Refutation of the "Seal of the Prophets" Video from Baha'i Youtube Channel "Bridging Beliefs"

In the first part of the video, he argues that the Bahāʾī writings in fact affirm that Muḥammad is the ‘seal’ (khātam) and the last (khātim) of the Prophets and quotes various passages therein to this effect; but he clarifies this statement by saying that Muḥammad is “the last prophet before the Day of God,” which means, the Day of Judgement (yawm al-dīn). The problem with this argument is that it redefines the term khātam in such a way that his argument becomes unfalsifiable and the statement of the Qurʾān about Muḥammad being the ‘seal of the Prophets’ becomes meaningless and pointless to express. If the plain meaning of the verse is incorrect, then for God to reveal it to Muḥammad would only serve as a stumbling block for the believers. Moreover, to deny the finality of prophethood undermines the function of the imamate in Shīʿī Islam, since what would be the purpose of the divinely appointed imām if God had no intention to discontinue prophethood?
What follows from him are standard arguments which I suspect have been lifted from Aḥmadī sources. The fact is that the analogy he tries to draw between the return (rajʿa) of Jesus and the coming of an entirely new prophet does not make any sense. There is no text which mentions that when Jesus returns, he will come with a new affair (amr), a new law (sharīʿa), or a new scripture (kitāb), but the consensus of the traditions is that he will judge by the Islamic sharīʿa.
Then he devolves into a typical critique of the ḥadīth literature, the likes of which have been answered by M. Mustafa al-Azami in On Schacht’s Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence, Islamic Texts Society, 1996 and Wael B. Hallaq in The Origins and Evolution of Islamic Law (Cambridge University Press, 2005) and “The Authenticity of Prophetic Ḥadîth: A Pseudo-Problem,” in: Studia Islamica 89 (1999): 75-90, etc., etc. For the sake of brevity, I do not feel the need to say what has already been said by others. More importantly, he must also reckon with the numerous ḥadīth which Baha’u’llah himself has ‘authenticated,’ which often do not align with his interpretation; and the double standard must also be pointed out when he accepts these ḥadīth, even if they happen weak, and even if there are stronger ones, often better attested, which contradict. In sum, it is not sufficient to say that the ḥadīth literature comes two hundred years after the Prophet and to treat this as an allowance to ignore the ḥadīth literature
The creator of this video has stated that he is able to read Arabic, but his ignorance of aspects of the language leads one to doubt just how much knowledge of Arabic he actually possesses. Around the 18-minute mark and onward, he makes an elementary mistake of looking at the root of a specific word and then trying to make sweeping statements about its meaning. Any student of Arabic should know that there are often many words within the same root that have very different and often contradictory meanings. A common example of this is how people often claim on the basis of roots that the word islām means ‘peace,’ when in reality it means ‘submission.’ It is a common saying among Christian scholars that “a little Greek is a dangerous thing,” and I would also be inclined to say that a little Arabic can be just as dangerous if one attempts to make broad claims on the basis of glancing at a lexicon, concordance, or dictionary. Moreover, he restricts his analysis to the word khātam in the predominant recitation, which carries the literal meaning of ‘seal,’ whereas the word can also be recited as khātim, as in the Warsh qirāʾa, which more explicitly means ‘last.’ The two recitations are perfectly compatible with one another, and that he is not familiar with the differences in recitation is disappointing.
He then begins a brief discussion relating to the verses of the Qurʾān where it is said that God places a ‘seal’ (khātam) on the hearts of the disbelievers, verses which are not really related to this discussion; but he uses these to draw an analogy to the subject of prophethood. His argument is essentially that if God can remove the ‘seal’ (khātam) which he has placed on a heart, as in Q 6:46, then God can do the same with the seal (khātam) of prophethood. This analogy does not work, however, since these verses are situated within a completely different context. He tries to draw the same analogy using Q 36:65, and it likewise is insufficient and contradictory to the clear meaning of the verse. The verse refers to how, on the Day of Judgement, people’s limbs will testify about their actions during their worldly life. It has nothing to do with what he says about “another means of communication” occurring, which is obviously an analogy is he is trying to draw to a new prophetic message. He then mentions the statement in Q 45:23 “So who will guide him after God?” and tries to claim that this refers to God removing the seal from the person’s heart, but it should be obvious to anyone that this is a rhetorical question. A common theme throughout the Qurʾān is that it is God alone who guides (see Q 6:71, 13:27, 28:56, etc). Finally, he engages in a rather convoluted explanation of Q 83:22-26, which does little to prove his point.
Needless to say, none of this refutes the finality of prophethood. The word khātam has always been glossed by the grammarians as ‘last’ in the sense of completion and perfection. Hence, when one finishes reading the Qurʾān in its entirety, this is known as the ‘completion of the Qurʾān’ (khātam al-qurʾān). It does not constitute a linguistic proof to gloss a word in a particular context according to its usage in another context.
He then refers to what he calls “the great drum beat of the Qurʾān,” which essentially refers to progressive revelation. If the Qurʾān expresses this doctrine, then it does not make sense, in his mind, for Muḥammad to be the final prophet. This point is moot. In the Islamic context, with the revelation of the Qurʾān, God had fulfilled his intention of sending a Messenger to every nation and supplying every people with a scripture (the Arabs were the last to receive revelation). This final revelation would be intended for all of mankind (Q 21:107) and it would be sufficient until the Day of Judgement because of God’s promise to preserve the Qurʾān (Q 15:9).
As for the other videos in the series, I don't feel the need to address them in full, but there is one thing I would like to point out in the second video. He makes the common argument that Q 33:40 only refers to Muḥammad being the seal of the Prophets (nabiyyin), not the seal of the Messengers (rusul), but this is argument is false since every Messenger (rasūl) is by definition a Prophet (nabī), although not every Prophet is a Messenger; 'nabī' is the more all-encompassing category, so it is not necessary for the Qurʾān to say, 'khātam al-rusul.'

No comments:

Post a Comment

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Popular Posts

Total Pageviews


Blog Archive