The Finality of Prophetic Revelation
The Finality of Prophetic Revelation: A Revised Theological and Mystical Analysis
Introduction
The doctrine of *khatamiyyat* (finality) in the context of prophetic revelation (*wahy-e risali*) constitutes a foundational pillar of Islamic theology and metaphysics, encapsulating the divine decree to consummate the cycle of prophethood with absolute certitude. Rooted in the Qur’anic designation of the Prophet Muhammad as the “Seal of the Prophets” (Al-Ahzab 33:40), *khatamiyyat* signifies not merely the cessation of prophetic mission but the culmination of divine manifestation (*mazhar*) in its most comprehensive form. This revised analysis delves into the theological, ontological, and mystical dimensions of *khatamiyyat*, with particular attention to preserving the depth of key concepts such as *ta’ayyun-e ahadiyyat* (determination of absolute unity) and *hijab-e asma* (veiling of divine names). Drawing on Islamic metaphysical traditions, particularly the works of Ibn ‘Arabi, Mulla Sadra, and contemporary scholars, this study aims to elucidate the intricate interplay between divine unity (*wahdat*), manifestation (*mazhar*), and the finality of revelation.1
1 Tabatabai, M. H. (1996). Tafsir al-Mizan. World Organization for Islamic Services.
The Finality of Prophetic Revelation
Divine Truth and the Cessation of Revelation
As divine revelation (*wahy*) represents an absolute truth emanating from the divine will, its termination and permanent cessation (*inqita’*) are equally true, enacted through God’s sovereign agency. This cessation is termed *khatamiyyat-e risalat* (the finality of prophethood), denoting the divine ordinance to conclude the cycle of prophetic revelation.2 The term *khatam* (seal) is one of the divine names, signifying closure and perfection, and necessitates a unique manifestation (*mazhar-e khatami*) that is singular and unrepeatable. In Islamic metaphysics, this singularity is absolute, rendering it ontologically impossible for a new prophet to emerge after the seal of prophethood, as such an occurrence would negate the divine finality inherent in *khatamiyyat*.3 This concept aligns with the Sufi understanding of the Prophet Muhammad as the *insan-e kamil* (perfect human), whose station encompasses all preceding prophetic realities, sealing the divine message in its entirety.4
2 Nasr, S. H. (2006). Islamic Philosophy from Its Origin to the Present. SUNY Press.
3 Chittick, W. C. (1989). The Sufi Path of Love. SUNY Press.
4 Ibn ‘Arabi, M. (2004). The Bezels of Wisdom. Translated by R. W. J. Austin. Paulist Press.
Conditions for Finality: The Station of Absolute Unity
For a divine messenger to embody *khatamiyyat* and effect the cessation of prophetic revelation, they must ascend to the ultimate proximity (*qurb-e rububi*) in their spiritual journey, attaining a comprehensive personality (*shakhsiyyat-e jami’*) that integrates all divine attributes and manifestations. This ascent culminates in the station of *ta’ayyun-e ahadiyyat* (determination of absolute unity), where the messenger becomes the perfect manifestation (*mazhar-e tamm*) of divine unity (*ahadiyyat*), embodying the totality of divine names and attributes in their most unified form.5 The term *ta’ayyun-e ahadiyyat* refers to the first level of divine self-determination, where the absolute unity of the divine essence (*dhat*) begins to manifest without differentiation, yet remains transcendent of multiplicity. In the terminology of Ibn ‘Arabi, this is the “station of no station” (*maqam la maqam*), where the divine reality is simultaneously veiled and unveiled, singular yet all-encompassing.6 Without this attainment, the finality of revelation and its cessation would lack metaphysical grounding, as only the *mazhar* who realizes *ahadiyyat* can serve as the seal of divine manifestation.
