[soc.religion.islam] On the Meaning of "Muhammad the Seal of the Prophets"

hakim@bigq.enet.dec.com (12/05/89)

Dear Behnam Sadeghi,

I'd like to apologize to you for the length of these articles. However, the
nature of the question you had raised was such that it required an in-depth
discussion of various Islamic Scriptures and Traditions. I hope that I have
addressed your question to your satisfaction. Let us discuss the question you
had raised. You had mentioned:

>I am confused about some point in the Bahai faith and hope that you
>may be able to clear it up.  

>  I learned from a posting by Mr. (or Ms.?) Mcguire that according
>to the Bahai faith Prophet Mohammad was the messanger of God sent
>for *his time*.  And I suspect that in your faith Bahaullah is
>considered a new prophet.  The past two sentenses-if they are correct-
>are what create the confusion in my mind.
>  If Prophet Mohammad was a messenger of God, then we should accept
>that his statement were true.  He specifically stated that the Quran
>is revealation from God and that is also stated in the Quran itself.
>The Quran, however, calls Mohammad "Khatamon Nabieen" literally means
>"The Seal of the Prophets."  Furthermore, there are quite some narrations
>from Mohammad himself where he says that he is the last prophet.  Es-
>pecially, during his last pilgrimage to Mecca, in front of a huge
>multitude, he declared that he is the last prophet and that no prophet will
>come after him.  So many people witnessed the speech on the Last Pilgrimage
>and reported it that there can not be too much doubt as to its
>authenticity.
>  What I am wondering about is how are the above mentioned facts
>reconciled with the Bahai beliefs mentioned earlier?  The only way
>of reconciling the two that I can think of would be to adopt the
>attitude that Islam has towards the current Christian and Judaist
>scriptures; namely, these books contain some truth but there have been
>corrupted or tempered with through time and consequently they cannot
>be held to be the absolute words of God.  Is this the attitude that the
>Bahai faith adopts towards Islam?

Know my friend that the secret of reconciliation between the traditions you
are thinking of, in supporting the finality of Prophet Muhammad, and the Faith
of Islam, and the teachings of the Baha'i Faith on progressive revelation,
resides in the re-examination of the Muslim Scripture and traditions. 

Baha'is do by no means suggest that the verses of the Holy Qur'an have been
corrupted by the Muslims. Baha'is believe that some of the verses of the Qur'an
have been taken literally by Muslims, and as a result certain understandings of
various theological concepts have evolved throughout the past fourteen centuries
which are not in conformity with other teachings of Muhammad, and those of the
Imams. 

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. 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. Yet, if one's approach to the
verses of the scripture tends to be literal, and if one's perception of those
verses becomes limited to their words, then one is susceptible to failure in
understanding the inner significance of the metaphors, at the price of the outer
appearance of the sentences. 

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-i Rumi'
the renown Persian poet in his book Mathnawi addresses this concept of blind
approach to the Scripture as follows: 

"The Sage of Ghazna (*) told the mystic story 
				   To his veiled hearers, in an allegory:
If those who err see naught in the Qur'an
				   But only words, it's not to wonder on;
Of all the sun's fire, lighting up the sky
				   Only the warmth can reach a blind man's eye."

(*) Referring to another Sufi poet Sana'i.

In the Holy Qur'an 2:24 Muhammad, through the tongue of Revelation says:

"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..." 

Remember the saying of the Qur'an: 'Have they eyes, but they see not, have they
ears, but they hear not, have they minds but they understand not....'. The state
of the scriptural literalists must be considered within the context of this 
verse.

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.

Baha'u'llah addresses the Qur'anic concept of the "Seal of the Prophets", as 
follows:

`Likewise,  in this day, thou hast heard the  people impute  similar charges to
this Revelation (i.e.  referring to the  Revelation of Qa'im), saying: "He hath
compiled these  words from  the words of  old;" or  "these words are spurious."
Vain and haughty are their sayings, low their estate and station. 

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. 

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]'

						Book of Certitude p. 212-213

							Part I of VI
Regards,

Kamran Hakim
hakim@bigq.dec.com				Tel#508-568-6925

hakim@bigq.enet.dec.com (12/05/89)

Continuation from part II:

Let us now examine the opinions of various Muslim theologians, from both Shi'ah
and Sunni backgrounds, on the meaning of the term Khatam'u-Nabieen.I will first
focus on this, from a Shi'ah perspective since, the individual who raised this
question is a Shi'ah Muslim, then I will discuss the Sunni view as well as some
other views:

Mulla Fatth-i-Kashani, who is one of the highly respected Shi'ah scholars, in
his commentary on Manhaj-ul-Sadegheen, addresses the concept of Khatam'u-Nabieen
as follows: 

"Muhammad's fear became a reality, after He married Zei'nab. After marriage,
 the idolaters, and His enemies started criticizing Him, and accusing Him of 
 hypocrisy. They'd say, Muhammad teaches His followers that it is unlawful for
 a father to marry his son's divorced wife, while He has married Zayd's wife. 
 -Zayd was purchased by Muhammad and freed to live as a free man, and Muhammad 
 had adopted him as His son. Arabs of the time of Jahliah, considered one's 
 adopted son as the real son. This is why they started to accuse Muhammad of 
 hypocrisy.- As a result of this criticism, God revealed to Muhammad, Peace be 
 upon Him!, as reflected in the Su'rih of the Confederates, that, Muhammad is
 not  the father of any man (i.e. any male offsprings) among you (since, no
 surviving  male offsprings remained after He passed away). As a result, the
 law of not marrying the divorced wife of a son would not apply to Muhammad.
 Furthermore, God calls Muhammad an Apostle of God, in that same verse,
 (suggesting that He was the spiritual father of all Arabs, and Zayd was simply
 an Arab with no blood relationship to Him). Moreover, the verse identifies
 Muhammad as the seal  of the prophets, that is to say, since He did not have
 any surviving male offsprings to inherit prophethood from Him, thus,
 prophethood was sealed with Him. That is to say, no prophets shall appear 
 after Him...
 All of Muhammad's male offsprings died in early childhood, prior to Muhammad's 
 own passing, thus, this verse of the Qur'an came into fulfillment."

In the same book [i.e. his commentary on Manhaj-ul-Sadegheen], Mulla Fatth-i-
Kashani, offers a tradition attributed to Muhammad, where He says:

"I am Muhammad, and I am Ahmad and I am that resurrector, through Whom God
 shall resurrect His people. And I am the last, after Me there shall be no other
 prophet."

Also, he offers another tradition, in the same book, where, Muhammad the 
Messenger of God tells Ali, Peace be upon Him!:

"If it was allowed that after me there be another prophet, that would have been
 you, and no one but you."

Allamih Jallal-u-Din Soivotti in Jami-ul-Saghir quotes Ayeshih (one of the
wives of Prophet Muhammad), who had quoted Muhammad saying:

"No prophet shall appear after Me, but Omar-ibn-Khattab." [For the information
 of the non-Muslim readers, Omar was one of Muhammad's son-in-laws, who agreed
 to become the 2nd Khalif after Abu-Bakr].

