Is the Quran the last scripture
-
Can anyone provide philosophical and quranical proof as to how and why, would the quran be the last scripture and muhammad the last messenger, if you think counter-wise, bring proof for your side as well.
Thank you.
Nope I never read it in anywhere within the Quran...
The exact wording is "Khatam Al-Nabiyyin" (The seal of the prophets)..
No more prophet... a human who spoke words which is not coming from his own will...
As human usually kill them anyway... and after they die, human create a religion out of them..
(Same case, same pattern... Jesus, Muhammad, Siddharta, Krishna etc..)But it doesn't mean there are no more revelation...
Salam / Peace
-
Nope I never read it in anywhere within the Quran...
The exact wording is "Khatam Al-Nabiyyin" (The seal of the prophets)..
[
No more prophet... a human who spoke words which is not coming from his own will...I challenge the current understanding of khatam al anbiya, because I just wonder why Allah would do such a shift at this point of time.
-
I challenge the current understanding of khatam al anbiya, because I just wonder why Allah would do such a shift at this point of time.
Because human always try to kill any prophet???
And then after they died they make a deity out of them??Besides 'prophet' is a 'tradition' only known in the 'western hemisphere'..
Billions of chinese survive without having any 'prophet'... instead they have 'sages' which taught them wisdom..
Teaching wisdom... that's the true objective... of any 'revelation'...Salam / Peace
-
As I understand al khatm, it is a test to any other revelation or scripture or whatever. Whatever contradicts the Qura'n is not authentic and whatever is in agreement with the Qur'an is authentic or a confirmation of the Qur'an. That is the reason the Qur'an was revealed, to be able to get through the truth and false in previous scriptures or beliefs, and why wouldn't it be the same for other revelations in the future.
On the other hand, I do not think that any revelation is denied after Muhammad in al muslim environments what is denied is that any revelation should come from out side the realm of the Qur'an.
Wheter the last, a revelation from outside the realm of the muslim "religion" would be the question for the muslim religious.
However, for people alien to the Qur'an it might be possible that some revelation came to make them realise whatever God wants them to realise. That God knows, I do not know. But whatever is offered or brought forward as a revelation or as a doctrine should be congruent with the Qur'an if it is going to be the truth.
Salaam
-
Because human always try to kill any prophet???
And then after they died they make a deity out of them??Besides 'prophet' is a 'tradition' only known in the 'western hemisphere'..
Billions of chinese survive without having any 'prophet'... instead they have 'sages' which taught them wisdom..
Teaching wisdom... that's the true objective... of any 'revelation'...Salam / Peace
You mean to say that the One works in a way of trial ? That it didn't know in advance what was likely to happen to his disciples ? That the One randomly, after years and years, changed its mind and thought it would be better to stop sending 'prophets' ? Anyway, sages, saints, prophets.. it's just a problem of words really.
So where is this scripture after the Quran?
Nowhere did I say that there was any scripture after the Quran. Though I think you should check out http//www.newmessage.org/nmfg/Experience_the_New_Message_from_God.html for example, but personally, I have concluded that it is overall a man-made book, and that the in question messenger has a hidden agenda.
-
Can anyone provide philosophical and quranical proof as to how and why, would the quran be the last scripture and muhammad the last messenger, if you think counter-wise, bring proof for your side as well.
Thank you.
The Quran is the final scripture because Muhammad is the SEAL OF THE PROPHETS. From my understanding prophets bring scripture. So if a prophet brings scripture and Muhammad is the final prophet, doesn't this automatically mean that the Quran is the final scripture??? Also what about the fact that God says in the Quran that he would PRESERVE the QURAN. If the quran is preserved would there be need of another scripture??? Putting two and two together one can see through simple deduction and common sense that the quran is indeed the final scripture. Else what would be the need of preserving the Quran and a final Prophet???
Peace,
Kevin
-
The Quran is the final scripture because Muhammad is the SEAL OF THE PROPHETS. From my understanding prophets bring scripture. So if a prophet brings scripture and Muhammad is the final prophet, doesn't this automatically mean that the Quran is the final scripture??? Also what about the fact that God says in the Quran that he would PRESERVE the QURAN. If the quran is preserved would there be need of another scripture??? Putting two and two together one can see through simple deduction and common sense that the quran is indeed the final scripture. Else what would be the need of preserving the Quran and a final Prophet???
Peace,
Kevin
First of all, calm down.
Secondly, you must understand that the Arabic language has been changed, and so rendering translations unsure. As I have said previously, we should try to understand why would Muhammad be the last 'prophet', if we can find a plausible philosophical answer to that, then the translation is correct.
We have to evaluate the actual quran from a philosophical perspective. To say again, that the Qu'ran is a preserved book, is something that I find hard to swallow, why would the One not protect the previous messages ? If you think, like Jafar, that the One works on trial and is not omniscient, then fine.
-
First of all, calm down.
Secondly, you must understand that the Arabic language has been changed, and so rendering translations unsure. As I have said previously, we should try to understand why would Muhammad be the last 'prophet', if we can find a plausible philosophical answer to that, then the translation is correct.
We have to evaluate the actual quran from a philosophical perspective. To say again, that the Qu'ran is a preserved book, is something that I find hard to swallow, why would the One not protect the previous messages ? If you think, like Jafar, that the One works on trial and is not omniscient, then fine.
