It is a very common misconception among Muslims that while explaining RASUL and NABI, they invariably separates these two ranks.
However an in-depth study of the Holy Quran explain and removes this popular misconception, viz., "that a ﻝﻮﺳﺭ Rasul (Messenger) is one who brings a new Law and a new Book and a ﻲﺒﻧ Nabi (Prophet) is one who is commissioned by God only for the reformation of his people, and though, like a ﻝﻮﺳﺭ, a ﻲﺒﻧ receives Divine revelations, yet he brings no Law or Book containing new commandments and ordinances. According to this popular notion every ﻝﻮﺳﺭ (Messenger) is necessarily a ﻲﺒﻧ (Prophet) but not every ﻲﺒﻧ, a ﻝﻮﺳﺭ.
The verses above demolishes this wrong notion because if a ﻝﻮﺳﺭ (Messenger) is one who brings a new Book and a new Law and as such is necessarily a ﻲﺒﻧ (Prophet), then the addition of the word ﻲﺒﻧ to the word ﻝﻮﺳﺭ in these verses is superfluous and redundant.
The FACT is that EVERY RASUL IS A NABI and EVERY NABI A RASUL. These two words are interchangeable and represent **two aspects of the same office and two functions of the same person. **
A Divine Reformer is a RASUL in as much as he receives Messages from God (ﺖﻟﺎﺳﺭ Risalah meaning a message), and he is a NABI in the sense that he conveys those Messages to the people to whom he is sent ( ﺕﻮﺒﻧ Nubuwwah meaning the conveying of a message).**
**Thus every ﻝﻮﺳﺭ (Messenger) is a ﻲﺒﻧ (Prophet) because after receiving Divine Messages he conveys them to his people and every ﻲﺒﻧ is a ﻝﻮﺳﺭ because he conveys to his people those Messages which he receives from God. Only the functions of ﻲﺒﻧ follow those of ﻝﻮﺳﺭ. In his capacity as ﻝﻮﺳﺭ he first receives Messages from God and then in his capacity as ﻲﺒﻧ he conveys them to his people.
This is why everywhere in the Qur’an when these two words ﻝﻮﺳﺭ and ﻲﺒﻧ occur together, invariably the word ﻲﺒﻧ follows the word ﻝﻮﺳﺭ because that is the natural order.**
[/ul]
[This message has been edited by Zalim (edited January 01, 2001).]
*Garam Masala : *"ok sooo was Hazrat Muhammad Mustafa (saw) a prophet and a nabi?" **
Salam
GM, Nabi in english means Prophet,
so what do want to ask, please rephrase?
And also please read the article once more.
X Com: *"Zalim...then we can conclude taht there are four known rasools... "*
NO I dont suppose to conclude that.
Onaizah, what i said is that all the nabi are in fact rasuls and viceversa.
As Rasul, a devine reformer gets orders from Allah, and as Nabi he delivers it to the mankind. That’s how the both the offices work.
You also, please go through the article for a second time.
He said: " I am indeed A servant of Allah: He hath given me Revelation and made me **A Prophet* 19:30 *
In this Ayyah Jesus( PBUH) is clearly mentioned as 'A Prophet' inspite a 'Revelation'. But, keep in mind that Allah(SWT) has entitled Each One differently in Surah Mariam. There has to be some reasoning behind it.
I need to do more research on this issue. Nevertheless, great post.
[This message has been edited by Abdullah k (edited January 03, 2001).]
Hmm kay here's what i thought...messengers and prophets were the people selected by Allah swt through which He sent His guidance to mankind, but messengers had the distinction of providing/relaying the books..the word of Allah swt.
Messengers are those who received divine revelations, as mentioned by X Communist, the Tawrat of Musa, the Zabur of Dawud, the Injil of Isa, and the Qu'ran revealed to Muhammad (saw)...in the Qu'ran it also mentions 'Suhuf-i-Ibrahim'--the Scrolls of Abraham...
