jzubairi@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Junaid Ahmed Zubairi) (12/10/90)
= ================================================== In an Urdu selection from Sahih Muslim, I read a Hadith which predicts events before the Dooms day (Qiamat). I am surprised and confused by the words of this Hadith. It says that there will be a war among the nations of the world in Middle East( near River Farat) in which 99% of the people will be killed. (Maybe it means 99% of the armies will be killed). The fight will be near river Farat and will be over gold. If you take GOLD = BLACK GOLD = OIL and consider RIVER FARAT (IS IN IRAQ) and the words (nations) then the conflict referred to can be the present Gulf crisis. But I am not sure so I am asking help of other knowledgable netters in understanding this hadith. Junaid Zubairi
goer@midway.uchicago.edu (Richard L. Goerwitz) (12/12/90)
In article <1990Dec10.155648.8624@wpi.WPI.EDU> zubairi@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Junaid Ahmed Zubairi) writes: > >================================================== >In an Urdu selection from Sahih Muslim, I read a Hadith >which predicts events before the Dooms day (Qiamat).... >It says that there will be a war among the nations of the >world in Middle East( near River Farat) in which 99% of the >people will be killed. (Maybe it means 99% of the armies >will be killed). The fight will be near river Farat and will be >over gold. > > >If you take GOLD = BLACK GOLD = OIL >and consider RIVER FARAT (IS IN IRAQ) >and the words (nations) then the conflict referred to can be the >present Gulf crisis. This raises an important interpretive issue that Christians and Jews are also concerned about. Is it legitimate to superimpose meanings on words that were not known in the Prophet's day? Certainly, "black gold" only originated in a period when oil was of great industrial importance. Before then it was mainly just greasy black stuff, and wasn't even all that easy to find. To say that a hadith predicts a war over oil therefore superimposes on the words something the Prophet could not have intended them to mean. Are such interpretations legitimate? Like I said, Jews and Chris- tians are divided on this issue. The Rabbis regularly superimpose meanings on the text that cannot have been intended. So also many Christians, especially Catholics before about 1900 (one of the great Protestant-Catholic differences was on how strictly to ad- here to the literal-historical sense). I'm interested in what Muslims have to say about these issues. -Richard (goer@sophist.uchicago.edu)
nnk@cs.wayne.edu (Nasir Naseem Khawaja) (12/13/90)
In article <1990Dec12.022307.20468@nntp-server.caltech.edu> goer@midway.uchicago.edu (Richard L. Goerwitz) writes: >Is it legitimate to superimpose meanings on words that were not known >in the Prophet's day? Certainly, "black gold" only originated in a period >when oil was of great industrial importance. Before then it was mainly >just greasy black stuff, and wasn't even all that easy to find. To say >that a hadith predicts a war over oil therefore superimposes on the words >something the Prophet could not have intended them to mean. Since we (Muslims, Christians and Jews) believe that our respective prophets knew of the events before they happened (i.e, could see into the future, hence the word "prophet"), it should not be surprising to us that they mentioned the happenings that would occur centuries from their time. 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. 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" :-). Which prompts me to quote some more of the prophecies that the prophet (PBUH) made. I don't have any written proof of these with the appropriate bibliography, so don't ask me for them.... 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. The people at that instance were very surprised as to how a horse made of iron could walk but we see that today's cars can be called "horses made of iron (even saw a commercial that compared a horse to a truck :-)" and even though riding the camel was the preffered means of transportation, the Prophet (PBUH) chose to mention a horse and we see that today, we measure the strength of an engine by it's "HORSEPOWER". As for the explanation of people eating with weapons, the cuttlery we use today IS (and can be opted for) weapons. However, it is understandable that those people in the Arabian peninsula, who were used to eating with their bare hands, found the whole idea quite new (not to mention downright painful :-). >Are such interpretations legitimate? 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. >-Richard (goer@sophist.uchicago.edu) Nasir. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ./ \. Nasir Khawaja | :: :: >>>>>>>>>>>>> ./ | \. Wayne State University -.- | :: :: >>>>>>>>>>>> ./ \. Detroit, Mi 48202 | -.-:: :: >>>>>>>>>>> ./ | \. (313) 577-8513 ___ | | :: :: >>>>>>>>>> ./ \. __/__/ | @ :: :: >>>>>>>>> .///////|\\\\\\\. nnk@cs.wayne.edu ____/ \___/ :: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
goer@midway.uchicago.edu (Richard L. Goerwitz) (12/14/90)
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)
nnk@cs.wayne.edu (Nasir Naseem Khawaja) (12/18/90)