Why are you trying to understand why muhammad is the last prophet??? What is the point in trying to understand something like that??? Why are questioning what God has done??? If God decides to not to preserve the the previous messages he must have had his reasons. Are you going to try to understand what you would NEVER find the answer too??? You can't read God's mind and even if you come up with a answer it would be based on conjecture (not hard facts). In my view the quran is preserved because of the signs that are in Quran, both mathematical and scientific, both of which cannot be written during a time when people use to believe that the mountains supported the sky.
Peace,
Kevin
-
lordfox if the Qur'an is not the khatm as I understand it, that is the scripture against which all other scriptures must be contrasted, what was the use of sendin it and saying it is the khatm. Do you know of any other scripture whether previous or later that is truer than the Qur'an or that it should supersede the Qur'an? What is the problem or question which is untractable from the perspective of the Qur'an and which should be the object of a new scripture to set the Qur'an right.
The problems with the Qur'an are nto problems with the Qur'an as the problems with previous scriptures were not problems with the, but the problems are with the misuse and corruption of those scriptures or revelations. Any new revelation would be subject to the same dangers from the people. Unless God wanted to bury us in the forest of new rules and regulations with new handings of revelation there is no sense that He should keep sending rulings and rulings to set the previous ones right.
Another thing are particular revelations to lovers of His who are so close to Him through their goodness that in fact they live in constant revelation or frequent revelation. But that kind of event is of particular significance and there is no need to send a prophet because all we needed is already in he Qur'an. We cannot need anything else, because it would entail adding more rulings to what we already have, that is like creating new obligations and duties for believers. That was what the hadith did.
It may be that after Muhammad there have been more persons in direct comunion with God -just like the Prophets- than before Muhammad, but they are not prophets because it is not needed that they bring a new message.
People today are all connected. No people is isolated so that God would need to make a new revelation to warn each people. People asre sufficientely warned. If the case was that it is not so, that somebody needs a warner beside Muhammad, God will send him or her, but then what will be revealed for that purpose will have to be in accordance with the Qur'an.
Salaam
-
Hve you heard of Meher Baba, the incarnation of God? And about his book "God speaks"?
http//www.messagefrommasters.com/Ebooks/meher_baba_free_books_download.htm
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_Speaks
http//www.ambppct.org/meherbaba/god-is.php
-
The problems with the Qur'an are nto problems with the Qur'an as the problems with previous scriptures were not problems with the, but the problems are with the misuse and corruption of those scriptures or revelations. Any new revelation would be subject to the same dangers from the people.
Please compare these two translations of this simple and short surah
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9603969.msg299614#msg299614
http//quran.com/114It is clear that the Quran has also been subject to corruption, this time though, it is not the words that were altered, but the language that was dramatically changed, or misinterpreted. How can you use as a purifier something that is neither properly understood nor properly translated ?
Salaam
Salaam.
-
Please compare these two translations of this simple and short surah
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9603969.msg299614#msg299614
http//quran.com/114It is clear that the Quran has also been subject to corruption, this time though, it is not the words that were altered, but the language that was dramatically changed, or misinterpreted. How can you use as a purifier something that is neither properly understood nor properly translated ?
Salaam.
bravo rotfl rotfl rotfl
-
Can you please share the joke with me ? I want to laugh too.
-
Please compare these two translations of this simple and short surah
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9603969.msg299614#msg299614
http//quran.com/114It is clear that the Quran has also been subject to corruption, this time though, it is not the words that were altered, but the language that was dramatically changed, or misinterpreted. How can you use as a purifier something that is neither properly understood nor properly translated ?
Salaam.
You mention a translation, but in the link you give I don't see a translation. I see some speculation with the language, but no translation and no proof that brother Blanwar2 is right in his conjectures. I commend all efforts to study the Qur'an backwards and forward, but not necessarily all that is strived in that sense needs to result in something that is better than what we know.
I do not see either what are the poster's conclusions and how he proofs that that attempt is preferable to the usual translation.
naas is not from root n-w-s, but a-n-s.
That is one thing.
Another is that suppose that the Qur'an gave that kind of "problem". If we follow the same procedure with any revelation of any time, including the present, every scripture would be problematic and present at least the same "problems" as the text you link to.
I one wants to look for problems with any text, I am sure one will find them. ABSOLUTELY IN ANY TEXT.
Salaam
-
-
naas is not from root n-w-s, but a-n-s.
That is one thing.Salaam
Peace Huruf, please share a rule from the said language to date that says that a Hemzated root like a-n-s could lose first radicle Hemza and be subtituted by "elif" at the place of second radicle letter?
-
Sorry, I said that blankwar did not give a translation. I said it wrong. He does give a translation. But I couldn't see it immediately. At any rate, I do not agree with that translation.
Rabb an-nas, is a common possessive contruction in Arabic and no matter anything else you would have to translate as Lord or sustainer of confusion or whatever value you want to give to naas.
On the other hand, what about the many times in the Qur'an where it says
Ya ayuha an-naas?
In fact there is another instance of what happens with n aas, and is ibn which becomes bin.
naas is unaas. Apocopated if you like.
I am not an expert in Arabic grammar, but the use is all over the Qur'an.
Salaam
-
At any rate, I do not agree with that translation.
Peace Huruf,
You are completely free to agree or not. In fact it is not an issue.
I am not an expert in Arabic grammar, but the use is all over the Qur'an.
In your opinion if knowing the language shall not be the basis of understanding the book. What shall then be the basis?