From: bes@cco.caltech.edu (Behnam Sadeghi)
Subject: Re: A perspective on the finality of Islam
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 13:11:05 GMT

Regarding Kamran's reply:

He ignored every objection I made to his line of reasoning.
(He had attempted to prove that the Qur'an/Propohet had let people
know about the advent of Bahaullah).

Instead, he commented on two incidental points that were 
not central or even relevant to the main argument.

Incidental Point 1: I said that Mr. Kamran needs to comment on the authenticity
of the hadiths he mentions, BUT for the purpose of this discussion I would
assume all his hadith were authentic and would show that, nevertheless,
there are big gaps of logic in his arguments.   So, in his
reply, instead of responding to my refutation of his arguments, he
philosophized about the whether one has to worry about authenticity
of hadith or not.  However, what his view of Hadith is does not affect
my arguments.

Incidental Point 2: In my article, I had said that 
that EVEN IF we accept the Bahai explanation of the Seal-of-the-
Prophets verse, for reasons X, Y, and Z, his views were not logical.
Instead of concentrating on arguments X, Y, and Z, he has focused on
the Seal-of-the-Prophets verse.  But please remember that I didn't
even bother to make any claim as to whether the Bahai explanation
of the verse is correct or not; I simply said that even if we accept
the explanation, it doesn't make a difference. [The only claim
I made about the Bahai explanation is that it was semantic; a fact that 
was confirmed by Kamran's reply.  BTW, nothing necessarily wrong with
Semantic arguments].

Kamran's argument in favor of his thesis involved several steps, starting
from a hadith of the Prophet.  The integrity of his conclusion depended
on the integrity of each step.  If a single step is defective, the final
conclusion doesn't follow.  In my reply to Kamran, it was proved that every
single link in his chain of deductions was defective.  But to disprove Kamran's
thesis, it would have sufficed only to demolish a single link.

It's difficult to believe the circuitous and illogical
deductions that were presented in his article.   Kamran hasn't commented on 
my refutation; so I still have the opportunity to state the following 
reminder:  Should he decide to comment on my reasoning, he would have to 
establish the validity of every link before his thesis can be
considered tenable.

The *only* comment Kamran offers on my refutation of his
points is the following.

>BS>That was all Kamran had to say about the Holy Qur'an.  Really, nothing
>BS>else.
>BS>1) This hadith, if authentic, 
>BS>Nothing really established up to now. 
>BS>Now, Back to Hadith again: 
>BS>Nothing established so far. 
>
>You reasoning is amazing Behnam.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

It's interesting that this is all you had to say.  On the contrary,
I think _your_ reasoning is "amazing."

1.  It's amazing *not* to define the Day of Resurrection by its Qur'anic
definition, namely as the Day when the world is destroyed and humans
are resurrected.

2.  It's amazing to say that the hadith of the Prophet had a time
referrence other than the Prophet's own time.  

3.  Even if we accept your arbitrary belief that the time referrence was 
from the moment the guidance of Imams ended, it's "amazing" that you 
choose this to be date of the 11th Imam's death rather than the date of 
the disappearance of the 12th Imam.

4.  It is amazing that you ignored all the other errors in your
argument that were pointed out.  They were so many I don't even remember
all of them.

5.  It's amazing that you ignored the authentic hadith of the Prophet
which explicitly states that there are no prophets after him.

6.  Since you unquestioningly accept all hadiths, it's really amazing
that you ignore the large number of ahadith which give descriptions of
how the world looks like when Mahdi appears.  These descriptions are 
quite detailed and when they come true, it would be very difficult to
miss them (to name just one of them, the Sun would have to rise from
the West instead of the East, there are many other such conditions).
It's amazing that you ignore that hadiths to the effect that the Mahdi
will appear shortly before the end of the World.

