Again, Gilberto's evasive techniques. So, what's new?
I'll try to wind down...
On Thu, 11 May 2006, Gilberto Simpson wrote:
> 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.
>
Things didn't magically change in 1844, nor in 610, nor in year 30. When
you had earlier said that the Baha'i Faith did not spring out of a vaccum,
I responded that no religion springs out of a vacuum. It's a continuum. By
which I mean progressive revelation.
You have some different understanding or definition or concept of
contiuum.
You don't get to decide whether it was or was not necessary to send
another Prophet to change things. God decides.
As far as the rulings of scholars is concerned: first of all you can
hardly find two scholars who would agree with each other. Your "democracy"
thing. Second, the scholars can't change the laws contained in the Quran.
Only God can. And He has. Third, rulings of scholars have caused (and it's
still causing) violence and bloodshed, warfare, etc., in the name of God
and in the name of religion. No, thanks. The Salafi Wahhabis have scholars
too. And they contradict your somewhat pacifist views and condemn them as
un-Islamic. Muslim scholars condemned the Bab to be executed, condemned
Baha'u'llah to a 40-year long exile and incarceration, did their best, in
collaboration with two powerful Muslim governments, to silence Baha'u'llah
and prohibit Him from speaking His mind, etc. No, thank you.
> [...]
>
> Iskandar:
> > OK, so now, the argument boils down to the Seal of Prophets issue.
>
> Gilberto:
> No. That was just part of the digresssion.
>
No, it's not a digression. Or, do you believe that Islam is not a final
religion? I'm pretty sure you are still firmly convinced that Muhammad was
the last Prophet and Quran was the last Book. That's the lens through
which you view things. So, no, it was not (is not) a digression.
> 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.
>
Baha'is try not engage in polemics. You just have closed your mind and
heart and soul to the idea that God has sent a Messenger after Muhammad.
> 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.
>
Yes, the article discusses various ways of looking at the issue in order
to be able to conclude that Seal of the Prophets is being misinterpreted
by the average Muslim.
> I also liked the discussion of perennialism which would imply Islam
> isn't superceded.
>
> [...]
>
Neither is any other religion superseded in that sense. Baha'u'llah talks
about the eternal changeless Faith/religion of God.
> > > 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.
>
Because you are the one who is bringing this weired argument that since
indiginous peoples haven't heard of Muhammad yet, there was no need for
another Prophet. Well, in 610 those same indiginous peoples hadn't heard
of Jesus. So why did Muhammad come? I can't make heads or tails out of
your argument. God has definitely not neglected His creatures ever. The
Quran says that He has sent Prophets to every village.
> > > 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.
>
There you go again, Gilberto. When you know you are losing the argument,
you resort to ad hominems and want to psycho-analyze me.
I'm saying that if your contention is that we don't need Baha'u'llah to
prohibit slavery because some folks in the West had already talked about
it then I contend that there were monotheist Hanafis, Jews, Christians,
etc. before 610, so there was no need for God to send Muhammad to preach
monotheism either. I'm not oversimplifying, nor am I getting emotional,
Gilberto.
> > > > > 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.
>
The sad fact is that polygamy is still permissible in the Quran; and it
will continue to be permissible in the Quran forever, if you don't allow
God to abrogate it. The law continues. I don't see any values in between
polygamy and monogamy. Rulings of `ulamA scholars are worthless when
polygamy is still clearly permissible in Isalm. And, sadly, it's still
practiced in the Muslim world.
> 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
>
So what?
> 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".
>
>
You have a different idea about continuum. As I said, you had earlier
said that the Baha'i Faith did not spring out of a vacuum, to which I
responded by saying that no religion ever sprung out of a vaccuum either.
It was a continuum. By which I meant Progressive Revelation.
So now, instead of talking about the issue of the permissibilty of
polygamy in Islam that's static and unchangeable (except by God) you are
side tracking to your definition of continuum, or that polygamy might be
suitable for some communities, etc., etc.
> > > > 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
>
----
So, big deal! Semantics. By contiuum, I mean Progressive Revelation.
Still, the issue remains that permissibility of polygamy, slavery,
prohibition of interest earned on the money, etc. are examples of laws
that had to be abrogated, not just mollified and/or de-emphasized. And
only God can abrogate them. And He did.
Having said all of that, I doubt if I'd want to continue posting because
you have got your fixed ideas that Islam is the best and last religion of
God for humanity forever and scholars can fix everything, no need for God
to intervene at all. So, I will most likely not respond to you any longer.
I'd rather chain the hands of scholars than the hands of God.
salAAm and goodbye
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
