Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!rice!m2.csc.ti.com From: araja@m2.csc.ti.com (Ali Raja) Newsgroups: soc.religion.islam Subject: Re: On the Meaning of "Muhammad the Seal of the Prophets" (III of VI) Message-ID: <3452@brazos.Rice.edu> Date: 7 Dec 89 12:24:07 GMT References: <3389@brazos.Rice.edu> Sender: root@rice.edu Lines: 93 Approved: shari@wpi.edu >Let us now examine the opinions of various Muslim theologians, from both Shi'ah >and Sunni backgrounds, on the meaning of the term Khatam'u-Nabieen. The term "Katam'u-Nabieen" means the "Khatm" of the "Nabieen". "Khatm" is "end" and "Nabieen" is "prophets". As I said in my previous article, you are falling into the same trap that you warned us about - you took the warning you quoted in <3388@brazos.Rice.edu>: #Remember the well known Tradition, where His Honor Muhammad says: #"We say one word, and by it We mean seventy and two things." This warning, you have taken TOO literally, attempting to find hidden meanings in eve the most straightforward terms. A certain word or phrase does not become divine just because a Prophet or the God uttered it - it is still that collections of sounds and meanings, just as comprehensible to human beings. >[Clearly, the concept of no Nabi, or prophet, appearing after Muhammad must >have been associated with His immediate successorship, and had nothing to do >with coming of future Messengers from God. Otherwise, why would Muhammad want >to discuss Omar's -the second Khalif's- name in this tradition]. This comes clear out of the blue. I can see absolutely no way to derive this conclusion from what you have stated. Aside from your insisting on capitalizing the "H" in "Him", which I personally dislike, you yourself cite the tradition, which I will take at face value: >"No prophet shall appear after Me, but Omar-ibn-Khattab." If one takes that Bahia'ullah (sp?) is a Prophet as a premise then your above argument is valid. But one cannot prove that he is a Prophet by using your above argument. A implies B does not, and never has meant that B implies A. Pure and simple. >Many of the Shi'ah commentators believe in a literal meaning of the term Khatam- >u-Nabieen (Seal of the Prophets, after Whom no other Messengers of God shall >come), For the rather good reason that there is no support to NOT take it literally. Usually, the Prophet MEANT what he SAID. >"All the Messengers of God who appeared prior to Muhammad, were succeeded by a >Nabi (i.e. a prophet). Adam was a Rasool (Messenger of God), and His successor >was Shais the Nabi (Seth the prophet). Noah was a Messenger of God and His >successor was Saam the Nabi (Shem the prophet). Abraham, Moses, Jesus and David >(peace be upon Them!), were also God's Messengers, Whose successors were Isaac, >Jashua, Simon (St. Peter) and Solomon Who were all prophets. However, the >successors of Muhammad, Rasool-Allah (the Messenger of God), were not called >Nabis (prophets). They were referred to as Imams. Therefore, Ali was not a >Nabi, Hasan was not a Nabi, Hossein was not a Nabi, etc...., since, with the >Manifestation of Muhammad, the usage of the term Nabi was abandoned (i.e. He >was Khatam-u-Nabieen), and ended. As Muhammad was greater than the previous >Messengers, so were His appointed successors (i.e. Imams) were greater than >Nabis (prophets)." Offhand, I would say that he was arguing this point so as to elevate the status of Ali. I notice that he was a Shi'ah scholar/theologian. Such an exercise in verbiage is not far from the traditions of some sects amongst the Shia. >This commentary of Sheikh Sadoogh appears to clearly reason out the inner >significance of traditions such as: "Seal of the prophets", "There will be no >prophets after me....". This commentary of Sheikh Sadoogh appears to clearly be intended to prove that Ali was at least as great as many of the Prophets before him and does not carry any especial weight. #"...Anyone who disagrees with me, has disagreed with God, and in arrogance has # surpassed all others. No prophet has achieved the station of prophethood except # through the Khatam of Nabovvat (i.e. literally meaning prophethood) he received # from Muhammad. And Khatam is a ring. Only after receiving the Khatam (ring) of # Nabovvat, one can be called a prophet. This is why Muhammad has been called # Khatam'u-Nabieen in the Qur'an....." Then He says: "Muhammad is the Seyyed # (master) of the Nabieen (prophets), and I am the Seyyed and master of the # Vaseein (guardians and successors). >Clearly Ali's explanation of Khatam'u-Nabeein is drastically different than the >meaning the literalist Muslims have given to it. There does not appear to be >any implications whatsoever about cessation of revelation after His Holiness >Muhammad. Nowhere in the Hadith that you have cited does Ali claim that either he, or any of HIS successors will ever recieve a revelation. Thus, your "clearly" seems to me to be about as clear as jar of fresh water from the Boston harbour. The only possible weight that might have been given to your argument is throught the statement of Sheikh Sadoogh; however, to use it, you will have to assert that someone supposedly "greater" than a Prophet would also receive revelation. And you would also have to give a logical reason to support Sheikh Sadoogh's assertions in the first place.