So then a prophet is a prophet, but a messenger can be considered/said to be a prophet.
err...hmmm...definitely need to research.
Anyhow we must remember that the message of all of the prophets and messengers was one and the same, just as Allah swt is one, so is His message..Worship Allah and there is no god for you but He. In other words, La illaha illallah--There is no god but Allah
[quote] Originally posted by striving muslim:
Every Messenger is NOT a prophet, but every Prophet is a Messenger
[/quote]
True.
Zalim, the instances that you quoted from the Quran are about Prophets, and all Prophets are messengers.
There is a clear difference between the characteristics of a prophet and a messenger. A Prophet has direct contact with Allah SWT. He is subject to prophecies and revelations (ilhaam and wahi). Whereas a Messenger(rasool) is not subject to those.
Abdullah k: *“He said: "I am indeed A servant of Allah: He hath given me REVELATION and made me a PROPHET 19:30”*
- Please further expand your viewpoint. To me this verse also states the same as I explained above.
- Allah first send to him a REVELATION (the job of a rasul) then He is asked him to DELIVER THE MESSAGE (the job of a nabi)
- PS: the word ‘Revelation’ doesn’t exclusively represents a Book.
- Thanks anyway. I will also do some more research on this issue.
Girl from Quraysh: *“but messengers had the distinction of providing/relaying the books. “*
- Girly, Read this verse 19:54 svp.
- Indeed the message of all the Prophets and Messengers is the same ‘There is no god but Allah’. Also I do believe in ‘sohofay Ibrahim wa musa’. But girly, Divine Books and their messages is a different topic.
Mr Partypooper: *“ Zalim sir, I do not agree with your post. This is not going to be pleasant. So should I stop here right now?*
- Please this is a discussion, why on I earth should I feel repulsive? Be my guest, and express your side. Awaiting for your humble opinion.
striving muslim/ X_Communist/ Eastern Analog:
*“Every Messenger is NOT a prophet, but every Prophet is a Messenger”*
- Please next time when you say something, bring your homework along. If you have to declare something, give your statement a firm support.
- Perhaps it might be helpful for me atleast to refute my side. Blankshots doesn’t worth anything. Thank you.
**Eastern Analog: *There is a clear difference between the characteristics of a prophet and a messenger.
A Prophet has direct contact with Allah SWT.
He is subject to prophecies and revelations (ilhaam and wahi).
Whereas a Messenger(rasool) is not subject to those. ***
- Please elaborate your views with some reference work.
- Anyways Eastern ‘Log I have read your views on this issue on another thread also and after coalescing your views, you mean to say that;
REVELATION (ilham/wahi) means a BOOK.
PROPHET (Nabi) is one who receives a Revelation (a BOOK).
MESSENGER (Rasul) is one who receives all the info from his Forefathers.***
Amazing fact but desolately without figures.
Well in this light, is there any difference between, a Rasul/a Wali/a Mujaddid/ Your local Maulvi/ and You? Perhaps of all the categories listed, the last one is the only one who received all the info from his forefathers.
By the way, I suggest you to read my post once again. The last reference verse I quoted above refutes your belief that a Prophet is one who receives a Book. (Ishmael did not received any book, yet he was addressed by Allah as a Messenger and a Prophet).
Awaiting for your references.
Thankyou.
[This message has been edited by Zalim (edited January 05, 2001).]
Zalim..
What you fail to understand, first of all, is that this is not necessarily a religious issue. Its merely an issue of terminology.
Defining the characteristics of the words "Prophet" and "Messenger" doesnt need references from the Quran. It needs references from the dictionary. A Prophet, as defined by a dictionary, is one who is subject to prophecies. And a messenger, as defined in a dictionary, would be one who simply relays a message.
Now we can take these two terms with their meanings, and apply them to all the 124,000+ messengers that Allah SWT sent down. And we will invariably find that yes, ALL of them fit the criteria for being a messenger. But do they all fit the criteria for being a Prophet? undoubtedly, NO. Since not all of them had revelations sent down to them, unless you can prove otherwise.
