Can hadith rejectors be certain that Prophet Muhammad ﷺ is the Last Prophet?
-
Can hadith rejectors be sure that "Khatam An-Nabiyyin" means "the Last Prophet" and not merely "the one who confirms the authenticity of the previous prophets" just by reading Quran 3340?
-
Can hadith rejectors be sure that "Khatam An-Nabiyyin" means "the Last Prophet" and not merely "the one who confirms the authenticity of the previous prophets" just by reading Quran 3340?
3340 "Muhammad arrived not as caregiver/nourisher of anyone, of your desperations but, a Dispatcher of Allah and impressions (khatham) of The Luminaries (Nabiyeen)
Verse doesn't state 'last' prophet.. but indeed he is the last of Nabis and rasools of humans since Allah has completed Al Islam as Deen through Al Quran. It is not important who Mohamed was or who Ibrahim was, and what is important is message and if you are convinced with the message then rely on it.. if not you can move on.. Rely on facts and not persons
-
"Khatam An-Nabiyyin" means "The Last Prophet" but I am not sure if it can also mean "the one who confirms the authenticity of previous prophets" in the context of the Quran and Hadith.
What I am unsure about is whether it carries both meanings or only 'The Last Prophet.
J. Khan, you present far-fetched interpretations and translations.
Muhammad (ﷺ) is not the father of any man amongst you, but he is the Messenger of Allah and the Last of the Prophets. And Allah knows everything. (Al-Ahzab, 40).
Prophets are important and relied upon.
These are the ones whom Allah has guided, so follow their guidance. (Al-An'am 90).
-
@Rauf..
Yeah I understand that you can't grasp my translations cus you are not there yet to grip it.. Like Arabs did not understand Arabic Quran, even if the Al Quran is translated to as it is almost without any deviation to English, then the result is the same. People won't understand.. It is not the language issue here but the biasedness of people's thoughts..Having said that, Mohamed was a good human being. On top of that, Nabi, Rasool, and his followers, i.e., what he educated people and what he was instilled by Allah deserve some respect, but he is not a NOURISHER for their DESPERATIONS. Allah commands not to take him as NOURISHER.. Yes I know 'Aba' is father but it does not mean the word means 'father' alone.. Allah has placed the same 'Aba' to mean 'Nourisher' as well even the verses of 'Abu lahab'.. take a look of Yaqub.. Yes he was father of 11 children.. 1278 "... Indeed FOR HIM a NOURISHER/CAREGIVER of old man, so take one of us in his place..." Indeed Yaqub was father of all those who said this statement, but they did not mean as a FATHER but they meant as NOURISHER.. you don't need to say 'FOR HIM a father' as if Yaqub is not father of them, cus they don't look after/nourish Yaqub but only that son who Yusuf demanded to keep with him.. Rujul here equal to DESPERATIONS.. not father of Men as if not for women.. 'NOURISHER OF ANYONE'S DESPERATIONS' is rightly meant by Allah.. to understand such things, it is not language that becomes barrier but needs to seek guidance from Allah.. Khatam = IMPRESSION and not SEAL or LAST.. it's not a literal meaning.. Allah SEAL vision or thoughts? No.. Allah impresses them with their thoughts so they go astray with it.
You can't grasp what I say, until you remain in Allah ALONE.. -
Jkhan's translation is quite unconventional and deviates significantly from the widely accepted meanings in classical Arabic and traditional Islamic scholarship and his translation appears to be a reinterpretation rather than a direct, linguistically accurate translation. If he has a specific reasoning or source for his wording, it would be interesting to examine it, but the traditional understanding of Surah 3340 is clear!!
"Aba" does NOT mean "caregiver/nourisher."
"Rijalikum" does NOT mean "desperations."
"Khatam" does NOT mean "impressions."
"Nabiyeen" does NOT mean "luminaries."That being said, it seems that the source compelling jkhan to translate in this particular way is within him—rooted in his unequivocal belief that Allah is guiding him towards these interpretations. I acknowledge that this is an essential point in understanding his translations.
However, when dealing with Quranic translation, traditionally, scholars have relied on linguistic precision, historical context, and the established meanings of words as they were understood at the time of revelation. Jkhan's translation diverges from these classical interpretations, making it a reinterpretation rather than a direct rendering of the text as understood by early scholars and linguists.