[Clearly, the concept of no Nabi, or prophet,  appearing after Muhammad must 
have been associated with His immediate successorship, and had nothing to do
with coming of future Messengers from God. Otherwise, why would Muhammad want
to discuss Omar's -the second Khalif's- name in this tradition]. 

Many of the Shi'ah commentators believe in a literal meaning of the term Khatam-
u-Nabieen (Seal of the Prophets, after Whom no other Messengers of God shall
come), however, there are other commentators who believe differently:

Sheikh Sadoogh, another highly respected Shi'ah scholar/theologian argues in his
book, Ekmaal-al-Din vol I:

"All the Messengers of God who appeared prior to Muhammad, were succeeded by a 
Nabi (i.e. a prophet). Adam was a Rasool (Messenger of God), and His successor
was Shais the Nabi (Seth the prophet). Noah was a Messenger of God and His
successor was Saam the Nabi (Shem the prophet). Abraham, Moses, Jesus and David 
(peace be upon Them!), were also God's Messengers, Whose successors were Isaac, 
Jashua, Simon (St. Peter) and Solomon Who were all prophets. However, the
successors of Muhammad, Rasool-Allah (the Messenger of God), were not called
Nabis (prophets). They were referred to  as Imams. Therefore, Ali was not a
Nabi, Hasan was not a Nabi, Hossein was not a Nabi, etc...., since, with the
Manifestation of Muhammad, the usage of the term Nabi was abandoned (i.e. He
was Khatam-u-Nabieen), and ended. As Muhammad was greater than the previous
Messengers, so were His appointed successors (i.e. Imams) were greater than
Nabis (prophets)." 

This commentary of Sheikh Sadoogh appears to clearly reason out the inner 
significance of traditions such as: "Seal of the prophets", "There will be no
prophets after me....".

Among other Shi'ah sources there is a Hadith (tradition) recorded by Ibn-i-Shahr
Ashoob in his book, "Managhib". The very same Hadith can also be found in vol
IX of Bahar-ul-Anvar of Allamih Majlesi. This Hadith is from Imam Ali, (Peace
be upon Him!), where He discusses the meaning of the term Khatam-u-Nabieen.
After describing the ascendancy of His own station, Ali says: 

"...Anyone who disagrees with me, has disagreed with God, and in arrogance has
 surpassed all others. No prophet has achieved the station of prophethood except
 through the Khatam of Nabovvat (i.e. literally meaning prophethood) he received
 from Muhammad. And Khatam is a ring. Only after receiving the Khatam (ring) of
 Nabovvat, one can be called a prophet. This is why Muhammad has been called
 Khatam'u-Nabieen in the Qur'an....." Then He says: "Muhammad is the Seyyed
 (master) of the Nabieen (prophets), and I am the Seyyed and master of the
 Vaseein (guardians and successors). 

Clearly Ali's explanation of Khatam'u-Nabeein is drastically different than the
meaning the literalist Muslims have given to it. There does not appear to be
any implications whatsoever about cessation of revelation after His Holiness
Muhammad. 

						Part III of VI
Regards,

Kamran Hakim
hakim@bigq.dec.com				Tel#508-568-6925

hakim@bigq.enet.dec.com (12/05/89)

Continuation from part V:

Now, let us examine the validity of this view about the meaning of the Day of
Resurrection, based on the traditions of Muhammad and those of the Imams. 
In his commentary on Manhaj-ul-Sadegheen, Mulla Fatth-i- Kashani, offers a
tradition attributed to Muhammad, where He says: 

"I am Muhammad, and I am Ahmad and I am that resurrector, through Whom God
 shall resurrect His people...."

This quote appear to suggest that the appearance of Muhammad corresponded to 
the Day of Resurrection for "His people", "God's people", or "the people of the
Book", (Christians and Jews).

Allamih Majlesi, in his book Bahar'ul-Anvar Vol 13 page 50 mentions a tradition
from Imam Sadigh: 

"Moffadil said, that I asked Imam Sadigh that why has there not been a date
 established for the appearance of the Qa'im? He said; since, the manifestation 
 of Qa'im is that same "hour" and "resurrection" recorded in the Qur'an, whose
 knowledge is with God, and no one but God can unveil it." 

That is to say, according to Imam Sadigh the Day of the appearance of the Qa'im
corresponds with the Day of Resurrection for the followers of Islam.

I hope that the two quotations given above validate the absurdity of the popular
belief about the Day of Resurrection. Moreover, I hope that it has become
apparent that both Islam, and the Qur'an are to remain intact UNTIL the Day of
the appearance of the Promised Qa'im of the House of Muhammad. Then apparently
it is up to the Qa'im to determine whether Muslims are to follow the Qur'an, or
the Book He is going to reveal. 

Now that it has been established that the "Day of Resurrection" is indeed the
Day of the appearance of the Qa'im, let us see when is this Day of Resurrection?
In the Su'rih of Al-Sujdih (Adoration):4 we find God revealing to His Holiness
Muhammad:

"From the Heaven to the earth He governeth all things: hereafter shall they
 come up to Him on a day whose length shall be a thousand of such years as ye
 reckon."

This quotation establishes a timeline of ONE THOUSAND YEARS for the dispensation
of Islam. As you can see, that the verse quoted above suggests; "...hereafter
shall they come up to Him (i.e. God)....", which explicitly refers to the time
that they will arise before their God, or the time they will be resurrected. 
Thus the quote given above, suggests: "....hereafter shall they BE RESURRECTED
on a day whose length shall be a thousand of such years as ye reckon." . 

Notice how clearly Sadigh, that essence of knowledge identifies the day of
resurrection with the appearance of Qa'im, in the tradition of Mofaddil quoted
above, without directly referring to the one thousand years timeline for the
appearance of the twelfth Imam, per Al-Sujdih (Adoration):4. 

Moreover, according to another Tradition; Mufaddil asked Imam Sadigh saying: 

"'What of the signs of His (i.e. Qa'im's) manifestation, O my master?' He
 replied: 'In the year sixty (i.e. 1260 A.H.), His Cause (i.e. religion) shall
 be made manifest, and His name shall be proclaimed.'". 

Reference to the year sixty, is an allegorical way to describe 1260 A.H., which
is exactly 1000 years (which according to Adoration:4 is the day of the coming
of the Qa'im) after 260 A.H., which is the year of the passing of Imam Hasan-i-
Asghari, the 11th Imam of the House of the Prophet. 

The Ba'b addresses this timeline explicitly in His Book, Baya'n, as follows:

"....And from  the moment when  the Tree  of Baya'n  [i.e. The Ba'b is referring
to Himself]  appeared until it  disappeareth is  the Resurrection of the Apostle
of  God,  as  is  divinely foretold in  the Qur'an;  the beginning of which  was
when  two  hours  and  eleven  minutes  had  passed  on the eve of the fifth  of
Jamadiyu'l-Avval,  1260  A.H. [May 22 1844 A.D.], which is the year 1270 of  the
Declaration of  the Mission  of Muhammad. This was  the beginning  of the Day of
Resurrection of  the Qur'an, and  until the disappearance  of the Tree of divine
Reality is the Resurrection of the Qur'an."    [The Persian Baya'n II:7]

The concept of the 1260 years have also been mentioned in the Book of Daniel 
(Old Testament), and the Book of Revelation (New Testament). Interestingly
enough, the Promised Qa'im of Shiet Islam, or the Promised Mihdi of Sunni Islam
is the same Messenger awaited by Jews (i.e. Elijah), and by Christians (i.e. the
return of John the Baptist), who is going to appear and  pave the way for the
appearance of Christ, the Glory of God.

