Talk:Last prophet

Heading
Usedbook, you have been very annoying with your Mani prophet. "The last prophet" or "The seal of prophets" never refers to anyone other than Muhammad. Please refrain yourself from editing this page unless you are 100% sure and confident about your knowledge about the issue. Please consult with other users to enhance your knowledge.

Historically, Mani and Muhammad have much in common. Both claimed: that messengers had been sent to every nation, a belief that someone was crucified by the Jews in the place of Jesus, to be the Comforter promised by Jesus, and of course, the title of Last Prophet. Arthur Jeffery, in his book 'The Qur'an as Scripture', states the following: "Explicitly, however, Mani had claimed that he was the last in the succession of messengers from God, so that in the Arabic sources it is recorded that his followers called him "the Seal of the Prophets". As such Mani had issued his own Scriptures and had set forth a "new law" for his community. This is what Muhammad does." (Jeffery, The Qur'an as Scripture, p. 79). Take care. Usedbook 01:31, 21 May 2004 (UTC)


 * There is no such prophet in the monotheistic creed of Abraham. Mani is not a prophet of the line that includes Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad. Nor he is in the list of 25 prophets of Islam. Islam shares the same historical legend of Christianity and Judaism in terms of the people that were sent by God as His messenger. Your mani is not listed there. Whatever you said doesn't make any sense. Whatever Mani and Muhammad had in common doesn't make Mani to claim titles that are used to refer to Muhammad. No one except you claimed those titles for Mani. Mani is not a messenger of God. Whatever he and his followers may say doesn't make him a messenger of God, doesn't make him a kin of Abraham. I urge you not to edit these pages further. --Hiwamy 11:23, 21 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately for you, there does not exist a monolithic creed of Abraham, so the burden of proof is with you. Christians view Muhammad as a false prophet and Jews consider Jesus to be a false Messiah, as you are aware of, yet Islamic beliefs regarding great figures such as Moses, Jesus and Abraham are tolerated by the former. Thus, should you not adopt the same tolerance, a trait required to contribute at Wikipedia? The title Seal of the Prophets and The Last Prophet have no copyright, yet if they did as you are assuming, Muhammad could be charged with plagiarism as Mani used these titles for himself hundreds of years prior to Surah Al-Alaq. So with all due respect, you are required to adopt a NPOV when editing articles; I suggest placing your personal beliefs aside for the sake of a free and impartial encyclopedia. I urge you to unveil tolerance and neutrality. Take care. Usedbook 20:55, 21 May 2004 (UTC)


 * "there does not exist a monolithic creed of Abraham" - Just curious, who said that? All I wanted to say is that all Prophets and Messengers of God can be traced back to Abraham. This definition denies prophethood to Mani and others who are not within the kinship of Abraham, regardless of his greatness. It will be very helpful if you can provide other sources claiming Mani a prophet, let alone the last prophet. --Hiwamy 23:41, 21 May 2004 (UTC)


 * "All I wanted to say is that all Prophets and Messengers of God can be traced back to Abraham." With all due respect, you seem to be merely preaching a personal brand of Islamic belief and interpretation. There is no consensus regarding these aspects of the lives of figures such as Abraham, Jesus, Mani or Muhammad, so lets be open to all views. Mani, like Muhammad, claimed to have received revelations from God. If you're suprised that a feature of the Islamic religion was used prior to the time of Muhammad, you shouldn't be for Islam relied heavily on already established pre-Islamic practices and creeds. Perhaps you should adopt the NPOV when editing articles here at Wikipedia. Take care. Usedbook 15:32, 25 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, I am not surprised by your Mani because anyone can create or invent him using wikipedia. But as I said, it will be very helpful if you can provide sources other than you that describe Many as a prophet, let alone last prophet. Also, what guidance Mani received from God - like Gospel, Torah, Quran, etc? Where Mani claimed that he is the last prophet? Harping on NPOV won't work if you cannot provide substantial and accountable sources supporting your accusations. Hiwamy 02:05, 26 May 2004 (UTC)


 * "Islam relied heavily on already established pre-Islamic practices and creeds" Mr. usedbook, please don't consider yourself an expert of Islam. Because this statement proves that you know nothing about Islam. It is the same God who sent Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad. There must be consistency in paths they have shown to mankind because they are from one and only God. Islam does not rely on other religions because Islam is the same religion that was revealed to Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad. Hiwamy 02:08, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Hiwamy, please try to retain neutrality in all articles. Just because you believe something one way doesn't mean that others do, and you can't revert the other people's postings because you disagree with their beliefs.  RickK 02:14, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
 * That is classic coming from you Rick. I've seen you revert things that don't reflect your personal views time after time. When you are shown to be wrong you bring up a completely different argument to maintain your edits. Double standards eh?


 * hey Rick, I have asked usedbook to provide sources. Is that a problem? Isn't it helpfull for the wikipedia? So, don't play boss around here. And you should read an article before reverting. Hiwamy 03:40, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

I wonder what would be your NPOV version of the following statement:

''Muslims believe that Muhammad was the last Prophet and Messenger of the monotheistic Abrahamic tradition, and that the Quran is the last revelation of God. Muslims also believe that after Quran and Muhammad, there will be no guidance from God. In the Quran, Muhammad is referred to as the "Seal of the Prophets" or the "last Prophet".

Followers of Mani (founder of the Persian faith Manichaeism) believe that these titles (the Seal of the Prophets and the Last Prophet) are attributed to Mani who, his followers claim', came before Muhammad.'

