|
Muhammad – The Last of the Prophets
By:
Dr. Ahmad Shafaat
(2000)
Muslims believe that the Prophet
Muhammad was the last prophet and messenger of God. By way of
clarification it should be stated immediately that
in Islam the role of a prophet or a messenger
is far more important than in Christianity. Both the Old and
the New Testament speak of prophets who have a very minor role in
the community (2 Kings 2:15, 1 Cor 12:10, Acts 13:1 etc.).
In Islam, however, a prophet or a messenger
expresses the will of God for a nation or all humankind. The
message delivered by him is binding on those to whom it is sent and
a rejection of him is a rejection of God. The work of a messenger,
furthermore, change earlier religious laws and create a new
religious community. The belief that the Prophet Muhammad is the
last prophet and messenger of God therefore means that after him
there will not arise any person who will be authorized by God to
express his will for others and/or institute a new religious
direction by a new expression of the religious truth and forming a
religious community around that expression. Any person claiming to
have such authority is suffering from self-deception and/or is
lying, no matter how smart he may be or how many miraculous deeds he
may perform.
In the following pages I will discuss
two questions about this belief: Is this belief an authentic Islamic
belief? Is this belief reasonable?
THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE
BELIEF
A belief can be considered an authentic
Islamic belief in the following two senses:
a) the belief is accepted widely and for
a long period of time;
b) the belief is duly supported by the
primary sources of Islam: the Qur'an and Hadith. In the first sense
the belief is obviously authentic. We need to examine the
authenticity of the belief in the second sense.
Basis in the Qur'anic
Muhammad is not the father of any
male among you, but he is the messenger of God and the seal of
the prophets; and God is aware of all things (33:40).
The Arabic word for seal is khatam
which by a change of vowel can also be read as khatim,
meaning "that which puts the seal". Both words are derivatives of
khatama, which means both to end or conclude something or to put
a seal in order to indicate such an end or conclusion (see, e.g.,
Lisan al-`Arab, Qamus, Aqrab al-Muwarid).
No matter how the word is supplied with
vowels, which were omitted in the original Arabic script, the most
reasonable way, if not the only way, to understand the verse is that
Muhammad completed and closed the prophethood as a seal marks the
completion and closure of a document, that is, he was the last
prophet. This interpretation is also clear from the reference to the
Prophet not leaving behind any son.
To understand this reference we need to
recall that in the Arab society before Islam it was extremely
important for a man to have a son. In fact the birth of a female was
an occasion of sadness, as the Qur'an itself testifies:
They assign to God daughters --
Glory be to him! -- while to themselves (the sons) that they
desire. When one of them is given the news of (the birth) of a
female, his face is darkened and he is wroth inside. He hides
himself from the people because of (what he considers to be) the
ill of the news he has been given. (He asks himself): shall I
keep it in contempt or bury it in the dust. Evil indeed is their
judgment (both in regard to attributing daughters to God and the
choices they give themselves regarding their own daughters)
(16:57-59).
Some indeed buried their daughters
alive. In regard to this the Qur'an says, referring to the day of
judgment:
And when (about) the girl-infant who
was buried alive (it) is asked, For what sin was she killed?
(81:8-9).
Connected with this type of attitude was
the belief that it is only through a son that a man gets posterity.
A person without a son was called abtar (one who is cut off).
The disbelievers applied this description to the Prophet because he
did not have sons, although he did have daughters when he started
his mission. Regarding this the Qur'an says:
We gave you (O Prophet) the
abundance (of blessings);
So pray to your Lord and sacrifice;
It is surely your insulter who will
be cut off (abtar) (108:1- 3).
Turning to the description "seal of the
prophets" the meaning of the reference to the absence of a male
descendant of the Prophet now becomes clear: Muhammad may not live
on through his male descendants according to your way of thinking,
but he will live on for ever in a much more important way. For
because of its finality, his prophethood will last forever and will
be a source of everlasting and abundant blessings. (And in this way
he will also deal a blow to your attitudes towards daughters.)
The above interpretation is further
supported by the fact that the Qur'an never looks forward to a
future revelation or prophet. Thus in the very beginning of the
Qur'an the characteristics of the pious are given which include:
Those who believe in what is sent
down to you (O my Prophet) and in what was sent down before you
(2:4).
There is no reference to what
will be sent down after the Prophet. Nowhere else the Qur'an
refers to a future prophet or revelation. The significance of this
observation can be seen more clearly by a comparison with the Old
and the New Testaments, where there are frequent references to
future revelations. Thus in the Old Testament we find this promise
of a future prophet or a series of prophets:
The Lord your God
will raise up for you a prophet like me [like Moses] from your
own people; you shall heed such a prophet (Deut 18:15; see also
18:18).
Indeed, a great deal of the Old
Testament is a prophecy of future revelation of one kind or another.
Likewise, the New Testament also looks forward to future revelation:
And I [Jesus], will
ask the Father and he will send you another Paraclete to
be with you forever (John 14:16). I still have many things to
say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of
truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will
not speak on his own, but will speak whatever he hears, and he
will declare to you the things that are to come (John 16:12-13).
Here it is besides the point whether the
Paraclete is the Holy Spirit or the Prophet Muhammad, a question I
have discussed in detail in Islam and Its Prophet. The
significant point here is that Jesus looks forward to a future
revelation.
In contrast to both the Old and New
Testaments, the chronologically last verse of the Qur'an declares:
Today I have completed my religion
for you and perfected my favor on you and chosen al-islam
as your religion (part of 5:3).
The Qur'an regards itself as coming in
fulfillment of earlier prophecy:
Say, whether or not you believe in
it, the fact is that those who possessed knowledge before it
fall on their faces in humble prostration when it is recited to
them. And they say, Glory to our Lord and Sustainer: Surely
the promise of Our Lord and Sustainer was to be fulfilled!
(17:107-108; see also, 7:157, 61:6).
But it does not prophesy for the coming
after it of another revelation. Its prophecy is only of its own
inevitable final victory:
He it is who has sent his messenger
with the guidance and the religion of truth that he may make it
prevail over all religion, however much those who practice shirk
may be averse (61:9).
