Death Of Hamlet By William Shakespeare - 1114 Words

Throughout Shakespeare’s Hamlet, the theme of death is thoroughly expressed through symbolism. Death, a primary element in Hamlet, taunts and dances around the characters preceding the death of Hamlet’s father. The symbols representing death become increasingly more prominent as the play progresses, they appear in both ironic and bold forms. The enigma that death poses drives key points in the plot of the play. Collectively, the symbols of death in Hamlet provoke and foreshadow this essential tragic theme. Within Act I, scene I, the first symbol of obvious death appears – King Hamlet’s ghost. This symbol is bold but ambiguous: a ghost certainly is figure a life that has passed unnaturally, but what the ghost entails is open-ended. Horatio states, â€Å"†¦Such was the armor he had on when he the ambitious Norway combated†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (I.i.60-61). The ghost that appears, wears King Hamlets armor, this could symbolize protection or impending conflict. Historically, the armor should connote conflicts and uncertainty regarding the leadership of Denmark. As well, considering the supernatural aspect of ghosts, this leads into the mysteries that death poses to the characters. As Hamlet conversed with the ghost in act I. scene v., the ghost mentions â€Å"†¦the serpent that did sting [Hamlet’s] father’s life†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (I.v.39). Death by a serpent insinuates death by venom; this ironic as poison leads to the death of several characters later on. Coincidentally as well, in act I scene 2 Hamlet described a â€Å"†¦anShow MoreRelatedThe Death Of Hamlet By William Shakespeare1427 Words   |  6 Pagesa ghost, Denmark is on the verge of damage. Directly following King Hamlet s death, the widowed Queen, Gertrude, remarried Claudius, the King s brother. Prince Hamlet optically discerns the joining together of his mother and uncle as a hasty and incestuous act (Charles Boyce, 232). He then ascertains that Claudius is responsible for his father s perfidious murder. His father s ghost asks Hamlet to avenge his death and Hamlet concurs. He plans very punctiliously, ascertaining that he doesn tRead MoreThe Death Of Hamlet By William Shakespeare Essay2134 Words   |  9 Pagesin return for a wrong; returning evil for evil, vengeance† (Webster Dictionary). This play introduces Hamlet, a prince who goes on the quest to take revenge on his uncle who killed his father and Hamlet won’t rest on until he gives his uncle the punishment for killing the king. But this quest for him to get his revenges has some consequences that could lead to many deaths including himself. Hamlet thirst for revenge clouds his judgements, which leads to drastic consequences. The feeling of revengeRead MoreThe Death Of Hamlet By William Shakespeare1522 Words   |  7 PagesThere are only a handful of experiences that everyone must practice, and one of the most provocative is death. For some, death is fearfully avoided, but for others, it is constantly sought after. Suicide is a topic that impacts all kinds of people, so much so that it is often addressed in literature. For real people and fictional characters such as Shakespeare’s Hamlet, prince of Denmark, thoughts of self-harm are brought about by overwhelming emotions that became almost too heavy to handle aloneRead MoreThe Death Of Hamlet By William Shakespeare1494 Words   |  6 Pageshappen to them. A prime example of this ideology is found in the play Hamlet. Hamlet, written by William Shakespeare, was composed in 1601 following the death of Shakespeare’s son, Hamlet. The play focuses on the prince of Denmark, Hamlet, as he discovers the truth about his father s death and