Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan,soc.culture.bangladesh
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 12:54:00 -0500 
From: "Sohan C. Ramakrishna-Pillai" <sohan+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: CFV: soc.religion.islam.ahmadiyya moderated
	<1ee3e0INNqg4@CURIE.SYSTEMSY.CS.YALE.EDU>
Distribution: world

Excerpts from netnews.soc.culture.bangladesh: 18-Nov-92 Re: CFV:
soc.religion.islam.. Shakil Waiz Ahmed@cs.yal (1509)


> In article <1992Nov18.181636.21665@sarah.albany.edu>,
> ys3359@thor.albany.edu (Yazmasterj) writes:
> > In article <1edur4INNq8a@CURIE.SYSTEMSY.CS.YALE.EDU>
> ahmed-shakil@cs.yale.edu (Shakil Waiz Ahmed) went on about...
> > I have been watching debate for some time (even participated for a while).
> > The point you keep missing, Shakil, is that people don't seem to think
> > you have shown anything very clearly.  In fact, many people seem to have
> > quite a conflict with what you have shown.  You show things according
> > to your own interpretation.  What you keep missing is that your
> > interpretation is not the be-all-and-end-all of Islam.  

> Um, Yasmin, how many ways can you interpret the following:

>     O People, NO PROPHET OR APOSTLE WILL COME AFTER ME AND NO NEW FAITH
>     WILL BE BORN. Reason well, therefore, O People, and understand my
>     words which I convey to you. I leave behind me two things, the QUR'AN
>     and my example, the SUNNAH, and if you follow these you will never go
>     astray.

> or any of the numerous other passages I have quoted?  This is not a
> matter of interpretation anymore, but of simple comprehension...  If
> you can refute any of what I said, please do so.

> -- Shakil

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 :-)) 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!
___
Sohan C. Ramakrishna-Pillai
Office: UCC 181	Phone: x6406 [(412)268-6406]

 "In the beginning, man created beer, and it was good. God was
  created shortly thereafter." Gospel According to Brew, 1:1