There are other traditions from the Imams of the Faith, which explicitly refers
to the Qa'im or Mihdi, as a law-giver, and an author of a new religion. Perhaps
the following few quotations will shed some light on this issue, which has been
the cause of much confusion among the majority of Muslims throughout the past
millennium. 

According to a Tradition recorded in the volume 13 of Bahar'ul-Anvar of Majlesi:

"In our Qa'im there shall be four signs from four Prophets. Moses, Jesus, Joseph
 and Muhammad. The sign from Moses, is fear and expectation; from Jesus, that
 which was spoken of Him; from Joseph, imprisonment and dissimulation; from
 Muhammad, the Revelation of a Book similar to the Qur'an." 

Furthermore, in the Tradition of Arba'in it is recorded: 

"Out of Bani-Hashim there shall come forth a Youth Who shall reveal new laws.
 He shall summon the people unto Him, but none will heed His call. Most of His
 enemies will be the divines (i.e. the religious leaders). His bidding they
 will not obey, but will protest  saying: 'This is contrary to that which hath
 been handed down unto us by the  Imams of the Faith." 

Moreover, Imam Sadiq is recorded to have said: 

"There shall appear a Youth from Bani-Hashim, Who will bid the people plight
 fealty unto Him. His Book will be a new Book, unto which He shall summon  the
 people to pledge their faith. Stern is His Revelation unto the Arab. If ye hear
 it about Him, hasten unto Him." 

Considering all the traditions and verses quoted above one can either implicitly
or explicitly conclude the following:

1- The term Khatam'u-Nabieen has several inner meanings, non of which suggest
   cessation of Revelation from God
2- Islam is not everlasting, but it has a special term and time; 
3- Islam and the Qur'an are valid until the Day of Resurrection;
4- The day of resurrection is the time of the appearance of the Qa'im or the
   12th Imam;
5- The day of resurrection is established to happen in 1000 years.
6- Therefore the day of the appearance of the Qa'im is within 1000 years from
   some point in the Islamic dispensation (i.e. 260 A.H. year of the passing of
   the 11th Imam.) 
7- The Qa'im will have His own religion.
8- The Qa'im will have His own Book.
9- The Qa'im of the House of Muhammad is the Promised One of the Jews, and
   Christians as well.

Might this be a fresh outlook for the pure in heart, to re-evaluate their faith
and polish off the corrosion of dogmatism from their beliefs, and replace the
inherited views with mindful ones, which are based on independent investigation
of truth. I beg the Lord to illumine our hearts, and inspire our minds to be
fair in our judgments. I would like to close this discussion by the following
verse of the Holy Qur'an:

"O Believers: If any evil-doer come to you with news, clear it up at once [i.e.
 determine its truth or falsity], lest  through ignorance ye harm others, and
 speedily have to repent of what ye have done."  
							[Hujaraat-49:6]

						Part VI of VI
Regards,

Kamran Hakim
hakim@bigq.dec.com				Tel#508-568-6925

hakim%bigq.enet.dec.com@oxy.edu (12/05/89)

Continuation from part I:

Muhammad, (Peace be upon Him!), has been referred to as Khatam'u-Nabieen in the
Qur'an: "Muhammad is not the father of any man among you, but he is the Apostle
of God, and the seal of the prophets: and God knoweth all things."
						[The Confederates: 39]

This has been interpreted by many among Muslims to mean that Revelation from
God ended with Muhammad's Revelation, and the door of God's mercy towards
mankind was closed for ever.

Interestingly enough, Muslims are not the only people who hold such belief.
Historically Jews and Christians have based on their Scriptures maintained the
belief that their religions is the final religion, and their code of law is
the last set of revealed law from God.

Jews will argue that they are required by Exodus 31:16-17 to keep the Sabbath
as an eternal covenant: "Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the
Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout  their generations, for a perpetual
Covenant. It is a sign between Me (i.e. God) and the children of Israel."

Both Jesus and Muhammad broke the Sabbath. Does this mean that they were wrong?
Or, God forbid, they were false prophets?

Jesus has been referred to in the Book of Revelation 1:11, as Alpha and Omega,
the First and the Last. Likewise He is recorded to have said in Luke 21:33;
"Heaven and earth shall pass away: but My words shall not pass away." As a
result Christians, have based on these verses believe that the revelation of
Jesus is the final revelation from God.

If Jesus was to be the Last, why did Muhammad appear after Him? If the words of
Jesus were not to be changed, then why did Muhammad reveal the Qur'an?

Are we to side with Jews, Christians or Muslims in their belief? Is the concept
of finality of religion real, or, is there perhaps another explanation for these
verses found in the Holy Books of the past! Baha'u'llah addresses this issue as
follows:

`....For this reason, hath  the Point of  Baya'n [i.e. a  title of The Ba'b, the
Qa'im,	or  Mihdi of the  House of  Muhammad, the Forerunner of Baha'u'llah]....
likened the  Manifestations of God [i.e. Messengers of God]  unto the sun which,
though it  rise from the  "Beginning that hath no beginning" until the "End that
knoweth no  end," is none  the less  the same  sun. Now,  wert thou to say, that
this  sun is the  former sun, thou  speakest the truth;  and if thou sayest that
this sun  is the "return"  of that sun,  thou also speakest the truth. Likewise,
from this  statement it is  made evident that  the term  "last" is applicable to
the "first," and  the  term "first" applicable	to the "last;"	inasmuch as both
the "first" and the "last" have risen to proclaim the same Faith.

Notwithstanding the obviousness  of this theme,  in the  eyes of those that have
quaffed the wine of knowledge and certitude, yet how many are those who, through
failure to understand its meaning,  have allowed the term "Seal of the Prophets"
to obscure their understanding,and deprive them of the grace of all His manifold
bounties! Hath	not Muhammad, Himself,	declared: "I am  all the Prophets?" Hath
He not said...:  "I am Adam,  Noah, Moses, and Jesus?" Why should Muhammad, that
immortal Beauty,  Who hath said:  "I am the  first Adam" be  incapable of saying
also: "I  am the last  Adam"? For even as   He regarded Himself to be the "First
of the	Prophets" -That is  Adam- in like manner,  the "Seal of the Prophets" is
also applicable unto  that Divine Beauty.  It is  admittedly obvious  that being
the "First of the Prophets," He likewise is their "Seal".
					Iqan, Book of Certitude p. 161-162

The following verse of the Holy Qur'an appears to support this point as well:

"Say ye:  `We believe in God, and that which hath been sent down to us, and that
 which	hath been sent	down to Abraham and  Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the
 tribes: and  that which hath  been given to Moses, and to Jesus, and that which
 was given to the  Prophets from their	Lord. No difference  do we  make between
 any of them."					Al'Baghara-2:130

There must be a deeper meaning to the term Khatam'u-Nabieen than its apparent
meaning (i.e. the Author of last Revelation from God).
Before I start to discuss the various views on the meaning of Khatam'u-Nabieen,
I'd like to discuss the various classifications of prophets from the perspective
of Islam. The Muslim Scripture classifies the intermediaries between man and
God into three groups:

1- Nabi = Prophet: Who is a messenger, Who does not have an independent Book.
   A very good example of that are the Prophets of Israel like Isaiah, Jeremiah,
   Daniel, etc..... They all promulgated the Mosaic Law, without adding any new
   laws, or abrogating the past laws.