In Islamic philosophy, *khatamiyyat* is understood as the teleological culmination (*ghayat*) of revelation, necessitating the primacy (*awwaliyyat*) of the manifesting reality (*muẓhir*). This relationship is not merely causal but existential, where the final manifestation presupposes the originary unity of the divine. The *mazhar-e khatami* thus serves as the descending reflection (*tanzil*) of *ahadiyyat*, embodying the true unity (*wahdat-e haqqi*) that integrates primacy and finality in the divine human (*insan-e ilahi*). This unity is not a manifestation of the indeterminate divine essence (*dhat-e bi-ta’ayyun*), which transcends all attributes, manifestation, or concealment, but of the divine reality in its determined aspect (*ta’ayyun*), as articulated in Mulla Sadra’s doctrine of the gradation of being (*tashkik al-wujud*).7
5 Corbin, H. (1998). Alone with the Alone. Princeton University Press.
6 Ibn ‘Arabi, M. (2004). The Bezels of Wisdom. Translated by R. W. J. Austin. Paulist Press.
7 Sadra, M. (2008). The Transcendent Philosophy of the Four Journeys. Translated by L. Peerwani. ICAS Press.
Metaphysical Distinctions: Manifestor and Manifestation
The manifestation of *khatamiyyat* does not pertain to the divine essence (*dhat-e haqq*) in its absolute indeterminacy, which is beyond manifestation, concealment, or attribution. The divine essence, while possessing the capacity for manifestation, exists in ultimate unity (*wahdat*), free from multiplicity or plurality. However, in realms beyond the divine essence—such as the determination of *ahadiyyat* (absolute unity), *wahidiyyat* (oneness), and the fixed archetypes (*a’yan-e thabita*)—manifestations (*mazahir*) are accompanied by multiplicity and plurality.8 The concept of *ta’ayyun-e ahadiyyat* denotes the initial differentiation of the divine reality, where the unity of the essence begins to manifest in a singular, non-multiplicitous form, distinct from the subsequent *wahidiyyat*, which introduces the multiplicity of divine names and attributes. *Khatamiyyat* operates within the realm of manifestations (*mazahir*), not the manifestors (*muẓhirat*), which possess their own intrinsic *ahadiyyat* and *wahidiyyat*.
It is imperative to distinguish the objective reality of the manifestor (*haqq ta’ala* with its names and attributes) from the external reality of the manifestation (*mazhar*), such as the station of finality. A manifestation cannot usurp the role of the divine manifestor, even at the level of divine names and attributes. The existence of *ahadiyyat* as a manifestor necessitates a corresponding final manifestation (*mazhar-e khatami*), but the two must not be conflated. The manifestation never precedes the manifestor, even in the realm of divine attributes. Any apparent precedence of the manifestation of *ahadiyyat* is descending and transformative (*tanzili*), reflecting a relational hierarchy rather than ontological superiority (*sharaf-e takwini*).9 This distinction is central to Islamic metaphysics, as articulated by Mulla Sadra, who emphasizes the dependence of all manifestations on the divine reality without compromising its transcendence.10
8 Nasr, S. H. (2013). Islamic Worldview. Routledge.
9 Khomeini, R. (2003). Misbah al-Hidaya. Institute for Compilation and Publication of Imam Khomeini’s Works.
10 Sadra, M. (2008). The Transcendent Philosophy of the Four Journeys. Translated by L. Peerwani. ICAS Press.
Unity of Primacy and Finality
The station of *khatamiyyat* unites primacy (*awwaliyyat*) and finality (*akhiriyyat*), serving as the manifestation of absolute unity (*mazhar-e ahadi*). The manifestations of *wahidiyyat* (oneness), which reflect the multiplicity of divine names, are subsumed under the sovereignty of *khatamiyyat*.11 The finality of a manifestation does not impinge upon the *ahadiyyat* of the manifestor, nor does it arbitrate among the divine names or manifestors of *wahidiyyat*, which are inherently free of conflict, existing in absolute unity with the divine essence. Neither the divine essence nor its names and attributes require *khatamiyyat* or creation, as they are fully manifest in divine love (*‘ishq*), unity, and absolute transcendence (*itlaq*).12 This metaphysical framework underscores the self-sufficiency of the divine reality, as articulated in Ibn ‘Arabi’s doctrine of the “oneness of being” (*wahdat al-wujud*), where all manifestations are contingent upon the divine without altering its essential unity.13
