A Critical Reading of the Rational Explanation of Finality

Abstract

Some believe that the concept of khatamiyyah (finality of prophethood) is an extra-religious issue and cannot be substantiated by religious texts. However, this claim is incompatible with belief in the prophethood and the truthfulness of the Prophet of Islam. Moreover, the arguments proposed by others to rationalize finality are inadequate and, in some cases, counterproductive. For instance, the immunity of the Qur'an from textual distortion, while semantic distortion remains possible, does not lead to a conclusive result. The claim that humanity’s intellectual maturity after the Prophet’s demise enables the derivation of specific rulings from general principles, and the compatibility of this notion with the Sunni perspective on the sufficiency of the Companions' ijtihad and the lack of necessity for appointing an Imam, stands in contradiction with the Shi‘ite belief in the necessity of divinely appointed Imams. Furthermore, the reduction of revelation to mere instinct, and its association with humanity’s intellectual infancy—thereby suggesting its ineffectiveness during the era of intellectual maturity and the dominance of empirical sciences—leads not only to the finality of revelation but also to the finality of religion itself. This study, using a descriptive-analytical method, addresses the questions: Can religious texts substantiate the concept of khatamiyyah? And are the premises of some thinkers regarding the rationalization of finality effective? To this end, it examines the existing theories and concludes that the best argument for finality, for those who believe in the prophethood of the Prophet, the Qur'an, and the words of the Infallibles, is the comprehensiveness of Islam—and this same comprehensiveness also serves as the best argument for adherents of other religions.