2- Rasool = Apostle: Who is a messenger, who has a Book, thus, He can abrogate
   the previous laws, but, He comes only to bring the Laws of God for His own
   tribe or nation. Like Hud and Salih.

3- Peighambar-e-OllolAzm = A universal Apostle, or a major Manifestation of God:
   Who is a messenger, Who has a Book, (i.e. thus can abrogate the laws of past
   religions) and His message is not specific to one tribe or one nation, but
   the whole world. Examples of this, according to the Muslim Scripture are:
   Jesus, Moses, and Muhammad.

Unquestionably, both Shi'ahs and Sunnis believe that Muhammad, Peace be upon
Him, was a messenger of the third category. That is to say, He had a Book, and
His revelation was not specific to the people of Arabia, as we can clearly see.
The question which one might ask is then: Why is His Holiness Muhammad referred
to in the Qur'an as the Seal of the Nabieen (prophets), and not the Seal of the
OllolAzm Messengers (UNIVERSAL Messengers of God with independent Books)?
Clearly, He was more than a Nabi. In fact, He was more than a Rasool too,
(since He did not come just for the Arab nation), so, what is the reason behind
this specific but peculiar form of reference to a Peighambar-e-OllolAzm? Are
there other ways one can understand the term Khatam'u-Nabieen, which does not
implicate Muhammad to have been a Nabi?

Let us examine the term "Khatam'u-Nabieen" and see what are the possible
meanings one can associate with it, moreover, what are the implications of using
each meaning. The term "Nabi", means Prophet, as discussed above. So "Nabieen",
which is the plural form of "Nabi" means Prophets. But, depending on how the
opening term is read "KhatEm" or "KhatAm", the literal meaning of the word can
change. The former, "Khatem" means: "One who ends.", while the term "Khatam"
means "Ornament". The term "Khatam" is also a name for a ring of seal, which
was in use by the Arabs, during Muhammad's lifetime. Many people had in the
past, such a ring on their finger, by which they sealed a letter. Therefore,
the term Khatam'u-Nabieen, could mean: the Ornament of Prophets, or the
Ornament among Prophets; the Seal of the Prophets. And the term Khatem'u-Nabieen
means: One who ends Prophets, one who ends Prophethood. How this term has been
used and must be used, according to Muslim theologians, will be the subject of
the next reply.

							Part II of VI
Regards,

Kamran Hakim
hakim@bigq.dec.com				Tel#508-568-6925

HAKIM%decwrl.dec.com (12/05/89)

Continuation from part IV:

Now that the term "Khatam'u-Nabieen" has been discussed in full, let us discuss
two of the Islamic Traditions which appear to imply that Islam is an everlasting
religion, and the Qur'an is an everlasting Book of Laws. His Holiness Muhammad,
is recorded to have said:

"There will be no Book after my Book (the Holy Qur'an), and, there will be no
 religion after my religion (Islam) until the day of resurrection."

Moreover, He is recorded to have said in another occasion:

"Whatever was made lawful by Me (i.e. Muhammad) shall remain lawful until the
 day of resurrection, and whatever was made unlawful by Me shall remain
 unlawful until the day of resurrection."

Clearly these two Traditions explicitly discuss the common belief of finality
as discussed above. Nevertheless, one must always go beyond the apparent in
order to determine the underlying reality. Having this in mind, let us examine
these two traditions based on the verses of the Holy Qur'an, and, other
traditions from Prophet Muhammad and the Holy Imams, and test the validity of
such belief. In my opinion the verses of the Holy Qur'an do not appear to
support finality of Islam. The following verses will perhaps address this:

"Every people has its set term. And when their time is come, they shall not
 retard it an hour; and they shall not advance it."	[A'raf-7:33]

"Neither too soon, nor too late, shall a people reach its appointed time."
						[Mominun, The Believers-23:43]

"To each term its Book. What He pleaseth will God abrogate or confirm: for with
 Him is the source of Revelation."		[Ra'd, Thunder-13:38]

Non of the past religions, and nations have been exempted from the Will of God,
which has so clearly been established in the verses of the Qur'an, then, one
could rightfully ask; Why should Islam be exempted from it?

Let us examine these traditions and see what pearl lies hidden under in their
shell of the words: In these two traditions His Holiness Muhammad says, that
there shall be no other religion after His own, and there shall be no other
Book after Qur'an, yet, He maintains a requirement and a condition: until the
day of resurrection, implying that at, and after resurrection, there can be
other Books and other religions. Naturally one would question: What is meant by
the term "Day of Resurrection"?

The meaning usually given to the "Day of Resurrection" by the people of the Book
(Jews, Christians and Muslims) is a day in which all the dead shall literally
rise and leave their sepulchers, become alive in order to be judged by God. Each
religion appears to paint somewhat a different picture about the details of this
event, and how it will come about. Nevertheless, they all agree that physically
dead shall become alive on that day.
I will not attempt to recount the beliefs of various people about the Day of
Resurrection, however, I would like to say that such belief is based on a very
literalistic approach to Scripture, which is against the teachings of the
Messengers of God, and the Imams of religion, beside being an absurd thought
among mindful believers. Allow me to discuss alternative ways of understanding
the meaning of the "Day of Resurrection". His Holiness The Ba'b addresses the
meaning of the "Day of Resurrection" in the Persian Baya'n as follows:

