus. Thank you Jesus. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.59.121.174 (talk) 16:27, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

The scripture that you quote about what Jesus, peace be upon him, said was corrupted by men. Quran was send through Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessing be upon him, to correct the corruptions made by men and to reveal the truth. So your arguments are pointless in the eyes of Muslims. 94.41.30.49 (talk) 05:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear Friends, The word "Theos" in Greek or "Aloha" in Syriac which is Equivalent to Hebrew Elohim and Jesus Used in Gospels about himself and his father is totally different that "Allah" that is used in Quran! And we mistakenly translate both "God" and this guide to differences between Muslims and Christians! Please refer to Elohim article. The Equivalent of Elohim in Quran is not "Allah" But Angels!--تسلیم (talk) 07:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

This article should be in the Ahmiddya category so I will remove the Islam banner 90.192.59.155 (talk) 12:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Deserves to be in Islam category too.Peaceworld111 (talk) 09:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Try to use the chronological details as per time of the scholars and do not repeat the sentences again by rephrasing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatom2k (talk • contribs) 19:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It is best to separate it into two sections as I did earlier. Chronological order is difficult to determine although better.Peaceworld111 (talk) 20:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

آخر unambiguously means "last" ?

See آخر as Arabic adjective on Wiktionary
About خاتم : http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=%D8%AE%D8%A7%D8%AA%D9%85&fulltext=1

--Jerome Potts (talk) 21:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

خاتم doesn't really imply last, I think it is a biased statement. Many of edits have been motivated behind a very (over 100 years) long debate between the Ahmadis and the mainstream muslims about the meaning of the word خاتم which appears in the Quran. I wouldn't like to open a debate here. However both parties agree on the best English translation Seal and I suspect that this is the reason why the page was initially created. Now the mainstream muslims would assume that the word seal implies some sort of closure, ie. last whereas the Ahmadis claim that it best implies a form of certification, authority or attestation, like the Great Seal of the United States. Yes, as you pointed out خاتم on wikitionary comes up with ring as the closest meaning and that is actually can be confirmed by doing a quick search on Google Arabic, which reveals that خاتم signifies some sort of a relationship with ring, like a wedding ring.Peaceworld111 (talk) 22:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Manichaeans

While the article mentions the Bahai besides the more conventional Islamic currents ascribing to the idea of a 'seal of the prophets', I'm surprised that there is no mention of Mani and his use of the term 'seal of the prophets'. Especially considering the fact that Mani's use of the title predates Mohammed's by some 400 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.50.3.16 (talk) 09:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)