subject:"Re\: The Perfect Man"

On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 17:24:06 -0800, Richard H. Gravelly
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  Gilberto wrote:
  So I would say the Bahai use of the term is certainly different from
  the original. And I'm not convinced it is even applicable.
 
 Dear Gilberto: As one who has embraced the Baha'i Faith because of the
 Qur'an, I have read your posts, and the posts sent to you with some
 interest.  There is one principle I had to learn even as a Christian; and
 before the Gospel led me to the Qur'an, which I embraced.  The principle is
 best stated by Baha'u'llah.  It is this:
 
 Say: O leaders of religion! Weigh not the Book of God with such standards
 and sciences as are current amongst you, for the Book itself is the unerring
 Balance established amongst men. In this most perfect Balance whatsoever the
 peoples and kindreds possess must be weighed, while the measure of its
 weight should be tested according to its own standard, (Baha'u'llah, Epistle
 to the Son of the Wolf, p. 128)


Yes, I've seen that passage quoted several times. It tends to give me
a big Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain vibe, if you
know what I mean.

 
 The effort made by men to reconcile the Word of God with the views of their
 leades is a wasted effort.  Rather man must cast all aside save the Word of
 God.
 
I'm a little puzzled by what you are saying. Because it seems to me
that the Bahai faith has a more narrowly defined set of leaders which
interpret the Bahai writings.

Also, in the case of Islam it seems like there a couple of different
sectors one could possibly look at if you want to find
interpretations, and in different contexts a different one is salient.

For some issues you might look at the overwhelming, long-lasting
Muslim consensus about how certain passages should be interpreted.

You could consult some small set of scholars or clergy about how some
passage should be interpreted.

You could look to contemporary lay Muslim popular opinion about how a
passage should be interpreted.

And finally, you as an individual layperson could read the text
yourself and come up with your own interpretation based more or less
on your own ideas.

It seems like you are recommending the last approach but it seems like
that would probably lead to the most confusion, division and chaos.




 One must make a choice.  Should one reflect?   God setteth forth these
 similitudes to men that haply they may reflect.  (The Qur'an (Rodwell tr),
 Sura  14 - Abraham, on Whom be Peace)
 
 Or should one listen to the learning of men regarding what is parabolical
 and the interpretation of which is known only to God?
 
 But those in whose hearts is doubt pursue, forsooth, that which is
 allegorical seeking (to cause) dissension by seeking to explain it. None
 knoweth its explanation save Allah. And those who are of sound instruction
 say: We believe therein; the whole is from our Lord; but only men of
 understanding really heed.  (The Qur'an (Pickthall tr), Sura   3 - The
 Family Of Imran)
 

[3.7] He it is Who has revealed the Book to you; some of its verses
are decisive, they are the basis of the Book, and others are
allegorical; then as for those in whose hearts there is perversity
they follow the part of it which is allegorical, seeking to mislead
and seeking to give it (their own) interpretation. but none knows its
interpretation except Allah, and those who are firmly rooted in
knowledge say: We believe in it, it is all from our Lord; and none do
mind except those having understanding.

Given the Bahai emphasis on allegory and opposition to literalism in
the Quran, and given that the Bahais also don't follow certain fairly
clear provisions in the Quran, why wouldn't the Bahais fall under the
category of people who follow the part of it which is allegorical ...
seeking to give it their own interpretation?


 As God's Hands cannot be literally chained-up or shackled, the verse
 which you discussed in your post is clearly parabolical, an allusion; and
 hence must be left to the interpretation of God.
 
 And may the peace of the Beloved enter into your heart Gilberto.
 

Another interesting thing about the above verse is that the
interpretation is actually ambiguous.

You rendered it:

 None knoweth its explanation save Allah [period]  And those who are
of sound instruction say: We believe therein; the whole is from our
Lord;

Apparently it can also be rendered:

None knoweth its explanation save Allah and those who are of sound
instruction [period] Say: We believe therein; the whole is from our
Lord.

In which case it would be giving permission for a certain group of
people [those who are of sound instruction] to interpret the verses.
This could mean the imams, or certain otherwise qualified scholars.

Peace

Gilberto


My people are hydroponic

__
You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:archive@mail-archive.com
To unsubscribe, send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe,

Re: The Perfect Man

2005-01-05 Thread Richard H. Gravelly


Say: O leaders of religion! Weigh not the Book of God with such 
standards
and sciences as are current amongst you, for the Book itself is the 
unerring
Balance established amongst men. In this most perfect Balance whatsoever 
the
peoples and kindreds possess must be weighed, while the measure of its
weight should be tested according to its own standard, (Baha'u'llah, 
Epistle
to the Son of the Wolf, p. 128)

Yes, I've seen that passage quoted several times. It tends to give me
a big Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain vibe, if you
know what I mean.
Actually Gilberto, I have no idea what you mean by your comment.

