On 5/13/06, Iskandar Hai, M.D. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Again, Gilberto's evasive techniques.
What do you think I'm evading?
On Thu, 11 May 2006, Gilberto Simpson wrote:
> On 5/10/06, Iskandar Hai, M.D. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, 9 May 2006, Gilberto Simpson wrote:
> > > On 5/9/06, Iskandar Hai, M.D. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 9 May 2006, Gilberto Simpson wrote:
> > > > > On 5/9/06, Iskandar Hai, M.D. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > On Tue, 9 May 2006, Gilberto Simpson wrote:
> > > > > > > On 5/8/06, Iskandar Hai, M.D. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > Iskandar:
> > > > > > > > Things didn't magically change in 1844, nor in 610, nor in year
30. Think continuum.
> > > > > Gilberto:
> > > > > > > I do think in terms of continuum. That's why I don't think that a
new
> > > > > > > Manifestation who will change things around is all that necessary.
> > > > > > > While remaining faithful to Islam, the rulings of scholars will
take
> > > > > > > new realities into account.
> Gilberto:
> For me the above is the main topic right now. But alot of the
> discussion which happened later was a digression. So I'll skip over
> it.
>
Iskandar:
Things didn't magically change in 1844, nor in 610, nor in year 30. When
you had earlier said that the Baha'i Faith did not spring out of a vaccum,
I responded that no religion springs out of a vacuum. It's a continuum. By
which I mean progressive revelation.
Gilberto:
I think this is part of where the misunderstanding started because,
especially in context, "continuum" means something different from
"progressive revelation". Having slavery be A-OK one day, but then
being prohibited when Bahaullah declared it prohibited, may be
progressive revelation but it isn't a continuum.
What I would suggest is that slavery was *always* morally questionable
but perhaps economically necessary. So at first it was regulared. But
then as society changed, it became less "necessary" and harder to
justify. So it was ultimately banned.
You have some different understanding or definition or concept of
contiuum.
As far as the rulings of scholars is concerned: first of all you can
hardly find two scholars who would agree with each other.
You are exagerating without any kind of evidence. If you compare the
four sunni schools for instance, they actually agree on most of their
rulings. There is a broad consensus of the rules and they differ only
in the details. It's like how in the US different states the federal
laws are the same, but there are minor differences in the state laws
(marriage law, age of consent, traffic laws. etc.)
Your "democracy"
thing. Second, the scholars can't change the laws contained in the Quran.
Ok. That actually is another reason why your previous point doesn't
make much sense. The Quran is like the "constitution" which promotes
consistency among different scholars.
Third, rulings of scholars have caused (and it's
still causing) violence and bloodshed, warfare, etc., in the name of God
and in the name of religion.
So are you trying to say that they are violent *because* they are scholars?
No, thanks. The Salafi Wahhabis have scholars
too. And they contradict your somewhat pacifist views and condemn them as
un-Islamic.
Gilberto:
I don't want to get into another semantic argument, but pacifist has a
specific meaning and I'm not one. Neither Islam nor the Bahai faith
are pacifist religions.
> Iskandar:
> > OK, so now, the argument boils down to the Seal of Prophets issue.
> Gilberto:
> No. That was just part of the digresssion.
Iskandar:
No, it's not a digression.
Gilberto:
Ok, then we'll just disagree.
> Iskandar:
> I'd recommend a review of Khazeh's paper on this finality issue as a start.
> Gilberto:
> I've read it already. I like it. It makes some interesting points. But
> it doesn't work very well as "ammunition" in this kind of discussion.
> It's not a polemic.
Iskandar:
Baha'is try not engage in polemics.
Gilberto:
(no comment)
Iskandar:
You just have closed your mind and
heart and soul to the idea that God has sent a Messenger > after Muhammad.
Gilberto:
There is a difference between not being convinced by the arguments
I've heard and having a closed mind.
> Gilberto:
> For example, he actually looks at various hadith which say Muhammad
> was the last prophet and the last messenger. And he also suggests that
> Muhammad really was the end of a certain religious cycle and that the
> Bab and Bahaullah were something different than prophets or
> messengers.
