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:
OK, so now, the argument boils down to the Seal of Prophets issue.
Gilberto:
No. That was just part of the digresssion.
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.
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.
I also liked the discussion of perennialism which would imply Islam
isn't superceded.
[...]
> Gilberto:
> > > 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.)
Iskandar:
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?
Gilberto:
For some reason you started getting into finality. That wasn't
something that I brought up. And I'm not saying that some people were
neglected to the point of not getting any prophets... I'm saying they
didn't get the message of the *current* prophet of the time.
> 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:
I think you are misunderstanding me. That's not what I'm saying and I
don't see your reasoning at all.
[...]
> 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.
Gilberto:
And yet slavery is illegal in every Muslim country. The shariah
doesn't say slavery is a good thing which every society should
promote. In fact, the shariah encourarages societies to end slavery.
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:
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.
> > > 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.
Gilberto:
I don't think you are using the word "continuum" correctly. Your
responses make me think you aren't sure what it means. When something
is a "continuum" its not just a matter of either/or or on/off or
legal/illegal but there are various values in between.
Gilberto:
So I would say that polygamy can fit on a continuum because even among
Muslims there can be different attitudes about it. It some communities
it could be common, but in other communities it could be extremely
rare. But you seem to be ignoring that dimension because all you seem
to see is legal/illegal
Iskandar:
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..
Iskandar:
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.
Gilberto:
Again, I think you are misunderstanding/misusing the word "continuum".
> > 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.
Yeah, that's not what "continuum" means.
Peace
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: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