The effort made by men to reconcile the Word of God with the views of 
their
leades is a wasted effort.  Rather man must cast all aside save the Word 
of
God.
I'm a little puzzled by what you are saying. Because it seems to me
that the Bahai faith has a more narrowly defined set of leaders which
interpret the Bahai writings.
All interpretation which is to be followed has always, through all of the 
Dispensations of God, been sanctioned by Him through His Messengers and 
Chosen Ones.  In this Dispensation, no one after Shoghi Effendi can offer an 
authorized interpretation.  In Qur'an the interpreter is God.
Also, in the case of Islam it seems like there a couple of different
sectors one could possibly look at if you want to find
interpretations, and in different contexts a different one is salient.
For a muslim who has only the Book, the words of men are of no avail.  None 
can interpret the Book except God.
For some issues you might look at the overwhelming, long-lasting
Muslim consensus about how certain passages should be interpreted.
To one who follows the Book, consensus is of no avail
You could consult some small set of scholars or clergy about how some
passage should be interpreted.
Nay, my friend.  I did deliberately withhold myself from the words of men 
regarding Qur'an.  What had men for me when I had the Book?  Of what use are 
they now except that they may have in their hands the interpretation of God 
to be found in the Mother Book?
You could look to contemporary lay Muslim popular opinion about how a
passage should be interpreted.
The Gospel guided me to Qur'an after I discarded the sayings of men. 
Wherefore would I then look to their guidance thereafter.
And finally, you as an individual layperson could read the text
yourself and come up with your own interpretation based more or less
on your own ideas.
I could not interpret the Book.  Such interpretation is forbidden by the 
Book.  I could only pray and beg God for what was good for me. and that 
which is with God is best for the righteous. (The Qur'an (Rodwell tr), Sura 
3 - The Family of Imran)


It seems like you are recommending the last approach but it seems like
that would probably lead to the most confusion, division and chaos.
The best approach is reliance upon God.
35. O ye who believe! do your duty to Allah, seek the means of approach unto 
Him, and strive with might and main in His cause: that ye may prosper.  (The 
Qur'an (Yusuf Ali tr), Surah   5)


One must make a choice.  Should one reflect?   God setteth forth these
similitudes to men that haply they may reflect.  (The Qur'an (Rodwell 
tr),
Sura  14 - Abraham, on Whom be Peace)

Or should one listen to the learning of men regarding what is parabolical
and the interpretation of which is known only to God?
But those in whose hearts is doubt pursue, forsooth, that which is
allegorical seeking (to cause) dissension by seeking to explain it. None
knoweth its explanation save Allah. And those who are of sound 
instruction
say: We believe therein; the whole is from our Lord; but only men of
understanding really heed.  (The Qur'an (Pickthall tr), Sura   3 - The
Family Of Imran)

[3.7] He it is Who has revealed the Book to you; some of its verses
are decisive, they are the basis of the Book, and others are
allegorical; then as for those in whose hearts there is perversity
they follow the part of it which is allegorical, seeking to mislead
and seeking to give it (their own) interpretation. but none knows its
interpretation except Allah, and those who are firmly rooted in
knowledge say: We believe in it, it is all from our Lord; and none do
mind except those having understanding.
Given the Bahai emphasis on allegory and opposition to literalism in
the Quran, and given that the Bahais also don't follow certain fairly
clear provisions in the Quran, why wouldn't the Bahais fall under the
category of people who follow the part of it which is allegorical ...
seeking to give it their own interpretation?
The answer Gilberto Jan is that Baha'is follow the Interpretation of God as 
prescribed by the Qur'an.

As God's Hands cannot be literally chained-up or shackled, the verse
which you discussed in your post is clearly parabolical, an allusion; and
hence must be left to the interpretation of God.
And may the peace of the Beloved enter into your heart Gilberto.
Another

Re: The Perfect Man

On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 11:30:53 -0800, Richard H. Gravelly
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  Say: O leaders of religion! Weigh not the Book of God with such
  standards
  and sciences as are current amongst you, for the Book itself is the
  unerring
  Balance established amongst men. In this most perfect Balance whatsoever
  the
  peoples and kindreds possess must be weighed, while the measure of its
  weight should be tested according to its own standard, (Baha'u'llah,
  Epistle
  to the Son of the Wolf, p. 128)
 
 
  Yes, I've seen that passage quoted several times. It tends to give me
  a big Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain vibe, if you
  know what I mean.
 
 Actually Gilberto, I have no idea what you mean by your comment.
 

Sorry it's a reference to the Wizard of Oz. Let me say it this way
then. I think that
it should be ok to be critical and compare and contrast a scripture.
Kick the tires so to speak. That's how you find the truth. The Quran
actually asks the reader to check it for discrepancy. It dares people
to try to imitate it.

But if Bahaullah said weigh not the book... it gives me the
impression of asking the reader NOT to hold the Bahai writings up to
certain kinds of scrutiny and that tends to inspire suspicion. It's
like the used car salesman who says You don't need to take the car
out on a test drive. It works fine. Trust me

  The effort made by men to reconcile the Word of God with the views of
  their
  leades is a wasted effort.  Rather man must cast all aside save the Word
  of God.

Gilberto:
  I'm a little puzzled by what you are saying. Because it seems to me
  that the Bahai faith has a more narrowly defined set of leaders which
  interpret the Bahai writings.

Richard:
 All interpretation which is to be followed has always, through all of the
 Dispensations of God, been sanctioned by Him through His Messengers and
 Chosen Ones.  In this Dispensation, no one after Shoghi Effendi can offer an
 authorized interpretation.  In Qur'an the interpreter is God.