the ev ents that follow. Shortly after the death of Hamlet’s father, Gertrude, Hamlet’s mother, marries Hamlet’s uncle, Claudius. Hamlet does not agree with the marriage of his mother and his uncle and he frequentlyRead More Death and Suicide in Hamlet by William Shakespeare1100 Words   |  5 Pages is one of the top leading causes of death worldwide. Every year, more than a million people commit suicide, successfully ending whatever feelings of despair, pressure, or suffering they felt when alive. Yet statistics show that the number of nonfatal suicide attempts exceeds that of actual completed suicides. Failed attempts of taking one’s own life reveal the deep, undermining uncertainties humans have about death. Such inquiries as to whether life or death is better stream into human perceptionRead MoreThe Death Of Hamlet By William Shakespeare1325 Words   |  6 PagesDeath is the Key One rotten apple spoils the whole barrel. This saying means that one awful person or event can infect others and cause them to change also. This can be seen in Hamlet, when King Hamlet dies in the beginning of the play. Hamlet, like any other Shakespearean tradgedy, contains a series betrayal and death. Hamlet seeks revenge when his deceased father’s ghost tells him that his uncle, Claudius, murdered him. Since Hamlet’s grief for his father was expressed more than any other characterRead MoreThe Death Of Hamlet By William Shakespeare906 Words   |  4 PagesThe protagonist, Hamlet, his mother Queen Gertrude and her husband King Claudius, along with Hamlet’s love interest Ophelia are all affected by human sin through the evocation of sickness and rot. Sin, the driving force of the play, impacts each character, decaying his or her mind, resulting in the emotional and physical demise of each character and the decay of the state of Denmark, which has become â€Å"r otten† after Claudius poisons his own brother and weds his sister-in-law. William Shakespeare’s tragicRead MoreWilliam Shakespeare s Hamlet - Hamlet s Death1177 Words   |  5 PagesWilliam Shakespeare’s Hamlet has a multitude of not only characters, but also many different character scenarios going on as well. The play begins with us learning of the death of Hamlet’s father, King Hamlet, and the marriage of Hamlet’s mother, Gertrude, to her now ex brother-in-law Claudius. We later discover that the now king, Claudius, killed his brother and are left to question if he and Gertrude had been having an affair the entire time and whether Gertrude had a hand in King Hamlet’s deathRead MoreDeath in William Shakespeare ´s Hamlet Essay585 Words   |  3 PagesIn the play Hamlet by William Shakespeare, Hamlet struggles with the abrupt death of his father at the hands of his uncle. It is in the very beginning of the play that Hamlet voices his opin ion that death would be a peaceful release. But as the play progresses his attitude begins to slowly doubt the serenity in death. Hamlet had been surrounded by death but had yet to come face to face with it, escaping the lessons the world was trying to teach him. It is within Act 5 scene 1 that Hamlet has a directRead MoreThe Theme Of Death In Hamlet By William Shakespeare925 Words   |  4 PagesDeath can be defined as; the permanent and irreversible cessation of the vital functions that result in the end of one’s life. Death itself can have many different causes such as disease, old age or even something as gruesome as murder. In the Elizabethan era, it seems as though murder was commonly used to solve problems as in several of William Shakespeares plays, characters are killed so that more dominant characters can obtain what they truly desire. In William Shakespeare’s tragedy Hamlet death

Exploring the Actions of Macbeth that Backfired in...

