Talk:Seal of the Prophets

Biased unencyclopedic wording, unclear references
The wording in this article is a gross violation of Wikipedia norms. Phrases like "all linguists and commentators agree" (when adjacent sections discuss ambiguities in wording) are bombastic exaggerations. Words of Prophet Muhammad are presented in a way suitable for a devotional Islamic publication, but not in a neutral encyclopedic article aimed at a general reader ("His words are authentic and a proof in itself"). There are many more instances of unacceptable style in the present version of the article, and it is clearly in a need of major revision.

Disbalanced presentation: the "academic view section" is at least 20 times shorter than the presentation of orthodox Islamic view. Different views of the subject have to brought in balance, in accordance with Wikipedia neutrality policy.

"Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistent impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view." (Neutral_point_of_view)

In addition to that, a number of references only specify the name of the author, not giving precise information on where and how the statement has been made. This is an unreliable and unacceptable style of referencing. InMemoriamLuangPu (talk) 13:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. This Wikipedia page doesn't supply the academic information.

It says, e.g. that Khatam is not a word in Arabic... but it does not say, then, what is the origin of the world is!.

The origin of the whole expression: Khatam an-Nabiyyin is the Jews Bible, Book of Daniel 9:24. Is totally copied from there: Khatam to seal, the prophet & the prophecy.

The world "Khatam", to seal, does not mean "last" in this expression.

Book of Daniel 9:24 is not even mentioned in this page. Ronmar24 (talk) 07:36, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Ibn al-Arabi's quotations un verifiable
I have added tag because the reference is not verifiable. Please provide complete edition you are referring to along with the name of publisher.

--Abrar Ahmed (talk) 16:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

More Deoband facts
Kaukab Noorani writes,

From http://www.islamicacademy.org/html/Articles/English/Black%20and%20White.htm

The present head of the Deobandi-Wahaabi-Tableeghi Jama'at, Janab Abul Hasan Ali Nadvi, on page 55 of his book, Sawaanih Maulana Abdul Qaadir Raipuri, says: "In those days Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani's claim and invitations were much talked about, specially in the Punjab, where few Musalmaan localities were free of such talks and discussions would continue. Near the home-town (Dhudiyan) of Hazrat (Abdul Qaadir Raipuri) is a place called 'Bhera'. An aalim there, who was also a student of the family elders of the Hazrat (Raipuri), Hakeem Noorud-deen (Qadiani), was a close devotee and assistant of Mirza Sahib (Qadiani) and had permanently settled in Qadian to be of help to him (Mirza Qadiani) in achieving success for him and for the sake of his companionship. There was much talk in his circle of devotees and in his sphere of influence of the claim of Mirza Sahib to be a person favoured by Allah and for his being blessed with acceptance of his supplication. The Hazrat (Raipuri) had read it somewhere in Mirza Sahib's (Qadiani's) writings that Allah had inspired in him the saying, Ajeebu kulla duaa'ika illaf shurakaa'ika (I will grant all your supplications except those made for your partners), So The Hazrat (Raipuri) in a letter to Mirza Sahib (Qadiani) from 'Afzal Grah' referred to this very inspiration and promise and requested him that since he had no partnership with him (Qadiani) he should make supplication so that he may be given guidance and his breast be opened up. A letter from there written by one Maulvi Abdul Kareem Sahib informed him (Raipuri) that his letter had been received and much supplication had been made for him. So, he should keep reminding about it occasionally. The Hazrat (Raipuri) used to say that in those days a post card cost one Pisa and so he would occasionally post a card to Mirza Qadiani by way of a reminder for supplicating on his behalf."

More about the special disciple of Janab Shah Abdur Raheem Raipuri, Janab Abdul Qaadir Raipuri (whose real name was Ghulam Jeelaani). On page 62 of his book, Abul Hasan Nadvi Sahib writes: "Giving an account of the meetings held by Hakeem Sahib (Noorud-deen Qadiani), he (Abdul Qaadir Raipuri) said 'I used to watch him (Hakeem Sahib) recite every now and then the Qur'aanic verse La ilaaha illa anta Subhaanaka inni kuntu minaz zaalimeen with such compassion that one felt drawn towards it. Then, I would think how a person possessing such ecstasy and nearness to Allah can be so ignoramous? But at the same time I would think in my heart that if Allah is most compassionate and most merciful, and He is undoubtedly so, He cannot leave him in such ignominy". During this journey, he also met Mirza Sahib (Qadiani), and he (Abdul Qaadir Raipuri) used to say that he would sometimes say his prayers behind him (Mirza Qadian) and sometimes separately." Khokhar976

User:Khokhar976
This editor is a Qadiani and always try to create a rift among Muslims by misquoting Muslim scholars of other schools. e.g. He has tried to prove in this article that Sufi do not believe in finality of prophethood by misquoting Ibn-Arabi. The same about Deobandies by misquoting Maulana Nanatvi.