Gilberto:
Ok. So when you say Muslims shouldn't follow the interpretations of
their leaders it is NOT because you support individualism per se, or
believe that individuals should be able to interpret their texts
unaided. Instead its because you think that the leaders in Islam
aren't valid. But because in the Bahai faith the leaders are intact
and infallible it is appropriate for Bahais to subordinate their
individual opinions to the Bahai leadership?

Gilberto:
  Also, in the case of Islam it seems like there a couple of different
  sectors one could possibly look at if you want to find
  interpretations, and in different contexts a different one is salient.

Richard:
 For a muslim who has only the Book, the words of men are of no avail.  None
 can interpret the Book except God.

Gilberto:
To be that sounds unrealistically idealist and extreme. If you go the
Protestant route it tends to lead to division and lack of unity.
Before the Reformation there was a substantially united Church.
Virtually all the Christians in the world were in one of three main
branches who at least had a clear and common lineage. There were
disagreements but they were limited to a small narrow range of
questions and you could probably count the points of disagreements on
your fingers.

After the Reformation, people rejected tradition and everyone started
reading the text for themselves outside of any context and chaos
ensued.


Gilberto:
  For some issues you might look at the overwhelming, long-lasting
  Muslim consensus about how certain passages should be interpreted.

 To one who follows the Book, consensus is of no avail

Gilberto:
Where are you getting this from?

Richard:
  You could consult some small set of scholars or clergy about how some
  passage should be interpreted.


 Nay, my friend.  I did deliberately withhold myself from the words of men
 regarding Qur'an.  What had men for me when I had the Book?  Of what use are
 they now except that they may have in their hands the interpretation of God
 to be found in the Mother Book?

Gilberto:
Unless you are actually a prophet who receives the Quran directly from
the source, you only have access to the Quran by means of other
people. If you don't know Arabic, your reading of the Quran is
mediated by the translator. Even if you do know Arabic, modern spoken
Arabic is different in certain respects from the language of the Quran
and you would need to be taught what the words mean in their context.
There is no way to get around the fact that you are accessing the text
through other people. The choice you have is whether you go to good
teachers or bad teachers.

  You could look to contemporary lay Muslim popular opinion about how a
  passage should be interpreted.
 
 The Gospel guided me to Qur'an after I discarded the sayings of men.
 Wherefore would I then look to their guidance thereafter.
 
  And finally, you as an individual layperson could read the text
  yourself and come up with your

RE: The Perfect Man

2005-01-05 Thread Susan Maneck


 Let me say it this way
then. I think that
it should be ok to be critical and compare and contrast a scripture.
Kick the tires so to speak. That's how you find the truth. The Quran
actually asks the reader to check it for discrepancy. It dares people
to try to imitate it.

Dear Gilberto,

Baha'u'llah is not discouraging critical thinking in the evaluation of His
revelation. What He is criticizing is the use of measurements which are not
appropriate to it. The immitability of the verses is a very valid measure
and one which Baha'u'llah calls for as well. However, application of the
juridical thinking of the 'ulama, Baha'u'llah insists, is not valid.

But if Bahaullah said weigh not the book... it gives me the
impression of asking the reader NOT to hold the Bahai writings up to
certain kinds of scrutiny and that tends to inspire suspicion.

Yes, it is saying *certain* kinds of scrutiny. Namely that utilized by the
'ulama.

 It's
like the used car salesman who says You don't need to take the car
out on a test drive. It works fine. Trust me

Nonsense. It is like saying one doesn't measure the Grand Canyon with a
teaspoon.



But because in the Bahai faith the leaders are intact
and infallible it is appropriate for Bahais to subordinate their
individual opinions to the Bahai leadership?

Not Baha'i leadership. Only Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi had the right to
make authoritative interpretations. Individual interpretations are
permissible to everyone but we do not allow anyone to exercise ijtihad such
that others should practice taqlid and follow them.

warmest, Susan


__
You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:archive@mail-archive.com
To unsubscribe, send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe, use subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Baha'i Studies is available through the following:
Mail - mailto:bahai-st@list.jccc.edu
Web - http://list.jccc.edu/read/?forum=bahai-st
News - news://list.jccc.edu/bahai-st
Public - http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist
Old Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.net
New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.edu

Re: The Perfect Man




In a message dated 1/5/2005 4:07:40 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But if Bahaullah said "weigh not the book..." it gives me theimpression of asking the reader NOT to hold the Bahai writings up tocertain kinds of scrutiny and that tends to inspire suspicion. It'slike the used car salesman who says "You don't need to take the carout on a test drive. It works fine. Trust me"
He was also speaking of the Qur'an, the Gospels, etc., etc.