This prevailing of Islam is not
understood to be through any human force, but simply the result of
the inevitable victory of a truer expression of the same religion
over other expressions. Notice that the Qur'an does not say "prevail
over all religions" but over all religion (in the singular). Every
religion is really trying to express the same truth. Islam is the
clearest and most effective expression of that truth and therefore
is destined to replace all other expressions. It is like when a
better and more economical model of a product such as the computer
or the car comes on the market it necessarily replaces after due
time the older less efficient and more expensive model.
The claimants of prophethood that have
arisen from within the Muslim world and who therefore recognize the
divine origin of the Qur'an or the followers of such claimants have
tried to explain the words "seal (or last) of the prophets" in other
ways. For example, it is said that the expression means: "the
Prophet has reached the ultimate in excellence in all respect," that
is, he was the last or seal of the prophet in the sense that he
carried prophethood to its final point of development. In regard to
such an interpretation the following points may be noted: First, the
interpretation has doubtful support in the usage of the word
khatam and certainly not supported by its usual meaning. Second,
any interpretation of the expression must explain why it is combined
in the Qur'an with the observation that the Prophet had no male
descendant. Understanding "last" in the sense of the final point of
development does not adequately provide the required explanation.
Third, the view can be at the most accepted as a secondary
interpretation which supports the primary interpretation in the
sense that the prophethood has come to end by virtue of reaching its
final point of development.
MESSENGER AND PROPHET
The Qur'anic verse under consideration
says that Muhammad was a messenger and the seal of the prophets.
That there is a difference between a prophet and a messenger is
clear from this verse as well as others (e.g. 22:52). But what is
the difference?
The Qur'an assumes that the meaning of a
prophet is well understood by its hearers. He is a figure who is
inspired by God for some form of guidance for a people. He may not
necessarily bring a new law or establish a new religious community,
for in 4:44 a reference is made to the Israelite prophets who judged
by the Torah rather than by a new law brought by them.
The messenger means one who is sent by
God with a message. He also receives divine inspiration, for
otherwise he cannot be "sent" by God. Hence every messenger is a
prophet. All nations have received messengers, for the Qur'an says:
"And for every nation there is a messenger" (10:47). Moreover, the
messenger is meant to be obeyed: "We sent no messenger save that he
should be obeyed by God's leave" (4:64). Nations that rejected the
messengers sent to them were destroyed or punished (26: 105-191).
Similar statements are not made about prophets. It thus appears that
God acts through a messenger more decisively than through a mere
prophet.
NOT EXCLUSIVENESS
It should be pointed out in passing that
the belief in the finality of the prophethood of Muhammad is not a
belief implying an exclusive view of revelation, although it
necessarily excludes from the list of true prophets all those who
claimed prophethood after him such as Ghulam Ahmad of India,
Bahaullah of Persia and Joseph Smith of USA. It is not like the
belief of some Christians that Jesus is the only way to God and to
truth. To be the last prophet does not mean to be the only true
prophet. Quite to the contrary the concept becomes meaningful only
under the assumption that there were other true prophets.
Furthermore, the belief is not meant to
glorify the Prophet Muhammad above other prophets. In Qur'an 2:285
the Prophet and the believers with him say: "We do not discriminate
between any of his messengers" although "some of them [God] favored
more than others" (2:253). Whatever the Prophet's place in the
history of revelation, it is described in the Qur'an as a favor from
God:
This is a bounty of God which he
bestows upon whom he will. And God is full of bounty (62:4).
In Hadith also we find that on the one
hand the Prophet is quoted as saying that he should not be praised
above the other prophets (Muslim, kitab al-fada`il, bab min
fada`il Musa), and on the other hand there are other ahadith in
which the Prophet is obviously described as more favored by God than
other prophets. In this way both the Qur'an and Hadith are aiming to
do justice to two considerations: 1) the relative position and
proper place of the various prophets be brought forward; 2) avoiding
any rivalry among the followers of the prophets or pride on their
part.
NO CEASING OF DIVINE
COMMUNICATION WITH INDIVIDUALS
Another point of clarification to be
noted in regard to the belief that prophethood has come to an end
with the coming of Muhammad, is that this does not mean that all
communication between God and human beings has ceased. God does
continue to guide and inspire human beings in various ways as
individuals in their particular lives. For the Qur'an says that God
inspires (`alhama) each soul as to what is good and what is
bad:
Consider a self (or soul) and what
constituted its character and potential;
And inspired it about what is wrong
for it and what is right for it.
He is indeed successful who causes
it to grow.
And he is indeed a failure who
stunts it (91:7-10).
What has come to an end with the Prophet
Muhammad is prophetic revelation whereby God chooses a person to
communicate with a nation or whole humankind. Such a prophetic
revelation is binding on those for whom it is meant. It may change
the existing religious laws and create a new religious community (ummah).
Basis in Hadith
Hadith, of course, is subject to the
question of authenticity when we use it primarily as a source of
what the Prophet of Islam taught. But it can also be used as a
source of how Muslims in the first few centuries of the Islamic
calendar understood his teachings. Sometimes even in this latter use
Hadith may help establish the authenticity of a Muslim belief. Thus
if a certain belief has some support in the Quran, or at least it is
not contradicted by the Quran and it is also supported by some
ahadith without being challenged by other ahadith of equal
reliability, then such a belief can be confidently viewed as an
authentic Islamic belief. This precisely is the case with the belief
that the Prophet Muhammad was the last of the true prophets of God.
This belief has, as we have seen, support in the Quran. It is also,
as we now show, stated in many ahadith without being challenged by
any others.
The documentation of ahadith stating
clearly that the Prophet of Islam was the last of the line of true
prophets begins in the first century and continues upto the fourth
century when the compilation of the major collections of Hadith came
to an end. In the first century book, Sirat Rasul Allah by
Ibn Ishaq, we read that on the eve of his departure for the battle
of Tabuk,
the Apostle left
'Ali behind him to look after his family, and ordered him to
stay with them. The hypocrites thereupon began to speak ill of
him, saying that he had been left behind because he was a burden
on him and he wanted to get rid of him. Taking his weapons, 'Ali
went after the Apostle and caught up with him when he halted in
al-Jurf. He told him what the hypocrites were saying. The
Apostle replied: "They lie. I left you behind because of what I
have left behind [i.e., my family], so go back as my
representative to my family and yours. Are you not happy, 'Ali,
that you stand in relation to me as Aaron did in relation to
Moses [when he was left behind by Moses before going to the
Mount Sinai], except that there will be no prophet after me?"
