Peace all,

The 'khatem' issue has been discussed before but I think the idea is always influenced by the sectarian understanding.

In examining this I noted another view that rightly pointed out that if the meaning was going to be 'last' then 'akher' would be an unambiguous term.

So thinking on this I looked at the meaning of seal carefully. The meaning of closing tight is related to the use a seal was put to. By sealing a letter one confirmed and authenticated it.

Therefore I believe the primary intent of 'khatem' of the prophets is in relation to an authentication or confirmation of the prophetic tradition; an important role.

Now whether the authentication or confirmation also closes off / seals the line is still open to debate. Nevertheless I think the word 'khatem' is used mainly to stress the authentication aspect.


33:40 The praised one is not the father of any of your men, but (he is) a messenger of God, and the authentication of the prophets: and God has full knowledge of all things.


The purpose of ancient seals was more than anything else to authenticate the message as having come from the person (usually holding some sort of dominion or power). After all closing could be done with clay, wax or other material without the stamp. It is the stamp/seal that is important not the sealing material or the closure. The stamp is what authenticates the document.

The final evidence is that the closing of envelopes etc. with a stamp/seal in wax became common when paper became common. The majority of ancient seals were pressed into clay tablets, or onto open documents not to close/seal them but to authenticate/seal them. I hope the distinction is clear.

So the prime meaning is authentication.

Now I want to explore the closure issue a little more though not conclusively. This involves examining 83:25-26 that contains a clue to the meaning of the word 'khatem':

83:25
(RK)Their drinks will be spiced with nectar.

(MP) They are given to drink of a pure wine, sealed,

Yusqawna min raheeqin makhtoomin

83:26
(RK) Its spice is like musk. This is what the competitors should compete for.

(MP)Whose seal is musk - for this let (all) those strive who strive for bliss -

Khitamuhu miskun wafee thalika falyatanafasi almutanafisoona


translated usually as 'sealed with musk' as per Pickthall's translation in reference to the wine - but this seems to me to be a little way off the meaning. I think RK is definitely closer to the mark - he translates this as 'spiced'.

Altogether better - afterall the wine is 'imprinted' or 'stamped' with musk - thus this means it is flavored/aromatised with musk. There is no reference to sealing as in closure here in my mind.

I think that the evidence suggests that there is not the absolute closure of prophethood that people firmly believe there is due to sectarian influences.

If anyone knows of other relevant references to seal as in khatem I'd be interested to see how they affect this analysis.

Hi truth,

Interesting interpretation of the verse and the word "khatum", it needs to be studied.MAsha Allah

But I do not agree with your interpretation of "Muhammad" : "the praised". Where is the article "the" in the verse?
It is said "Muhammed" not "ElMuhammed". So you have the proof here that "Muhammed" is a name of a person which is well known.

Salam Truth
Was it coincidence?

Peace bahman,

Can you explain what the coincidence was?

Thank you.

Salaam truth,

It is interesting, but I don't have a problem with seal of prophets because it makes more sense that Mohammed is the last of prophets. This is because God has said he is going to preserve this BOOK and it has been for a very long time. Is there a need for another book of the same likeness? WOuld it make sense or confuse?

Even if another did come, we would still have to asses it and check for authentication that it's from GOD, if we don't and something or someone claims to be a prophet then we risk being rejectors and lose the benefit of knowledge and other things.

Nural

Salaam,

The thing is that khatem does not necessarily allude to something being 'last' or 'finality'. Where other forms of this word is used it does not necessarily mean a seal that is permanent.

Joe

Quote:

Can you explain what the coincidence was?

Salaaa dear Truth:
I was working in same verse when this tread started and found few code in the phrase Seal or Fianl prophet. Please click and scroll down :

Was it coincidence?
Peace

Dear Bahman,

I am shocked by the manner you use the number 19. I saw that none here has made a commentary about your provocating web site.
I just want to remind you that all what you right can be used by others and then you are responsible if your calculus are not exact.
You may be a good mathematician but (excuse me) numerology is not mathematics. If you are sure of your writings then tell us who revealed them to you? Can you give demonstration of your findings or they are just numeric observations?

I will finish those critics by saying that you seem to be a sincere and courageous man.

Khatam, or seal, closes and protects the letter. If it means authentication, then Muhammad should be the authentication of messengers too. But, the verse does not include messengers to this particular mission.

Besides, khitamuhu misk means the end of it being misk.

As for the claim of Muhammad not being a proper name; knowing the grammar of the four verses where it occurs, I see it a futile attemp to discuss it with someone who have no clue about the original language and o top of that is a customer of miraculous conspiracy theories.

