The Lack of Difference Among Prophets in General Prophethood

The beginning and end of divine guidance is the call to monotheism and faith, just as the character of true believers is also such. Therefore, at the beginning of the verse under discussion, there is talk of belief in “what has been sent down to us,” and at the end of the verse, the words “and we are submissive to Him.”

In accordance with this submission and surrender, all prophets and everything that was sent down to them, as well as everything that was given to them, are objects of faith and religious belief for true believers and those who submit to God. The number of prophets, whatever their count, and the number of heavenly books, whatever their quantity, and the number of divine miracles, whatever their amount, are accepted by submissive servants. Of course, the correct determination of these numbers and quantities is the responsibility of reliable transmitted evidence.

Based on this, the Noble Qur’an deems it necessary to believe in all prophets and all scriptures of previous prophets, and believers do not differentiate between any prophet and another in terms of general prophethood. They do not believe in one of them or one of the books and scriptures while disbelieving in another: “… We make no distinction between any of them” (525), “The Messenger has believed in what was revealed to him from his Lord, and [so have] the believers. All of them have believed in God and His angels and His books and His messengers, [saying], ‘We make no distinction between any of His messengers’” (526).

Differentiation can be internal or external. Internal differentiation is like what those who distorted the Torah and the Gospel have fallen into. The Jews accepted the principle of prophethood of Moses the Interlocutor (a.s.) as well as the principle of the Torah, but only in part, not in its entirety, because they altered what did not suit their desires. External differentiation is like what those who discriminate among holders of general prophethood have fallen into. The combination of both internal and external differentiation has afflicted the Jews and Christians, who both rejected some of the messages of their own divine book and denied the prophethood of another prophet. Of course, the motivation to deny the prophethood of another prophet led to internal differentiation and distortion of the verses related to it.

One who differentiates between prophets has, in reality, differentiated between God Almighty and His prophets: “Indeed, those who disbelieve in God and His messengers and wish to discriminate between God and His messengers and say, ‘We believe in some and disbelieve in others,’ and wish to adopt a way in between_—_Those are the disbelievers, truly. And We have prepared for the disbelievers a humiliating punishment”(527).

If someone, in an attempt to find a new middle ground, only believes in some of the prophets or part of their message, they are denying specific prophethood, general prophethood, and the principle of the origin. For this reason, at the beginning of this verse, such people are referred to as “disbelievers in God”: “Indeed, those who disbelieve in God and His messengers.” This means that not accepting some of the prophets or denying a definitive ruling of God Almighty is like denying the very existence of God. Those who have not accepted the principle of the origin never say: “We believe in some and disbelieve in others.”

Differentiation in the chain of prophets is incompatible with divine monotheism and belief in the origin of the world, because all prophets are messengers of the one God. It is impossible for someone to believe in God and accept the principle of revelation and general prophethood, yet differentiate between His prophets: “And those who believe in God and His messengers and do not discriminate between any of them_—_to those He will give their rewards”(528). Differentiation between prophets and messengers is not like obedience and disobedience in cases of “independent obligation” where there is no connection between obeying a command in one instance and disobeying in another. Rather, the chain of prophethood is like cases of “relational obligation” where the beginning and the stem are one, and its parts are interconnected and not independent of each other. Just as the intentional abandonment of a part of a relational obligation invalidates the entire act of worship, the intentional rejection of one of the prophets also invalidates and nullifies all faith, because general prophethood is indivisible.

Since partial differentiation leads to complete denial, it is said about the disbelievers who did not accept their appointed prophet that they denied all the messengers: “The companions of al-Ḥijr denied the messengers…” (529). Therefore, it is incumbent upon the monotheist to submit to the radius of God’s proof; if something is proven to them in detail, they should believe in it in detail, and if it is known to them in general, they should believe in it generally.

Note: The equality of prophets in general prophethood and the principle of messengership and prophethood does not mean that they are all equal in terms of the degree of messengership and prophethood, and that there is no difference between them from this perspective. The Glorious God says about the superiority of some prophets and messengers over others: “Those messengers_—_some of them We caused to exceed others” (530), “And We have made some of the prophets exceed others” (531). This superiority is compatible with the legitimacy of all of them in the principle of prophethood and messengership, as the differentiation relates to their degree of prophethood and messengership.

Some have suggested that the meaning of “We make no distinction between any of them…” is that we consider the prophets to be in harmony in the principles of religion and we do not say that they are different in the principles of religions, as God said: “He has ordained for you of religion what He enjoined upon Noah and that which We have revealed to you, [O Muhammad], and what We enjoined upon Abraham and Moses and Jesus_—_to establish the religion and not be divided therein” (532). This possibility is not consistent with the expression “between any of them”, just as it is not compatible with other verses, the occasion of revelation, and the external and historical course of events, and Fakhr al-Rāzī has not accepted it either (533).