The dream of becoming king has ironically changed from a bright future to a tragic end due to some of the crucial decisions Macbeth has made during the course of his journey and a number of his actions will backfire on him. The first of his actions that backfired was when he murdered King Duncan which he regrets afterwards. Another action that backfired was the murder of the guards which couldve drastically changed the outcome of this entire story since he couldve gotten away with King Duncans murder if he didnt commit it. The third action that backfired on Macbeth was when he ordered the murderers to murder Banquo and Fleance at which they failed to eliminate Fleance. The murder that he committed was a necessity for Macbeth in order†¦show more content†¦The irony in the murder of King Duncan is that Macbeth planned on becoming king in rightful manner by earning the respect and the title by doing good things such as saving Malcolm but instead of getting closer to the throne by saving him, he got even further away from it since he was named prince which forced Macbeth to become king in an unrighteous way. As a result, the only choice that Macbeth had was to kill Duncan. The second murder that Macbeth has committed was also an essential component in the murder of Duncan. It consisted of Macbeth killing the 2 guards while approaching Duncan because one of them yelled â€Å"murder!† in his sleep which woke both of them up so Macbeth decides to kill them to cover his tracks. This action backfires on him because if he didnt kill the guards, he couldve gotten away with it and many of the people in his kingdom including Macduff wouldve still had respect for him and not have suspicions about him which couldve potentially changed the whole course of the story. The irony in this murder is that after he killed the guards, he lied about killing them by telling Macduff and Lennox that when he went to Duncans room and found him dead, he became enraged by the sight of the guards, covered in blood and holding the daggers, and killed them to avenge Duncans death but Macduff didnt buy his story, exhibits further signs

Responses towards Federalist -Free-Samples-Myassignmenthelp.com

Question: How would Rousseau and Burke respond to Madison's arguments in Federalist #10 about the causes and cures for Political faction? Answer: Madison in his essay, Federalist #10, argues about the ways that may be used to eliminate the negative effects of the faction. According to Madison, faction refers to a number of citizens who may form either a majority or a minority of the total population (Madison 1787). This section of the population may have a certain common interest or passion that is contrary to the interests of the other citizens or to the aggregate interests of the whole community. This common interest is observed to have united them against the total population of the state. According to Madison, the most serious sources of the faction is the diversity in the opinion regarding the political life which in turn leads to the dispute over the issues that deal with the preference of one religion or regime over the others. Madison further argues that the idea of faction may hamper the republic in a varied number of ways. The injustice, instability and the confusion introduced by the factions may increase the condit ions that may lead to the perishing of the republics. Rousseau contradicts with Madison on this issue. According to Rousseau, the will of a faction is not the expression of the individual will of the residents of the state but the expression of the private interests of a group of individuals. Thus, the laws or the policies that are enacted on such a will are termed to be illegitimate. The Swiss political thinker argues that the general will results from the number of smaller differences over the public good unlike the differences in the wills of the faction that may be larger. According to Madison, the factions, though at odds with each other, work in unison against the interest of the public and lay infringements upon the rights of the other fellow citizens. The rival factions bring about political instability that concern both the opponents and the supporters of the concerned plan. It is mostly seen that the government is blamed by the general public after being disillusioned by the politicians. The factions are dependent heavily on the difference among the citizens based on the wealth and property that they own. It is basic human nature to fraternize with those who have similarity among themselves in the fields of the property and wealth. The most common source for the origin of the factions is the inequality in the distribution of the property among the residents of the country. Madison had, in the essay, referred to the rise of a dreaded faction in the country. The majority faction in this case would include those classes of the society that which do not own the properties while the minority factions would consist of the wealthiest owners of property in the country. The majority faction may gain control over the government and thereby gain the position to implement various measures that would bring about the redistribution of the wealth in the country. These measures may bring about the redistribution in a number of ways that may benefit the majority faction at the cost