"The substance of  this chapter is  this that what  was intended  by  the Day of
 Resurrection is the Day of the appearance of the Tree of divine Reality, but it
 is not  seen that any one of the  followers of Shi'ih Islam hath understood the
 meaning of  the Day of  Resurrection; rather they have  fanatically imagined  a
 thing which  with God hath no	reality. In the estimation  of God and according
 to the usage  of such as are initiated into the divine mysteries, what is meant
 by the Day of Resurrection is this, that from the time of the appearance of Him
 Who is the Tree  of divine Reality, at whatever period and under whatever name,
 until the moment of His disappearance, is the Day of Resurrection.
 For example, from the inception of the mission of Jesus -may peace be upon Him-
 till the  day of His ascension  was the Resurrection  of Moses. For during that
 period the Revelation	of God shone forth through the appearance of that divine
 Reality [i.e. Jesus], Who rewarded by	His Word everyone who believed in Moses,
 [i.e. was a  true believer within  the Mosaic law], and  punished by  His  Word
 everyone  who did not	believe [i.e. was not a true believer -was a believer by
 name only-];  inasmuch as  God's  Testimony for that  Day was that which He had
 solemnly  affirmed in the  Gospel. And from  the inception of the Revelation of
 the Apostle  of God -may the  blessings of God be upon Him- till the day of His
 ascension was	the Resurrection of  Jesus [i.e.  Day of  Resurrection	for  the
 followers  of Jesus] -peace  be upon Him-  wherein the Tree  of divine  Reality
 appeared  in  the person of  Muhammad, rewarding by His Word everyone who was a
 believer  in Jesus, and punishing by  His Word everyone  who was not a believer
 in Him. And from the moment when the Tree of Baya'n [i.e. The Ba'b is referring
 to Himself] appeared  until it disappeareth  is the Resurrection of the Apostle
 of God,  as is divinely foretold  in the Qur'an.....The  stage of perfection of
 everything is	reached when its  resurrection occureth. The  perfection of  the
 religion of Islam was consummated at the beginning of this Revelation until its
 setting,  the fruits  of the  Tree of Islam,  whatever  they are,  will  become
 apparent.  The  Resurrection of the  Baya'n [i.e. the Holy Book revealed by The
 Ba'b,	The Qa'im of  the House of  the Prophet.] will	occur at the time of the
 appearance of Him  Whom God shall make manifest [i.e. The Return of Christ, the
 Glory of  God, Baha'u'llah]. For  today the  Baya'n is in the stage of seed; at
 the beginning	of the manifestation  of Him  Whom God	shall make  manifest its
 ultimate perfection will become apparent. He [Him Whom God shall make manifest]
 is made  manifest in order to gather the fruits of the trees He [i.e. The Ba'b]
 hath planted; even as the Revelation of the Qa'im [He Who ariseth] -an allusion
 to Himself-, a descendant  of Muhammad -may the blessings of God rest upon Him-
 is exactly  like unto the  Revelation of the Apostle of God Himself [Muhammad].
 He appeareth  not, save for  the purpose  of gathering the fruits of Islam from
 the Qur'anic  verses which He	[Muhammad] hath sown  in the  hearts of men. The
 fruits of  Islam cannot be gathered  except through allegiance  unto  Him  [the
 Qa'im], and  by believing in  Him...yet unjustly have they consigned Him to the
 Mountain of Maku."
						The Persian Baya'n II:7
						    Baha'i Scripture

And Baha'u'llah elaborates further on this explanation as follows:

"These Prophets and chosen Ones  of God are the recipients  and revealers of all
the unchangeable attributes  and names of  God. They are  the mirrors that truly
and faithfully reflect the light of God.  Whatsoever is applicable to them is in
reality applicable to God, Himself,  Who is both  the Visible and the Invisible.
The knowledge of Him Who is the Origin of of all things (i.e God) and attainment
unto Him, are impossible  save through knowledge  of, and attainment unto, these
luminous Beings who proceed  from the Sun  of Truth. By attaining, therefore, to
the  presence  of  these  holy	Luminaries,  the  "Presence  of God"  Himself is
attained. From their knowledge, the  knowledge of God is revealed, and from  the
light of  their countenance,  the splendour of the Face of God is made manifest.
Through the manifold  attributes of these  Essences of Detachment,  Who are both
the first and the  last, the seen and the hidden, it is made evident that He Who
is  the Sun of	Truth  is  "the  First	and the Last,  the Seen, and the Hidden.
[Qur'an 57:3]." Likewise  the other lofty  names and  exalted attributes of God.
Therefore,  whosoever,	and  in  whatever  Dispensation,  hath	recognized   and
attained  unto	the  presence  of  these  glorious,  these  resplendent and most
excellent  Luminaries, hath  verily attained unto the "Presence of God" Himself,
and  entered  the  city  of  eternal  and  immortal  life.  Attainment unto such
presence is  possible only in  the Day	of Resurrection, which is the Day of the
rise of God Himself through His all-embracing Revelation.

This is  the meaning of  the  "Day  of	Resurrection,"	spoken	of  in	all  the
scriptures,  and  announced  unto  all	people. Reflect, can a more precious,  a
mightier,  and	more  glorious	day  than  this be conceived, so that man should
willingly  forego  its	grace,	and deprive himself of	its bounties, which like
unto  vernal  showers  are  raining  from  the heaven of mercy upon all mankind?
...Have  they  not heard the  well-known tradition: "When the Qa'im riseth, that
day  is the Day of  Resurrection?" In like manner, the Imams, those unquenchable
lights of  divine guidance, have  interpreted the  verse: "What  can such expect
but  that  God	should	come  down  to them overshadowed  with	clouds," [Qur'an
2:210]- a  sign which they  have unquestionably  regarded as one of the features
of the Day of Resurrection- as referring to Qa'im and His manifestation.

Strive therefore,  O my  brother, to grasp  the meaning of  "Resurrection,"  and
cleans	thine  ears  from  the	idle  sayings of these rejected people. Shouldst
thou step  into the realm of complete detachment, thou wilt readily testify that
no day is mightier than this Day,  and that no resurrection more awful than this
Resurrection can ever be conceived."
					Baha'u'llah -Iqan p. 142-144
					      Baha'i Scripture

						Part V of VI
Regards,

Kamran Hakim
hakim@bigq.dec.com				Tel#508-568-6925

hakim%bigq.enet.dec.com@rice.edu (12/05/89)

Continuation from part III:

Allamih Majlesi in Bahar'ul-Anvar Vol 13, p.323 mentions one of the discourses
of Imam Ali. In that discourse Ali says:

"I am the Commander of the faithful. I am the King among the pious..... I am the
 Khatam'u-Vasieen [which can be either taken as "The Seal of the guardians and
 successors", or, as "The Ornament of the Guardians and successors".] and the
 heir of the prophets and the representative of the God of the worlds."

This tradition of Imam Ali is a very interesting. One must be fair in one's
judgment. If we are to take, in this tradition, the term "Khatam" as "the Seal",
"the ender", "one who completes", then one is obliged to accept that Ali was
"the seal of the guardians, and successors", after Muhammad, Who is the Seal of
the prophets. Yet, Shi'ahs believe that after Muhammad there was supposed to be
twelve Imams, only the first of Whom was Ali. So, assuming that the term Khatam
in Khatam'u-Vasieen must have a similar meaning to the term Khatam in Khatam'u-
Nabieen, then one is to question why were there more Imams after Ali. How are we
to reconcile the existence of the other Imams, Who came after Ali, based on this
interpretation? Let this be food for thought for the possessors of pure heart
and open mind.