11 Chittick, W. C. (2005). The Sufi Path of Knowledge. SUNY Press.
12 Tabatabai, M. H. (1996). Tafsir al-Mizan. World Organization for Islamic Services.
13 Ibn ‘Arabi, M. (2004). The Bezels of Wisdom. Translated by R. W. J. Austin. Paulist Press.
Manifestations and the Veiling of Divine Names
In the realm of manifestations (*mazahir*), divine names cannot manifest in their absolute form (*itlaq*); their manifestation is conditioned by existential exigencies (*iqtida’at*) and divine love (*‘ishq*). Consequently, one divine name may predominate in a given manifestation, while another acts as a veil (*hijab-e asma*) for a different manifestation. The concept of *hijab-e asma* refers to the veiling function of one divine name in relation to another within the realm of manifestations, where the predominance of a particular name obscures others, not due to any deficiency in the manifestor (*muẓhir*), which is identical with the divine essence, but due to the limitations of the manifestation itself.14 This veiling is not a product of conflict or opposition among the divine names but arises from the relational dynamics of love and exigency. In the context of *khatamiyyat*, the final manifestation becomes a veil for other prophets and saints, rendering it impossible for another manifestation to claim this singular, indivisible title, as it represents the culmination of all divine manifestations.15 This aligns with the Sufi concept of the *barzakh* (isthmus), where the final prophet serves as the intermediary between the divine and creational realms, encompassing all prior manifestations.16
14 Nasr, S. H. (2006). Islamic Philosophy from Its Origin to the Present. SUNY Press.
15 Makarem Shirazi, N. (1995). Tafsir Nemuneh. Dar al-Kutub al-Islamiyya.
16 Chittick, W. C. (1994). Imaginal Worlds. SUNY Press.
The Role of the Final Manifestation
The creational aspect of the manifestations of divine names and attributes necessitates an arbiter of justice (*hakam-e ‘adl*) to maintain their existential order. While manifestations are wholly dependent on the manifestors and have no influence over them, they are subject to gradation and hierarchy. The supreme and final manifestation (*zuhur-e khatami*) exercises descending authority (*tanzil*) over subsequent manifestations, veiled by its exalted station in the divine realm (*‘alam-e lahut*). This manifestation lowers subsequent ranks, manifesting itself as the preserver of the order of manifestations and the arbiter of their justice. It enacts the divine lordship (*rabb-e muẓhiri*) for each manifestation, becoming the pivot of all pivots (*qutb al-aqtab*), the ultimate purpose of creation (*ghayat-e afarinesh*), and the culmination of all divine effusion (*fayḍ*). All realms—spiritual (*arwah*), angelic (*malakut*), and human (*nasut*)—are subsumed under this final reality, through whose mediation the secrets of the divine (*asrar-e haqq ta’ala*), knowledge of the Lord (*ma’rifat-e rabb*), and divine effusion are accessed.17 This role is epitomized in the Prophet Muhammad as the *rahmatan lil-‘alamin* (mercy to the worlds), whose station integrates all divine realities.18
17 Corbin, H. (1998). Alone with the Alone. Princeton University Press.
18 Tabarsi, F. (1997). Majma al-Bayan. Dar al-Ma’rifa.
Qualitative Finality and Infallibility
For revelation to claim qualitative finality (*khatamiyyat-e kayfi*), God must explicitly articulate this finality within the text of the revelation. Without such divine attestation, the recipient of revelation, limited by their lack of knowledge of higher or concealed revelations, may erroneously claim finality due to their fallibility outside the context of revelation. While revelation itself is infallible, its reception does not inherently confer absolute infallibility (*‘ismat-e mutlaq*) in all actions and judgments, whether related to revelation or otherwise. Thus, a claim to absolute infallibility across all domains requires evidence beyond the mere fact of receiving revelation, which may be found within the text of the descending revelation itself.19 This principle is critical in Islamic theology, as it safeguards the doctrine of *khatamiyyat* from speculative claims, grounding it in divine authority.20
