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 Christians belong to churches which typically affirm the Trinity, and that Jesus was God, was the son of God, that he died on the cross, and that he died on the cross for man's sins; achings which in various ways are criticized or condemned in the Quran. So a common Muslim understanding of Christian history is to say that at a very early point in the history of the church something went horribly wrong (often Paul is blamed) and incorrect doctrines were introduced. What is interesting is that if you look at early Christian history there actually was alot more variety among the groups calling themselves Christians or followers of Christ. (In some cases the amount of variety is rather radical and surprisingly exotic. For example there are at least 3 different versions of non-crucifixions (I think Basilides says that a faithful disciple replaced Jesus on the cross, some of the Adoptionists said a spirit left Jesus body before the crucifixion so that what was killed was a kind of shell, the Gnostics often denied Christ was human at all so for them crucifixion was mostly illusionary.) Another example of how radically some early Christian groups differed from what we are familiar with are the Gnostics who taught that the God of the Old Testament was actually evil. For Jehovah was blind or confused and actually forgot that there was a higher God above him who was really in charge. And so this higher God had sent Jesus to help free people from the oppression of the Old Testament God. She also is the one who sent the serpent in the Garden in Genesis to give mankind knowledge of good and evil. So Jesus and the snake are actually on the same side. Basically I'm saying that if you really look, there were very many different kinds of Christians in "competition" and a number of them are actually rather come alot closer to a Muslim understanding of who Jesus was an his purpose. In particular there were some Christians who continued to practice the Torah (so they would have followed a shariah similar to Islam) and also had a different understanding of the Trinity. 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
