From: ahmed-shakil@cs.yale.edu (Shakil Waiz Ahmed)
Newsgroups: news.groups,soc.culture.indian,soc.culture.pakistan,soc.culture.bangladesh
Subject: Re: Islam/sects (wasRe:CFV:soc.religion.islam.ahmadiyya)
Date: 17 Nov 1992 17:19:37 -0500
Organization: Yale University Computer Science Dept., New Haven, CT 06520-2158
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: curie.systemsy.cs.yale.edu


In article <ZEESHAN.92Nov17151906@occs.cs.oberlin.edu>, zeeshan@occs.cs.oberlin.edu (Zeeshan Hasan) writes:
> In article <1e8eppINNkvl@CURIE.SYSTEMSY.CS.YALE.EDU> ahmed-shakil@cs.yale.edu (Shakil Waiz Ahmed) writes:
>    >The answer to what constitutes a Muslim is given in
>    >Islam's holy book itself, the Qur'an.  I have quoted from it to show
>    >how sects are not allowed, and the minute one divides from the
>    >religion (i.e. what the Qur'an teaches), once ceases to be part of
>    >Islam.  Since Muslims believe in the Qur'an, that is how they look
>    >upon the situation.
> 
> 	Sorry, don't agree.
> 	The Quranic statements against sectarianism are only natural,
> as Muhammad was still alive at the time.  Thus there was no room for
> difference of opinion; any doubts could be resolved by direct
> revelation through him.

Then why is there no statement in the Qur'an stating that these rules
cease to be valid after the prophet's (pbuh) death?  Instead, we find
statements that the Qur'an is timeless.  How is this consistent with
your claims?

> 	However, after the death of Muhammad the situation changes
> radically.  If any confusion/difference of opinion arises as to the
> true meaning of a Quranic verse, people will obviously have to rely
> upon themselves to resolve those differences.  There cannot be any ban
> on sectarianism in effect any more, because such a ban requires that
> one be able to separate out the "true" religion from the "false" sect.
> A Messenger from God would have no trouble doing that; but lacking
> divine guidance, no one else could be expected to perform this duty
> reliably!  So how do you guarantee that the truth isn't thrown out by
> mistake?  You can't.
> 	Relying on consensus doesn't work here, as the problem is one
> of information.  More uninformed people are no more likely to reach
> the right answer.

I guess you haven't heard of Ijtehad?  Ijtehad (consensus) was
practiced even by the earliest companions of the prophet (pbuh).  On
issues where the prophet did not clearly rule in a particular way, we
have to decided through Ijtehad, a consensus amongst knowledgeable
believers.

> 	Thus your use of the Quran to ban sectarianism doesn't work;
> true, people who reject the Quran can not be called Muslims.  But the
> reason sects have come about is not rejection of the Quran, but
> difference in the interpretation of certain Quranic verses.

But what about cases where the Qur'an is only partially believed in?
This is the situation we face here.  Is this not a contradiction of
Islam which says to *believe* in all of it?

> 	To look at it simply; you seem to be saying that the Ahmadias
> (and by extension, other sects) are in error as they have deviated
> from the true message of the Quran.  But that ignores the possibility
> that these deviant opinions may have been arrived at through a
> legitimate process of reinterpretation of the Islamic texts, which is
> an essential aspect of Islam after the death of the Prophet.  So how
> do you know that they aren't right?

My claim is that there is a direct contradiction with the Qur'an.

-- Shakil
Xref: sparky news.groups:22076 soc.culture.indian:37222 soc.culture.pakistan:16766 soc.culture.bangladesh:5972