In article <1990Dec14.011959.9564@wpi.WPI.EDU>, goer@midway.uchicago.edu (Richard L. Goerwitz) writes: >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. Now, the people might ask what a machine is. An average Arabian in those times had no clue as to what the concept of a machine meant (in some underdeveloped countries, some people even today have no idea as to what a machine actually is :-). It is common practice that when you teach something to a person who does not know even the basics of that thought (a child, for example), you tend to make things relative to that person's surroundings (birds and the bees, as compared to graphic sex narrations :-). That is what exactly the prophets did. What, do you suppose, are the concepts of Heaven and Hell? They are simply some prophecies made by our books and our Prophets (PBUThem). The version of Hell to us is a burning pit of fire with all sorts of pain inflicting beings present. The concept of a Heaven (or Paradise) to us is a place where all our wishes would come true. Do you suppose that really will be the case? In actuality, our standards of pain and joy, reward and punish- ment at the time of judgement would be quite, quite different from those that we have here. The thoughts of Heaven and Hell were presented to us in such a way only because they were in relation to our surroundings here in the world. We can relate extreme pain to the burning sensation felt if touched by fire. Our eternel wish is that all our wishes would come true so that we can cruise in that new Porsche we saw in the commercial last night ;^). So you see, our needs and wants will be quite diferent in the hereafter and hence Allah provided us with concepts that we could be comfortable in believing. >> 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. So would I. I simply cannot remember the name of the book I read this from. Anybody out there who does knows anything about it?.. please post. >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. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ And that's exactly what we (Muslims) don't (and should'nt) do. When we are clearly instructed by our holy book that those writings ARE for all times, we should simply say: "Aaman to bi'llahe" [ I believe ] I know this sounds quite ridged on my part, but this sole phrase (I believe) has kept us from changing our book as the Jews and the Christians have, just to "get out of some tight corners". >-Richard (goer@sophist.uchicago.edu) Nasir. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ./ \. Nasir Khawaja | :: :: >>>>>>>>>>>>> ./ | \. Wayne State University -.- | :: :: >>>>>>>>>>>> ./ \. Detroit, MI 48202 | -.-:: :: >>>>>>>>>>> ./ | \. (313) 577-8513 ___ | | :: :: >>>>>>>>>> ./ \. __/__/ | @ :: :: >>>>>>>>> .///////|\\\\\\\. nnk@cs.wayne.edu ____/ \___/ :: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
arma@kaa.eng.ohio-state.edu (Lama Hamandi) (12/19/90)
assalamualaykum brothers and sisters In several articles, people try to ask about the legitimacy of interpreting ahadith (sayings of the prophet) like the hadith that talks about war in the Gulf and the hadith? of the horses of iron ? When reading both articles, many points came to my mind, I hope I can state them all: 1. First about the legitimacy of doing interpretations to Ahadith. Well I am not a aalem (scholar) but I will try to analyze it a little bit. What are we benefiting from saying that the prophet knew about these things ? Did any of the mentioned ahadith and their interpretation give us something that will benefit us or is it just like a crossword puzzle (you solve it and then you throw it away) ? In my opinion and i may be wrong, we should let the ulamaa (scholars) who have memorized and understoud Quran and many ahadith (sayings of the prophet) do their own analysis of ahadith and as long as we are less than ulamaa we should justify our interpretations with the sayings of learned men (ulamaa). Also in every hadith we should look after the things that benefit us, by reading both hadiths (the gulf and the iron horse) I didn't see anything to infer other than that the prophet knew about the future, this leads me to my other point. 2. The prophet in some cases knows about the future but he knows ONLY what allah (god in arabic) told him nothing more. The prophet CANNOT by himself see in the future, he is an ordinary man with the only thing that distinguishes him from the other humans, his message and him being chosen by Allah to convey that message. Nothing is divine about him other than that. We should respect him and love him but not raise him to a level where he shares some divinity with god (like knowing al-ghaib, the future). It seems to me when I read the article about the "horses of iron" that the author beleived that one of the characteristics of the prophet is that he can tell the future, well that is not a characteristic but telling the future is something revealed by Allah and not an ability of a prophet. I had a third point that I forgot may allah forgive me for what I have done wrong.
goer@midway.uchicago.edu (Richard L. Goerwitz) (12/19/90)
In article <1990Dec17.210538.1475@wpi.WPI.EDU> nnk@cs.wayne.edu (Nasir Naseem Khawaja) writes: > > So you see, our needs and wants will be quite diferent in the > hereafter and hence Allah provided us with concepts that we > could be comfortable in believing. Very interesting. > ...When we are clearly instructed by our holy book that > those writings ARE for all times, we should simply say: > > "Aaman to bi'llahe" > [ I believe ] > > I know this sounds quite ridged on my part, but this sole > phrase (I believe) has kept us from changing our book as > the Jews and the Christians have, just to "get out of some > tight corners". I'd be interested in some examples of where Jews and Christians have changed their books to get themselves out of tight corners. I often see this statement made, but I've actually never seen anyone cite spe- cific examples. I believe I could learn much from such examples. This question isn't directed at Nasir only. Please, anyone chime in. Thanks to Nasir, by the way, for a very enlightening response. -Richard -- [Note by a moderator: Since one of the 2 conditions for postings in soc.religion.islam is that they should be at least in part relevan to Islam, any replies to Mr. Goerwitz`s question which analyze only the Christian and Jewish scripture and NOT the Quranic standpoint will not be accepted. -Behnam]