Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!crackers!m2c!wpi.WPI.EDU!omar.wpi.edu!shari From: goer@midway.uchicago.edu (Richard L. Goerwitz) Newsgroups: soc.religion.islam Subject: Re: A HADITH ABOUT WAR IN THE MIDDLE EAST ?? (or my misunderstanding) Message-ID: <1990Dec14.011959.9564@wpi.WPI.EDU> Date: 14 Dec 90 01:19:59 GMT References: <1990Dec12.022307.20468@nntp-server.caltech.edu> <1990Dec13.142110.4048@wpi.WPI.EDU> Sender: news@wpi.WPI.EDU (News) Organization: University of Chicago Lines: 97 Approved: shari@wpi.wpi.edu Originator: shari@omar.wpi.edu Nntp-Posting-Host: omar.wpi.edu This posting has relevance to Jewish, Christian, and Muslim views of prophecy. It is not intended to be inflammatory. Though it is cast as a response to Nasir's posting, it is in fact a register of some very personal thoughts I've had on the matter (or rather, doubts). I've spoken to Christians and Jews many times on the matter, and have not really felt satisfied with their responses. I would like very much to hear what Muslims have to say. Re prophecies, which (as Nasir said) *by definition* refer to the future: > The reason that these prophecies were made in a so called > encrypted language which prompts us to read between the lines > was because the people of that time would not have understood > the concept. The reason, many might argue, that they were written in encrypted language is that they do not have any but the vaguest reference to future events. Even if we do claim that they point to specific fu- ture events, doesn't their very encrypted nature make them impossi- ble to decode reliably until after the fact? Actually, even after the fact, one could impose many, many world events on obscure pro- phecies, and have no external proof of whether the event actually confirms the prediction. In effect, what I am saying is that an en- crypted prophecy could be seen as no prophecy at all! > For example, if prophet Mohammad (PBUH) had said: > > "and the people would fight over oil that helped in > running the automobiles", > > the people would have certainly gotten more and more confused > since they did not know that oil could also be made to run > something totally made of iron (let alone understand the word > "CAR" :-). How about: Some day men will build machines called automobiles that will transport people the way donkeys and camels do now. These ma- chines will require periodic filling with an oil derived from the earth. This oil will become so precious that men will enter into wars over it. The Prophet was not only a man of God, but an intelligent person. I do not see how it would have been beyond him, or beyond God himself, to speak of such events in a way that would not have confused anyone. Frankly I don't see any point in veiled prophecy, except to give be- lievers in the prophecy something to argue fruitlessly about. > As an answer to a question by one of his disciples (ashaabah) about > the lifestyle of the people of the further age, the prophet > (PBUH) replied [paraphrased], that there would come a time when > people would ride on horses made of iron and eat with weapons. I'd very much like to see this quoted, with a reference. > I don't think that there is such an issue about legitamacy > in interpreting what our Books and Prophets said as there > is about getting guidance from these sources and strenghtning > our beliefs. After all, we muslims do believe that the Holy > Qur'an is a guidance for ` ALL ' times. Hence the interpretations > that were made at the time of the Khilafat were, and SHOULD be > different from those that are made today since those were different > times from today and people back then had different needs. There are two ways to make the revealed Word valid for all times. One way is to say that it refers, in a cryptic way, to all social, econonomic, and political periods. Another way is to say that, although it refers outwardly to events and beliefs of a specific time-period, the lessons it teaches about morality, ethics, and generally about one's way of life, can be applied to any era. It seems to me that you opt for the first and second viewpoints, both at the same time. I merely ask why not only the second? If you opt for the second, it gets you out of some tight corners. If prophecy is cast in terms of the language and beliefs of a given time-period, then it is, in effect, relative. So, for instance, it might be valid in one time period not to eat port, while in another time-period the principles which gave rise to the practice of avoiding pork might no longer apply in quite the same manner. The principles, in effect, remain constant. Their reflection in human language and historical circumstances, however, change. There is a grand old tradition in both Jewish and Christian heritages of this belief that God essentially had to "baby talk" to people, and put things in terms of very simple ideas that they could understand and live. I'll wager that there is somewhere a Muslim tradition of this "divine ac- commodation" to people, and that the extreme literalist view is not the only one around. Today this issue separates reform from conservative and "orthodox" Jews. It also separates "main line" Protestants from the old Bible thumpers. Incidentally, I hope my responses are not taken as hostile, anti-Muslim drivel. Some of the most thoughtful statements about ethics and morality I've ever seen have come from this newsgroup. I have every reason to ex- pect a cogent response. -Richard (goer@sophist.uchicago.edu)