---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Gilberto Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Oct 15, 2005 5:24 PM Subject: Re: Interesting thread To: Khazeh Fananapazir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On 10/15/05, Khazeh Fananapazir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote > This servant will continue if any one shows interest… > POINT 6 reaffirms the above > in > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg05969.html > ** The religions of God have the same foundation, but the dogmas appearing > later have differed. Each of the divine religions has two aspects. The > first is essential. It concerns morality and development of the virtues of > the human world. This aspect is common to all. It is fundamental; it is > one; there is no difference, no variation in it. As regards the inculcation > of morality and the development of human virtues, there is no difference > whatsoever between the teachings of Zoroaster, Jesus and Baha'u'llah. In > this they agree; they are one. The second aspect of the divine religions is > nonessential. It concerns human needs and undergoes change in every cycle > according to the exigency of the time I would look at the last part and say if the second aspect is really nonessential then it doesn't need to be changed. > POINT 7 > We need the Divine Teachings RENEWED because humanity has lost sight of > the essentials and vested interests emphasize often the non-essentials I would say that if the essentials are really common to all religions then we can encourage people to follow those principles which are already found in their own faiths. And if the non-essentials are things that seperate the different religions then we can all de-emphasize them. And that includes Bahais. > POINT 8 > In all the Holy Books of the past there are injunctions and teachings which > are to be contextualized in time in history in the human environment. > The Law of God changes with respect to every age. Movements such as > Salafiyya in Islam and Fundamentalism in Christianity often miss this > salient point I'm not a Salafi. And addressing the Salafi movement is part of a discussion which is already occuring within Islam. The traditional majority already realizes that rulings need to be contextualized. Scholars who follow a traditional methodology look at many different factors specific to a given situation when they arrive at rulings. Muslims don't need to convert to a different religion in order to do that. > > POINT 9 > Such utterances in the past Books need to be contextualized and cannot be > the Will of God in a non-abrogatable form > NEW TESTAMENT > LUKE 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and > wife, and children,and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he > cannot be my disciple. > LUKE > LUKE 12:51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, > Nay; but rather division: > 12:52 For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three > against two, and two against three. > 12:53 The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the > father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the > mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in > law against her mother in law In my understanding the above wasn't intended to be literal. It has a context which allows the principle to still be relevant today. > OLD TESTAMENT > DEUTERONOMY > 20:13 And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou > shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: > 20:14 But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in > the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou > shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given > thee. > 20:15 Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from > thee, which are not of the cities of these nations. > 20:16 But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give > thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: > > JOSHUA > 6:20 So the people shouted when the priests blew with the trumpets: and it > came to pass, when the people heard the sound of the trumpet, and the people > shouted with a great shout, that the wall fell down flat, so that the people > went up into the city, every man straight before him, and they took the > city. > 6:21 And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and > woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the > sword. Yes, I've read those passages before. I don't believe the above can or should be contextualized. I don't believe that God would ever order genocide. I don't believe the above passages are inspired. And that's a big part of why I am as critical of the Bible as I am. > In the Qur'anic Dispensation again the times the conditions the Asbaab e > nuzuul [circumstances of revelation] the naasikh and the mansuukh [the > abrogating verse and the verse that has to be abrogated all these facets are > relevant. Many pages are devoted to these but there is no universal > agreement [sadly]. > I think the concept of abrogation is a complicated one. But basically I think most examples of "abrogated" and "abrogating" verses are actually complementing and explaining one another. One passage gives a general rule, while another gives a specific exception. Or one passage gives a rule, and a second gives a deeper explanation. > THE HOLY QUR'AN > 2:216 Warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you; but it may > happen that ye hate a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that ye > love a thing which is bad for you. God knoweth, ye know not Ok. You posted this verse and didn't say anything about it. Why is this a problem? What are you trying to say with it? Is the above verse false? Is it wrong? The Bahai faith isn't pacifist so I don't see why you could find the above objectionable. War is a tragedy but sometimes use of force is necessary. > 4:11 God chargeth you concerning (the provision for) your children: to the > male the equivalent of the portion of two females And what are you trying to say with this? > 4:51 Hast thou not seen those unto whom a portion of the Scripture hath been > given, how they believe in idols and false deities, and how they say of > those (idolaters) who disbelieve: "These are more rightly guided than those > who believe" ? What problem do you have with this? > 4:89 They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye > may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they > forsake their homes in the way of God ; if they turn back (to enmity) then > take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor > helper from among them I'm disappointed in you. It is INCREDIBLY dishonest to quote things out of context in this way. You even cut the quote mid-sentence. Read more of the passage. [4.89] They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper. [4.90] Except those who reach a people between whom and you there is an alliance, or who come to you, their hearts shrinking from fighting you or fighting their own people; and if Allah had pleased, He would have given them power over you, so that they should have certainly fought you; therefore if they withdraw from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not given you a way against them. So who is excepted? Those who you have a treaty with. Those who have stopped fighting. Those who have withdrawn and offered peace. So the people in verse 89 who are being fought against are clearly those who you have no treaty with, and who have not laid down their arms and are continuing to fight against you. But those who are peaceful, ALLAH HAS NOT GIVEN YOU A WAY AGAINST THEM. I expected better from you. When the Quran talks about using force against a group of people its not just non-Muslims who are peacefully minding their own business. It is talking about those who have violently attacked the Muslims and have no intention of stopping. [9.13] What! will you not fight a people who broke their oaths and aimed at the expulsion of the Apostle, and they attacked you first; do you fear them? But Allah is most deserving that you should fear Him, if you are believers. And again, if the Bahai faith were a pacifist religion, then I could see how you could have a problem with the Quran and not be totally hypocritical. But if the Bahai faith allows people to defend themselves, there is no place to criticize what Islam and the Quran actually says about warfare. (as opposed to what Islamophobes accuse Islam of teaching) -Gilberto -- "There are no poets" bn‰¶…¶z™¶rz•†rž±m�•z–j¢½…·ÓŠqvn‰z¹®mŠž™j¡¢Š²q¹±m¶–�yÓý~š¹®�j‰vŠjn†‚y–žŠŠmŠŠqvn§Šqvóy~ The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments thereto ("e-mail") is sent by the Johnson County Community College ("JCCC") and is intended to be confidential and for the use of only the individual or entity named above. The information may be protected by federal and state privacy and disclosures acts or other legal rules. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are notified that retention, dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error please immediately notify JCCC by email reply and immediately and permanently delete this e-mail message and any attachments thereto. Thank you.
