On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 12:21:34 -0600, Mark A. Foster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, Gilberto,
Hi Mark. Gilberto: > >>In terms of the above, there is a huge difference between how the issue is > >>played out in this case. In the case of Qadianis, there is a strong > >>consensus that they actually aren't Muslim, specifically for the reason > >>that they say Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was a prophet.<< Mark: > There is also a huge consensus among self-defined fundamentalist Christians > that members of Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy, the Watch Tower Bible and Tract > Society, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, etc. are not > Christians. Gilberto: But self-defined fundamentalist Christians who actually believe that Catholics aren't Christian are themselves a marginalized group. The majority of self-identified Christians overall are themselves Catholic. And Ecumenism has made at least a few inroads and there are alot of Protestants who, even though they might disagree with Catholics about this or that, are at least willing to call them "Christian". Gilberto: > >>The issue is important enough and central enough in Islam, that there is > >>another group of Lahori Ahmadis who distance themselves from the first > >>group and make a point of being careful not to say Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was a > >>prophet.<< Mark: > I know. However, having read many of the works of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, > I think that both interpretations can be justified. Gilberto: Yes, but you also think the Church of the Sacred Yellow Pages can be justified... lol.. Anyway, I'm not really commenting on which side of the split is most justified. I'm saying this is an emphasized enough issue in Islam that it split the movement. Gilberto: > >>Finality of prophethood, simply is not that clear, central, or as important > >>an idea in Christianity.<< Mark: > I don't understand why you think there is a basis for comparison. From my > perspective, you are saying, Finality of "the word prophet" is not as clear > in these two religious networks. You have never established that that the > qur'anic teaching on nabiyyin has any relationship to any particular > Christian view of prophets, Gilberto: I gave you a specific example. Of at least one possible way to do it. According to some Muslim scholars, a "nabi" is anyone who has received revelation. And so, for example Mary is seen by some as a prophet because of the Annunciation. Gabriel appeared to her with a message, and gave her an invitation to her own baby shower. Right? Moses' mother received revelation to put her son in the water. They didn't found religions. They didn't necessarily get a commission to pass a message to other people. But they received revelation. If these people are "nabis" then nabi would pretty clearly include those who have received private revelation (in the Catholic sense). So in which case, Muslims are saying no more nabis are coming, while Catholics and others are saying that such people continue to appear. If you up the requirement and say a "nabi" is someone who receives revelation of a message meant for a larger audience. Then Muslims are still saying no more nabis are coming. But in the Catholic case you still have something like the secrets of Fatima which deals with world-wide events like the fall of communism etc. > >>And the group which accepts different forms of prophethood is more > >>prevalent and varied in Christianity. The Mormons say Joseph Smith was a > >>prophet. Seventh Day Adventists have Ellen G. White. Quakers say everyone > >>has access to the inner light.<< > > All I will say is that, in English, the application of the word prophet to > modernity is more common in the Christianities than in the Islams. Gilberto: Fair enough for now. > >>Catholics and Orthodox Christians clearly talk about individuals in the > >>present day receive special revelations from God with a clear commission to > >>deliver the message to others. That's not just some isolated, localized > >>minority of Christians.<< > As I have said before, if you are defining a prophet as one who receives > some kind of revelation or communication from God, it is a common notion > > among many Sufis and Christian mystics, such as Quakers and > pentecostals. It's common for Quakers in the sense that everyone has the inner light. It's common among pentecostals because there are many people who would have the experience of speaking in tongues and claiming to get messages from God that way. Sufis say certain phenomena are possible but I wouldn't call them common. It's like a miracle given to saints, not necessarily everyone who joins the order. Mark: > You seem to want to focus on the word "prophet" itself. > Not just stopping there but because it indicates an underlying difference. > >>Sufis make a point of saying that whatever miracles or powers they might > >>attribute to saints, that it is different from being a prophet. The kashf > >>and ilham attributed to saints is sometimes described as unveiling or > >>intuition.<< > > Muhammad clearly distinguished Himself from others (not nabii) by His > receiving of wahy. However, would all Sufis understand what He said as a > restriction? > > "What does it mean when a Muslim does not read or write? It means he does not > learn, and if he does not, how, then, can he worship Allah in the manner that > would qualify him to become His constant servant and His favourite? > Al-Junaid's assertion actually means that the murid is to be kept ignorant > and "pure" enough to occupy himself with dthikr or wird, so that he may join > the ranks of those who receive "direct revelation from God," i.e. esoteric > knowledge." > http://www.qss.org/articles/sufism/sufi17.html Thanks for including the link. That description is from an anti-Sufi website which is trying to descredit Sufism as a whole and isn't a reliable source of information about Sufism. The author is accusing Sufis of claiming revelation as a way of refuting them. > > It is unclear to me as to whether this writer is allowing for wahy by a murid > or is using "revelation" in a broad sense to include irfaan. The author wouldn't be interested in making a careful distinction between wahy and kashf or other phenomena. Another site I just found: http://www.alislam.co.za/file.asp?ID=56 Status of "Dream", "Kashf", "Ilhaam" Whilst mentioning the differences between a "Nabi" and "Wali (saint)", Moulana Idris Kandelvi (A.R) states on P 118 "Aqaaidul Islaam " that "All the "Ilhaam" and "Dreams" of the Nabi (S.A.W) are "Qat'y - categorical proof", these are proofs upon (for) the ummat, and the "Kashf" and "Ilhaam" of a wali are zanni-(not finite proofs ), not on any one, let alone on the Wali perse, the Ilhaam is not a proof i.e not compulsory to act upon." Mujtahid Sirhindi (A.R) states :" It is commonly agreed that in determining the legality of acts and their priorities (arkan Shar'iyah) what counts is the Quraan, the Sunnat of the Prophets, and lastly the consensus (Ijma) of the Ummah. No other principle apart from these four, is to be taken into consideration in order to determine the legality of rules. Inspiration (ilham) does not determine the rightness or wrongness of anything, and the kashf of the Sufis does not establish the degree of a rule as to whether it is obligatory or commendable. Saints have to follow, like an ordinary Muslim, the opinions of the great jurists (mujahids). Their revelations and inspirations do not raise their status, and relieve them from following the opinions of the fuqaha (jurists). Dhu- Nun and Bustami, Junaid and Shibli are just at the level of Zayd, Umar, Bakr and Khalid, the common folk, they have to follow the opinion of the jurists in the matters open to legal reasoning" [...] Difference between Kashf and Ilham "Kashf and Ilham are two separate entities. According to Imam Rabbani, Kashf is nearer to what is termed as sensation by logicians while Ilham is closer to what is called intuition. Probably Ilham is more accurate than kashf because the latter is lifting of the veil from something and the former is a direct inspiration into the heart." Faizel - al- Bari Vol 1 p 19. Ibne - e- Qayam, while discussing Kashf and Ilham writes, "This is not the knowledge of the Unseen but a knowledge which has been put by the Knower of the unseen into an enlighted heart, a heart free from wayward impulses, evil dispositions and superstitious tendencies. These are moral ailments which preclude a heart from perceiving realities". Kitab - ur Ruh p 29. [end quote] So ilham and kashf seem more like a faculty which is heightened in saints. Peace Gilberto "My people are hydroponic" __________________________________________________ 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:[email protected] 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/[email protected] New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