19 Tabatabai, M. H. (1996). Tafsir al-Mizan. World Organization for Islamic Services.
20 Makarem Shirazi, N. (1995). Tafsir Nemuneh. Dar al-Kutub al-Islamiyya.
Qur’anic Affirmation of Finality
The divine proclamation of *khatamiyyat* within the Qur’anic revelation establishes both the exemplar of finality and the closure of prophethood. The Qur’an explicitly declares the cessation of prophetic revelation (*wahy-e risali*), foreclosing the possibility of new prophets. It states: “Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but he is the Messenger of God and the Seal of the Prophets. And God is ever Knowing of all things” (Al-Ahzab 33:40).21 This verse unequivocally identifies the Prophet Muhammad as the final prophet, rendering any subsequent claim to prophethood necessarily false and subject to refutation. The term *khatam al-nabiyyin* (Seal of the Prophets) signifies not only the end of prophethood but the perfection and completion of divine guidance, as articulated in the exegesis of scholars like Tabatabai, who emphasize the comprehensive nature of the Prophet’s mission.22
21 Fooladvand, M. M. (2004). The Qur’an. Dar al-Qur’an al-Karim.
22 Tabatabai, M. H. (1996). Tafsir al-Mizan. World Organization for Islamic Services.
Conclusion
The doctrine of *khatamiyyat-e wahy-e risali* represents a profound synthesis of Islamic theology, metaphysics, and mysticism, affirming the divine finality of prophetic revelation through the station of the Prophet Muhammad as the Seal of the Prophets. By emphasizing concepts such as *ta’ayyun-e ahadiyyat* and *hijab-e asma*, this analysis highlights the intricate relationship between divine unity, manifestation, and the culmination of prophethood. The final manifestation (*mazhar-e khatami*) serves as the pivot of creation, mediating divine effusion and knowledge, and ensuring the eternal relevance of the Qur’an as the ultimate repository of divine guidance.23 This revised translation, with its expanded treatment of mystical and philosophical terms, invites further exploration in Islamic metaphysics, Sufi ontology, and comparative theology to deepen the understanding of divine unity and its manifestations in the created order.