Let us now examine the meaning of the term Khatam'u-Nabieen from the perspective
of Sunni scholars and theologians, so that the seekers of truth obtain a wider
spectrum of views for their judgment:

Allamih Ahmad Hamedi-al-Mohammad, a well-known Sunni Theologian discusses the
term Khatam'u-Nabieen in his book, Tebyaan-va-Borhan, based on a commentary
of Fat'hol-Ghadeer by Hafiz Mohhades-i-Shokani who says:

"All the Ghoraba use KhatEm, while Athim use KhatAm. KhatEm in Khatem'u-Nabeein
 means the Ender of Prophets, or the Seal of Prophets, while, KhatAm in Khatam'
 u-Nabeein means ring and ornament. In essence Muhammad, the Messenger of God,
 was the Ring or Ornament of (i.e. among) the Prophets, due to His exalted
 station compared to other Prophets."

The same book quotes from Dorr'ul-Mansoor of Allamih Jallal'u-Din Soivotti, who
quotes Ayeshih, the wife of Muhammad, who said:

"Say KhatAm-u-Nabeein (i.e. The Ring or Ornament of the Prophets), and never say
 no prophets shall come after Him (i.e. Muhammad)".

One can find the same references in the commentary of Kashaaf, by Zamakhshari,
who says: "Muhammad, the Messenger of God, was called Khatam'u-Nabieen, since,
He did not  have any male offsprings to inherit prophethood from Him." He goes
on and presents a Hadith from Prophet Muhammad who says about His deceased son
Abraham (from Marieh, the Egyptian wife of Muhammad): "If my son Abraham was
alive, he would have been a Nabi (i.e. He would have become a Nabi after Me.)".
However, all of Muhammad's male offsprings die in early childhood, thus, the
verse of the Qur'an: "Muhammad is not the father of any man among you...."
comes into fulfillment, and Muhammad become Khatam'u-Nabieen, according to the
same verse."

Abo'l-Bagha, another trusted Sunni source discusses this issue in his book,
"Mofeed", from the same angle, which I will not quote here in order to prevent
excessive repetition of the same idea.

It is apparent from what has been mentioned at length, that both Shi'ah and
Sunni sources agree that:

1- There is a more profound meaning associated with the title Khatam'u-Nabieen;

2- Finality of Muhammad's revelation is not implied by this term, mentioned in
   the Qur'an, the Confederates: 39.

Let me close this note with the view of Abol-Fadail-i Golpayegani, a prominent
Baha'i scholar, from a Muslim background, who, in his book Fara'id addresses the
question of Khatam'u-Nabieen as follows:

"No wonder if the learned of Islam too, argue against the renewal of revelation
 from God [i.e. like their predecessors, Jews and Christians, who are firmly
 convinced that their respective religions are the final revelation from God.],
 based on such references as: Khatam'u-Nabeein, or such traditions as: "There
 shall be no prophet after me....", and by doing so become subjected to a test
 of faith; and join their predecessors [i.e. Jews and Christians]. Not realizing
 that the purpose of Muhammad in using the term Khatam'u-Nabeein was to suggest
 the progress of the Islamic nation, and unveil the ascendancy of the station
 of the Imams in comparison to the prophets of Israel. It is clear to those who
 are familiar with the Scriptures of the past, who are aware of the events which
 are associated with the historical events of the nations of antiquity that the
 prophets of Israel, such as  Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Zechariah,
 etc... one and all prophesied about the future events according to dreams and
 visions. And they interpreted their vision or dream as a revelation from God.
 As a result, the book of these prophets became known as the vision of Isaiah,
 vision of Daniel, vision of Jeremiah, and vision of Ezekiel. By the same token,
 if we are to examine this issue from a Christian perspective, the Revelation of
 St. John is in essence the Dream of John. As a result the term Nabi (i.e.
 prophet) was given to the ones who prophesied based on visions, or dreams. This
 usage was solidified during the Jewish and Christians dispensations. However,
 after the appearance of Prophet Muhammad (Khatam'ul-Anbia), the ender of the
 prophetic cycle, the era of revelation from God "through the medium of dreams
 and visions" was ended and a new era of "revelation through direct inspiration"
 was started. Thus, the fulfillment of the tradition; "There will be no prophets
 after me..." came about."
					Fara'id, p. 311

Parts of sections III & IV have either been cited or paraphrased, after my own
inadequate English translation, from "Ghamoos-i-Iqan" (The Encyclopedia to the
Book of Certitude), by A. Eshragh-Khavari, Baha'i Publishing Trust of Iran.

Finality of Islam and the Qur'an, will be discussed in the next reply.

						Part IV of VI
Regards,

Kamran Hakim
hakim@bigq.dec.com				Tel#508-568-6925

araja@m2.csc.ti.com (Ali Raja) (12/07/89)

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.

araja@m2.csc.ti.com (Ali Raja) (12/07/89)

>This has been interpreted by many among Muslims to mean that Revelation from
>God ended with Muhammad's Revelation, and the door of God's mercy towards
>mankind was closed for ever.

Not so.  Your analogy was incorrect.  The Succession of Prophethood can
be viewed as a lesson given to Mankind.  With Mohammad, the lesson has 
been completed.  The statement that Muhammad is the Mercy of God towards
mankind shows that the messge that he brought will be considered
completely valid for the rest of eternity, not the opposite, as you
would aver.

>Both Jesus and Muhammad broke the Sabbath. Does this mean that they were wrong?
>Or, God forbid, they were false prophets?

They knew which laws to follow, since they were lawgivers in their own
right.  Plain and simple.

[I have skipped over many of your following quotations from Scripture]

>"Say ye:  `We believe in God, and that which hath been sent down to us, and that
> which	hath been sent	down to Abraham and  Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the
> tribes: and  that which hath  been given to Moses, and to Jesus, and that which
> was given to the  Prophets from their	Lord. No difference  do we  make between
> any of them."					Al'Baghara-2:130

This does not mean that it is necessary for the Muslim to accept 
Baha'ullah, nor is it necessary for the Muslim to accept that 
the saying of Jesus in the Bible are literal truth.  Given this,
there is no need to reconcile the statements of "lastness" made
by Jesus.

>There must be a deeper meaning to the term Khatam'u-Nabieen than its apparent
>meaning (i.e. the Author of last Revelation from God).

Even this does not necessarily follow.  Jesus did not claim that he 
was the "Katam'u-Nabieen".  He probably used a phrase in Aramaic
that I do not know.  If I was to accept that the statement that you
quoted was correct, it would not logically imply that the lack of 
literalist interpretation has to be extended in the case of Muhammed.

[rest deleted]

araja@m2.csc.ti.com (Ali Raja) (12/07/89)

>Let us now examine the opinions of various Muslim theologians, from both Shi'ah
>and Sunni backgrounds, on the meaning of the term Khatam'u-Nabieen.

The term "Katam'u-Nabieen" means the "Khatm" of the "Nabieen".  "Khatm" is 
"end" and "Nabieen" is "prophets".  As I said in my previous article,
you are falling into the same trap that you warned us about - you took 
the warning you quoted in <3388@brazos.Rice.edu>:

#Remember the well known Tradition, where His Honor Muhammad says:
#"We say one word, and by it We mean seventy and two things." 

This warning, you have taken TOO literally, attempting to find hidden
meanings in eve the most straightforward terms.  A certain word or 
phrase does not become divine just because a Prophet or the God 
uttered it - it is still that collections of sounds and meanings, just 
as comprehensible to human beings.  

