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.
>
> > > ISkandar:
> > > > So, why did God bother to send Prophets? He could have just given His
> > > > total Revelation to Adam as the final Prophet and then scholars would
> > > > have
> > > > done the rest.
>
> Gilberto:
> It almost sounds here like you are saying God *has* to keep sending
> prophets. And to me that sounds like tying the hands of God. God can
> do what he likes. And the Islamic position is just that God says he
> stopped sending prophets. Not that he is unable to.
>
>
No, I'm not saying that God *has* to keep sending Prophets. I'm saying
that He will continue to send Messengers and Prophets because He has said
He would.
Belief in the finality of a religion, any religion, is a very static and
anti-progressive view of human history and anti continuum.
> > > Gilberto:
> > > God can do alot of different things. He could have stopped with one
> > > prophet. He could have stopped with 144,000 prophets. "Don't tie up
> > > the hands of God". He sends prophets and saintly people as exemplars.
> > > He also gave human beings brains and a conscience.
>
> Iskandar:
> > Yes, exactly, God could have done a lot of things. And, He decided to send
> > Prophets after Muhammad; and He will continue to send Prophets after
> > Baha'u'llah too.
>
> Gilberto:
> We're not going to agree about this. But it should at least be
> possible to agree that God can do what he likes. He can stop if He
> likes. He can keep going if he likes.
>
Yes, absolutely; if God wants to stop sending Prophets, He is certainly
free and unconstrained to stop.
> Iskandar:
> > The argument that Islam was/is the last religion can easily be applied to
> > any of the 144,000 religions before it too.
>
> Gilberto:
> "The argument" is just that in the Quran Muhammad is called the "seal
> of the prophets" and in multiple ways, the hadith reaffirm that
> Muhammad was the last prophet and the last messenger. The same
> argument can't be made by other religions. The Penteteuch predicts
> a prophet "like unto Moses" coming for instance. And the New
> Testament clearly talks about prophets appearing in the future.
>
OK, so now, the argument boils down to the Seal of Prophets issue. I'd
recommend a review of Khazeh's paper on this finality issue as a start. We
Baha'is believe that your interpretation is not correct and was not the
interpretation of certain early Muslims and it does not co-relate nor
conform to the totality of the Quranic Revelation and what it teaches.
Even `Aiyasha said: "say that the Prophet Muhammad was the seal of the the
Prophets but don't say that no Prophet will come after Him".
> Iskandar:
> It's totally irrational to
> > believe that God, all of a sudden, stopped sending Prophets after
> > Muhammad.
>
> Gilberto:
> Why can't God do what he likes?
>
Yes, God can certainly do what He wishes; He actually does what He likes
and wishes, despite human expectations to the contrary. And God will
certainly be unconstrained and free to do as He pleases.
> ISkandar:
> > > > Your argument is self-defeating.
>
> Gilberto:
> > > Not really. It's just realistic. Even today there are isolated parts
> > > of the world where the messages of Muhammad or Jesus haven't reached.
> > > Isolated indigenous communities in the rain forrest etc. God still
> > > cares for them, no? They are left to rely on whatever prophetic
> > > message they got in the past.
>
> Iskandar:
> > That's a very strange argument. Of course God cares for all His peoples.
> > And He will continue to care. That's why He continues to send Messengers
> > and Prophets. Because He cares.
>
> Gilberto:
> I think you should read what I wrote above and think about it more
> carefully because I think you are contradicting yourself. Let me try
> to be more clear:
>
> A: Throughout history, there have always been parts of the world
> not meaningfully reached by the current prophet or manifestation. So
> when Jesus appeared, for instance, there were many parts of the
> world which never heard of Jesus. Same with Muhammad. Or even if
> they've heard the name, they've only received a garbled and
> confusion version of the message.
>
> B: So if the only way God guides and "cares for" people is to send
> them a current prophetic message, the conclusion would have to be
> that God doesn't care about those people. (audhubillah).
>
> C: So instead what makes sense is to consider the alternative ways
> in which people can receive guidance from God and to see the value in
> those approaches as well. (remnants of previous prophetic message,
> your ordinary conscience, human capacity for moral reasoning,
> etc.)
>
>
God has sent 144,000 prophets. How do we know that He neglected some
peoples? I posit that He didn't. Anyway, what in the world have your three
points above (A, B, & C) got to do with the issue of finality of a
religion, any religion?
> Iskandar:
> > Anyway, if you are saying that Islam is the last religion because some
> > indiginous peoples haven't yet heard about Jesus or Muhammad, then why did
> > God send Muhammad to begin with? He could have (or should have, based upon
> > your argument) waited until all those peoples had heard about Jesus.
>
> Gilberto:
> That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that even apart from
> following a particular prophet out of faith in their authority, humans
> still have some capacity to tell right from wrong. And that's why even
> before Bahaullah, freed his slaves there was an abolitionist movement
> in the West.
>
So there was an abolitionist movement in the West. So what? It was still
legal under Islamic Shari`ah law. It still is. 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:
> > > > > 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.
>
> > > Gilberto:
> > > To me that suggests you are not really thinking in a continuum but are
> > > thinking in more absolute terms. Polygamy certainly isn't for everyone
> > > but I don't see what is wrong if a few people willingly engage in it
> > > with their eyes open.
>
> Iskandar:
> > No, you are the one who is not thinking of contiuum. The Islamic shari`ah
> > law very clearly allows polygamy. And if Islam is going to be the final
> > religion of God, then polygamy will be permissible indefinitely into the
> > future. That's not continuum. That's being static and being frozen in
> > time, in 7th century norms, culture, values, etc.
>
> Gilberto:
>
> No. Even within the idea that polygamy is condoned, there can still
> be changes in attitudes. For example, you can go from saying polygamy
> is great and almost a right of the husband which should seldom be
> limited to saying that polygamy is something which is neutral to
> saying that polygamy is problematic and should only be done
> reluctantly when there is a need..
>
You don't get it, Gilberto. These are all human rulings or
interpretations. The law allowing polygamy still stands (and it's still
practiced in the Muslim world) and it needs to be done away with. Only God
can abrogate and change it, not you, not me, not a Muslim jurist, etc.
> That's a continuum and that's not just being static and frozen in time..
>
>
That's a very strange continuum. Permissibilty of polygamy is in the
Quran; and if it's supposed to be the final law for the entire human race
forever, then polygamy will be legal forever. Quite static and frozen in
the 7th century.
> > I'm saying that the continuum now is the Revelation of Baha'u'llah in
> > which God prescribes monogamy and disallows polygamy. Very clear cut.
>
> Gilberto:
> When you say that, it seems like you are contradicting yourself.
> Saying that the rules are "clear cut" is not the same (it's the
> opposite) as saying that there is a "continuum".
>
> Peace
>
> Gilberto
>
-------
No, I'm not contradicting myself. I'm saying that Baha'u'llah's
prohibition of polygamy and slavery is clear cut and straightforward. As
I said, only God can change the Divine law. And He has done that. And He
says He will continue to do just that. That's continuum.
salAAm,
Iskandar
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:archive@mail-archive.com
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:bahai-st@list.jccc.edu
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/bahai-st@list.jccc.net
New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.edu