23 Nasr, S. H. (2006). Islamic Philosophy from Its Origin to the Present. SUNY Press.
References
1. Tabatabai, M. H. (1996). Tafsir al-Mizan. World Organization for Islamic Services.
2. Nasr, S. H. (2006). Islamic Philosophy from Its Origin to the Present. SUNY Press.
3. Chittick, W. C. (1989). The Sufi Path of Love. SUNY Press.
4. Ibn ‘Arabi, M. (2004). The Bezels of Wisdom. Translated by R. W. J. Austin. Paulist Press.
5. Corbin, H. (1998). Alone with the Alone. Princeton University Press.
6. Sadra, M. (2008). The Transcendent Philosophy of the Four Journeys. Translated by L. Peerwani. ICAS Press.
7. Tabarsi, F. (1997). Majma al-Bayan. Dar al-Ma’rifa.
8. Nasr, S. H. (2013). Islamic Worldview. Routledge.
9. Khomeini, R. (2003). Misbah al-Hidaya. Institute for Compilation and Publication of Imam Khomeini’s Works.
10. Chittick, W. C. (2005). The Sufi Path of Knowledge. SUNY Press.
11. Makarem Shirazi, N. (1995). Tafsir Nemuneh. Dar al-Kutub al-Islamiyya.
12. Chittick, W. C. (1994). Imaginal Worlds. SUNY Press.
13. Fooladvand, M. M. (2004). The Qur’an. Dar al-Qur’an al-Karim.
The Finality of Prophetic Revelation: A Philosophical and Theological Synthesis
Introduction
The doctrine of *khatamiyyat-e wahy-e risali* (the finality of prophetic revelation) constitutes a cornerstone of Islamic theology and metaphysics, encapsulating the divine decree to conclude the cycle of prophethood with the Prophet Muhammad, designated as the “Seal of the Prophets” (Qur’an, Al-Ahzab 33:40). Far from a mere historical or temporal closure, *khatamiyyat* represents a profound metaphysical and ontological culmination, integrating divine unity (*wahdat*), manifestation (*mazhar*), and the teleological purpose of creation. This article explores *khatamiyyat* through the lens of Islamic metaphysics and the philosophy of religion, drawing on the seminal text provided to elucidate its theological significance and philosophical implications. By engaging with Islamic scholars such as Ibn ‘Arabi, Mulla Sadra, and contemporary philosophers of religion like John Hick and Alvin Plantinga, the analysis seeks to bridge Islamic theology with global discourses on divine revelation, finality, and the nature of religious authority.1 Central concepts such as *ta’ayyun-e ahadiyyat* (determination of absolute unity) and *hijab-e asma* (veiling of divine names) are unpacked to preserve their mystical depth, offering a robust framework for understanding the finality of prophethood in both Islamic and comparative religious contexts.
1 Tabatabai, M. H. (1996). Tafsir al-Mizan. World Organization for Islamic Services.
Theological and Metaphysical Foundations of Khatamiyyat
Divine Truth and the Cessation of Revelation
The finality of prophetic revelation (*khatamiyyat-e risalat*) is as divinely ordained as the revelation (*wahy*) itself, both emanating from God’s sovereign will. Just as *wahy* represents an infallible transmission of divine truth, its permanent cessation (*inqita’*) is equally true, enacted through divine agency.2 The term *khatam* (seal), one of the divine names, signifies closure, perfection, and singularity, necessitating a unique manifestation (*mazhar-e khatami*) that is ontologically singular and unrepeatable. This singularity precludes the emergence of a new prophet, as such an event would contradict the metaphysical finality inherent in *khatamiyyat*.3 In the philosophy of religion, this concept resonates with discussions of divine immutability and the completeness of revelation, as seen in Paul Tillich’s notion of “ultimate concern,” where the final revelation fulfills the existential quest for divine truth, rendering further prophetic missions redundant.4 Within Islamic metaphysics, the Prophet Muhammad as the *insan-e kamil* (perfect human) embodies this finality, integrating all prior prophetic realities into a singular, comprehensive manifestation.5
2 Nasr, S. H. (2006). Islamic Philosophy from Its Origin to the Present. SUNY Press.
3 Chittick, W. C. (1989). The Sufi Path of Love. SUNY Press.
4 Tillich, P. (1957). Dynamics of Faith. Harper & Row.
5 Ibn ‘Arabi, M. (2004). The Bezels of Wisdom. Translated by R. W. J. Austin. Paulist Press.
The Station of Absolute Unity
For a divine messenger to embody *khatamiyyat*, they must ascend to the ultimate proximity (*qurb-e rububi*), achieving a comprehensive personality (*shakhsiyyat-e jami’*) that integrates all divine attributes and manifestations. This ascent culminates in the station of *ta’ayyun-e ahadiyyat* (determination of absolute unity), where the messenger becomes the perfect manifestation (*mazhar-e tamm*) of divine unity (*ahadiyyat*).6 In Islamic metaphysics, *ta’ayyun-e ahadiyyat* denotes the first level of divine self-determination, where the absolute unity of the divine essence (*dhat*) manifests without differentiation, yet remains transcendent of multiplicity. Ibn ‘Arabi describes this as the “station of no station” (*maqam la maqam*), where the divine reality is simultaneously veiled and unveiled, encompassing all possibilities without being limited by them.7 This station is not merely a theological construct but a metaphysical reality, aligning with Mulla Sadra’s doctrine of the gradation of being (*tashkik al-wujud*), where the *mazhar-e khatami* reflects the divine unity in its most comprehensive form.8
From the perspective of philosophy of religion, *ta’ayyun-e ahadiyyat* engages with questions of divine simplicity and the problem of divine-human interaction. Alvin Plantinga’s concept of warranted belief suggests that divine revelation, as received by the *mazhar-e tamm*, provides a direct epistemic link to the divine, bypassing human fallibility through divine initiative.9 The finality of prophethood, rooted in this station, ensures that the divine message is complete, addressing John Hick’s pluralistic hypothesis, which posits multiple valid religious traditions but struggles to account for the absolute finality claimed by Islam.10 The *mazhar-e khatami* thus serves as the teleological culmination (*ghayat*) of revelation, uniting primacy (*awwaliyyat*) and finality (*akhiriyyat*) in a singular divine human (*insan-e ilahi*).