Scott
__

You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:archive@mail-archive.com

To unsubscribe, send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

To subscribe, use subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Baha'i Studies is available through the following:

Mail - mailto:bahai-st@list.jccc.edu

Web - http://list.jccc.edu/read/?forum=bahai-st

News - news://list.jccc.edu/bahai-st

Public - http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist

Old Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.net

New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.edu

Re: The Perfect Man

2005-01-05 Thread John Smith



G: Saying God CAN'T do something is "tying up his hands"Saying God CAN do something but in his sovereign authority andomnipotence chose to do something different is not "typing up hishands"
J: The statement "tying up his hands" would only make sense if you believe that Baha'u'llah is true. Because ifone believes that he isfalse and Muhammad is the Last, then of course God's hands would not by tied up.
J: If one believes in Baha'u'llah, then the folks that say he is a liar/exaggerator/honest-but-wrong are obviously tying up the hands of God.
G: The whole abrogation theory makes me uncomfortable and I'm glad thatthere are scholars who minimize its use or find other ways of readingthe Quran.
J: I can see why it makes one uncomfortable because it implies that God's Will changes over time.
		Do you Yahoo!? 
All your favorites on one personal page  Try My Yahoo!

__
You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:archive@mail-archive.com
To unsubscribe, send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe, use subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Baha'i Studies is available through the following:
Mail - mailto:bahai-st@list.jccc.edu
Web - http://list.jccc.edu/read/?forum=bahai-st
News - news://list.jccc.edu/bahai-st
Public - http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist
Old Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.net
New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.edu

G:"The effort made by men to reconcile the Word of God with the views of their leades is a wasted effort. Rather man must cast all aside save the Word of God." I'm a little puzzled by what you are saying. Because it seems to methat the Bahai faith has a more narrowly defined set of leaders which interpret the Bahai writings.J: Not sure what he means, but the "Word of God" here applies to only to 3 people (Baha'u'llah, Abdu'l-Baha, and Shoghi Effendi) and no other. No one else can interpret the Baha'i Writings for anyone except for himself. (I'm ignoring the Universal House of Justice here because explaining it would divert from the focus of this question).G: Given the Bahai emphasis on allegory and opposition to literalism inthe Quran, and given that the Bahais also don't follow certain fairlyclear provisions in the Quran, why wouldn't the Bahais fall under thecategory of people who "follow the part of it which!
is
allegorical ...seeking to give it their own interpretation"?
J: Baha'is do not follow the Qur'an at all. We follow the writings of Baha'u'llah.
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.

__
You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:archive@mail-archive.com
To unsubscribe, send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe, use subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Baha'i Studies is available through the following:
Mail - mailto:bahai-st@list.jccc.edu
Web - http://list.jccc.edu/read/?forum=bahai-st
News - news://list.jccc.edu/bahai-st
Public - http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist
Old Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.net
New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.edu

Re: The Perfect Man




In a message dated 1/5/2005 6:04:12 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
J: Baha'is do not follow the Qur'an at all. We follow the writings of Baha'u'llah.
We are not bound by the Qur'an. But we certainly follow its spirit as Baha`u'llah says repeatedly that the Qur'an is the Word of God and Muhammed is the Apostle of God. True, the mullahs are charged with the same guilt that the Gospel of John assigns to the Sanhedrin, but the Qur'an is the Word of God, short -simple - truth. 

Regards,

Scott
__

You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:archive@mail-archive.com

To unsubscribe, send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

To subscribe, use subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Baha'i Studies is available through the following:

Mail - mailto:bahai-st@list.jccc.edu

Web - http://list.jccc.edu/read/?forum=bahai-st

News - news://list.jccc.edu/bahai-st

Public - http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist

Old Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.net

New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.edu

Re: The Perfect Man

2005-01-05 Thread John Smith

To me, and *practically* speaking,believing that the Qur'an is the Word of God is entirely different from following it. I as a Baha'i do not *follow* the Qur'an. I do not observe its laws, say its prayers, etc. etc. I follow Baha'u'llah, observe His laws, say His prayers.

I do agree, that speaking of the spirit of the Qur'an, and I *do* mean each *literal* word and letter of the Qur'an, that yes, I do follow the Qur'an because it is in fact written by the same God that revealed through Baha'u'llah.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



In a message dated 1/5/2005 6:04:12 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
J: Baha'is do not follow the Qur'an at all. We follow the writings of Baha'u'llah.
We are not bound by the Qur'an. But we certainly follow its spirit as Baha`u'llah says repeatedly that the Qur'an is the Word of God and Muhammed is the Apostle of God. True, the mullahs are charged with the same guilt that the Gospel of John assigns to the Sanhedrin, but the Qur'an is the Word of God, short -simple - truth. 

Regards,

Scott__ You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, use subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Baha'i Studies is available through the following: Mail - mailto:bahai-st@list.jccc.edu Web - http://list.jccc.edu/read/?forum=bahai-st News - news://list.jccc.edu/bahai-st Public - http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist Old Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.net New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.edu 
		Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more.

__
You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:archive@mail-archive.com
To unsubscribe, send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe, use subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Baha'i Studies is available through the following:
Mail - mailto:bahai-st@list.jccc.edu
Web - http://list.jccc.edu/read/?forum=bahai-st
News - news://list.jccc.edu/bahai-st
Public - http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist
Old Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.net
New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.edu

Re: The Perfect Man

On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 15:52:26 -0800 (PST), John Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
 
 G:  Saying God CAN'T do something is tying up his hands
 Saying God CAN do something but in his sovereign authority and
 omnipotence chose to do something different is not typing up his
 hands
 
 J:  The statement tying up his hands would only make sense if you believe
 that Baha'u'llah is true.  Because if one believes that he is false and
 Muhammad is the Last, then of course God's hands would not by tied up.
 
