naim@eecs.nwu.edu (Naim Abdullah) (12/06/89)
hakim%bigq.enet.dec.com@oxy.edu writes: >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. > > Muslim scripture has no such clear cut classification. Sometimes the Quran use the word "nabi" and sometimes it uses the word "rasool". The Quran is silent about the difference between the two. To the best of the my knowledge, the Quran never uses "Peighambar-e-OllolAzm". If I am wrong about these, please give a reference to the specific verse of the Quran. Please also give a Quranic reference where these three categories are described. To the best of my knowledge there is no such description in the Quran. >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. It is certainly NOT true that both shias and sunnis believe that Muhammad was "a major Manifestation of God". The Quran does not say any such thing about Muhammad. On the contrary, it is repeatedly stressed in the Quran that Muhammad was a human being like you and me, with not a shred of divinity. Bahais may believe that Muhammad was "a major Manifestation of God" but please be careful in what you attribute to Islam and in what you claim muslim scriptures to say. Naim
hakim@bigq.enet.dec.com (08-Dec-1989 1041) (12/14/89)
You had questioned the following classifications: >>hakim%bigq.enet.dec.com@oxy.edu writes: >>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. > > Stressing specially on the term Manifestation of God. You had moreover mentioned: >Muslim scripture has no such clear cut classification. Sometimes the >Quran use the word "nabi" and sometimes it uses the word "rasool". You are correct. It was wrong of me to use the phrase "Muslim Scripture" in my wording, and apologize to the readership of this newsgroup. A better way to say what I have intended to say would be: "According to Muslim belief (having in mind the diversity of beliefs in Islam), there exists three categories of intermediaries between God and man." >The Quran is silent about the difference between the two. Correct. Nevertheless there is a difference between what is written in the Qur'an (The Word of God) and what Muslims have understood from it (i.e. beliefs). While the Qur'an remains intact, beliefs keep changing with time. Know my friend that regardless of the fact that all Muslims agree that Qur'an is the Word of Allah, and Muhammad is His Messenger. Yet, in their understanding of this Word, its interpretations, and its applications to their lives, the nature of the religious institutions, and their hierarchy, they differ. This why there are hundreds of Schools of thought within Islam. Followers of each school have their own understanding of the Words of the Qur'an, and what is meant or implied by any given verse of the Book. One such a belief is the categorization of the Messengers of God, and placing of Muhammad in the position of being a Rasool Who was send not only for one nation (the people of the Arabian peninsula), but for the nations. I remember, the concept being thought in the Figh'h classes (a high school course on teachings of Islam, mandatory for all Muslim students, while self obligatory for the Baha'i students to take.) in Iran (in 7th or 8th grade). Granted that The Qur'an does not discuss the category of universal messenger (Peighambar-e-OllolAzm) , but, if the concept is mentioned in a text book, and taught in a Shiet country, by a Shiet clergy to the youth, it must exist as a belief and must carry a certain level of credibility among the population. Consider the Christian concept of Saloose (Trinity). Eventhough it is not mentioned anywhere in the New Testament, yet, it has become a statement of belief in Jesus Christ. Whether, a given belief is true or not, it is a subject of personal opinion. And, Prophet Muhammad being the last of the Prophets is a Muslim belief, which I have tried to question its validity in my articles. >To the best of the my knowledge, the Quran never uses "Peighambar-e-OllolAzm". >Please also give a Quranic reference where these three categories are >described. To the best of my knowledge there is no such description in >the Quran. You are correct about this. My aim has been to both discuss the "Scripture", as well as the "beliefs", and sloppily described a given belief under the heading of Scripture. >>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. >It is certainly NOT true that both shias and sunnis believe that Muhammad >was "a major Manifestation of God". The Quran does not say any such thing >about Muhammad. On the contrary, it is repeatedly stressed in the Quran >that Muhammad was a human being like you and me, with not a shred of divinity. Now let us discuss your main objection, that is Prophet Muhammad being referred to as a Manifestation of God. In the heading of your reply, you had mentioned "Muhammad (pbuh) had no divine qualities". You have misunderstood the meaning of the terminology used. My friend, your objection would be correct if Prophet Muhammad is classified as God's incarnate. The term MANIFESTATION is; from both a lingual as well as a philosophical point of view, uniquely different from the term INCARNATION. From a lingual point of view: Manifestation = 1- A demonstration or display; 2- One of the forms in which someone or something, such as a divine being or an idea, is revealed; while Reincarnation = To be reborn in another body, or forms of life; 2- A fresh embodiment. What does this mean, and how are the two different? From a philosophical perspective, manifestation is uniquely different from reincarnation in the sense that sun can become manifested in the mirror, and its light can be reflected. Notice that the sun has not decsended from the position of its sanctity, to reside (i.e. incarnate) in the mirror. Clearly, what comes off the mirror is but an IMAGE and a REFLECTION, which is drastically different from the sun itself in regards to composition, and makeup. yet, there is no difference in the light coming from the sun, or the light coming from the mirror. They can both offer warmth, and light upon the world of existence. But incarnation means that sun must decsend and reside in the mirror (i.e. The literal understanding of the concept of the Sonhood of Jesus Christ, Who is believed by some Christians to be God's incarnation in flesh.) which is unacceptable. While incarnation of God in the person is an impossibility as you have attempted to point out above, manifestation of God in the person of His Messenger is a possibility. Consider the saying of the Lord "We have verily made man in our own image.", that is to say; man is created in such a way that he is capable of manifesting the names and attributes of God, then what is wrong in saying that the Messengers of God are the most perfect image, and a model for mankind to follow? Why should a Messenger of God, the ultimate model for human life not be a Manifestation of God's names Attributes among mankind? Islam and Baha'i Faith are in complete agreement on this issue. >Bahais may believe that Muhammad was "a major Manifestation of God" but please >be careful in what you attribute to Islam and in what you claim muslim >scriptures to say. Consider the term "Rasool"! It is a foreign theological term with unknown implications for Christians and Jews. by the same token, the term "Manifestation of God" is foreign for the Muslim friends. This does not invalidate the usage of a given term. By the term major Manifestation of God is meant that Prophet Muhammad is a messenger of God of the same caliber as Moses, not Prophet Daniel. I hope this is Scripturally valid for you. Warm Regards, Kamran Hakim hakim@bigq.dec.com