Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!m2.csc.ti.com!araja
From: araja@m2.csc.ti.com
Newsgroups: soc.religion.islam
Subject: Re: On the Meaning of "Muhammad the Seal of the Prophets" (1 of 2)
Message-ID: <75003@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu>
Date: 15 Dec 89 13:50:11 GMT
Sender: news@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu
Lines: 156
Approved: shari@wpi.edu


>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 meant to say was that your long lecture about different types of
interpretations etc. was not very pertinent.  All you needed to do was
to state it very simply and shortly, and not in a long-winded fashion.
As such, the arguments that you give seemed to me to be only intended
to put the reader in the frame of mind to accept YOUR particular inter-
pretations as being the only correct ones.

>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]. 

Is your article a discussion on religious beliefs, or were you intending
to write one on the sociology of religion?  I agree that what you have
said above is true.  But it only becomes pertinent if you intend to imply
that the readers are such a people.  Do you make such an assertion?  Please
let me know.

>This inherited beliefs define a narrow window
>through which the faithful followers will look at the world. 

Wrong thing to say.  What you mean is that "... these particular faithful
                                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
followers...", not just all faithful followers.  I consider myself to be 
a faithful follower, yet I've studied many other religions extensively.
When I was an undergraduate in college, I was a religious studies major
for a while.  Your remark is not applicable to almost any learned Muslim,
Christian, Hindu, Jew, whatever...

>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.

And in many cases literalism can be the correct approach.

>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.

Is there really such a thing as an absolute literalist?  When I studied the 
Scriptures, I tried to analyze both their literal and allegorical meanings.  
I doubt that there is any one person who is willing to be so narrow-minded 
as to take just a literalist's approach.  In the cases that you cited, 
however, the literalist's approach seemed to be the most reasonable one to 
take.  It might be appropriate for me to suggest that you take Occam's razor 
into account in these matters.

>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.

I disagree.  Let us consider your arguments:

>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? 

Because people insist on treating it as metaphorical, for one.   People
such as yourself.

>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. 

:-).  I do not differ on them on matters that I and they choose to define
as major matters.  This is why we agree that we three are all Muslims,
despite the fact that we disagree on minor matters.

>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.

Then let us invent a scale which calibrates these differences.  For all 
these schools, the differences occur only in the minor matters.  In major
matters, for example, the finality of the Prophethood, the major schools 
do NOT differ.  Thus, even by your own argument, the allegedly 
metaphorical nature of scripture does not imply that Mohammed was not the
last message.

>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?

Quite simply, the above is metaphorical in nature as well.  So it is only
true in certain circumstances.  So much for that objection...

>Perhaps the following explanation will clarify the issue for you:

No need.  I do not consider myself to be confused.  I do not think I need
clarification.

>.................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."

An assertion without support.  Also not very relevant.

>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.

True enough.  But not very relevant.  Unless you wish me to adopt a humble
attitude and an "open" mind so that you can fill it with your own opinions.
Neither is about to happen.  Sorry.

>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]

And?  Please make a tie between the above quotation.  Am I a person who
heart God has sealed and am devoid of knowledge?  Or what? 

>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]

An interesting question.  But then, would you care to point any fingers at
anyone and say that this verse is applicable to them?  Like myself, for 
example?  No?  I didna think so.  

Aside from the points that you have raised above, and assuming that they are
all correct about metaphorical interpretation, you also have to give a 
plausible reason as to why your own metaphorical arguments are better than 
the ones generally accepted by most Muslims.

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

>I respect your point of view.

And I yours.  There the matter rests.