6 Corbin, H. (1998). Alone with the Alone. Princeton University Press.
7 Ibn ‘Arabi, M. (2004). The Bezels of Wisdom. Translated by R. W. J. Austin. Paulist Press.
8 Sadra, M. (2008). The Transcendent Philosophy of the Four Journeys. Translated by L. Peerwani. ICAS Press.
9 Plantinga, A. (2000). Warranted Christian Belief. Oxford University Press.
10 Hick, J. (1995). Philosophy of Religion. Prentice Hall.
Manifestor and Manifestation: Ontological Distinctions
The manifestation of *khatamiyyat* does not pertain to the divine essence (*dhat-e haqq*) in its absolute indeterminacy, which transcends all attributes, manifestation, or concealment. The divine essence exists in ultimate unity (*wahdat*), free from multiplicity. However, in realms beyond the essence—such as *ta’ayyun-e ahadiyyat* (absolute unity), *wahidiyyat* (oneness), and the fixed archetypes (*a’yan-e thabita*)—manifestations (*mazahir*) introduce multiplicity.11 The distinction between *ahadiyyat* and *wahidiyyat* is critical: *ahadiyyat* represents the singular, non-multiplicitous manifestation of divine unity, while *wahidiyyat* encompasses the multiplicity of divine names and attributes. *Khatamiyyat* operates within the realm of manifestations (*mazahir*), not the manifestors (*muẓhirat*), which possess intrinsic *ahadiyyat* and *wahidiyyat*.
The ontological separation between manifestor (*haqq ta’ala* with its names and attributes) and manifestation (*mazhar*) is paramount. A manifestation cannot assume the role of the divine manifestor, even at the level of divine attributes. The existence of *ahadiyyat* as a manifestor necessitates a corresponding final manifestation (*mazhar-e khatami*), but conflation of the two is impermissible. Any precedence of the manifestation is descending and transformative (*tanzili*), not ontologically superior (*sharaf-e takwini*).12 This aligns with Mulla Sadra’s ontology, where manifestations are contingent upon the divine without compromising its transcendence.13 In philosophy of religion, this distinction parallels Thomas Aquinas’s doctrine of divine simplicity, where God’s essence is distinct from creation, yet creation depends on divine causation.14
11 Nasr, S. H. (2013). Islamic Worldview. Routledge.
12 Khomeini, R. (2003). Misbah al-Hidaya. Institute for Compilation and Publication of Imam Khomeini’s Works.
13 Sadra, M. (2008). The Transcendent Philosophy of the Four Journeys. Translated by L. Peerwani. ICAS Press.
14 Aquinas, T. (1947). Summa Theologica. Benziger Bros.
Unity of Primacy and Finality
The station of *khatamiyyat* unites primacy (*awwaliyyat*) and finality (*akhiriyyat*), serving as the manifestation of absolute unity (*mazhar-e ahadi*). The manifestations of *wahidiyyat*, reflecting the multiplicity of divine names, are subsumed under the sovereignty of *khatamiyyat*.15 This finality does not interfere with the *ahadiyyat* of the manifestor, nor does it arbitrate among the divine names, which exist in absolute unity, free of conflict. The divine essence and its attributes require neither *khatamiyyat* nor creation, as they are fully manifest in divine love (*‘ishq*) and absolute transcendence (*itlaq*).16 This resonates with Ibn ‘Arabi’s doctrine of *wahdat al-wujud* (oneness of being), where all manifestations are contingent upon the divine without altering its unity.17 In philosophy of religion, this unity of primacy and finality parallels Kierkegaard’s concept of the “absolute paradox,” where divine revelation culminates in a singular, unrepeatable event that integrates all existential truths.18
