Revelation, Rationality, Knowledge & Truth — Page 714
FUTURE OF REVELATION when it is suggested that even non-law-bearing prophets cannot come, the jurisdiction of finality is overextended without any rational justification. No sooner have they made this claim of absolute finality than they venture to demolish it themselves. The cracks begin to appear the moment they hasten to exempt Jesusas from this allpervasive law of finality. . When confronted with this dilemma, they dismiss it with a mere wave of their hand as though it were no dilemma at all. . The reappearance of Jesus as as a prophet after Prophet. Muhammadsa, they argue, does not contradict his absolute finality on the following counts:. Jesus would be brought back from a stock of prophets who had already been commissioned before the advent of Prophet Muhammads. Thus his finality will not be violated. It can only be violated if a prophet is raised after his advent even if that prophet brings no new law and is selected by God from within his own. Ummah (people). . Jesus' prophethood would be the one granted to him during his advent prior to Islam. . Moreover because during his second advent he would be subordinated to the Holy Prophets, he would no longer be held as independent. . Hence by being an older prophet and by becoming subordinated, he would not violate the seal of prophethood. . As such, their concept of finality only means that new prophets cannot be commissioned while old prophets can be brought back; but this is sheer absurdity. What manner of an All-Wise God would He be who would pass the verdict of absolute finality in favour of anyone despite His knowledge that a prophet would certainly be needed after 672