Everyone interested in facts should know that the Movement for Protection of Finality of Prophethood (Majlis Tahaffuz Khatm Nabuwwat) is not a Salafi movement but includes all schools of Mainstream Muslims such as Deobandies, Barelvies, Shias, Ahl-Hadith etc. In fact the Majlis was headed by a Deobandi Maulana Yusuf Bannori, the resolution was presented in Pakistani Parliament by a Sufi leader Maulana Shah Ahmed Noorani, and the argument in Supreme court were given by a Shai scholar Allama Naseer Al-Ijtihadi.

Not one school of Mainstream Muslims doubt the meaning of Khatme Nabuwwat is other than end of line of Prophethood. I have removed all such false misrepresentation by Qadiani editor Khokhar976. Hassanfarooqi 13:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Please contribute to the topic with references related to the topic itself. Any editor with any religious affiliation is welcome to add information in Wikipedia. The Majlis TKM is notorious for its anti-shia stance and it is wrong to say that shia take part in this organization. The main contributors to the organization are Sunnis and Wahabis. There is a seperate topic dealing with that orgnaization. The theme here is only the belief of finality of prophethood. 172.213.94.122


 * 172.213.94.122, you are simply a vandal as I observed in your many posts. You are nothing more than a dedicated vandal to do anything to hide the bare back of the Ahmadiya. When all the sects of Mulims have passed the resolution to define the meaning of 'khatme Nabuwwat' as the 'finality of prophethood' then who are you single negligible vandal? Are you more significant then that all parliment? VirtualEye 05:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * 172.213.94.122 (or shall I call you Khokhar976), give me one proof that MTKN is anti-shia. Please do not quote from books published by Qadiani press (explicit or implicit).  If one is to believe in these books, then Ubaidullah Sindhi, a staunch Wahhabi anti-British Muslim, was a pro-British Qadiani.
 * In any case, it was not MTKN that made Qadianese non-Muslim. It was the Supreme court of Pakistan that declared it only after the Qadiani Chief testified that their religion is seperate from Mainstream Islam.  The resolution was tabled in Parliament by a Sufi political leader Maulana Shah Ahmed Noorani (and you prove that Sufies do not believe in finality of prophethood), and it was approved by Barelvis, Deobandies, Shias, and even Christian members of Parliament. Hassanfarooqi 14:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

All you have to do is to prove your stupid notions. Bring references and proper citations and I will gladly accept your edits. 172.188.123.219

Hate Material
This is a scholarly topic requiring historical and theological material. Do not include hate material just because you do not agree with one of the editors. SaifullahKhalid


 * Same Goes to you . Khalidkhoso 22:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You can request mediation if you are so adamant on spreading your POVs SaifullahKhalid

Please do not vandalize the article by adding irrelevent info. Khokhar976

Quotes
Please see WP:Quotes for the usage of quotes. If you would like to add material to articles, it's up to you to do the work. You can't just dump a bunch of stuff into the article and expect someone else to do the work.

If you would like to add a quote, I suggest that you evaluate if the article has enough quotes already, if not, you want to evaluate your quotes and select the one or two that best illustrate the point you are trying to make. Then you can add them to the article, properly cited, and properly integrated into the article.--Editor2020 (talk) 17:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

How to use quotations, from WP:QUOTE
"Second, editors should try to work quotations into the body of the article, rather than in a stand-alone quote section. Wikipedia is not a list or repository of loosely associated topics such as quotations. A simple list of quotations would be better suited for our sister project, Wikiquote.

Similarly, quotations should always be presented with an introduction; as a stand-alone quotation is not a proper paragraph. Quotations should be put in context and given any necessary explanation. As an editor, it is your responsibility to read the source of the quotation thoroughly, in order to prevent misrepresentation.

Third, while quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Too many quotes take away from the encyclopedic feel of Wikipedia. Also, editors should avoid long quotations if they can keep them short. Long quotations not only add to the length of many articles that are already too long, but they also crowd the actual article and remove attention from other information.

Fourth, there is normally no need to put quotations in italics unless the material would otherwise call for italics (emphasis, use of non-English words, etc.). Indicate whether using the italics in the original text or whether they were added later. For example:
 * Now cracks a noble heart. Good night sweet prince: And flights of angels sing thee to thy rest! (emphasis added)

For information regarding the use of punctuation with quotations, including the use of quotation marks around quotes, please see the Manual of Style.