of the minority faction. Rousseau opines that the division of the labor and the invention of the property represent the advent of the moral inequality. According to the Swiss political thinker, the possession of a certain amount of property sets the path of exploitation and the domination of the poor by the rich members of the society. The initial relationship that exists between the rich an d the poor is observed to be very unstable and dangerous and may even lead to the situations of a violence like that of a war. The poor, according to Rousseau is tricked into the creation of a political society in order to avoid a warlike situation (Rousseau 2010). Madison had argued that the damages caused by the factions might be controlled by two different ways. The removal of the causes that led to the emergence of the faction or the control of the effects that resulted from the factions. Madison then goes on to describe the ways that may be used to aid the removal of the faction. The first method that may be used to remove the factions is by taking steps to the destruction of the liberty. Liberty serves to encourage the formation of factions among the citizens. This measure is impossible to execute as liberty forms one of the basic components that is related to the political lives of the citizens of the concerned country. The second way out that was suggested by Madison was the creation of a society that is homogeneous in nature from the point of interests and opinions. This measure is practically impossible to implement in the practical field. The diversity in the ability of the people is the primary reason behind the success of the conce rned person. The government should protect the right of inequality in the ownership of property. Rousseau agrees to the fact stated by Madison that the society should ideally be homogeneous in nature in order to avoid the creation of a majority faction amongst the citizens. According to Madison, the stratification on the economic grounds stops the members of the society from having a similar opinion. Thus, Madison concludes that the only way to limit the damages caused by the factions is by controlling the effects that the faction has on the government. Madison further argues that there are two ways to keep the majority factions in control. The prevention of the existence of a similar interest or passion among the majority of the population at a certain period of time. The other way to keep the majority faction in check is to leave the considered faction in a state of inactivity. He opines that a democracy that is small in size may not be able to avoid the problems that arise because the undesirable passions have the chances to spread at a faster rate when the total size of the population is small. Thus, the majority faction may exercise its will on the government if the total population is small enough. According to Madison, the nature of human beings has the latent reasons for faction. He, therefore, opines that the only remedy to this issue is exercising control over the effects of the inherent nature of the human beings. Madison himself argues that the remedy cannot be applied in a democracy but can be implemented in a republic. The democracy, according to Madison, is a system in which all the citizens of the state have the rights to vote for the laws of the land in a direct manner. He describes the republic as a society wherein the citizens elect an elite group of representatives who in turn vote and decide on the laws of the land. Rousseau contradicts Madison on the definition of the republic. He describes a republic as any state that is governed by a certain legislature. The governance by a certain legislature makes governance of the public interest possible and thus helps in the existence of the commonwealth. Madison believes that the voice of the people that is put forward by the representative body is more helpful to the welfare of the community as a whole. He cites that the decisions made by the common people residing in the society may be influenced by their own self-interests. Thus, the decision made by the direct voting of the citizens may not look into the welfare of the community as a whole. Madison justifies that the candidates elected may have a chance of creating a disillusion in the minds of the voters in a republic with a lower number of residents while they may find it difficult to do the same in a republic with a larger population. The Swiss diplomat, Rousseau, states that the republics with a smaller population may find the majorities more frequently than those with a larger population. Thus, this would facilitate the lawmakers to work together towards the achievement of the goals set by the ideas of the majority faction. In a larger republic, however, the rulers and the lawmakers may find it difficult to work together on the issues that are raised by the majority faction in the country. They might find it difficult to work together even with a majority due to the larger number of the members of the country that is spread out over a larger expanse of land. According to Madison, a republic differs from the democracy in the fact that the governance of the republic is taken care of by the delegates of the state. Thus, a republic may function over a larger area than a democracy. The fact that each member