15 Chittick, W. C. (2005). The Sufi Path of Knowledge. SUNY Press.
16 Tabatabai, M. H. (1996). Tafsir al-Mizan. World Organization for Islamic Services.
17 Ibn ‘Arabi, M. (2004). The Bezels of Wisdom. Translated by R. W. J. Austin. Paulist Press.
18 Kierkegaard, S. (1985). Philosophical Fragments. Translated by H. V. Hong & E. H. Hong. Princeton University Press.
Veiling of Divine Names
In the realm of manifestations (*mazahir*), divine names cannot manifest in absolute terms (*itlaq*); their manifestation is conditioned by existential exigencies (*iqtida’at*) and divine love (*‘ishq*). One name may predominate in a given manifestation, while another acts as a veil (*hijab-e asma*), obscuring other names due to the limitations of the manifestation, not the manifestor (*muẓhir*), which is identical with the divine essence.19 The *hijab-e asma* reflects the relational dynamics of divine manifestation, where the predominance of one name creates a veil for others, not through conflict but through the exigencies of love. In the context of *khatamiyyat*, the final manifestation becomes a veil for other prophets and saints, rendering it impossible for another to claim this singular title.20 This aligns with the Sufi concept of *barzakh* (isthmus), where the final prophet serves as the intermediary between divine and creational realms.21 In philosophy of religion, this veiling parallels William Alston’s theory of divine mystery, where divine attributes are partially revealed through human experience, limited by epistemic constraints.22
19 Nasr, S. H. (2006). Islamic Philosophy from Its Origin to the Present. SUNY Press.
20 Makarem Shirazi, N. (1995). Tafsir Nemuneh. Dar al-Kutub al-Islamiyya.
21 Chittick, W. C. (1994). Imaginal Worlds. SUNY Press.
22 Alston, W. P. (1989). Divine Nature and Human Language. Cornell University Press.
The Final Manifestation as Arbiter of Justice
The creational aspect of divine manifestations requires an arbiter of justice (*hakam-e ‘adl*) to maintain their order. Manifestations, while dependent on the manifestors, are subject to gradation. The supreme manifestation (*zuhur-e khatami*) exercises descending authority (*tanzil*), veiled by its station in the divine realm (*‘alam-e lahut*), lowering subsequent ranks and preserving the order of manifestations. It enacts the divine lordship (*rabb-e muẓhiri*) for each manifestation, becoming the pivot of all pivots (*qutb al-aqtab*) and the ultimate purpose of creation (*ghayat-e afarinesh*). All realms—spiritual (*arwah*), angelic (*malakut*), and human (*nasut*)—are subsumed under this reality, through whose mediation divine secrets (*asrar-e haqq ta’ala*), knowledge of the Lord (*ma’rifat-e rabb*), and divine effusion (*fayḍ*) are accessed.23 This role aligns with the Prophet Muhammad as *rahmatan lil-‘alamin* (mercy to the worlds), integrating all divine realities.24 In philosophy of religion, this mirrors Charles Hartshorne’s concept of divine inclusiveness, where the ultimate reality encompasses all lesser realities without diminishing its transcendence.25
23 Corbin, H. (1998). Alone with the Alone. Princeton University Press.
24 Tabarsi, F. (1997). Majma al-Bayan. Dar al-Ma’rifa.
25 Hartshorne, C. (1970). Creative Synthesis and Philosophic Method. Open Court.
Qualitative Finality and Infallibility
For revelation to claim qualitative finality (*khatamiyyat-e kayfi*), God must explicitly declare this within the revelation’s text. Without divine attestation, recipients, limited by their fallibility outside revelation, may erroneously claim finality. While revelation is infallible, its reception does not confer absolute infallibility (*‘ismat-e mutlaq*) in all domains, necessitating textual evidence for such claims.26 This principle engages with philosophy of religion debates on epistemic authority, as seen in Plantinga’s defense of divine revelation as a source of warranted belief, contrasting with skeptical challenges to prophetic claims.27