 J:  If one believes in Baha'u'llah, then the folks that say he is a
 liar/exaggerator/honest-but-wrong are obviously tying up the hands of God.
 
I think part of the problem with that kind of language in this kind of
situation is that it is incredibly provocative and accusatory. Because
it's like you are going up to the person who thinks Bahaullah is
honest-but-wrong, and basically saying that if they don't accept your
claims they are guilty of something akin to blasphemy. It seems like
the same mindset as fundamentalists. Just because someone disagrees
with you doesn't make them evil.



The Quran says:
[2.62] Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the
Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last
day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and
there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve.

The above doesn't even insist on being Muslim. It doesn't even insist
on being People of the Book. It says whoever believes in Allah and
the Last day and does good. I'm not making any bets but I don't see
why this couldn't include Bahais.) So if the Quran doesn't absolutely
require that people  believe in Muhammad  I think you are being
narrow, restrictive and closed-minded if you are insisting that
everyone on earth recognize Bahaullah.

 
 G:  The whole abrogation theory makes me uncomfortable and I'm glad that
 there are scholars who minimize its use or find other ways of reading
 the Quran.
 
 J:  I can see why it makes one uncomfortable because it implies that God's
 Will changes over time.

It gives the impression of clumsiness if there are commandments in the
Quran which were revealed in the time of Muhammad but were only valid
for 20 years especially if the Quran is supposed to last from now
until judgement day.

Peace


My people are hydroponic

__
You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:archive@mail-archive.com
To unsubscribe, send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe, use subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Baha'i Studies is available through the following:
Mail - mailto:bahai-st@list.jccc.edu
Web - http://list.jccc.edu/read/?forum=bahai-st
News - news://list.jccc.edu/bahai-st
Public - http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist
Old Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.net
New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.edu

Re: The Perfect Man

2005-01-05 Thread Mark A. Foster

Gilberto;

At 09:34 AM 1/5/2005, you quoted from the Qur'an:
[3.7] He it is Who has revealed the Book to you; some of its verses are 
decisive, they are the basis of the Book, and others are allegorical; then as 
for those in whose hearts there is perversity they follow the part of it 
which is allegorical, seeking to mislead and seeking to give it (their own) 
interpretation. but none knows its interpretation except Allah, and those who 
are firmly rooted in knowledge say: We believe in it, it is all from our 
Lord; and none do mind except those having understanding. 

 From a Baha'i perspective, we are not following an allegorical interpretation 
of the Qur'an. We are following Baha'u'llah and those appointed, in the context 
of His Covenant, to interpret the Sacred Texts.

With regards, Mark A. Foster * 15 Sites: http://markfoster.net
Sacred cows make the tastiest hamburger -- Abbie Hoffman 


__
You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:archive@mail-archive.com
To unsubscribe, send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe, use subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Baha'i Studies is available through the following:
Mail - mailto:bahai-st@list.jccc.edu
Web - http://list.jccc.edu/read/?forum=bahai-st
News - news://list.jccc.edu/bahai-st
Public - http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist
Old Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.net
New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.edu

Re: The Perfect Man

On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 21:36:37 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 In a message dated 1/5/2005 8:34:36 PM Central Standard Time,
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 I'm a little puzzled by what you are saying. Because it seems to me
 that the Bahai faith has a more narrowly defined set of leaders which
 interpret the Bahai writings.



 Actually, there is no one alive today to interpret the text for another. The
 only place where a personal interpretation might cause problems is where the
 interpretation might cause a schism in the faith.
  

It was my understanding that the UHJ would interpret and make laws.
And that in the past some aspects of the Administrative Order could
decide that some individual's interpretation of the teachings of the
Bahai faith were unacceptable and excluded them from the religion.
I've read about cases where Bahai scholars were involuntarily removed
from membership due to issues like this.

That would all suggest living authorities in the Bahai faith who
interpret the texts for others.

Peace

Gilberto

__
You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:archive@mail-archive.com
To unsubscribe, send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe, use subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Baha'i Studies is available through the following:
Mail - mailto:bahai-st@list.jccc.edu
Web - http://list.jccc.edu/read/?forum=bahai-st
News - news://list.jccc.edu/bahai-st
Public - http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist
Old Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.net
New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.edu

Re: The Perfect Man




In a message dated 1/5/2005 11:50:05 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It was my understanding that the UHJ would interpret and make laws.And that in the past some aspects of the Administrative Order coulddecide that some individual's interpretation of the teachings of theBahai faith were unacceptable and excluded them from the religion.I've read about cases where Bahai scholars were involuntarily removedfrom membership due to issues like this.That would all suggest living authorities in the Bahai faith whointerpret the texts for others.
The Universal House of Justice has the power to legislate for that which is NOT expressly in the Writings. It does not have the authority to interpret. It has the responsibility to make sure that the faith does not schism. Schism can only occur when an individual puts forth an interpretation that claims authority.