of the representative body is chosen from a large constituency lowers the effectiveness of the corruptions common in the field of electioneering. In the republic government, the members of the government have the opportunity to filter as well as refine the demands that are placed by the resident members of the state. This helps in the prevention of the frivolous claims that hamper the governments that are purely democratic. The creation of a political society fixes the conditions of domination that existed in the society while the poor live with the belief that a political society is created in order to look into the fact that the security and freedom of the poor is secure in the hands of the government. This form of government may lead to the condition whereby the leader of the state would rule the nation in an unjust manner. This type of rule is also known as despotism. According to the Swiss diplomat, Rousseau, the worst form of the modern society is the one in which the wealth of a person becomes the only way to measure the value of the person. Property, according to Rousseau, is a tool that helps in the construction of the society. He argues that the right to property is an intrinsic and sacred right of the members of the society. Rousseau opines that the breaching of this right cannot be justified in any ways except for the taxation on the property. Property affects the preservation of life. It is thus, considered to be more important than the right to liberty itself. Rousseau points out the ways in which the people from a lower financial background are exploited by the people who belong to the higher financial backgrounds. This leads to the rise of the practice of injustice in the society. Rousseau is observed to support the republic form of government. He believed that the higher the population of a state the higher the chances of electing a better representative for the common masses. He finds that the republics that consist of a larger population have lower chances of being affected by the whims and fancies of the majority factions of the state. The larger expanse of the republic lowers the chances of the state facing problems with the majority rule in the territory. Burke, unlike Madison, was a believer in the status of the resident members of the state. He believes in the theory of conservatism whereas Rousseau and Madison were stern followers of the concept of inequality among the rich and the poor sections of the society. Burke was a stern believer in the concept of conservatism unlike Rousseau who was a liberalist. Burke opined that the residents of the society should be allowed the right to freedom but they must be educated on the ways to handle the concepts of freedom (Burke 1987). He further argued that the excess of the liberty granted to the members of the society might be the reason of the problems that arise. Burke was a practical thinker who opined that the basic nature of all human being is selfishness. He put forward the argument that the changes should be brought about at a slower pace in the society. According to Burke, the French Revolution gave the rights to the people to elect their own representatives and form the governmenta l bodies according to their own likes and dislikes. According to Burke, the revolution that took place in the year 1688 was termed to be a deviation from the lawful chronology of succession. In conclusion, to the above discussion it may be said that both Rousseau and Burke disagreed with the arguments of Madison that have been discussed in the Federalist #10 regarding the causes and cure of political faction. Madison viewed the concept of property as a right to the members who are residing in the society. On the contrary, Rousseau viewed the ownership of the property to be a tool that can be used to for the construction of a society. They both agreed on the fact that the poor section of the society was exploited by the rich members of the society. Thus, the need for the formation of a republic was necessary in order to prevent the breakdown of the society. References Burke, Edmund. "Reflections on the Revolution in France and on the Proceedings in Certain Societies in London Relative to That Event in a Letter to a Gentleman in Paris, 1790, ed. JGA Pocock."JGA Pocock (Cambridge: Hackett, 1987)62 (1987). Madison, James. "The federalist no. 10."November22, no. 1787 (1787): 1787-88. Rousseau, Jean-Jacques.The basic political writings. Hackett Publishing, 2010.

 Muslim beliefs about Allah Essay Example Essay Example

  Muslim beliefs about Allah Essay Example Paper Muslim beliefs about Allah Essay Introduction Muslims believe that there is only one God, Allah. They believe that God is one, therefore Allah can have no plurals, polytheism is wrong and Christianity is wrong because Jesus was not God’s son. Because Allah is one, he must always have been and always will be and he depends on no one but himself. Because Allah is one, the universe he created must be a unity. This is why following the way of Islam makes Muslims a united community (ummah). Surah 112 states, â€Å"Say, ‘He is God the One and Only, God the Eternal, Absolute; He   Muslim beliefs about Allah Essay Body Paragraphs begetteth not nor is He begotten; and there is none like unto Him.’ This means that Muslims reject the Christian belief in the Trinity and will not allow anything to interfere with Allah’s oneness. The belief in Allah’s oneness is called tawhid by Muslims and is the basis of all their beliefs about Allah. It is also the first part of the shahadah (first pillar, often called the Muslim creed) – ‘I bear witness that there is no god but Allah.’ Muslims believe that as there is only one God, it follows that Allah created everything. According to Muslim belief, Allah created the universe and humans in six days, though many Muslims would claim that one-day for God is not the same as one day for humans and therefore this could fit with the timescale of evolution. However, Muslims do not believe in evolution because everything was made directly by God for a particular purpose, and nothing came into being accidentally. As the one God who created everyt hing, Muslims believe that Allah has power over everything. (He is omnipotent.) The Qur’an calls Allah the All-powerful. Allah is in control of the universe he made and he has a plan for it. Muslims believe that nothing happens without Allah’s consent. Muslims believe that God is merciful and compassionate. He has not just left humans alone in the world to get on with things. He has sent prophets with holy books to show them how to live their lives and his justice means that they will only be judged on how far they have followed the teachings of the prophets and holy books. Muslims also believe that God’s mercy means that God will forgive people if they do not live up to everything in the holy books. If Muslims feel they have done something wrong, they will pray to God for forgiveness and either fast (sawm) or give money to the poor (sadaqah). Before they die all Muslims try to confess their sins and ask God to forgive them, so that they will not be sent to hell on the Day of Judgement. The Qur’an and Muhammad say that God will forgive Muslims if they are truly sorry for what they have done and are determined to do better in future. They will not be forgiven if they are only confessing in order to avoid hellfire. The sin of shirk As belief in the oneness of Allah is the central belief about God, so the greatest sin a Muslim can commit is shirk (associating other beings with God). For this reason Muslim mosques have no images and no pictures, only abstract art or calligraphy (beautiful writing of verses from the Qur’an). Some Muslims will not allow photographs as this might lead to shirk. They would especially not allow pop posters or football player posters, because hero worship is shirk. The ummah of Islam The oneness of God who created everything means that there must be a oneness (unity) in what God has created. Just as the universe is a unity, so the religious community of Islam should be a unity. This is why Muslims are called the ummah (religious community of Islam), which shows the unity of Islam. The unity of the ummah is shown in the following ways: when Muslims perform salah and stand in rows shoulder to shoulder, so all are equal. in zakah, where rich Muslims give money to help their poor Muslim brothers. in hajj, where Muslims from all over the world of many races and colours perform the same actions, wear the same clothes and say the same things. the fact that there is only one shari’ah (law) for all Muslims, wherever they live. There should be no quarrelling or fighting in Islam. Therefore those who do quarrel or fight do not really believe in tawhid. Islamic teaching on humans as khalifah The Qur’an says that Allah created Adam to be his khalifah (vice-regent or steward) to look after the world. Allah taught Adam the nature of all things and made the angels bow down to Adam. Muslims believe that this was because Adam had been given free will by Allah, which allowed Allah to teach him the nature of things. As khalifah of the earth with free will, Adam was different from the angels. Muslims believe that, as descendants of Adam, all humans have been put on this earth to be khalifah for God. They are to look after the world as God intended it to be done, which is by accepting the six beliefs and following the pillars and shari’ah as given in the Qur’an. If this is done properly, then the earth will become the sort of place God created it to be. Because Allah created people for this purpose, and in his mercy gave them the Qur’an and the examples of the prophets to live by, humans have no excuse for not being good khalifah. Therefore Allah is justified in judging them on the way they carry out their role as khalifah. Islamic teaching on al’Qadar and human freedom Al’Qadar (the Divine Decree) says that Allah has a plan for the universe and the power to make that plan come about. Allah will make happen what he wants to ha ppen. Islam teaches that Allah knows what will happen in the future and that what will happen is what Allah wants to happen. Therefore Muslims believe that Allah can interfere with what is happening in the world. They believe that he can protect his faithful servants. This means that whatever happens is part of Allah’s plan and even though it might not seem like it, eventually everything will work out all right. This belief in al’Qadar is why many Muslims use the phrase ‘insh’Allah’ (if Allah wills) a lot. Whatever happens will not be what they want, but what Allah wants. This causes problems for Muslims because it