So 'Ali returned to Medina and the Apostle went his way.
In the second century, Mu'watta
of Imam Malik (a collection of prophetic traditions written around
the middle of the century) the Prophet is reported as saying:
I am Muhammad, I am
Ahmad, I am the al-Mahi (the Effacer) in that through me
infidelity shall be erased; I am the al-Hashir (Assembler) in
that people shall be assembled after me. And I am al-Aqib (the
Last) (kitab al-asma' an-nabi; see also, Bukhari,
kitab al-manaqib, bab asma' an-nabi, Muslim, kitab al-fadai'l,
bab asma' an-nabi, Tirmidhi, kitab al-adab, bab asma' an-nabi;
Mustadrak Hakim, kitab at-tarikh, bab asma' an-nabi)
It is noteworthy that here two names are
explained: al-Mahi and al-Hashir. The remaining three are not
explained. The reason could only be that they and their meaning were
well known. This is indeed the case with Muhammad and Ahmad (Quran
61:6). It must also be the case with al-Aqib. Literally this word
means, "that which comes later or last". Thus the Quran repeatedly
refers to the end or the last state or the final fate of a person or
nation as al-aqibah (feminine of al-aqib) (3:137,
7:86, 11:49, 12:109 etc). The Prophet bears the title al-Aqib in the
sense that he was the last of the prophets. This is the only
possible sense, since our sources do not suggest any other sense in
which the title would have been so well understood that no
explanation was required.
The explanation of the title al-Hashir
in the above hadith – "in that people shall be
assembled after me" – has been understood in two ways. First:
the assembling of humankind on the day of resurrection will take
place after the resurrection of the Prophet. That is, the Prophet
will be the first to be resurrected and in this way he will usher in
the events connected with the day of resurrection and judgment.
Second: the day of resurrection and judgment will succeed the
Prophet, without any other prophet coming during his time and that
day. That is, while earlier prophets were succeeded by other
prophets, the Prophet Muhammad will be followed by the day of
assembling and judgment.
In the third century we find many more
traditions about the finality of the prophethood of Muhammad. This
does not mean that all these traditions originated in the third
century. It is quite probable that many of these traditions existed
in the two earlier centuries. The reason that books that have come
down to us from the first two centuries do not contain these
traditions is that those books were not meant to be comprehensive
collections of Hadith. They reflected specific concerns of their
authors on specific topics and largely drew on what was available in
particular centers. In contrast the comprehensive books compiled in
the third century were produced after extensive search all over the
Muslim world.
Of the third-century books of Hadith the
most trusted are Bukhari and Muslim. They both record the above
tradition from Mu`watta referring to the name, al-Aqib. They also
twice record the first-century tradition where Ali is compared with
Aaron, once in the chapter on 'Ali's merits and once in the account
of the battle of Tabuk. In addition, they also contain the following
traditions:
The Prophet said:
"The children of Israel used to be guided by prophets. When a
prophet passed away, another prophet succeeded him. But no
prophet will come after me; there will only be khulafa'
(caliphs) who will increase in number (that is, more and
more will claim to be khulafa')." The people asked, "O Apostle
of God, What do you order us (in view of such multiplicity of
claims)? " He said, "Obey the one who is given the pledge of
allegiance first. Fulfil their rights, for God will ask them
about (any shortcomings) in ruling those God has put under their
guardianship" (Bukhari, kitab hadith al-'anbi'a, bab ma
dhukira 'an bani israel).
The Prophet said: My
position in relation to the other prophets is like this: A man
built a house, completing it and adorning it well except for a
place of one brick. When the people entered the house, they
marvelled at its beauty and said, But for the place of this one
brick (how much more splendid the house will be) (Bukhari,
kitab al-manaqib, bab khatim an-nabiyyin; Muslim, kitab
al-fada'il, bab khatam an-nabiyyin; see also Tirmidhi,
kitab al-manaqib, bab fadl an-nabi and kitab al-adab, bab
al-amthal; Musnad Abu Dawud Tayalisi, marwiat Jabir bin
Abdullah; and Musnad Ahmad, marwiat Ubayyi bin
Ka'b, Abu Sa'id Khudri and Abu Huraira).
The obvious implication of the
similitude is that the Prophet is the one missing brick and he
completes the house of prophethood so that no empty niche is left
there to provide room for another prophet. This implicit meaning is
clarified in another version in Bukhari which adds the words: "I am
like unto that one missing brick and I am the last in the line of
the prophets." Notice here the Prophet is not glorified above other
prophets; he is just a missing brick like other bricks. This is
consistent with the hadith from Muslim quoted earlier in which the
Prophet says that he should not be praised above other prophets (Cf.
also, Quran 2: 285 quoted earlier). The purpose that some traditions
discourage Muslims from praising the Prophet above other prophets is
no doubt, as noted earlier, to avoid any rivalry among followers of
various prophets or pride on their part. But, of course, some
traditions do praise the Prophet Muhammad above other prophets,
although whatever way he was superior to others is nothing but a
favor of God. One tradition which is relevant to our topic is the
following:
The Holy Prophet
said: God has favored me more than the other prophets in six
ways: 1) I have been endowed with the gift of speech which is
brief but full of knowledge. 2) I was granted victory owing to
my awe. 3) The spoils of war were made lawful unto me. 4) The
whole earth has been made the place of worship for me and it has
become the means of purification for me also. 5) I have been
sent to the whole world. 6) And the line of prophets has come
to its final end in me (Muslim, Tirmidhi, Ibn Majah; quoted
from Tafsir Ibn Kathir).