Regards,

Scott
__

You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:archive@mail-archive.com

To unsubscribe, send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

To subscribe, use subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Baha'i Studies is available through the following:

Mail - mailto:bahai-st@list.jccc.edu

Web - http://list.jccc.edu/read/?forum=bahai-st

News - news://list.jccc.edu/bahai-st

Public - http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist

Old Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.net

New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.edu

Re: The Perfect Man

On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 00:55:57 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 In a message dated 1/5/2005 11:50:05 PM Central Standard Time,
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 It was my understanding that the UHJ would interpret and make laws.
 And that in the past some aspects of the Administrative Order could
 decide that some individual's interpretation of the teachings of the
 Bahai faith were unacceptable and excluded them from the religion.
 I've read about cases where Bahai scholars were involuntarily removed
 from membership due to issues like this.
 
 That would all suggest living authorities in the Bahai faith who
 interpret the texts for others.



 The Universal House of Justice has the power to legislate for that which is
 NOT expressly in the Writings. It does not have the authority to interpret.
 It has the responsibility to make sure that the faith does not schism.
 Schism can only occur when an individual puts forth an interpretation that
 claims authority.


How can the UHJ prevent schism and correct individuals without
actually interpreting the text themselves?

Peace

Gilberto
My people are hydroponic

__
You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:archive@mail-archive.com
To unsubscribe, send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe, use subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Baha'i Studies is available through the following:
Mail - mailto:bahai-st@list.jccc.edu
Web - http://list.jccc.edu/read/?forum=bahai-st
News - news://list.jccc.edu/bahai-st
Public - http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist
Old Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.net
New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.edu

Re: The Perfect Man




In a message dated 1/6/2005 12:35:43 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
How can the UHJ prevent schism and correct individuals withoutactually interpreting the text themselves?
THey can rely on the interpretations already made by the Guardian, Abdu'l Baha and the Sacred Writings of the Forerunner and the Prophet. Mostly they rely on the interpretations of SHoghi Effendi and Abdu'l Baha. Abdu'l Baha and Shoghi Effendi give good examples of preventing schism. Individual interpretation does not require correction unless and until someone tries to make that interpretation binding upon others.

Regards,

Scott
__

You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:archive@mail-archive.com

To unsubscribe, send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

To subscribe, use subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Baha'i Studies is available through the following:

Mail - mailto:bahai-st@list.jccc.edu

Web - http://list.jccc.edu/read/?forum=bahai-st

News - news://list.jccc.edu/bahai-st

Public - http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist

Old Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.net

New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.edu

Re: The Perfect Man

On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 18:12:17 -0800, J. Vahid Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Dear Gilberto,
 
 You asked:
 Do you know where those other numbers come from? I think the only
 number I've heard of was 10 because in Genesis when Abraham was
 haggling with God to spare Sodom, God said that if there were 10
 righteous men in Sodom he wouldn't have destroyed it.
 
 Babylonian Talmud, tractate Hullin, 92a: R. Yohanan said, 'There exist
 forty-five saints who sustain the world...
 
 Thirty-six became the standard enumeration of the tzaddikim from early
 medieval Kabbalistic sources on into modern Hasidic texts.  On the
 thirty-six saints traditions, see Scholem's The Tradition of the
 Thirty-six Hidden Just Men, in his _Messianic Idea in Judaism_, pp.
 251-6.  Paul Fenton has a paper exploring these traditions and comparing
 them with analogs in medieval Islamic texts: The Hierarchy of Saints in
 Jewish and Islamic Mysticism, Journal of the Muhyiddin Ibn 'Arabi Society
 10 (1991): 12-34.

Thanks. I'll try to follow up on that. I think I have a book or two
with stuff on kabbalah floating around in my room somewhere too. Maybe
they might have something too.

Peace

Gilberto

My people are hydroponic

__
You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:archive@mail-archive.com
To unsubscribe, send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe, use subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Baha'i Studies is available through the following:
Mail - mailto:bahai-st@list.jccc.edu
Web - http://list.jccc.edu/read/?forum=bahai-st
News - news://list.jccc.edu/bahai-st
Public - http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist
Old Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.net
New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.edu

Re: The Perfect Man

On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 18:59:57 -0800 (PST), John Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
 
   J: But you do not accept the appearance of anyone on par with Prophet
   Muhammad, i.e. Baha'u'llah, who revealed a brand new Qur'an equal to the
   Qur'an you currently use, do you. In that respect, I believe that you
 are
   tying up the hands of God.
 
  I disagree with how you are characterizing this but have discussed it
  to death and am not sure how else to explain it.
 
 
 Do I have a general feel for what you are saying? ' We don't need
 Baha'u'llah (as He presents himself) because Islam is in a state of changing
 already.  Islam does allow God to be present today and in the future, so the
 statement that God's hands are tied is not accurate.'  I think I understand
 this perspective.  
 

It's funny. I actually would agree with the statement you wrote but I
don't think that's what I was trying to get across with the above 
point. The point I was trying to make is just really simple and 
pedantic. It really is just about the difference between saying
something can or can't happen on the one hand, and saying that
something will or won't happen on the other.

Saying God CAN'T do something is tying up his hands
Saying God CAN do something but in his sovereign authority and
omnipotence chose to do something different is not typing up his
hands
 
  Why would the Quran need to be re-revealed if it is still here in its
  original form?
 