The question we need to consider is
Can personal interpretations, like Jkhan’s, override the linguistic structure of the Quran?
Does the Quran itself encourage an unrestricted, subjective approach to translation?
Is God bound by Arabic linguistics, or did He choose Arabic as a precise language for revelation?(127
يَا أَيُّهَا الْعَزِيزُ إِنَّ لَهُ أَبًا شَيْخًا كَبِيرًا فَخُذْ أَحَدَنَا مَكَانَهُ
"O mighty one, indeed he has a father who is an old man, so take one of us in his place."As per understanding from Jkhan's reply, he interprets "Aba" (أَبًا) in this verse as "nourisher/caregiver" instead of just "father," arguing that Yusuf’s brothers were not simply referring to their biological father (Yaqub), but to someone who nourishes and cares for their younger brother.
The Arabic structure of the verse clearly uses "Aba" (أَبًا) in the possessive sense, referring to a father figure.
The phrase "Shaykhan Kabeeran" (شَيْخًا كَبِيرًا) means "an old man," which reinforces the idea that Yaqub is an aging father, not a nourisher. The brothers are asking Yusuf to release their younger brother because their father is old and weak—this is about Yaqub's age and emotional dependence, not his role as a "nourisher.Aba" is used throughout the Quran to mean "father," whether biological or spiritual.
The correct understanding of Surah Yusuf (127 is
"Our youngest brother has a father who is old, so please take one of us instead of him."
Nowhere in this verse is Yaqub described as a "nourisher" or "caregiver."If the Quran wanted to say "nourisher" or "caretaker," it would have used
مُعِيل (Mu’il) = Provider, supporter
كَافِل (Kafil) = Caregiver, guardian
رَاعِي (Raa’i) = Shepherd, caretakerThe Quran itself says it was revealed in "clear Arabic" (لسان عربي مبين - 26195), implying that its words have specific meanings.
If translations are guided solely by personal faith without considering language, then anyone could claim any meaning based on divine inspiration.
Likewise, Abu" (أَبُو) literally means "father" in Arabic, but it can also be used metaphorically in Arabic nicknames (known as Kunya - كنية).
Abu Hurairah (أَبُو هُرَيْرَة) = "Father of kittens" (because he loved and cared for cats, not because he biologically fathered them).
Abu Bakr (أَبُو بَكْر) = "Father of the young camel" (Bakr means young camel, but this was an honorific title).
Abu Jahl (أَبُو جَهْل) = "Father of Ignorance" (nickname for Amr ibn Hisham due to his rejection of Islam).Abu Lahab (أَبُو لَهَب) was the nickname of Abd al-Uzza ibn Abd al-Muttalib, the uncle of the Prophet Muhammad.
The nickname "Abu Lahab" does not mean "nourisher of flames" but rather
He could have a reddish complexion, like a flame.
His anger and hostility towards Islam were "fiery" and destructive.
It was a foreshadowing of his punishment in Hellfire (as stated in Surah Al-Masad 1111-5).So "Abu Lahab" is an Arabic nickname (Kunya) that describes a person's characteristics, NOT their role as a nourisher or provider.
In the Quran, "Aba" (أَبَا) is not used as "nourisher"—it is always used to mean "father" in either a biological or figurative sense (e.g., spiritual father, ancestor).
One can either take Jkhans translation at face value and accept that his inspiration comes from his personal connection with Allah, or one can evaluate it based on linguistic and scholarly traditions. God knows best, and ultimately, He is the source of all true guidance.
I am more inclined towards the following interpreations.
(127 They said “O Aziz, do not detain Benjamin. He has a very aged father who will not be able to bear it. Take one of us in his stead. We have made this request because we see in you a generous person.”
3340
(It should be clearly known to all who are whispering about Rasool’s wedding with the divorced wife of Zaid, that) Muhammad is not the father of any man amongst you. (If out of affection he refers to someone as his "son", that person does not become his son in reality. Furthermore the Rasool does not devise his own self-made laws.) He only conveys to you the laws revealed to him (and he himself obeys those laws. The nature of these laws is such that they cannot be changed, neither in his life nor after him, because) The institution of Nubuwwah (receiving directives through Wahi) will be coming to an end with him. All this will happen on the basis of Allah’s infinite knowledge. (He knows fully well how long the institution of Nubuwwah should continue and when it should end. Whatever was necessary and important for mankind and for their guidance, was finally conveyed in the Quran. And then the Quran was preserved for ever in its complete form.) -
@fusion..