But, when I have time, and if you are still asserting such a linguistically and historically autragous idea, then, I will inshallah explain it.

Peace,
Edip

Edip Yuksel wrote on Sun, 16 January 2005 08:54

Khatam, or seal, closes and protects the letter. If it means authentication, then Muhammad should be the authentication of messengers too. But, the verse does not include messengers to this particular mission.

He fulfils that role in 37:37 where the messengers are also 'confirmed'. Note that the bringing (delivering) is confirmed.

I think the difference is subtle between messenger and prophet - but a stamp can only occur on a document and the prophets brought pages/books thus the stamp of authentication on the prophets.

Edip Yuksel

As for the claim of Muhammad not being a proper name; knowing the grammar of the four verses where it occurs, I see it a futile attemp to discuss it with someone who have no clue about the original language and o top of that is a customer of miraculous conspiracy theories. But, when I have time, and if you are still asserting such a linguistically and historically autragous idea, then, I will inshallah explain it.

I apologise for this part. It's from an older understanding and I haven't updated the "is" a messenger part either when I wrote this.

Better is...


33:40 Muhammad was not the father of any of your men, but (he was) a messenger of God, and the authentication of the prophets: and God has full knowledge of all things.


As far as letters go - I don't have information that letters were closed shut with the stamp (this is true for later times when wax stamped would 'seal' the letter.); but rather the stamp would confirm that the letter was from the said party. It was a stamp authenticating the letter - sultans would stamp their fermans to give authentication/authority.

Thus I see the khatem-an-nabiyan as God saying that Muhammad was his stamp of authentication for the prophets who brought scriptures.

37:37 is the counterpart verse where Muhammad brings Truth confirming the messengers (the role of messengers being delivery/bringing).

The stamp/seal may imply closure - I am not denying this. However the meaning does not mean finalised and I tried to show using other instances why I thought so.

Also when hearts are stamped for example - is the stamp a final event or does it merely authenticate that person as a disbeliever - a marked man - so to speak.

Moreover the stamp on hearts etc is implied to be removable in 6:46. I am not saying that this means that the khatem is removable in the instance of 33:40 but rather that the meaning is not final/last - but authentication.

If another prophet were to be sent - that person would then be the stamp of authentication on the prophets before them.

Do you see the difference?

Peace.

Salaam,

If someone does come and confirm the SCRIPTURE we have then we should learn from the mistakes of the people in the past and study the SCRIPTURE that has been brought and follow it; if it proves to be DIVINE.

During the prophet's last sermon he mentioned that there will be no new SCRIPTURE (prophet) after him, I think every version confirms that. I understand that it is based on hadith and that they are undreliable but this sermon was witnessed by alot and although many are changed for the political motives they all agree on the seal of prophethood.

So Muhammed claimed to be the last PROPHET and there is a verse that could mean he was. This may be similar to RK claiming he is the messenger of the covenant and Quran might show that these claims were false or maybe true.

IF a prophet does come then it is normally because the previous SCripture has been lost in translation or something. Or maybe when the true meaning is concealed by religious leaders. Personally I don't see this being done with the Quran, the text remains as powerful now as when it was revealed and the true meaning is being promoted by many supporting this movement.

So maybe the question is, when is there a need for a PROPHET? And if Quran remains unchanged and PURE then the a MESSENGER can do the job of promoting it. And if the Quran was corrupted maybe Khalifahs work plays a role in purifying the message. Are these un-quranic ways and against the SYSTEM?

Nural

Peace Nural,

I don't know much about the 'science' behind the 'last' sermon but have read it in the past.

The question is how was it known to be the last? Could not the sermon from the year before have been the last? Were those sermons also recorded word for word?

I think it's almost certain that what happenned was that following the death of the prophet the people tried to piece together what he had said at the sermon by memory giving rise to broadly variant versions that only became more and more corrupt with time.

Now it would have been the natural thing for them to say (fabricate) that the Koran was the last scripture or that Muhammad was the last prophet whether that was said or not. Remember the Koran tells us this is what was said after Joseph also.

The so called farewell sermon comes in very different versions and sometimes contains such things as 5 daily prayers, beating of wives and other features of the invented later religion. I think all these indicate a great amount of fabrication if not total fabrication. How easily can you remember a speech you heard several months ago - or even a week ago?

Not all versions actually say that the Koran was the last scripture or that Muhammad was the last prophet but as I stated before where this is said then it is certainly due to vested interests that came later.

Look at these two for example where there is conflict in relation to this issue...

http://muslim-canada.org/farewell.htm

http://cwis.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamenta ... lastsermon .html

I would not let the sirat/ahadeeth based farewell sermon infect our understanding from the Koran alone.

