Aoa, I came across this from Fatawa Fayzul Rasool by Mufti Jalaludin Amjadi. Rough translation of passage highlighted red: Question: Zayd says that the birth of a Prophet after Prophet Mohammad (صلى الله عليه وسلم) is hypothetically possible (Rationally possible/intrinsically possible) but since shariah has declared Prophet Mohammad (صلى الله عليه وسلم) as the Seal of Prophets therefore the birth of a Prophet after him is sharan muhal. Please illustrate in the light of shariah, to what extent Zayd's statement is right and if it is wrong what is the shariah ruling on him? Answer: Without a doubt the birth of a Prophet after our master and the last Prophet Mohammad (صلى الله عليه وسلم) is sharan muhal and Aqlan mumkin bil dhat (Intrinsically possible/rationally possible). But After He is [declared] the Seal of Prophets, it is Muhal dhati/intrinsically impossible for another Prophet [who is Seal of Prophets] to be born. (Answer continues) (Answer continues) Before the revelation of this verse, the birth of a Prophet after Prophet Mohammad (صلى الله عليه وسلم) was mumkin/possible in two ways. First by Imkan Wuqui (Possibility of occurance/imkan wuqui) and second by Imkan dhati (Intrinsically possible/rationally possible). The verse removed the first possibility which is Imkan Wuqui and not Imkan dhati. Since Zayd, in this issue, said that the birth of a Prophet after Mohammad (صلى الله عليه وسلم) is Sharan Muhal and only considered it mumkin in the sense of imkan dhati (rational possibility/intrinsic possibility), his statement is right because he believes only in the sense imkan dhati NOT in the sense Imkan Wuqui. Shaykh Abu Adam of sunnianswers said something similar regarding this as quoted by brother faqir in this thread. http://sunniport.com/index.php?threads/imkan-nazir-of-the-prophet-sallallahu-alayhi-wa-sallam.8377/ _________________________________________________________________________________ Assalaamuˆalaykum, The fact that The Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وسلم) is the greatest prophet and the last prophet is by Allaah's decree. It is not intrinsically necessary, but dependent upon Allaah's decree. Allaah could have left creating any prophet at all, let alone a best one or a specific one. However, once we know that Allaah has decreed this, by Him telling us, then we know that this is necessary, not intrinsically, but because Allaah's decree does not change, and because Allaah does not lie. I think the issue is straight forward. If it was intrinsic, then it would either be intrinsic to the Prophet or to Allaah. This would lead to saying that the Prophet is eternal, or that Allaah had no choice but to create him and make him the greatest and last. No Muslim says that. What is intrinsically impossible is that Allaah's will could change or that He could tell a lie. AAA Brother Faqir says: as-salamu `alaikum sidi I had some email correspondence with him after I first heard of this issue. His view is that intrinsically impossible is something that the mind does not accept the existence of, without the need for repeated experiences, or revealed information. It pertains to propositions that are somehow self contradictory in themselves, not something external, like if someone said, "there is a perfectly square circle." The fact that the Prophet Muhammad is the greatest creation, and that he is the last prophet, is known only by revealed information, otherwise how could we possibly reach such a conclusion? However, once it is known by revelation from Allah, then we know that it is impossible, not intrinsically, but because we have been informed of Allah's decree by Allah Himself, and it is impossible that He should lie, or that His decree should change. Allaah COULD have decreed for other prophets to exist, and He COULD have made another prophet the greatest. Who or what would have prevented Him? It is just that He has not willed that to be, so it will not be. He believes that to claim that it is intrinsically impossible is dangerous... You can confirm this with him directly as well, insha'Allah. ___________________________________________________________________________________ Rough Translation of Highlighted text in Black: Question:Zayd says Divine Qudrah pertains to impossibility which [according to him] is muhal bil ghayr (Mumtaniý bi’l Ghayr or Mustaĥīl Árađī) & Mumkin Bil Dhat (Rationally possible or intrinsically possible). To prove his point, he says that it is within the Qudrah of Allah (swt)that those Kufar, whose Kufr is proven from the Quran and they are without a doubt Kafir, to send them to Jannah But he wouldn't do this because He has informed of this in the Quran but it is within His Qudrah. But Bakr opposes & endorses the opposite view. According to shariah whose statement is right? Answer: Based on the views of Jumhur/majority of Ahlus Sunnah, it is sharan Muhal and Aqlan Mumkin Bil dhaat (Intrinsically possible/ Rationally possible) while according to some scholars (Imam Nasafi and others) it is also rationally impossible. Question: Is sharan muhal in this case Mustahil aradi/ Mustahil bil ghayr? Because if it was mustahil dhati/intrinsically impossible it would have been Aqlan Muhal/rationally impossible as well? Rough translation of Highlighted text (black). Question: Is forgiveness of mushrikeen within the Qudrah of Almighty Allah (swt) or not? Answer: Without a doubt the pardon of the Kufar is within the Qudrah of Almighty Allah (swt) but its occurrence (wuqu) is muhal. The pardon of mushrikeen is Aqlan mumkin bil dhaat (Rationally possible or intrinsically possible) but Sharan Muhal bil ghayr (Mumtaniý bi’l Ghayr or Mustaĥīl Árađī) . ______________________________________________________________________________ Shaykh Abu Adam has said something similar here: https://sunnianswers.wordpress.com/...ider-it-rationally-possible-for-allah-to-lie/ It is also incredible stupidity to say that it is only contingently impossible (mustaheel `aradi) for Allah to lie, for if it was not absolutely impossible that Allah should lie, then how would one know it is mustaheel `aradi??? Mustaheel `arađiyy is when something is possible, like the existence of any created thing, but Allah tells us that it will not be, such as a mukallaf kaafir entering Paradise. That is, it is rationally possible that a kaafir could go to Paradise, but contingently impossible, because Allah has told us that this will never happen, as this is His decree. So if it was not absolutely impossible that Allah should lie, then how would they know that this information about Him not lying was correct? This is nothing less than zandaqah, extremem kufr, it is to put doubt in the religion as a whole, let alone contradicting that Allah’s kalaam is not created.