Iskandar:
Yes, the article discusses various ways of looking at the issue in order
to be able to conclude that Seal of the Prophets is being misinterpreted
by the average Muslim.
Gilberto:
That's not the purpose of the article. He actually concludes by
saying: "It is the aim of this paper to provide explanations of the
central theological differences between the Islamic religion and the
Bahá'í Faith. We hope this approach may contribute to the endeavour of
Bahá'ís to explain their Faith to Muslims and relate the Bahá'í
teachings to Islamic theology. The paradigm of approaching this
problem may also serve as a model with which to tackle similar
theological differences between the Bahá'í Faith and other religions."
And one of the more interesting suggestions made in the paper is based
on a suggestion from Cole:
"Therefore in one sense, the Qur'ánic title of khátam al-nabiyyín
(seal of the prophets) implies that the prophet and the messenger were
a function of theophany which came to an end with Muhammad. "With the
Báb and Bahá'u'lláh, in the Bahá'í view, humankind has entered a new
religious cycle characterized by a fuller theophany. In this cycle,
concepts like `prophet' and `messenger' have been transcended" (Cole,
Concept 18). In support, it is significant that the authors cannot
find one instance in Bahá'u'lláh's writings in which he refers to
himself as a nabí (prophet) or rasúll (messenger).[37] "
In other words, Muhammad (saaws) actually would be the chronologically
last prophet, and the Bab and Bahaullah would be something else.
[....much deleted...]
Iskandar:
Because you are the one who is bringing this weired argument that since
indiginous peoples haven't heard of Muhammad yet, there was no need for
another Prophet. Well, in 610 those same indiginous peoples hadn't heard
of Jesus. So why did Muhammad come? I can't make heads or tails out of
your argument.
Gilberto:
If you don't understand what I'm saying then it would probably be
better if you asked me to explain instead of assuming that you
understand, assuming that you disagree, and then making personal
insults against me.
[...]
> Iskandar:
> > Only God can change and
> > abrogate His religiuos laws. The same is with polygamy, etc. There were
> > monotheists in Arabia before Islam (other than Jews and Christians). So
> > what? Was Islam then unnecessary?
Gilberto:
I think it was God's unconstrained free choice to send Muhammad
(saaws). He could have sent a new prophet 10 years after Jesus or 100
or 1000. Sure. So, in that sense yes.
> Gilberto:
> You seem to be getting emotional about this and aren't really
> interested in having a calm discussion. It's not just an either/or
> question. You are oversimplifying.
>
Iskandar:
There you go again, Gilberto. When you know you are losing the argument,
you resort to ad hominems and want to psycho-analyze me.
Gilberto:
I don't feel like I'm "losing the argument". And I'm not making an ad
hominem attack. I think the validity of what you are saying is totally
seperate from my impressions of your motivations or your emotional
state. But when I try to be calm and rational, we really don't seem to
be communicating well and so I'm going to talk to you as a person and
deal with your feelings.
I'm saying that if your contention is that we don't need Baha'u'llah to
prohibit slavery because some folks in the West had already talked about
it then I contend that there were monotheist Hanafis, Jews, Christians,
etc. before 610, so there was no need for God to send Muhammad to preach
monotheism either.
Gilberto:
I agree. There wasn't a "need" for God to send Muhammad to preach
monotheism. But out of his grace and mercy God decided to send
Muhammad anyway.
> > > > > Gilberto:
> > > > > > > So, for example, without banning polygamy, there are certainly
Muslims
> > > > > > > who are cautious about it and aren't encouraging it.
> > > > > Iskandar:
> > > > > > So? It's still legal. And polygamy is still practiced.
I don't think we are making any progress in terms of polygamy and I
doubt that we will. But let me ask you a question. If you think
polygamy is so bad now, Why do you think polygamy was permitted in the
first place?
-Gilberto
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.
__________________________________________________
You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[email protected]
Unsubscribe: send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe: send subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe: http://list.jccc.edu:8080/read/all_forums/subscribe?name=bahai-st
Baha'i Studies is available through the following:
Mail - mailto:[email protected]
Web - http://list.jccc.edu:8080/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]