 
 No, on one level I do not see that there is a need for a re-revelation of
 the Qur'an if it already exists in original form.
 
 I would look at it more like this:  If Muhammad revealed chapter 1 of the
 Qur'an, why would he reveal chapter 2?  I don't know the Qur'an, but lets
 assume for argument's sake that in chapter 1 it is revealed do drink unless
 praying and in chapter 2 it is revealed do not drink at all.  Isn't there
 a contradiction between these hypothetical Qur'anic chapters? 

The whole abrogation theory makes me uncomfortable and I'm glad that
there are scholars who minimize its use or find other ways of reading
the Quran.

So this is less abstract, let me see if I can actually look up the
specific example in terms of the drinking issue.

This is chronologically first:

 2:219:
They ask thee concerning wine and gambling. Say: In them is great
sin, and some profit, for men; but the sin is greater than the
profit. They ask thee how much they are to spend; Say: What is
beyond your needs. Thus doth Allah Make clear to you His Signs: In
order that ye may consider-


then second comes:

4:43
O ye who believe! Approach not prayers with a mind befogged, until ye
can understand all that ye say,- nor in a state of ceremonial impurity
(Except when travelling on the road), until after washing your whole
body. [...]

So this is saying don't pray when you are drunk. But notice that the
first passage is still totally valid. There is still some harm and
benefit in drinking, but the harm still outweighs the benefit.

And finally:

5:93
O ye who believe! Intoxicants and gambling, (Dedication of) stones,
and (divination by) arrows, are an abomination, - of Satan's
handiwork: Eschew such (abomination), that ye may prosper.

So this is the clearest prohibition of drinking, but the previous
passages didn't positively permit drinking so there is no actual
contradiction. And those previous passages are still true. If you look
at what each is saying, all three are valid and don't contradict one
another.


  I would consider the
 writing of Baha'u'llah as another chapter of the Qur'an.  Where this analogy
 falls apart is that the statements in chapter 1 and 2 should be considered
 together to determine the real meaning (i.e. since man is always in a state
 of prayer/submission to God, it is never okay to drink).  

It is kind of funny you should mention that. Actually there are some
Sufis who (I wouldn't endorse but) take the passage in a different
direction. Some sufis are called sober Sufis who are more
emotionally moderate, while others are more given to ecstatic and
poetic  statements and they are called drunken Sufis or
God-intoxicated. So in the second group some make the argument that
since they are drunk on God they are exempt from the prayer (and the
other commandments of the shariah).

Actually, given the wine-imagery in some of the Bahai writings and
given that Bahais are also exempt from Muslim prayers, I would be
slightly surprised
if Bahais didn't make a similar argument.

 
  And thirdly, while I think that as individuals and as movements
  Christians can certainly be good spiritual people who make positive
  contributions to the world, I think that true Christianity (in the
  sense of a living tradition which authentically preserves the original
  teachings of Jesus as opposed to the theological baggage that the
  Church put in his mouth) actually is dead and
  was broken along time ago.

 How are the actual teachings of Jesus dead?
 

In the sense that the overwhelming majority of

Re: The Perfect Man

On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 13:50:23 -0600, Susan Maneck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Saying God CAN'T do something is tying up his hands
 Saying God CAN do something but in his sovereign authority and
 omnipotence chose to do something different is not typing up his
 hands

 Dear Gilberto,

 And do you really know of any instances where the Jews literally said this,
 or was it not their actions which essentially amounted to saying the same
 thing?


I don't know about Jews, but I think in various communities there are
some theologians who literally do put certain limitations on God and
in effect say that God has to be thus and so.

What is the original context of this anyway?

[5.64] And the Jews say: The hand of Allah is tied up! Their hands
shall be shackled and they shall be cursed for what they say. Nay,
both His hands are spread out, He expends as He pleases [...]

Actually, I found a better version of this passage translated by
Muhammad Asad (a famous convert who comes from a Jewish background)

(64) And the Jews say, God's hand is shackled! It is their own hands
that are shackled; and rejected [by God] are they because of this
their assertion. Nay, but wide are His hands stretched out: He
dispenses [bounty] as He wills. But all that has been bestowed from on
high upon thee [O Prophet] by thy Sustainer is bound to make many of
them yet more stubborn in their overweening arrogance and in their
denial of the truth.


And then the following note:

81 The phrase one's hand is shackled is a metaphorical expression
denoting niggardliness, just as its opposite-his hand is stretched
out wide -signifies generosity (Zamakhshary). However, these two
phrases have a wider meaning as well, namely, lack of power and
unlimited power, respectively (Razi). It would appear that the Jews
of Medina, seeing the poverty of the Muslims, derided the latters'
conviction that they were struggling in God's cause and that the
Qur'an was divinely revealed. Thus, the saying of the Jews mentioned
in this verse, God's hand is shackled, as well as the parallel one
in 3 : 181, God is poor while we are rich, is an elliptical
description of their attitude towards Islam and the Muslims - an
attitude of disbelief and sarcasm which could be thus paraphrased: If
it were true that you Muslims are doing God's will, He would have
bestowed upon you power and riches; but your poverty and your weakness
contradict your claim - or else this claim of yours amounts, in
effect, to saying that God cannot help you. This outstanding example
of the elliptic mode of expression (Tjaz) so often employed in the
Qur'an has, however, a meaning that goes far beyond the historical
circumstances to which it refers: it illustrates an attitude of mind
which mistakenly identifies Pworldly riches or power with one's being,
spiritually, on the right way. In the next sentence the Qur'an takes
issue with this attitude and declares, in an equally elliptical
manner, that all who see in material success an alleged evidence of
God's approval are blind to spiritual truths and, therefore, morally
powerless and utterly self-condemned in the sight of God.


