Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!rice!m2.csc.ti.com
From: araja@m2.csc.ti.com (Ali Raja)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.islam
Subject: On the Meaning of "Muhammad the Seal of the Prophets" (I of VI)
Message-ID: <3450@brazos.Rice.edu>
Date: 7 Dec 89 12:23:54 GMT
References: <3388@brazos.Rice.edu>
Sender: root@rice.edu
Lines: 87
Approved: shari@wpi.edu


In article <3388@brazos.Rice.edu> hakim@bigq.enet.dec.com
 writes:

>One is prone to slip into the pitfall of literalism, when one's faith becomes
>founded on imitation and one's religion becomes an inherited necessity in one's
>life, rather than an independently investigated reality. Jalalu'ddin-iRumi'
>[rest deleted]

This seem to be a cogent argument at first glance.  Let me try to
restate and see what you mean.  What you seem to be arguing is that 
a statement can be interpreted in various contexts, and there are 
many different contexts to intepret a statement in.  This seem fine
to me; consider that extreme literalism is just another context 
with which to attempt analysis.  

>The highly metaphorical nature of the Scripture often becomes a very challenging
>issue for the believers to determine the truest meaning behind every verse of
>the Qur'an.

There is no indication that the Scripture is so highly metaphorical that
it can not be interpreted by a human being with ordinary human
 intelligence.

>Remember the well known Tradition, where His Honor Muhammad says:
>"We say one word, and by it We mean seventy and two things." There are manifold
>meaning associated with each verse of the Qur'an. And an ocean of wisdom is
>laid hidden within each one of those meanings

I think that you are falling into the same trap that you warned us
about; of literalist interpretations.  When he meant that phrase, he
did not obviously intend it to be interpreted to mean that way for EACH
and EVERY phrase that he said.  I am willing to warrant that many of
the verses in the Quran are obvious..  To misquote somewhat "This is a
plain Scripture".  Your statements here seem to be little other than
circumstantial evidence to prove your main points. 

>I'd like to emphasize that I am not, God forbid, saying this in a sarcastic way.
>My sole purpose is to point out to a natural pitfall which forms with time in
>any religion.

The ways to deal with the "natural pitfall" is make absolutely sure that 
the original text of the Scriptures does not change, neither does the 
meaning of the words that the Scripture is written in change.  In this
fashion the Scriptures can interpreted by each and every generation 
of scholars to the benefit of the society.

>After the denials and denunciations which they uttered, (i.e. referring to Jews
>and Christians),  they protested  saying: "No independent Prophet, according to
>our Scriptures,  should arise after  Moses and Jesus to  abolish the Law of the
>Divine Revelation.  Nay, he that is to be made manifest (i.e. the Promised One)
>must needs fulfill the Law." Thereupon this verse, indicative of all the divine
>themes,  and  testifying  to  the  truth  that  the  flow  of  the grace of the
>All-Merciful can never cease, was revealed (i.e. by Muhammad): "And Joseph came
>to you  aforetime with clear  tokens, but ye ceased not to doubt of the message
>with which He  came to you, until, when He died, ye said, `God will by no means
>rise up a Messenger after Him.' Thus God misleadeth him who is the transgressor
>the doubter." [Qur'an 40-34] Therefore, understand from this  verse and know of
>a certainty that the people in every age, clinging to a verse of the Book, have
>uttered such  vain and absurd  sayings, contending that no Prophet should again
>be made manifest  to the world. Even as the Christian divines who, holding fast
>to the verses of the Gospel...have sought to explain that the law of the Gospel
>shall  at no time  be annulled, and  that no independent Prophet shall again be
>made manifest, unless He  confirmeth the Law of the Gospel.  Most of the people
>have become afflicted with the same spiritual disease. 

In other words, anyone who does not accept that there has to be a 
successor to Mohammed has become afflicted to with a spiritual
disease?  :-).

You are trying to draw this parallel - the Prophets are similar to each
other, eg. Mohammed and Joseph are similar to each other.  Now, if
someone says that there is no successor to the Prophet, then he is
lying.  A Muslim listener will accept this fact.  But, then you try
to draw an analogy between people who do not accept Mohammad's successors
and people who do not accept Joseph's successors.  Your analogy falls
apart here.  There is no reason to make this extrapolation.

>Even as thou  witness how the people of the Qur'an, like unto the people of the
>old, have allowed the  word "Seal of the Prophets" to veil their eyes. And yet,
>they themselves testify to this verse: "None knoweth the interpretation thereof
>but God and they that are well-grounded in knowledge." [Qur'an 3:7]'

True enough.  But, with all due respect, there is no indication
that people who accept Bahai'ullah are well-grounded in knowledge and
those who do not accept him are not.  Neither is the converse true.
As such, I fail to see the relevance of your above posting.