Now regarding the references you provided from the Quran, nowhere in them does Allah SWT say that ALL the messengers that I sent down are Prophets as well. The ayahs that you quoted above, numerically,
1. 7:157,158
Allah SWT is specifically talking about Hazrat Musa AS. And yes, there is no doubt that he was a Prophet AS WELL AS a messenger.
2. 19:51,52
Allah SWT, here, is specifically talking about Prophet Musa AS and Hazrat Ismail AS, and again, there is no doubt in the two being Prophets and Messengers.
As a matter of fact, in the same surah, Allah SWT goes on to say that these are some of the Prophets upon whom Allah SWT bestowed grace. So there is no dispute regarding that.
There is no dispute regarding what you quoted, but it does not, in any way, prove, that all of the 124,000+ messengers were prophets.
[This message has been edited by Eastern Analog (edited January 05, 2001).]
[quote]
Originally posted by striving muslim:
*Every Messenger is NOT a prophet, but every Prophet is a Messenger
*
[/quote]
Eastern Analog and X-Communist, this is a mistake. The moderator had it right. It is actually the other way round. That is, Every Rasu'l (Messenger) is a Nabi (Prophet) but every Nabi is not necessarily a Rasu'l.
“Nabi”, as a term of the Qur’an refers to individuals selected by the Almighty for the specific purpose of delivering the message revealed to him from God and to remind people of the Day when they shall be presented before the Almighty and shall have to answer for their deeds. In other words, “Nabi” is an individual who guides his people to the path of the Creator’s liking in the light of the message revealed to him.
On the other hand, “Rasu’l” (as a term of the Qur’an) is a special position, which was given only to a few of the “Nabis”. Every “Nabi” is not necessarily a “Rasu’l”. According to the details scattered in the Qur’an regarding the position of “Rasu’l”, God sends His “Rasu’ls” as symbols of His final Judgment. “Rasu’l”, in contrast to “Nabi” is not just a deliverer of God’s message. On the basis of the response that he receives from his addressees, he decides the fate of his nation. The Qur’an, regarding “Rasu’ls” says:
“Those that oppose God and His Rasu’ls shall be brought low. God has decreed: I will surely triumph, Myself and My Rasu’ls. God is Most Powerful, Mighty.” (Al-Mujadilah 58: 20, 21)
It should be quite clear from this clarification, that though “Nabi” and “Rasu’l” are separate designations of the Qur’an and all Nabis are not Rasu’l, yet all “Rasu’ls” are “Nabis” too. Thus when the Qur’an said that Mohammad (pbuh) is “the seal of Nabis”, it automatically implies that the Qur’an holds him as the seal of “Rasu’ls” too, because a person who is a “Rasu’l”, according to the Qur’an, has to be a “Nabi” first.
Zalim sir is already aware that I hold this "opinion". That is why he has posted the above. So let me get back to you. I have to finish going through Zalim's post as he has so kindly requested me to do.
They shoot partypoopers, don't they?
[This message has been edited by Mr Partypooper (edited January 06, 2001).]
Mr. Partypooper.
I dont know if this issue is worthy of a lengthy debate. Even though none of the quotes you provided from the Quran say anything regarding whether rasools are nabis or nabis are rasools, I will take your explanation for it.
The bottom line, as i mentioned before, is in the terminology. This is not a difference of faith that you and I have. Its a mere difference in terminology. There is no question regarding the status of Prophet SAW, or any of the other Prophets/Rasools. And as long as there is no question about that, I dont think it makes sense to argue over what to call them, as long as we know what their message was.