Hello.. hope you are doing good..don't be biased to traditional translations since you take them but reach to what Allah spoke..
Well, I definitely thought you were far better in English, but yet again you showed your weakness like Brother GL..
Yakub is not the nourisher here.. let's see..
In the phrase "Indeed FOR HIM a NOURISHER/CAREGIVER of old man, so take one of us in his place...", the structure suggests that someone is a nourisher or caregiver for an old man.
To determine who the nourisher is, let's break it down
"Indeed FOR HIM" → This indicates someone is being cared for (likely "him" refers to the old man).
"a NOURISHER/CAREGIVER of old man" → The nourisher is someone who takes care of the old man.
"so take one of us in his place" → The speaker is offering a substitution, implying responsibility or attachment to the old man.
Possible Interpretation
The nourisher/caregiver is one of the sons or attendants of the old man.
The "old man" is likely the father (possibly Jacob in a Quranic context).
The son (or a responsible person) is saying that he cannot leave because he is the caregiver.
Thus, the "nourisher" is the one speaking or being referenced as responsible for the old man’s care.Your inability to grasp it is not my issue.. if they indeed meant 'father' they would have said, 'Our father is an old man' .. Isn't Yaqub their father? why can't they say it? and why they should ask not to keep person 'ABC' and instead take one of them? nothing will make sense.. what difference it makes by taking one of them instead of person 'ABC'? Cus 'ABC' was the CAREGIVER for Yaqub and not any of them. I am not bringing words from the sky and all these from Arabic only. 'Aba' in the verse is CAREGIVER, according to the complete story is one of the sons of yaqub.. and Yaqub is the one who receives the service of the CAREGIVER.. why can't you get it? How can you say that Arabic root of ABA does not deal with nourish/caregiving?
Don't be blind while you have eyes, for the Divine sake..let me add some analogy if it works for you..
if someone says "He has an old father," it typically means that the father belongs to "him" (another person), not the speaker.
However, if the speaker were referring to their own father, they would usually say
"I have an old father."
"We have an old father."
So, in normal usage, "He has an old father" refers to someone else's father, not the speaker's own.would you ever say to your friend 'she (your sister) has an old mother'.. how can you say 'she has an old mother' and in what sense and what for? what would say instead, Yes 'We have an old mother'
-
Hello jkhan, hello Fusion, Hi all.
I am afraid ,your brother GL agrees with Fusion here.Arabic of 1278 says_
" O Powerful Minister- Aziz-, he has a very old father- expecting him to come back with us as promised- keep one of us instead.The context is clear from the story, They were made to agree an oath with their father that they will do all they can to bring him back safe. Hence their insistence to try all they can to make Joseph release his brother with them. But to no avail.
This has nothing to do with nourish or give care , the Arabic does not say any of these in the verse.This also has nothing to do with brother Fusion or brother GL s weakness of either the Arabic or English language. Simply the Arabic of the verse says exactly that.
Those who say otherwise will have to bring their "Burhan" evidence if they can find any.
Apart from that , brother jkhan, even if you are entitled to your view/opinion , I cannot accept what you say, it is out of context, it is clearly a made up interpretation and it makes no sense.
Also this has nothing to do with messenger or 19 or guidance from Allah or anything else. I am not going to claim my post has evidence because it is number 6544 and 6+5+4+4 = 19 or any other nonsense.
The Arabic of the verse is the evidence, as simple as that.Thank you both.
GOD bless you all.
Peace. -
Jkhan, linguistics is not bias—it is on the contrary precision.
'Aba' has never meant 'caregiver' in any Quranic usage or classical Arabic source. If faith alone dictated meaning, then the Quran would lose all objective understanding, allowing anyone to claim anything. But Allah chose ‘clear Arabic’ (26195) for a reason—so the message remains preserved, not redefined.
-
@GL and Fusion..
It is not English that you people are not eloquent with but it is your biasedness that made you weak in English, but you don't realize it.. A similar scenario is Arabs are not weak in Arabic but their biasedness does not pave inroads to what is written in Quran to perceive what Allah spoke.. So it is not strange you don't understand English when Quran is in English..