Item 3 about the spoils of war is
problematic because earlier prophets (such as David who is a prophet
in the Qur'an) are known to have taken war booty (2 Samuuel 8:7-8)
and the Mosaic Law which was accepted by subsequent prophets
expressly permits it (Deut 20:14). However, our interest here is in
item 6 where the Prophet is clearly described as the last of the
prophets. Another tradition in Muslim relevant to the subject is:
Abu Hurayra (a well
known companion of the Prophet) used to say that one prayer
performed in the Apostle's Mosque (in Medina) is more blessed
than a thousand prayers performed in other mosques except the
Sacred Mosque (in Makkah). This is because the Apostle is the
last (akhir) of the prophets and his mosque is the last (akhir)
of the mosques (built by prophets). (Muslim, kitab al-hajj,
bab fadl as-salat bi masjid Makka wa al-Medina).
The tradition in Muslim goes on to
discuss whether the part about the last mosque Abu Hurayra added
himself or he is quoting the Prophet. The tradition has in view
three mosques: the Sacred Mosque in Makka (connected with Abraham),
the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem (connected with the Israelite
figures), the Prophet's Mosque in Medina. The third of these mosques
is the last because the Prophet is the last prophet. Ahmadis,
followers of one of the claimants of prophethood, say that just as
"the last mosque" does not mean that there were no mosques built
after the mosque of Medina, similarly "the last prophet" does not
mean that there will be no prophet after Muhammad. But then what
does the word "last" (akhir) mean? It is said that the word
means something like "most excellent". But this meaning will not
apply to "the last mosque" because the Prophet's mosque in Medina is
not the most excellent, the sacred mosque in Makka is. Besides such
an interpretation concentrates too much on a single tradition and
does not explain all the other traditions on the subject.
The Prophet said:
Among the people preceding you there used to be muhaddithun
(those who spoke under some form of divine inspiration,
other than a prophetic revelation). If there are any such
persons among my followers, it is `Umar bin al-Khattab (Bukhari,
kitab hadith al-'anbi'a, bab hasbiya allah; see also,
Muslim, kitab al-fada`il, bab min fada`il 'Umar).
The Prophet said:
Among the children of Israel who went before you there were such
people who had communication with God (yukallamun), even
though they were not prophets. If there is any such person from
among my people it is `Umar (Bukhari, kitab al-manaqib, bab
manaqib 'Umar).
A later collection of traditions,
Tirmidhi, records the following tradition:
The Prophet said:
"If a prophet were to succeed me, it would have been `Umar bin
al-Khattab" (Tirmidhi, kitab al-manaqib, bab manaqib 'Umar).
In all three versions, regardless of the
meaning of muhaddithun or yukallamun it is clear that
the possibility of a prophet after the Prophet Muhammad is excluded.
The Prophet said:
Good (and true) dreams (ar-row'ya al-salihah) are a part
of the forty-six parts of prophethood.
The Prophet said:
Nothing is left of prophethood (after me) except al-mubashshirat.
People said: What is meant by al-mubashshirat. He said:
good dreams (Bukhari, kitab ar-row'ya, bab, ar-row'ya al-salihah
..., bab al-mubashshirat, see also Muslim, Nasa'i, Abu Dawud,
kitab ar-row'ya, Musnad Ahmad, marwiyat Abu Tufayl;
the hadith about the forty-six parts of prophethood is also
found in Mu'watta, kitab ar-row'ya).
In other words there is no possibility
of prophetic revelation in the future. At the most if some one
receives an inspiration from God he or she will receive it in the
form of "good and true dreams." Incidentally, this and some of the
other ahadith quoted earlier are consistent with what we said above,
namely, that end of prophethood does not mean that all divine
communication with individuals has ceased.
Outside Bukhari and Muslim, we find, in
addition to the hadith about 'Umar from Tirmidhi, the following:
One day the Prophet
came out of his house and joined our company. His manner gave us
the impression as if he were leaving us.' He said, 'I am
Muhammad, the unlettered prophet of God' and repeated this
statement three times. Then he affirmed: "There will be no
prophet after me' (Musnad Ahmad, marwiyat 'Abdullah bin Amr
ibn'-As)
The Prophet said:
There is no prophet after me and there is no community of
followers (of true prophets) after my community (Baihaqi,
kitab al-row'ya; Tabarani)
The Prophet
affirmed: "The chain of messengers and prophets has come to an
end. There shall be no messenger nor prophet after me" (Tirmidhi,
kitab ar-row'ya, bab dhahab an-nubuwwa, Musnad Ahmad,
marwiyat Anas bin Malik).
This last tradition answers a question
that seems to have arisen in the interpretation of 33:40. The verse
describes the Prophet Muhammad as the seal of the prophets
which raised the question whether he also concluded the series of
messengers. The tradition answers the question in the
affirmative. Apparently the question was not important in earlier
centuries because it is not addressed in earlier books of Hadith nor
of Tafseer (Qur'an commentary). This is because the Qur'an is fairly
clear that every messenger is a prophet and the one who is the last
prophet is also of necessity the last messenger. A relatively late
commentary on the Qur'an, the one by Ibn Kathir (died A.H. 774) does
raise and answer the question: "This verse is a clear proof of the
fact that no prophet will come after Muhammad and if there is no
prophet, then how can there be a messenger after him? For the office
of a messenger holds prominence over the office of a prophet. Every
messenger is a prophet, but all prophets are not messengers. ...
Hence anyone who claims to be a prophet or a messenger of God after
Muhammad is a liar, an impostor, a dajjal (one who covers the truth
like the antichrist), has gone astray and leads astray, no matter
what manner of extraordinary deeds, jugglery, magical feats, and
wonders he brings forth."
No challenge from any
other hadith
Against the continuous testimony by the
Hadith literature, documented above, in favor of the belief in the
conclusion of the prophethood with Muhammad, there is no hadith that
contradicts it. At the most one could refer to a saying attributed
to Ayesha, the Prophet's wife: "Say that he (i.e., the Prophet) is
khatam (seal) of the prophets, but do not say, there is no
prophet after him." But attestation of this saying is very late and
no early oral authority is known for it. Also, it is a view of
Ayesha which by itself cannot be a source of Islamic belief, unless
it represents a consensus among the companions of the Prophet. This
is obviously not the case, since we have earlier quoted ahadith in
which the Prophet himself is quoted as saying, "There is no prophet
after me". But most importantly we need to inquire into what the
saying is attempting to communicate, regardless of whether it is
authentic or not.