I agree with you regarding the use of terminolgy. I had said earlier in my post that:
It should be quite clear from this clarification, that though “Nabi” and “Rasu’l” are separate designations of the Qur’an and all Nabis are not Rasu’l, yet all “Rasu’ls” are “Nabis” too. Thus when the Qur’an said that Mohammad (pbuh) is “the seal of Nabis”, it automatically implies that the Qur’an holds him as the seal of “Rasu’ls” too, because a person who is a “Rasu’l”, according to the Qur’an, has to be a “Nabi” first.
This issue that Zalim has written about is actually an attempt at a direct refutation regarding the finality of the prophethood by saying that the two terms Nabi and Rasul are synonymous to each other. http://www.understanding-islam.com/rpr/pr-067.htm
Before presenting my comments on the explanation of ‘Seal of Prophets’, I would first like to clarify that I do not ascribe to the opinion that the difference of Nabi and Rasul lies in the nature of the revelations that they receive from God, as the writer has construed. For my opinion regarding the difference between the two designations, please refer to my earlier reply above.
Zalim had cited these verses:
*[al-A`raf 7:157] “Those who follow the Messenger, the Prophet, the Ummi whom they find mentioned in the Torah and the Gospel which are with them. He enjoins on them good and forbids them evil and makes lawful for them the good things and forbids them the bad things and remove from them their burdens and shackles that were upon them. So those who shall believe in him and honor and support him and help him and follow the light that has been sent down with him - these shall prosper.”
[al-Araf 7:158] "Say, O mankind, truly I am a Messenger to you all from ALLAH to Whom belongs the Kingdom of the heavens and the earth. There is no god but HE. HE gives life and HE causes death. So believe in ALLAH and HIS Messenger, the Ummi Prophet, who believes in ALLAH and HIS words; and follow him that you may be rightly guided."
[Maryam 19:51] “And relate the story of Moses as mentioned in the Book. He was, indeed, a chosen one; and he was a Messenger, a Prophet”.
[Maryam 19:54] “And relate the story of Ishmael as mentioned in the Book. He was indeed true to his promises. And he was a Messenger, a Prophet”. *
The author writes:
“The verses above demolishes this wrong notion because if a Rasul (Messenger) is… necessarily a Nabi (Prophet), then the addition of the word Nabi to the word Rasul in these verses is superfluous and redundant.”
Keeping in mind that the author holds that every Nabi is a Rasul and vice versa, the same objection as stipulated in the cited paragraph, applies to his own explanation as well. If the two terms are used as synonymous in the Qur’an, even then the “addition of the word Nabi to the word Rasul, in these verses, is superfluous and redundant”.
However, after having stressed the synonymy of the two words, the author has also given a difference between the two terms. He writes:
*"The FACT is that EVERY RASUL IS A NABI and EVERY NABI A RASUL. These two words are interchangeable and represent two aspects of the same office and two functions of the same person.
A Divine Reformer is a RASUL in as much as he receives Messages from God (Risalah meaning a message), and he is a NABI in the sense that he conveys those Messages to the people to whom he is sent (Nubuwwah meaning the conveying of a message)."*
I would ask the author to give some linguistic or Qur’anic basis of his opinion. In the absence of any such bases, the opinion does not deserve our attention.
It is quite clear that although in their literal meanings, the two words can be used interchangeably, yet as terms of the Qur’an, they connote two separate designations. The Qur’an (Al-Hajj 22: 52) says:
“And We did not send before you any messenger or a prophet except that…”
The additive conjunction in the above verse is a clear indication of the distinction between the two designations of messengers and prophets. Thus, Al-Zamakhsariy, the acknowledged linguist and commentator of the Qur’an, writes in the explanation of the cited verse:
“This [verse] provides an unchallengeable proof of the difference between Rasul and Nabi.”
I do agree with the author that the generally accepted distinction between the two designations is not fully supported by the Qur’an neither by the history of the known prophets and messengers. I also acknowledge that the author may not agree with me in the explanation of the distinction that exists between the two designations. Nevertheless, the above verse provides clear evidence to effect that there does, indeed, exist a distinction between the two designations, for had that not been the case, like all the verses cited by the author, the words of the above cited verse would also have been “superfluous and redundant”.
