Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bigq.enet.dec.com!hakim
From: hakim@bigq.enet.dec.com
Newsgroups: soc.religion.islam
Subject: Re: On the Meaning of "Muhammad the Seal of the Prophets" (1 of 2)
Message-ID: <75002@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu>
Date: 15 Dec 89 13:46:23 GMT
Sender: news@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu
Lines: 153
Approved: sadeghi@oxy.edu


Ali Raja has offered an opposite point of view to my original posting:

>>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]

and said in his reply:

>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;

Indeed I have suggested in my article that a statement can be interpreted in
different contexts. Yet, I am not sure if you have fully understood the point I
am trying to make here, since your statement given above does not address the
the point raised in my argument. What I have said here is that there are people
who are born into a given religion, and die within that given religion, without
ever understanding what they have believed in, and why they believe in it
[people with blind faith]. This inherited beliefs define a narrow window
through which the faithful followers will look at the world. There are also the
literalists, who see the truth in the outward appearance of what they read.
Literalism is another human approach to religion which is a subset of blind
faith, and it too offers a narrow outlook to the person. To both groups, there
is only one way to understand the Scripture, outside of which nothing else can
exist.

>consider that extreme literalism is just another context
>with which to attempt analysis.

I am not discrediting literalism as a POSSIBLE approach, I am rejecting
literalism as the ONLY approach. To a person whose approach to religion is
independent investigation of truth, this is an obligation to also consider the
literal value of the Scripture. I am not sure if the literalists are going to
give other interpretations a chance.

>>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.

I am by no means suggesting that Scripture can not be interpreted by human
beings of ordinary intelligence. The point I am trying to make is that, if
the Scripture is capable of being interpreted, then it is metaphorical.

Let us say that the Scripture is indeed not metaphorical. If this the case, one
might ask, why is it then that there are so many schools of thought within a
given religion? If Scripture is such a plain truth, then what I understand of
a given verse of the Scripture, you must confirm, and what you see as truth, I
must submit to. Yet, we all differ in our opinions and understandings. In fact
you differ with another Muslim, and both of you differ with the third
coreligionist. My friend, every cause can be studied through its effects.
Considering the existence of the various schools of thought as an effect, then
one can assign the metaphorical nature of the Scripture, as a possible cause
for such degree of diversity in religion.

Please allow me to share with you two quote from the Bible about the nature of
the Scripture. Haply this can support the idea under discussion:

"All this Jesus said to the crowds in parables; indeed he said nothing to them
 without parables."					Matt 13

"I will open my mouth in parables, I will utter what has been hidden since the
 foundation of the world."				Ps. 78:2

The next question which might be raised for the seeker is that why should the
Word of God be presented to mankind in a language of metaphors and parables?
Perhaps the following explanation will clarify the issue for you:

"...human knowledge is of two kinds. One is the knowledge of things perceptible
to the senses-that is to say, things which the eye, or ear, or smell, or taste
or touch can perceive, which are called objective or sensible. So the sun,
because it can be seen... and in the same way sounds are sensible because the
ear hear them; perfumes are sensible because they can be inhaled and the sense
of smell perceives them,...
The other kind of human knowledge is intellectual that is to say, it is the
reality of the intellect; it has no outward form and no place and is not
perceptible to the senses... So love is a mental reality and not sensible; for
this reality the ear does not hear, the eye does not see, the smell does not
perceive the taste does not discern, the touch does not feel... In explaining
these intellectual realities, one is obliged to express them by sensible
figures because in exterior existence there is nothing that is not material...
For example, grief and happiness are intellectual things; when you wish to
express those spiritual qualities you say:" My heart is oppressed; my heart is
dilated, 'though the heart of man is neither oppressed nor dilated... Another
example: you say, 'such an individual made great progress,' though he is
remaining in the same place; or again, "such a one's position was exalted,'
although, like everyone else, he walks upon the earth. This exaltation and this
progress are spiritual states and intellectual realities,... So the symbol of
knowledge is light, and of ignorance, darkness; but reflect, is knowledge
sensible light, or ignorance sensible darkness? No, they are merely symbols...
Then it is evident that the dove which ascended upon Christ was not a material
dove, but it was a spiritual state, which, that it might be comprehensible, was
expressed by a sensible figure. Thus in the Old Testament it is said that God
appeared as a pillar of fire: this does not signify the material form; it is an
intellectual reality which is expressed by a sensible image."

					Abdu'l-Baha', Some Answered Questions

Understanding and agreement on the true meaning of the Scripture can only come
about through a humble and prayerful attitude displayed by all believers. Yet,
selfish interests could often cloud the believers' vision, and as a result
disagreement, hatred and division come about.

>>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".

Yes indeed. The Book testifies to this truth: "A Book whose verses (signs) are
made plain-An Arabic Qur'an, for men of knowledge." [The Made Plain: 2]. Yet,
one cannot discredit the warning: "It is thus that God hath sealed up the hearts
of those who are devoid of knowledge." [Houd:59]

A close examination of the Holy Qur'an suggests that it is composed of Laws of
God, warnings and prophecies, and mostly stories of the past events (through
which Prophet Muhammad proves the truth of His own revelation, and admonishes
His followers of not following the path of error as the people before them did.
The laws are clearly very straightforward (I will not discuss the disagreement
among different sects of Islam in regards to the application of these laws,
regardless of these laws being very plain.). This will leave us with more than
three quarter of the book which is either story, prophecy or warning, the
language of which is nothing but parables and metaphors: "And now have we set
before men in this Qur'an, every kind of parable..." [Houd:58], and; "Many will
He (i.e. God) mislead by such parables (i.e. metaphors) and many guide: but
none will He mislead thereby except the wicked..." [2:24]
Be fair my friend! Would you say that this major part of the Book is plain?
Would you say that it is plain enough for those about whom the Book says:
"Hearts have they with which they understand not, and eyes have they with which
they see not!" [Qur'an 7:178]

>Your statements here seem to be little other than
>circumstantial evidence to prove your main points.

I respect your point of view.
						Part I of II
Regards,

Kamran Hakim
hakim@bigq.dec.com