You agree with anyone or disagree, no harm will touch with the fact of Allah..
So for you both, it is possible that they can call 'For him father or He has a father' How shame that is with the reality..Look.. Yousuf was not a fool.. Yousuf only commanded them to bring their brother..
1259"Bring me a brother of yours from your father."
According to Yousuf's command only they brought most probably their youngest brother who is not yet married and has been assigned to look after 'Very old' Yaqub.. Under this scenario, how can they say 'He has a very old father', cus Yousuf's command was to "Bring me a brother of yours from your father." if they want more weight.. Now they can't even pretend this fellow is not their own brother..
Meanwhile, it was a caravan that Yousuf was addressing.. In case someone else (other than of his brothers) replied the statement 1278 then it can mean father.. but still even if someone else replied other than of brothers of Yousuf, they would have replied, 'They have a very old father' not 'he has a very old father'.. but it is not someone else who replied.. cus they said 'take anyone among us instead of him' and it indicates responsibility was taken by brothers only not outsiders.. Aba is father and everyone knows but Allah has used its other nature 'CAREGIVER/NOURISHER' in the verses..
don't forget CARAVAN here as well.. Aba is used precisely by Allah.. Even Allah is a NOURISHER/CAREGIVER.. I know you people won't get this at all but 1280 is proof for that.. two times word 'Aba' is used.. one time of the oldest of the members of the CARAVAN was desperate with the situation cus he knows Yaqub needed a caregiver.. So here it's his speech by saying 'Your Father' AbaKum.. it was not the statement of any of the brothers in private conversation.. but the old fellow of the caravan. then the second usage of 'Aba' in the same verse 1280 is NOURISHER/CAREGIVER referring to Allah.. This old man is most probably the speaker in verse 1210 and he is the one who commanded the brothers of Yousuf that evil suggestion.. there were few of them who suggested but he is the eldest of those..if you read 129-11 you will realize and there also 'Your father' is placed and that's impossible one of the brothers would say it..And Allah is precise in wording like he worded in 128 'OUR father'..
Anyway, I am not accountable for your misguidance.. everyone will face Allah with what they did..Even if you notice, how can Yousuf ever say 'bring me a brother of yours from YOUR father'.. well that's called 'HIDING'. In a real case would Yousuf say that? NO.. instead he would use 'OUR father' ... So much depth of knowledge here but you all take biased step..
Note ʾAb and ʾUmm are not just biological terms in the perspective of Al Quran but beyond.. biological terms are root of 'walid'
-
Jkhan you are repeating the same rhetoric without addressing the linguistic precision of Arabic and keep shifting the focus from linguistic analysis to faith-based claims, which prevents a rational discussion.
You failed to comprehend that linguistic precision is not bias but it's clarity. If ‘Aba’ truly meant ‘nourisher,’ then why does the Quran itself distinguish between ‘Ab’ (أب) and ‘Walid’ (والد) for biological fatherhood? You claim hidden meanings, yet fail to show a single instance where 'Aba' means caregiver anywhere in Arabic literature. Faith is truth, but truth does not contradict language, it illuminates it.
That said, engaging in a loop where reasoning is met with rhetoric serves no purpose. If you truly believe in your interpretation, perhaps you should share it in a space where critical analysis is absent, and personal conviction is enough to change linguistic facts. But in any setting where intellectual rigor matters, words mean what they mean NOT what we wish them to.
-
Hard to accept the traditional understanding of that verse. I would rather focus on what God says. It seems he doesn’t use Khatam as “last” anywhere in the Quran. I’m also not sure why mullahs had to even corrupt the meaning.
There is no point in sending another prophet if the deen is already complete and we are to judge by Quran alone.
-
Someone asked me this recently. I haven't looked into it in detail but here is what I said.
The verses are provided in the link
https//misconceptions-about-islam.com/misconception.php?id=47But could be added
https//quran.com/en/al-ahzab/40If al quran is a guardian/superintendent upon what was already there of al kitab it is unlikely that another scripture will come, and if this is coupled with the additional verse above then the seal of prophets implies final.
Of course one could argue it is an interpretation/implication of what is said. Any counter view would have to have evidence.