26 Tabatabai, M. H. (1996). Tafsir al-Mizan. World Organization for Islamic Services.
27 Plantinga, A. (2000). Warranted Christian Belief. Oxford University Press.
Qur’anic Affirmation of Finality
The Qur’an establishes *khatamiyyat* by declaring the Prophet Muhammad as the final prophet: “Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but he is the Messenger of God and the Seal of the Prophets. And God is ever Knowing of all things” (Al-Ahzab 33:40).28 This verse forecloses further prophethood, rendering subsequent claims false. The term *khatam al-nabiyyin* signifies the perfection and completion of divine guidance, as explicated by Tabatabai.29 In philosophy of religion, this absolute claim challenges pluralistic models, such as Hick’s, which advocate for ongoing revelation across traditions, highlighting the uniqueness of Islamic *khatamiyyat*.30
28 Fooladvand, M. M. (2004). The Qur’an. Dar al-Qur’an al-Karim.
29 Tabatabai, M. H. (1996). Tafsir al-Mizan. World Organization for Islamic Services.
30 Hick, J. (1995). Philosophy of Religion. Prentice Hall.
Conclusion
The doctrine of *khatamiyyat-e wahy-e risali* offers a profound synthesis of Islamic theology, metaphysics, and philosophy of religion, affirming the finality of prophetic revelation through the Prophet Muhammad’s station as the Seal of the Prophets. Concepts like *ta’ayyun-e ahadiyyat* and *hijab-e asma* illuminate the interplay between divine unity and manifestation, positioning *khatamiyyat* as the teleological culmination of divine guidance. By engaging with philosophy of religion, this analysis bridges Islamic metaphysics with global discourses on revelation, divine unity, and religious authority, highlighting the enduring relevance of the Qur’an as the ultimate repository of divine truth.31 Future research should explore comparative analyses of finality across religious traditions, leveraging Islamic metaphysics to enrich contemporary philosophy of religion.
31 Nasr, S. H. (2006). Islamic Philosophy from Its Origin to the Present. SUNY Press.
References
1. Tabatabai, M. H. (1996). Tafsir al-Mizan. World Organization for Islamic Services.
2. Nasr, S. H. (2006). Islamic Philosophy from Its Origin to the Present. SUNY Press.
3. Chittick, W. C. (1989). The Sufi Path of Love. SUNY Press.
4. Tillich, P. (1957). Dynamics of Faith. Harper & Row.
5. Ibn ‘Arabi, M. (2004). The Bezels of Wisdom. Translated by R. W. J. Austin. Paulist Press.
6. Corbin, H. (1998). Alone with the Alone. Princeton University Press.
7. Sadra, M. (2008). The Transcendent Philosophy of the Four Journeys. Translated by L. Peerwani. ICAS Press.
8. Plantinga, A. (2000). Warranted Christian Belief. Oxford University Press.
9. Hick, J. (1995). Philosophy of Religion. Prentice Hall.
10. Nasr, S. H. (2013). Islamic Worldview. Routledge.
11. Khomeini, R. (2003). Misbah al-Hidaya. Institute for Compilation and Publication of Imam Khomeini’s Works.
12. Aquinas, T. (1947). Summa Theologica. Benziger Bros.
13. Chittick, W. C. (2005). The Sufi Path of Knowledge. SUNY Press.
14. Kierkegaard, S. (1985). Philosophical Fragments. Translated by H. V. Hong & E. H. Hong. Princeton University Press.
15. Makarem Shirazi, N. (1995). Tafsir Nemuneh. Dar al-Kutub al-Islamiyya.
16. Chittick, W. C. (1994). Imaginal Worlds. SUNY Press.
17. Alston, W. P. (1989). Divine Nature and Human Language. Cornell University Press.
18. Hartshorne, C. (1970). Creative Synthesis and Philosophic Method. Open Court.
19. Tabarsi, F. (1997). Majma al-Bayan. Dar al-Ma’rifa.
20. Fooladvand, M. M. (2004). The Qur’an. Dar al-Qur’an al-Karim.