[end quote]

So I would say the Bahai use of the term is certainly different from
the original. And I'm not convinced it is even applicable.



My people are hydroponic

__
You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:archive@mail-archive.com
To unsubscribe, send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe, use subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Baha'i Studies is available through the following:
Mail - mailto:bahai-st@list.jccc.edu
Web - http://list.jccc.edu/read/?forum=bahai-st
News - news://list.jccc.edu/bahai-st
Public - http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist
Old Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.net
New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.edu

RE: The Perfect Man

2005-01-04 Thread Susan Maneck

It would appear that the Jews
of Medina, seeing the poverty of the Muslims, derided the latters'
conviction that they were struggling in God's cause and that the
Qur'an was divinely revealed. Thus, the saying of the Jews mentioned
in this verse, God's hand is shackled, as well as the parallel one
in 3 : 181, God is poor while we are rich, is an elliptical
description of their attitude towards Islam and the Muslims - an
attitude of disbelief and sarcasm which could be thus paraphrased: If
it were true that you Muslims are doing God's will, He would have
bestowed upon you power and riches; but your poverty and your weakness
contradict your claim -

In other words triumphalism.

That is rather the lines along which Yassir has argued against the Faith,
isn't it? That if we were a true religion we would be running Iran or maybe
the rest of the world by now.

warmest, Susan


__
You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:archive@mail-archive.com
To unsubscribe, send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe, use subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Baha'i Studies is available through the following:
Mail - mailto:bahai-st@list.jccc.edu
Web - http://list.jccc.edu/read/?forum=bahai-st
News - news://list.jccc.edu/bahai-st
Public - http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist
Old Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.net
New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.edu

Re: The Perfect Man

2005-01-04 Thread Popeyesays




In a message dated 1/4/2005 3:17:31 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Actually, given the wine-imagery in some of the Bahai writings andgiven that Bahais are also "exempt" from Muslim prayers, I would beslightly surprisedif Bahais didn't make a similar argument.
We are also exempt from Christian and Judaic prayers. We are, however, given our prayer requirements. Drugs and alcohol to 'alter" the consciousness are also prohibited by Baha`u'llah. It is the position of the Central Figures of our faith that the human mind is perfe t for communion with God and tampering with that perfection is a basically flawed outlook.

Regards,

Scott
__

You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:archive@mail-archive.com

To unsubscribe, send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

To subscribe, use subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Baha'i Studies is available through the following:

Mail - mailto:bahai-st@list.jccc.edu

Web - http://list.jccc.edu/read/?forum=bahai-st

News - news://list.jccc.edu/bahai-st

Public - http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist

Old Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.net

New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.edu

Re: The Perfect Man

On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 14:50:35 -0600, Susan Maneck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 It would appear that the Jews
 of Medina, seeing the poverty of the Muslims, derided the latters'
 conviction that they were struggling in God's cause and that the
 Qur'an was divinely revealed. Thus, the saying of the Jews mentioned
 in this verse, God's hand is shackled, as well as the parallel one
 in 3 : 181, God is poor while we are rich, is an elliptical
 description of their attitude towards Islam and the Muslims - an
 attitude of disbelief and sarcasm which could be thus paraphrased: If
 it were true that you Muslims are doing God's will, He would have
 bestowed upon you power and riches; but your poverty and your weakness
 contradict your claim -
 
 In other words triumphalism.
 
 That is rather the lines along which Yassir has argued against the Faith,
 isn't it? That if we were a true religion we would be running Iran or maybe
 the rest of the world by now.

Is Yassir on the Bahai Studies list? I wouldn't want to speak for him.
But personally I wouldn't want to make that sort of argument. I don't
think that that kind of success is much of an indication of truth. In
fact, I think in general the liberation theology perspective (where
God is on the side of the poor and the oppressed) is much more
compelling.

Unfortunately I think they are popular in many different circles. On
more than one occasion, I've seen Bahais make similar arguments by
looking at Western economic power or technological success compared to
the Muslim world and try to make some kind of implication about Islam.

So all sorts of people in all sorts of religious communities make all
sorts of arguments. Both good and bad.

Peace

Gilberto


My people are hydroponic

__
You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:archive@mail-archive.com
To unsubscribe, send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe, use subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Baha'i Studies is available through the following:
Mail - mailto:bahai-st@list.jccc.edu
Web - http://list.jccc.edu/read/?forum=bahai-st
News - news://list.jccc.edu/bahai-st
Public - http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist
Old Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.net
New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.edu

Re: The Perfect Man