On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 17:09:43 -0800 (PST), JS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > JS: I think that two options are presented, and it is left to the House of > > Justice to pick the one most suitable to society. > > Gilberto: > But why would that option be presented? > > JS: In my view, it is there in case human society makes a sharp left turn. > I think it is clear that in this day and age, imprisonment is considered by > many as the most humane and civil punishment for murderers and arsonists.
What criteria are you ultimately using to determine whether something is "humane""? Are you basically just going by popular opinion? Or something else? Do the Bahai writings actually say that the punishments found in the Quran are inhumane for the present day? Or is that something you are just saying? If you read in the Bible (or the Quran for that matter) even in ancient times, people were imprisoned from time to time for various offensese. If imprisonment was really the more human option, and it existed in earlier times, why wouldn't those religions have simply mandated imprisonment? > ---- > > JS: > In a similar way, > > Baha'u'llah superficially allows bigamy, maybe only to present the Aqdas > in > > the form of the Qur'an. And just as the Qur'an conditions polygamy on > > 'justice', and the Aqdas makes 'tranquility' an outcome of only monogamy. > > Who wouldn't want to be tranquil? > > G: Yes. And Muslims have at times taken the Quran up on its "offer" and > actually practiced polygamy. So the question remains, why would the > Bahai laws mention the possibility of such a harsh punishment for > arson if it was never meant to be implemented? > > JS: I think that the Muslim jury is still out on whether polygamy is > allowed or not. Gilberto: I'm actually surprised at your statement. I think there are certainly Muslims who might discourage the practice in many specific cases. It's certainly not for everyone. And there are certainly plenty of reasons not to do it. But aside from that I'm not sure I know of anyone mainstream person who would say categorically that it was prohibited. I'm actually curious where you would get the idea that the "jury is out"? After all, Muhammad and (if I remember correctly) Ali practiced polygamy themselves. > JS: > > Also, don't you think that Islam is going the wrong way, I mean, it is > getting > > more corrupted, it is deviating farther and farther away from the ideal? > > G: I think that if you look at history civilizations rise and fall and > rise back up again... and fall.. and rise back up again.. etc. > > JS: Not sure about rising back up. What is an example? Rome never came > back, NATO? EU? The Chinese would rise and fall in terms of their prominence in world history. I think that in the next few decades and centuries, secularism > will overtake the planet, until the Baha'i Faith blossoms into maturity and > brings spirituality back into civilization and governance. Is that an actual Bahai prediction or is it just your opinion? > > ---- > > JS: > At one point, the Islamic world was the cradle of civilization, and > now it has > > been reduced to fanaticism, terrorism, poverty, ignorance, intolerance, > etc. > > G: Now you are thinking like a bigot. > > JS: The statement was an honest summary of what we are fed by western > media. I do not necessarily agree with western media. You gave me no indication that you had any reservations at all about what you just said. > > ---- > > JS: > Not a single praiseworthy Islamic nations exists on earth... > The West has the wealth and technology it has, not because of some divine right, not because its some birthright. It has the wealth that it has by enslaving Africans, and by extracting resources from the developing world, through colonization, and then through neo-colonial arrangements. Unlike how many Bahais seem to think, technology and infrastructure isn't some proof of divine approval. If anything, its proof of theft. If people in the developing world seem angry at the West it is actually a reasonable reaction to the policies inflicted on them. I don't think any nation on earth is "praiseworthy". To a disturbingly high degree, countries do what is in their interests to do. If they can not look like total bastards while they are doing it, its a plus. > JS: I am not talking about wealth and technology. I am talking about > tolerance and freedom, particularly for (1) women, In several Muslim countries women could vote before they could in certain Western countries. In several Muslim countries women have been head of state. In Iran, women make up a majority of the university students. In certain respects the role of women in the world in general, and in Muslim scoieties in particular is subject to change. (2) Baha'is (3) Jews Historically Jews have generally thrived in Muslim lands. It wasn't until recently with the founding of Israel that things went really bad.The Enlightened West has also had its own challeneges being tolerant to Jews. You may have have heard of something called the holocaust? > (4) Christians, Given European colonization and current continuing efforts of Western or nominally Christian nations to control the destinies of Muslim people in the world, how do you expect Muslims to think about Christians? (5) political radicals, etc. McCarthy? COINTELPRO? Not every apparent difference between Muslim lands and non-Muslim lands is due to religion. It might be convenient to think so. But it's not always the case. > ---- > JS: > What makes > > you think it is going to improve? And the Islamic countries that seem to > be > > heading in the right directly are secularized/ing. > > G: That's not an observation. It follows from your beliefs about Islam. > For example, Saddam Hussein was a Bathist, a secular Arab nationalist. > > JS: I did not say all secularists are good. I think what made the Bathists > particularly bad was their nationalism, not their secularism. > > -- > > G: > Turkey as a society is rather secularized. The way it got there was > by discriminating against Muslims. Muslim women are not allowed to > wear headscarves in certain public contexts. > > JS: Do you think it is worse to force women to wear scarves at all times, > like in SA, Iran, Taliban-Afghanistan, or to force women not to wear them in > certain contexts? I think that if someone is sincerely trying to promote freedom of choice for women both sides of that equation are none of their business. > G:Religious men aren't allowed to go up to high ranks in the army. I know of > someone who was put in jail for giving the Adhan in Arabic. If you are > trying to say > that the way for Muslim countries to progress is by persecuting > Muslims who are peacfully practicing their religion I'll have > absolutely no respect for you. > JS: No I do not agree with persecuting Muslims. > But what Muslim country > that follows Muslim laws provides for its people, ensures the security of > minorities, and entitles freedoms we have in the West? Which Muslim country follows Islamic laws? __________________________________________________ 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