I've bolded the statements that makes it NPOV. Now tell me how it compromises NPOV. If you are so much concerned with NPOV then why are you reverting to usedbook's version? I have asked him to cite sources of his claim and he didn't do so. Hiwamy 03:45, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

"In religion, the Last Prophet is the final interpreter or spokesperson of a deity. A prophet's statements on behalf of a deity are sometimes called revelation." - It resembles as if we are teaching children. People already know these things and thus are unnecessary to put in here.

"Muslims believe that ..." is much better than "According to the Islamic tradition ..." if you consider NPOV.

"the term was used in Manichaeism" is a gross statement and is not reflecting NPOV. Thus it should be replaced by something like "Mani claims that ..." or "followers of Mani claim that ..."

Hiwamy 12:21, 28 May 2004 (UTC)


 * It is a standard for articles to have an introduction with the title subject in bold font. Regarding content, there is really only a little difference between our opinions. The article now looks like a rough draft. I used "According to the Islamic tradition..." simply for the fact that not all of those who claim to be Muslim adhere to that particular interpretation. Similar to how not all Christians believe Jesus Christ to be God in flesh, although many think it is the core of Christianity, millions of Christians regard him as a man. Concerning the Manichaeism sentence, it seems to me that you are personally unwilling to accept that an individual, prior to the time of Muhammad, claimed to be the 'Last Prophet'. You should not be offended, for even Jesus was not the first nor last to claim being the promised Messiah. The followers of Manichaeism, although once a group comprising over half a billion from Egypt to Asia, declined severely due to schism and presently has little impact in the world today. I find no difference between "the term was used in Manichaeism" and Mani claimed that..." but lets not belittle the religion with "followers of Mani claim that...". There are no Manichaeists who contribute to or possibly even visit Wikipedia but that does not mean we should ignore the articles and does not mean we should withhold respect to that particular religious tradition. When I first arrived at Wikipedia, articles like Jainism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism and Sikhism were a 50% polemical while Judaism and Christianity were blooming with activity. Someone has to stand up for the little guys, and in the cause of the Manichaeist content, there are no little guys. So lets be neutral. And when you say "your Mani", you are assuming. I honestly have zero belief in Mani or Manichaeism. Take care. Usedbook 21:07, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the term "followers of Mani claim that..." can be belittling. Then we can use "Manichaeists believe ..." in the same manner we use "Muslims believe ..." or "Christians believe ...". And don't be offended either.

Overwhelming majority of Muslims believe that Muhammad is the last Prophet. Both Shia and Sunni goes by this belief. Even Ahmadiya and Druze are scolding their forefathers. In my country (Bangladesh) Ahmadiya community published an advertisement to communicate that they accept Muhammad as the last prophet (and considers Ahmad only a messiah). So, yes it is 100% legitimate for one to say that "Muslims believe that ..." instead of "according to Islamic tradition ...". Because those who do not believe this, despite their having a Muslim name, cannot be considered Muslims.

If you are not a follower of Mani then I am sure this is coming from your dissatisfaction with Islam. Because I have seen you infuriating Christians to adopt false and controversial statements about Muslims (i.e. recently in Christianity and World Religions). Sorry if my statements are/were offending. Hiwamy 22:30, 28 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree with you, the vast majority of Muslims believe that Muhammad is the Last Prophet. And on a personal note, I myself have no dissatisfaction with Islam. Although I do not take the Qur'an as the *literal* speech of Allah (swt), still I consider myself of those who testify that there is no god but God. I disagree with the common Islamic interpretation that one must accept Arabism and literalism to be considered a legitimate believer. But there is only one who can judge us, as you may know. And you might have mistaken me for someone else because the only contact I've had with the Christianity and World Religions article was when I sent a message to Wesley urging him to reevaluate his contribution. I was only trying to help. Take care. Usedbook 19:59, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

False again. Who said that "one must accept Arabism and literalism to be considered a legitimate believer" and that it is a "common Islamic interpretation" - from where you have heard this scrap? Knowledge is something one needs to earn. It does not reveal upon the one who claims it. And yes I agree with you, there is only one who can judge us. Hiwamy 23:06, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Notes on rewrite
This article struck me as a little messy, so I rewrote it, using the same basic info. I eliminated the part about Christianity teaching that John the Baptist is the last prophet, since this is not the case. See Seal of the Prophets for an explanation. &mdash; Nowhither 03:07, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Christ
Does Christianity claim that Jesus was the last prophet??

Redirect to Seal of the Prophets
If I don't hear any objections, I'll be redirecting this article to Seal of the Prophets. Editor2020 (talk) 01:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Improving the article
I'm a prophet. This article is bullshit. I'm on reddit, a verified prophet. I'm also a wikipedian but I'm too angry to "out" myself as a prophet, but I've been a wikipedian for over a decade. 71.215.83.8 (talk) 16:56, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Ahmadiyya movement
I happened to see the last couple of edits, and they looked like a developing edit war with religious POV behind it. I don't have a religious POV on this, but don't have relevant knowledge or background either. Regardless, thinking of WP:DUE, I've WP:BOLDly made an edit which suggests restoring the removed content outside of but adjacent to the Islam section, relocating one sentence and adding a however. It seems to make sense to me. Can this be the basis for a compromise here? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 15:37, 14 June 2020 (UTC) I've just reverted a relevant edit here. I did some googling following on that and turned up -- I've linked  a seemingly relevant assertion on page 1 there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:13, 14 June 2020 (UTC)