>[Clearly, the concept of no Nabi, or prophet,  appearing after Muhammad must 
>have been associated with His immediate successorship, and had nothing to do
>with coming of future Messengers from God. Otherwise, why would Muhammad want
>to discuss Omar's -the second Khalif's- name in this tradition]. 

This comes clear out of the blue.  I can see absolutely no way to derive
this conclusion from what you have stated.  Aside from your insisting on 
capitalizing the "H" in "Him", which I personally dislike, you yourself
cite the tradition, which I will take at face value:

>"No prophet shall appear after Me, but Omar-ibn-Khattab."

If one takes that Bahia'ullah (sp?) is a Prophet as a premise then your 
above argument is valid.  But one cannot prove that he is a Prophet by
using your above argument.  A implies B does not, and never has meant 
that B implies A.  Pure and simple.

>Many of the Shi'ah commentators believe in a literal meaning of the term Khatam-
>u-Nabieen (Seal of the Prophets, after Whom no other Messengers of God shall
>come),

For the rather good reason that there is no support to NOT take it 
literally.  Usually, the Prophet MEANT what he SAID.

>"All the Messengers of God who appeared prior to Muhammad, were succeeded by a 
>Nabi (i.e. a prophet). Adam was a Rasool (Messenger of God), and His successor
>was Shais the Nabi (Seth the prophet). Noah was a Messenger of God and His
>successor was Saam the Nabi (Shem the prophet). Abraham, Moses, Jesus and David 
>(peace be upon Them!), were also God's Messengers, Whose successors were Isaac, 
>Jashua, Simon (St. Peter) and Solomon Who were all prophets. However, the
>successors of Muhammad, Rasool-Allah (the Messenger of God), were not called
>Nabis (prophets). They were referred to  as Imams. Therefore, Ali was not a
>Nabi, Hasan was not a Nabi, Hossein was not a Nabi, etc...., since, with the
>Manifestation of Muhammad, the usage of the term Nabi was abandoned (i.e. He
>was Khatam-u-Nabieen), and ended. As Muhammad was greater than the previous
>Messengers, so were His appointed successors (i.e. Imams) were greater than
>Nabis (prophets)." 

Offhand, I would say that he was arguing this point so as to elevate the
status of Ali.  I notice that he was a Shi'ah scholar/theologian.  Such 
an exercise in verbiage is not far from the traditions of some sects
amongst the Shia.

>This commentary of Sheikh Sadoogh appears to clearly reason out the inner 
>significance of traditions such as: "Seal of the prophets", "There will be no
>prophets after me....".

This commentary of Sheikh Sadoogh appears to clearly be intended to
prove that Ali was at least as great as many of the Prophets before him
and does not carry any especial weight.

#"...Anyone who disagrees with me, has disagreed with God, and in arrogance has
# surpassed all others. No prophet has achieved the station of prophethood except
# through the Khatam of Nabovvat (i.e. literally meaning prophethood) he received
# from Muhammad. And Khatam is a ring. Only after receiving the Khatam (ring) of
# Nabovvat, one can be called a prophet. This is why Muhammad has been called
# Khatam'u-Nabieen in the Qur'an....." Then He says: "Muhammad is the Seyyed
# (master) of the Nabieen (prophets), and I am the Seyyed and master of the
# Vaseein (guardians and successors). 

>Clearly Ali's explanation of Khatam'u-Nabeein is drastically different than the
>meaning the literalist Muslims have given to it. There does not appear to be
>any implications whatsoever about cessation of revelation after His Holiness
>Muhammad. 

Nowhere in the Hadith that you have cited does Ali claim that either he,
or any of HIS successors will ever recieve a revelation.  Thus, your
"clearly" seems to me to be about as clear as jar of fresh water from
the Boston harbour.

The only possible weight that might have been given to your argument is 
throught the statement of Sheikh Sadoogh; however, to use it, you will
have to assert that someone supposedly "greater" than a Prophet would 
also receive revelation.  And you would also have to give a logical 
reason to support Sheikh Sadoogh's assertions in the first place.

araja@m2.csc.ti.com (Ali Raja) (12/07/89)

>In his commentary on Manhaj-ul-Sadegheen, Mulla Fatth-i- Kashani, offers a
>tradition attributed to Muhammad, where He says: 

>"I am Muhammad, and I am Ahmad and I am that resurrector, through Whom God
> shall resurrect His people...."

Is this to be found in Bukhari or Muslim?  No matter.  I will accept it 
as valid for this conversation.

>This quote appear to suggest that the appearance of Muhammad corresponded to 
>the Day of Resurrection for "His people", "God's people", or "the people of the
>Book", (Christians and Jews).

Not necessarily so - it could also mean that it refers to the Day of 
Judgement, when each people will be resurrected to follow their 
own Prophet.

>That is to say, according to Imam Sadigh the Day of the appearance of the Qa'im
>corresponds with the Day of Resurrection for the followers of Islam.

First, you have to prove that the Muslims will have a Day of
Resurrection in the fashion that you state.

>I hope that the two quotations given above validate the absurdity of the popular
>belief about the Day of Resurrection. 

I do not see why you would want an absurdity to be validated.  To be
quite honest, I have no idea how you proved the above; it just seems 
like a statement out of thin air, without anything to support it.

>Moreover, I hope that it has become
>apparent that both Islam, and the Qur'an are to remain intact UNTIL the Day of
the appearance of the Promised Qa'im of the House of Muhammad. 

This is indeed apparent.  The rest of what is apparent is that they
are to remain intact AFTER the Day of the appearance of the "Promised
Qa'im" as well - I have also missed where you said that the Qa'im
was promised.

>Then apparently
>it is up to the Qa'im to determine whether Muslims are to follow the Qur'an, or
>the Book He is going to reveal. 

No argument.  You are quite welcome to your belief here.  But it is just 
that - a belief.  I have not seen any proof at all.

>[proof of the Qa'im appearing just as he was promised deleted]

You have not proved that the Qa'im coming was predicted, in the 
first place.  

>There are other traditions from the Imams of the Faith, which explicitly refers
>to the Qa'im or Mihdi, as a law-giver, and an author of a new religion. 

There is no indication that the Mihdi will be an author of a new
religion.

>Perhaps
>the following few quotations will shed some light on this issue, which has been
>the cause of much confusion among the majority of Muslims throughout the past
>millennium. 

I am confused because I disagree with you and ask for proof? 
This does not make sense.

>"In our Qa'im there shall be four signs from four Prophets. Moses, Jesus, Joseph
> and Muhammad. The sign from Moses, is fear and expectation; from Jesus, that
> which was spoken of Him; from Joseph, imprisonment and dissimulation; from
> Muhammad, the Revelation of a Book similar to the Qur'an." 

>According to a Tradition recorded in the volume 13 of Bahar'ul-Anvar of
>Majlesi:

The tradition that you give up - is it in Bukhari or Muslim or any of 
the known and accepted Hadith?  OR are you trying to pull a Martillo?

>Moreover, Imam Sadiq is recorded to have said: 

Is this a Sunna Hadith?