>BS>Now, Kamran talks about ahadith.   First of all, one should be careful
>BS>about the use of authentic, non-authentic, or shady ahadith.  Otherwise, one 
>BS>may prove anything he wishes.  Kamran hasn't been mindful of this and that
>BS>is a great defect.  Even then, if we accept his ahadith, his arguments are 
>BS>not convincing.  They involve giant leaps of logic, as I will discuss below.  
>
>:-)
>
>Behnam, I admit that Baha'i approach to Islam is different from yours. That
>is to be expected. I am naturally presenting to you a fresh perspective
>on the topic under discussion using quotations from Muslim sources. 
>Naturally my approach is at odds with the traditional Muslim beliefs. 
>Please note that the manner by which Prophet Muhammad fulfilled the 
>prophecies was at odds with the traditional Jewish and Christian 
>understanding of the Bible. You are rejecting the Baha'i approach as 
>Jews and Christian rejected Prophet Muhammad's.
>
>Another issue which is important to point out here is that people are no 
>more at the mercy of the clergy to tell them what is right and what is
>wrong. People can examine for themselves and determine the validity of
>a given argument. All I offered was a perspective on this issue. Those
>who read this exchange are capable of determining right from wrong. I do
>not expect you to agree with me, nor do I expect you to accept the Baha'i
>Faith. All I am asking is for the Muslim friends to stop their accusations.

Firstly, let me remind you that I wrote "even if we accept [Kamran's] ahadith
his arguments are not convincing.  They involve giant leaps of logic."  And
I went ahead and demonstrated these leaps of logic.  In other words, my 
arguments were based on assumption that your hadiths were fine (even if
that may not be the case in reality).  So, there's no room for complaint
about my style of argument; it was carried out based on your premises,
not mine.

Now, if I understand correctly, you're implying that a critical approach
towards the Hadith would put all of us at the mercy of the clergy so
far as the investigation of truth is concerned.  That's not really the
case.  Muslim scholars/clergy are not the only people who analyze hadith
to determine/estimate their authenticity.  Even non-Muslim scholars 
carry out such efforts.  If somebody has the time and interest, nothing
prevents him or her to carry out the relevant research.

As for your unquestioning acceptance of all hadith, if that's your
approach, it's fine; I argued on your premise.  However, your approach
implies that even if we know as a matter of fact that Mr. X fabricated hadith
Y, e.g. because of Mr. X's own admission, we should still accept his
hadith.

>Behnam, I have a large collection of Muslim books. What you see comes
>from those sources. My interpretation of the Qur'an and the sayings of 
>Prophet Muhammad and the Imams comes from the explanations offered by 
>The Bab, Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha.
>>
>I do have both copies. I prefer the Arabic though. The problem I see here
>is that Baha'is use the Muslim sources and they openly accept that their
>understanding of some parts of the Muslim Scripture is different from the
>traditional view. 

I don't think your definition of the Day of Resurrection comes from the
Qur'an.  That's why I suggested you refer to the Qur'an.  

>The Muslim friend appear to settle down for what they
>hear about the Baha'i Faith, or what Akund X or Ayat'u'llah Y has written
>about the Baha'i Faith. Don't you think that Iran would be a better place
>to live in if Muslims were to become half as knowledgeable about the Baha'i
>Faith as Baha'is are about Islam?

I assure you none of what I wrote about the Bahai religion was based on
"what Akund X or Ayatollah Y has written about the Bahai Faith."  The
only specific thing I ever heard about the Bahai faith from a clergyman
was that the number 19 (or was that 29?) has some significance in Bahai 
calendar.  Whether this is true or not, I don't know.  But I certainly
haven't used it in my arguments.  I have tried to base all my arguments
on what you yourself have described as Bahai beliefs.

>BS>I think you may find that the truth is really very simple, and that there's 
>BS>no need to resort to circuitous, tortuous, and indirect arguments mixing 
>                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>BS>great leaps of logic with numerical computations.  
>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>:-) 
>
>Very interesting reply!

Thanks. :-)  It's not only interesting, but also true!

Behnam Sadeghi

P.S.  I don't accept your explanation of the Seal-Of-The-Prophets
verse. However, since it appeared to me as a way of changing the
subject, I will comment on it at another time.


Newsgroups: soc.culture.iranian,talk.religion.misc