*"The “seal of prophethood” can only mean either of the following:
Mohammad (pbuh) is the prophet that has finally sealed the system of prophethood, which had been initiated by Allah through Adam; or
Mohammad (pbuh) is that prophet of Allah that holds the seal of prophethood, i.e., no one can be called the prophet of Allah unless Mohammad (pbuh) has put his seal of prophethood on that person. Thus, Moses, Jesus, Abraham and all others that we know as prophets of Allah, hold this position because Mohammad (pbuh) has called them the prophets of Allah and thereby put his seal of prophethood on them. In the same manner, if some prophet is to come after Mohammad (pbuh) he shall only be considered for such prophethood, if Mohammad (pbuh) has put his seal of prophethood on him (obviously, there is no such person).
In my opinion, the meaning more coherent with the context of the referred verse is the first one. Therefore, in my opinion, the word used by the Qur’an in this verse is quite clear in implying that Mohammad is the last prophet (not just “the best”)."*
You had commented by saying:
*"The scholar above explained the meaning of Khatam and Khatim in well comprehensible way. Below that he gave two-point theory to elaborate the meaning of the word. The former point definitely lacks any rational move while the later is quite consistent and balanced.
If the scholar considers the first opinion to be more reasonable then there should be some supporting text in Quran. He must have elaborated in the same milieu.
The second point is very much in harmony with the Quranic teachings. It says if anyone wants to validate the claimant of Prophethood, then the Seal of the Mohammad is the only measuring criteria. One must have qualities of Prophet Mohammad in him to be considered as a Prophet. For example a CHILD must inherit his FATHER’s features to be considered lawful and legitimate. Similar is the case with All the prophets(children), they must have qualities of Mohammad(father) to be considered as a true Prophets. This is the true meaning of the word “Khatam-un Nabeyaeen”.
The meaning is further enhanced if the verse is understood in the same framework.viz.
“Muhammad is not the FATHER (physical) of any of your men, but he is the Messenger of ALLAH, and the FATHER (spiritual) of the Prophets and ALLAH has full knowledge of all things.”
If we interpret the verse this way, it is found to be more consistent with the other Quranic text. On the other hand, the word “LAST” not only fits very inappropriately in the verse but also is very incompatible with Quran and Ahadith, both."*
The scholar responds:
The author, commenting on my preferred opinion about the implication of the phrase “Khaatam al-Nabiyyeen”, writes:
“The former point definitely lacks any rational move while the later is quite consistent and balanced.”
I would appreciate if the author would kindly explain what exactly does he mean by “rational move”, which he finds lacking in the preferred point. Further commenting on this meaning, the author writes:
“If we interpret the verse this way, it is found to be more consistent with the other Quranic text. On the other hand, the word “LAST” not only fits very inappropriately in the verse but also is very incompatible with Quran and Ahadith, both.”
I would once again request the author to point out how is the second point more consistent with the ‘other Qur’anic text’ and also to explain what exactly is the “inappropriateness” and the “incompatibility” that results from the preferring the first meaning.
The author wants the verse to be interpreted as:
“Muhammad is not the FATHER (physical) of any of your men, but he is the Messenger of ALLAH, and the FATHER (spiritual) of the Prophets and ALLAH has full knowledge of all things.”
I really fail to comprehend how can the words “Khaatam al-Nabiyyeen” can possibly be interpreted as: “the FATHER (spiritual) of the Prophets”. Does the author find this meaning to be compatible with the other parts of the Qur’an, in which it is clearly stated that through his revelation to the Prophet (pbuh), God clarifies the path of Abraham (pbuh)? (Refer to Al-Baqarah 2: 130, Al-Baqarah 2: 135, Aal Imraan 3: 95, Al-Nisaa 4: 125, Al-An`aam 6: 161, Yusuf 12: 38, Al-Nahl 16: 123 and Al-Hajj 22: 78). Does this not make Abraham (pbuh), the spiritual as well as physical father of the all the prophets, who succeeded him?