>1- The term Khatam'u-Nabieen has several inner meanings, non of which suggest
>   cessation of Revelation from God

Not proved at all.

>2- Islam is not everlasting, but it has a special term and time; 

Not provable from the sources you cite.

>3- Islam and the Qur'an are valid until the Day of Resurrection;

The day of Resurrection is not necessarily the one you imply it to be.

>4- The day of resurrection is the time of the appearance of the Qa'im or the
>   12th Imam;

Not proved at all.

>5- The day of resurrection is established to happen in 1000 years.

The sources you cited are not necessarily acceptable or complete.

>6- Therefore the day of the appearance of the Qa'im is within 1000 years from
>   some point in the Islamic dispensation (i.e. 260 A.H. year of the passing of
>   the 11th Imam.) 

Possibly.  If you want to choose an arbitrary event and designate it 
predicted after the fact.

>7- The Qa'im will have His own religion.
>8- The Qa'im will have His own Book.

Ditto as above.

>9- The Qa'im of the House of Muhammad is the Promised One of the Jews,and
>   Christians as well.

No proof exists that Mohammed will have a Qa'im.

>I beg the Lord to illumine our hearts, and inspire our minds to be
>fair in our judgments. I would like to close this discussion by the following
>verse of the Holy Qur'an:

Fair enough.  But I would be much happier if you would just admit that
you are giving us nothing but your opinions and your own faith, and
not facts that can be derived from acceptable Muslim sources.

hakim@bigq.enet.dec.com (12/15/89)

Continuation from part I:

Furthermore, you have disagreed with my statement:

>>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.
 
And have suggested;

>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.

Such optimism is, from a spiritual perspective very dangerous. Since it does
not allow room for misinterpretation of an uncorrupted text to satisfy one's
selfish goals and desires. Since, misinterpretation of Scripture is not a 
matter of linguistics, cultural evolution or the corruption of the physical 
Text alone. Misinterpretation of Scripture is rather mainly a question of 
human nature. Please allow me to quote Ali-ibn Abu Talib in regards to your 
optimistic suggestion, given above and see if this approach is a safe one 
for a Muslim. Please understand that my goal in quoting this saying is not 
sarcasm, but to point out to a flaw in your approach. His Excellency Ali says:

"Verily, a time will come upon you [i.e. Muslims] wherein nothing will be more
 concealed than the truth, nothing more manifest than falsehood, and nothing
 more than lies about God and His Apostle [i.e. Muhammad]. The people of that
 time will possess no commodity more difficult to  sell than the Book  when it
 is correctly recited, or one more in demand when  its passages are
 misinterpreted. There will be throughout all lands nothing  more detested than
 good deeds, or more renowned than evil ones. The reciters  of the Qur'an will
 have cast it away, and those who memorize it will have  deliberately erased it
 from  their minds. The book and its disciples will,  on that day, be ostracized
 and outcast, two friends together on the road, to  whom no one will offer
 shelter. The Book and its disciples will be, in that  age, among the people and
 yet neither among them nor with them. For error  is incompatible with guidance.
 
 Even though the Book and its disciples might come together, the people would
 agree to keep separate [i.e. Muslims will be disunited  among themselves.].
 They would disperse from the community -as if they were  the leaders of the
 Qur'an rather than it being their leader. Nothing will remain of it [i.e. The
 Qur'an] among them  save the name; they will know nothing of it save its 
 calligraphy and script. Before, they had not made an example of the righteous 
 by maiming them, or  called their sincerity towards God a lie, or  punished 
 good deeds with the  penalties for crimes. They who preceded you  perished 
 because they  went on  hoping for too long and their allotted terms  expired. 
 Then the Promised One  [i.e. Mihdi or the Lord of the Age or the Qa'im] 
 descended, by whom excuses  are rejected and upon whom repentance has no
 effect,  and with whom are the  calamity and the affliction." 

			Imam Ali "Nahj-ul-Balagha" [The Path of Eloquence]
			printed by Hajj Sayyed Ali-Nagi Faydu'l-Islami, 
			6 vols, Tehran, Iran, Oftab press 1326 A.H. vol 3:438
			English trans. cit. Miracles and Metaphors  Abu'l-Fadl-i
			Golpayegani, p. 135 Kalimat Press USA

This saying of Ali is based on a well-known Tradition of Prophet Muhammad, where
He says: 

"A time will come upon my community when nothing will remain of Islam among
 them save the name, or of the Qur'an save its script. They will call others to
 faith but will be the most remote of peoples from it. Their mosques will be
 filled to capacity, but desolate of any guidance. The jurisprudents of that
 time will be the most wicked beneath the sky; they will be the cause of the
 tribulations and these will rebound them." 
						ibid.

Now, I will not attempt to prove whether this time has come or not. Let the
pure in heart among Muslims to judge for themselves, but, for the sake of 
argument let us say that such time must eventually come about.
You suggest that if we keep the words of the Scripture and their meanings 
intact, ">In this fashion the Scriptures can interpreted by each and every
generation of scholars to the benefit of the society." Yet, it is clear that
the saying of the Prophet of God must come to pass. What is the point of 
reconciliation between what you say and what Prophet Muhammad and Imam Ali
have suggested? Why should such a plain Scripture be treated by the Muslims
in such a way?

>>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?  :-).

Yes. This is not my saying. This is the Word of God spoken for this age through
Baha'u'llah's revelation.

>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.
 
I am not sure if I follow your reasoning here. I respectfully request that you
reread the quotation I have presented. A close look at the Qur'an clearly shows
that Prophet Muhammad has in many occasions used the same parallels in 
comparing the previous revelation to that of His own, and the behavior of the
past generations to the behavior of His contemporaries.

>>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.

I am not sure if you have understood the underlying purpose of this quote, or
the verse of the Qur'an used in it.
The Holy verse: "None knoweth the interpretation thereof but God and they that
are well-grounded in knowledge." [Qur'an 3:7]; in my opinion speaks of the
mentality of a believer who think that he/she knows every thing that there is
to know about the Qur'an. This verse reminds the followers that there are always
others who are more knowledgeable than him/her. Moreover, the verse admonishes
the arrogant among the believers that ultimately none but God is fully aware of
the fullest meaning of every verse of the Qur'an. 
To recapitulate; this verse reminds the believer to always remain humble, and
meet other views with an open mind.

I hope this has clarified some of the misunderstandings. My goal in posting 
these articles has been to simply answer a sincere question which was being 
repeatedly asked by several Muslim friends through private communication. My 
goal is neither to prove you wrong, nor to shake your faith, by evangelizing 
mine. As a result, I will not attempt to reply to the point of view you have
presented in your other replies to this topic. I respect your opinion presented
there, and believe that you are entitled to your view as much as I am to mine. 

						Part II of II

P.S. I'd like to thank Mr. Camm Maguire, for his critical inputs and helpful
     suggestions in composing this reply.

Regards,

Kamran Hakim
hakim@bigq.dec.com

hakim@bigq.enet.dec.com (12/15/89)

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

araja@m2.csc.ti.com (12/15/89)

>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.