seems to mean that there is nothing we can do about things and therefore they must leave it all to Allah and just sit back. However, most Muslims believe in both Allah’s power and human freewill. Humans have to do what Allah wants of their own free will. Allah knows what people will do but they have the freedom to decide what to do . Most Muslims do not think about the implications and say ‘insh’Allah’ without thinking that it means they are not free. Islamic teaching on angels Muslims believe that angels were created directly by Allah, and are made of light and are sexless (though they have male names). They have no freewill and so cannot do evil. The chief angel is Jibrail (Gabriel) who gives God’s messages to the prophets. Mikail (Michael) looks after heaven and keeps the Devil out. Israfil is responsible for the Last Day and will sound the trumpet. Izrail is responsible for taking the last breath from the dying. Most Muslims believe that they have recording angels who write down everything they do for the Day of Judgement, and guardian angels who look after them if they are good Muslims. Islam teaches that Allah uses angels to communicate with humans via prophets. Islamic teaching on prophets Muslims believe that prophets are human beings called by God to give his message to huma ns. God makes them sinless after they become prophets, but they remain human. Adam was given the message of Islam as the sign of God’s mercy. He showed humans how they should live as Allah’s khalifah and so go to heaven, but his message was lost or distorted by humans and so God had to send another prophet, but with the same message. There were many prophets, but the main ones you have to study are: Ibrahim who was born into a polytheistic family, but came to believe in Allah and so broke all the statues of the gods in his tribe. He was condemned to be burnt to death for this, but Allah stopped the fire from touching him. Ibrahim had two sons, Ismail (who became the prophet for the Arabs), and Ishaq (who became the prophet for the Jews). Ibrahim was tested by Allah to sacrifice Ismail and the devil tempted him not to. Ibrahim stoned the devil and obeyed Allah. Allah gave Ibrahim a ram to sacrifice, and Ismail was saved. Ibrahim and Ismail rebuilt the Ka’aba, whi ch had been destroyed in Noah’s (Nuh) flood. Isa (Jesus) was born of the Virgin Mary, but was not the Son of God and was not crucified on the cross; someone else died in his place. Isa performed many miracles, was taken directly to heaven by God and will return again at the end of the world. The work of all these prophets was either forgotten or distorted, so that Islam had become Judaism or Christianity or Arab Bedouin polytheism. At this point Allah decided to call a prophet who would be given the message in a way that could not be distorted so that no more prophets would be needed. This was the prophet Muhammad. Muslims believe that Muhammad performed no miracles except for receiving the Qur’an, which was the final word of God, given to Muhammad in such a way that it could never again be distorted. This was Allah’s final word and enabled Muhammad to restore Islam. Muhammad has the same status as all the other prophets. Muslims are supposed to say Peace Be Upo n Him each time they mention a prophet’s name. Islamic belief in holy books Islam teaches that: ?Ibrahim was given Allah’s word in the holy book of the Scrolls of Ibrahim. ?Musa (Moses) was given Allah’s word in the holy book of Tawrat (Torah). ?Dawud (David) was given Allah’s word in the holy book of Zabur (Psalms). ?Isa (Jesus) was given Allah’s word in the holy book of Injil (Gospels). Some Muslims believe that each of these holy books contained the Qur’an, but most Muslims believe they only contained a part of the Qur’an. Each of these holy books was distorted and so they are no longer the original holy book. Muslims believe the Qur’an is Allah’s final word to humans, and so no other holy books are needed. The belief in Muhammad as the seal of the prophets What makes Muhammad different from the other prophets is that the Qur’an says that Muhammad is ‘the seal of the prophets’. Muslims believe that this means: Adam was given Allah’s message, but it was forgotten. So Ibrahim was given Allah’s message, but that was also forgotten. So Allah gave Musa the holy book of the Tawrat, but that was distorted. So he gave Dawud the Zabur, but that was distorted. So he gave Isa the Injil, but that was distorted. So he decided to give Muhammad his final word, the Qur’an, in a form that can never be distorted. Muhammad received the Qur’an in such a way that it will never be forgotten or distorted and so there will never be a need for another holy book. If there will never be a need for another holy book, there will never be another prophet. This means that Muhammad is the last of the prophets, acting like a seal at the end of Allah’s letter to humans. We will write a custom essay sample on   Muslim beliefs about Allah Essay Example specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now We will write a custom essay sample on   Muslim beliefs about Allah Essay Example specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer We will write a custom essay sample on   Muslim beliefs about Allah Essay Example specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer