Salaamun alayki,
I do not understand why this discussion is so heated up. We are just discussing ideas.
Anyways imo 48:29 says "Mohammed is the messenger of Allah..."
first this is a statement, second the statement was there 1000 years ago and is still here at present time and will be in the future.
Does this Mohammed not die if it was a person? So if it dies then it can for sure not be the Mohammed of The Quran, because the Mohammed of 48:29 in The Quran is always in present time. Note also that it is written as MohammedUN, thus a not specified Mohammed.
it is written in the same way as "Allahu rabbu Al3alameena" only difference is that it is not Al-LahUN as Allah is always specified and present.
Anyways this is how Allah showed me.
Also I like to say that there is nothing to feel cheated about, we are just discussing.
And there is no ban Mohammed campain.
As I already told, I have no answers yet for the questions.
The only thing I know at the moment is that from my study and with what Allah showed me, Mohammed of 48:29 can never be a name of a person, probably it is something like a title.
That's all I know.
And I also do not agree with MmKhan that it was Musa.
Anyways lets try not to get in 
mood 
I think this is a interesting subject and at the end of the day we will all learn more inshaAllah.
Salaam,
Bender
Salaam, Bender,
Thanks for your politeness saying that the discussion is heated up instead of saying that I was being too sharp or worse. I heated it up because I saw it going nowhere. I was trying to get the thing out with forceps, not even so I got it, but you at least answered what you could answer. Thank you. It was a deliberate but
not an illwilled of hostile heating. I appreciate brother mmkhan and you.
I remember in one of the threads that brother mmkhan said that the Arabic word "ism" does nto mean name. I think, after thinking it over myself, that that assumption might have something to do with the difficulty for him to say straight what he has in mind, if he knows it. "Ism" might not be a 100% equivalent of "name" in English but certainly in a big proportion it is equivalent. He opposed name to attribute if I don't remember wrong. Well, may be that opposition might be made in English but not necessarily in Arabic, and if we think of it, any name is named after attributing something to the named. Persons are named when they are born, but that is just a usage. Usually many things and persons through history have been named after the name they earned, not the name they were given at birth or inception.
I thank those of you who have cleared the question about the tanwin in names. I sort of had an idea that that did not make a name into a non-name, but as I did not recall axactly the rule, I did not say anything. In fact, again, it all comes from separating atributes from names. Al 3adil is a name of God, but, like names should be, it is not a void name, it is a name full of significance. So, seen from the point of view of the faithful, what is the reason for Muhammadun not being a name besides beeing an attribute since in Arabic, Quranic Arabic, both things go hand in hand? Anybody respoding to that denomination would be Muhammadun and could be named Mhammadun. Which Muhammadun? Obviously the Muhammadun at hand for the purpose that is being dealt with.
You say_
Anyways imo 48:29 says "Mohammed is the messenger of Allah..."
first this is a statement, second the statement was there 1000 years ago and is still here at present time and will be in the future.
Does this Mohammed not die if it was a person? So if it dies then it can for sure not be the Mohammed of The Quran, because the Mohammed of 48:29 in The Quran is always in present time. Note also that it is written as MohammedUN, thus a not specified Mohammed.
I have very great doubts on that and not because I think that it cannot be applied to anybody any time if she or he fulfills de conditions, but because the fact that it might include other people does most certainly not exclude the person then and there who was existant when it was said or revealed for the Qur'an. In fact it occurred to me long time ago, that the khatam an-nabiyin, if taken as last prophet, what it would mean would be that for those who believe in that prophet, that khatam, they would not be needing any other prophet, that is, they would have reached adult age as believers and faithful and would themselves emancipate and be for themselves and for their community their prophets, that is a community of universal prophethood. That is one way which I thought could be interpreted, which in itself is full of meaning. Obviously for those who did no benefit from the prophethood of Muhammadun, there might be other prophets, I do not know, but I see it as possible.
But then, even assuming that as a verified fact, what I do not get is why the need of keeping all the prophets previous to the transmitter of the Qur'an, and then do away with the transmitter fo the Qur'an as if it was a blot o something to be ashamed of. There is something very wrong there, unless a good explanation is given. So please if there is such explanation, once more, I request it for the purpose of understanding the whole thing and if there is something to it. If there was ever a prophet, then the khatam annabiyin certifies it, it would ridiculous that somebody who does not existe does any certifying.
So, Bender, thanks for your answer and let us see if brother mmkhan can and will explain further or not.
Salaam