Quotations should generally be worked into the article text, so as not to inhibit the pace, flow and organization of the article. Longer quotes may need to be set apart, generally through the use of wikitext templates such as Quote, Quotation, or Cquote, or HTML block quotes. As a matter of style, quoteboxes should generally be avoided as they draw special attention to the opinion of one source, and present that opinion as though Wikipedia endorses it; quoteboxes may be acceptable in certain circumstances, especially when the quote is itself notable, and a major part of the article's topic. If you think an article needs a quote set apart from the text through a quotebox or other method, please get a consensus on the article talk page first."

Not mainstream Islam
I propose to remove the banner, and merge with Ahmiddyya section 90.192.59.155 (talk) 12:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * This topic is also a concept within mainstream Islam too.Peaceworld111 (talk) 09:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I propose to merge both the articles as they are both one and close, I am talking about "Khatim an Nabuwat" and "Seal of Prophets" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatom2k (talk • contribs) 20:19, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, but which heading will be chosen?Peaceworld111 (talk) 20:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it should be merged in a way that either one of name directs to same material as material in both are almost common except a little. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatom2k (talk • contribs) 20:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC) i.e. two topics but same material as is the case with many other articles in wiki..

I think the title should be "Seal of the Prophets" as this is an English encyclopedia but the other terms should still redirect here.
 * I agree--88.111.123.155 (talk) 17:50, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Ibn al-Arabi's references
Available on http://archive.org/search.php?query=Futuhat%20Makkiyah%20AND%20collection%3Atoronto (Arabic) http://archive.org/details/Futuhat-ul-makkiyyah-UrduTranslation (Urdu) Tahira Shah (talk) 11:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Are they authentic?--79.69.96.179 (talk) 17:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

In what sort? Tahira Shah (talk) 12:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Are the refs from a reliavle source?88.111.119.234 (talk) 14:17, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes Tahira Shah (talk) 19:59, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Quotations from biased sources are unreliable
A large number of quotations are taken directly from Ahmadi sources, namely the following English booklet:
 * Khatam an-Nabiyyeen: Interpretations by Eminent Learned Scholars of Islam

According to Wikipedia guidelines (See WP:Identifying reliable sources), quoted material should be taken directly from the source being quoted. If this is not possible, the text should be taken from a reliable secondary source. Either way, you must make clear the actual source of the text, as it appears in the article (WP:Say where you read it). "Partisan secondary sources should be viewed with suspicion as they may misquote or quote out of context. In such cases, look for neutral corroboration from another source. Any analysis or interpretation of the quoted material, however, should rely on a secondary source (See: WP:No original research)"

The above sources are not unbiased, reliable secondary sources. Furthermore, the inline citations give the impression that the quotes are taken directly from the primary sources.--Axiom292 (talk) 06:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * These sources provide a different scholarly perspective from Sunni Sources used here(books, websites etc.) and therefore are just as reliable as the Sunni, Shia, or Bahai sources. Just because the material is written by an Ahmadi scholar should not take away from the reliability of the sources.


 * Although I completely agree that all religous sources should be regarded with intense scrutiny and we should make an effort to replace these sources with outside sources or academic sources.--Nawabmalhi (talk) 03:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


 * These sources provide a different scholarly perspective from Sunni Sources used here(books, websites etc.) - I don't know which "Sunni sources" (books, websites) you are referring to. The article currently contains no citations to any polemic Sunni works in the same vein as this Ahmadi booklet. Again, "Partisan secondary sources should be viewed with suspicion as they may misquote or quote out of context." In this booklet, the author attempts to justify the Ahmadi belief by quoting past scholars who supposedly held the same belief. The reliability of these "quotes" is extremely questionable, and thus they cannot be presented as an accurate portrayal of those scholars' beliefs.--Axiom292 (talk) 08:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


