From: ahmed-shakil@cs.yale.edu (Shakil Waiz Ahmed)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan,soc.culture.bangladesh
Subject: Re: CFV: soc.religion.islam.ahmadiyya moderated
Date: 19 Nov 1992 15:06:09 -0500
Organization: Yale University Computer Science Dept., New Haven, CT 06520-2158
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: curie.systemsy.cs.yale.edu


In article <0f2xGs200WAoM1M1YI@andrew.cmu.edu>, "Sohan C. Ramakrishna-Pillai" <sohan+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

> The above passage is not from that authentic and complete document of
> documents - the Quran. The above passage is from some presumed Last
> Sermon of Mohammed the Islamic Prophet. When a self-defined literalist
> Muslim (whom I won't name here :-)) 

Strange.  I've been reading these groups for many years now, and I've
never yet seen anyone declare himself a "literalist Muslim."  *You* were
speaking of authentic documents? :)

> sinks to the level of using hadiths
> or sermons as a crutch, it is an indication that he simply has no basis
> for his claims from the Quran (which he considers authentic and
> complete) and has to resort to other means to justify his prejudices.
> 
> From a Muslim point of view, Allah has guaranteed through his Apostle
> that the perfect Quran would remain inviolate and preserved in the
> original form he delivered it to Mohammed through Archangel Gabriel. No
> such divine guarantee has been made for any Last Sermon. Now, anybody is
> personally welcome to believe in the inviolability or authenticity of
> that Last Sermon, or in any subset of the zillion hadith which abound.
> But such a belief is not a requirement to be a Muslim and arguing on the
> basis of such a Last Sermon is worthless as far as defining a Muslim
> goes.
> 
> Perhaps the most enlightened tradition to follow as far as defining a
> Muslim goes is one Mohammed is supposed to have used - whoever recites
> the kalima and thereby accepts the unity of God and the prophethood of
> Mohammed (no mention of seals or finality!) is a Muslim unless that
> person declares otherwise. Of course, your mileage may vary, but that is
> your problem and yours alone!

The explanation of the Qur'an is given by the hadith of the Prophet
(pbuh).  One cannot simply ignore them.  Both the Shia and the Sunni
schools have our own books of hadith, the former relying mostly on the
sayings of their Imams, who were descendants of the Prophet (pbuh),
the latter from the sayings of Muhammad (pbuh) as narrated through a
chain of trusted narrators (this science was developed by the Muslims,
and is called Isnad).  Some hadiths are more authentic than others.  I
have quoted only from authentic ones.  Rukhsana posted some quotes
from the Qur'an which support this:

	Say (O Muhammed), "If you do love Allah, follow me; Allah will
	love and forgive you your sins; for Allah is Oft-Forgiving,
	Most Merciful." Al-e-Imran 3:31.

	Whosoever obeys the Prophet, has indeed obeyed Allah.
	Al Nisa 4:79.

	Whosoever opposes the Prophet after the truth has become
	manifest unto him, and follows a way other than that of the 
	believers, We shall let him follow that to which he has
	turned and shall (in the end) roast him in (the Fire of)
	Hell; an evil retreat.  Al Nisa 4:115.

There are more.

I also quoted 33:40 from the Qur'an with a full explanation of the
meaning of the Arabic words, and I have not seen any rebuttals of that
yet.  Since you appear to be about as knowledgable as the rest of the
netters who have shown interest in arguing about something they know
nothing of, I can only recommend that you stick to matters you *do*
know about...

-- Shakil