In order to understand the saying we
have to recall a question that arose after the compilation of the
major collections of hadith: How can it be said that there is no
prophet after Muhammad when according to some ahadith Jesus will
come again near the end of the world? The question is raised and
answered by Zamakhshari in his comment on 33:40: "If you ask how
Muhammad can be the last of the prophets when Jesus will appear
towards the end of the world? I shall reply that the finality of the
prophethood of Muhammad means that no one will be endowed with
prophethood after him. Jesus is among those upon whom prophethood
was endowed before Muhammad. Moreover, Jesus will appear as a
follower of Muhammad and he will offer prayers with his face towards
the Qiblah of Islam, as a member of the community of the Muslims."
We can now understand the meaning of the saying attributed to Ayesha:
The Prophet Muhammad is indeed the last prophet but it is not quite
accurate to say that no prophet will come after him since the return
of the Prophet Jesus will take place after him.
It is interesting to note that the
literature on prophetic traditions does not deal with the
relationship between the end of prophethood with Muhammad and the
return of Jesus after him, although both beliefs are mentioned in
Hadith. Clearly, in earlier centuries Muslims saw no contradiction
between the two beliefs probably because the understanding expressed
by Zamakhshari was taken for granted. This suggests that the saying
attributed to Ayesha originated after the period of the compilation
of the major books of hadith, that is, after the fourth century of
the Islamic calendar. This is why it has no chain of narration and
no early source.
Classical commentators
and jurists
After the time of the hadith compilation
we come to the time of the great classical commentators of the
Qur'an and other Islamic scholars, although one major commentator,
Ibn Jarir at-Tabari (224 A.H.-310 A.H.) lived in about the same
period when the major collections of Hadith were being compiled. In
view of the solid foundation provided by the Qur'an and Hadith for
the belief in the end of prophethood it is hardly surprising that
there exists an equally solid consensus among the commentators and
other scholars. Thus At-Tabari interprets the words, "seal of the
prophets" as follows: The Prophet Muhammad "has closed and sealed
the prophethood and the door (of prophethood) shall not open for
anyone till the end of the world."
After At-Tabari a major commentator is
Baghawi (died 510 A.H.). He writes in his commentary Ma`lam at-Tanzil:
"God brought the line of Prophets to an end with him. Hence he is
the final Prophet.......Ibn `Abbas affirms that (in this verse) God
has given his verdict that no prophet will come after the Prophet
Muhammad."
Next important commentator is
Zamakhshari (467 A.H.-538 A.H), whom we have already quoted. After
him there is Imam Razi (543 A.H.-606 A.H.), who wrote a massive
commentary on the Qur'an entitled at-Tafsir al-Kabir. He
explains the relevant Quranic passage thus: "In this context the
term khatam an-nabiyyin has been used in the sense that a
prophet whose ministry is not final may leave some injunctions or
commandments incomplete or unexplained, thus providing scope for a
succeeding prophet to complete the task. But the prophet who will
have no successor is more considerate and provides clear guidelines
for his followers, for he is like a father who knows that after him
there will be no guardian or patron to look after his son."
Baydawi (died A.H. 685), in his
commentary, Anwar at-Tanzil, writes: "In other words he,
Muhammad, is the last of the prophets. He is the one in whom the
line of prophets ends or the one whose advent has sealed the office
of prophethood. The appearance of Jesus (peace be upon him) after
the Prophet Muhammad is not a contradiction of the finality of
Muhammad's prophethood, because Jesus will appear as a follower of
the Shariah of Muhammad."
Indeed, there is no single Muslim
commentator of the Qur'an, modern or ancient, who expresses any
different view. This is not because these commentators agree on
everything. On many verses their interpretations can differ
considerably. But on the meaning of the "seal of the prophets" there
is no disagreement.
The view unanimously expressed by the
commentators is also reflected in Islamic law or fiqh, where
the question of the position of a person who does not believe in the
finality of Muhammad's prophethood is answered. Again the unanimous
answer is that such a person is not a Muslim. Thus, for example, in
the Hanafi school, which has the largest number of adherents, the
following position is attributed to Abu Hanifa (80 A.H.-150 A.H.),
the founder of the school: A man laid claim to prophethood and said
"Let me show you the proofs of my prophethood." Abu Hanifa warned
the people: "Anyone who asks of this man the credentials of
prophethood, shall become an apostate, for the Prophet of God has
explicitly declared: "No prophet will come after me" (Manaqib al-
Imam al-Azam Abi Hanifa, by Ibn Ahmad al-Makki). It is for this
reason that the Muslim ummah has declared the Ahmadis a non-Muslim
sect. Their entry into the sacred precincts of Makkah is prohibited
like the entry of other non-Muslims. It should be noted that the
Muslim Ummah as a whole is extremely reluctant to declare as
non-Muslim any group describing itself as a Muslim group. Probably
the Ahmadis are the only example. This one example is by no means a
manifestation of intolerance. For tolerance does not mean that the
followers of a religion cannot decide what beliefs define their
religion and must be adhered to by all those who want to join them.
Philosophers and Sufis
At one point some philosophers and
extremist Sufis probably said things that might not have been
entirely consistent with the belief in the finality of Muhammad's
prophethood. This is seen from a passing reference to philosophers
and Sufis by `Iyad (died 544 A.H.), an Islamic qadi or judge,
in the following statement: "He who lays a claim to prophethood or
affirms that a man can attain the office of prophethood by his
efforts or can attain the status of a prophet through purification
of soul, as is alleged by some philosophers and extremist Sufis; and
likewise a person who does not claim to be a prophet, but declares
that he is the recipient of divine revelation, all such persons are
apostates and deniers of the prophethood of Muhammad, for Muhammad
has conveyed the message of God to us that he is the final prophet
and no prophet will come after him. He had also conveyed to us the
divine message that he has finally sealed the office of Prophethood
and that he has been sent as a prophet and a messenger to the whole
of humankind. It is the consensus of the entire Ummah that these
words of the Holy Prophet are clear enough and eloquently speak of
the fact that they can admit of no other interpretation or amendment
in their meaning. Hence there is no doubt that all these sects are
outside the pale of Islam not only from the view-point of the
consensus of the Ummah but also on the ground of these words having
been transmitted with utmost authenticity" (Shifa', Vol. 2,
270- 271).
Here the philosophers and extremist
Sufis seems to be admitting the possibility that by self development
one can acquire the status of a prophet, although they are not
necessarily saying that someone will actually do so. We may admit
that such opinions were expressed by some people who called
themselves Muslims. But that by itself does not constitute a proof
that the belief in question is not authentic. Only a challenge to
the belief on the basis of the sources of Islam can prove that, and
no such challenge is in sight.
Reputed Sufis in fact believed in the
last prophethood of Muhammad. Thus both Ibn Arabi and al-Ghazali
(450 A.H-505 A.H.) affirm the belief. A statement by the latter is
particularly interesting.
Al-Ghazali wants to prove the following
point: If we go by only the words of the revelation, then many
possibilities of interpretation may exist, some of which may
seriously undermine the purpose of revelation. Hence in interpreting
revelation we need to look at how it was understood in the
community. If there exists a consensus in the community about any
one interpretation of a principle, belief or law, then this
consensus must reflect the intended interpretation of that
principle, belief or law and such a consensus must be binding. In
order to make this point he takes the example of the belief in the
end of prophethood and says in al-iqtisad fi al-'itiqad:
`[If the right of
denying the authority of consensus be admitted, it will give rise to
many errors. For example,] if someone says that it is possible for a
messenger of God to rise after our prophet Muhammad, one cannot
hesitate to pronounce him as non-believer. But in the course of a
discussion a person who wants to prove this (that any hesitation in
pronouncing such a person as a non-believer is a sin) will
inevitably require the aid of consensus. For reason cannot decide
the matter. As for the received tradition, the person (who says that
a `new messenger' can still arise) will not be incapable of making
various interpretations of the prophetic tradition la nabiya
ba`di ("There is no prophet after me") and God's words khatam
an-nabiyyin ("seal of the prophets"). Thus he might say that by
khatam an-nabiyyin God means the last of the prominent
messengers. If you argue that nabiyyin (prophets) is general
and is used without any specification, then it is not difficult to
give a general term a specific meaning. In respect of the prophetic
tradition la nabiya ba`di ("There is no prophet after me"),
such a person can say that this expression does not cover messengers
and there is a difference between a messenger and prophet, prophet
being (according to his view) superior to a messenger (so that a
prophet cannot arise after the Prophet Muhammad but a messenger can
still arise). Similarly, he can put forward many other arguments,
which on the basis of the language used cannot be rejected. Indeed,
we admit the possibility of even more remote interpretations of
words used in the symbolic statements (zawahir at-tashbih).
We cannot even say that a person who makes such interpretations is
guilty of rejecting the clear injunctions. But in refuting him we
shall say that the entire ummah by a consensus understands that the
word (la nabiya ba`di) in view of the circumstances of the
Prophet means that neither a prophet nor a messenger will ever arise
after him. There is no room for any different interpretation nor for
giving special meaning (to the term nabiyyin, prophets). If,
therefore, any one denies this interpretation, he can (in the first
place) be described only as the denier of the consensus. (And then
in the second place, if the consensus is considered binding, can we
unhesitatingly pronounce such a person a non-believer.)
By way of a conclusion of our discussion
of the first of the two questions raised at the beginning of this
article we contrast the belief in the end of prophethood with a
couple of other beliefs in Islam and Christianity. This should
enable the reader to assess more fully the strength of the evidence
presented above.
It is widely believed by Muslims that
the punishment of adultery by a married person is death by stoning.
This belief is duly supported by many ahadith but we cannot take the
consensus to the first century and back to the Qur'an. In fact, the
Qur'an contradicts this belief and ahadith have preserved evidence
that in earlier centuries some Muslims rejected the stoning penalty
on the grounds that it is not mentioned in the Qur'an. Contrast this
with the fact that the belief in the end of prophethood has
considerable basis in the Qur'an and there has been a solid
consensus of the Muslims on it throughout the centuries.
The point can be further illustrated by
an example of a Christian belief: The belief in Jesus as God. In the
Bible there are many statements that stand in the way of this
belief, which holders of the belief have to explain in some
contrived ways. And throughout history there have raged fierce
battles between those who worshipped Jesus as God and those who
regarded him as a creature of God. Only in the fourth century of the
Christian era the belief became an official teaching of the church
and achieved some measure of consensus -- a somewhat shaky consensus
with controversy about the belief starting periodically. This is
again in contrast to the fact that in the Qur'an and Hadith there is
no statement that stands in the way of the belief in the end of
prophethood that have to be explained away and there has never been
any real challenge to the consensus of the Muslims on it. This is
certainly not because Muslims do not have serious differences of
opinions, for the literature of Islam is full of controversies over
numerous issues.
REASONABLENESS OF THE
BELIEF
In his writings Bahaullah has ridiculed
the Muslim belief in the end of prophethood as if this is a logical
absurdity. Yet if one believes in the end of the world, this belief,
far from being a logical absurdity is seen to be a logical
necessity. For if history as we know it is bound to come to an end,
then there has to be at least one last prophet. The question
therefore is whether the belief in the end of the world is an absurd
belief. Apart from the fact that such a belief is found in the
teachings of many of the prophets whom Bahaullah recognizes, this
belief is consistent with whatever we known about the universe. In
this universe everything is in a state of transition. It is
therefore to be expected that this world as we know it will one day
be radically transformed so that it is no longer possible to think
of it as the same world as before. This, as noted before,
necessarily leads to the conclusion that there has to be a last
prophet.
One basis on which the belief in a last
prophet is ridiculed by Bahaullah is that new questions always arise
and therefore there is need for new revelation to answer those
questions. This objection, however, assumes that the purpose of the
messengers of God is to answer all questions. If this was so, then
why has God given humankind a strong intellect and intuition? The
truth is that the purpose of the prophets is not to answer for us
all necessary questions but to enable us to answer all
necessary questions. They bring human beings in touch with their
true nature (fitrah), enabling them to use their God-given
faculties to answer all necessary questions. Of course this process
is not irreversible in that it is possible that despite the work of
the prophets people once again get disoriented from their true
nature and their God-given faculties and judgment get blurred,
disabling them from finding solutions to the questions they face.
Before Islam this situation could prompt the rising of another
prophet, but after the Prophet Muhammad this work will be done by
reformers from within his followers. This is because through him the
religious truth has been expressed in a sufficiently universal and
complete way and has been preserved in its original form. Prior to
him a new prophet was required under one or more of the following
situations.
1) There was need for a prophet to be
sent to a certain nation to which no prophet had been sent before
and the message brought by the prophet of another nation either
could not have reached these people or it was not expressed in a way
suitable for them.
2) The teachings of earlier prophets had
been forgotten by the people or distorted so that they could no
longer properly guide the people.
3) The teachings of the earlier prophets
did not provide complete enough guidance so that there was need for
some further guidance from God.
But when finally the Prophet came with a
complete, universal and faithfully preserved revelation from God
which has reached or can reach all nations, there remained no need
for a new prophet. Through his well-preserved revelatory words and
deeds the spirit of prophecy has achieved a permanent and universal
presence in the world and hence the need for a new prophet has been
removed forever.
Another reason that Bahaullah ridicules
the Muslim belief in the end of prophethood is that for him it means
that mercies of God have come to an end. But God can shower his
mercies on humankind either through a new prophetic revelation or a
well-preserved existing revelation. Muslims in any case believe that
Muhammad is the source of everlasting mercies of God for all the
nations till the day of judgment. Far from the mercies of God coming
to an end
with the conclusion of prophethood, they
have become everlasting. Through his word and example, fortunate
among the humans will forever experience the presence of God and
receive his abundant grace. As God says in the Qur'an:
We have not sent you (O Muhammad)
save as a mercy for all humankind.
We have given you (O Muhammad)
kawthar (a source of abundant grace).
EVIDENCE FROM HISTORY
The end of prophethood is supported by
the history of the world, at least up to the present time.
The first religion to spread across the
globe and have a large number of followers was paganism, although it
was a diffused tradition without any central founding figure. Then
there was Buddhism which swept a large part of Asia and has been
followed for centuries. Buddhism was followed five or six centuries
later by Christianity. About another six centuries after
Christianity there came Islam. But more than fourteen centuries have
passed and no new major religion has appeared in history, whether
centered around a founding figure or not. This supports both
that there was need for Islam after Buddhism and Christianity and
that there is no need for any other religion after Islam. For if
there were no need for Islam after Buddhism and Christianity it
would not have emerged in history and would not have found such wide
acceptance for so long and if there were need for a new religion
after Islam it should have emerged by now and found a wide
acceptance. For, it may be safely assumed that no new religion gets
accepted by a major part of the human population for centuries
unless there is a genuine need for it.
Of course, followers of Joseph Smith,
Bahaullah and Ghulam Ahmad will say that their religions have
emerged after Islam and will in the future find world-wide
acceptance. But their claims conflict with one another and therefore
at least two of them are under self-deception and/or are liars.
Moreover, for the moment at least all three new religions are
marginal religious movements with very little impact on the world at
large. The belief in the end of prophethood is a prophecy that this
marginality will be one of the permanent features of these
religions.
A LOOK AT BAHAISM
I conclude this article by a closer
examination of one of the three religions or sects founded by
claimants of prophethood in the past couple of centuries.
As we noted earlier, one reason that
Bahaullah ridicules the Islamic belief in the end of prophethood is
that there always arise new questions which require fresh guidance
from God. Let us see three new things that Bahaullah has introduced
into religion and see what new questions they answer which are not
answered or could not be answered within the earlier religious
traditions.
1) Bahaullah has replaced the lunar year
which determines Muslim holidays by a solar year divided into
nineteen months of nineteen years. This has two implications.
First, it has fixed the lengths of the
months, which can make the organization of the society smoother. But
the same result could have been achieved either by adopting the
common calendar which is now followed throughout the world or by
promoting the view that the start and end of the lunar months be
determined by astronomical calculations. Any one of these two
solutions are in fact far more convenient and economical. For
Bahaullah's innovation would require that at one point the world
should change to his new system. However, our experience with the
Y2K problem, which cost the world an estimated 100 billion dollars,
shows that such a change would be fraught with unnecessary dangers
and expenses.
Second, Bahaullah's rearrangement of
calendar has shortened the Ramadan fast. But if in the past
centuries when humans were less protected against heat and cold, God
required believers to fast for thirty days despite saying that "God
wants ease not hardship for you", now that most of us are living in
much more comfortable conditions how is it that he wants them to
fast for 19 days? The truth is that fasting is the most popular of
the practices of Islam, which shows that it was never the sort of
thing which needed to be made easier by the advent of another
prophet.
2) Bahaullah has "prohibited" slavery.
In regard to this we need to make two important observations.
First, it is easy to take a pen and
write beautiful things or beautiful sounding things, but to actually
effect changes in history is the real job. Divine intervention
through a prophet should achieve this latter, harder task. But when
Bahaullah lived, slavery was on its way out already. In prohibiting
it, he was simply following a strong existing trend. Abraham
Lincoln, in eliminating slavery from his country, where it was a
really big and serious problem, did more for the slaves than did
Bahaullah's prohibition of slavery on paper. If a prophet was needed
to eliminate slavery, God might have appointed Lincoln as a prophet.
Second, the Islamic teachings about
slavery are such that a reformer within Islam could have done
whatever he or she wanted for eliminating slavery. A prophet was
hardly necessary. Let us briefly review those teachings.
Freeing of slaves is part of being a
believer in the Qur'an:
What will make you understand what
it is, that steep upward road (that leads to God and salvation)?
It is the freeing of one in
bondage;
Or the feeding on a day of hunger
An orphan near of kin,
Or some needy [stranger] lying in
the dust.
Then will he be among those
who have faith and who exhort one
another to perseverance and exhort one another to compassion
(90:12-17).
This is an early Makkan passage. But
since the orientalists love to say that Muhammad's Makkan message
was one of love and compassion which he later abandoned in Medina,
we also quote a passage from a late chapter of the Medinan period:
Virtue is not that you turn your
faces to the East or the West. But virtuous is he who has
faith in God and the last day ... and gives his wealth,
for love of God, to kinsfolk and to orphans and the needy and
the wayfarer and to those who ask for help and to set those
in bondage free ... (2:177).
The freeing of slaves is not only to be
done at an individual level, but also a portion of the government or
community funds is to be used for this purpose.
And the offerings are only
for the poor ... for the freeing of those in bondage and
those overburdened with debts ... [this is] an ordinance of God
and God is all knowing and wise (9:60).
If a believer does not free one of his
slaves, it is only because the slave does not want to be freed or is
incapable of supporting himself. For the Qur'an lays down the law:
And if any of those whom you own as
slaves want a deed of freedom, write it out for them if you know
of some good in them. Also, give them some of the wealth of God
that he has given you (24:33).
The slaves that are for some reason or
the other not freed, are to be treated with kindness:
And serve God and do not associate
any partners in his Godhead. Show kindness to parents,
and to near kindred, and orphans, and the needy, and to the
neighbor who is of kin and the neighbor who is not of kin, and
the companion by your side, and the wayfarer, and those whom
you own as slaves ... (4:36).
This is further stressed in the
prophetic traditions. Thus there is the well-known story of Zayd bin
Harithah, a slave of the Prophet. Zayd's father and uncle came to
take him with them. They were willing to pay any price. The Prophet
said that they need not pay anything; they can take him if Zayd so
chooses. But Zayd decided to stay with the Prophet rather than go
with his father and uncle. Later the Prophet adopted him as his son.
The following traditions, which give rules about the treatment of
slaves, are quoted from Bukhari, fi al-'itaq wa fadl hi:
The Prophet said:
Your slaves are your brothers upon whom God has given you
authority. So, if one has one's brothers under one's control,
one should feed them with the like of what one eats and clothe
them with the like of what one wears. You should not overburden
them with what they cannot bear, and if you do so, help them
with the work.
The Prophet said:
One should not say to any one, "my slave" ('abdi) or "my
slave-girl" (amati), but should say, "my lad" (fatai), "my lass"
(fatati), and "my boy" (ghulami).
The Prophet said: He
who has a slave-girl and teaches her good manners and improves
her education and then manumits her and marries her, will get a
double reward.
In classical Islamic law enslaving of a
free person without war is prohibited. A Muslim or a non-Muslim
dhimmi (one who in exchange for a tax is given protection by the
Muslim government) cannot be enslaved even in a war. Prisoners of
war may be enslaved only in a nation that would enslave Muslim
prisoners of war. In the presence of an international treaty about
the treatment of prisoners, enslaving prisoners of war will also be
prohibited.
Thus Islam
prohibits slavery, but not in the way some
people may in our age want it to prohibited. They expect that a
passage in the Qur'an should say: "From now on free all the slaves
and do not make any new ones and fight any one who makes or keeps a
slave". In the real world things do not work that way, not even when
a prophet of God is amongst us. The Qur'an and Hadith have the
wisdom to take into account factors that produced slavery in the
first place as well as the consequences of freeing slaves by a legal
decree. We can imagine some of these consequences from the American
experience, where Lincoln had to use only legal instruments to
eliminate slavery. It created a civil war and only after one and a
half century the descendants of slaves have begun to gain some
measure of acceptance and integration into the economic and social
life of the country. In contrast, in the Muslim world slaves to the
extent that they existed enjoyed as slaves greater acceptance
and integration than did blacks in America as free men for most of
their history after the emancipation. This is dramatically
illustrated by the fact that slaves could rise to become kings, as
is shown by the fact that there was a "slave dynasty" of kings in
India.
In any case in the light of the Qur'anic
verses, prophetic traditions, and fiqhi positions reviewed
above, it is clear that Islam wants a world without slavery. They
leave no need of a new prophet to eliminate slavery. The Qur'anic
revelation provides enough basis for Muslim reformers to come
forward and legally ban slavery, if at any time it becomes clear
that this is the wisest thing to do. New major prophet is expected
when earlier revelation does not provide basis to move forward. This
can be seen in relation to the emergence of Islam. There were so
many things that could not be done within the earlier
Judeo-Christian tradition. Thus, for example, the idea that
salvation and revelation were first channeled through one nation
(Israel) and then through one individual (Jesus) got so firmly
established in the Christian tradition that a truly universal view
of salvation and revelation could not be established within the
Judeo-Christian tradition. Also, the belief in the divinity of a man
had taken deep roots in the Christian tradition so that it could not
be combated from within that tradition. Only a new prophet could
correct these other errors introduced and sanctified in the earlier
religious traditions. Now contrast this with Bahaullah's
"prohibition" of slavery. There never was in the history of Islam
any time when Muslims believed that slavery is desirable and the
world should always have some slaves. At the most one could say that
Muslims were not doing enough to realize the Islamic ideal of
ridding the world of slavery. But that hardly requires a new
prophet. Any reformers really concerned with fully eliminating
slavery could achieve the task within Islam.
3) Bahaullah established a movement to
form a world government. The idea of such a government is not new.
In Islam, especially its Shi`a branch, to which Bahaullah originally
belonged, there is a belief in Imam Mahdi who will come as a world
ruler and fill the earth with peace and justice. What is new in
Bahaism is that it has started a movement to create such a world
government. That there will be some kind of world government is
highly likely in view of the world increasingly becoming a global
village. But the formation of such a government will be the result
of an interplay of global political and economic forces at an
opportune time. And it is probable that when it happens bahaism will
be simply bypassed. In any case, it is not clear why a new prophet
was needed for forming such a government. Why, for example, a Muslim
reformer and Imam cannot achieve this task, considering the fact
that it is one of the missions of Islam to unite all humankind in a
single brotherhood/sisterhood under the one true God? |