Peace.

Salaam truth,

I am only trying to say that there is a chance that Muhammed might have claimed to be the LAST, just like RK is claim M.O.T.C. Both these claims might turn out to be false once our understanding of the Quran is clearer. Patience. The claims might also turn out to be true.

Peace

Nural

Peace Nural,

Nural Amin wrote on Sun, 16 January 2005 22:47

IF a prophet does come then it is normally because the previous SCripture has been lost in translation or something. Or maybe when the true meaning is concealed by religious leaders. Personally I don't see this being done with the Quran, the text remains as powerful now as when it was revealed and the true meaning is being promoted by many supporting this movement. So maybe the question is, when is there a need for a PROPHET? And if Quran remains unchanged and PURE then the a MESSENGER can do the job of promoting it. And if the Quran was corrupted maybe Khalifahs work plays a role in purifying the message. Are these un-quranic ways and against the SYSTEM? Nural

I missed answering these questions. I am not saying that there is a need or that another will come. I was merely pointing to the authentication role of the stamp/seal - while also emphasising the fact that the word final/last was not used when it could have been. I also tried to show that the other uses of khatem also mean stamping and not closure when examined.

Coming to your questions though - I agree that there doesn't seem to be a need for a new scripture when we have the Koran - a book that is largely preserved intact with the message of monotheism.

But what's to say in a hundred years the situation may not be different? What about another 1000 years time (I know that there are end of world predictions but there were such predictions one thousand years ago also - only God knows the hour and it may indeed be close) ?

English has gained dominance in the world and it seems that in a generation or two it will have become almost the international language. Even in our time there's no doubt that the culturally most powerful language is English - so might there not be a need in the future for an English revelation? I'm only suggesting reasons - not saying this is what will or can happen.

The true meaning of the Koran always has been and is uncompromising monotheism. God has guided us all back to the road of following Him alone and it seems this message is getting out more each and every day.

I remember Edip saying once (and I had thought the same at one time) that even if we were dumped on a deserted island without the Koran then having knowledge of one God and good morals one could most certainly survive within God's laws.

Remember also that Abraham found God by examinination of his world - he sought his Lord in created things but realised that all of these things are ephemeral and fleeting - and he found God through inspiration and intellect.

The message of God alone ie. monotheism must therefore take priority again and I believe will in time reach the corners of the earth and the mind of every living person.

Peace.

Salaam:

Quote:

I am shocked by the manner you use the number 19.

Quote:

I saw that none here has made a commentary about your provocating web site.

A constructive provocating could be positive and have fair result. That’s what I am trying.

Quote:

I just want to remind you that all what you right can be used by others and then you are responsible if your calculus are not exact.

17:35

Quote:

You may be a good mathematician but (excuse me) numerology is not mathematics.

That is not numerology. I remember Edip called it numerology too.
http://19.org/forum/index.php?t=msg&goto=4928&rid=0& amp;S=d95cf09e198a68089f99da5c86011ee2#msg_4928


And .
http://19.org/forum/index.php?t=msg&goto=5463&rid=0& amp;S=d95cf09e198a68089f99da5c86011ee2#msg_5463

You do not have to be Malthusian for finding pattern of code 19 or seven. All you need is primary school calculus but impossible to imitate.

Honestly when I started using this method which simply you digits to each other I did not have any clue or proof to show where the idea comes from.. Challenging me for using numerology resulted many sources for proving such mathematics exist and is known to many
Casting Out Nines
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CastingOutNines.html

Quote:

If you are sure of your writings then tell us who revealed them to you?

I do my best to be sure my calculation is right before publishing it but is no guarantee to be flaw proof. I appreciate reader comments and corrections here.
http://y19.net/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=7 ... dd505ac293 d4f4b6ae1f499fa6211a

Nobody reveal it to me unless my granted brain. . Many times importance of discussion and topic attracts me for searching local pocket for either code 19 or seven . If you concentrate you will find plenty of them spread and are in hide in Quran. Sometime when I study Quran the numbers of chapter or verse challenges me to do more search.

Here is another example.
http://y19.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=34
I am collecting my works in this forum here to have easier access for future updating.
Can you give demonstration of your findings or they are just numeric observations?
Proof for tex?
For text if the word or phrase involve in calculation if is included in those 30 Surat (29+1) then do not need any proof. as is protected.
For numbers?
If the text is not including those 30 then may my calculation can give some support if GW. Final is up to readers considering 17:36

Quote:

I will finish those critics by saying that you seem to be a sincere and courageous man.

I try my best God Blees you
Bahman