Dear Khazeh, I'll focus on the more essential aspects to hopefully not get caught up in details and stick to the more central issues.
On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 01:06:34 -0000, Khazeh Fananapazir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In message > http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist/m43290.html > Dear Gilberto you make several points. This servant, > again in the spirit of amity and affectionate dialogue > will remember! And number them and make some > replies. Please God you will look at them with a kindly > gaze. > Gilberto: > Point 1] But Muslims aren't just resting with a part. Remember, we agreed. > [khazeh replying lovingly]: when I said "part of it" > the "it" referred to > the Baha'u'llah Passage that you appear to like. And by > part I mean your > appreciation of the first part of the three verse passage > quoted at the end > of this letter again [fully!] Gilberto: First things first. If you think the passage forms a unit then it is good to understand each of its parts. > Point 2] > ALL that is vouchsafed to Baháu'lláh was indeed Mentioned before to > Muhammad. ALL of it. There is nothing missing. > [khazeh humbly]. There is naught missing but the rest of the verse from the > Iqtidaaraat is not looked at by your good self so far. Gilberto: I've read the whole passage which you shared. I commented on part of it because it seemed the most relevant. > Point 3] > And in the Quran it says: > We did not leave anything out of this Book, then all will > be gathered > before their Lord [for judgement]. (6:38) > [khazeh kindly]. We did not leave anything out. Yes > certainly dear brother. > But using the same logic, the exact syllogism, the Jews > said that the Holy > Qur'an affirms most strongly that their Book [the Old Testament/the > Tenakh/the Torah] had EVERYTHING COMPLETELY _ NOTHING WAS LEFT OUT OF THE > TORAH. Therefore a fortiori [as they say in logic] people should stay with > the Torah because the Qur'an affirms it was all there before. Gilberto: I follow your logic and I actually would agree with your conclusion up to a certain point, but there is a difference. I actually believe that the original Torah should be thought of as the word of God just as much as the Quran. I would assume that in it one could find great depth and wisdom that could guide one to living a life pleasing to God. I actually believe that there is a lot which is beautiful and spiritual in Judaism which Christians don't appreciate. I actually wouldn't try to demean the Torah by saying that the Torah isn't suitable for cities or in a world with modern technology. One issue which should be raised however, is that the Torah was a revelation given to Moses. But if you actually study the history of the text and modern Biblical scholarship, virtually no Biblical scholar actually believes that the current first five books of the Bible (the Penteteuch) was entirely written by Moses (as). The most widely accepted understanding is something called the documentary hypothesis. Where scholars have traced the contributions of 4 different authors and styles in the book. And there are indications that these 4 source materials weren't combined until several centuries after Moses. So I'm sure that at least part of the original Torah of Moses is contained in the Penteteuch but I don't think that the PEnteteuch is the same as the Torah. Moreover, as I mentioned before, I really liked the story of Hillel. If a Jewish person wanted to say that all of Judaism could be summed up with "that which would be hateful to you, do not do to others" and they wanted to say that was a complete religion I actually don't think I would want to argue with them (Especially if they were serious and thorough about how they did it). (While discussing this issue in soc.religion.islam earlier I was pleasantly surprised to learn that there actually was an attempt to make a religion of Hillelism.) > 006.154 > YUSUFALI: Moreover, We gave Moses the Book, completing (Our favour) to those > who would do right, AND EXPLAINING ALL THINGS IN DETAIL,- and a guide and a > mercy, that they might believe in the meeting with their Lord. Yes, I would actually accept that and have no problem with that verse. I think the basic idea of perennialism actually fits in rather well with the Quran. The same essential truths which were given to Muhammad, were also given to Jesus, were also given to Moses, was also given to all the prophets. For me personally, the main thing Islam has going for it is that the teachings were clearly and faithfully transmitted. I wouldn't say the same thing about Christianity and Judaism. Although in their original forms they would have been essentially the same teachings as Islam. > So