You (Mr Partypooper) ask:
“Could you please provide the basis of your opinion on why you believe that the first point is more credible than the second point?”
Before clarifying the basis of my said preference, I would first like to clarify that from the particular perspective of whether Muhammad (pbuh) is the last messenger and prophet of God or not, the preference between the two stipulated implications does not entail any affect. Even if the second meaning is preferred, it would not help the cause of those who want to establish the continuation of prophethood after Muhammad (pbuh). It is clear that Muhammad (pbuh) did not – in the Qur’an or any other source that is transmitted to us through the verbal or practical perpetuation of his companions and the succeeding generation of Muslims – foretell the coming of any messenger or prophet of God. The mere fact that the Qur’an does not put upon us the responsibility to believe in any prophet after Muhammad (pbuh), is evidence of the fact that after Muhammad (pbuh), no one has been given his seal of prophethood and, therefore, no one deserves to be held as a prophet of God.
Nevertheless, my preference of the first implication, as stated in my referred response, is primarily based on the context of the referred verse. Let us, therefore, take a look at the context of the referred verse. The particular phrase under consideration – ‘Khaatam al-Nabiyyeen’ – is placed in Al-Ahzaab 33: 40. To understand the context of the verse – and thereby the basis of my preference of the implication of the particular phrase – I would request you to take a close look at the translation of Al-Ahzaab 33: 36 – 40. Yusuf Ali has translated the referred part of Al-Ahzaab as under:
*"It is not fitting for a Believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by Allah and His Messenger, to have any option about their decision: if anyone disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he is indeed on a clearly wrong Path (36). Behold! thou didst say to one who had received the grace of Allah and thy favour: “Retain thou (in wedlock) thy wife, and fear Allah.” But thou didst hide in thy heart that which Allah was about to make manifest: thou didst fear the people, but it is more fitting that thou shouldst fear Allah. Then when Zaid had dissolved (his marriage) with her, with the necessary (formality), We joined her in marriage to thee: in order that (in future) there may be no difficulty to the Believers in (the matter of) marriage with the wives of their adopted sons, when the latter have dissolved with the necessary (formality) (their marriage) with them. And Allah’s command must be fulfilled (37). There can be no difficulty to the Prophet in what Allah has indicated to him as a duty: It was the practice (approved) of Allah amongst those of old that have passed away, and the command of Allah is a decree determined (38). (It is the practice of those) who preach the Messages of Allah, and fear Him, and fear none but Allah. And enough is Allah to call (men) to account. (39)
Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but (he is) the Messenger of Allah, and the Seal of the Prophets: and Allah has full knowledge of all things. (40)"*
The following explanation may help in understanding the cited part of Surah Al-Ahzaab:
Verse 36 directs the Muslims to submit to the Prophet’s decisions and admonishes them that lack of submissiveness toward the Prophet’s decision would lead them astray. This admonition is a preamble for the succeeding reference of a social reform that was made through the Prophet (pbuh), which, under the prevalent social circumstances, was generally considered as not only unacceptable but quite detestable. This social reform was regarding the prohibition of marriage with the divorced wives of one’s adopted sons. Some background information of this reform follows:
The Prophet (pbuh), for the purpose of elevating the status of the freed slaves in the society, had persuaded and encouraged marriage between one of his cousins – Zainab (ra) – and his adopted son and a freed slave – Zayed ibn Thabit (ra). However, the arrangement did not work out and the marriage ultimately resulted in divorce. After the divorce, Zainab (ra) was now faced with another dilemma. Being a divorcee of a slave, no respectable person in the society was genuinely willing to marry her. This state of affairs had obvious emotional affects on the Prophet (pbuh), as he had himself persuaded and encouraged the marriage to take place. At this juncture, He might even have considered taking Zainab (ra) in marriage, but was probably reluctant in doing so, because she was a divorcee of his adopted son. At this juncture, the Qur’an directed the Prophet (pbuh) to marry Zainab (ra), even though it was against the accepted norms of the prevalent social setup. Through this directive, not only Zainab (ra)’s immediate problem was sought to be resolved, but from a long-term perspective, it was also meant to correct the social concept of considering the divorced and widowed wives of one’s adopted sons to be prohibited in marriage. Verse 37 – 39 entails reference to this social concept and its correction through the Prophet (pbuh). If you would read the related verses once again, in the light of the foregoing explanation, I am sure you would understand the stress and the implication of each of the statements in these verses, in their correct perspective.