 * First of all these quotes do exist in other languages(udu etc) and have been used in the Ahmadi-Sunni debate ever since Mirza Ghulam Ahmad proclaimed himself an ummati nabi. But problem is that they unfortunately have not been translated in English by anyone other than Ahmadis and maybe Bahais.
 * What I meant when I said Sunni sources are websites like: Islamweb.com (which does not even give translation) or even sunnah.com. Instead this article should directly use sources such as: usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/home which would be the best way to go.
 * The reason why I keep saying should is that you donnot have to use neutral sources on Wikipedia (see: WP:Verifiable) as long as they are presented in a neutral point of view(see: WP:NPOV), so all of these sources technically can be used.--Nawabmalhi (talk) 17:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Again, please refer to WP:RS: "The accuracy of quoted material is paramount and the accuracy of quotations from living persons is especially sensitive. To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted. If this is not possible, then the text may be taken from a reliable secondary source (ideally one that includes a citation to the original). No matter where you take the quoted text from, it is important to make clear the actual source of the text, as it appears in the article. Partisan secondary sources should be viewed with suspicion as they may misquote or quote out of context. In such cases, look for neutral corroboration from another source." Many of the works cited in the Ahmadi source are accessible in their original language, whether Arabic, Farsi, or Urdu. Many are even available online. Your excuse that they are not in English is irrelevant. There is no prohibition on using non-English sources (see WP:NOENG).


 * As for citations to texts available online at Islamweb.com, I can add citations to actual published printed editions as well for verification. Again, the fact that it is in Arabic does not make it unreliable. As for citations to Sunnah.com, they can be changed to the USC site if necessary. They use the same translations (Muhsin Khan, Abdul Hamid Siddiqui, etc) so it really doesn't make a difference, but they have a smaller collection.--Axiom292 (talk) 19:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I already said I completely agree with you that religious sources should be scrutinized but you can still use them as long as you use them while remaining neutral and indicate where the source is from. But again using non-English source is also not the greatest idea and is not preferred just as quoting from religious sources. I dont mind using the original sources as it will not really change the translation, but as you can see I did not make any edit.


 * And I did not know that IslamWeb used the same translators as USC database.--Nawabmalhi (talk) 21:53, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Contradictory views
I am about to add a new section to this article "Contradictory views". This will hold views of muslims from seventh till the nineteenth century who did not hold prophethood to be final. I will be including Ibn-e-Arabi, Hazrat ayesha and Nawab Siddique Hassan Khan. I neither engage in, nor condone edit wars. So please give your views about this addition here. I will not add till the new year so 5 days are time enough to debate this. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 16:13, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Undoubtedly you will be gathering these views from Ahmadi literature. Be aware that you cannot decisively make statements about the beliefs of the Muslims in question without references to reliable third-party sources (see WP:NPOV, WP:PRIMARY, WP:Identifying reliable sources). For example, with regards to Ibn Arabi: Due to the complexity of his writings, one quote could easily be used to show that he did not believe prophethood to be final, while another quote, even from the same work, could be used to show the opposite. Likewise, the statement of `A'ishah recorded in Musannaf of Ibn Abi Shaybah is interpreted in accordance with the doctrine of finality by classical scholars, while it is interpreted differently by Ahmadis. Even Western academics come to different conclusions (see the papers of Friedmann and Rubin referenced in the article). So you cannot present either interpretation as the final word on the belief of `A'ishah.--Axiom292 (talk) 06:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I will be providing at least 100 scholarly sources, and I do not aim to use even a single Ahmadi source so I don't think WP:Identifying reliable sources will be hurt, also WP:PRIMARY does not apply to direct quotations from history like books of Hadith and traditions.WP:NPOV will be kept in view ofc. Thanks for the input.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Have you read each of these hundred sources yourself? Or are you referring to them through a secondary source (see WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT)? If there is any dispute would you be able to provide the relevant passages to show that your interpretation is correct and not out of context? Actually direct quotations are exactly the sort of thing that WP:PRIMARY is about. "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." If you could provide some examples of what you want to include it would help us come to a decision.--Axiom292 (talk) 03:55, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * @Axiom292 I have read them myself. I also scanned the pages. should I upload them somewhere on wikipedia? or someplace else? Please give your opinion. ty FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * @FreeatlastChitchat That would not be necessary unless there was some dispute over the accuracy of some claim or quote. Again, can you give an example to show the type of content you wish to include? Thanks.--Axiom292 (talk) 07:56, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * sure an accurate example will be from the book "Tahzir ul Naaas" by Allama Qasim, founder of Deoband school of thought. He explains the Quranic verse in which the word "Khatam-an-Nabiyyin" is used and then writes on page 25 of his commentary that "Even if a prophet comes after the Holy Prophet Muhammad SAW, even then his rank as being 'Khatam an Nabiyyin' will not be effected". I have the scanned copy of the relevant pages to show that this quote is directly from him.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:31, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, this is not an acceptable use of a primary source. A single out-of-context quote is not sufficient evidence to come to a conclusion on a person's beliefs, unless it is so explicitly clear and self-explanatory that it requires no interpretation. For example, "It is my religion and belief that after the Messenger of Allah SAW, there is no possibility for there to be another prophet. Whoever hesitates on this, I consider him a kafir" (Muhammad Qasim Nanautawi, "Aqidah-yi khatm-i nubuwwat", Munazarah-yi Ajibah, p.144). If you had actually read Tahzirun-Nas, you would see that in the passage you have quoted, the author is writing about intrinsic/essential prophetic sealship (khatm-i nubuwwwat zati), which would remain unaffected even if, hypothetically, a prophet was to come after the Seal of Prophets. Nowhere does the author deny chronological sealship (khatm-i nubuwwwat zamani), but rather he affirms it as a necessary consequence of essential sealship. For a summary and explanation on Nanautawi's views see Khalid Mahmud's introduction to Tahzirun-Nas, Khalil Ahmad Saharanpuri's al-Muhannad ala al-Mufannad, or Manzur Nu'mani's Faisalah kun munazarah.--Axiom292 (talk) 06:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Missing information in redirect
"Of the ten qirā’āt (readings, methods of recitation) regarded as authentic – seven mutawātir and three mashhūr – "