this servant would say by this logic of quoting 6:38 they would go on to > say look: we have priority and Our Book is complete. Firstly, I don't think time is a big factor. Just because they are first doesn't give them any automatic credit. Just as the recentness of the Bahai faith gives them any automatic credit. Secondly, I don't believe that the Old Testament is a faithful record of the teachings of the Torah and the subsequent Jewish prophets. There is a core there, the essence is there. Guidance about how to live, principles about living in a community. But there are other things in there which I don't believe are revelation. Even the Bible itself raises questions about the authenticity of the Torah. For example, in Jeremiah 8:8 it says: " 'How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD ," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely? So here in this context "the law of the Lord" is going to be the Torah and the scribes are the class of people entrusted with preserving its integrity. > Point 4] > Maybe it's just me, but from my perspective, humanity's biggest problem > isn't ignorance as much as forgetfulness. As human beings, to a large degree > I think we know what we ought to be doing. We know we shouldn't steal and > murder. We know we shouldn't exploit and take advantage of other people. We > know we should try to get along better with our fellow man. We know we > should be more generous and fight less. We know we > shouldn't lie. What we need is to figure out how to do the things we > already know we are supposed to be doing. And I'm not persuaded that > we need a new revelation in order to accomplish that. > http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist/m43290.html > [khazeh] in reply to Point 4. > The latest Revelation confirms the ethics of the past the reminding that the > Comforter was to accomplish. I am a Bahai so with great affection, from my > perspective [as you kindly mentioned your perspective above] this applies: > Namely: > ****Does not the very operation of the world-unifying forces that are at > work in this age necessitate that He Who is the Bearer of the Message of God > [Baha'u'llah] in this day should not only REAFFIRM that self-same exalted > standard of individual conduct inculcated by the Prophets gone before Him, > but embody in His appeal, to all governments and peoples, THE ESSENTIALS OF > THAT SOCIAL CODE, THAT DIVINE ECONOMY, which must guide humanity's concerted > efforts in establishing that all-embracing federation which is to signalize > the advent of the Kingdom of God on this earth? Gilberto: But dear Khazeh, the deeper question is whether those two things are really different. There is an interesting Chinese proverb along these lines. If there is light in the soul, there is beauty in the person. If there is beauty in the person, there is harmony in the house. If there is harmony in the house, there is order in the nation. If there is order in the nation, there will be peace in the world. -Chinese Proverb (The Writings)**** > > Again in > http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist/m43290.html > > you say Gilberto > Point 5] > *there are plenty of materials by Muslim awliya which give out details, and > explanations, and go into the topics of the Quran with more and more > depth.** > > [khazeh] replies lovingly: > You seem to have a high regard for the Muslim Awliya [Saints/Holy Ones/Plural > of Wali]. This is wonderful. But let me share with you something > from one of these Awliyaas. Some would say the Noblest Highest Khaatam al > Awliyaa [the Seal of all the Awliya] namely Ibn 'Arabi. I have here on the > shelf all his books have read them since 30 years. > In his biggest book Futuuh.aat in the Chapter 366 He says: > **after the disciples of the Mahdi are slain [martyred] > Waah.idun minhum [One of them] yanzilu fee marj e 'Akka > One of them will arrive/descend to the precincts of 'Akka [Acre]. Therein > will be the "ma'dubat il Ilaahiyya" Therein will be the Divine Banquet unto > which will be invited all birds, all animals, all kinds and kindreds*** So do you say that Ibn Arabi was inspired? I think from other things I've read about Ibn Arabi and that chapter specifically it suggests he was also open to the idea that the Mahdi wasn't necessarily a specific historical individual but something else. Khazeh: > To say that the Holy Qur'an is totally divine revelation does not entail that > it is the totality of Revelation Not from logical necessity. But if you believe the Quran, then the Quran itself says that it neglected nothing. If you believe that some essential matter was left out, then it brings into question whether you believe it. 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