At the end of the stated directives, in verse 40, the Qur’an has stressed four points, with reference to the mentioned incident:
1. “Muhammad (pbuh) is not the father of any man”, which entails a refutation of a biological relationship between the Prophet (pbuh) and Zayed Ibn Thabit (ra) and, therefore, a lack of prohibition, in the Shari`ah, of marriage between the Prophet (pbuh) and the divorced wife of Zayed (ra);
2. “He is the messenger of God”, which means that whatever Muhammad (pbuh) has done, even if it is against the accepted norms of the prevalent society, is according to the directives of God and, therefore, is clear of all sin and fault;
3. “And [he – i.e. Muhammad (pbuh) – is] the seal of prophets”, which clearly refers to the fact that because Muhammad (pbuh) is the ‘last’ among the prophets of God, thus, if God had not reformed the referred social concept – of considering the divorced and widowed wives of one’s adopted sons to be prohibited in marriage – through His ‘last’ Prophet, then it would have remained an accepted social tradition for all times to come; and
4. “And God has full knowledge of all things”, which clearly implies the correctness and the appropriateness of all the directives of God.
The above explanation should clarify the basis on which I consider the first of the two stated implications of ‘seal of prophets’ to be more preferable.
Mr Partypopper, thankyou for pulling up the thread for the second time, and thankyou for the long and ambiguous web-based reply. Sometimes I feel that it’s a waste of time to reply to the egos-centric creed of the pak-land. Tangent replies just piss me off.
It is noteworthy to see how you mixed up apples and oranges. The topic is about the Nabi and Rasool, and you made an effort to enforce the concept of Khatam-un Nabeyeen. How these two themes are consistent over here, its hard for my brain-span to grasp.
Anyways, reading your response gave me a feeling that you are trying to win a situation. A word of advice, ‘battles of wits are not won by swords’.
*** please ignore the above while replying ***
Well let me wind up the story then.
After reading all the above replies, the following two opposite theories are concluded.
**>> ALL NABI ARE RASUL BUT ALL RASULS ARE NOT NABI <<
ALL RASULS ARE NABI BUT ALL NABI ARE NOT RASUL <<**
Whatever the reader may choose, the difference between the two offices is made on the criteria of BOOK, one received the book while the other doesn’t.
If BOOK is the measuring scale to differentiate the two ranks then please read these two verses. *(click the underlined text to read in Arabic) *
al-Baqarah 2:213 “Mankind were one community, then they differed among themselves, so ALLAH raised PROPHETS ﻦﻴﺒﻨﻟﺍ as bearers of good tidings and as warners, **and sent down with them the BOOK ﺐﺘﻜﻟﺍﻢﻬﻌﻣ ﻝﺰﻧﺃﻭ **containing the truth that He might judge between the people wherein they differed….”](http://www.unn.ac.uk/societies/islamic/quran/arabic/2_213.gif)
I would again like to ask the readers, if messengers and prophets are two different persons then what criteria differentiates them?.
Regarding the question to quote any lexicon, so here it is, I have scanned the meaning of Nabi and Rqasul for you. Please visit the image gallery. ( >CLICK HERE<](http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/Forum26/HTML/001497.html) )
[This message has been edited by Zalim (edited January 22, 2001).]