The linked page describes the first term as only applying to verses, not pronounciations. The second term is not described in the page it links to. Both links go to the same page, discussing the ahadith specifically and exclusively, whereas this is supposedly about a Quran verse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.76.8.36 (talk) 22:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Maths in Bahá'i section
There is a paragraph looking like a mathematical derivation in the Bahá'i section. It doesn't seem to be meaningfully related to the rest of the article and doesn't end up making a relevant point. I think it should be deleted.

131.111.184.8 (talk) 19:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Khatam an-Nabiyyin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141012043119/http://www.iis.ac.uk/view_article.asp?ContentID=114432 to http://www.iis.ac.uk/view_article.asp?ContentID=114432

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:11, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Khatam an-Nabiyyin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140606204827/http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/033-qmt.php to http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/033-qmt.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150202024354/http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/002-qmt.php to http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/002-qmt.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:05, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Khatam an-Nabiyyin is copied from Bible Book of Daniel 9:24
The term Khatam an-Nabiyyin was copied from the Old Testament, Book of Daniel 9:24, in which Daniel used thaf exact world: Khatam, and the same expression: to "seal" the vision/prophecy and seal the prophet.

Seal does not mean "last" in this term, but to fulfill, to confirm that, that's the prophet amd the prophecy.

The phrase was added to the Quran, probably because Christians are obsessed with this Chapter of the Jews Bible (some, until this day)... Ronmar24 (talk) 07:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Pakistan
In June 2020 your edit added a "Pakistan" section at the top of the article. I'm not sure where the section belongs, but certainly not at the top of the article. A5 (talk) 16:18, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Yes that's fine, I definitely should've considered that. Taimoorahmed11 (talk) 16:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Khatam an-Nabiyyin
Ahmadiyya school of thoughts translate Khātam al-Anbiyā’ (خاتم الأنبياء‎; or Khātim al-Anbiyā’) as a “GREATEST”.

If Muhammad pbuh is the GREATEST of all Nabees and Rehmat-Ul-Lil-Alameen (Merciful and compassionate to all creation not just human) as well then doesn’t Khātam al-Anbiyā’ along with the foregoing title of Rehmat-Ul-Lil-Alameen nullify the prediction of any Nabi of a rank lower than GREATEST after Him (pbuh)?

I don’t know much about Ahmaddiya’s version of belief but I believe Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was neither GREATEST as explained above nor had the title of Rehmat-Ul-Lil-Alameen and this is very well known to the believers of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad -Right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.32.125.141 (talk) 10:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 9 May 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 04:01, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Khatam an-Nabiyyin → Seal of the Prophets – This subject already has a clear and overwhelmingly prevalent English WP:COMMONNAME for which it is already the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, this being Seal of the Prophets, which bests "Khatam an-Nabiyyin" or "Khatam al-Nabiyyin" on Google Scholar by 64,000 hits to 250 (combining 160 for one spelling, 90 for the other), and also crushes both on Ngrams. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:49, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, per WP:COMMONNAME.  Pepper Beast    (talk)  20:23, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Is that how I vote? A5 (talk) 02:38, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * . Normally the "support" or "oppose" is bolded, but I would suggest reading WP:NOTVOTE; we don't make decisions by the number of editors in favour or opposed to an option, but by the strength of argument - as such, it is useful for you to explain why you support this proposal. BilledMammal (talk) 07:25, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Support per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:UE. BilledMammal (talk) 07:25, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per op and BilledMammal >>> Extorc . talk  10:24, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support WP:COMMONNAME. Khestwol (talk) 10:38, 10 May 2022 (UTC)